Teaching Creationism In Schools Essay Research Paper

Teaching Creationism In Schools Essay, Research Paper

The question as to whether or not creationism should be taught

in public schools is a very emotional and complex question. It can be

looked at from several different angles, its validity being one of

them. Despite the lack of evidence to support the fundamentalist idea

of creationism, that in itself is not enough to warrant its exclusion

from the curriculum of public schools in the United States. The

question is far more involved and complex.

One way to address the question is whether or not creationism,

in itself, is a valid idea to be taught in public schools. The answer

to this can be yes. Not only should a student in American public

schools learn and acquire knowledge in empirical sciences, and other

tangible facts both in history and other courses, but he should also

learn how to think and make decisions for himself. Unfortunately, as

it turns out, creationism is in direct conflict with the biological

theory of evolution. Many fundamentalist propose that creationism

should replace, or at least be offered as an alternative to Darwin’s

theory of evolution.

This is not the right approach. Creationism, as exemplified in

the book of Genesis, should not be taught in a science course. Science

runs on a certain set of rules and principles being: (1) it is guided

by natural law, (2) it has to be explanatory by reference to natural

law, (3) it.s conclusions lack finality and therefore may be altered

or changed, (4) it is also testable against the empirical world, and

finally (5) it is falsefiable. These characteristics define the laws,

boundaries, and guidelines that science follows. In a science course,

all knowledge conveyed is shown, or has been shown in the past, to

exemplify a strict adherence to these qualities. Creationism,

unfortunately in the eyes of Christian fundamentalist, does not

exemplify any adherence whatsoever to these rules and guidelines of

science. Therefore, it should not be included in the science

curriculum in public schools, even as an alternative to evolution.

Another idea is that which is held by those who subscribe to

the idea of scientific creationism. Scientific creationism, as it

relates to this topic, states that God was the creator, and that

evolution is simply a means, developed by Him, of conservation. Due to

this definition of how scientific creationism relates to evolution, it

may be easier to accept by scientific criteria, despite the fact

that the origins are scientifically debatable.

The problem in scientific creationism, and what I see as a

reason for its exclusion from the science classroom in public schools,

is the fact that it looks as if, from the outside, the whole theory

that it rest on is simply a contortion of the traditional version of

creation described in Genesis, custom-made to fit in with Darwin’s

theory of evolution. R. M. Hare would probably say that scientific

creationism is simply a modification of the story of creation in

Genesis, to fit into the .blik. of the religious fundamentalist. A

blik, as Hare describes it, is a pre-set world view held by all

people, in which they draw from when forming certain opinions on any

particular subject. In the case of religious fundamentalist, who.s

faith in the validity of the Book of Genesis is an essential part of

their blik, it becomes necessary for them to contort their literal

view of the Book of Genesis into a form that is scientifically

acceptable. For this reason, creation science still does not have a

place in the science classroom of public schools.

Another problem with scientific creationism is that it would

exclude the idea of a random beginning. No theory could ever be tested

to find origins because it would conflict with scientific creationism.

Scientific creationism would be, in essence, a lesson on science

halting efforts to find creation, if it is possible at all. It may,

however, be acceptable as a theory and not a solid law.

Now that it is clear that creationism, as well as scientific

creationism, does not fit into the guidelines on which science

operates, therefore making them unsuitable for teaching in science

classrooms in public schools, in what part of the public school

curriculum in the United States should they be taught. The story

provided in the Book of Genesis could conceivably fit into the

literary genre of mythology. It could not be considered as nonfiction,

due to the many contradictions it makes within itself, as well as in

the world of empirical knowledge. These contradictions are numerous

and would create a paper within themselves, therefore it should be

addressed elsewhere. The controversy here, despite the factual and

logical inadequacies of the Book of Genesis, is whether or not

creationism should be

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать