America's Scholastic Theocracy

America's public school system has been long revered as an environment for fair and balanced education, catalyzing thought in the minds of our nation's future generations. Learning and critical thought are both highly regarded in our education system; an unbiased education based simply on scholarly information of the highest merit is absolutely necessary in order to ensure the complete and superior education we desire for our youth. For decades, there has been a debate ensuing in the walls of our public schools, threatening to undermine the academic means by which we expect our students to be taught. The argument has permeated into the classroom, when it should have forever remained bound by the sacred doors of the church, infecting our schools with a clear violation of the tolerant and un-biased environment public schools seek to create. It is a threat to educational integrity to condone public schools' teaching of acutely religious ideas, such as creationism, which are derived solely from religious doctrines.

Some schools in the United States have experienced a recent surge of pressure from zealous parents who desire their children to be taught creationism rather than evolution. An appropriate response to these zealots: Foot the bill for private or home school, and if you can't do that then keep your opinions to yourself. Public schools are to act as a safe haven for diversity of not only religion and ethnicity, but for variance in thought and opinion among its population of students.

The teaching of a purely religious idea like creationism not only misinforms students, but it puts them at a considerable disadvantage as compared to their evolution-learned peers. According to Brian and Sandra Alters, authors of Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the Creationism/evolution Controversy, students striving to pursue careers in science-based disciplines will find themselves significantly behind when they reach a post-secondary environment because evolution is the foundation of all other biological sciences. This presents a fundamental quandary in the pro creationism movement: the knowledge of evolution is a science-based skill that prepares students for future scientific education, while creationism is based on religion and faith, neither of which has much credibility or validity in the scientific community. The objective of attending high school for many students is to enable and prepare themselves for a more prestigious education at a university or college. It is not ideal or practical for students to be trained in creationism, as it is a discipline that will not only misinform, but severely under-prepare them for their future education.

As creationism is a religious theory based on the presupposed existence of a deity, and this theory is neither empirical nor factually based, it deserves no place in mainstream education systems. Creationism is based on the Judeo-Christian belief that God, their deity, created everything on the Earth in a relatively short period of time. Because the theory of creationism is founded on faith alone, it is impossible to quantify as legitimate fact. Furthermore, it is necessary that children in public schools be protected from the misbegotten concept that is creationism. According to Alters and Alters, "creationism is a violation of the basis of scientific inquiry and cannot be legitimately included within the subject matter of courses in science." This clearly outlines the impropriety of this kind of teaching in schools. Because there has never been any significant or peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the claims of creationist followers, it is an invalid theory for the public classroom.

Educational ramifications are not the only reason that public school officials must deter over-earnest parents from pursuing the teaching of creationism in public schools. In their book, Brian and Sandra Alters state that no court, thus far, has failed to expose these creationist patrons as either politically motivated or religiously narrow minded. They further indicate that supporters of creationism are not only minorities among the general population, but even amidst their peers. Most people of the religions affiliated with pro-creationists do not even subscribe to their narrow-minded views on creationism. Within the church there is usually both acceptance and promotion, not only of evolution, but of its incorporation with religion. Pro-creationists are a dogmatic group who parade their cause and pompously push their agendas in an environment that should seek to protect the rights of the diverse population attending public schools.

Proponents of the teaching of creationism in public schools confidently argue that evolution is a theory, and for this reason should not be taught in schools. This is, however, one of the most incredible and illegitimate arguments against the subject. Everything in science is based on theory. One could say that science is theory; in accordance, the widely accepted ideas of gravity are simply that: theory. When determining the credibility of a theory it is necessary to examine how it stands up to the testing and scrutiny of the scientific community. Isaac Newton's theory of gravity has held its position in the principle foundations of physics because it has stood up to ample testing, thus making it more likely to be true. Similarly, evolution has stood up to refute and experimentation for centuries. Furthermore, evolution is actually considered the most plausible theory in modern science (Alters and Alters 3). Around it, a multitude of discoveries have been made and disciplines emerged. Evolution is considered, by most, even more so credible than the theory that is the Periodic Table of Elements (Antolin 4). So by all means, if we abolish evolution in biology classes, let us omit the Periodic Table from all chemistry classes. In such classrooms, it seems there would be little of either chemistry or biology being taught.

Further arguments that splatter the pages of protest and petition with offensive ink from affronted champions of creationist theory spout off statistics of the domination of creation-based religions in America. They tote an impressive statistic. ReligiousTolerance.org backs their boasting: over 75% of Americans identify themselves as Christian, the premier advocates for creation education (Robinson). Unfortunately for these extremists, a majority of Americans who identify themselves as Christians have little knowledge or education in Christian theology, and furthermore few attend services on a regular basis. In addition, among those who are regular church-goers, most are not opposed to the teaching of evolution in public schools (Scott 7). Simply stating that your religion is the dominant religion in a state does not provide one with ammunition to dispose of a building block of science simply because it interferes with your belief. The places in America designated public must refrain from this ethnocentric disposition. If simply holding a majority provides adequate reason for the abolishment of evolution teaching in public schools, then we should additionally allow white power groups to withdraw mention of the civil rights movement from textbooks. After all, white supremacists are a small sect of the dominant race in America as pro-creationists are of the dominant religion.

It is necessary that progressive action on the part of school officials be taken to promote the protection of the individuality we strive to promote in public schools. A theocratic-based curriculum in science courses will suppress diversity and promote a unilateral hegemony of the white American protestant. School officials are the acting governing bodies of school systems and the primary role of a government is to protect its citizens, or in this case its students. Officials must openly stand against groups promoting the teaching of creationism in public schools and must promote the continued existence of substantial and grounded theoretical education. Though vindicated creationists have the right to speak their opinions, school boards must allow the swift and total passing of these proposals. As written in Creationism, Censorship, and Academic Freedom: "Fighting creationism is essential to the preservation of the first amendment" (Sturm 54). The words of creationists must not be allowed to enter our public school systems and disregard ample scientific discovery simply for political and religious dividends.

Creationist cries for a theocratic classroom have grown increasingly audible on the political stage in the United States and should be discouraged or suppressed before we compromise the educational integrity we seek to contrive. The United States has long prided itself on its academic ascendancy, and the incorporation of doctrinal theory in the classroom puts that superiority at risk. The presentation of creationism as fact in a biology classroom is not only intellectually irresponsible, but it defies the truth the entire scientific community bases itself on. In addition, the dominant role of Christianity in the United States does not justly sanction its doctrine into the public classroom. Educational communities should promote the diversity of thought and protect those who do not fall under the sometimes belligerent majority. It is absolutely necessary that evolution continue to be the sole foundation of biology classes in pre-secondary education in the United States and those propagating creationism are kept at bay in order to preserve the candor of our current scholastic climate.

Works Cited

Alters, Brian, and Sandra Alters. Defending Evolution in the Classroom: A Guide to the

Creation/evolution Controversy. 1. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2001.

Antolin, Michael. "Perspective: Evolution's Struggle for Existence in
America's Public Schools." Colorado State University Department of Biology August 15, 2001 9. November 11 2007

Robinson, B.A.. "Religious identification in the U.S.." How

American Adults View Themselves. July 19, 2007.

Consultants on Religious Topics. 31 Oct 2007 .

Scott, Euginie. Evolution vs. Creationism. 1. Berkley: University

of California Press, 2004.

Sturm, Susan. "Creationism, Censorship, and Academic Freedom." Science,
Techonology, and Human Values 754-56.