Teaching Origin in Science Classes

In my middle school, science class consisted of testing methods. We learned a little bit about everything from biology to doing minor chemistry experiments. Our middle school science class was taught the scientific method and how Newton's Law applies to our lives. In addition to these topics, we also studied evolution. Evolution is the change in heritable traits of a population based on the theory of natural selection. This is what we were taught in school. The conflict between evolution and creationism was not present in my school surroundings. Creationism refers to the ideological support of the belief that life, earth, and the universe was created by a supreme being or by supernatural intervention. Because creationism is directly affiliated with the subject of religion, it should not be part of the curriculum. I learned about creationism in church, not in my science class. Creationism should not be taught in science classes.

The book of Genesis contains a biblical story that creationists use as evidence that the world was created by a higher power. The creationist's goal is to insert a narrow interpretation of the Bible into America's public schools and claim it as science. It is a move to impose religious beliefs on the curriculum, and such it is vigorously anti-science and anti-intellectual . Not all evidence is scientific evidence. Lawrence Hardy states that creationists believe the Genesis story gives scientific credence to a creator and it should be taught in science classes . He also explains the idea of intelligent design, or creationism.

The main reason why creationism should not be taught in a science class is that it lacks scientific support. It cannot be tested or revised. Creationism is based off of accounts from the book of Genesis in the Bible. Creationism falls under the category of possible explanations of how the life started but it does not fall under the category of science. It is the same subject but evolution is explained theoretically by science and creationism is explained by the book of Genesis. This is science versus religion. There is not enough scientific evidence proving any religion as a factual belief. So therefore, it would be difficult to teach it as an alternative to evolution in a science class.

In opposition, one might believe that students should be taught more than one way to view things. Students should learn both creationism and evolution then should be able to decide for themselves. They should not be directed towards only one view of a subject that could affect their religious beliefs. One might say that students should be taught an alternative way of thinking. A developing student needs to be able to learn several methods or ideas of something that is debatable. It does not matter if it technically falls under the category of science or not. The idea of creationism still serves as an alternative way of viewing human origin.

Even though some believe that creationism should be taught in the science classroom, it would be better placed in a philosophy class. Philosophy is not based on scientific structure. It is a way of thinking, a system of thought. Philosophy would better suit the study of creationism because it would be less controversial by eliminating it from scientific study. Therefore, maybe a philosophy class should be taught along side with science classes for an equal balance. A student can learn about all the scientific evidence that researchers have found and then go to their philosophy class and learn how to think and analyze information that has been given to them.

Another idea proposed by Hardy is that creationists try to appeal to emotions instead of science by calling for equal time and recognition of an "intelligent designer." This means that creationist's believe that it would be fair if equal time was spent on an alternative explanation about the origins and diversity of life. The Darwinian theory of evolution is still the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life that has withstood scientific testing. There is no scientific theory to compete with Darwinism so there should be no reason to present religion as a science. In that case, there is no need for teachers to spend equal time on creationism as they do with evolution .

Likewise, religion should be kept out of science because it could offend someone of a different belief. One would be offended by a religious reference in science because the reference may not agree with one's own personal beliefs. Everyone in America is equal and should be respected. There are people who believe in other ways of the world's creation besides evolution and creationism. For example, scientologists believe that the alien ruler of the Galactic Confederacy, Xenu, brought over billions of people to earth seventy-five million years ago. They believe that we came over in a space craft resembling a Douglas DC-8 airliner and people were stacked around volcanoes. Xenu blew them up with hydrogen bombs and their souls clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living. This is a completely different belief, and there are many others. If curriculum cannot include all possible beliefs about creation besides creationism, then science class should just stick to factual evidence. It would be less likely that someone would get offended by scientific evidence.

Alternatively, one might believe that creationism should be taught so that students can have an even greater knowledge on this subject. Students should possess lore on the subject of the world's creation and development because it is important to have open minds. It cripples the mind to be closed off and unwilling to think about alternate possibilities. The conflict between evolution and creationism also prepares students to know how to deal with situations that could be influenced by religions such as discrimination and hate crimes. These crimes could be committed against a certain religious group such as the Jewish. A child does not necessarily have to believe in the Jewish faith, but it would behoove him or her to be respectful and understanding to all cultures and beliefs. By not rejecting the teachings of creationism, students can acquire the ability to respect all ways of thinking.

Additionally, several might insist that God is a natural part of the American government and a symbol of our nation. There is evidence of religious reference in America including the Pledge of Allegiance. The phrase "Under God" makes a reference to God. "In God We Trust" is written on our currency. In the court system, one must swear on the Bible before the judge. These three examples use God as an idea of strength, honesty, and a symbol of unity in our nation. Some believe that if religion can be combined with our government, then there should be no reason why it cannot be used as an alternate idea for the scientific explanation of the origin of life.

However, students can still get a greater knowledge of creationism but it should be taught in their place of worship. The officials in their place of worship have the accurate knowledge needed to teach religious subjects. Removing religion from science curriculum does not mean that it is limited from religious curriculum. It is not about what is being taught it is about where it is being taught. With this in mind, Creationists should not feel that their views are not being treated equal. It is just a matter of where they are trying to extend their views.

Altogether, it is easier to prove the existence of evolution than it is to prove the existence of a creator. Believing in a higher power takes faith. Evolution is supported by a great quantity of evidence. Teaching creationism takes away from the whole principle of science. It should not be taught in science classes; it should be left for a religious course. It would even be acceptable in a philosophy class before a science class. The debate is not about if it should be taught or not, it is about eliminating a topic that has nothing to do with the subject of science from the science curriculum.