Dion Ginanto
Teaching creationism in public schools has become a debate among educators, parents, as well as policy makers (Pennock, 2002). Berkman and Pulzer (2010) indicated “the controversy over evolution in the classroom has been a hot war during the opening decade of the twenty-firstcentury” (p. 13).The notion of teaching creationism in public schools appears in response to the teaching of the evolution theory. There are several arguments behind the debate of the teaching creationism at public schools, such as (1) creationism should be taught in public schools and evolution should not; (2) evolution should be taught and creationism should not; (3) teach both evolution and creationism; (4) exclude both evolution and creationism in public schools. The proponents of creationism argued that it is not fair if schools teach evolutionwhile on the other hand rejecting creationism. The arguments used to defend the teaching of creationism at school includes:freedom of speech, social justice, critical thinking, fairness, autonomy, parents’ right, and conflicts with the religious values. Rawls for example, uses the argument of basic justice to advocate the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative theory or in addition to Darwin theory (Rawls, 1966 in Burtt, 2008). Pennock (2002) however, clearly opposes the idea of the inclusion of creationism into science at the public schools in order to avoid the conflicts in the classroom. In this article, I analyze the notion of teaching creationism in science classroomsespecially in the public schools. Then, I will also discuss the reason why we should teach creationism in addition to, or in place of, the theory of evolution. Finally, I will give my alternative solution towards the debates of the teaching creationism vs. evolution in the Public Schools.
Also read: Social Justice and Anti-Oppresive Education
The definition ofCreationism and Evolution
The theory of evolution is the theory that all life has evolved from common ancestors, not by optimal design but by tinkering, by slowly modifying existing structures (Ayala, 2006 p. 79). Evolution as I remembered when I was in junior high school, evolution theory believed that initially, the human was not created as human; rather, it was from the evolution of the Apes. I also still remembered at that time when I asked my Biology teacher about why the current Monkeys or Orang Utans were not naturally keep modifying themselves to be the modern human beings, and my biological teacher could only answer that she was actually opposing the idea of evolution. The reason why she still taught evolution was because it was mandated by the national curriculum. When we discuss evolution, we automatically direct our mind to Darwin. In the Darwinian theory of evolution, it is theorized that (1) that all present-day life is related, and (2) that the creatures existed through natural selection. Therefore, if we believe in the theory of evolution, we need to also believe that we share a common ancestor with the apes/chimps: “it isn’t at all controversial that human beings share common ancestors with chimps” (Sobber, 2009 p. 67).
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published a book entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. This book is published to support the teaching of evolution in the science classroom. This book gives the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom (National Academy of Sciences, 2008 in Berkman and Pulzer, 2010). NAS is therefore known as the loyal supporter of evolution theory.
What about creationism theory? Creationism according to Ayala (2006) is a movement that used by the religious-based in order to oppose the evolution theory; that is the notion that the universe was created by God from zero. Warnick and Fooce (2007) argued that teaching creationism at public schools is considered important in order to facilitate student autonomy. That is, religious creation stories offer significant alternatives to our secular modernity world. In addition, according to the creation science, evolution has never been proved scientifically, although it was widely promoted as a scientific fact. Even, the evolutionist itself still calls it as a theory of evolution (Morris, 1973 in Forrest, 2007). Besides creation science, there is also a movement called intelligent design. Similar to creationist, intelligent design see evolution as one misconception concerns the status of evolution as a fact, that is the evolution theory is not merely a theory but it is an indisputable fact: “only in the most trivial sense -changeover time- can evolution be considered fact (Hartwig and Meyer, 1993 in Forrest, 2007).
On his book, Sober (2009) concluded the meaning of intelligent design based on his observation and study, that intelligent design theory argues that the species were created by the intelligent designer. The intelligent theory argues that it is not inadequate to theorize that the world exists from the process of the natural selection, rather the existence of the universe provide a strong evidence for the existence of an intelligence behind this (Reiss, 2011). There is also another definition of intelligent design; according to Burtt (2008) intelligent design (ID) argued that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Even though intelligent design is not rooted in the biblical literal creationism, ID sometimes adds the force of God and some other natural force. If evolutionist has the main supporter known as NAS, the intelligent design and creationist movement is also supported by the Center for Science and Culture (CSC). It was established in 1996 as the creationist wing, headquartered in Seattle (Forrest, 2007).
Despite the difference definition between intelligent design and creationism, in this paper, however, I would like to disregard its difference, in order to make it easier to consider creationism versus evolution.
The History of the Debate
The war between the evolutionist and creationist started in the early 1920s and it remains with us today. The continuity is a result if several factors. But most important perpetrator of this debate is because these issues have been polarized into political arena (Berkman and Pulzer, 2010). The Republican has more favor in creationism while the Democratic Party gives slightly a space for the evolutionist.
As I mentioned before that the campaign of anti-evolutionist is started in the 1920s. In March 1925, the Tennessee state legislature passed a bill that banned the teaching of evolution in the science classroom, for all education institution. This legislature bill was then known as Tennessee vs Scopes. During this period of time, the anti-evolutionist movement was organized, mobilized, motivated, and visible throughout the nation (Berkman and Pulzer, 2010). As a result, the word “evolution” was eliminated from the textbooks, and all textbooks of biology were revised to meet the needs of the fundamentalist.
Then in 1958, when the Soviet Union was successful to launch their Sputnik satellite, had awakened many Americans to the need of better science education. The new teaching materials were then distributed for science classroom in which evolution had a prominent place in the materials as well as in the curriculum. After the great depression era, World War II, and the Korean conflict, the anti-evolutionist who used to be dormant began to react on the evolution theory. There are at least three more three major courts advocating the teaching of creationism, as summarized by Forrest (2007): Epperson v. Arkansas (1968), McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (1982), and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). They keep trying to campaign that evolution is simply a theory, therefore, they mandate the teaching of creationism (teaching creationism alone or if not, teaching both theories altogether). In 1989, President Bush together with the governor Arkansas Bill Clinton promoted a stronger role for the national government in determining what state will teach. The America 2000: The Educate America Act was then adopted by most of the states in the U.S. In 2001 The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act passed by the Congress which then signed by President George W. Bush. In NCLB, the law mandated the increase of the highly qualified teachers, in which all future Biology teachers need to take a semester-long course in evolutionary biology. As a result, the more rigorous education system which required high standard testing for the students have created a pressure for creationist teachers. Now, it seems the cold war which is started in the 1920swill remain open.
Study about Why We should/Should not Teach Creationism:
The NCLB has obviously minimized teachers and students time to explore the possibility of teaching creationism in the science subject. This is because the teachers are demanded to make sure that they teach the contents from the curriculum in order for the students to pass the standardized test if they do not want to get negative consequences. But what is actually the rationale why we should/should not embed creationism in the curriculum as well:
Why we should not Teach Creationism
Now after discussing the definition of evolution and creationism, let us then visit the reasons why we should not teach creationism at school. Pennock (2002) is one among scholars/philosophers who strongly oppose the idea of putting creationism at the science curriculum. Similar to Pennock, Sobber (2009) argued that the notion that God creates the organism contradicted to and does not accord with what “we” observe; while he continued that the evolution theory is better supported by the observation today. These reasons below are the justifications that the evolutionist uses to oppose the creationism:
a. Chery picking of Darwinism theory
The irony that evolutionist difficult to accept is that there are some evolution theories they accept, but deny the others. For example, there has been so many ID or creationist accepted that some organisms have evolved from ancestors that were different from them. But at the same time, they could not accept that some features, such as vertebrate eye, or the blood-clotting mechanism of mammals, or the bacterial flagellum, are too complicated so that they cannot have arisen by natural process. That is, there must be the intervention of God for the complex features of the creations. Pennock (2002) on his paper “Should Creationism be Taught in the Public Schools) criticized creationists, “but for the most part, they keep their specific commitments hidden and speak only of the generic thesis of “mere creation” (p.9).
b. Teaching science in combination of religious doctrine
The teachers would find it difficult to classify what creationism is; is it a subject, is it a religion, is it science? If it is a subject, would it not be overwhelmed with the biology subject. If it is science, then why they combine with the religion teaching. If it is a religion, then what religion is this; is it a Protestant, Catholic, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or confusion? In addition, Gutmann (1987) suggested that creationism is not supposed to be taught in the science classroom, or to an alternative to science. This is because there will be the inclination of establishing a sectarian religion in the schools and this would indirectly “restrict rational deliberation among competing ways of life” (p. 104). Gutmann (1987) afraid that the teaching of creationism will undermine or erode the shared, secular intellectual standards citizens use for democratic deliberation. If the parents want their children to have creationism then it is better for the parents to send their kids to the private schools instead of sendingthe kids to the public schools. Pennock (2002) clearly recommended that all parents who want to get the creationism taught to their children, they need to send their kids to the private religious school which is “free to teach creationism or whatever religious doctrine they choose.” (p.115)
c. Evolution is based on scientific theory, not an illusion.
According to Forest (2007), creationism and intelligent design should not be taught in schools because it is false, due to the absent of the scientific reasoning behind the idea of creationism. Similar to Forest (2007), Poole (2008) contended religion is not a scientific theory, and in science theory it is odd to turn the notion of God to turn to science. Creationism according to Forest (2007) will teach the controversy to the students, and thus everybody including the government need to be aware of the new attempts the creationist and intelligent design activist to insert creationism into the public school science classroom.
Unlike the creationism, evolution is claimed to be scientific and that in science, it has nothing to say about the assertion that God created the universe (Ayala, 2006). The theory of evolution, according to the evolutionist, is supported by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence (Berkman & Pulzer, 2010; Pennock, 2002; & Sobber, 2009). Therefore, in order to avoid the confusion in education, the separation of church and state is inevitable.
Why We Should Teach Creationism
The argument presented above about the reasons why we should not teach creationism does take into account the issue of justice, freedom, autonomy in which have a special space in a democratic nation. It is an irony, if we campaign freedom of thought as well as freedom of speech to the world but at the same time we do not give the opportunity for our students to study some alternative theory into their science classroom.
a. Critical thinking skills and freedom of speech
If the schools approve the using of biology textbook in which evolution theory is included, but at the same time do not accommodate the teaching of creationism in the science classrooms; this is an indication that the schools devalue the students’ critical thinking. In addition, to teach students critical thinking, studentsneed to be presented both controversy theories and let the student learn the scientific argument for, and against for both creationism and evolution. If students are only presented either or, I am afraid that the certain theory will present a doctrine to a certain theory and undermine another theory. Besides, if in the 1920s, the pro-evolutionist seeking justice by bringing the argument that teaching evolution is part of the freedom of speech; then we can argue that the same reasons should also be enacted toward the teaching of the creationism. The pro-evolutionist, Sobber (2009), even suggested that “there are many open questions in evolutionary, as in science” (p.74); if so, why should we then prohibit teaching creationism while the evolutionist themselves are still doubted the validity of the evolution theory?
b. Parents’ right
The proponents of creationism argue that teachers at the public schools must teach what the taxpayers’ desire taught (Bryan in Berkman & Pulzer, 2010). In my opinion, education is held in order to meet both parents demand and the community demand. The community demand in here means, education is expected to empower an individual in order not to give burden to other community members. Parents, in this case, have a full right to express what their children get and not get from the schools, including the evolution and creation theory. If most of the parents in a community request to the school to also teach creationism in addition to the evolution theory, the school, therefore, should find a way to fulfill the parents’ demand. As a study by Berkman and Pulzer (2010) indicated that in the American today, they support both creationism as well as evolution to be taught in the science curriculum:
“In addition, public opinion concerning evolution remains remarkably stable. Since the very first opinion polls on evolution in the early 1920s, scientists have published thousands of scientific papers that have fleshed out the details of evolution and have reported fossil discoveries that filled important gaps in the scientific record. The evidence consistent with a very old earth, of diverse contemporary species having common ancestors, and of human origins in earlier promotes is much stronger now than a quarter ago. And yet, U.S public opinion has hardly changed. As in 1982, more Americans today prefer the teaching of creationism to the teaching of the evolution, although the largest numbers of citizens support the inclusion of both approaches.” (p. 217)
Given the majority opinion of the U.S people today, there is no reason not to include creationism in the science classroom. This does not mean that we need to eliminate the word evolution in the textbook, in this case, however, to teach both creationism and evolution in order to fulfill the parents demand. I would also answer the doubt the evolutionist raised. They have a concernthat if parents need to have the creationism to be included in the curriculum, why don’t the parents send their kids to the Sunday school. Then I just want to raise the similar question to the evolutionist: what if you were born from a poor family and at the same time you had a strong belief will you be able to pay the tuition in the private schools?
c. Evolution is contradicted with the teaching of religion
The basic assumption of the evolutionary theory is that no Supernatural Being ever been involved in this universe. They theocratized that there is no creator, therefore, there is no creation. They only believe that the universes including human being are as results of evolution. It means that this teaching really contradicted with the teaching of religion, which therefore will impact the parents’ objection if their children are taught something which contradictswith their belief at home.
In addition, the teaching of evolution especially the origin and human being iscontradicted with the Abrahamic religions: Islam, Jews, and Christian. In Islam, as stated in the Qur’an, man is created by the Godand is not by the evolution by themselves.
“Verily We created man from a product of wet earth; then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging; then We fashioned the drop into a clot, then We fashioned the clot into a little lump, then We fashioned the little lump into bones, then clothed the bones with flesh, and then produced it another creation. So blessed be Allah, the Best of Creators!” [23:12-14]
“It is He Who has created you from dust then from a sperm-drop, then from a leech-like clot; then does he get you out (into the light) as a child: then lets you (grow and) reach your age of full strength; then lets you become old,- though of you there are some who die before;- and lets you reach a term appointed; in order that you may learn wisdom.” [40:67]
The reference of dust in the Quran [40:67], is for the first human being, prophet Adam. And then for the whole human being human is created from the sperm-drop (biological process).
Similar to the Quran, the Bible also mentioned that God created man:
“Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living being”. (Geneses 2:7).
In addition, in the Torah, the Jewish agree that the humankind wascreated on the sixth day of the creation of the universe:
In the sixth day, were created all the other animals, large and small, those that walk and those that creep or crawl on the earth. And towards the end of the sixth day, G-d put a divine soul into a body which He made of earth and clay. This was the human.
The Quran, the Bible, and the Torah, were already existed far before we discovered ultrasound and other sophisticated technologies. Then the question is if these holy books were not the book of God, then who is the human being at that time who could create a narrative story which then proven by the technology? Which are similar to each other’s: the first human (Adam) were created from the clay/dust.
The quotes of the verses above are actually answering the doubt (Pennock, 2002; & Sobber, 2009) that if we teach creationism, what religion should we used as an approach. In fact, these three Abrahamic religions do not conflict each other if it comes to the creation. These three majority religions in the world agree that men are created by God. I will also criticize the Sobber (2009) argument that the notion of God creates the organism is invalid, but then why there are three religions have the same answers of the creation of human being; while that three religion were not come at the same time. At that time, there were not any technologies that were able to communicate these three different holy books. Were these three holy books coincident? The answers is NO, because God who created the organisms and human beings granted these holy books as the guidance for the human beings.
My Alternative Solution towards the Debates of the Teaching Creationism vs. Evolution in the Public schools: Teach both
Coming from a country in which religion is taught in school, I see that teaching creationism is important to be taught in the USA or other countries as well. If it is not taught through religion subject, at least it can be included in the Science subject in order to balance the theory of evolution in which for some reasons contradict with the teaching of religion (almost all religion, oppose the theory that human is not created by God, rather it was from the evolution of the Apes). This is because once again, it is not fair for a student to study a theory or a thought that are coming from one single angel. This will also avoid the students’ misperception when they at home know their parents did not believe in evolution.
a. Autonomy
As free and equal citizens, the term autonomy is deemed to be important notion. The term autonomy in here suggests that a person in the original position would have an interest in becoming familiar with different conceptions of the good. That is, as an autonomous person, she/he would want to be adequately be presented with alternatives in their most compelling forms (Warnick, 2009). Therefore, if a school teaches evolution theory, at the same time the school needs to also provide the other alternative theory: creationism, or vice versa. In addition, Brighouse (2006) argued that students need to receive a serious advocacy of different perspectives in the classroom.
b. Fairness
Once again, It would be fair that students should hear “both sides” if there are two major debates, in this case, creationism and evolution theory. Given the fact that, nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that creationism should be thought alongside evolution (Warnick, 2009), thus, teaching creationism in the classroom is imperative. On his paper, Warnick (2009) quote an editorial essay that essentially the proponents of evolution need to realize that not everyone is convinced with the theory of evolution whom they are also taxpayers, and therefore should have the same right in the curriculum.
Conclusion
Given the arguments and rationales above, it is time to give back the students’ right of what they need to be learned at school. This paper does not request the abolition of the evolution theory, nor to delete the word evolution from the biology textbook. This paper, however, argues that students need to be provided equal materials which I believe important for their future. While evolutionist in some cases failed to proof that their theory is a fact, thus, the creationism needs to be given equal weight to evolution in order to give some answers that evolution cannot answer.
That said, for the sake of curricular fairness, both evolution and creationism should be presented on the table. Let students with their critical thinking criticize and connect with their daily life. The teachers and schools are therefore functioned as the facilitator of knowledge. As the customers, let parents and students decide which knowledge they want to buy from the school.
Reference
Ayala, F.J. (2006). Evolution vs creationism. Essay Reviews. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. Vol 28(1), p. 71-82.
Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2010). Evolution, creationism, and the battle to control America’s classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Burtt, Brian. (2008). Deliberative democracy and intelligent design, the ruling in Kitzmiller & Dover. Theory and Research in Education. Vol 6(1). 95-105.
Brighouse, Harry. (2006). On education. Routledge, New York.
Forrest, B. (2007). Understanding the intelligent design creationist movement its true nature and goals. The Center for Inquiry and Office of Public Policy.
Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Pennock, R.T. (2008). Should creationism be taught in the public schools? Science & Education. Volume 2. 111-133.
Poole, Michael. (2008). Creationism, intelligent design and science education. SSR. Vol 90(30) p. 123-129.
Reiss, M. (2008) Science classroom should tackle creationism and intelligent design. The Guardian. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/sep/11/michael.reiss.creationism
Sobber, Elliott. (2009). Core questions in philosophy: A text with readings (5th edition). Pearson Education: New Jersey.
Warnick, B.R. (2009). Evolution, creationism, and fairness: Equal time in the biology classroom? Philosophy of Education.p. 305-313.
EmoticonEmoticon