Sarah Mallick
Earlier this
month, the Supreme Court rejected to hear the appeal of John Freshwater, an
Ohio school teacher who was fired for teaching creationism. Creationism is
defined as “the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from
specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by
natural processes such as evolution.” Greater steps must be taken to ensure
that creationism/intelligent design theory ought not to be promulgated in
public schools since it’s a religious doctrine. Currently there is no federal ban on
creationism by the Supreme Court.
In 1987, Edwards
v. Aguilar, the Supreme Court decided that Louisiana’s Creationism Act—which
prohibited evolution from being taught, unless creationism was equally taught—was
unconstitutional. The 7-2 majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote the majority
opinion, saying the Creationism Act “does not enhance the freedom of teachers to
teach what they choose and fails to further the goal of "teaching all of
the evidence." ... The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing
the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind.”
This certainly was a step in the
right direction, because it permitted schools to teach what was endorsed by
science, effectively saying that evolutionary theory was not a religious ideal
whereas creationism was.
However
creationists skirted around Edwards
by altering their language. Unlike creationism, intelligent design simply
removed the biblical element; it’s defined as “the
theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was
designed and created by some intelligent entity”. In Kitzmiller
vs. Dover Area School District, it was decided by the U.S. District Court
of Pennsylvania that intelligent design theory was a form of creationism that
violated the establishment clause of the first amendment. Scientists criticized intelligent design theory
saying it has no factual basis whatsoever, and it’s motives were purely
political/religious—therefore it shouldn’t be taught in schools.
I personally feel that teaching
creationism/intelligent design theory undermines the fundamentals of science—testing
that which is observable. Not only that, but it’s an embarrassment to the U.S.;
we are trailing behind other nations in scientific education, ranking 27th.
One can argue that teaching creationism in the classroom undermines future
success and well being, and it is time for the Supreme Court to act. We need to
follow the footsteps of the UK—they’ve banned teaching any form of creationism
in their public schools and are ranked 13th in the world. Why is the
Supreme Court so reluctant to take on cases about intelligent design theory or
creationism? Until a federal law is in place that ensures science should only
teach what is scientifically observable, intelligent design theory and
creationism will be a disservice to our children.
Sources:
http://www.inquisitr.com/1535156/supreme-court-says-firing-of-creationist-science-teacher-justified/
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/06/teaching-creationism-as-science-now-banned-in-all-uk-public-schools/
http://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-rankings-2013-12
http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
https://richarddawkins.net/2014/06/teaching-creationism-as-science-now-banned-in-all-uk-public-schools/
http://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-rankings-2013-12
http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
First and foremost, I understand the reason and legitimacy of the First Amendment not allowing government to establish or support a particular religion. Secondly, I do understand the background of this ruling and why the courts decided what they ruled. What I do not understand is how the government can legitimize the targeting and outright disrespect of religious beliefs when it comes to science. What is the problem of presenting another side of a scientific theory that presents creation with a purpose and a meaning? Has government decided to entirely side with science and completely disregard religion altogether? This is not about state-sponsored religion. This issue goes one step further. To want to ban Intelligent Design as a possible means behind evolution can be harmful. This is punishing religious belief and sends a message to religious people that their beliefs are just not compatible with science. What does a ban do to the millions of Americans that do believe God guided the process of evolution? What is wrong with using this to teach students? Is the government taking the side of the purely naturalistic and atheistic viewpoint that we are all simply cosmic accidents with no design or purpose? Regardless of your beliefs on religion or the origins of the universe, the fact remains: the First Amendment does not support the public discrimination and targeting of religious beliefs. In fact, it actually protects faith. I am in no way saying that the government should adopt a particular religion, but I am certainly advocating that both sides of a scientific theory be told. Both viewpoints can be beneficial and teachers should have the freedom to teach both viewpoints. To conclude, I noticed that one of the sources used for this post was from Richard Dawkins’ website. Dawkins happens to be one of the main leaders of the New Atheism, a militant movement that seeks to literally rid the world of all religion. If the government were to truly follow Dawkins’ example of hatred towards faith (a man who at one time stated a public rally to “mock” people of faith), then religious individuals should be very worried because the New Atheism not only wants to ban religious thought from the schools but religion altogether. This can be dangerous and quite troubling in a country where the freedom to practice religion and the freedom to not practice religion are both soundly protected by its First Amendment.
ReplyDelete