| Science and religion have seemingly always been at | | | | product of a “first cause,” which is the equivalent |
| odds with each other. From the theories posed by | | | | to a supreme being, which had the mental capacity to |
| Galileo to arguments regarding medical ethics today, | | | | design everything. There have been no tests and |
| science and religion have taken two opposing sides. | | | | there is no evidence supporting intelligent design. |
| The debate on whether or not creationism and | | | | Neither is the question scientific in nature, but rather |
| intelligent design should be taught in schools is one such | | | | philosophical. As such, even if it were placed in |
| example. These theories with no basis in reality are | | | | scientific terms, the label of “theory” is a |
| being forced onto schools as a strategy of | | | | misnomer for intelligent design. Rather, it is better |
| “teaching the controversy.” In this essay, it will be | | | | termed as a hypothesis, which is essentially a wild |
| demonstrated that creationist thought runs not only | | | | guess which has yet to be substantiated with facts. |
| counter to scientific theory, but also to the legal and | | | | Once it has sufficient facts to support it, then it is a |
| educational standards of the public school system. | | | | theory. Likewise, the layperson’s definition of |
| Many creationists and evolutionists alike argue for | | | | “theory” does not apply to the scientific definition. |
| “teaching the controversy” simply for the reason | | | | In common terms, a theory is the same thing as a |
| of a fair and balanced education, but in concept this | | | | hypothesis or inference. In a scientific context, |
| argument is flawed. For example, one would not | | | | however, theories are simply ideas which are unified |
| support the teaching of holocaust revisionism or 9/11 | | | | and supported by enough evidence not to suggest but |
| conspiracy theories in school as “alternate | | | | rather to prove validity (AAAS 2). Creationism itself, |
| viewpoints” because one cannot allow absurdity to | | | | the most common form being biblical creationism, runs |
| enter the classroom (Scott 3). In perhaps the most | | | | counter to the scientific method as well. Science is |
| well-known and celebrated rebuttal, Bobby Henderson, | | | | about explaining the world in purely empirical terms |
| a 25-year old science student, wrote a letter to the | | | | without resorting to mysticism or superstition. Under |
| Kansas State School Board (which had recently | | | | scientific theory, if you can tell it’s there, you can |
| approved teaching “alternatives” to evolution) | | | | explain how and why it exists. (Scott 2) Creationism is |
| that he approved of the decision, but expressed | | | | a fundamentally flawed perversion of the scientific |
| concern over whether or not his views would be | | | | process. First, creationism uses a presupposed |
| represented. He explained that he believed a Flying | | | | assumption that there was an intelligent designer |
| Spaghetti Monster created the universe in a mock | | | | involved, which is essentially giving a hypothesis the |
| religion and proceeded to send a crude diagram | | | | validity of a fact, the worst thing that any scientist can |
| demonstrating the creation story of the new religion, | | | | do and an action which would automatically discredit |
| conspicuously labeled “Pastafarianism.” Through | | | | any theory in any scientific community. It is not an issue |
| this argument ad absurdum he proved that one cannot | | | | of science, but of religion and is something which one |
| fairly teach all alternatives, so only the most religiously | | | | must remain agnostic towards in regards to scientific |
| neutral viewpoint, evolution, is acceptable (Boxer 1). It is | | | | process. Religious conviction is instead a matter of |
| impossible to accommodate all viewpoints into a | | | | personal choice, but is not applicable to the scientific |
| school curriculum, but it is logical to use the one | | | | process. Second, creationist thinkers work selectively |
| viewpoint which has a fundamentally neutral stance on | | | | by piecing together a patchwork of ideas, both proven |
| one’s personal beliefs. | | | | and unproven, to support their position while ignoring |
| Aside from that, theories such as creationism are | | | | that which runs contrary. This cherry picking leaves |
| simply inappropriate in an educational setting. First and | | | | much to be desired when the unified theories based |
| foremost, the First Amendment to the United States | | | | upon the pre-screened data are placed up to critical |
| Constitution was meant to establish a purely secular | | | | review. Third, and perhaps most important, creationism |
| government and, thus, a religiously neutral educational | | | | does not have the intellectual honesty of the scientific |
| setting. By teaching creationist thought, the principle of | | | | process. The goal of science is to constantly amend |
| separation between church and state is violated. In the | | | | theories based on the discovery and verification of |
| case of Edwards v. Aguillard the Supreme Court | | | | new evidence. As such, scientific thought improves |
| reinforced this position, ruling that creationism was a | | | | over time. Creationism has the goal of proving a |
| religious concept and its teaching in schools is | | | | presupposed notion which is simply identified as fact. |
| unconstitutional (NSTA 4). Even worse, if both ideas | | | | There is no critical review within creationist circles and |
| are presented, it blurs the line between fact and fiction. | | | | no new hypotheses, because the one hypothesis they |
| Much of what is considered legitimate in the eyes of | | | | have is given the validity of a scientific law and cannot |
| creationists is very suspect and remains unproven, if | | | | be deviated from (NSTA 3-4). Essentially, creationism |
| not flat out false. If it is taught in a classroom, students | | | | and intelligent design cannot be taught in science |
| are at a great disadvantage. Essentially, they are being | | | | classes simply because they do not qualify as science |
| fed lies disguised as truth. As such, they will be unable | | | | in any sense of the word. |
| to determine the difference between scientific facts | | | | The two “theories” of creationism and intelligent |
| from pseudoscience (AAAS 4). In addition, they do not | | | | design are completely inappropriate in the classroom. |
| learn an adequate amount of information pertaining to | | | | They do not qualify as science, are not confirmed, |
| facts. Time spent learning creationism and intelligent | | | | defeat the purpose of the separation between church |
| design is time spent not learning evolution. It is also time | | | | and state, create an unfair bias in favor of Christianity, |
| spent exposed to ideas in direct contrast to everything | | | | and do not foster intellectual honesty. They are not |
| science is about, which will be addressed later. On a | | | | acceptable “alternatives” to evolution, and they |
| practical level, students will not be prepared for | | | | do not fulfill the basic goal of education as an institution |
| standardized tests, college entrance exams, and higher | | | | which encourages critical thinking and independent |
| education, which all agree on the validity of | | | | reasoning. If one wishes to follow their own religious |
| evolutionary thought (Scott 2). The classroom is a | | | | beliefs then that’s fine because it’s their |
| place of learning truth, which means that creationism is | | | | business, but they have neither the authority nor the |
| out of the question. | | | | right to bring their beliefs into the public realm by |
| Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate the fallacy of | | | | pushing it as an equal to scientific fact. |
| allowing these theories into schools is the fallacy in the | | | | Works Cited |
| theories themselves. First and foremost, the scientific | | | | American Academy for the Advancement of Science. |
| consensus is that evolution is a fact and that the only | | | | “Intelligent Design is Unscientific.” World Religions. |
| debate about it is not whether or not it happens, but | | | | 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Series. |
| how it happens (AAAS 2). Intelligent design simply | | | | OpposingViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Group |
| isn’t science at all. Essentially, intelligent design is the | | | | Databases. ClarkstownHigh School South Lib, NY. 15 |
| idea that there are complex aspects in nature which | | | | May 2007. |
| cannot be chalked up to coincidence and, thus, are the | | | | |