Con: Creationism is a theological theory that belongs outside of the classroom.
By Elice Giorgione
Staff Writer
The fundamental tenet of creationism holds that mankind was manifest in the image of God in accordance with a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis. In this respect, it would be only natural to assume that any attempt to integrate this doctrine into our nation’s public university curriculum would have a certain degree of religious motivation.
The theory of evolution quantifiably accounts for the diversity of species here on earth. Scientists have corroborated logical proof that life as we know it is the result of a long process of natural selection. Due to the presence of such reputable testimony and expert evidence, these proponents claim it is suitable for evolution to be taught alongside other biological principles in universities nationwide.
Many religious people from all backgrounds strongly oppose such an approach and reject the validity of evolution, claiming it conflicts with the Bible. In light of this controversy, or perhaps as a reaction to it, numerous individuals emerged as proponents of creationism being taught, either instead of or in addition to evolution.
Although I am a practicing Catholic, I must contend that creationism can neither be scientifically proven nor disproved. It must be considered a purely religious creed.
Consequently, it has no place being taught in a public school system — under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment the government is prohibited from espousing any specific religious faith.
This prohibition was established to guarantee that our public education system supported an academic environment free from sectarianism — an atmosphere where students from all religious inclinations can feel comfortable and not have to worry about foreign beliefs being forced upon them. In a simple adherence to the separation of church and state, it is clear that creationism should remain a theory absent from the curriculum of public universities.
In the 1987 Supreme Court case Aguillard v. Edwards, it was held that it unconstitutional to make it compulsory for educators to teach creationism simply to supplant evolution. This ruling alone should remind us that in order to adhere to the laws outlined in the very foundation of our country — the United States Constitution — we must respectfully draw the line between being proud of our roots as a Christian nation and promoting those ideals to every citizen regardless of their own faith.
There should be absolutely no opposition to teaching the biblical story of creation as an integral component of a university course based on religious history or literature. In that case, a student makes a conscious choice to take such a class and thus has a say about what he or she will be exposed to. However, it is in the science classrooms across America where creationism should be kept out of the lesson plan.
It is inappropriate to teach as fact something that has yet to be supported by any concrete proof. It is arguable that such a curriculum, by nature of its very foundation, would be disrespectful to students of diverse religious backgrounds and perhaps even offensive to the teachers who have to endorse it as fact.
Many people are, in fact, able to accept both creationism and evolution as theories that, side by side, complement one another; however, this should not be attempted within the school system but rather left up to individuals in their own struggle to understand the world.
To refuse students a comprehensive biological education — one that includes evolution as a key concept — would be to undermine the ability of religious people to differentiate between science and matters of faith.
One of the very reasons our country has upheld a climate free from sectarian disunity is precisely because we have allowed government and religion to remain their own separate entities which seldom overlap or infringe upon each other’s territory. To allow creationism to be taught in public universities now would not only be a regression from this progress but also a movement toward the inevitable protests, debates and controversies that would ensue in the classroom and disrupt the learning of America’s youth.
February 20, 2003