Resolved: Teaching evolution ought be valued above teaching creationism in schools.

Should schools be able to teach scientific creationism? Should schools teach about evolution? These are some of the questions courts at all levels have had to wrestle with due to the attempts by certain religious groups to stop the teaching of evolution and replace it with teaching from their own religious traditions. Fortunately, the courts consistently reject the intrusion of religion on public school science classes. I feel that evolution should be valued above creationism in school curriculums for a variety of reasons. First, Evolution can be proven scientifically and it can be observed in fossil records. Evolution can be observed in every creature on the planet, and therefore it should be valued above something that’s evidence comes only from an archaic, scientifically invalid book. Evolution can be seen in humans, and it is a much more reasonable explanation of how the human race came to be (1,2,3). Second, The United States has a separation of church and state. For children to be forced to learn about creationism, is forcing unfounded religious beliefs upon them, violating this principle. However, to teach a child evolution, is to teach them founded facts that have no religious affiliation whatsoever (4). Third, courts all over the country have affirmed the importance of evolution in education, often striking don over-emphasis of creationism in education. Here are a few of the cases that show this principle of science over myth. In 1981, in Segraves v. State of California, the court found that the California State Board of Education's Science Framework, as written and as qualified by its anti-dogmatism policy, gave sufficient accommodation to the views of Segraves, contrary to his contention that class discussion of evolution prohibited his and his children's free exercise of religion. The anti-dogmatism policy provided that class discussions of origins should emphasize that scientific explanations focus on "how", not "ultimate cause", and that any speculative statements concerning origins, both in texts and in classes, should be presented conditionally, not dogmatically. The court's ruling also directed the Board of Education to disseminate the policy, which in 1989 was expanded to cover all areas of science, not just those concerning evolution (5). In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a federal court held that a "balanced treatment" statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to "creation-science" and "evolution-science". In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term "science", the court declared that "creation science" is not in fact a science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature. The theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator (6). In 1994, in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court finding that a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a school district's requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes. Rejecting plaintiff Peloza's definition of a "religion" of "evolutionism", the Court found that the district had simply and appropriately required a science teacher to teach a scientific theory in biology class (7). I will now provide a bulleted plan that would allow evolution to be valued above creationism in school curriculums. Evolution would be taught in all science classes regarding the origin of the species. This would allow the students to learn about science and facts in a class that is supposed to teach science and facts. Creationism could be touched upon in a religious studies class (or possibly philosophy) that would be an elective in Junior High or High school. This way no-one has religious beliefs forced upon them, and creationism would not have to be completely excluded from schools. Through this plan, actual science would be emphasized (evolution), theology would not be forced on students, and it would be on an elective basis only. Sources: 1. http://records.viu.ca... 2. http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://listverse.com... 4. http://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://en.wikipedia.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://en.wikipedia.org...