Creationism should not be taught in biology class

You certainly raise some interesting points. (1) "Teach the Controversy"The Discovery Institute claimed that it was important for all students to be taught varying points of view in regard to evolution. One must consider that the scientific community is at a resounding consensus when it comes to evolution. Their main concern was not the actual teaching of science but to counteract what they saw as a "materialist world view" which, in their opinion, subverted traditional JudeoChristian ethics. (Wedge Document) The controversy was between the scientific community and a particular group of Christians, not within the scientific community. This was played out in the Dover Trial. (. http://en.wikipedia.org......) Because this was not a political debate, not a scientific controversy, there is no reason to teach it in biology classes, where students are expected to learn biology, not the highlights of a debate. I don't find the Discovery Institute's claims and views particularly important to this debate nor necessary to refute the resolution. Therefore, I won't respond to its views unless it ties in to this debate at a later time. More about the Wedge Document here[2]. (2) "Church and State"Because we do encourage freedom of speech in our country, there is nothing stopping local church from addressing their concerns on the pulpit. If parents would like their children to hear "both sides," then let them do so within their proper contexts. Biology class deals in science. Religion deals in belief. Let the other sides make their case in private religious institutions where they are free to make whatever claim they want without legislative restriction. In fact, both freedom of speech and religion are found in the First Amendment. It would seem to be a cross-purposes for the authors of the Constitution to give the right to free speech and yet eliminate religious free speech in the same amendment. The Supreme Court agrees that if there is a secular purpose the instruction could be allowed even if it derived from religious teaching. Justice Brennan stated in Edwards v. Aguillard, "In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. [3]" This was the only point in which all of the Justices on the Supreme Court concurred. There must be, however, restrictions in public schools given that one religion can not be favored over another, or given any official mandate at all because of the First Amendment. These are public institutions running on taxes levied on all citizens in the interest of providing a good education for all students in the community. If the "controversy" must be addressed in public schools then let it be addressed in a debate class where it belongs. After all, this is what a controversy is. While I agree that religious teaching should not be taught in place of evolution in public school or even taught as a rival scientific theory. But I do believe it has its place in the science classroom to give the teaching of Evolution context. I'm not arguing for it to be taught in depth merely that the basics are covered to show the evolution of scientific thought over time (no pun intended). Science textbooks already cover brief biographies of key people in science and other contextual material to generate interest in the topic and promote critical thinking. Even the National Science Teachers Association, states, "Regarding how science instruction should occur within the context of societal and personal issues, NSTA recommends that science instruction . .. incorporate scientific issues that are personally and socially relevant, and developmentally appropriate, as a way to generate interest in and motivation to engage in relating science to personal and societal issues. [4]"Popular science writer Brian Clegg, puts it this way, "By putting creation myths into context in this way, we are much more likely to defuse the issue than by rigidly insisting that they should never appear in science lessons. [1]"(3) Chaos TheoryIf the "controversy" is taught, biology class will degenerate into an uninformed debate session without the benefit of formal debates' structure. How in the world is a student who has not even passed the course supposed to understand the underpinnings of the subject enough to decide whether s/he is for or against evolution? It speaks to the paranoia of Creationist parents when they will not even let the child learn opposing points of view. Why not let the child learn what science has to say without pretending there is a major controversy where there is not one? This would only result in lost study time and confusion. In conclusion, you can see that my three fold objections are clearly tethered to a non-controversy assertion. I will accept any counter claims from the negation in regard to social impacts of evolution etc. , with the understanding that when they make a claim they will hold burden of proof for that claim regardless of their negation status. You seem to be arguing here that there is not a major controversy while your first two contentions you were arguing that there was. If the controversy is minor or there's no controversy at all then why shouldn't Creationism be taught? Conclusion: When teaching science in public schools it's important to show alternate theories in order to help the students understand and better associate with the topics at hand. For example, in teaching that the world is round it is often also taught that people thought the Earth was flat. The NSTA agrees with showing context as well. This shows that science teachers feel context is important in their teachings. The teaching of creation myths helps to show the context as well as the societal impact of science, therefore it should be taught in biology class. This is a very important issue today in education. I thank you for this opportunity and look forward to your reply. Sources:[1] . http://blogs.nature.com...[2] . http://www.churchofvirus.org...[3] . http://supreme.justia.com...[4] . http://www.nsta.org...