Religion: The Alternative Theory

A recent article from the NY Times describes the attempts of conservative religious groups to change educational standards in various states across the country. Conservative Evangelical groups argue that the current public school curriculum does not offer fair alternatives to the ‘theories’ of evolution and climate change. The logic behind this argument is that both evolution and climate change are only theories and not fact. Conservative groups originally attempted to have alternative theories to evolution taught in school. However, the only current alternative to evolution would involve teaching creationism. The idea of teaching creationism/intelligent design in public schools is strongly rejected by many individuals in the United States. These groups argue that the teaching of any form of religion as an alternative to evolution would clearly breach the wall of separation between Church and State. This thought process was substantiated by a district court in Atlanta, Georgia. In 2005, the district court ruled that it was unconstitutional to place warning stickers inside textbooks stating that evolution was merely a theory. The court ruled that the stickers were a direct implementation of religious beliefs into the public schools and thus a breach of the First Amendment. To see the full court ruling click here.



Recently however, conservative groups have been attempting to package together both evolution and climate change in an attempt to change educational standards. By coupling both of these topics, these groups hope to bypass the issue of separation and focus solely on ‘educational fairness.’ They argue that scientists have perpetually been overstepping their “scientific right” by asserting what many believe is mere theory, as fact to the youth of our nation. Scientists in turn see the issue in a different light. For them, there is no viable alternative theory to either evolution or global warming. The only alternative teaching mechanism would involve creationism. The two main issues that I believe need to be discussed before determining whether it is appropriate to change the public school curriculum involve the separation of Church and State and the establishment of religion. Both of these First Amendment issues are paramount in this case.

The separation of Church and State is the primary issue at the heart of the debate over whether it is appropriate to teach alternative theories of evolution and climate change in public schools. Because these alternative theories would involve some form of divine intervention, it appears that teaching them would be a clear violation of the First Amendment. I believe that it is not appropriate to teach any form of creationism in a public school setting. In my opinion, the argument that climate change is solely an issue of ‘educational fairness,’ is not true. First, the addition of climate change is simply a way of sidestepping the issue of separation. By teaching alternative theories of both climate change and evolution, right wing groups can argue that religion is not the determining factor for implementing an educational curriculum change. However, even if alternative theories to climate change were taught, I don’t think that this should have any effect on the teaching of evolution. The only alternative theory to evolution currently available is creationism. Thus, religion would be inherently forced into the schools. I do not believe that it is logically valid to suggest that the addition of climate change to the debate infers that there are no religious implications to changing the current school curriculum to include creationism.

Secondly, I do not agree that it is clear that the conservative right’s rejection of climate change does not have some religious roots. Many Evangelical Christians assert that because God created the Earth, it is ignorant to assume that humans could ever destroy it. This viewpoint clearly shows some individuals’ beliefs that religion should be a basis for what is taught in public schools. Because many of the “alternative theories” that have been proposed by the conservative right involve some form of religious belief, I believe that any change to the public school curriculum along these lines would violate the First Amendment ideal of the separation of Church and State.

Another issue that I argue is prevalent in this case involves the Establishment Clause. Although this topic is not overtly asserted in the article, it is still a prevalent problem in this case. If the Texas Board of Education were to allow some form of divine intervention to be taught in public schools, it would inherently favor the Christian tradition. A particularly relevant case to this issue is Epperson v Arkansas. The case states that, although the mention of creationism is not illegal, a specific form of religion should not be a part of the public school curriculum. Allowing this would conflict with the majority ruling in Epperson v Arkansas. Because Evangelical Christian groups are the main propellant behind this debate, I do not think it is a far stretch to assume that they would not be in favor of allowing all forms of creationism to be taught. Instead, these groups would rely on the traditional Christian beliefs concerning creationism. This rejection of other religious teachings in the public schools could be viewed as an establishment of the Christian religion in the United States. Both arguments concerning the separation and establishment of religion are why I believe that it is unacceptable to allow any form of creationism to be taught, in a public school setting, as an alternative theory to evolution, climate change, or any other scientific theory.