In
an article from Jan. 26, 2012, ABC
news reported that the Indiana Senate passed a bill allowing creationism to be
taught in schools. Fox news reported
on the same issue, emphasizing that it involves creation stories from many
religions, including Christianity,
Judaism,
Islam,
Hinduism,
Buddhism
and Scientology. According to the ABC news report, the
chair of the Senate Education Committee believes this bill will “ultimately end
up in the courts” and is “a waste of time and resources.” The bill is awaiting a decision in the
Indiana House of Representatives.
Like
other creationism and public school cases, Indiana is attempting to include
religious creation stories in science classrooms. However, the legal issue in
this case does not necessarily involve promoting one specific religion over
another, or even promoting a religious standpoint over a non-religious. The
legal issue at stake is that this bill allows creation stories to be included in
natural science courses.
This
bill presents a fascinating shift in the creationism in public schools debate. The
legal issue here is different than the historical concern of teaching the Genesis creation accounts alongside theories of evolution. An inherent part of this legal debate is a promotion of these creation accounts over those of other religions. Rather, this bill begs the question of the
ideological nature of scientific theories. That is, should creation stories be
presented alongside scientifically founded theories in public
schools?
Religious
creation stories do not have a place in a science classroom. They are not
scientifically founded or supported. Although I believe it is positive to
expose students to many different creation stories, this curriculum belongs in
a Religious Studies course, not in one on natural science. Although it may be
argued that evolution is only a theory, it is a scientifically founded and
supported theory. Like the theory of gravity, it is central to an understanding
of modern scientific thinking.
Students
would benefit greatly from an awareness of the creation stories of the
religions of the world. However, creation stories should not legally be able to
be taught in science classrooms. They are simply of a different category of
thinking, and belong in different environments. Students will ideologically benefit
from separating scientific theories from religious and cultural beliefs.
17 comments:
As a student of religious studies, I agree with your statement that religious creation stories should be left to a religious studies course and that evolution should remain in natural science courses. However, I feel that this goes back to the issue that we see occurring in the end of the 19th century in which religion's role with education is being questioned. The sad part is, is that this issue is still yet to be resolved. If cosmogonies must be kept a part of school circulum, I wonder what people would think about including them in a language arts course; analyzing the literary type of the story? Then again I am sure this too would cause a ruckus.
I agree with both you and Kathryn that creation stories should be kept out of the science room. What I find really awesome about the article, though, is that it is not just the Genesis story that is being proposed to be taught. That various religious creation stories are being proposed shows that the country is taking steps towards religious pluralism. However, these stories belong in a religion, culture, or even history class. I learned about different religious traditions in a public high school during my Freshman Cultural Geography class. That class, and not a science class, is an appropriate classroom for the stories to be taught. Maybe a compromise could be that when the science class is teaching evolution, another class teaches the creation stories so students can receive a well rounded education.
I'm not sure that the move to offer a range of creation stories is actually a move toward pluralism. It seems to me that it’s more of a way to get around the establishment clause by saying that they are not favoring any one religious group. That being said I agree that regardless of their reason for wanting to include the stories that it would be great to expose the students to the diversity, but it shouldn’t be in the science class. If they wanted to set up a class that was called World Creation Stories or something similar I think it would be a fabulous move.
I applaud the Indiana Senate for advancing this arduous debate. Indeed this is a fascinating shift. What exactly is the harm in having creation stories from many religions included along with evolution theories? Causation is still unproven - but believed to be one way or the other depending on ones religion or no-religion. Why is this such a feared issue? Isn't education all about teaching students to learn to "think"for themselves? I feel creation stories do have a place in a science classroom.
I think Angela's point that "It seems to me that it’s more of a way to get around the establishment clause by saying that they are not favoring any one religious group" is an interesting one. I am not sure if I agree, but it does bring to light what the intention of including multiple creation stories is. Also, it makes me wonder to what extent intention matters in this legal matter?
In response to Anne, I think the problem with including creation stories in a science classroom is that creation stories are not scientifically founded or supported, whereas theories of evolution are. Although this is not a legal issue, I think understanding a scientific ideology is as important as learning the theories themselves.
Let me amend my last comment. The legal concern with including creation stories in a science classroom is giving a specific privledge to religion, even though not a specific religion. Why should these stories be legally allowed in a science classroom with other non-scientific ideas are not?
There is one major problem that the public schools will run into if they allow the creation stories of all these religions to be taught in science class and that is that they will be favoring these religions over other religions. Recognizing these creation stories means favoring them and favoring them may be mistaken into establishing them, in turn establishing a religion (in this case, many religions). This also means that those religions which aren’t included are being disfavored. Likewise, disfavoring can be mistaken as prohibiting that religion or its beliefs.
However, I don’t see a problem with allowing these creation stories to be taught in a science class along with evolutionary theories. As you have stated, they are all just theories and so they can be taught together. If these creation stories can be taught in a religion, history or anthropology class then I don’t see why they can’t be taught in a science class. I do agree that it makes more sense and it is easier to teach things like creation stories in social studies classes than science classes but if a science teacher can manage to do both, then they should be allowed to. Would we ever consider a history teacher teaching the theory of gravity or the composition of atoms a problem? Plus, the problem I discussed in the earlier paragraph still applies if these creation stories were taught in a history or religion class. Due to the limitation of time in a given academic semester or year, most teachers aren’t able to get to all of the religions, they usually cover the widely practiced religions. This doesn’t mean that they are establishing a religion by favoring it over other religions. So the problem I discussed earlier can be overlooked. Therefore, I don’t see an issue with allowing these creation stories to be taught in science classes.
Although I agree that creation stories belong in a culture, history, or comparative study of religion class, I also wonder how the decision was made to include sacred texts in a science class. It seems as though we are all in agreement that religious studies should not pervade a science classroom and vice versa. Although it is blatantly apparent to a religious studies student that these two areas of study should be distinct from one another, it is hard for me to ignore what the motives may have been for the people who put this policy into play. Were they so insistent upon Protestant creation stories to be taught to the youth that they obliged to include the stories of all faiths? If so wouldn't this hinder their blatant promotion of Protestantism? Basically, what were these people thinking? and Cathye, I think you along with the rest of us just wish that a separate comparative studies in religion course would be included in the curriculum of the public school system, but I also think we can all imagine just how complicated that could become.
I agree that creationism should not be taught in science class because it is not a scientific theory. It is also not an alternative to evolution. If it is taught at all, it should be taught in a setting which discusses what ‘creationism’ is, which is a particular set of religious beliefs held by a few. It is a religious position. I agree that it should be limited to a literature or religious studies class using a comparative approach with other views on the subject and other religions’ theories. The school has to be careful how it teaches this.
This is an interesting article because it not only discusses the issue of religion in a public forum such as the education system but also what do we consider these creation stories. Are these myths truly to be taken as scientific theory or are they simply limited to their religious context? In my opinion I do not believe that I can take creation myths as scientific theory. As for the pluralism of offering multiple creation myths, I would be interested in seeing if they truly do offer those stories and give them equal time in comparison to the Christian creation myth.
I must first give credit to Indiana for their wanting to include various religion creation stories but I also agree with everyone else that the content matter is not being taught in the appropriate atmosphere. It definitely is a step forward in religious inclusion but fails with tact.
Preston L.
I agree that creation story may not necessarily fit neatly into the science category. However I think the concerns that some may have are that evolution is being taught as a science in schools. This may go against the religious belief of some of the students. Evolution is not accepted by all religions as being true, and in fact some religions find it offensive. By including other creation stories along with evolution I think it would help with exposing children to other accounts and beliefs, broadening their outlook without just pushing one view.
It is an interesting move to include cosmogenies in science classroooms. It either is a justification for teaching evolution in public classrooms or a crafty way of integrating/juxtaposing Christianity with a scientific perspective. Either way, its an intriguing blend of science and religion that might be a fascinating learning environment.
I want to update my post from yesterday. I continued to think about this topic after posting my comment. I stated that 'creationism' is a religous belief and is not a theory. Therefore, I don't know why it is necessary to be taught in public school at all. Why must we teach it and adjust the curriculum to include it? It certainly does not belong in a science class. If teachers want to include it in a literature class or religous studies class, they can do that.
First off, since I am from Indiana, let me just say that I am deeply disturbed by this piece of legislation. I believe that this legislation, while problematic (as others have saliently articulated) from a ideological and conceptual level, also poses a significant difficulty in its application and educational effectiveness. Simply put, if Indiana wants to included religious cosmologies in its science curriculum, I fear for the disservice that science teachers will do to the teaching of these stories. A public school science teacher simply does not have the level of expertise necessary to fairly and robustly convey the nuanced meaning and theological value of each and every creation story from the multitude of religions in the world. If I were a parent that valued the theological/spiritual significance of my religious cosmology, I would be terrified to let the teaching of these stories fall to the responsibility of a public school science teacher.
Religion and science are more closely related than we think , as studying in Dr. Weiner's religion and science class. But yes creation stories do not belong in science classrooms. Even if they do teach this in public schools, being a christian nation,teachers are bound to emphasize on christianity. Then what happens to non-christian kids? Creation myths are not scientific theory , they are just myths , so i dont think they should be included in science curriculum.
Post a Comment