A new house bill in Alabama, House Bill
258, was introduced on January 18, 2018 by legislator (R) Steve
Hurst, a representative from the 35th house district in Alabama, and has come
under scrutiny due to accusations that the bill goes against the Establishment
Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. If enacted, this bill
would allow public school teachers to bring the theory of creation, also known
as creationism, into the classroom alongside the theory of evolution. The
theory of creationism is, “the belief that the universe and living organisms
originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account,
rather than by natural processes such as evolution”(Merriam Webster).
This bill states that in
classes where the theory of evolution is taught, “any teacher may include as a
portion of instruction the theory of creation as presented in the Bible.”
The idea of bringing creationism into the classrooms of public schools is
certainly not a new one, but past attempts have worked to disguise creationism
by calling it “Intelligent Design” or simply as an explanation for the
weaknesses of evolution. Language like this has been used in an attempt
to separate religion from legislation. In the bill, proposed by Steve
Hurst however, no attempt was made to mask the religious ideologies being
pushed. In fact, the bill even states that teachers, “may read passages
in the Bible as deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation.”
While the bill does state
that the teacher, “may not stress any particular denominational religious
belief,” this bill is still intended to advance a particular religion by giving
fundamentalist Christianity a place in the Alabama public school system.
This is not the first time that Steve Hurst has attempted to pass
legislation that arguably goes against the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment; he previously proposed a requirement that public school teachers
read a daily prayer in their classrooms.
Alabama House Bill 258 is
modeled after a Kentucky law, Kentucky
Revised Statutes 158.177, which allows creationism to be taught in
K-12 public school classrooms in Kentucky. This law was first enacted in
1976 and was then repealed and reenacted in 1990. Currently, it is still
in place despite allegations that it is unconstitutional and in violation of
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In 1987, after the Kentucky
law was first enacted, there was a supreme court case, Edwards v. Aguillard
which addressed the teaching of creationism in public schools in Louisiana.
The court eventually ruled that mandating that creationism be taught in
Louisiana public schools was a violation of the establishment clause of the
First Amendment because the law was specifically designed to advance a
particular religion. The supreme court case also stated that, this law
lacked a valid secular purpose, and was therefore declared unconstitutional and
in violation of the First Amendment.
In all three of these cases,
the stated purpose of the act was to protect the academic freedom of students.
However, requiring, or allowing, religious theory such as creationism to
be taught in public classrooms alongside evolutionary science is, in my opinion,
a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment;
therefore, House Bill
258 in Alabama should not be enacted. The teaching of creationism as
a valid alternative to evolutionary science in Catholic schools or even secular
private schools should be the decision of the school, but Christian religious
theory has no place in the science classrooms of public schools in America.
The Establishment Clause states that, “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion.” Allowing Bible theory of
creation to be taught in public schools violates the Establishment Clause in
that the government is favoring one religion over another in their legislation.
Creationism, as is stated in its definition and in the wording of the act
itself, is a fundamentally Christian theory, and an act allowing for it to be
taught in public classrooms favors Christianity over other religions. The part
of the act stating that the teacher decides whether or not to teach creationism
and read sections of the Bible in his or her classroom allows teachers to push
their personal religious views on their students which actually limits the
academic freedom of the students rather than protecting it. While I would
argue that would not be unconstitutional to learn about creationism as a
Christian theory in a class dedicated to learning about different religions,
teaching creation theory in a science classroom despite the theory’s lack of
scientific support, does violate the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment. 
13 comments:
If teachers clearly taught it as just a theory and clearly stated it is known not to be scientifically proven, I would be a bit more hesitant in my response, but I am pretty positive that will not happen. Given people's self-interest, I am almost certain teachers(Christian) will push their own agenda, promoting a theory known to be associated with a specific religion so it is definitely best to stick with the Establishment Clause in this circumstance. No matter how a legislator tries to re-word the name and how it is taught, I cannot think of a way where teaching the theory of evolution and creationism, in the same course will not sound like promoting a Christian agenda thus, unconstitutional.
I agree that teaching "Creationism" as a fact, or at least alongside factual scientific evidence of evolution violates the Establishment Clause. First, there is no scientific evidence that this theory is correct, which in my mind, signifies that the only reason legislators are pushing to include it in curriculums is to further establish a state religion by indoctrinating children. Next, by reading the bible in class to support the theory, they are establishing a religion by teaching directly out of a religious text and presenting it as fact. Even further, by only presenting the biblical representation of creation (I do not know the theories presented in other religions), they create an unequal environment for students to learn in, and in a way, discriminate against other religious beliefs, which should never happen in the first place.
I agree with your assessment that creationism is a fundamental Christian idea. By teaching creationism in a science classroom, specifically in public schools not a private school, the state is directly supporting a religion. If they are going to start teaching creationism in classrooms then other religions would then want their teachings of how the world is created also taught in classrooms. If this bill were to passed it would open the door to a very slippery slope that many courts often try to avoid.
I agree with you that creationism should not be taught in a science course at a public school. If, as you said, this was taught with other theories in a religion class, or perhaps was taught at a religious private school, I do not think it would be violating the first amendment. However, teaching from the Bible is clearly pushing a specific religious agenda and is disregarding the contrasting religious beliefs others may have. This also interferes with students' education as they are not learning what has been scientifically proven.
In the idea of a science class, the idea of "Creationism" shouldn't be taught, solely because it does violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, by setting a agenda for a state religion. In reference to the Kentucky law that allowed Creationism in K-12 public schools, I agree with you in that it should have been repealed due to the fact that it is under public school regulations and not private. The theory of Creationism should be more centered for a religion class that deals with the ideas that Christianity has entailed.
I agree with your analysis of this case. The legislator is clearly trying to push forth a religious agenda in public schools. The theory of Creationism is not scientifically proven and therefore should not and cannot be taught as a fact in a fact driven scientific curriculum. Furthermore, the Bill shows a clear bias toward the Christian Religion, “any teacher may include as a portion of instruction the theory of creation as presented in the Bible” the suggestion of the Bible is a clear violation the Establishment Clause.
I would like to offer a rebuttal to your argument regarding Creationism being unfit for teaching within a public school. The theory of Creationism, albeit the main belief for the Christian religion, is still a fundamental aspect to the theory of evolution and has allowed us as a society to get to the point that we are in studying the science in it’s entirety. If anything, the theory of Creationism should still be utilized to show both similarities and differences between both views and to not limit students with such narrow minded beliefs that the state deems as “correct.” Finally, I would argue that this should apply to all other religions and their creation theories to compare and contrast as well.
In the case of Alabama HB-258 I agree that the establishment clause would clearly be violated. The recommendation of the use of Christian religious material clearly establishes a preferred religion of the state. Furthermore, I agree with Jenna's assessment that giving teachers the ability to choose how to emphasize creationism versus evolutionary fact would result in teacher's imposing their religious views on their students. Madison and Jefferson argued against giving magistrates this sort of free reign over shaping the religious lives of citizens. Addressing the point of creationism in the classroom as a whole, I believe no creation myths should be taught in science class in our public schools. It is important to recognize the context in which these laws are crafted, they attempt to establish creationism, a creation story only existing in the abrahamic faiths, this would establish these religions as state preferred religions. This means any law which does not promote all religious explanations of creation as alternatives to the scientific explanation would technically violate the establishment clause. Just from a practicality standpoint, only the secular and scientific explanation should be taught.
I agree that teaching "creationism" as part of a public school's science curriculum is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. These mythical ideologies are not fit for a supposed secular science classroom. Teaching religious creation beliefs should be done in religion specific classes/schools. Despite the school claiming it will not teach these theories through a religious lens, that seems nearly impossible considering the theories linked to creationism are inherently religious.
I agree with Andrew that the theory of Creationism is still a fundamental aspect to the theory evolution. I think that any challenging theory should be allowed (not forced) to be taught in public schools because all students have a right to learn about different theories. Even though creationism is not scientifically proven, it's still a very interesting and thought provoking theory. I don't think that any knowledgeable science teacher would turn this into a bible study class or preach about creationism. This is because in becoming science teachers, they learn the importance of testing theories and hypothesis and relying on facts and evidence. I think they should be allowed to teach their students about different theories that challenge the theory of evolution. Creationism, like evolution, are both very mysterious theories about how the world was created. Learning about multiple different theories would widen the students perspective and encourage them to find the right answers for themselves.
Creationism is clearly a highly controversial concept, one that I believe requires much thought and analysis. In terms of becoming a fully educated individual, I believe that education systems should be teaching opposing theories and thoughts. I would argue that when data and beliefs are tested and challenged, this is when we become more fully aware individuals as we are analyzing more than just one point of view. A very compelling point made by Jenna was when she highlighted the fact that ‘creationism’ is indeed a Christian belief, and teaching it would demote the beliefs of other religions. To this point, I would argue that educational systems need to of course emphasize evolution, as it is scientifically proven, but also teach other point of views and other theories that are related to different religions. With this, I think it could only benefit students to have more than one point of view in the classroom in order to fully conceptualize, understand, and compare the different theories in addition to the data that scientists have discovered and published regarding evolution over the past years. To understand the different theories that are believed does not equate to believing them yourself, especially if they are taught from an educational standpoint and not one that is trying to persuade them to believe it is correct. These teachings, of course, must be regulated carefully as no one religion should be promoted by the teacher. To conclude, if no educational professor is preaching his or her own beliefs, I believe it could only benefit the students to engage in thought provoking conversation and to analyze the different theories regarding the creation of this earth and humans alike.
I do not believe that teaching creationism in public schools is violating the Establishment Clause. It would not be alright to only teach creationism in schools but if it is taught along with other theories then I don’t think the mere teaching of it is favoring one religion over another. This is because the teaching of creationism is not promoting it over other religions. In fact, it is just teaching another theory, but it must be done carefully and not in any manner that is meant to be persuasive. I think it would be fine if other creation beliefs were taught as well, but I realize that not all religions can be taught in a science class. I think in many cases Christianity is the majority religion, but that does not mean it should be the only one taught or discussed in class. If any student requests to learn about another theory of creation, the teacher should teach whatever religion they want to learn about. In teaching creationism in school, a teacher must just present the theory and not push any particular religious beliefs and not favor any religion over another. In world history class in high school we did a unit on exploring different religions. Our teacher did not promote any religion, but we only had time to learn a few of the main world religions including Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. I did not think this was promoting one religion over the other as it was simply just trying to teach us about the most common ones. I think this same model should apply to teaching evolution as well.
Although there is an argument that the teaching of creationism as a theory is as valid as that of evolution (as it is also a theory), I find it inherently flawed as the theory of evolution is based in scientific theory, while creationism is based solely in Christian theology. That being said, a public school school refusing to teach or substituting creation for evolution is a violation of the establishment clause, as it is the public school, the government choosing theology to be taught.
Post a Comment