Arguing in English

We were having this lovely discussion in English on this play that we're reading. It's central conflict is literally creationism vs. evolution, but it's really more about free thought, social commentary on McCarthyism, and progressivism vs. traditionalism. Anyway, we started to talk about teaching evolution and creationism in schools, and the fact came to light that 44% of adults in America believe in creationism as literally stated in the Bible! Only about 10% (or thereabouts) believe in god-less evolution, and the rest either aren't sure, or believe in evolution guided by god. So people started talking in this very happy, feel-good way about how evolution doesn't really contradict Christian beliefs assuming that you don't have a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. This I can agree with, but then people started to taking it to the level that both evolution and creationism should both be taught in biology classes. What utter absurdity! There are so many things wrong with this!

First, creationism is not actually science. Science is the study of creating generalizations from empirical data in order to develop an explanation of the physical world. Creationism doesn't fit into any of these categories, nor is it possible for it to do so. It's not science, so it shouldn't be taught in science. Furthermore, teaching it in as part of a science curriculum gives students the false impression that it has scientific merit, of which it has none. I'm not saying you can disprove it, it's just that it has no part in the realms of scientific education. It could, probably should, and generally is taught as part of comparative religion studies in world history classes. Teaching it in science classes along side evolution also implies that it is more valid than the plethora of other religious creation beliefs. This is called endorsement. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor ruled in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984): "Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." It is not, however, endorsement to teach creationism in a social studies environment. This is because the study of things in social studies is generally determined by their importance, or in this case, significance to the world. In other words, in this kind of comparative religion study, one would learn about the most major world religions because of their historical and cultural importance. More importantly though, the social studies are generally not concerned with the truth of physical reality, but rather the impact of things on humanity. The study of religions in social studies never actually concerns itself with whether one religion is right or wrong, it just compares and assesses the beliefs of each and its impact of history, society, and culture. That is not by definition, endorsement.

Chris Blake then tried to tell me that not teaching creationism in biology classes would be "biased," even if evolution was presented as being the theory that it is. But then, isn't is "biased" to deny the existence of UFOs in physics classes? If science can't rule out of its realm of study pure metaphysics, mysticism, and things that can't be proven or disproven, then there can be no science. Thus, teaching creationism or any other religious beliefs in science classes is one of the stupidest ideas I've heard in a long time.