Should Evolution Be Taught in the Public Schools - Essay Example

Introduction Perhaps no school lesson is more fraught with controversy then the theory of evolution. On the one side are the parents who believe that the theory of evolution is a necessary part of a child’s biological education, and, without this knowledge, children cannot possibly understand more complex biological and medical theories which rely upon evolution for explanation. On the other end are parents who are religious, and believe that the earth was created in six days about 10,000 years ago. They feel that evolutionary theory would undermine their religious teachings for their child, and, because evolution is theory and not fact, they feel that it should not be taught on this basis as well. While both sides have valid arguments, the argument for teaching evolution in public schools clearly trumps, because parents have a right to ensure that their child gets the best education possible, and a failure to instruct on evolutionary theory in the public schools clearly undermines this basic right. Argument The theory of evolution, which states that species have evolved over time, is a theory which must be taught in public schools. Lerner (2000) states that there are good standards for what school children should know about the theory, depending upon the child’s grade. He states that children from grades kindergarten to third grade should understand that living things reproduce, and that the offspring may not be exactly like their parents. They should also understand that a living things must grow up or change before reproducing. Another fact that they must learn is that the earth is over four billion years old. When children are between the ages of nine and twelve, they should be taught about how evolution results in competition and survival between and within species, and the factors that go into species survival, such as environmental, predatory and temperature factors. They should also learn that species adapt to different environments, and that genetic variation results in mutations that may help species adapt to this environment. Also, the theory of natural selection should be understood. When a child is between middle and high school, they should know about such concepts as genetic drift, sexual selection and the complex interactions of ecosystems (Lerner, 2000). Evolutionary theory should be taught, despite the objections of religious individuals who object to the theory being taught, for a variety of reasons. The first set of these reasons address why the theory should be taught, despite the objections of religious individuals. The second set addresses why the theory is important, in general, to learn. For the first set, the first reason why evolutionary theory should be taught is that the United States has a firm tenet that church and state must be separated. In essence, if there is a statute that prohibits the teaching of evolution in the public school, and the basis for this is because the religious parents object on the grounds that teaching the theory runs contrary to their religious teaching, then the state is, in effect, giving support to these religious views (Emerson, 1960). Emerson (1960) compares to this type of prohibition to be the same as if a medical school was forbidden to teach about birth control methods because Roman Catholics object. This would mean that the state is siding with the Roman Catholics, which is tantamount to supporting this religion (Emerson, 1960). This argument makes sense, because all religions have different tenets and beliefs, so it is not the job of schools to design curriculums to make sure that nobody is offended. If a Christian can make a demand that the curriculum must be aligned with their beliefs, then so can the Muslim and the Jew, etc. Eventually, there would be nothing acceptable to teach in the public schools. The second reason why the prohibition of teaching evolution in schools would be wrong is because it would be a violation of the freedom of expression. Americans have the freedom of expression secured by the First Amendment, and directing schools to not teach evolution would be chilling this First Amendment guarantee. It would be tantamount to the government taking an action that would abridge the freedom of speech, and, as such, any laws prohibiting the teaching of evolution in public schools would be a violation of the First Amendment (Emerson,1960). While these are two constitutional arguments as to why the theory should not be banned from the public school system, there are pragmatic arguments as well. Antolin & Herber (2001) state that the theory of evolution is necessary to teach in public schools because it forms the basis of complex biological theories, so it is necessary for children to learn evolutionary theory so that they may have a springboard for learning the other, more complex theories. For instance, in the field of medicine, antibiotics are used to treat a variety of illnesses, and vaccines are used to prevent illness. However, microbes may become resistant to antibiotics and vaccines. It is necessary to know the theories as to why viruses and infections mutate to become antibiotic resistant, and these theories are based upon evolutionary theory. In agriculture, evolutionary theory is used to create new strains of plants that are disease-resistant or high-yield. Farmers use the principles of natural selection to breed these new crops. Similarly, in the field of biotechnology, bacteria may be engineered to have desirable traits, which is important for the field of genetics (Antolin & Herber, 2001). In short, evolutionary theory is a springboard for many other scientific theories, which form the basis for many important developments in the field of science and medicine. If evolutionary theory is not taught in the public schools, then these children will never develop these scientific basics which are necessary to understand these more complex scientific theories, which puts the children, later adults, at a great detriment. Counterargument On the other side of the evolution argument are the creationists. There are different kinds of creationists, and the most common is the so-called “young earth” creationists. The young-earth creationists have a view of life’s origins which is based upon a strict interpretation of the Bible. Specifically, their view was that the world was created, as well as all the life on earth, in six days. They also believe that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old. They believe in evolution in that all life-forms have undergone trivial modifications, but do not believe in large-scale, basic changes in organisms. They also believe that the fossil record, which has been used by scientists to bolster the theory of evolution, as left behind by Noah’s flood. Those who believe in Intelligent Design, which states that nature’s complexity is proof of God’s existence, and that God has had a hand in the evolution of life (Beckwith, 2004). Creationists contend that either evolution should not be taught or that creationism should be taught side by side with evolution. There are a variety of reasons for this viewpoint. One of the reasons is that evolution is considered by some to be nothing but a theory, therefore, to teach it as if it is a fact is wrong. According to this theory, evolution is an educated guess. Creationists state that because nobody was actually around to record the origin of life, that evolution is treated as a theory, much like “a theory on how a crime was committed or why our favorite sports legend failed to score the winning points.” Related to this is the fact that evolution is still a subject of scientific debate, therefore there is still substantial disagreement and criticism within the scientific community (Antolin & Herbers, 2001). Therefore, creationists believe that there is not enough scientific evidence to support evolution as an explanation of the origin of life, and there was no “smoking gun” so to speak to back up the claims of the evolutionists, therefore evolution should not be taught. Another argument that creationists might use against teaching evolution in school is that evolution is a brutal theory, in that it involves natural selection. It is also considered to be “morally bankrupt,” which runs counter to the Christian belief that life is sacred and that life’s origins are in a “peaceable kingdom.” Related to this is the fact that evolution touts survival of the fittest, which denotes that the weaker members of a species will die out in favor of the fitter members. This is anathema to the Christian belief, because the theory of survival of the fittest can and has been used to justify racism and negative social policies (Antolin & Herbers, 2001). These arguments appear to state that evolutionary theory should not be taught because it promotes negative values, such as survival of the fittest and natural selection. Since these values run counter to Christian beliefs in the sacredness of life and of a peaceable kingdom, the theory should not be taught for fear that these values will become mainstream. Another argument that creationists might use against teaching evolution is that evolution promotes atheism. This is self-explanatory, as evolution runs counter to what the Bible has taught us and, under evolutionary theory, God is clearly not involved. Therefore, it stands to reason that the evolutionary theory is an atheistic theory, and it might promote atheism amongs the people who learn the theory. In fact, some creationists, such as Philip Johnson, author of the book Darwin on Trial, claims that atheism is a prerequisite for believing in evolutionary theory (Antolin & Herbers, 2001). Finally, creationists argue that teaching creationism is fair. This argument is predicated on the notion that fairness is fundamental in American society, which has given us equal-access laws, equal-funding laws and the opportunity for every voice to be heard. Therefore, since American society is open-minded and fair, and scientific inquiry demands that different theories be presented so that a wide range possibilities may be considered, creationism should be taught alongside evolution (Antolin & Herbers, 2001). In evaluating the arguments against teaching evolution, it appears that the strongest argument that the creationists put forth is that evolution promotes atheism. There is not a doubt that the theory of evolution eschews God. There is also little doubt that most Americans believe in God. Therefore, it would stand to reason that most parents would not want their child to be exposed to a theory which might make their child doubt the existence of God. One way to redress this would be to state that parents who feel this way may either home-school their child or put their child into a parochial school. Unfortunately, this is not an option for many parents. The cost of parochial school is beyond the reach of many parents, and many other parents may not be able to home-school their child because of time constraints presented by both parents working. Therefore, it is not realistic to tell parents to simply pull their child from the public school system. So, basically, their children are captive audiences for the evolutionary theory, and the parents cannot be blamed for not wanting their children exposed to a theory which would conflict with fundamental religious beliefs. Response to Counterarguments The first counterargument that will be examined is the one that states that evolution is only a theory, therefore should not be taught in public schools. Antolin & Herber (2001) state that this argument has been misinterpreted by creationists, as Antolin & Herber claim that creationists are using the vernacular meaning of the word “theory.” Creationists claim that the theory evolution is the equivalent to a theory that was formed on why a crime was committed or why a sports legend did not score a winning point. On the other hand, evolutionary theory has much more empirical evidence supporting it then do these other theories, therefore, when creationists use the excuse that evolution should not be taught because it is only a theory, they are using the word “theory” improperly. The second counterargument is that evolutionary theory, with its emphasis on natural selection and survival of the fittest, is amoral and does not fit in with the Christian beliefs in a peaceable kingdom. This argument is wrong, as Christians and their beliefs basically have no place in a public school. This is because there is clearly a separation of church and state. Therefore, even though the evolutionary theory does not fit in with their Christian world-view, this is not a reason to not teach the theory. And, this argument is weak because the hard fact is that many things in life are cold and cruel. Just because they are does not mean that they cannot be taught. If this is the standard that is to be used to dictate what can and cannot be taught in public schools, then schoolchildren may not learn about wars, slavery and persecution, because all of these topics are necessarily cold and cruel. Schoolchildren must learn the facts,without putting a judgment on these facts. In examining the argument that creationism promotes atheism, as noted above, this argument is stronger than the other arguments. Nevertheless, this argument is weak because of the separation of church and state issue. In other words, schools are not in the business of censoring their curricula because parents might be offended. It is probably impossible to design a curricula where somebody will not be offended, so schools should not even try. Plus, even if parents do have an interest in ensuring that their child is not exposed to a theory which runs counter to religious teaching, their interest must be balanced with the interest that other children have in actually learning the theory. In other words, one parent, who does not want his child exposed to evolutionary theory, is trampling on the rights of another parent, who does want his child to know this theory. Perhaps the parent desires for his child to go to medical school, and, if that child does not learn evolutionary theory, the child will be severely disadvantaged when the child gets into college and takes prepatory biology courses. Or, perhaps the parent simply wants the child to have a well-rounded biological education. Whatever the reason, parents have a reasonable expectation that this important theory will be taught to their child. It is therefore unfair for the religious parent to try to force decisions on the schoolboard that will affect children whose parents clearly want the theory to be taught. Conclusion Evolutionary theory is an important theory for schoolchildren to learn, as it forms the basis of so much scientific knowledge and important medical and scientific fields. It is unfair for students to be deprived of this education, because it would mean that they would arrive at college without the basis of understanding basic biological theory. This would put these children at a disadvantage relative to their peers who did get this education, and this could adversely affect the child throughout his or her college career. It is unfair for religious parents to try to control the school curricula in this way, especially in light of the fact that this country has a separation of church and state, and, as such, religious objections cannot control state run functions. While religious parents do have a semi-valid objection to the theory being taught, in that it is atheistic and might lead their children to question their religious teachings, these objections are not strong enough to overcome the arguments for teaching the theory in school. Bibliography Antolin, M. & Herbers, J. (2001) Perspective: Evolution’s struggle for existence in America’s public schools. International Journal of Organic Evolution, 55.12: 2379-2388. Beckwith, F. (2004-2005) Rawl’s dangerous idea? Liberalism, evolution and the legal requirement of religious neutrality in public schools. Journal of Law and Religion, 20: 423-458. Emerson, T. & Haber, D. (1960) The Scopes case in modern dress. University of Chicago Law Review, 27.3: 522-528. Lerner, L. (2000) Good and bad science in US school: One-third of US states have unsatisfactory standards for teaching evolution. Nature, 407.21: 1-10. Read More