Religion and Spirituality - Essay Example

Religion and Spirituality The teaching of creation in public schools simply fulfills the purpose of protecting specific underling religious beliefs. If creation is to be taught, it is solely the responsibility of parents and the church because teaching the religious theories of creation in schools not only violates constitutional precepts, it also has the unintended effect of damaging the integrity of the religious point of view. Because this issue invokes intense passions from those driven by their religious faith, those who would stand up for the Constitution and those that gave the lives of their loved ones to protect it, this discussion will review constitutional reasoning for the teaching of evolution in public schools and explain the types and differing viewpoints of those factions opposed in attempt to clarify the debate. Americans are guaranteed the right to believe anything they wish by the U.S. Constitution including their own religious belief of creation, but it forbids these suppositions to be taught in public school science courses. Advocates of instructing creationism universally desire to impose their beliefs across a broad range of students of widely varying philosophical backgrounds. Their continuing efforts have persuaded some American schools to teach creationism, or intelligent design theory, instead of or along with evolution. These actions have initiated numerous debates among school boards, state legislatures and parents. The constitutional concept of the separation of church and state is advantageous for religion. In this case, it ensures that religious instruction will be taught by appropriately trained church personnel and parents and it prevents governmental intervention into religious matters. It also makes certain that school classrooms remain welcoming to all cultures and religions. The government can neither promote nor oppose particular religious beliefs or doctrines according to the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The Constitution does not impede religion by disallowing creationism to be taught. Instead, it guarantees religious freedoms by protecting individual rights to worship. The idea of creation is undeniably religious doctrine. The government, therefore, cannot promote it in classrooms as science without infringing on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that instructors may not teach that humans were created by God and must present only scientific explanations for the history of life. Creationism can not be presented as scientific fact. In addition, it is also unconstitutional to compel teachers to teach creationism and schools may not refuse to teach evolution in an effort to avoid offending religious individuals (Dorman, 2005). The idea of disclaimers placed in school books such as ‘the teaching of evolution is not intended to influence or dissuade the Biblical version of Creation or any other concept’ has been lawfully established to be unconstitutional (“Freiler”, 2000). An instructor also has the constructional right to teach evolution (“Epperson v. Arkansas”, 1968). Religious theories of creation may be incorporated into school curriculums as a comparative example of what some religious groups accept as fact. The foundations of scientific and intellectual integrity cannot accept the teaching of the religious theories of creation as an alternative point of view to evolution. This is because science involves the constant attempt to disprove hypotheses while religion simply accepts what has been written to be true. Religion is based on faith that is never questioned while science is based on knowledge that is constantly questioned (“Epperson v. Arkansas”, 1968). Creationism, creation science, and the intelligent design theory are similar terms that religious factions have used to explain origins of the universe that they want inserted into public education. Those that subscribe to creationism believe that God created the universe and then created man according to the explanation of creation offered in the Bible. Creation Science endeavors to provide evidence that the world was created by God by means of disproving the evolutionary theory and by provides ‘evidence’ that creation occurred as was told in the Bible. Intelligent Design theorists argue that because modern science has no positive proof of evolution, this fact undoubtedly demonstrates that divine intervention is the only rational explanation. Intelligent design theorists also believe in divine creation but do not generally refer to the Bible, they instead try to confirm God’s part in the creation of the universe and man. Creationists make much of their case around the claim that evolution has yet to be proven, yet it has been proven in the same way that scientists prove any other profoundly and commonly held scientific theory. Creationists are requiring a high level of verification from evolutionary theorists. Scientists must answer every question, whether reasonable or not, relating to the creation of life down to the tiniest detail to counteract the solid ‘proof’ the Bible provides. Evolution, because of the serious religious implications, is held up to a higher standard of proof. Gravity is universally accepted as true although it is a theory no more positively proved than is the theory of evolution. Many religious people of the 15th century believed the earth was flat while scientists and intellectuals such as Aristotle 2000 years earlier knew that it wasn’t (Jones, 2005). The fact that there is no definite proof of evolution does not make the process any less true although its exact route is the debate of evolutionists. Scientists conduct experiments designed to disprove theories so as to determine credible empirical evidence. The overwhelming evidence collected that supports the evolution of the universe, earth and everything on it is more than adequate to conclude that this theory is the only rational explanation for the origin of man appropriate for public schools. Science class is, after all, intended to teach what man knows of his surroundings, not what religion dictates. Proponents of the intelligent design theory emphasize that their condemnation of evolution is based on science, not religion, but cannot challenge these beliefs by subjecting them to the typical scientific experimentation procedures and debate. Intelligent design is unable to be examined using the methods of science, and therefore can never be a scientific conclusion (WGBH Educational Foundation, 2000). Because of this, creation ‘science’ is not appropriate for science classes and should not be used as a political tool or put to a vote. Only scientific methodologies produce science, beliefs do not, a matter that is a fact and not subject to political maneuverings or majority vote. “Truth in science is not determined democratically,” Michael Shermer wrote in Scientific American Magazine. “It does not matter what percentage of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the theory of evolution” (Shermer, 2002). The Supreme Court agreed in its ruling in the case Santa Fe v. Doe. “Fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections” (“Oyez”, 2000). The Constitution guarantees each citizen the right to be free from a government which supports and teaches religion. It is not a matter subject to the majority opinion at a given time. Attempts to establish religious beliefs into public school systems would certainly cause some teachers and students to be offended and, although Christianity is the predominant religion in the U.S., the Constitution serves to protect the minority. For government to force creationism onto schools would be decidedly un-American as well as illegal. Our country’s history has, for the most part, been free of sectarian conflicts that have beleaguered other areas of the world because the Constitution dictates that religion is free from governmental control and vice versa. “A union of government and religion tends to destroy government and degrade religion” (Black, 1962). The teachings of the Bible should be the responsibility of families and their clergy alone and hopefully are based on an understanding of the scientific knowledge. To disallow students a quality education in the sciences for fear of them rejecting their religious convictions is to admit that the religion was superficial to begin with. References Black, Justice. “Engel et al v. Vitale et al.” This Nation.com. 370 U.S. 421 (1962). May 20, 2006 Dorman, Clark. “Edwards v. Aguillard: US Supreme Court Decision.” The Talk Origins Archive. (November 6, 2005). May 20, 2006 < http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html> “Epperson v. Arkansas.” Supreme Court of the United States. (November 12, 1968). University of Missouri – Kansas City Law School. May 20, 2006 “Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education.” Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. (January 24, 2000). FindLaw: Thomson Publishing. May 20, 2006 < http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9830132cv1.html> Jones, Arthur. “Workshop: Myth and Fraud in Science Teaching from Copernicus to Darwin in the Textbooks and Popular Literature of Science.” (March 11, 2005). Dordt College. May 20, 2006 < http://center.dordt.edu/bjh_conference/2005/myth%20and%20fraud.htm> “Oyez: Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe.” The Oyez Project. Ed. Jerry Goldman. 530 U.S. 290 (2000). May 20, 2006 . Shermer, Michael. “Skeptic: The Gradual Illumination of the Mind.” Scientific American. (February 2002). WGBH Educational Foundation. “Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution.” Evolution. (2001). Public Broadcasting Systems. May 20, 2006 < http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat09.html> Read More