Teaching the Controversy: Why Creationism Should Not Be Taught as Science in School

Lessons like evolution should not be taught as fact. Therefore, I don’t understand the controversy surrounding the inclusion of creationism in school science classes. Maria Brisk, a prominent advocate of scientific education, argues that the very nature of creationism disqualifies it from being a scientific theory. Here, we delve into the reasons why creationism should not be taught as science in schools and explore the philosophical and practical implications of this issue.

The Scientific Validity of Creationism

Creationism, rooted in religious doctrine, lacks a scientific basis. The hypothesis is simple: ‘God created everything.’ Yet, no observations, empirical evidence, or observations from different scientific fields support this claim. The idea that everything is perfect and therefore must have been created by a deity fails to follow scientific methods and lacks testable hypotheses.

Maria Brisk muses, 'Do you have any supporting evidence from different fields? Can you imagine any finding that will make the theory invalid?' Without these elements, creationism cannot be considered a scientific theory. It is, however, important to discuss why it falls short of scientific standards in order to educate students to identify non-scientific claims. This can be done through lessons that explore the methodological differences between science and religion, such as distinguishing between creationist religious doctrine and scientific theories like evolution.

Philosophical and Constitutional Issues

The philosophical equivalence between creationism and evolution is also problematic. While evolution is an empirical, testable scientific theory, creationism is a religious doctrine based on faith. In the United States, public schools are constitutionally prohibited from endorsing any religious doctrine.

Public school teachers in the U.S. cannot equate Buddhist doctrines with scientific theories, nor can they present creationism alongside evolution as equally valid scientific theories. Maria Brisk emphasizes that 'Science and religion differ in basic ways.' Consequently, religion should remain in its proper domain, such as Sunday school or equivalent religious education settings, leaving science class for empirical, testable theories like evolution.

Alternative Educational Approaches

While creationism is not suitable for science classes, it can be a relevant topic in philosophy classes. Here, students can be taught to critically analyze the methodological differences between science and religion. These discussions can include the examination of creation stories and the recognition that there are 350 different creation myths, none of which can be verified as true.

Alternatively, addressing valid scientific objections to the modern synthesis of evolution can provide good material for high-school level discussions. Rather than teaching all controversial arguments, teachers can focus on and refute non-scientific fallacies. This can be done as an example of how science accepts dissent and responds to it, but this should be left for a higher level of education, such as high school, to avoid confusion at junior-high and elementary levels.

The controversy surrounding the teaching of creationism in science classes underscores the need for clear delineation between science and religion. By emphasizing the scientific method and empirical evidence, educators can ensure that students are equipped to distinguish between scientific theories and religious doctrines. Ultimately, the goal should be to teach the kids science and leave religiosity to its appropriate venues, such as church or Sunday school.