Aratari 1

Richel Aratari Kade Parry English 1010 - Section 064 2 December 2013 Biology Education: What Should the Curriculum Be? One of the controversial debates in education is the debate of evolution and how it should be taught to students. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, Evolution is "the transformation of animals, plants, and other living organisms in to different forms by the accumulation of changes over successive generations." ("Evolution" def. 8a) Creationism is "the belief that mankind and all kinds of living organisms, or, more widely, the earth and the physical universe generally, originated in specific acts of divine creation as related in the Bible or other sacred books." ("Creationism" def. 2) Another idea that is an alternative to evolution and creationism is intelligent design. Intelligent design suggests that biological structures that cannot be explained by evolution must have been designed by an intelligent force. (Nelson, "Intelligent Design Should Not Be Taught in Science Classes") Throughout this essay I will explain the point of views for the supporters of evolution, creationism, and intellectual design. I will also explain the alternative education, such as homeschooling, and concluding with a supportive argument for the teaching of evolution. When it comes to science, a theory is considered scientific fact. In the scientific method, a hypothesis is tested by multiple experiments before it is considered a theory. Supporters of evolution, which includes nearly all biologists, think that evolution and only evolution should be taught in the classrooms. In the article "Intelligent Design Should Not Be Taught in Science

Aratari 2

Classes", Craig E. Nelson argues that teaching intelligent design, and I would assume creationism, is wrong to teach because they are not scientific ideas, it would be against the constitution, potentially have legal costs, would possibly hold back economic growth, and more importantly bring up religion in a classroom setting. It would be pretty difficult to teach a subject to students when that subject has little to no evidence. How is one supposed to believe that an idea is credible without seeing physical proof? The constitution gives the freedom of religion and by extension implies the separation of church and state. Bringing up creationism and intelligent design in a classroom blurs the lines of that separation. Allowing creationism and intelligent design in a classroom would require the need for curricular revisions, textbook revisions and purchases which takes time and money; money that school districts doesnt have. Teaching these ideas would also cause economic growth to fall behind. As Professor Nelson says in his article, "New workers in states that de-emphasize the underlying evolutionary biology will be under-prepared for college science courses and for jobs in biotechnology, biomedicine and related fields. These fields are already driving major growth and redevelopment." Without the appropriate knowledge in evolutionary science that fields growth will come to a standstill and eventually fall behind. More importantly and possibly the greatest reason to keep creationism and intelligent design out of the classroom is to avoid bringing religion into the discussion. Bringing religion into a classroom setting is an uncomfortable situation, not only for those that are not religious but for students that may have different religious beliefs. For those that support creationism, they believe their views and ideas should be taught in Biology classes. According to Lawrence Budd's article, supporters say "including creationism

Aratari 3

would improve overall discussions." Legal counsel for the Ohio School Boards Association, Hollie Reddy stated "Schools may teach about religion, but they may not practice religion." So in their eye's, teachers should be allowed to teach about creationism as long as they don't tell students they have to believe creationism is fact. In January 2013 a study of 900 biology teachers by the University of Minnesota found that only 28 percent of those teachers focused solely on evolution. 13 percent of those teachers want to teach creationism and already devoted time in class to its study. (Budd, "District Alone in Creation Debate") Allison Miles argues in her article "Pro: Creationism, Evolution Should Both Have Their Place in School Curriculum," that the "United States was built on God and the money even says 'In God We Trust,' so incorporating creationism into the school curriculum seems a natural step." According to an international poll in June 2009, more than 10,000 adults agreed that God exists and that life later evolved through natural selection. 1,000 of those adults surveyed were from the United States. Of those 1,000 adults 53 percent held those same beliefs, 42 percent were unsure of Darwin's theory of evolution. Therefore 5 percent of those from the United States only believe in evolution. (Miles, "Pro: Creationism, Evolution Should Both Have Their Place in School Curriculum") According to a parent in Miles article, "many children grow up in less-than-ideal circumstances and hearing a bit more about religion could be a good thing." She adds learning about religion "wouldn't hurt them." Gary Bates, chief executive officer of Creation Ministries International, argues that the problem isnt that evolution is a science and creation is religion. Both evolution and creation are belief systems about the past. Bates says, Creationist and evolutionist have the same facts, rocks, living organisms, and DNA to study but they come to vastly different conclusions about the evidence. The problem is that the facts dont speak for

Aratari 4

themselves. Creationists are just asking for creationism to be taught in schools along with evolution, including evolutions inconsistencies. That would allow students to make their own opinions. (Miles, Pro: Creationism, Evolution Should Both Have Their Place in School Curriculum) Intelligent design is another idea on how life came about. Intelligent design is a mixture of evolution and creationism. Many evolutionists suggest that intelligent design is created by creationist to make their ideas seem non-religious. This takes away the specificity that God created life and changed that idea to an intelligent life form was the creator, whether that be some sort of God or Alien. Jack Wellman, a Christian author, argues that not teaching intelligent design or just minimizing biology education to just evolution, is violating rights to free speech. He also states that the Supreme Court is the judicial branch of our government, conceived as a counterbalance to the legislative branch. In this capacity it has the ability not to make laws, but to judge whether or not a law is being broken. The courts have been making laws, and this is not their job. The Supreme Court has been making laws stating that no other idea besides evolution can be taught in biology classrooms and they are doing this to keep the separation of Church and State. Wellman argues that there is no place in the U.S. Constitution, Articles, Amendments, or Declaration of Independence that says there should be separation of Church and State. He says that Thomas Jefferson only meant for there to be separation when it comes to the government funding religion or religion controlling the government. He believes that Jeffersons idea is taken out of context. (Wellman, Teaching intelligent Design Is Not a Violation of the Separation of Church and State)

Aratari 5

J. Scott Tumer, professor of biology at the State University of New York's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, despite thinking intelligent design is a "wrongheaded idea" believes it and other ideas should be brought up in a classroom. He says, "Even bad ideas can contain kernels of truth, and it is academe's role to find them." He also says that "asking questions about intelligent design could do anything but enrich our understanding about evolution and how we teach it." (Tumer, "Critics Should Not Fear Questions About Intelligent Design or Evolution") Some creationists home school their children to make sure they are being taught creationism in their biology class. It is the primary right and obligation of a parent to choose the appropriate educational alternative for a child under his care and supervision, as provided by law by. (qtd. in Perrino-Walker) But, at what cost? Homeschooling a child would mean a parent, who has not been educated as a teacher or possibly never been to college themselves, is expected to give the same quality of education as a public school. Parents already have a difficult time helping their children with homework when their child is in public school. There is more to being a good teacher than just reading out of a book. Great teachers know their subject and show enthusiasm in teaching it. Great teachers know the answers to the assignments they give out and know how to explain those answers in a way that will help the students progress. Teachers go through at least four years of college to master their craft, so it would seem impossible for a parent with no college education to give their child a good quality education. These students in home school programs are getting cheated on their education. A study conducted in 2003 by the National Center for Education Statistics showed that 72 percent of home school parents said they home school their children to provide religious or moral instruction. Parents may be giving their

Aratari 6

children the education they want them to have, but it is not the proper education they need to succeed in college. When it comes to biology, students in college will be expected to know the fundamentals of evolution. If parents only teach their children creationism while homeschooling, they will face confusion and be unprepared when they get to college level biology courses. (Shives, Homeschooling Curricula Do Not Meet Academic Standards) I do agree that students should be able to use critical thinking skills when it is in regards to evolution. However, I do not agree that the ideas of creationism of intelligent design should be used in critical thinking exercises in school. The ideas of creationism and intelligent design bring up the subject of religion and that is a subject that should not be brought up in a classroom setting. Bringing up the subject of religion in a classroom has the ability to turn into a heated debate against those that support evolution and those that support creationism. It also has the ability to create a debate between those that support creationism or intellectual design against each other. I believe that the best practice in this situation is only to teach scientific fact, which in this case is only evolution. The flaws or possible alternative hypotheses unrelated to religion can and should be discussed. Critical thinking skills can be utilized discussing the bigger picture of subjects deemed of importance. Critical thinking isn't only used while debating. If parents of students wish to have their children learn the ideas of creationism or intellectual design they should teach them on their own time. This creates a safe environment in the classroom where a student's religion won't be judged. Some supporters of creationism may say that teaching evolution offends some students and attack their beliefs. In reality this is not the case. Evolution is not taught in a way that offends. I have never witnessed a teacher throw evolution in a student's face, saying that their religion is wrong. Evolution, from what I've experienced, is

Aratari 7

taught like any other subject in Biology. It's taught by stating the definition, its origin, experiments, and the concluding results.

Aratari 8

Works Cited Budd, Lawrence. "District Alone in Creation Debate." Dayton Daily News. 03 Jun 2013: A.1. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 02 Dec 2013 "Creationism." The Oxford English Dictionary. 2013. "Evolution." The Oxford English Dictionary. 2013. Miles, Allison. "Pro: Creationism, Evolution Should Both Have Their Place in School." Victoria Advocate Victoria, TX. 22 Nov 2009: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 02 Dec 2013. Nelson, Craig E. "Intelligent Design Should Not Be Taught in Science Classes." Education. Ed. David Haugen and Susan Musser. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Design Isn't Science." Journal Gazette 28 Aug. 2005. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 Dec. 2013. Perrino-Walker, Celeste. "A Right to Faith?." Liberty: Magazine of Religious Freedom. Sep/Oct 2010: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 02 Dec 2013. Shives, Steve. "Homeschooling Curricula Do Not Meet Academic Standards." Homeschooling. Ed. Noah Berlatsky. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Homeschoolers Who Don't Learn Science Shouldn't Receive a Diploma." American Chronicle. 2008. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 Dec. 2013. Turner, Scott J. "Critics Should Not Fear Questions About Intelligent Design or Evolution." Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. At Issue. Rpt. from "Why Can't We Discuss Intelligent Design?" Chronicle of Higher Education 19 Jan. 2007: B20. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.

Aratari 9

Wellman, Jack. "Teaching Intelligent Design Is Not a Violation of the Separation of Church and State." Church and State. Ed. Lynn M. Zott. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Separation of Church and StateSchool Rights for Teaching Intelligent Design." Christian Article Bank. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 2 Dec. 2013.