Should Creationism be Taught in Public Schools?

Jan 12 • Group Discussion • 2827 Views • 35 Comments on Should Creationism be Taught in Public Schools?

creationism be taught in public schools

 creationism be taught in public schools

should creationism be taught in public schools

Teaching Creationism in public schools has been a controversial topic in America’s public schools for almost a century. Unfortunately, while the controversy is an issue that nearly every American has an opinion about, it is also an issue about which most Americans know very little. Research by the National Center of Science Education has shown that only a minority of Americans understand the most basic concepts of evolutionary theory; and while most Americans claim to attend church regularly, decades of research by Wheaton College shows that Americans know very little about what the Bible actually says. In order to develop a reasonable opinion on the issue, it is important to understand the arguments on both sides; and nearly everyone who understands both sides of the debate agrees Creationism, or other alternatives to evolution, should not be taught in public schools.

The first step to understanding the debate is to define what is meant by Creationism. According to the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based intelligent design research center, “Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago.” Many people confuse such strict Creationism with the idea of intelligent Design. According to Stephen Meyer, PhD, “[Intelligent Design] holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.” Prominent advocates for Intelligent Design include Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe.

Very few people actually advocate teaching such strict Creationism in public schools—let alone in science classes. There are some scientists actively working on defending literal interpretations of the Bible. In 2007, a New York Times article featured a controversy over Marcus Ross, who was being awarded a PhD in paleontology by the University of Rhode Island. While Ross’s research at Rhode Island was strictly in line with evolutionary theory, it was well known that he personally held Creationist beliefs and intended to pursue such research after graduation. Ross now teaches at Liberty University, a conservative Christian college. But, while Ross is a Creationist, he readily admits the scientific evidence for Creationism is still small; but, he believes there is a growing number of scientists studying the topic and the field is ripe for development.

While there is a clear and meaningful distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design, neither should be taught in public schools at this time. People can debate whether Intelligent Design truly meets the definition, but the fact remains that the concept is in early stages of research. Secondary school science classes, for good reason, teach the basic and most well established concepts of science. There are many cutting-edge research areas in biology, such as systems biology and astrobiology, and these fields are not addressed in public schools. Intelligent Design, at best, fits into the category of emerging science fields that students can study after they understand the foundational concepts taught in public secondary schools.

Tell us Your Queries, Suggestions and Feedback

Your email address will not be published.

35 Responses to Should Creationism be Taught in Public Schools?

  1. Subhayan Das says:

    The creativity thing in human beings has brought the human race far ahead from where it was just a decade ago . Today all the valve of human race are being loosened to make the bonds of socialism in to prime existence and there can be seen to be a wave of old logics being lightened again on the completion of a round circle as we might say !
    So in this era of localisation ,creativity must and with immediate effect shall be localised through public schools ,school has been the most asthetic opening of new born ideas and the play ground of many evil as well!!!

  2. BRAJA GOPAL BERA says:

    There is no reason that Creationism should not discussed in the public schools because evolution is being taught and after 125 years, it remains a theory. Additionally, evidence against the theory of evolution should be allowed to be discussed. There should be freedom to speak about the lack of fossil evidence like all of the missing links that should show transitional fossils evolving from one species into another. The only evidence that the theory of evolution has right now are sketches, drawings, and computer images that show purported transitions of one species evolving into another, different species. The fossil evidence has never supported this theory and students have every right to know all of the facts.
    Teaching more than evolution.

    In all subjects at school you learn multiple variations and different ways to do it or how to understand it. Teaching creationism is like teaching history, as i saw someone else post. Christianity and other religions is what structured the US and places we live. How can you saw the Pledge of Alligiance and say it under our Heavenly Fathers name but yet be so against it. It is history, we learn about it in school because without it our country would have been built upon other standards.

  3. Rajdeep Podder says:

    No the politician should not be categorized as the older or younger but it should be given importance to the knowledge that needed to leads people. the govt can set up a board to select those people who want to became the politician like the other professional courses.

  4. Amalendu Biswas says:

    The first step to understanding the debate is to define what is meant by Creationism. According to the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based intelligent design research center, “Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago.” Many people confuse such strict Creationism with the idea of intelligent Design. According to Stephen Meyer, PhD, “[Intelligent Design] holds that there are tell-tale features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by a designing intelligence. The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it disputes Darwin’s idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.” Prominent advocates for Intelligent Design include Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe.

  5. Sourav sain says:

    I think creationism must be taught in public schools,it will lead to a full development of the students. The scientific basis for creationism having been well debunked time and again in the comments below me, I feel it’s important to touch on another side of the issue. Christians, Jews, Muslims, I ask you; Why would you wish to relinquish your religion to government control? Were the pilgrims not seeking to avoid government regulation of religion when they first set sail for the new world? You see, by thinking only in the short term, by getting caught up in the debate over whether or not creationism is scientifically valid you’ve missed the really important question: “Do I want the government in the business of teaching, regulating and disseminating my religion?” Because, make no mistake, this is what you are asking for. By allowing the government to teach creationism you are leaving it up to them to teach your children about god. Why would you want this? Would you not be happier allowing your children to learn about the physical world at school- saving the religious talk for your home.

  6. Saurabh Jajoo says:

    creationism shouldn’t be taught in public schools. It may cause a number of impacts. As we know the mean of creationism is to know the evolution of earth and our growth in terms of some natural power. We also knows that we have a number of religions which have their different opinions for evolution and growth of the earth. Then tell me if you are connecting this subject with school level subjects then which religion’s opinion will be considered in it. If we are going to add christian opinion means we are hurting islamic opinion or believe and vice-versa . In this case students will also get confused that which one is right. So this is a bad idea to consist a subject like creationism in the school level syllabus.

  7. Vipul Bhashkar says:

    hello friends,
    I am against of teaching religion based creationism in public school. Because it will show a path far from reality, far from proof, far from science. This creationism create mess or nothing.If government want to add it in syllabus then add some scientific facts not orthodox. And if it is very necessary to teach then i think mosque, temple and church are already available for this job. Government doesn’t need to take responsibilities of teaching creationism in regard of religion.
    And one more thing i want to add that there are many religions in country each and every person want to give his/her values to her successor not others then how could government afford such type of syllabus that will cover all religions creationism together.
    And one more thing that before attempting to place a single religion’s creation myth in a class that is meant to deal solely with scientific evidence is utterly wrong. Creationism has never been observed in any sort of demonstrable conditions, whereas evolution has been observed and well documented in numerous laboratories. It is obvious which should be covered in a science course. Many uneducated folk attempt to misuse scientific terms, and claim that “evolution is JUST a theory”. Unfortunately for these people, they don’t understand the differences between a Law, a Theory and a Hypothesis. Perhaps if they took the time to do a little research (or stay awake in class) they’d understand how foolish they sound. There is only ONE class where it could be deemed acceptable to teach Creationism, and that is in History…preferably while going over all the religious beliefs and myths of other cultures/people. That way, Christian doctrine can have the same time as Wicca, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Daoism, Zoroastria, Buddhism, etc.
    Finally i conclude one thing that we need to redefine the meaning of creationism in our society that will be acceptable for each and everyone.

  8. Vivek Singh says:

    There is no reason that Creationism should not discussed in the public schools because evolution is being taught and after 125 years, it remains a theory. Additionally, evidence against the theory of evolution should be allowed to be discussed. There should be freedom to speak about the lack of fossil evidence like all of the missing links that should show transitional fossils evolving from one species into another. The only evidence that the theory of evolution has right now are sketches, drawings, and computer images that show purported transitions of one species evolving into another, different species. The fossil evidence has never supported this theory and students have every right to know all of the facts.

  9. priti Singh says:

    No creationism shouldn’t be taught in public schools, and here’s why.

    When it comes to religion, a little healthy skepticism goes a long way. Ask yourself two questions… Firstly: if the universe is so complex that it needed an allmighty, all-powerful, all-knowing creator, then by that logic, doesn’t the creator need a creator?? He’s gotta be complex to be able to create a whole universe…

    secondly… Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all have one thing in common…the fact that you reap the “rewards” of your “faith” after death…Why is that? Why can “heaven” only be realized in the after life after you are dead? That’s because when you die, you can’t come back and warn people there’s really nothing. Read the bible, torah and Quran carefully, and you’ll notice how political these texts are. they were written by MAN to rule society. Religion is a tool to pacify people so they allow their government to get away with murder… Look at countries that are ruled by Sharia law… The masses are oppressed and they allow this to happen…

  10. priti Singh says:

    No creationism shouldn’t be taught in public schools, and here’s why. The whole idea of “god” is open to interpretation. We’d be bickering over whose “god” we should teach about in school. The Christians would want Jesus to be taught to the children, the Muslims would want Allah’s message to prevail, the Jews would want the torah to be read… It’s too much. There is no evidence of god existing.

    When it comes to religion, a little healthy skepticism goes a long way. Ask yourself two questions… Firstly: if the universe is so complex that it needed an allmighty, all-powerful, all-knowing creator, then by that logic, doesn’t the creator need a creator?? He’s gotta be complex to be able to create a whole universe…

    secondly… Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all have one thing in common…the fact that you reap the “rewards” of your “faith” after death…Why is that? Why can “heaven” only be realized in the after life after you are dead? That’s because when you die, you can’t come back and warn people there’s really nothing. Read the bible, torah and Quran carefully, and you’ll notice how political these texts are. they were written by MAN to rule society. Religion is a tool to pacify people so they allow their government to get away with murder… Look at countries that are ruled by Sharia law… The masses are oppressed and they allow this to happen…

    People are willing to ask HARD questions when it comes to buying a new car, a new house or anything; but when it comes to committing your ENTIRE life to a religion, or strapping a bomb to your chest and killing innocent people, they don’t question a thing. They just follow…Why is that? why are people skeptical about everything but “god” and religion?

  11. Sanchari Bhattacharya says:

    There is no reason that Creationism should not discussed in the public schools because evolution is being taught and after 125 years, it remains a theory. Additionally, evidence against the theory of evolution should be allowed to be discussed. There should be freedom to speak about the lack of fossil evidence like all of the missing links that should show transitional fossils evolving from one species into another. The only evidence that the theory of evolution has right now are sketches, drawings, and computer images that show purported transitions of one species evolving into another, different species. The fossil evidence has never supported this theory and students have every right to know all of the facts.Creationism, creation science and intelligent design are ideas based on varying interpretations of the Bible and different religious beliefs. Consequently, any attempt to supplant or even to supplement the teaching of evolution in public schools in a way that promotes these ideas would have the effect of advancing religious views. By protecting the right and ability of students to learn science that is not molded by religious doctrine, we best fulfill the promise and purpose of the First Amendment.

    The theory of evolution is a fundamental concept of biology and it is supported by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence. Simply eliminating evolution from the public school curriculum in order to ease community tensions would do a great disservice to all students. First, it would deny public school students an adequate science education – which is more and more becoming a necessity for professional success in a high-tech world. Second, it would send the message that families cannot be trusted to reach correct conclusions when confronted by ideas that may appear to conflict with their own religious beliefs.

  12. Ritu says:

    Creationism, creation science and intelligent design are ideas based on varying interpretations of the Bible and different religious beliefs. Consequently, any attempt to supplant or even to supplement the teaching of evolution in public schools in a way that promotes these ideas would have the effect of advancing religious views. By protecting the right and ability of students to learn science that is not molded by religious doctrine, we best fulfill the promise and purpose of the First Amendment.

    The theory of evolution is a fundamental concept of biology and it is supported by the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence. Simply eliminating evolution from the public school curriculum in order to ease community tensions would do a great disservice to all students. First, it would deny public school students an adequate science education – which is more and more becoming a necessity for professional success in a high-tech world. Second, it would send the message that families cannot be trusted to reach correct conclusions when confronted by ideas that may appear to conflict with their own religious beliefs.

  13. Vikash Yadav says:

    Many today claim that only evolution should be taught in the public, tax-supported schools of our land. Let us look at their reasoning and formulate a response.

    The basic assumption of modern evolutionary theory is that no Supernatural Being has ever been involved in this universe. The basic definition of science even has been changed to imply Naturalism. If there is no Creator, there is no creation, and teaching creation is folly. Furthermore, the claim that creation is religious implies that teaching it would violate the “establishment clause” in the Constitution. Beyond that, the claim that creation ideas have been disproved by science implies it would be a waste of valuable classroom time to teach it.

    On the other hand, many modern educators believe that the inclusion of creation in the public school curriculum is both proper and advantageous, for the following reasons:

    The assumption of no supernatural input into the universe is unscientific. At best, it is unfounded, impossible of proof, and religious to the extreme.

  14. Ritu says:

    i think that hanging till death is not sufficient punishment because 3 out of those six criminal want that punishment,and if we give this to them it is like fulfill their will. i think made them impotent is quite good punishment and after some year of pain then we can give this punishment for end of those life.

    know that the parents of that girl want a hard cruel punishment for those criminal and the whole world also want it so the punishment should be very cruel.

    i want to now that how many of you are agreed with me or who is not and why with your opinion.

    Some thing more needs to be done , it should not remain just delhi rape case , It should become an example for evcery one who feels wemen as rhere dolls but , DO Indian wemen also need to understand “Freedom comes with responsibility”

  15. Ritu says:

    Many today claim that only evolution should be taught in the public, tax-supported schools of our land. Let us look at their reasoning and formulate a response.

    The basic assumption of modern evolutionary theory is that no Supernatural Being has ever been involved in this universe. The basic definition of science even has been changed

    to imply Naturalism. If there is no Creator, there is no creation, and teaching creation is folly. Furthermore, the claim that creation is religious implies that teaching it would violate the “establishment clause” in the Constitution. Beyond that, the claim that creation ideas have been disproved by science implies it would be a waste of valuable classroom time to teach it.

    On the other hand, many modern educators believe that the inclusion of creation in the public school curriculum is both proper and advantageous, for the following reasons:

    The assumption of no supernatural input into the universe is unscientific. At best, it is unfounded, impossible of proof, and religious to the extreme.

    The claim that belief in creation is religious, is, of course, true, but no more religious than belief in evolution. Both are based on similar, but opposite religious assumptions. The two concepts are on equal religious footing, and to mandate the teaching of only one (i.e., evolution), while censoring the other, “establishes” a state religion, and certainly prohibits the “free exercise” of the religious practice held by creationists. To make matters worse, “free speech” is frequently abridged in such onesided forums.

  16. Vivek Singh says:

    The biggest boon in privatization is “kick out” of reservation. In our country where the general quota people are fighting over a few places, the reserved people are having to break no sweat to have a job. Private sectors are a blessing in disguise for the unemployed general status people. Where your is purely base on merit and not from where you came from. Its a launchpad for a person’s career. There is this corruption and politics in a government sector which is not seen in private companies, except for the smaller ones. It is the only way to improve our society. Yes, the financially backward people may find it difficult to come terms to the huge application fees, but that can be sorted off. Privatization do indeed create a level field.

    • Subhendu Ghosh says:

      Creationism is unscientifically illiterate.
      Mathematics itself does not support any evidence whatsoever of there being a benevolent anything in the universe, there is likely no after life, nor is it probable that there is a creator. Evolution however can and has been scientifically tested and proven, after the laws of physics everything else is opinion. The laws of physics and evolution exist whether you choose to believe in them or not, science has spoken.
      Creationism is not science, and should not be thought as such.
      Creationism has no scientific background. Absolutely no facts. Everything about creationism comes from a book. If we are going to teach creationism in school, we might as well teach Harry potter in science class also. Her is creationism in 1 sentence, a cosmic Jewish zombie will allow people to live with him forever in his magical sky castle, but only if we telepathically tell him he is our master, and we do this all because a rib woman at a fruit from a magic tree because a talking snake told her to do so.

      • Shweta Chattopadhyay says:

        According to my opinion,creationism should not be taught in public schools.This is because all the public schools have got students with different religions,caste and creed.Now,if creationism is to be taught in public schools,question arises mythology of which religion should be taught and since ours is a secular country,every religion is treated with equal priority.Teaching about any particular religion or the mythological potentials of any particular God or Goddess may pertain privileges to certain group of students while the at the same time the others might not get what is being taught since they are from different background and at times may disagree upon the subject.Moreover Science and teachings of religion should not be mingled upon.Hence basics of science and religious teachings should be kept apart.

  17. preety kumari says:

    No creationism shouldn’t be taught in public schools, and here’s why. The whole idea of “god” is open to interpretation. We’d be bickering over whose “god” we should teach about in school. The Christians would want Jesus to be taught to the children, the Muslims would want Allah’s message to prevail, the Jews would want the torah to be read… It’s too much. There is no evidence of god existing.

    When it comes to religion, a little healthy skepticism goes a long way. Ask yourself two questions… Firstly: if the universe is so complex that it needed an allmighty, all-powerful, all-knowing creator, then by that logic, doesn’t the creator need a creator?? He’s gotta be complex to be able to create a whole universe…

    secondly… Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all have one thing in common…the fact that you reap the “rewards” of your “faith” after death…Why is that? Why can “heaven” only be realized in the after life after you are dead? That’s because when you die, you can’t come back and warn people there’s really nothing. Read the bible, torah and Quran carefully, and you’ll notice how political these texts are. they were written by MAN to rule society. Religion is a tool to pacify people so they allow their government to get away with murder… Look at countries that are ruled by Sharia law… The masses are oppressed and they allow this to happen…

    People are willing to ask HARD questions when it comes to buying a new car, a new house or anything; but when it comes to committing your ENTIRE life to a religion, or strapping a bomb to your chest and killing innocent people, they don’t question a thing. They just follow…Why is that? why are people skeptical about everything but “god” and religion?

  18. abhijeet basak says:

    The scientific basis for creationism having been well debunked time and again in the comments below me, I feel it’s important to touch on another side of the issue. Christians, Jews, Muslims, I ask you; Why would you wish to relinquish your religion to government control? Were the pilgrims not seeking to avoid government regulation of religion when they first set sail for the new world? You see, by thinking only in the short term, by getting caught up in the debate over whether or not creationism is scientifically valid you’ve missed the really important question: “Do I want the government in the business of teaching, regulating and disseminating my religion?” Because, make no mistake, this is what you are asking for. By allowing the government to teach creationism you are leaving it up to them to teach your children about god. Why would you want this? Would you not be happier allowing your children to learn about the physical world at school- saving the religious talk for your home. You see freedom of religion is freedom from religion and freedom FOR religion.

  19. Abhinav Gupta says:

    Creationism should be taught in classrooms so that children should know more about the mythology but the approach should be critical so they could know about the scientific aspect of creation.

  20. Siddhant Tripathi says:

    Creationism, according to me, should be taught; as one has the equal right to know of its origin and consequence.If our mythological literature pieces are taught along with the academic curriculum then it would facilitate some divine aspects that help in self introspection of the individual which is the need of the hour for most of the youths that are suffering from depression and other kinds of pressures.
    Creationism will help people in coping up with problematic situations in life and will help in cultivation of characteristics or traits like patience and optimism in them.
    This will then lead them think healthy and prove beneficial for them as well as the nation as intellect like them will participate in building a nation.For a country like Indian sub-continent, Creationism will emerge out as a gifted boon.In my opinion it should be included.
    .
    .
    P.S.-To all those who took the word wrong.. kindly see to it that “Creationism” has NOTHING to do with creativity of any sort.

  21. Puja Agarwal says:

    Criticism should be taught in schools as it will explore knowledge in student and student will become more good in skills they may bring new ideas some changes could me made for the well being of society…so it should be brought in schools.

  22. Shilpa Ranjan says:

    well according to me as a subject it must be taught in public schools. It has been a very controversial subject that it should be taught or not. It should be taught because it enhances creativity and skills..!!!!

  23. Ankita Prajapati says:

    Not only can creation science be legally taught in the public schools, it can be taught right out of the Bible..so, I agree that creationism should be taught in public schools..

  24. sakshi chaudhary says:

    creationism should be tought in the schools to enhancing ones creativity…so it must be encouraged..

  25. Shaheen Khan says:

    I m also agree to the statement of creationism teaching. A student should be creative & innovative because they r full of energetic & have a eager to to learn prominent things. Bit beside this guiding is also necessary to implement new ideas in proper way.

  26. Rajan Ranjan Prasad says:

    hello friends….
    The scientific basis for creationism having been well debunked time and again in the comments below me, I feel it’s important to touch on another side of the issue. Christians, Jews, Muslims, I ask you; Why would you wish to relinquish your religion to government control? Were the pilgrims not seeking to avoid government regulation of religion when they first set sail for the new world? You see, by thinking only in the short term, by getting caught up in the debate over whether or not creationism is scientifically valid you’ve missed the really important question: “Do I want the government in the business of teaching, regulating and disseminating my religion?” Because, make no mistake, this is what you are asking for. By allowing the government to teach creationism you are leaving it up to them to teach your children about god. Why would you want this? Would you not be happier allowing your children to learn about the physical world at school- saving the religious talk for your home. You see freedom of religion is freedom from religion and freedom FOR religion. If you believe the Earth is 6000 years old that’s your right; both to believe it and to teach it to your children. It’s your right to have the religion you chose, don’t give that right away. Keep church and state separate… for all our sakes.

  27. huma fatima says:

    YES..this sould be dealt with great seriousness.because we can mug up loads of books but creativity is unique for every indivisual.and should be encouraged..

  28. Ronak Garg says:

    It also helps in exploring new areas of interest and pave path to follow them. It focuses on thinking differently apart from conventional ones which enhance the skills.

  29. jagritisingh says:

    Yes i thing it is very important for students that they must have creativity in every fields, along with the educational skills they must taught creationism in schools so that their mental level will also increase.

  30. patlakshi says:

    Yes i do think creationism should be taught in public schools so that it could enhance the creativity of the students. And this could provide the one with overall development too.

  31. BHarti PaNdey says:

    Ya me too agree with same that Creationism should be taught in schools as it would lead to overall development of the Students….

  32. Divya Acharya says:

    yes according to me creationism must be taught in public schools,it will lead to a full development of the students.

    • VINAY KUMAR says:

      Hallo friends !
      In my views on the concerning topic i would say the word CREATIONISM has very loud meaning for me.
      if you see subtley, I don’t believe that they should teach creationism in schools either. I believe this is how the world got started. But it is not right to teach it in school. We are a public school and we don’t need to bring religion into the school. I’m allowed to believe what I want, but I don’t have the right to bring my religion into school. Also if you are going to teach creationism in school, then you are going to have to teach Buddhism and other religions. The First Amendment says that you can’t stop people from believing what they want, but individual religions can’t be brought into the government. That’s why creationism shouldn’t be taught in school.
      I don’t believe they need to teach us any of this stuff in school. No matter what they teach us, there will always be a problem with someone. Not only does the constitution say that school should be kept separate from state, but if you start teaching religion in school; who’s religion would you teach? Would you teach Catholicism, Judaism, Muslim? If a teacher was saying to a Muslim student that the Muslim religion was flawed, and Catholic religion was right, then how would that student feel.
      Therefore they shouldn’t teach any form of this in school.

      Thank you.

« »