First off, I know that the conclusion needs to be finished - I've run out of time on this one. I've been having trouble with mechanics (passive voice, punctuation) too, plus, I don't think the transitions are working yet. Any advice?
The assignment:
Draft, Review, and Reflect:
Step 1: Complete a rough draft of your research paper. When it is complete, write three categories in which you feel your essay could be stronger, or choose areas in which your writing has shown weakness in the past.
Step 2: Submit the Rough Draft for peer review.
The 1st draft:
Science Class is for Science
For centuries, an ideological conflict has existed between science and fundamentalist religion. In 1633, the Roman Inquisition convicted Galileo for his support of Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system, despite his efforts to find common ground between observable evidence and Catholic dogma (Linder). In the nineteenth century, a devout Christian and theology degree holder named Charles Darwin developed his theory of "natural selection" as a way of understanding God's hand in creation (Lillebo). Yet, some modern-day Christians accuse him of encouraging atheism (Grigg). Provoked by a perceived threat to their deeply held beliefs, the followers of some fundamentalist religious sects often react to scientific discoveries with dogmatic antagonism.
Inspired by the scientific community's acceptance of Darwin's theory, one point of contention between scientific and religious thought has consistently divided the public and made headlines in America: the teaching of "creationism" in public school science classes. Repeatedly defeated in the courts, and absent from science curricula since 1968 ("Timeline"), creationism remains an influential force in American society and politics. It is a fundamental religious belief of millions of Americans (Newport), who support the numerous attempts by its supporters to bring it back to the public school system. This paper will demonstrate the need for the continued exclusion of creationism from science classes with three arguments: 1) creationism is not a science, 2) its instruction in taxpayer-funded schools is unconstitutional, and 3) the strategies used by its proponents threaten future scientific progress by encouraging public mistrust of science.
In general, creationism refers to the ideology, central to the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, that an omnipotent being (God, Yahweh, or Allah) created "heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will" (Ruse). In the context of this paper, it refers to the beliefs held by an American subset of Protestant fundamentalists, sometimes called "young-Earth creationists" (YECs). YECs believe that creation occurred only six thousand years ago, over the course of six literal days, that the same worldwide flood that carried Noah to Mount Ararat also dug out the Grand Canyon, and that every word of the Bible is an indisputable, historical fact.
Public schools taught similar concepts before the scientific and educational communities accepted Darwin's theory of evolution and included it in science textbooks ("Timeline"). Since then, there has been a concerted effort by creationists to return these ideas to American science classrooms and teach them as fact. Some creationists claim that their ideas constitute a separate and valid scientific "theory" that rivals evolution. In support of a proposed 2014 state law to include "alternatives to evolution" (Salzberg), South Carolina Superintendent of Education, Mick Zais said, "We ought to teach both sides and let students draw their own conclusions" (Salzberg). Many creationists also believe that a stubborn and dogmatic scientific status quo refuses to take their "theories" seriously, much as geologists were slow to accept Wegener's theory of plate tectonics (Waggoner). Another creationist claim is that evolutionary theory implicitly assumes their god's nonexistence (Morris 29) and contributes to moral decay (Catchpoole). However, the following facts make it clear that, while belief in creationism is a constitutionally protected right, its inclusion in public school science curricula is not.
Creationism is not Science
Advocates for "creation science" claim that their beliefs should receive consideration equal to that of established scientific theory, but by definition, and in methodology, creationism is not a science. Science uses a method of observation, experimentation, and evidence gathering, in an effort to explain natural phenomena with testable, peer-reviewed, and reliably confirmed conclusions. Creationists, on the other hand, claim that the biblical creation account (Gen. 1.1-31) at the core of their beliefs is an absolute fact. Science makes no such absolute claims. In the words of philosopher Bertrand Russell, science "is always tentative", "is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration", and "encourages abandonment of the search for absolute truth" (14).
The scientific community requires "many lines of supporting evidence" ("Misconceptions"), before a hypothesis is considered for acceptance. Creationists tend to support their extraordinary claims, not with solid evidence, but with the further claim of the historical and scientific inerrancy of the source material. Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham is an example. He only cites "the Bible's clear teaching about a young earth" (Ham) as evidence for seventeenth century theologian, Archbishop James Ussher's declaration, based on biblical genealogies, that God created the Earth in the year 4004 B.C. (Gould). Creationists also tend to seek confirmatory evidence, while denying any evidence that contradicts their deeply held beliefs, due to confirmation bias (Shermer 1534).
Science, in a constant state of self-correction, mandates the revision of its conclusions in the light of new evidence, "expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary" (Russell 14). On the contrary, creationists demonstrate a difficulty with the adjustment of their beliefs based on new evidence - a very unscientific attitude. During a 2014 debate with Bill Nye, creationist Ken Ham was asked, "What, if anything, would change your mind [about your beliefs]?" To which, Ham replied that, as a Christian, "No. No one's ever going to convince me that the word of God is not true" ("Short Clip"). Creationists make claims based on faith, which is a choice, while science makes claims based on reality, which, as many would argue, is not a choice. As astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it, "The good thing about science is that it's true, whether or not you believe it" (Tepper 20).
Evolution is a scientifically confirmed natural process. According to the National Academy of Sciences, "no other biological concept has been more extensively tested and more thoroughly corroborated than the evolutionary history of organisms" (Scott). Creationism, however, lacks the support of a convergence of documented evidence from respected sources, yet its supporters make unsubstantiated claims despite a "preponderance of evidence" to the contrary (Shermer 1543). These are not the attributes of a science, but of a pseudoscience. Essentially, "creation science" is to evolutionary theory what astrology is to astronomy, or what alchemy is to chemistry. In addition, creationists "are typically not professional scientists, do not publish in peer-reviewed journals, and have no interest in testing their theories except against what they believe to be the divine words of God [the Bible]" (Shermer 1533). In other words, instead of living up to the name, "science", creationism disqualifies itself. Some of the most telling moments of the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate occurred whenever Nye would ask Ham a question that would require an objective response. Ham's reply: "Well, I have this book...[the Bible]" (Answers).
Creationism is an appropriate subject for Sunday schools, parent-child learning, and comparative religion courses, and but not for science classes. Human history weaves a rich tapestry of colorful creation mythologies, of which, young-Earth creationism is but a thread (Neel and Andrea). If students do learn about it in school, creationism belongs in history, religion, and anthropology courses. The second reason to keep it there is the U.S. Constitution. The establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from taking "actions that unduly favor one religion over another". It also prevents it "from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion [sic]" ("Establishment Clause"). This protects the free exercise of religion, but it also prohibits the government from promoting religious views over any other (religious or non-religious) in government institutions, including public schools.
Creationism in Science Class is Unconstitutional
Teaching creationism in a public school science class violates the constitutional rights of every student in the room, even the Christian children, as well as those of the teacher. A number of judicial decisions have rightly determined this to be so. To better illustrate the legal history of the creationism debate, a brief history of its source, the anti-evolution movement, follows.
Since at least 1925, an anti-evolutionism movement, propelled by religious opposition, has existed in America. Its tactics have changed to reflect the social and political landscape, but its goals remain the same: to remove evolution from science classes, and replace it with Bible-based ideas. This movement has had many prongs over the years, including, but not limited to: geocentrists, "flat-Earthers", young-Earth, and old-Earth creationists, gap theorists, and flood geologists (Scott 266-72). In 1914, the theory of evolution first appeared in public school biology textbooks ("Timeline"). This alarmed many creationists, like William Jennings Bryan, who, beginning with Oklahoma and Florida in 1923, influenced at least twenty-six state legislatures to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools ("Timeline").
In 1968, a Little Rock, Arkansas high school adopted a science book that included a chapter on evolution. Susan Epperson, a tenth grade biology teacher, was aware of the state law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in Arkansas, and sued the state, "seeking nullification of the law and an injunction against her being dismissed for teaching the evolutionary curriculum" ("Epperson"). The case went to the Supreme Court, where the Court found the law unconstitutional for requiring "that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles ... of any particular religious sect" ("Epperson"). Following Epperson v. Arkansas Board of Education, and beginning in the early 1970s, anti-evolutionists shifted their focus away from the removal of evolution in the classroom, to the inclusion of an "alternative theory", called "creation science", advocating "equal time" for both in science classrooms (Scott 273).
In 1982, the state of Arkansas passed the "Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act", which mandated equal treatment of both creationism and evolution in Arkansas public school science classes. In his opinion, which includes detailed definitions of both evolutionary theory and "creation science", U.S. District Court Judge William Overton stated that creationism does not qualify as a science (McLean 35). The "Balanced Treatment" law was ruled unconstitutional because, since "creation science" does not actually qualify as "science", the law's sole purpose was to use the public school system to promote religion, which violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment (The Constitution).
In 2005, Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover involved the introduction of the creationist theory of intelligent design to science classes. Members of the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania made it a requirement that biology teachers read their students a statement that denied the veracity of the theory of evolution and suggested intelligent design (I.D.) as an alternative theory. In his decision against the school board, U.S. District Court Judge John Jones declared that I.D. is not science, and that its proponents "misrepresent well-established scientific propositions" (Kitzmiller 136). Many creationists argue that the theory of evolution "is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general" (Kitzmiller 136). In his opinion, Judge Jones explained how "it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator" (Kitzmiller 136). Jones also stated that the actions, taken by members of the school board, had violated the constitution by "thrust[ing] an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom" (Kitzmiller 137).
The methods used by creationists to sneak their ideas into science classes over the years are indicative of a tendency toward intentional misinformation in order to get what they want. The next section will demonstrate the consequences of public misinformation.
Creationist Tactics Threaten Future Scientific Progress
Creationists intentionally denigrate science, using logical fallacies and misinformation, rather than reasoned arguments, which lowers public opinion of real science. For example, creationists often claim, "evolution is just a theory", but they are confusing the "scientific, technical notion of theory with the colloquial notion of a theory as just a guess or an assumption, [which] is simply a mistake that arises out of ignorance of science" (Pennock 175). A scientific theory is not a "graduated hypothesis", nor is it the opposite of a fact. A theory is a comprehensive explanation of established fact. In other words, a theory takes a number of testable, sometimes repeatable phenomena, and explains how they all fit together. For example, the germ theory of disease states, "some diseases are caused by microorganisms" (Auyang). It sounds simple, but it took many scientists many years of research to demonstrate just four facts we now take for granted about germs: 1) Communicability, 2) Causality, 3) Vitality, and 4) Specificity (Auyang). The theory of evolution came about in the same way.
Creationists often claim that, because science is incapable of disproving the existence of God, he must therefore exist, but this is an argument from ignorance (Lane, McKee, and McIntyre). Other examples include the fallacious "straw man" association of Darwin's concept of natural selection with Herbert Spencer's Social Darwinism ("Social Darwinism"), along with the association of Darwinism with National Socialism, Communism, eugenics, and genocide (Bergman).
Creationists often accuse the scientific community of censorship, claiming that scientific journals consistently reject scholarly articles written in support of their creation model. However, the issue is not that the journals censor their ideas, but that their ideas do not necessarily meet the scientific criteria of objectivity, documented research, and peer review. The creationist ministry, Answers in Genesis, has responded by launching the Answers Research Journal, a "professional, peer-reviewed technical journal" ("About ARJ"). Unfortunately, while the articles published by the ARJ are peer-reviewed (by other creationists), they lack objectivity. The ARJ only seems to publish, in the words of editor-in-chief Andrew Snelling, "research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth [sic] model, the global Flood [sic], the non-evolutionary origin of "created kinds", and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins" ("About ARJ").
Public misinformation from other, non-creationist, pseudoscientific sources has already led to a mistrust of science among the public. A symptom of the greater problem represented by this type of misinformation is the recent rise of an anti-vaccination movement. Parents are refusing childhood inoculation and putting their children's lives at risk by taking the word of a "fraudulent study that has been refuted several times" (Ziv), over that of the scientific community that developed and continue to update and maintain the disease-preventing, life-saving vaccination technique in the first place. This mistrust is also growing on the issue of climate change. An overwhelming majority of climatologists agree that human activity is contributing to the phenomena, but the opinionated voices of authors, bloggers, and other non-experts in the field, often motivated by politics or personal feelings rather than objective reasoning, seem to sway public opinion far more effectively (Nurse).
The loudest voices, no matter how duplicitous or ignorant, get the most press and public attention, while astounding scientific breakthroughs often go unnoticed. Ken Ham and his ministry, Answers in Genesis, are responsible for the Creation Museum in Kentucky, which depicts Earth's natural history from the creationist's point of view, where Noah's flood created the Grand Canyon and dinosaurs coexisted with humankind. Thanks to the webcast of his debate with Bill Nye in 2014, Ken Ham and his ideology are reaching more people and raising more money than before.
Another example is Joshua Feuerstein, a Christian preacher from Arizona. In 2014, Feuerstein released a YouTube video, entitled, "Dear Mr Atheist allow me to destroy evolution in 3 minutes! [sic] (Feuerstein)", which has been viewed and shared over one million times, despite his astoundingly incorrect claims about science. The apparent ignorance of the subject he claims to debunk, combined with the popularity of the video clip and the chorus of positive comments that followed, are sobering, to say the least.
[soon to be finished] Conclusion: Creationists do not fight fairly, but the solution is not to react in kind.
Science needs better publicity. The scientific community needs to share, explain, and communicate more effectively with the public (Lynas). More science-based, fact-based, non-confrontational television programming, like Fox's recent reboot of Carl Sagan's Cosmos, would be a good start. Cornell University's Alliance for Science is an example of a pro-science, public perception-minded organization that seeks to increase science awareness and education, using communication and collaboration to "promote access to scientific innovation as a means of enhancing food security" ("Alliance"). More areas of science need promotion like this.
Science, and those who enjoy its many benefits, must do more to counter the spread of misinformation by science-denying creationists; else, the Enlightenment values of America's founders, which favor progress, reward innovation, and encourage scientific curiosity, are in danger of fading away. At its core, this issue is about what children learn in school. School is where children learn facts about the world. Teaching one religion's creation myth as an insight into how a people see the world as part of a history, religion, anthropology, or psychology course is one thing, but teaching one's creation myth and calling it "science", while encouraging the next generation of potential discoverers to mistrust science goes beyond the pale.
