1. The Almighty…Darwin? Alexis Tillett-Saks Beloit College In no other aspect do science and religion clash more fiercely than in the debate between creationism and evolution. It has been a philosophical debate ever since Darwin awed the world in the nineteenth century with his in-depth explanation of how we came to be. As religion continuously becomes more intertwined with American politics, the theory of origin debate moves into the realm of public education. What should our schools be teaching in the classroom: creationism or evolution? Is there a common ground that can be reached without violating the Establishment Clause that also respects the beliefs of our nation’s most popular religion? Religion has become more and more synonymous with politics over the last decade. With such hot topics as abortion, homosexuality, and stem cell research, the clash between religion and science has been at the forefront of our nation’s most severe political split in over a century. As thousands of young impressionable minds pour through public school doors every weekday, what should be taught when they sit at their desks, evolution or creationism? Evolutionists believe that there is no factual evidence that supports creationism. Therefore, it is not logical to teach it as a scientific theory; it is only based on faith and so should be taught in a classroom that expressly states its purpose as religious and not scientific. According to evolutionists, their theory is solely based on experimental evidence, which is what makes it a science and the only legitimate theory to be taught in our schools. The argument for evolution being taught in schools is not just approached from the scientific standpoint, but also a constitutional perspective. The Establishment Clause explicitly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and so taxes cannot support a public school where any form of religion is taught. However, creationists argue the Establishment Clause from an "accommodationist” perspective, which states that as long as a classroom does not make any clear biases towards a particular religion, it is acceptable to teach religious theory. As evolution can not be proven, it is still only a theory like creationism. Creationists also believe the scientific debate between the two theories is tangible and relevant. Therefore a classroom should have to offer both sides of the debate. Neither one has been proven to the point of disproving the other. It is not necessarily from a religious standpoint that creationism be taught, but as a method to encourage students to be able to critically evaluate science and discover for themselves which point of view they find more convincing. Abstract Introduction -Both strive for a strong public education system. -Evolutionists strive to maintain the separation of church and state put forth in the Establishment Clause. -Evolutionists want to establish their belief not as a theory, but as fact. -Neither side considers abandoning their theory where each is respectively taught. -Creationists explain that evolution is simply a theory comparable to creationism. -Creationists interpret the Establishment Clause as meaning no single religion can be favored over another. Interests -Further judicial review should be conducted to determine whether creationism can be taught in a manner that does not breach separation of church and state in the public science classroom. -Public school boards should determine whether teaching both theories undermine the legitimacy of scientific fact, and in turn creates confusion for the students. -Studies should be conducted on both theories to see which one has more common ground with the field of science. -A survey should be done to determine what theory is more popular amongst Americans. Objective Criteria -Allow creationism to be taught but only in classes designated as “Religious Studies” classes. -Have teachers focus on evolution, but present the fact that there are a large portion of people who disagree with it. -Define evolution not as a scientific fact, but as an unproven theory. -Allow teachers to teach creationism, but cut federal funding to those schools. -Hold after-school lectures on creationism where students can choose to learn about the theory if they choose. -Let either each state, district, school, or teacher decide for themselves what they would like to teach. -Have some teachers in a school teach creationism while some teach evolution and let the student decide which class they would like to attend. Options REFERENCES Abramson, Paul. Creationism.org. 6 Feb. 2006. Chavez, Miguel. The Unofficial Stephen Jay Gould Archive. 10 Jan. 2006. 6 Feb. 2006. Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: Norton, 1996. (For a full list of references, send request to: tilletts@stu.beloit.edu)