In American History we are currently studying the concept of sectionalism. Sectionalism is a division within a country based on regional beliefs and interests. In the early to mid 1800’s, sectionalism in America grew as slavery divided the Nation. Slavery was ignored, compromised, and argued about by the states until the conflict drove our country into the Civil War. Although regional differences are not as distinct these days, many issues are currently causing division among the states and people of our country. These issues lead to what our history class describes as “modern sectionalism.” One such issue is evolution and creationism in schools. In an article written by Dr. John Morris, the president of the Institute of Creation Research …show more content…
John Morris. Creationism is religious, but no more than evolution. Because to believe in evolution, is to believe there is no God, but you believe in science. To believe that evolution is the only theory with scientific fact, is totally untrue. Not to mention that evolution breaks many scientific laws which include; the second law of thermodynamics, the law of cause and effect, and the law of biogenesis. So, to say that evolution is the only scientific theory, is like saying creationism is the only religious theory. Which is also untrue. Neither creationism and or evolution can be proven one-hundred percent. So why should we just teach one to our growing minds? If neither can be tested or scientific fact, then why teach one without the …show more content…
Now I know that some people don’t want their kids to know about creation, and they just want their kids to have a full science education, but I believe that people can’t make their own opinions if they don’t know every option or they only know one side of the story. So, as a compromise I believe you should be able to teach creation and evolution to the students. If you want your kid to just know about evolution, then you should send them to an all evolution school. If you want your kid to just know about creation, send them to an all creation school. It’s an easy solution, but parents want the best of both worlds. They want their kid to go to public school and not know about creation. This is why I think that we should teach both or none. We should rather let them choose which option they believe, or let them figure it out themselves. I personally believe we should just let them choose. If this really a free country, which you can choose which religion you would like, why only let them see the evolution theory? You can’t just take freedoms away from people. This is taking away the right to
What Darrow meant in his statement is using the Bible as an argument of why evolution shouldn’t be thought to the children in Tennessee schools doesn’t make sense because the Bible is about religion not science. The next argument Darrow makes is the law does not specify what can be taught but the law does say that you cannot teach anything that conflicts with the Bible. Darrow argues that not everyone who reads the Bible is going to have the same concept of the Bible. Everybody has their own understanding of the Bible and its meaning. Therefore people will have a different view of what teachings conflicts with the Bible.
Today it is “recognized as a leading work in natural philosophy and in the history of mankind” (Landry). Today it seems as if there is a price to pay when talking about this topic in public, especially in school classrooms, as many teachers and parents argue that the Bible’s literal interpretation of human development is supreme. Challenges facing the theory were found relevant in 23 states as well as seven foreign countries. In 2004 a challenge was brought up by the Kansas State Board of Education. Is evolution a matter of a theory or is it the subject of “true scientific controversy” (Tamblyn)?
The Scopes Monkey Trial was an important event in history that still holds resonance today. The South during the 1920’s was still recovering from Reconstruction after the war. Which means that the South was not in favor of any National attention that could possibly be avoided. This case being in the South as well as being such a controversial topic, created a separation between the newer town of Dayton (did not mind attention) and the state of Tennessee(did not want attention). Out of which came an array of views on whether this trial should even be held or not.
The subject of evolution will always be a touchy subject for some students than it is for others, but I do not think it should ever get to a point where parents should be able to excuse their child from a specific class due to the curriculum including evolution. If a parent is uncomfortable with their child learning about evolution in the classroom, it is to their own wishes what they choose to do for the educational future of their child. In some cases, there are parents who made the decision to have their child pulled out of public school due to the teaching of evolution. When this happens the children are normally sent to private religious schools or even homeschooled. This also creates controversy because many believe these children are not receiving the education that they should be, and I believe that is a true statement.
Old practices became a thing of the past with the fast-paced city drawing people into a new life. This worried religious people, hoping that their attendees wouldn’t leave them. Many felt alienated from city life and modernization. This led to direct conflicts against the teaching of science and evolution in schools. This can be seen through the Scopes Trial fiasco of 1925, where fundamentalisms tried putting a teacher in Tennessee behind bars for teaching such things.
“The Scopes Trial is one of the best known in American history events because it symbolizes the conflict between science and theology, faith and reason, individual liberty and majority rule,” (Mintz and McNeil par 1). The decade of the 1920’s was an era of rebellion, prosperity, and social changes. One major event that shocked the country through its discordance between urban enlightenment and rural protestantism was called “The Scopes Trial”, which involved the teachings of evolution. Before the trial took place, an act known as “The Butler Act” established that public schools prohibited the teachings of evolution to students. This act was passed in early 1925 by the Tennessee General Assembly for the reason being that students shouldn’t
In “Inherit the Wind”, there is a school teacher, named Bert Cates, waiting to go to trial for a crime he committed. Cates decided to teach about evolution, a topic that was banned in school. Everyone but Cates thought it was wrong, so the question is, should he have taught evolution? I believe he made a bad choice to teach it. The most important reason is that it is illegal to teach it and he should have known that.
The Scopes Trial represented a significant setback for anti evolution forces (5B). Many teachers in the 1920’s wanted to be able to teach evolution in relation to scientific terms but they were not able to. Teachers wanted to be able to teach students something
John Scopes influenced changed the teaching in our society's education. In schools today they can teach about evolution, but not about the Bible. In the mid-1930s, after the John Scopes Trial talk died down textbooks started teaching about evolution (Boundless 6). "The tension that gave the Scopes Trial worldwide recognition continues to rise questions some seventy-five years later, and these questions have no easy answers. We can be assured that in this new century the voices of the Scopes Trial will continue to be heard" (Hanson 108).
Philip Kitcher in “Abusing science: The case against creationism” argues about how creationists have motives in which they want to show that the theory of evolution are just lies. They will pick on every theory they find and claim them as untestable. The author states that creationist use tautology objection, which means that whatever the evolution theory is it cannot be tested and is classified as not real science. The author hen states that creationist do not thoroughly understand what their objections borrowed from evolutionist really mean. All they do is get whatever information makes sense to them and turn it around to a point in which will justify their point of view against evolutionist.
Students are encouraged to form their own opinions and think open-mindedly based on the information presented to them, yet in the topic of life’s origins, they are no longer being afforded this opportunity because of the ban on the teaching of creationism. Creationism should be taught in schools because it does hold validity with several well-respected scientists and utilizes evidence observed by scientific studies to accurately support its main aspects. Critics often dismiss creationism as a hoax that lacks serious thought and accreditation from accomplished scientists. However, several well-respected scientists agree with the theory of creationism as a rational explanation for the
“In the beginning when God created the Heavens and the Earth”, Genesis 1:1.Creationism should be taught in public schools along with evolution because, As with any other school curriculum students should be able to have an education with all of the information. Also we should be able to make our own decisions on how we think life came to be. Consider the following points. First of all, a 2014 Gallup poll found that only 19% of the people believed that God had nothing to do with evolution, 42 percent of Americans believe humans were created by God 10,000 years ago, and 31 percent believe in evolution, but under God’s guidance. In American schools, the creation story from Genesis was generally taught as the origin of the universe and life
After understanding the concepts of evolution and creationism my vote goes to supporting Evolution. I would support evolution because students will be given accurate information of how different and similarities forms of life, the change in population, and the process of new forms of life came to be. This will bring out the best for our upcoming future because students will use the proper evidence in making more rightful decision that will actually help our society better than before. They would not make any decision that will be based off of religious belief and that is where creationism fall in. Creationism is more towards the religious belief that God has created the world and developed divine creation.
The definition of creationism is “the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.” Which points that they are not atheist, and believe in a certain religion that have higher beings that are responsible for the making of all of us and everything that posses. The idea of evolution got started because scientist were trying to explain how we got to where we are natrually. In the realm of science there is no religion. So their goal is to try and prove that creation is wrong and put it in other ways that let everyone understand what happened in natural ways.
Also remember, creationism by God is not the only alternative to evolutionary theory. Other theories such as alien life creating/developing all life on Earth with possible deliberate misdirection would negate such an argument. You may be scoffing at the page right now at the suggestion of alien life being responsible for all life on Planet Earth, but on the surface of it evolutionary theory itself is equally unfathomable when you think about it and realise that the premise is a bacterium turned into a man through a series of random mutations. And anyway, all that we are asking you to establish is whether there is any reasonable doubt that evolutionary theory is true, and if there are equally viable theories in play, then reasonable doubt exists. In