Creationism belongs in a classroom the same way discussions of unicorns do: it’s sort of a cool idea, if it’s true I hope magic was involved, but, ultimately, it has no merit for study in a valid scientific way.
In a personal worldview, creationism and evolution can coexist peacefully. While the idea of creationism is little more than a fairytale to me, someone’s personal beliefs rarely affect my life. Allowing creationism into the classroom, however, creates a gateway to indoctrination. Mississippi is already rife with separation of church and state violations, and this is just another way for the far-right members of our society to take our children’s minds and make choices for them. I am terrified by the idea of more generations of youth being force-fed anti-science garbage.
[poll id=”59″]
It’s possible to argue that a generic version of creationism could be taught, but that’s nothing more than a pretty hypothetical. In Mississippi, creationism will almost exclusively be taught as the Biblical version — regardless of the fact that Bible itself has two different – and fairly incompatible – versions of how the earth was formed. To many, evolution and creationism is an either/or opinion. While I’d like to believe that many students would see creationism and evolution and decide that both can be valid, by and large, students are more likely to believe what they’ve already been taught in churches.
Teaching creationism in the classroom gives it an air of authority. It displays a flawed idea in the same area as subjects with actual scientific basis. There is no theory of creationism — there are personal beliefs with no scientific basis. There is no demonstrable proof of creationism. Calling it a theory is just factually incorrect. A look at human biology shows how unintelligent our design is, with our wisdom teeth, appendixes and fits of violent coughing if we swallow a drop of saliva incorrectly. Teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution is the equivalent of teaching grammatically incorrect vernacular in English classes: a lot of people use it in everyday life, but it’s academically inaccurate.
When it comes to science, different hypotheses should be taught if there is a not a definitive theory. If someone accurately uses science to debunk someone’s faith, it isn’t the fault of the scientist that the religion has such an unreliable foundation. There have been scientific hypotheses used to harm large groups of people, but these were hypotheses — not theories. Theories must follow the scientific method and be provable time and time again. Hypotheses do not accidentally become theories, regardless of public opinion and misunderstandings regarding scientific terms.
I say, let bygones be bygones. Evolution stays in the classrooms and creationism stays in Sunday school. If that’s impossible, I vote we teach the Islamic creation story as a delightful, much-needed slap in the face to our legislators.
Holly Baer is a senior religious studies major from Flowood.
