Marking Period 2: Monday #5: Synthesis

As a fairly objective Jewish kid growing up in the North Shore school system, the question of Evolutionism and Creationism never crossed my mind.  I come from a religion of progressives who often have a hand in scientific discovery, and my school never mentioned Creationism when I first learned evolutionary theory.  However, outside my shelter, the rest of American education has been locked in a battle of science and religion for more than a century.  Some think one or the other should be taught; others think both should be explained so that students can determine their own opinions.  I think that only Evolution should be taught.

Author Jack Wellman (Monday #1) believes both theories should be taught, and he backs up his claim with the Constitution.  Similarly, Stephen C. Meyer and John Angus Campbell (Monday #3) mention that voters would like to see criticisms and alternatives available to students.  I recognize that the First Amendment decrees we cannot refuse to teach either idea, and I see the merit in trying to be objective with both theories, but I side with the ideas expressed by MSNBC's Associated Press (Monday #2) and Craig E. Nelson (Monday #4.)  The Associated Press makes the argument that as Intelligent Design, or Creationism, isn't a true science, it cannot be taught as an alternative to Evolutionism.  To me, something that relies so heavily on religion is a far touchier subject to broach in a classroom than the stark objectivity of Evolutionism, and Craig Nelson agrees.  Evolution should only be taught in the classroom because it is true science, Intelligent Design is too intertwined with religion and isn't true science, and less legal troubles are likely to come from Evolution than from Creationism.