Summary: Should Creation And Evolution Be Taught In Public Schools

Warnick proposes two reasons for including both, or as he calls it, “the principle of curricular fairness (Warnick, 2009, p. 306).” The first reason is to promote autonomy for students by providing them with options and room to make their own choices; the second reason is to allow for familial intimacy (Warnick, 2009, p. 306-307). Warnick also leaves the reader with two warnings. The first is that time in the classroom for any subject is limited, especially for biology; every minute devoted to the debate is one less toward science and even if the debate has valid scientific arguments on both sides the point of the course is not to debate but to inform the students about how science works (Warnick, 2009 p. 307). The second warning is that while

There are different views on evolution as well as creationism. The student should be exposed to each, not to convert them to any view but to equip them with the exposure to the information they will need if and when they do decide to convert one way or another, the decision will be an informed and well-thought out one. There is a strong demand that Creationism be taught in public schools along with evolution. Important things to consider are why it is allowed in some cases and not others, how it fits with the constitution, and methods for teaching it that fulfill the opportunity to learn about creationism in public schools while remaining consistent with the first amendment. If the school really wants to treat the two as “neutral” they either need to claim both, disclaim both, or neither claim or disclaim both; however this is handled it needs to handle both theories equally; this was not done in this case. Although it claimed to encourage students to open minded and think critically, the required science course belittled evolution as just a theory while suggesting that Intelligent Design also be considered. Intentionally or not, it came across dismissing evolution in favor of intelligent