Option of teaching creationism in science classes is establishing a state religion

[Calm]

I am not pro teaching creationism in detail in science classes as I don’t see it as science (“the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”), but am simply wondering about the reasoning offered in the quote below that teaching it is unconstitutional.

Can someone explain to me how a science teacher having the option to mention that some people believe deity created the earth establishes a state religion?  I can see if it is the only theory that is presented there would be a problem and I believe that it isn’t actually science, so it IMO isn’t an appropriate subject for any detail in a science class....though I can see it being discussed in terms of ‘we don’t know what started the part of the process we have evidence for, some people assume a “first cause”’ or as part of a history or philosophy of science section.  I just don’t get the jump from “an idea is religious in nature” to “this is state religion” especially if the Christian version isn’t specified, but rather a generic version summarizing the basic belief of deity somehow triggering chaos to transform into organized forms.

Question arose for me due to this article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/arkansas-representatives-passes-a-bill-to-allow-creationism-in-schools/

Quote

In a key case that involved Arkansas itself, McLean V. Arkansas Board of Education, a group of plaintiffs banded together to challenge a state law that mandated the teaching of "creation science" in public schools. The judge in that case correctly recognized that creation science was actually religious in nature, and it therefore violated the constitution's prohibition against the establishment of state religion.

No need to debate whether the law is unconstitutional or not and please don’t turn this into a debate about evolution or young earth vs old earth, just looking for the reasoning of the bolder part.  Teaching geometry does not establish geometry as a state institution or belief system, so why would teaching creationism do so?

Edited April 17, 2021 by Calm

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not pro teaching creationism in detail in science classes as I don’t see it as science (“the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”), but am simply wondering about the reasoning offered in the quote below that teaching it is unconstitutional.

Can someone explain to me how a science teacher having the option to mention that some people believe deity created the earth establishes a state religion?  I can see if it is the only theory that is presented there would be a problem and I believe that it isn’t actually science, so it IMO isn’t an appropriate subject for any detail in a science class....though I can see it being discussed in terms of ‘we don’t know what started the part of the process we have evidence for, some people assume a “first cause”’ or as part of a history or philosophy of science section.  I just don’t get the jump from “an idea is religious in nature” to “this is state religion” especially if the Christian version isn’t specified, but rather a generic version summarizing the basic belief of deity somehow triggering chaos to transform into organized forms.

Question arose for me due to this article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/arkansas-representatives-passes-a-bill-to-allow-creationism-in-schools/

No need to debate whether the law is unconstitutional or not and please don’t turn this into a debate about evolution or young earth vs old earth, just looking for the reasoning of the bolder part.  Teaching geometry does not establish geometry as a state institution or belief system, so why would teaching creationism do so?

I’m sure the thinking is that if even only 1 student in the entire state of Arkansas is persuaded to believe in the existence of God through the presentation of creationist theory in the classroom it will be considered the establishment of religion, at very least the establishment of religion in the mind of the student who has thusly been persuaded.

I believe the fear of the anti creationists is that as the years go by science itself is demonstrating, more and more each day, just how hard it is to believe that the creation of life happened by mere happenstance. The anti creationists know intelligent design provides a attractive and reasonable alternative explanation for how life came into existence, as an ever increasing number of scientists are admitting the chances for an accidental creation of life, through some sort of serendipitous cosmic accident, are now considered to be infinitesimally small, even a virtual impossibly.

Edited April 17, 2021 by teddyaware

[Calm]

I am not interested in speculation about motivations or fears. A legal argument should have reasoning attached, so there should be no need for speculation such as what you are doing.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

It looks like the problem was the mandate to teach creation science. The problem with that is that "creation science" isn't science. It's a religious interpretation of scientific work.

[Calm]

But the current law isn’t a mandate, it just allows it as an option.  That I being assumed to be unconstitutional for the same reason as the previous case in the writer’s viewpoint. 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

But the current law isn’t a mandate, it just allows it as an option.  That I being assumed to be unconstitutional for the same reason as the previous case in the writer’s viewpoint. 

I think your OP is a bit unclear because you quote a part of the article that is talking about past cases and not the case at hand.

The bill alterations in question state:

Quote

 

A teacher of a kindergarten through grade twelve (K-12) science class at a public school or open-enrollment public charter school may teach creationism as a theory of how the earth came to exist.

This section is permissive and does not require a teacher to teach creationism as a theory of the earth came to exist.

 

This does not limit it to the way you described it: "a science teacher having the option to mention that some people believe deity created the earth."

The wording appears to allow science teachers to teach creationism as a theory. I think to limit it to what you say, the bill would need to specify. Otherwise it gives teachers permission to teach religious ideas as science.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

think to limit it to what you say, the bill would need to specify. Otherwise it gives teachers permission to teach religious ideas as science.

I agree that it doesn’t limit it, I was thinking in terms of minimal approach.  If the reasoning is that it could allow a teacher to present a particular religion’s theory, and that is problematic, I agree with that, but still don’t see how that somehow makes a state religion...see my geometry example. Or for another if one teacher decides they are going to teach Latin, it doesn’t make Latin a state language suddenly. 

[Meadowchik]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree that it doesn’t limit it, I was thinking in terms of minimal approach.  If the reasoning is that it could allow a teacher to present a particular religion’s theory, and that is problematic, I agree with that, but still don’t see how that somehow makes a state religion...see my geometry example. Or for another if one teacher decides they are going to teach Latin, it doesn’t make Latin a state language suddenly. 

From the article:

Quote

These precedents only apply to the teaching of creationism as science; there are other contexts, like a comparative religion class, where it might be appropriate to teach this idea. But the bill's use of "theory" clearly indicates that it's intended to insert the concept into science classes.

There's no establishment clause for geometry or Latin, but for religion.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not pro teaching creationism in detail in science classes as I don’t see it as science (“the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”), but am simply wondering about the reasoning offered in the quote below that teaching it is unconstitutional.

Can someone explain to me how a science teacher having the option to mention that some people believe deity created the earth establishes a state religion?  I can see if it is the only theory that is presented there would be a problem and I believe that it isn’t actually science, so it IMO isn’t an appropriate subject for any detail in a science class....though I can see it being discussed in terms of ‘we don’t know what started the part of the process we have evidence for, some people assume a “first cause”’ or as part of a history or philosophy of science section.  I just don’t get the jump from “an idea is religious in nature” to “this is state religion” especially if the Christian version isn’t specified, but rather a generic version summarizing the basic belief of deity somehow triggering chaos to transform into organized forms.

Question arose for me due to this article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/arkansas-representatives-passes-a-bill-to-allow-creationism-in-schools/

No need to debate whether the law is unconstitutional or not and please don’t turn this into a debate about evolution or young earth vs old earth, just looking for the reasoning of the bolder part.  Teaching geometry does not establish geometry as a state institution or belief system, so why would teaching creationism do so?

The difficulty faced is that evolution is that origins are a mix of science and history. We don't figure out how the battle of Waterloo is fought by cloning Napoleon and his army and his opponents and having them refight the battle. We have to go off the records and other evidence left. This puts it on shakier ground compared to experiments in chemistry and biology and physics where you theorize and then test.

The issue is that despite what some say there is no strong evidence for a creator intervening except by aesthetic or spiritual means or by playing out the anthropomorphic principle. Creationism isn't science. It is bringing in the supernatural which doesn't show up in the lab. Usually creationism is in support of a specific religion (or religious family) usually an attempt to justify the shared western Judaism-Christianity-Islam story. I doubt Arkansas is advocating that students be taught the scientific evidence that the Milky Way is Tiamat's tail and that the Tigris and Euphrates were formed from her decomposing eyes. They are shooting to prove the God of Abraham exists and created the world which is how they are supporting a specific religion.

There is not enough science there to justify a specific Christian creation science or a general creation science. It is not testable even by the shakier versions historical science uses.

From a practical perspective creation science is bad for religion. It attempts to provide a framework to explain it and if they stuck to theorizing they might be okay but it always to jump from speculation to "proof" and this is where it always falls. If you teach kids dodgy theories or even outright lies to try to keep them in a faith you build their houses on the sand and they fall when they find out it is wrong. If you lied to them about one thing what else have you lied to them about. The apostates of the faith this board is about often claim to be betrayed by what are mostly omissions they felt they should have been taught. Imagine if they were taught outright falsehoods. Suppose the story about the Ten Tribes living under the icecaps had been taught extensively by Apostles. Revelation is wonderful but we often take our extrapolations from that revelation and then try to buttress them up with science and history and it is a pretty shaky construction.

I have gone through at least five "understandings" of how Eden might have happened and discarded most of them. Same with ideas about the nature of the spirit world, the powers of good and evil spirits, and guesses about Biblical realities. The difference is I know I am playing with Play-Doh and outside of the revelations everything else is guesswork. Probably babyish guesswork. Elevate Creation "Science" to a holy undertaking and you have a treacherous idol on your hands.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is not enough science there to justify a specific Christian creation science or a general creation science. It is not testable even by the shakier versions historical science uses.

I agree as I hope my OP makes clear, but that makes teaching creationism teaching bad science....which is why I don’t believe it should be taught as a theory in science classes, but bad science is not unconstitutional last time I checked anymore than teaching bad Grammer is.

I am still not seeing the jump to “establishing a state religion”.  The reasoning that it establishes a state religion so far comes across to me as “because it does”.  I appear to be missing something.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree as I hope my OP makes clear, but that makes teaching creationism teaching bad science....which is why I don’t believe it should be taught as a theory in science classes, but bad science is not unconstitutional last time I checked anymore than teaching bad Grammer is.

I am still not seeing the jump to “establishing a state religion”.  The reasoning that it establishes a state religion so far comes across to me as “because it does”.  I appear to be missing something.

Because it is teaching religious ideas as science.

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Because it is teaching religious ideas as science.

Yeah, I get that it is teaching religion as science...that just doesn’t translate to establishing a “state religion” to me.  Oh well.

To me a state religion is establishing an institution/organization.  Schools shouldn’t be using tax dollars to teach religion I get.  It just doesn’t seem like that gets you to a star religion itself, though it definitely opens the door for it.  I just don’t see how a teacher on their own or even a school board could set up a state religion.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

In my opinion, if teaching creationism (especially if the "teaching" involves no more than a brief mention of the topic), it is an "establishment" of religion only in the broadest (least meaningful?) sense.  Here's a trick I'd like to see someone try: Try teaching the history of the state of Utah without referring to religion.   Personally, I'm glad Brigham Young didn't take Jim Bridger's advice.  Oh, sure, if Brigham Young hadn't determined to attempt to tame and to colonize the area, someone else might have ... and, probably, that person would have been Roman Catholic, so we're back where the alleged problem began.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

teaching creationism (especially if the "teaching" involves no more than a brief mention of the topic), it is an "establishment" of religion only in the broadest (least meaningful?) sense. 

This seems closer to what I am thinking...I need to flesh it out more, which I was hoping to do by getting some new ideas from how others explained the reasoning, but not getting there yet.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing against the idea that teaching creationism is establishing a state religion, I am only trying to understand it.
 

At this point the reasoning seems to me you don’t want tax dollars to pay for what amounts to Sunday School in public schools, but that still seems to not quite make it to “establishing a state religion”...which means to me a favored religion being financially supported by the state.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Maybe what I am missing is “state religion” is any religious idea that gets promoted through a public venue with tax dollars, even generic ones while I have been looking at it as more backing a church organization. 

Edited April 17, 2021 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

Need we forget, the Big Bang theory was originally thought of as a religious teaching

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

"In the 1920s and 1930s, almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady-state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady-state theory.^[56] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest.^[57] "

[MrShorty]

I wonder if part of the problem here is that the Arkansas lawmakers failed to describe what they mean by "creationism". When someone mentions to me "creationism" (without qualification) I automatically assume they are talking about the fundamentalist Christian young-earth version. I know there are Christian old-earth versions as well as the existence of multiple other religions with their own accounts of how the Earth and the universe came to be, but I usually have to be very intentional about bringing those possibilities to mind. I guess I wonder if the law could avoid these kinds of accusations if it was more specific about what the lawmakers meant by "creationism." If they, like me, typically think of creationism only in terms of the fundamentalist Christian version, then the law has a real problem, IMO. If they would specify that such a discussion, if undertaken, could/should include not only the Christian version but also what Judaism or Islam or Krishnas or Buddhists or even the ancient Greeks/Romans/Norse/various Native American/etc. pantheon of Gods teach about how the Earth/universe came to be, perhaps they could avoid this accusation (though I expect that there are many Christians who would be appalled to think that their version of creationism was being combined with all of these various false mythologies).

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I agree as I hope my OP makes clear, but that makes teaching creationism teaching bad science....which is why I don’t believe it should be taught as a theory in science classes, but bad science is not unconstitutional last time I checked anymore than teaching bad Grammer is.

I am still not seeing the jump to “establishing a state religion”.  The reasoning that it establishes a state religion so far comes across to me as “because it does”.  I appear to be missing something.

It is not just that it is bad science. It is that that science is specifically intended to bolster the viewpoint of a specific religion. It doesn't make it a state religion but it does mean you are flirting with favoring one faith. There are areas of study where you can't avoid religion and religious texts (history, literature) but they are part of the field. You can't study and understand a lot of western literature without familiarity with the Bible. You can't study the Crusades or the Reformation without discussing Christianity.

Creation Science is not neutral science that comes up from normal scientific inquiry. It is advancing a point of view that has no business being advanced in specific support of religious dogma from a specific faith. 

[Calm]

As a sidetrack...how do you see a teacher responding to a student’s question of “what caused it (Big Bang or whatever is used as the beginning point of what we believe we can know from science) all to start?” with an answer like the below?

Quote

Science doesn’t actually provide us with information about First Causes at this time as our window of observation only allows us to theorize back to a certain point.  We can speculate about possibilities.  Religious beliefs provide ideas that some form of deity set things in motion sometimes framed in what are called creation myths, non theistic ideas currently speculate .....

As crossing the line into unconstitutionality?

Or do you see it is wrong to teach that for a different reason? If so, please identify that reason.

Or do you see it as a reasonable teaching approach to include different general ideas on how people address the unknowable (scientifically speaking)?  Maybe take a class period to explore different approaches while making it clear it isn’t science, but an examination how people fill in the areas where we lack scientific knowledge or the ability to use Science to explore.  
 

To me this helps provides context...I think it appropriate in high school at least to explain what is Science and what it isn’t, including the limits of what it can explore and then help students learn to examine what paradigms people may use to explore the “what else could be out there”...a bit of philosophy in science class is very useful in my view.  I don’t believe school subjects should be isolated from each other, as that can lead to over compartmentalization of ideas and inflexibility in thought as well as misguided notions of what some human knowledge and behaviour actually involves.  I think helping students see trying to figure out the fundamental whys is a valid intellectual pursuit, even if ultimately finding one’s own answers is more a personal and private endeavour than public one is a good use of school time and funds...it opens doors and invites kids to become explorers.

 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I wonder if part of the problem here is that the Arkansas lawmakers failed to describe what they mean by "creationism". When someone mentions to me "creationism" (without qualification) I automatically assume they are talking about the fundamentalist Christian young-earth version. I know there are Christian old-earth versions as well as the existence of multiple other religions with their own accounts of how the Earth and the universe came to be, but I usually have to be very intentional about bringing those possibilities to mind. I guess I wonder if the law could avoid these kinds of accusations if it was more specific about what the lawmakers meant by "creationism." If they, like me, typically think of creationism only in terms of the fundamentalist Christian version, then the law has a real problem, IMO. If they would specify that such a discussion, if undertaken, could/should include not only the Christian version but also what Judaism or Islam or Krishnas or Buddhists or even the ancient Greeks/Romans/Norse/various Native American/etc. pantheon of Gods teach about how the Earth/universe came to be, perhaps they could avoid this accusation (though I expect that there are many Christians who would be appalled to think that their version of creationism was being combined with all of these various false mythologies).

At that point you have moved into a literature class or (maybe) a history class. I don't have a problem with such a class teaching the Adam and Eve story or that the world is made out of pieces of Tiamat or that heaven and earth mated and gave birth to the titans and the titans gave birth to the gods that deposed them. I do have a problem if you are teaching classes about how the fossil record shows that we found bits of Tiamat or that background radiation is the screaming of the titan Cronos when he was deposed.

On a personal note the ham-fisted attempt to squeeze the stories of the Bible into science does harm not just to science but also to the stories. They are wondrous. 'What did Moses see that led him to describe the creation that way' is a far more fascinating question than pointing at sea creature remains on a mountain and saying it is proof of the flood story. It is like dragging your faith into the mud. It appeals to people who love the quasi-mythical 'religion vs. science' debates because they just love arguing and see it as a kind of sporting event. To be fair the wonders of physics are also fascinating in a similar way. That is where I personally put the connection. The awe I find in visions of eternity and the awe of understanding the Universe feel similar......almost as if it is awe of the same "stuff".

Lest I give the impression I think I am basking in elevated climes of spirituality I also love takedowns of creation science idiocy. Not because I think the secularist are right but I do think the creation scientists are making light of the sacred and blaspheming so their crime is greater. They should know better.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Creation Science is not neutral science that comes up from normal scientific inquiry. It is advancing a point of view that has no business being advanced in specific support of religious dogma from a specific faith. 

Define please this POV.  I may be thinking too generically when thinking of creationism, which to me means a belief that deity...whatever that is...is the creative trigger of existence (whether that means creating something from nothing or organizing Chaos or organizing something eternally existing into an ‘new form’...or some other version).

Edited April 17, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Yeah, I get that it is teaching religion as science...that just doesn’t translate to establishing a “state religion” to me.  Oh well.

To me a state religion is establishing an institution/organization.  Schools shouldn’t be using tax dollars to teach religion I get.  It just doesn’t seem like that gets you to a star religion itself, though it definitely opens the door for it.  I just don’t see how a teacher on their own or even a school board could set up a state religion.

I think it would be considered establishment of state religion because it bypasses the correct process to favour a religion during the course of administering the obligation of the state.

Specifically in this case it bypasses science to replace it with a religious belief. That religious belief, the creation theory, could then be considered the religion of the state.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not pro teaching creationism in detail in science classes as I don’t see it as science (“the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”), but am simply wondering about the reasoning offered in the quote below that teaching it is unconstitutional.

Can someone explain to me how a science teacher having the option to mention that some people believe deity created the earth establishes a state religion?  I can see if it is the only theory that is presented there would be a problem and I believe that it isn’t actually science, so it IMO isn’t an appropriate subject for any detail in a science class....though I can see it being discussed in terms of ‘we don’t know what started the part of the process we have evidence for, some people assume a “first cause”’ or as part of a history or philosophy of science section.  I just don’t get the jump from “an idea is religious in nature” to “this is state religion” especially if the Christian version isn’t specified, but rather a generic version summarizing the basic belief of deity somehow triggering chaos to transform into organized forms.

Question arose for me due to this article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/arkansas-representatives-passes-a-bill-to-allow-creationism-in-schools/

No need to debate whether the law is unconstitutional or not and please don’t turn this into a debate about evolution or young earth vs old earth, just looking for the reasoning of the bolder part.  Teaching geometry does not establish geometry as a state institution or belief system, so why would teaching creationism do so?

If the state through its public schools teaches Christian theology, it inherently favors that particular religion, no? I mean why is the state favoring Christians over Budhists, Zoroastrians, Shinto's, Native American's and others? How could that not be interpreted as giving a particular religion as favored?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Teaching geometry does not establish geometry as a state institution or belief system

Doesn't it? I'd say that the state teaching geometry certainly does establishes geometry as something the state believes in.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If the state through its public schools teaches Christian theology, it inherently favors that particular religion, no? I mean why is the state favoring Christians over Budhists, Zoroastrians, Shinto's, Native American's and others? How could that not be interpreted as giving a particular religion as favored?

But I am not talking about framing “First Cause” (for a more generic, if not very accurate label) as the Christian or other specific religious belief system or even discussing creation myths as part of the Science course, but keeping a very general definition that could be applied to many religious belief systems from what I know of  serious worldwide creation myths, a very basic “deity or Spirit as the creator” which is common as an explanation of how things started for a wide range of beliefs, it doesn’t favor one religious form over another as far as I can tell.