Is teaching creationism in biology classes Constitutional?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Yes (D), but it shouldn't be taught.

[Franzl]

Actually, it probably is unconstutional....even though I don't think it's quite as clear as the "In God We Trust" debate.

Teaching creationism...in whatever form...is basically preferencing Christianity over other beliefs, whether religious or whatever. Even if creationism is only considered a "theory"...the fact that it (and it alone as far as religious theories are concered) is being taught in Science class makes it look like a legitimate science.

It makes Christianity look legitimate...and violates the rights of people that don't believe in "Intelligent Design".

I would think that that kind of preferencing also violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If they came up with a version of creationism that qualified as science, but so far no one has done so.  Science involves the use of testable hypotheses. Unless the "intelligent creator" chooses to demonstrate how it is done, creationism is by definition not a testable theory.

[Earth]

I don't believe it's within the domain of constitutionality. It's just an obviously misguided lesson.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I don't know but the schools that teach it are doing their students a terrible injustice

[Mechaman]

It kind of depends on how creationism is sold in the biology classes.

I'm more alot more atheist than the average joe, but I also have a very legalistic streak in me. If this is a private school that is religious, then yes, they have every right to indoctrinate the kids who go there with their religious yahooism. Expecting a kid to have a secular education at a catholic seminary is like expecting to feel no pain while at the dentist, very unlikely.

However, in the public school system, I believe teaching creationism in biology classes would be unconstitutional. I think religious people should get away with a lot of crazy stuff, but having the right to brainwash kids in the public school system to believe that the earth is 6000 years old is where I draw the line.

[ChrisJG777]

Unconstitutional?  Now that's very much a grey area, but whatever case is Creationism should not be taught in science lessons because it does not even remotely pass for science.  You want to teach creationism in public/state schools (the term 'public school' means 'private school' on this side of the pond)?  Only if we can teach about evolution in churches in return I say.

Furthermore I would like to add that a scientific theory is more than just a mere "guess", but a hypothesis that has been well though over and heavily tested with a combination of theoretical and practical evidence that not only serve to back it up, but to also amend it accordingly.  I'm fine with religious texts being used as guide to live one's life and/or as a collection of stories (for lack of a better term), but can we please leave the origins of life, the universe and everything to the scientists?

[Mechaman]

Unconstitutional?  Now that's very much a grey area, but whatever case is Creationism should not be taught in science lessons because it does not even remotely pass for science.  You want to teach creationism in public/state schools (the term 'public school' means 'private school' on this side of the pond)?  Only if we can teach about evolution in churches in return I say.

Furthermore I would like to add that a scientific theory is more than just a mere "guess", but a hypothesis that has been well though over and heavily tested with a combination of theoretical and practical evidence that not only serve to back it up, but to also amend it accordingly.  I'm fine with religious texts being used as guide to live one's life and/or as a collection of stories (for lack of a better term), but can we please leave the origins of life, the universe and everything to the scientists?

Welcome to Muricah where things make no sense.

[Citizen James]

About as constitutional as teaching "speaking in tongues" as part of a language class.  (that is to say, not).

[Stranger in a strange land]

Teaching creationism...in whatever form...is basically preferencing Christianity over other beliefs, whether religious or whatever. Even if creationism is only considered a "theory"...the fact that it (and it alone as far as religious theories are concered) is being taught in Science class makes it look like a legitimate science

[Earth]

I view it as a violation of the separation of church and state (while in and of itself isn't law), and a spread of false information. It's place is not in public education, and particularly not in science class.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes (D), but it shouldn't be taught.

My god, please stop.

[angus]

I voted yes but I really don't know.  I guess you could argue that spending public money on any school is unconstitutional, but probably only the most extreme libertarians and strict constructionists would try to make that claim.

Assuming we could agree that having public schools is legal to begin with, then it seems appropriate to teach biology in biology class.  So the question is, are you teaching biology when teaching creationism?  I'm not even sure what creationism is.  I just googled creationism and found the following link:  http://www.creationism.org/

Judging from their website, creationism seems less like biological science and more like an attempt to de-legitimize currently accepted scientific theories about evolution.  If that's the case, I'd say it's a waste of taxpayer money.  I'm sure I wouldn't want anyone teaching creationism in my son's school.  Probably most parents in my community agree with me:  to my knowledge they do not teach creationism in the biology classes at my neighborhood's high school.

Here is the full description of the biology course from our local high school's website:

In Biology  the student will observe and study living things from the microscopic world to the human organism. This course is designed to give students a better understanding of the nature of life and the opportunity to discover some of the innermost workings of living organisms. As a living creature, we humans have a curiosity to learn about who we are and what makes us “work”. This course will help you uncover the mysteries within us through topics such as biochemistry, genetics, evolution, human anatomy and biotechnology. Students will also be given insight into the biology of everyday life. The class involves a variety of learning experiences including labs, co-operative activities, research opportunities, and more. Emphasis is given to developing effective process skills such as inquiry, problem solving, observing, and analyzing data, all of which can be utilized in daily life.

Given that description, and the description of creationism from their website, it seems that it would go against local school policy to teach creationism in biology.  It would also be unwise, wasteful of time and money.  And it would cause me and others to complain to the school board.  But whether it's legal is a different matter.  That would probably be a simple matter of whether it goes against the state legislature's agenda.  I have looked up the state biology curriculum guidelines and could find no references for or against the teaching of creationism, and since the US constitution leaves curriculum up to the individual state legislatures, it seems not to be unconstitutional.  Unwise, perhaps, but not unconstitutional.

It's an interesting question.  Some of the lawyers who post here should weigh in.

[Storebought]

As Constitutional as teaching phrenology in health class, or epicycles in physics.

[angus]

exactly, which is to say that if you support taxpayer money on schools, then you have to support teaching whatever the legislature says it should teach.

Incidently, teaching epicycles in physics would be even more anachronistic, since at least we have actual craft that can go out and take pictures of the orbital paths of Mars and Venus, whereas we don't have actual craft that can go back in time to check to see whether the quantum singularity did, in fact, occur some 13.7 billion years ago leading to the events described in the standard Hot Big Bang Model of the origin of the universe.

Nevertheless, neither circumstance really treads on the federal constitution, do they? 

You a lawyer?  I keep forgetting who's a lawyer.  What happened to MarkDel?  He was hotheaded and brash, but was an attorney specializing in the constitution, so it'd be interesting hearing his opinion. 

before locking him in a bus with all the other lawyers and pushing it off a cliff, that is.

[phk]

No (R)

[politicaladdict]

There's no actual constitutional-basis but not against. Neither is teaching men coming from monkeys which is something alot of lib-professers like to think they came from for whatever wierd reason.

[??????????]

I view it as a violation of the separation of church and state (while in and of itself isn't law), and a spread of false information. It's place is not in public education, and particularly not in science class.

Congress is establishing a religion?

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

no (D)
It would be lying. Plus it would not really match up. and biology is all about logic and facts.

[Franzl]

no (D)
It would be lying. Plus it would not really match up. and biology is all about logic and facts.

I agree with that, but what on Earth does that have to do with being constitutional?

[Хahar 🤔]

There's no actual constitutional-basis but not against. Neither is teaching men coming from monkeys which is something alot of lib-professers like to think they came from for whatever wierd reason.

Unfortunately, they don't.

[Stranger in a strange land]

I view it as a violation of the separation of church and state (while in and of itself isn't law), and a spread of false information. It's place is not in public education, and particularly not in science class.

Congress is establishing a religion?

In the sense that teaching one religion's creation story and not another religion's implies preference for that religion, yes.

There's no actual constitutional-basis but not against. Neither is teaching men coming from monkeys which is something alot of lib-professers like to think they came from for whatever wierd reason.

*sigh* Nobody actually believes humans came from monkeys, or that a monkey someday spontaneously turned into a human. Evolution does hold that humans, apes, and monkeys have a common ancestor, and that that common ancestor shares a common ancestor with all other mammals in the distant geologic past. Humans evolved gradually from lower forms of life over millions of years in response to environmental pressures. We know this from DNA evidence, the fossil record, homologous structures, and the fact that we've even observed evolution in fruit flies, bacteria, and other organisms. In fact the proof for evolution is so overwhelming that for it to not be true, somebody or something would have to be deliberately misleading us.

[Earth]

I view it as a violation of the separation of church and state (while in and of itself isn't law), and a spread of false information. It's place is not in public education, and particularly not in science class.

Congress is establishing a religion?

No, but people have allowed a lot of leeway into what enters into the public sphere, against stated political ideals. God would be one of these things. They stop short of declaring a religion, but they allow the mention of a supreme being.

[Magic 8-Ball]

No (I/O)

[??????????]

I view it as a violation of the separation of church and state (while in and of itself isn't law), and a spread of false information. It's place is not in public education, and particularly not in science class.

Congress is establishing a religion?

In the sense that teaching one religion's creation story and not another religion's implies preference for that religion, yes.

Preference isn't the establishment of a state religion.