Is teaching creationism in biology classes Constitutional?

[Sewer]

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.

Yes it is.

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

Proof? How can you even say that politicians preferring one religion over another is anything close to the Church of England.

[angus]

Preference isn't the establishment of a state religion.

That's an interesting point.  I started doing an informal search after you posted it and found that the phrase ‘establishment of religion’ can mean nonpreferential assistance to organized churches as well as preferential assistance.

For example, Thomas Jefferson, while president, wrote "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."  Doesn't that mean that Jefferson knew that the federal government is precluded from promoting religion in any manner, preferentially or nonpreferentially.

Moreover, the Supreme Court ruled in various cases about this.  Here are a few, which may not be the most important benchmarks, but are some that a cursory search turns up:

Abington School District v. Schempp (1962):  "this Court has rejected unequivocally the contention that the Establishment Clause forbids only governmental preference of one religion over another." 

Everson v. Board of Education (1947):  "the Establishment Clause means that neither the federal government nor a state "can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another."

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994):  "governments may not show a preference for religion to irreligion."

Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Wallace v. Jaffree (1985):  the Court used the establishment clause to strike down state government laws.

Interesting debate, but not germane to the thread, since I'm not sure any of those cases answers the question, though.  Teaching Creationism in class may or may not be tantamount to establishment.  I'll look for a case about that.

here's one:  Freiler et al v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education (2000).  The board, in 1994, voted to require its teachers to read a "disclaimer" before discussing the subject of evolution.  Three parents of Tangipahoa students filed suit, and in 1997, a District Judge  ruled that the disclaimer was unconstitutional.  The school board appealed, but a Fifth Circuit appeals panel upheld the district ruling in 1999 and the circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc on January 24 of the following year.  The Supreme Court declined to review the case on June 19, 2000;  Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented from this decision.   Hmmmm.  Some evidence of a general hostility among the majority of SC justices, but that's not exactly answering the question either.

Still looking...  Okay, here's one:

Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District.  A school district in Pennsylvania is sued for requiring the presentation of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.  The plaintiffs argue that intelligent design in creationism.  Right on the money.  Now, what does the Federal judiciary say?  Well, the decision is long.  139 pages.  But the short answer is that in this case a three-judge panel ruled that Dover school policy violated the establishment clause. 

there were some allegation of perjury, and it was a strange circumstance, so I'll try to find a cleaner case.

Daniel v. Waters(1975):  This one's kinda interesting.  The US sixth circuit court of appeals strikes down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes, again because of "Establishment" concerns.

Seems to be a pattern, States, you have to admit.  I will say that Establishment can be preferential or nonpreferential, and it has been taken that way for over 200 years, so Stranger's remarks aren't relevant, but not for the reason you state. 

Or so it seems to me.

There may be more recent cases.  Someone more familiar with the FindLaw engine or that Thomas website might be able to turn up the latest federal ruling.  And, court ideologies do come and go.  Just as Plessy v. Ferguson was later rethought, so might the teaching of creationism.  But at the moment the law seems to be defined in such a way that teaching creationism does amount to establishing religion.

[ilikeverin]

I'm sure I wouldn't want anyone teaching creationism in my son's school. 

How is he, by the way?

[John Dibble]

To the original question, I would say it depends on the context.

If you are teaching it as science when it clearly is religion, then no. If however you are teaching it as a historically held belief of scientists before modern theories of the origin of life came about then I would say not - that's simply historical fact, not religion.

[A18]

Under any non-ridiculous interpretation, the class is irrelevant.

[angus]

I'm sure I wouldn't want anyone teaching creationism in my son's school.

How is he, by the way?

Well.  Thanks for asking. 

Took the training wheels off his bicycle last week, and he's riding pretty well.  We started him in swimming lessons this summer as well.  He's four years and seven months, almost, so I think he's doing well.  He seems to know where babies come from as well.  Too much TV I suppose.  We still make him read books and such so his mind doesn't totally atrophy. 

He doesn't quite dance like Michael, or hit like Sammy, or pitch like Noland, or sing like Luciano Pavarotti, so we're exploring other talents.  I bought him a little electric keyboard, and taught him to play the bass part of the first sixteen measures of Johann Pachelbel's "Canon in D major."  Although I have to play the treble part still.  And he confuses his right hand with his left. 

He's also old enough now that I have to get him to stop peeing in public.  He has been fully toilet-trained since he was very young.  About 2 and a half years.  In the sense that he pulls it out and urinates after running out of the building rather than pissing at will.  This has saved us money on diapers.  But now I think it's time to teach him to try to find a toilet instead of aiming for the grass or the trees.  Society can be very forgiving of toddlers, even amused, but they start to frown on public urination at some point.  Ah, at least he has enough decency to miss the sidewalks.

We tend to discuss things like natural selection and the standard Hot Big Bang model of the origin of the elements rather casually.  My wife and I are quite nerdy.  So if the school were to teach creationism it might confuse him.  As far as I know, the local schools don't do that.  But until I read about those cases I hadn't thought it would be unconstitutional.  {I voted Yes (I/O) in this poll and stand by my original post.}  A major waste of taxpayer money, for sure, and it would piss me off enough to campaign for the election of other school board members if the current board promoted the teaching of creationism, but not unconstitutional, imho.  I'm not sure that I buy into the Establishment rationale, but I do agree that creationism isn't appropriate for the high school science curriculum.  And to that end, I'll just keep my mouth shut about it.

[WillK]

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

I am particular  about the wording of the Constitution. 

The First Amendment places a restriction on the legislative authority of Congress.
If Congress passed a law about teaching creationism, I would say it was unconstitutional.
But I dont see how a local school board or some curriculum committee is covered by the First amendment, so I said it is Constitutional, though poor educational policy

[WillK]

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?

The verb in the first amendment is respecting, not establishing.

[President Mitt]

In private schools yes, in public schools Hell no. My tax dollars should not go to fund some sort of idiotic theory, it should fund the accepted theory, which is evolution.

[RScannix]

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

I am particular  about the wording of the Constitution. 

The First Amendment places a restriction on the legislative authority of Congress.
If Congress passed a law about teaching creationism, I would say it was unconstitutional.
But I dont see how a local school board or some curriculum committee is covered by the First amendment, so I said it is Constitutional, though poor educational policy

I say yes, partly for this reason, and partly because it does not explicitly establish a religion. However, it is a terrible idea because there is no demonstrable evidence for creationism. It has more to do with faith than science; any self-respecting school board would keep it out of a science class, in the same manner in which one would not talk about basketball in algebra class.

[Person Man]

In private schools yes, in public schools Hell no. My tax dollars should not go to fund some sort of idiotic theory, it should fund the accepted theory, which is evolution.

Pretty much..though I don't think its a religious endorsement to simply say that certain people believe in it...as long as the generally accepted theory is taught.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not unconstitutional, so long as the teaching of creationism isn't limited to the Judeo-Christian creation myth.

If creationism is to be taught in schools, then all creation myth should be recognized, if not taught.



Babylonian Creation Myth

African Creation Myth - Olori

Korean & Japanese Creation Myth

Navajo Creation Myth

Norse Creation Myth

Creation Myth from India (Hindu)

Japanese Creation Myth

Comanche Creation Myth

Chinese Creation Myth

Chelan Creation Myth

Pima Creation Myth

Mayan Creation Myth

Miwok Creation Myth

Scandinavian (Norse) Creation Myths

Salish Creation Myth

Australian Aboriginal Creation Myth

Hopi Creation Myth

Tahitian Creation Myth

Yokut Creation Myth

Comanche Creation Myth
   
Egyptian Creation Myths

African - Mande, Yoruba Creation Myths

Micmac Creation Myth

Lakota Creation Myth

Chinese Creation / Flood Myth

Assyrian / Babylonian Creation Myth

Maori Creation Myth

Jewish Creation Myth (Genesis)

Aztec Creation Myth

Digueno Creation Myth

Apache Creation Myth

African Creation Myths

Dakota Creation Myth

Hungarian Creation Myth

Iroquois Creation Myth

Inuit Creation Myth

Huron Creation Myth

Hawaiian Creation Myth

Egyptian Creation Myths

Christian / Jewish Creation Myth

[gregusodenus]

Teaching creationism is unconstitutional, as it violates the separation of church and state.

[Sewer]

Teaching creationism is unconstitutional, as it violates the separation of church and state.

This.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No. The sad thing is even at a liberal school where you don't have to deal with creationist bullsh**t, you still have teachers who are unable to explain what evolution is. So in order to learn what evolution is, you need a teacher who both isn't a crazy fundie or an idiot. Those groups of people definitely overlap, but aren't completely the same.

[Deldem]

Absolutely not. Not only is it unconstitutional (thank you first amendment), it's also a really freakin' stupid theory.

[k-onmmunist]

Of course not.

[Marokai Backbeat]

No. It's also incredibly ignorant.

Absolutely not. Not only is it unconstitutional (thank you first amendment), it's also a really freakin' stupid theory.

Yeah, basically what he said.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Of course it is constitutional. The Constitution has no just authority over local schools.

[12th Doctor]

Is it unconstitutional?  No.  By definition, a teacher should have a right to say whatever they like.  Is it stupid?  Yes.  But I will leave it at that.

[Devilman88]

School should be privatized..

[ChrisJG777]

School should be privatized..

No.  Just no.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

School should be privatized..

And replaced withe Leadership Conferences, presumably.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

School should be privatized..

Rather, the public schools should just be shut down completely.