Even before Oklahoma’s Legislature was sworn in for a new term, the controversy over teaching evolution in public schools reared its ugly head.
In a December article in The Durant Daily Democrat, newly elected Republican State Sen. Josh Brecheen vowed to introduce legislation that brings parity to the debate. He believes that the “religion” of evolution receives preferential treatment in comparison to the idea that a “loving God” created the universe.
In my opinion, Brecheen has a semi-legitimate point.
In an attempt to avoid controversy, public school districts have shied away from presenting both sides of the subject for fear of litigation.
To their credit, this is a realistic fear. Beginning in 1925 with the Scopes Monkey Trial, the evolution-creationism debate has regularly appeared in courts ranging from the district level to the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the courts have already struck down creationism/intelligent design curriculum proposed by officials such as Brecheen.
In a 1971 case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court held that any legislation that does not meet the secular requirements of a three-pronged “lemon” test is unconstitutional under the Establishment Cause of the First Amendment.
The three requirements are: 1) Governmental legislation must have a secular purpose. 2) Government action cannot support or oppress religion. 3) Action cannot result in “excessive government entanglement” in religion.
Brecheen’s mission to teach children about a “loving God” will fail this test. In addition, if Brecheen’s bill attempts to implement a curriculum that gives equal time to evolution and intelligent design side-by-side, it will still be unconstitutional according to the outcomes of two more Supreme Court cases from later years.
These cases, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), held that teaching creationism side-by-side was unconstitutional and that intelligent design is not science, respectively.
Adding to school districts’ fears is the financial cost of fighting these cases. According to the National Center for Science Education, the latter case cost the Dover Area School System between $1 million and $2 million depending on whether pro bono fees are included. In these tough economic times, few school districts can come close to affording this.
Why then does Brecheen have a semi-legitimate point? Because there is an appropriate place for religious and creationist education in public schools: art, civics, philosophy and history classes.
According to the firstamendmentcenter.org, in Abington v. Schempp, the Supreme Court ruled, “It might well be said that one’s education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization.”
In other words, studying religion as a factor in our society is acceptable and advantageous. It is hard to understand the factors that led to the Puritans’ voyage to America or why the state of Utah exists without an understanding of Calvinism and Mormonism, respectively.
That is not to say we should push for a one-sided solution, such as Senate Bill 1338, which the Oklahoma legislature passed into law in March. This bill allowed public schools to teach the Bible, and only the Bible, as an elective course.
Instead, we should push our leaders to propose bills that would keep scientific theories in science classes while simultaneously attempting to expand students’ knowledge of diverse faiths, philosophies and traditions within their historical context.
— Andrew Cook, English writing junior
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
zparks 1 year, 4 months ago
When will politicians learn to keep quiet on issues that they do not understand? I would hate to have someone's religious beliefs dumped on me in high school under the guise of science. Like Bill O'reilly chalking up the movement of the tides to mystical, magical forces, when these uniformed speak out they publicly acknowledge their own ignorance and inability to separate fantasy from reality. I wonder how many republican primary candidates will raise their hand to denounce evolution next year. Assuming this anti-intellectual movement continues, I bet it increases from the troubling seven out of ten last go around. Let's leave science to the scientists and curious and leave politics for liars and the popular. Then we can leave religion for the dogs.