IT SEEMS this country has yet to have a truly intelligent, high-minded debate on the merits of religious education in public school classrooms.
There are two camps. On the right, our favorite evangelist President Bush has tried to make the case for teaching the religious theory of intelligent design along with evolution in American schools. Most liberals, on the other hand, start convulsing at the thought of schoolchildren learning about the Garden of Eden along with -- or instead of -- the theory of natural selection. After all, this country was founded upon the separation of church and state.
But let's face it -- the story of this country is riddled with visions of a higher power. From the pledge of allegiance to the dollar bills students use as lunch money, God has already infiltrated education institutions. We just pretend not to see Him. Rather than pretend metaphysics can be relegated to only certain times and places in our lives, perhaps it would be better for teachers to take a little bit of class time to discuss various religious explanations for holes in scientific theories. As all educated people should know, broader learning is never a bad thing. It becomes dangerous only when some knowledge is deemed "inappropriate" or "unworthy."
It should not be unthinkable to posit the idea that perhaps there is a greater power that had a hand in the formation and events of this world. Millions of Americans, and billions of people around the world, believe so. Although many people still ascribe to the literal explanations of life found in the Bible or the Koran, many other religious people reconcile faith with science with the notion of God-centered evolution -- evolution may have led to the creation of man, but a Higher Power set the whole evolutionary process in motion.
One of the reservations Americans tend to have about teaching any sort of "creationism" in schools is that God is scientifically unproven to exist and religion is simply a matter of faith not fit for schools focused on academicssubjects based on logic and reason. However, even the most "reasonable" academic disciplines are fundamentally based on faith. Mathematics is based on axioms, which by definition are "a self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument," according to the American Heritage Dictionary. For instance, for any two points A and B, it is assumed that a line can be drawn to connect them. It cannot be proven. It just is.
In 2005, a federal court found in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that teaching "intelligent design" was teaching a form of creationism and thus in violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. The judge forbade intelligent design from being taught in science classrooms. It is clear that almost any version of creationism or intelligent design includes the idea that, at some point, a higher power set in motion a series of events that led to life on Earth. There is no current scientific explanation of this. It seems to make sense, then, that intelligent design should not be included in science classes because the theory is not based upon proven fact. It would make better sense to have religion courses offered instead.
Unfortunately, most public schools cannot afford to offer new classes or pay new teachers. So religion is left to parents and churches to explain. Would it not be more beneficial to American culture and society if students did receive some sort of academic training about religion? So many secular people complain about fundamentalists in this country. If a religion course were an option, or if various explanations of gaps in evolution were taught from different religious perspectives, maybe young people would have more open attitudes about different religions and a better understanding of their own.
Of course I acknowledge that teaching religion in school in an intellectual fashion rather than evangelical proselytizing is a fine line to walk. But that doesn't imply that educators should dismiss religious education categorically. Unfortunately, Americans reflexively associate "intelligent design" with George W. Bush and his self-righteous posturing and have no desire to see their children become disciples of W. Understandable indeed.
Few people cringe more than I at the thought of how some teachers could morph the classroom into a training ground for future Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons. However, it seems more likely that leaving religion completely out of schools allows for the seemingly rising number of close minded people, whether they are fundamentalists or atheists. In school, students learn history, languages, math and science in order to live and work in the real world. If religion is central to the lives of billions of people on Earth, wouldn't it make sense to learn a little about what makes these people tick?
Marta Cook's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at mcook@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 5 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
