Actually, the U.S. Constitution disallows, in the first amendment, "a law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof..." but it DOES NOT prohibit teachers from taking class time to discuss alternatives to the evolution theory.
True. However, there are no scientific, unfalsified, non-religious alternatives to discuss. Check back when you have one.
By the way, in 1980 the supreme court ruled that the law forbids states to REQUIRE the teaching of creation, but it does not forbid the teaching of creation either. check the lawbooks.
Reference please? The classic cases in this controversy are McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Edwards v. Aguillard, Epperson v. Arkansas, Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Daniel v. Waters, Wright v. Houston I.S.D.; none of these were in 1980. And please quote the portion of whatever decision you mean that you think "does not forbid the teaching of creation either."
The decision closest in time to 1980 is
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, in 1982. The ruling was pretty clear that "creation science" failed the
Lemon test decisively and is therefore religion, and the Court made it clear that "creation science" would have to change a lot before it could pass the Lemon test:
quote:
The two model approach of the creationists is simply a contrived dualism (22) which has not scientific factual basis or legitimate educational purpose. ... Section 4(a) lacks legitimate educational value because "creation-science" as defined in that section is simply not science. Several witnesses suggested definitions of science. A descriptive definition was said to be that science is what is "accepted by the scientific community" and is "what scientists do." The obvious implication of this description is that, in a free society, knowledge does not require the imprimatur of legislation in order to become science.
More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).
Creation science as described in Section 4(a) fails to meet these essential characteristics.
Also, if evolution is such a deeply-proven FACT, then why on earth is there still so much controversy
Because a few religious cranks are attempting to foist their religion on the general public. Although many people in the U.S. believe in somthing vaguely like creationism, those that really
want it taught in the classroom are a small but vocal minority.
in a nationwide pole on MSNBC in 2002, approximately 55% of those surveyed said they did not object to the teaching of creation science in the classroom
Well, I'll accept your assertion ... but how many said that we
should teach "creation science" in the classsroom, and exactly how were the questions worded? Not objecting is different from supporting.
But it's moot, anyway; both science and Constitutional interpretations are not the result of public debate. Another quote from McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education is relevant:
quote:
The defendants presented Dr. Larry Parker, a specialist in devising curricula for public schools. He testified that the public school's curriculum should reflect the subjects the public wants in schools. The witness said that polls indicated a significant majority of the American public thought creation science should be taught if evolution was taught. The point of this testimony was never placed in a legal context. No doubt a sizeable majority of Americans believe in the concept of a Creator or, at least, are not opposed to the concept and see nothing wrong with teaching school children the idea.
The application and content of First Amendment principles are not determined by public opinion polls or by a majority vote. Whether the proponents of Act 590 constitute the majority or the minority is quite irrelevant under a constitutional system of government. No group, no matter how large or small, may use the organs of government, of which the public schools are the most conspicuous and influential, to foist its religious beliefs on others.
So, until "creation science" becomes science rather than dogmatic religion, it will not be taught in U.S. public schools.
™ Version 4.2