QUESTION-ANSWERS 4
Running head: QUESTION-ANSWERS 1
Question-Answers
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Question-Answers
The origin of life is explained scientifically, through the theory of evolution. On the other hand, there is a religious explanation that argues that the source of life is through creation. In most schools, both theories are taught. However, there is resistance in some communities, when it comes to inclusion of the nonscientific theories in the curriculum of district schools in the United States. This essay evaluates whether nonscientific theories such as that of creation as the source of life should be given equal emphasis to scientific explanations in schools.
The idea of having nonscientific theories to explain the origin of life is based on the fact that some members of society do not believe in the scientific theory of evolution. There are various limitations of the theory, and this makes part of the social belief that it is unreliable. Additionally, the religious beliefs of the society contradict with scientific theories, and this is why religious beliefs prevail. As such, teaching nonscientific theories is justified in some communities because of religious beliefs (Honey, 2015). Expert’s belief that education should enable students’ lives a balanced life. This is why it has to expose students to both scientific and non-scientific theories that explain phenomena.
Teaching both scientific and nonscientific explanations does not mean that the students will choose to believe in the non-scientific one. It helps to appreciate that there are alternative explanations that exist about various issues. They can choose to believe the theory that is more convincing to them. It opens the issue to a debate, for further evaluations to make the students choose what is more believable.
Education has to include the values of the society members and expert knowledge. This is why curriculum development has to consider the views of society, as well as those of the experts. The society members should be comfortable with the kind of education their children receive so that they can also support such children in their learning process (Berkman, & Plutzer, 2015). As such, society and experts should be equally be involved in curriculum development, even if it means this will result in the inclusion of non-scientific theories in schools.
The argument against teaching nonscientific theories in schools is based on the view that it would be wrong to teach what one does not believe, or teach individuals something that they do not believe. It should be noted that the teachers do not teach with finality, but instead offer a guide to students to conduct their research and evaluations about what is taught (Honey, 2015). As such, the students should not just be exposed to one part of the argument. Even if the students do not share the belief in the nonscientific theories, they need to be exposed to the ideas, so that they can disapprove the same.
Religious groups are very interested to ensure that the nonscientific theories are taught in the schools. This has raised the constitutional debate as to whether this is against the separation of religion and state. Teaching creation theories would be against the beliefs of those who are not Christians. However, this argument is flawed in that there are religious and traditional explanations issues such as the origin of life (Berkman, Pacheco, & Plutzer, 2008). All these views should be taught in schools, though emphasis should be on scientific methods. Responding to the public opinion and allowing inclusion of religious theories in curriculum does not mean that the state is interfering with religion or vice versa as some individuals argue.
In summary, it is important to give equal emphasis to the scientific and nonscientific explanation of the origin of life. It is upon the students to evaluate the arguments in these theories and choose what to believe. Such a decision would mean that the curriculum should be developed by experts, who also involve the society members. This will ensure that the education curriculum is acceptable to society and that it can help the students live a balanced life after school.
References
Berkman, M. B., Pacheco, J. S., & Plutzer, E. (2008). Evolution and Creationism in America’s Classrooms: A National Portrait. PLoS Biology, 6(5), e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124
Berkman, M., & Plutzer, E. (2017). Who Should Decide What Children Are Taught? Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America’s Classrooms, 5-31. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511760914.002
Honey, P. L. (2015). Why I teach the controversy: using creationism to teach critical thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(1), 793-212. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00793