Science & Education

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 111–133 | Cite as

Should Creationism be Taught in the Public Schools?

  • Robert T. Pennock


This article discusses philosophicalarguments relevant to the question of teachingcreationism, especially with regard to developments inthe debate since the early 1990s.Section 1 reviews the newfactions within the creationist movement, and theoverlapping views from ‘young earth’ to ‘intelligentdesign’ creationism, as well as non-Christianvarieties. It also considers what are the relevantdifferences for the policy question for private,public schools, and for home schoolers, as well aspossible differences in what it means to ‘teach’creationism. Sections 2 & 3 discuss the main legal argumentsthat have ruled in the public school case, as well asarguments from academic freedom, fairness, censorship,parental rights and majority rule. Section 4 evaluates theepistemological issues regarding competing claims oftruth, and the contention that excluding ‘whatChristians know’ (Alvin Plantinga) amounts to‘viewpoint discrimination’ (Phillip Johnson). Section 5argues that religious protection arguments actuallyfavor excluding creationism more than including it. Section 6 considers the goals of education, especiallyDewey's views on science education, and what theseimply regarding the teaching of a ‘theistic science’. In Section 7, I review a new argument of Alvin Plantingabased upon a purported Rawlsian basic right of aparent not to have her children taught anything thatviolates her comprehensive beliefs, and show whyRawlsian agents would reject it.


Science Education Public School Theistic Science Majority Rule Academic Freedom 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aubrey, Frank: 1998 (1980), ‘Yes, Virginia, There Is a Creation Model’, Reports of the National Center for Science Education 18(1), 6.Google Scholar
  2. Bishop, George: 1998, ‘What Americans Believe about Evolution and Religion: A Cross-NationalPerspective’, Paper read at 53rd Annual conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, at St. Louis, Missouri.Google Scholar
  3. Cremo, Michael A. & Thompson, Richard L.: 1993, Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race, Govardhan Hill Publishing, Alachua, FL.Google Scholar
  4. Davis, Percival & Kenyon, Dean H.: 1993, Of Pandas and People, Haughton Publishing Co., Dallas, Texas.Google Scholar
  5. Dewey, John: 1964 (1910), ‘Science as Subject Matter and as Method’, in R.D. Archambault (ed.), John Dewey on Education: Selected Writings, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Dewey, John: 1964 (1938), ‘The Relation of Science and Philosophy as a Basis of Education’, in R. D. Archambault (ed.), John Dewey on Education: Selected Writings, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  7. Duvall, J. ed.: 1995, ‘School Board Tackles Creationism Debate’, CNN Interactive (WWW), November 5.Google Scholar
  8. Gilkey, Langdon: 1985, Creationism On Trial: Evolution and God at Little Rock, Winston Press, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, Phillip E.: 1991, Darwin on Trial, 1st edition. Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson, Phillip E.: 1995, Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law & Education, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL.Google Scholar
  11. Kitcher, Philip: 1982, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. La Follette, Marcel Chotkowski, ed.: 1983, Creationism, Science, and the Law: The Arkansas Case, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Larson, Edward J.: 1989, Trial And Error: The American Controversy over Creation and Evolution, Updated edition. Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Larson, Edward J.: 1997, Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial annd America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion, Basic Books, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Pennock, Robert T.: 1996, ‘Naturalism, Evidence and Creationism: The Case of Phillip Johnson’, Biology and Philosophy 11(4): 543-559.Google Scholar
  16. Pennock, Robert T.: 1999, Tower of Babel: The Evidence against the New Creationism, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  17. Plantinga, Alvin: 1997, ‘Methodological Naturalism?’, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 49(3), 143-154.Google Scholar
  18. Plantinga, Alvin: 1998, ‘Creation and Evolution: A Modest Proposal’, unpublished conference paper.Google Scholar
  19. Rawls, John: 1971, A Theory of Justice, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  20. Reisch, George A.: 1998, ‘Pluralism, Logical Empiricism, and the Problem of Pseudoscience’, Philosophy of Science 65, 333-348.Google Scholar
  21. Ruse, Michael, ed.: 1988, But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY.Google Scholar
  22. Schadewald, Robert: 1989, ‘The Earth was Flat in Zion’, Fate, May, 70-79.Google Scholar
  23. Siegel, Harvey: 1984, ‘The Response to Creationism’, Educational Studies 15(4), 349-364.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, Mike U., Harvey Siegel & Joseph D. McInerney: 1995, ‘Foundational Issues in Evolution Education’, Science & Education 4, 23-40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert T. Pennock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations