Evolution is the process by which living organisms develop and diversify over successive generations (“Evolution”). According to Charles Darwin, who first published the theory of evolution in 1859, all life on Earth is descended from a universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago. It has been more than 150 years since Darwin first published his theory, and though it has been a widely accepted theory among the scientific community for decades, evolution continues to be one of the most controversial topics in American education.
Many politicians and religious leaders denounce Darwin’s theory in favor of creationism. According to a recent Gallup poll, the majority of Americans (46%) also support the view that God created human beings as they are in their present form, while 32% percent share the belief that humans evolved but with God’s guidance, and a mere 15% support the idea of Darwinian evolution (Asplund). Another Gallup survey, conducted in 2005, shows that roughly 20% of American’s wish to omit the teaching of evolution in public school biology classrooms. Nearly 54% believe that creationism should either be taught instead of or alongside evolution in public school science courses, even though the first amendment of the United States Constitution calls for the separation of church and state (Asplund). Because of this, school boards across the country continue to debate the relevance of the theory of evolution, and whether or not it should be taught alongside other ideas such as the idea of creationism. Although many citizens favor the teaching of creationism in public schools and believe it to be a suitable alternative and counter argument to evolution, the theory of evolution must be taught because it is strongly supported by scientific evidence and has become a foundational part of science education, while creationism is a solely religious notion that has no place in the public school system.
Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution (“Creationism”). Creationist often argue that creationism deserves equal acknowledgement in the classroom because it is a form of “creation science,” when in reality it is “a belief based on faith, with little to no concrete evidence” (George 3). Many of America’s most prominent scientist, as well as a number of federal and supreme court judges, have concluded “creation science” is not scientifically useful because it makes no successful predictions about nature or the universe (George 3). Teaching creationism and evolution together poses a problem because it could easily confuse today’s impressionable young people on how one should judge successful science. According to Martinez Hewlett and Ted Peters, authors of “Evolution in Our Schools: What Should We Teach?,” “it would be tragic to take away a demonstrably successful science and replace or compare it with an inferior one just to satisfy religious expectations” (106). By teaching students to criticize one of the most widely accepted scientific theories, they will be less accepting and more closed minded towards other scientific findings as well.
Intelligent design is the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity (“Intelligent design”). Although the idea of intelligent design is often described as a middle ground between Darwinian evolution and creationism, it has also been deemed unscientific. According to Andrew Lac, Vanessa Hemovich and Igor Himelfarb, authors of “Predicting Position on Teaching Creationism (Instead of Evolution) in Public Schools,” scientists have countered that “intelligent design is not science as it does not follow the tenets of the scientific method” (260). This is because the theory of intelligent design presents no new hypothesis, cannot be tested empirically, and is not falsifiable (Lac et al. 260). Not only has the theory been dismissed by scientist as being unscientific and bound too closely to theological underpinnings, but by federal legislation as well. In the case of Freiler v. Tangipahoa, Judge Carolyn King ruled that “proposals for teaching intelligent design are equivalent to proposals for teaching creation science” (Moore et al. 770).
Though some people believe the controversial topic should just be eliminated from biology lesson plans all together, the intellectual value of the theory of evolution is too revolutionary to ignore. The quality of science is often measured by “scientific fertility,” or a theory’s ability to “generate progressive research programs that advances human understanding of the natural world as well as leads to innovative new technologies, such as medical therapies” (Hewlett and Peters 106). Based on this concept, the theory of evolution is considered “the best science,” due to it’s extensive contributions to medical science (Hewlett and Peters 107). For example, by using the theory of Darwinian evolution doctors and researchers have been able to study countless diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, and the effect of certain medicines on primates. These types of studies have lead to the development of many different vaccines and medical therapies over the last century (Hewlett and Peters 107).
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), “evolution is supported by an abundant amount of evidence from many different fields of scientific investigation” (Brown 4). Some examples of this evidence are fossil records, common structures among species, distribution of species, and similarities in development (Brown 4). The NAS also argues that:

The concept of biological evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by
the application of scientific methods to the natural world…No new evidence will
demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. (Brown 5)
Many of America’s high school biology teachers share the belief that teaching evolution is not optional. One public school biology teacher from Arizona stated “if I teach biology without evolution, I would be doing an injustice to not only myself, but to my students as well” (George 10) Many pro-evolution teachers also argue that the fact that “evolution is a central theme of the best ranked biology textbooks and model state science standards” illustrates evolution’s educational value, and that all students deserve to be educated on evolution, no matter their religion (Wiles 6). This is because, as stated in “Evolution in Our Schools: What Should We Teach?,” “society as a whole benefits from the few who dedicate their lives and careers to science” (Hewlett and Peters 108)
Although the majority of Americans support creationist ideals being taught in the classroom, the federal government has repeatedly denied the introduction of creationism, as well as intelligent design, into public schools as it is a direct violation of the separation of church and state. The Courts have determined time and time again in cases such as McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, and Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism has no place in public school classrooms. In McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, Federal Judge William Overton ruled that:
Creation science has no scientific merit or -educational value as science. Instead of
being scientists the creationists take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientitìc support for it.... A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist, and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory. (Moore et al. 769)
Overton’s decision became the basis for many cases regarding creation science, including the case of Edwards v. Aguillard.
In Edwards v. Aguillard, Judge William Rehnquist determined that a Louisiana law requiring equal treatment of both evolution and creationism was also unconstitutional and “facially invalid” because “it was meant to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint” (Moore et al. 769). Rehnquist also declared that:

The goal of providing a more comprehensive science curriculum is not furthered either
by outlawing the teaching of evolution or by requiring the teaching of creation science…
Requiring schools to teach creation science with evolution does not advance academic freedom. (Moore et al. 769)

Despite this fact, many politicians continue to challenge the legality of teaching evolution by proposing anti-evolution legislature. Two of the most prominent of these politicians are New Hampshire state representative Jerry Bergevin and Indiana state senator Dennis Kruse (Brown 4). Bergevin insists that he is not “anti-evolution” but rather “anti-indoctrination.” He believes the theory of evolution to be “a world view, and it’s godless,” even going as far as to claim that the infamous Columbine school shootings were a direct result of the school’s biology curriculum (qtd. in Brown 4). His solution is H.B. 1148, a bill which if passed orders the New Hampshire state board of education to “require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, along with the theorists political and ideological viewpoints, and their position on the concept of atheism” (qtd. in Brown 4).
Kruse, who is chairman of the Senate Education Committee, has introduced several different versions of anti-evolution legislation over the course of his career in office. Kruse’s latest attempt to get creationism into public education is S.B. 89, a bill that would authorize public schools in Indiana to “require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation” (qtd. in Brown 4). According to Amanda Rolat of the Americans United Legislative Council, an organization “committed to protect students’ and parents’ rights to have sound science...taught in public school science classrooms,” these bills are dangerous as they pose a significant threat to church and state separation, and it is important to oppose such types of legislation (qtd. in Brown 5)
In order to protect independent thinking, religious beliefs must not be allowed to determine the curriculum of public school courses. Not only is teaching creationism in government funded schools blatantly unconstitutional, it also provides students with an inferior education. Eliminating Darwin’s theory of evolution by censoring the curriculum of public school science classes would negatively impact all facets of education. Restricting what students are able to learn in one particular subject will ultimately lead to the censorship of all subjects. This, in turn, would prevent public schools from serving their primary purpose of providing students with the highest quality of education possible. Therefore, there is no logical reason to suggest that public schools become non-secular institutions.