History of the evolutionism vs. creationism debate in Canada

Prior to 1925, the creation science theory was a prevailing system inthe Canadian education system. This was before the rise of geology inthe late 18th century. During this time, historians hadmade several estimates for the date of creation, and one of the mostcommon was that estimated by Bishop Usher 4004 October 22 BCE(Weintraub 13). However, with the rise of geology and otherscientific research studies, the education curriculum designers inCanada were compelled to teach the evolution theory, as proposed byCharles Darwin. Through the 19502 to 1975, the Roman Catholic Churchinfluenced much of the content that was taught in school. The pope,of the time, Pope Pius XII, issued a papal encyclical letter thatdiscouraged belief in evolution. This was because the Christians feltthat it was supported by materialists and atheists. Back in Canada,there was a formation of major creationist ministries for advocatingthe religious theory about creation (Blancke et al. 15). Suchincluded the creation research society, the Institute for CreationResearch and Creation Ministries International.

Theefforts by these religious ministries to advocate for the teaching ofthe creationism was met with resistance from evolution theorysupporters. This led to some legal battles that were fought in courtsto help determine the general direction that would be taken byeducators in the public sector. Some of the resolutions that weremade required curriculum guides to be developed for teachingcreationism and not evolution, limitation of the membership on theresource service panel to creationism scientists and forbiddingschool boards from discriminating against any one theory. The aim ofthe act was to fundamentally change the way that schools providededucation. In essence, the act was designed to either promote thetheory of creation, which took into consideration certain tenets ofreligion, or to prohibit teaching the scientific theory which spokeagainst certain religious beliefs.

Morerecently, there has been a different approach. The creationscientists have tried a new technique to have the schools in Canadateach the creation science theory in public schools. This was astrategy that was designed to persuade school boards to give equaltime to scientific evidence against evolution (Alters 132). As such,the evolution theory proponents felt that they were under threat, andthat they could not adequately get the teachers and students torecognize the claims of evidence against the evolution theory. Thisis because in reality, the evolution theory, is pseudo-science, andthus, can easily be refuted. In the 1980s, a new concept came intobeing. It was known as the intelligent design. According to Paxton,proponents of Intelligent Design are both individuals who believe ina young earth, and those who trust in an old terrain (179). Thesewere believers of microevolution, who believed that indeed a speciescould evolve into another without the intervention of externalintelligence. In this case, the external intelligence is a deity, orsupreme being, which the creation theorists know to be God.

Inthe modern day education system of Canada, most of the publicsupports the idea of placing scientific stress on evolution.Therefore, most support the approach of either teaching onlyevolution, teaching evolution as a scientific theory but allow thecreationism theory to be mentioned as a belief or teaching evolutionin science class, and creationism in religious classes. Only a few ofthe Canadians want both theories to be taught as a science.

Works Cited

Alters, Brian J.&nbspTeachingBiological Evolution in Higher Education: Methodological, Religious,and Nonreligious Issues.Sudbury, (Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2005. Print.

Blancke, Stefaan, Hans H.Hjermitslev, Peter Kjærgaard, and Ronald L. Numbers. Creationismin Europe. , 2014.Print.

Paxton, Mark.&nbspMediaPerspectives on Intelligent Design and Evolution.Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood, 2013. Print.

Weintraub, David, A..&nbspHowold is the universe? ,.Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 2011. Print.