In a country that is becoming more secular, the thought of teaching Judeo-Christian creationism in public schools often seems ridiculous and outdated. As a former atheist, I once believed the assertion that God created the Earth in seven 24-hour periods to be as laughable as the long-discredited assertion that the Earth is flat.

There is certainly a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support evolution, and evolution itself is an inherently secular idea surrounded by no real legal qualms.

If one supports teaching creationism in public schools, however, he or she must prove that such teaching a) is both a desirable and constitutional educational goal and b) meets some minimum amount of scientific backing to even qualify it as discussion-worthy.

This column will discuss the constitutional and educational reasons why creationism should be taught alongside evolution, whereas next week’s column will discuss the hard science that makes creationism a plausible theory.

A 2004 Gallup Poll indicated that 45 percent of Americans held a Biblical view of creationism. When almost half our population believes in creationism, it can hardly be considered a fringe belief. Though popularity in no way correlates to truth (after all, majorities used to believe in a geocentric universe), when such a belief is that popular, it should at least earn the right to be discussed academically alongside evolution.

At the first mention of teaching creationism, opponents will undoubtedly yell “separation of church and state!” This knee-jerk reaction is inconsistent with the meaning of separation of church and state. Though this phrase can’t be found anywhere in the constitution, “separation of church and state” refers to the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, which state, respectively, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or promoting the free exercise thereof.”

If the theory of creationism is to be taught in public schools, it should be presented as just that: a theory, and the same should be true of evolution. If creationism were presented as a theory, one could opt to follow if he or she judged the evidence to be sufficient, it would hardly violate the establishment clause. Presenting students with an option is a far cry from pressing unwanted religious beliefs upon them.

Even if these teachings lead some to start believing in a God-created earth, this hardly equates to a religious conversion. One can easily believe the Deist notion that God created the Earth, then stepped out of the picture. Ironically enough, the most famous Deist (Jefferson) was the very man who coined the phrase “separation of church and state.”

The creation versus evolution debate is one with great consequences on our lives. Though public-school students can certainly choose to reject evolution, their academic inquiry will likely stop there if they are not given the opposing theory to consider as well. Public schools should promote these debates that will affect our major life choices, not avoid them. By teaching evolution only, debate is avoided.

Political science classes are the perfect example of this. Professors present the merits and downfalls of both liberalism and conservatism without openly endorsing either, thus allowing students to draw their own conclusions.

Some might argue that if we are going to scientifically examine anything other than evolution, we should examine all religions’ origins accounts, yet with more than 100 different religions in America, this isn’t plausible. It makes most sense to examine the religions (Judaism and Christianity) that represent more than 80 percent of Americans today.

We already accept this type of majority catering in every other subject. Though public school gave me a cursory knowledge of Japanese history and culture, I was taught much more about American history simply because I, and the overwhelming majority of my classmates, had lived in America my entire life.

Some might also argue that it’s unnecessary for creationism to be taught in science classrooms because it’s already taught in church services and Sunday school. This method of teaching, however appropriate for the setting, only seeks to notify the students that the Earth was created in seven days, not why they should believe it.

Though collegiate religious studies classes may explore creation with a more objective and academic mindset than Sunday school classes, such classes still merely serve to match a religion with a belief. There is understandably no room in their syllabi for the type of inquiry into the natural sciences that might give such creation theories their oomph.

It is only in the science classroom, where students are forced to examine hard evidence from both sides, that they can take the debate seriously enough.

Whether the creationism theory can hold up in such a setting is the debate for next Monday. I’ll see you there.

Ben Friedman is a sophomore majoring in social entrepreneurship.