The fire of controversy regarding the teaching of evolution in our public schools was recently fueled by the Kansas State School Board's refusal to mandate the teaching of evolution in the state's science curriculum. The Kansas decision has now boosted the issue of "scientific creationism" into the presidential campaign, where the candidates' comments have demonstrated a disappointing lack of knowledge about the tenets of evolution and the legal decisions regarding the teaching of creationism.
Vice President Gore, Elizabeth Dole, John McCain, and Gary Bauer have all said that the decision to teach evolution should be up to local schools; Texas Gov. Bush stated, "I believe children ought to be exposed to different theories about how the world started"; and Steve Forbes has called evolution "a massive fraud." (Washington Post, 8-27-99)
RESPONSE FROM THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY
The National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit group chartered by Congress to give the nation guidance on important scientific matters, issued a statement in April, 1998. The Academy emphasized that evolution, the most important concept in modern biology, must be a vital part of science instruction and that lessons on creationism do not belong in science classes. They contend that "students are receiving little exposure to it [evolution] because teachers are being bullied into silence by religious groups."
Twentieth-century creationists follow many paths. The young earth creationists believe in a single, special creation that occurred only several thousand years ago. They are the defenders of the most strictly literal biblical view.
Old earth creationists also believe in a single, special creation, but believe it took place billions of years ago.
Day-age and gap creationists believe that the present universe came about through stages of creation, such as would have occurred if the seven "days" of Genesis were actually seven very long ages (day-age), or if there were long gaps between the days of creation (gap).
The Theory of Abrupt Appearance contends that everything in the universe appeared suddenly in its current form, without predecessors. Abrupt Appearance is the doctrine of creation science without mention of the Creator--an attempt to skirt the First Amendment which does not allow advocacy of religion in the public school classroom.
[Other euphemisms to disguise attempts to bring religious views into the science curriculum include arguments against evolution, alternative theories, balanced treatment, intelligent design theory, and irreducible complexity.]
In all the above cases, creationists deny the possibility that one kind of organism can evolve into another. None of these forms of creationism can be reconciled with scientific evidence from biology, geology, biochemistry, paleontology, biogeography, embyrology, and many other relevant fields. According to Gallup polls, about 44 percent of Americans believe in a strict biblical creationist view.
Theistic evolution, accepted by most major religious groups and 40 percent of Americans, states that God is the Creator, but that He works through the process of evolution, as revealed through modern science. With this approach, there is no necessary conflict between religion and acceptance of evolution as a scientific idea, and so it is not surprising that many people of great faith accept the theory of evolution. [Source: National Center for Science Education]
WHY THE CONTROVERSY OVER EVOLUTION?
Most people thought the Scopes Monkey trial of 1925 settled the issue of teaching evolution in our schools, but that has not prevented creationists from continuing their fight to make creationism part of the science curriculum. Since a scientific defense of creationism would be difficult to mount, creationists focus on attacking evolution. By planting doubts about its validity and promoting confusion about its definition, creationists have successfully misrepresented what the theory of evolution entails. The following quote illustrates the misunderstandings fostered by the creationists' campaign:
During the 1980 Presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan told an audience, concerning evolution...
"Well, it's a theory--it is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it was once believed."
Each of the three statements in this quote reflects a commonly held misunderstanding of evolution:
1. Evolution is a scientific theory, but the ordinary definition of "theory" as "hunch," or "guess" does not apply in the world of science. There, the word "theory" means an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, which has been confirmed by verifiable fact (and the absence of incompatible fact).
2. Evolution has been challenged, but the scientific community has not been swayed by the arguments of the creationists. Peer reviews of "creation science" assertions have not been sympathetic.
3. Evolution has not been called "infallible," even though the evidence supporting it is overwhelming. The scientific method holds as a matter of course that all conclusions are tentative, and that nothing can ever be absolutely proven to a certainty (e.g. the "theory" of gravity). If new and compelling evidence against evolution were discovered, the scientific community would alter its "theory."
Another common misunderstanding about evolution is reflected in Presidential Candidate Gary Bauer's statement that "Evolution…is taught with the idea that life arose spontaneously and that there is no divine intelligence involved." (Washington Post, 8/27/99) The theory of evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life -- only its evolution.
According to Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, "That one [the origin of life] is still up for grabs."
OTHER ARGUMENTS made to promote the teaching of creationism in public schools are based on an "equal treatment" approach:
Since there are flaws in the theory of evolution, doesn't that prove creationism deserves attention? Most "flaws" are based on misrepresentation or denial of facts. For example, creationists point to a lack of transitional fossils for some species as a "flaw" in evolution theory. However, there are many reasons why some plants or animals did not fossilize or have not yet been found, but since there is already enough fossil evidence to establish a clear pattern, lack of additional fossils is irrelevant.
Fairness requires teaching both sides of the issue. The National Academy of Science has stated: "When the evidence for creationism has been subjected to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid." Schools cannot teach an unproven belief as fact. Creationism is a legitimate topic for religion, history, literature or philosophy class -- not science.
Text books which teach evolution should include disclaimers because evolution is a controversial issue. Evolution is not scientifically controversial.
WHAT DO THE COURTS SAY ABOUT EVOLUTION & CREATIONISM?
- That a state cannot require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any particular religious sect or doctrine (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968)
- That class discussion of evolution does not prohibit a student's free exercise of religion (Segraves v. State of California, 1981)
- That "creation science" is not in fact a science and
- That the subject of life's origins is not part of evolutionary theory and
- That the theory of evolution does not presuppose either the absence or the presence of a creator (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982)
- That advancing the religious belief that a supernatural created humankind impermissibly endorses religion and
- That a comprehensive science education is undermined when it is forbidden to teach evolution except when creation science is also taught (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987)
- That a school district may prohibit a teacher from teaching creation science to ensure that the First Amendment's establishment clause is not violated (Webster v. New Lenox School District, 1990)
- That a teacher's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion is not violated by a requirement that evolution be taught in biology classes, rejecting a definition of a "religion of evolutionism" (Ploza v. Capistrano School District, 1994)
- That teachers could not real aloud a disclaimer whenever they taught about evolution, ostensibly to promote "critical thinking" and
- That curriculum proposals for "intelligent design" are equivalent to proposals for teaching "creation science" (Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, 1997)
Despite the scientific and legal support for teaching evolution and against teaching creation science, an uninformed public can still be swayed by what seem to be "scientific" and logical arguments. In addition, by making "evolution" synonymous with "anti-religious" or disbelief in a creator, creationists have successfully intimidated citizens and public figures into silence or reluctance to take a stand on this issue.
That the teaching of evolution is now considered "controversial" pays testimony to the political clout of the religious right.
Links || How to Contact Us || Guest Book || Quotes from the Right || Home