Teaching Theories: The Evolution-Creation Controversy (GREAT essay!)

[journalistic]

This is a very lengthy read, but excellent and well worth the time.

Teaching Theories: The Evolution – Creation Controversy
Robert Root-Bernstein
Donald L. McEachron

In recent years, a controversy has developed in the United States over the teaching of evolutionism and creationism in the public schools. The controversy, while nominally a scientific one, also has philosophical, historical, religious, and legal implications as well. Since some twenty state legislatures or courts are presently considering or have considered legislation and lawsuits concerning the controversy, we believe that it is in the best interest of the voting public to be informed of the issues.

We believe that there are four basic issues: 1) What is a scientific theory? 2) What is-a religious belief? 3) Who has the right to decide these issues? 4) How does one’s answers to the previous three questions affect one’s view on whether evolutionism and creationism are scientific and should be taught in public schools?

Very briefly, a controversy has arisen between evolutionists and creationists because they disagree on all four basic issues. Evolutionists generally believe: 1) that evolutionism is a valid scientific theory, whereas creationism is not; 2) that evolutionism is not a religious belief, whereas creationism is; and 3) that the validity of a religious belief should be decided by religious believers. In consequence, evolutionists conclude 4) that since evolutionism is a valid scientific theory, it should be taught in the public schools; whereas, since creationism is not a scientific theory, it should not be taught as science in the public schools.

Creationists disagree completely. Creationists generally believe: 1) that evolutionism is not a valid scientific theory, whereas creationism is; 2) that evolutionism is a dogmatic, secular religion, whereas “scientific creationism” is not; and 3) that the state (that is, either the legislature or the courts) has the right to decide whether any theory is scientifically valid or not. Thus, creationists argue 4) that the state has the right to decide that evolutionism must be censored as a dogmatic religious belief and equal time given to creationism as a valid scientific theory. Creationists argue that either both should be taught in the public schools, or neither. Clearly, to decide between these two positions, one must understand what a scientific theory is and how it differs from a religious belief. It is our purpose to explore these issues in this essay.

What is a Scientific Theory?
Begin by considering the question, “What is a scientific theory?” There is nothing mysterious about the answer; a scientific theory is a simple, testable, and correctable explanation of observable phenomena that yields new information about nature in answer to a set of pre-existing problems. While this definition may sound complicated or imposing, in practice it is not.

All of us use scientific theories in our daily thinking. Consider the following situation as an example. You come home one evening, open the front door, and turn on the light switch. The lights do not come on. This is an observation. One compares this observation to memories of observations made under similar circumstances: every other time you’ve turned on the light switch, the lights have come on. One has an anomaly that is, something that should work the same as always, but doesn’t. Why do the lights not come on? This is your problem. How do you resolve your problem? First, it occurs to you that something about the electrical system is different tonight. You consider possible differences: perhaps the light switch isn’t working properly. You’ve invented a hypothesis. Can you test it? Sure. You jiggle the switch. Nothing happens. Your hypothesis is probably wrong. You reject it. But you still have your problem. Can there be some other explanation? Yes. Maybe the fuse has burned out. Another hypothesis.

Can it be tested? Easily. You go turn on the light switch in the next room and the lights in there go on. So your problem isn’t the fuse. There must be some other explanation. But wait a minute: you’ve made an assumption about the fuse that may not be correct! What if the two rooms are controlled by two different fuses? Then the fact that the lights work in the second room proves nothing at all about the first fuse. The manner in which you’ve tested your hypothesis about the fuse being burned out is not valid. If your assumption about both rooms being controlled by a single fuse is wrong, then the test is useless. Thus, one must be careful to test not only one’s hypothesis, but the assumptions upon which it rests as well. This is a very important point to which we will return later. Checking your fuses, you find that all are fine.

So, still in the dark, you hypothesize that the bulb is burned out. You take out the bulb, put in a new one, throw the switch, and, lo and behold-light! So you conclude that your third hypothesis was correct. The reason the light would not go on was because it was burned out. But wait! You’ve made another assumption, haven’t you? You’ve assumed the light bulb is burned out, but have you tested the light bulb in another socket to see whether it really is burned out? If you are acting scientifically, you must not only test your hypothesis; you must also test your assumptions. So, you screw the light bulb into another socket and-much to your surprise-it lights! Your last hypothesis was wrong!

And just think - if you hadn’t bothered testing your assumption, you would never have known you were wrong. Indeed, you would have thrown away a perfectly good light bulb. Now, how do you explain why the light bulb failed to light before? It wasn’t burned out. The power was on. The fuse was fine. The switch works. Logically, there seems to be only one other likely explanation of all these observations: perhaps the light bulb wasn’t screwed in properly. This is your new hypothesis.

As with any scientific hypothesis, you ask once again: Is it testable? But this time your answer is both yes and no. Yes, one may test the general hypothesis that an unscrewed light bulb won’t light. That’s easy to do: just loosen any light bulb in its socket and you can verify that it doesn’t go on when you turn the switch. However, one cannot test the particular hypothesis that the cause of your problem tonight was a loose bulb; you’ve already removed the bulb from its socket.
There is now no way to tell whether the bulb was loose or not. One concludes that it had to have been loose because one cannot think of any other test hypothesis.

Note that one accepts one’s particular hypothesis only when two conditions are met: 1) that its corresponding general hypothesis is testable; and 2) when no other testable hypothesis is available to explain the problem.

If one’s explanation meets these criteria, then it is a scientific theory. But note also that one’s theory is not actually true - it is only probable. It is only probable because there might be another testable hypothesis that might explain the collection of observations better; or there might be a test that demonstrates that one’s theory is wrong.

One might, for example, someday discover that one’s lights go out sporadically because a mouse causes short circuits by gnawing on the wires in the wall. But, if you don’t know you have a mouse then you are unlikely to think of this hypothesis and even less likely to test it by looking for the mouse. In consequence, theories are always tentative, even when tested and found correct. For, as you saw when you thought your problem was a burned-out bulb, it sometimes takes only one more simple test to reveal your error.

Now, we may draw several important conclusions about scientific theories from this example. Most important of these is the fact that scientific theories can never be proven absolutely. A mouse may always be hiding, unknown, in some wall waiting to be discovered, thereby disproving your loose-light-bulb theory. The same is true of any scientific theory. Science is not, therefore, truth-at best it is the unending search for truth. The conclusions reached by science are only contingent truths-truths contingent upon man’s limited knowledge of himself and the world around him.

cont'd in next post...

[journalistic]

Now, one may ask what good is a theory if it is not true? A theory is good because it is useful and it is fruitful of new knowledge. Scientific methods have explained more of the empirical world than any alternative approaches including religion. Science allows man to work in the universe as no other system of knowledge does. It allows one to do things that one could not otherwise do and it allows one to learn things one would otherwise not learn.

For example, Faraday’s theory of electricity allowed him to invent the first electric motor. Pasteur’s germ theory has allowed the control of innumerable diseases. The laws of thermodynamics allowed atomic power to be harnessed by mankind. The list could go on almost indefinitely. So, scientific theories are important because they give mankind knowledge of this world and the ability to act wisely in this world. In our case, it gave us knowledge of the electrical system and thus the ability to fix the light.

Man’s ability to act usefully from the predictions of a theory, however, depend upon his ability to test the predictions made by the theory. The process of testing, as we saw with the light bulb, is more important than the theory itself. For even when the theory was wrong, the test yielded new information that was used to invent the next theory. Thus, right or wrong, a testable theory always yields new information about the problem it claims to resolve. This new information is cumulative. It adds up. First we tested the switch and found that it worked. So, we knew the problem was not the switch. Then we tested the fuse, and found that the fuse worked. So we knew the problem was not the fuse or the switch. Then we tested the light bulb . . and so on.

The more we tested, the more we learned. And the more we learned, the fewer the possible explanations left to try. We knew more and our ignorance was less. We were converging on the correct answer. All good scientific theories work this way. Thus, although scientific truths are always contingent ones, the method by which they are advanced and tested ensures their improvement.

In short, the power of scientific theories results from the fact that they are correctable. They may be tested. Whether the theory is right or wrong, these tests yield new information about the world. And, if the theory is wrong, then this new information can be used to invent a new and better theory. Thus, while scientific theories are never perfect, they become better and better with time. And, as theories become better, mankind knows more, can act more wisely, and can solve more problems.

Can God Be Used in a Scientific Theory?
One further explanation of our light problem remains to be discussed before considering whether evolutionism and creationism are scientific theories. One might explain the failure of the light by saying that “It was God’s will.” Indeed, it might have been. “God’s will” cannot, however, be part of a scientific explanation. Three reasons preclude the use of God, or other supernatural agencies, in scientific theories. First, scientific theories must be bounded. That is, they must apply only to a particular field of inquiry.

A simple analogy can be made to sports. Each sport has its own rules that are valid only for that sport. And every sport is played within an area bounded by sidelines, goals, or a defined course. In this sense, science is the attempt to discover the rules by which nature plays its various “games” and the boundaries within which each different “game” is played. In our light bulb example, we concluded that a rule must exist that says: the light will not go on if the bulb is not screwed in properly. This is a bounded explanation that applies to all light bulbs, but which could not, for example, be used to explain other natural events such as a flood or a death. “Gods will” is, on the other hand, an unbounded explanation, It can be used to explain the light problem, floods, deaths, and anything else imaginable. In consequence, “God’s will” and other supernatural powers cannot be invoked in a scientific theory because they would make the theory unbounded. The rules of science would not apply, just as the rules of baseball do not apply to tennis.

Unbounded explanations have a second problem. They cannot be tested. As we stated above, all theories must be testable. Testability, in turn is necessary if a theory is to be correctable. To be testable, and therefore correctable, a theory must state how an event occurs. Because Gods actions are beyond man’s knowledge, we cannot know how He works His will. The same is true of any supernatural explanation. Supernatural, by definition, means beyond man’s comprehension.

Since God’s power is supernatural, He is capable of doing anything. Thus, there is no test imaginable that could disprove an hypothesis stating that an event occurred because of “God’s will.” In consequence, there would be no way to discover if one’s hypothesis were wrong, and no way to correct one’s error. Untestable explanations present a third difficulty. They can neither be harnessed to useful ends nor to the discovery of new knowledge. Explaining the light bulb problem as “God’s will,” for example, does not enable us to correct the problem. On the contrary, it places the problem beyond our comprehension. By proposing that the light bulb failed to light because it was unscrewed, we could correct the problem immediately. Further, we would be able to recognize and solve that problem if it ever arose again. Thus, we have learned something new. We have acquired new knowledge. Invoking “Gods will” does not yield the same sort of new and useful knowledge.

One must not conclude from the foregoing that science is anti-religious. On the contrary, scientific and religious explanations can be completely compatible. What the light bulb problem shows us is that scientific explanations are simply a very select subset of all possible explanations. Religious, or supernatural, explanations form another subset. Sometimes these two subsets overlap. Then, something may be “God’s will” and also have a scientific explanation. In these cases, one should be able to explain how “God’s will” was implemented. If one can do this, then science and religion are in harmony. If not, then they represent two irreconcilable views of the problem. On this point, Pope John Paul II recently quoted the following conclusion from the Vatican II Ecumenical Council: “research performed in a truly scientific manner can never be in contrast with faith because both profane and religious realities have their origin in the same God.” Religious leaders of almost all religious denominations agree.

Evolution: Science or Religion?
Now, how does the light bulb example illuminate the question of whether evolution is a scientific explanation of nature? First of all, as in the light bulb example, one must have a problem to address. The problem evolutionists face is to explain how the living organisms that exist on the Earth today developed through history, and how they achieved the forms and distributions characteristic of each species, alive or extinct. Many hypotheses have been proposed to resolve these problems during the 2,000 years of man’s recorded history. Each has been found wanting. Perhaps the best known of these was Lamarck’s idea that organisms could modify their structures by force of will. Lamarck’s idea did not pass the test of observation and its assumptions were never verified. Thus, it, like our hypothesis concerning the fuses, was retired to scientific purgatory.

Not until Darwin invented the concept of evolution by natural selection of the fittest organisms was an hypothesis suggested that explained all of the data accumulated during tests of previous hypotheses. It did so in a simple, harmonious, and verifiable way. Thus, if one looks at the history of science, one finds that Darwin’s is neither the first nor the only theory to attempt to explain the history and development of life. It is the culmination of 2,000 years of theory building. In this, evolution
is analogous to our loose-light-bulb hypothesis: it is the end product of a long chain of hypothesizing and testing. It is the best theory so far devised.

Darwin’s basic hypothesis was that only the best adapted organisms survive the competition for food, the ravages of disease, and the attacks of natural predators to reproduce themselves. The weeding out of weaker organisms creates a steady change in the adaptive characteristics of the individual organisms comprising each species. As the individual characteristics change, so does the profile of the whole species. Thus, evolution.

Is evolution a scientific theory? Just as with the light bulb example, the first question that must be asked about the Darwinian hypothesis is whether it is testable. In this case, as in the case of the loose-light-bulb hypothesis, one must answer both yes and no. Yes, the general mechanism of natural selection is testable because it is operating today. No, the specific application of natural selection to extinct species is not directly testable because they, like the light bulb in our analogy,
have (metaphorically) already been taken out of the socket. Like the light bulb taken out of its socket, however, fossil remains provide enough information to disprove all hypotheses so far invented other than evolution by natural selection. Thus, just as in the light bulb example, one accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory for two reasons: 1) its corresponding general hypothesis is testable; and 2) no other testable hypothesis is available to explain the problem. It is, of course, always possible that a better theory will be invented in the future.

It was stated above that the general mechanism of natural selection is testable. Since many creationists have denied this conclusion, we present two examples here. Everyone knows that germs cause disease and that various insects, such as mosquitoes, can transmit diseases to man. Natural selection has been observed, occurring in both germs and insects. The selection process has even been controlled in the laboratory by
means of antibiotics and pesticides. The invention of antibiotics has virtually allowed man to wipe out certain diseases. The few disease germs that have survived man’s ingenuity, however, have developed into antibiotic-resistant strains which man can no longer easily control. The same thing has happened with insects sprayed repeatedly with insecticides. The hardiest have survived to reproduce new races of insects that are insecticide-resistant. Thus, in some areas of the world, diseases like yellow fever and malaria are once again becoming major health problems. Even in the United States, farmers are faced with crop-eating insects that are harder and harder to eliminate. Direct observation leaves no doubt that natural selection does occur. The fittest do survive and they breed new populations of
better adapted individuals.

It is not sufficient to test just the hypothesis of natural selection. One must, as we pointed out repeatedly in our light bulb example, also test one’s assumptions. Several assumptions underlie evolutionary theory. One assumption is that there is a mechanism for creating a spectrum of different individuals within a species so that natural selection can weed out the weakest. Another assumption is that some mechanism exists by which
those individuals that survive can pass their adaptive traits onto future generations. And finally, evolution by natural selection assumes sufficient time for new species to be formed by the accumulation of adaptive traits. Each of these assumptions has been questioned, doubted, and tested. Each assumption is correct to the best of current scientific knowledge.

The primary mechanism for producing genetic variability in evolving organisms is mutation. Mutation theory has been given a firm experimental basis by numerous scientists including Nobel Laureates T.H. Morgan and J.H. Mueller. Geneticists, such as Barbara McClintock, have evidence that rearrangements of whole genes and even chromosomes may also play a role in creating genetic variability. The mechanism of genetic inheritance of mutations and rearrangements is also well understood. Despite early fears by 19th century biologists that adaptive variations would blend out of existence like a drop of
ink in a gallon of paint, Gregor Mendel and his successors established that inheritanTe is not blending-it is particulate. The ink spot does not blend into the paint in genetics. Rather, it stays separate and definable, like a water drop in oil. If the water-based ink is better adapted than the oil-based paint, then the ink will reproduce faster than the paint and so come to dominate the mixture. Thus, beneficial mutations, while rare, are not lost from the population. Mendel’s “laws” and the population genetics of R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and their colleagues explain the rules by which such populations evolve. James Watson and Sir Francis Crick, two more Nobel Laureates, have explained the details of the inheritance process itself at the molecular level of DNA. Fossil remains provide enough information to disprove all hypotheses so far invented other than evolution by natural selection.

Finally, astronomers, physicists, and geologists have established that the Earth is definitely old enough to make evolution by natural selection plausible. One hundred years ago, scientific opinion was just the opposite. Physicists such as Lord Kelvin calculated that the age of the Earth was only a few million years - too short to allow evolution. Even Darwin was worried by his arguments. But Kelvin’s calculation turned out to be incorrect, for it was based on a faulty hypothesis. Kelvin assumed that there was no internal source of energy heating the Earth because he knew of none. In fact, his assumption was incorrect. In this case there was a metaphorical “mouse in the wall” called radioactivity. Kelvin did not know about radioactivity because it was discovered after he died. Once other physicists took the heating effects of radioactivity into
account in new calculations, it became clear that the Earth was billions, not millions, of years old. Astronomers measuring the age of the solar system and geologists dating rocks and fossils have reached the same conclusion. There has been sufficient time for evolution to have occurred.

cont'd in next post...

[journalistic]

In short, evolution by natural selection is a valid scientific theory because it and its underlying assumptions have been tested and validated by observation or experiment. Further, anyone who has walked through a modern research library or flipped through a general science magazine will not fail to realize the amount of new knowledge this’ theory has evoked. Much of this new knowledge has even been useful, especially in the production of new breeds of farm animals and hybrid crops. Evolution by natural selection has thus fulfilled the requirements of a scientific theory superbly. To what degree it may someday need to be modified by new discoveries, only the future will tell.

Creationism: Science or Religion?
Now, is “scientific creationism” also a scientific theory? “Scientific” creationists claim to be interested in solving the same problems that evolutionists address: how does one explain the forms of living organisms and their geological and geographical distribution? In place of evolution by natural selection, creationists postulate the existence of a supernatural “God,” “Creator” or “Intelligence” who created the Earth and all of the living organisms on it and in it. They claim that this supernatural agent produced the Earth and its life within a period of thousands of years. The question we must
address is whether or not the “creation explanation” is a scientific one. In other words, is it testable? Is it correctable? Have its assumptions been tested and verified? And is it fruitful of new or useful information concerning nature?

It is important to point out that our criteria for evaluating scientific theories are identical to those used by creationists such as Robert Kofahl, Kelly Segraves, Duane Gish, and Henry Morris in the course of this controversy. We are not, therefore, asking of “creation science” any more than the creationists ask of science itself.

Can “scientific” or “special” creationism be tested? Creationist scientists themselves admit that it cannot be. Gish, for example, writes in his book Evolution? The Fossils Say No! that "we do not know how God created, what processes He used, for God used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to divine creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by God."

Instead, creationists maintain that the Creator used catastrophic or supernatural means to His end. The Noahic Flood is an example of such a supernatural catastrophe. But,. Morris, Director of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), has written in his book Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, “the main trouble with catastrophist theories is that there is no way of subjecting them to empirical test.” Thus, the scientific methods of hypothesis-followed-by-testing which were so useful in solving our light bulb problem, are totally useless for solving the problems addressed by creationists.

The second characteristic of a theory is that it be correctable. Once again, creationist scientists admit that the creation explanation fails to possess this characteristic. Morris, for example, lists 23 predictions from Genesis 1-11 in his book. His own conclusion is that all 23 predictions are contradicted by the past century of geological research. Does he therefore treat Genesis l-11 as a scientific hypothesis in need of correction? No. On the contrary, Morris states that “no geological difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take
precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences
of Scriptures.” In short, creationism is uncorrectable.

Indeed, another creationist scientist, John N. Moore of the ICR, has written in several pamphlets that the major advantage creationism has over evolution is that creationism is “the only unchanging explanation of origins.” It is so unchanging that “scientific creationism” is essentially identical to the prescientific form of Biblical creationism espoused by Jews over 2,000 years ago. This makes creationism one of the oldest surviving explanations for anything. No doubt this intellectual
stability is comforting in these times of rapid change, but is stability, in and of itself, necessarily good?

Think back a moment to our light bulb analogy. Would an unchanging, uncorrectable explanation of our problem have been an advantage to us there? Certainly not. Just imagine the depths of our ignorance had we stuck with our first light bulb hypothesis no matter what the evidence indicated. Instead of accumulating new knowledge through the testing of new hypotheses until we discovered that the light bulb was loose, we
would still be standing at the light switch wondering what in Heaven’s name could be wrong. After a while, no doubt, we would conclude that whatever it is, it is beyond our comprehension. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the creationists have concluded.

All creationist literature falls back, at some point, upon the assumption that a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent God, Creator, or Intelligence must exist to direct the creative process. Some creationists make this assumption explicit. Others, especially those writing public school texts, do not. These others believe that if they leave God out of the text, then it will be “less religious” and “more scientific.” Their belief is unfounded.

As we have demonstrated with examples both from the light bulb analogy and from evolutionary theory, all assumptions must be tested whether they are stated explicitly or not. Failure to state an assumption simply makes the explanation less scientific because it is then harder to test it. In this case, whether one explicitly states that God is the Creator or one leaves the
Creator unidentified, Someone or Something must cause Creation. These assumed causes (or mechanisms) have been identified and tested for evolution. They must also be identified and tested for creationism if it is to be considered scientific.

Unfortunately, creation scientists are on the horns of a scientific dilemma. If they leave the Creator out of their explanations, they provide no testable mechanism for creation. This form of the creation explanation is therefore unscientific. On the other horn, if they identify the Creator with God or other supernatural powers, then they are also being unscientific. As the great and pious astronomer Sir Isaac Newton said more than a century before Darwin was born, "the use of any final
cause such as God automatically takes the explanation out of the realm of science." Morris and A.E. Wilder-Smith of ICR and Kofahl and Segraves of the Creation Research Center (CRC) consistently and blatantly identify the Creator as a final cause in their textbooks.

But, “God’s will,” as we discussed with regard to our light bulb analogy, cannot be used as a scientific explanation of anything.
Nonetheless, the “scientific creationists” attempt to do just that. Morris and Gish of ICR, Kofahl and Segraves of CRC, and the hundreds of members of the Creation Research Society have all stated that the Creator is the God of the Bible and that the Creation itself occurred exactly as described in Genesis. These same individuals also admit that, to use Morris’ words from his textbook Scientific Creationism, "it is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place. The Creator does not create at the whim of a scientist."

So we come to the crux of the evolution-creation debate. Science depends upon observation, testing, and control. Religion depends upon faith in the existence of an unobservable, untestable, uncontrollable God. As scientists, we can turn off and on a light at will; we can create mutations and breed new varieties of plants and animals at will; we can observe the natural processes of evolution in fossils, fields, forests, and laboratories at will. How different is creationism. No one can turn
off or on the Creator at will. No one can cause Him to create new varieties of plants or animals at will. No one can observe any of the processes by which He creates.

Creationism, because it depends upon the existence of such an unobservable, untestable, uncorrectable Creator can not be a scientific theory.

Indeed, the attempt to use a Creator as a scientific explanation only promotes scientific ignorance. Invoking “God’s will” did not help us to understand or fix our light problem. Invoking “God’s will” as the cause of Creation is no more enlightening. “God’s will,” because it is not testable or correctable, yields no new or
useful knowledge concerning nature. Thus, creationism fails to possess the final characteristic required of all scientific theories: that it be fruitful of new scientific knowledge. Creationism is not scientifically fruitful.

There are two ways of demonstrating this. The first is to search the historical record since Darwin to determine whether creationism has been used in the formulation of any major scientific discovery. The history of science shows that it has not. On the contrary, almost all important discoveries made during the last century in biology and geology either stem from or add to our understanding of evolution.

This conclusion may be verified in a second manner. Reference to the numerous sources cited by the creationists themselves demonstrates that their conclusions are almost entirely dependent upon research carried out by evolutionists. Only in the rarest instances have the creationist scientists created any of their own data. This is a sorry state of affairs for an explanation that is hundreds and thousands of years older than evolutionary theory. Yet, it makes sense when you think about it.

Science, as we pointed out initially, is based upon recognizing and answering new questions or problems. Creationists have no new problems. Accepting the Biblical account of Creation as the True Word of God, creationists can assert, as Kofahl and Segraves have done in their book The Creation Explanation, that
“the Genesis record [already] provides the answers.”

For creationists, nothing more can be known; nothing more needs to be known. The power of scientific theories results from the fact that they are correctable.

cont'd in next post...

[journalistic]

Conclusion: Science and Religion
In summary, we have argued that evolution qualifies as a valid scientific theory while creationism does not. We have also argued that evolutionary theory is not a religious explanation while creationism is. We do not conclude thereby that evolution is “true” and creationism “false” nor can the opposite conclusion be maintained. We conclude only that evolution and creationism
are two totally different sorts of explanations of nature. They should not be confused. It is also clear to us that evolution, as the best available scientific explanation of nature, deserves to be taught as a scientific theory in science classes. Creationism,
since it is not a scientific theory, should not be taught as science in science classes. On the other hand, we have no objection to seeing creationism taught as a religious explanation of nature. Although religion is constitutionally banned from the public schools, perhaps some time could be made available for the teaching of creationism in its proper historical and philosophical context. Such an arrangement would teach students the differences between scientific and religious explanations that have been summarized here.

We believe that it is particularly important that students do learn the differences between scientific and religious beliefs. Indeed, we believe that it is the confusion between the two that has caused the present controversy. Despite the rhetoric used by the creationists, their view is not scientific, nor i science a religion.

Yet “scientific creationists” have made both claims. Historically, this is nothing new. Fundamentalists have created the same confusion ever since Darwin first published On the Origin of Species in 1859. Harvey Cox, Professor of Divinity at the Harvard Divinity School, has recently written that "the notorious 19th century “Warfare Between Science and Religion” arose from mistaken notions of what religion and science are." Although there are still occasional border skirmishes, most theologians and scientists now recognize that religion overstepped its boundaries when - at least in the West - it tried to make geological and biological history into matters of revelation.

We can only regret that a small group of fundamentalists believe it necessary once again to overstep the boundaries differentiating science from religion. The result is needless confusion; confusion that could be eliminated by proper teaching of what science is, what religion is, and how they differ. Science and religion, as Cox pointed out, need not be
at war. They can be, as we pointed out initially, complementary.
It is only when science poses as religion or religion as science that controversy erupts. Otherwise faith and reason are compatible. In fact, the English clergyman Charles Kingsley pointed this compatibility out to Darwin in a letter written in 1860. Kingsley wrote:

"I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Diety to believe that He created animal forms
capable of self-development into all forms needful as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunae which He Himself made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought."

Whether one agrees with Kingsley’s views or not, it illustrates an important point. There are many possible conceptions of the relationship between science and religion. It does not seem appropriate to us that any group, such as the creationists, should attempt to legislate their particular view of this relationship into law.

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religious choice. We believe that an equal guarantee exists for all intellectual choices, including those involving science. Thus, just as the courts and legislatures may not judge the validity of various religious beliefs or impose one in preference to another, neither should courts and legislatures be involved in determining the validity of scientific ideas nor should they impose one in preference to another. Just as religious practice is left to the individual religious practitioner, so should scientific research
be left to the individual scientist. To do otherwise infringes upon the rights of individuals to decide for themselves the relationship between scientific ideas and religious beliefs. To do otherwise is thus not only an abridgment of intellectual freedom, but of religious freedom as well.

It may strike some people as odd that we equate protection of religion with protection of science. There is good reason for the equation. Several governments in the past have usurped to themselves the control of science. They are not commendable examples to follow: Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and Communist Red China. Science, religion, and liberty suffered hand in hand in these countries. Let us not begin the journey
down their road by harnessing science to legislatures and courts. On the other hand, let us learn from the evolutionism-creationism controversy that dogmatism, be it scientific or religious, is best left out of the classroom.

Dogmatism teaches only narrow-mindedness at a time when it is clear that better understanding of the issues is what is needed. We must teach the best of man’s knowledge to the best of our ability. But we must also teach how we can recognize it as best. And we must always remain humbly aware that we may be ignorant of something better. That is the lesson of science.

[pinky]

Great essay.

I think you need to post the link, though.

[05Ivory]

Read something like that before. Not reading all of that, for sure. lol

[05Ivory]

I think creation should be a choice in every school. But I'm not expecting it to happen because this system is just going to get worse.

I'm not really interested in taking this to court. I will teach my children both like I was and then they will decide.

[journalistic]

Originally Posted by 05Ivory

Read something like that before. Not reading all of that, for sure. lol

Work on your attention span.

[05Ivory]

Originally Posted by journalistic

Work on your attention span.

I'm not spending 20 minutes reading an article that I know I'll have a ton to say to and won't agree with, just so we can spend the next several days debating this. Then when it's all over everyone will think the same as before.

I'll pass.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

How very closed-minded of you. You want to debate evolution vs. creationism but you aren't willing to even read through a very well written essay because you've already decided it condradicts your beliefs. Are your beliefs really that fragile that an essay would threaten them? You'll have a tough time in a profession of science.

[journalistic]

Originally Posted by 05Ivory

I'm not spending 20 minutes reading an article that I know I'll have a ton to say to and won't agree with, just so we can spend the next several days debating this. Then when it's all over everyone will think the same as before.

I'll pass.

If ANYONE should read this essay, it's you, whether you agree with it or not. What you're afraid of is that you, whether you post such feelings here or not, will accept a lot of what is said in it. Ignorance is bliss, after all.

[05Ivory]

Originally Posted by journalistic

If ANYONE should read this essay, it's you, whether you agree with it or not. What you're afraid of is that you, whether you post such feelings here or not, will accept a lot of what is said in it. Ignorance is bliss, after all.

I'm not into arguing for the sake of arguing. And that's all it will be for both of us. I took evolution already. I've heard all that crap. Why do you want me to argue with you? You know you aren't going to change. We've both made that clear.

People want me to have a reaction to this and they aren't getting that satisfaction of wasting my time.

[Atropos]

Could you please post a link....