Kansas – the state that made national news in 1999 by banning the teaching of evolution in schools (which was later overturned)- and its conservative majority Board of Education is at it again. In reviewing and updating its education standards, the school board is holding hearings about a proposed measure to require teachers to offer criticisms of the theory of evolution in science classes.
Many scientists testifying at these hearings have stated that the theory has inconsistencies and problems that need to be addressed for students to gain an understanding of the issue’s complexity. Many in favor of the belief (not theory) in intelligent design (aka creationism) see this as a chance to take the science that goes against their religion down a peg, scoring one for the Bible Belt. Many people that like to use reason and logic are still asking how this belief continues to creep, ever so slowly, into our public schools’ science classrooms.
It is of initial importance to note that the Kansas Board of Education standards never prevented a challenge to Charles Darwin’s theory. Any individual school district, or teacher for that matter, could offer scientific criticisms. This amendment, then, would be just another case of conservatives unnecessarily increasing the reach of government, the government they used to loath and limit. This, of course, goes much deeper than any personal ideology pertaining to the role government plays in our daily lives. This is more a debate about science versus religion, theory versus belief, and the biology classroom versus the theology classroom.
First, I’d like to address the scientists that are calling for criticism of the theory, as opposed to intelligent design activists. Fundamentally, these scientists are totally justified in their call for criticism. As one of these skeptics has claimed at the school board hearings, “There is no science without criticism.” This is why the most rugged of theories continue to be tested and revisited again and again. Among the definitions of a scientific theory is that it can conceivably be disproved.
The question I ask, then, is with which alternative theories shall challenge Darwinism? Teachers should, of course, be free to offer alternative theories to Darwinism, but these theories must necessarily endure the same level of experimentation and questioning. They must be held to the same level of scientific scrutiny. If a science teacher is doing his or her job ethically, they will of course have already conceded this. These, then, are legitimate concerns to be raised in front of the Kansas Board of Education.
Secondly, I would like to address those attacking evolution, vis-Ã -vis creationism. I would, first of all, ask for one bit of scientific proof that a supernatural being had at some point descended upon the Earth, and handed man his consciousness. This is impossible by definition, seeing as a supernatural creator is a creator that is beyond natural explanation, a creator that cannot be explained using science. Maybe we should teach physics courses on how Santa can deliver gifts to all the world’s children in one night if we are to include supernatural beings in our science classes. I am more than happy to open a debate on whether or not to include philosophy or comparative religion courses in public school course offerings. I am not willing to mix myth with science.
The real issue here is many peoples’ deeply-held beliefs about the origin of life. I wish not to impress my personal (this is a key word) beliefs on this matter on anyone else. I tend to avoid the question of the origin of life because of the lack of scientific ability in gaining an answer. We must realize that evolution, as a living theory beyond the origin of life, has tons and tons of data and experimentation to back it up. It is also possible to be disproved, thus warranting critical alternative theories.
However, we must divide the disprovable from the unprovable. Most creationists want to include their beliefs in science based on the question of the origin of creation, not a living, breathing theory of how organisms adapt and change form. This argument is just off-base. When it comes to the question of the origin of life, most scientists wish not to include it in any curriculum because of the difficulty it provides to scientists. One pro-evolutionist, commenting on the hearings, spoke on this issue, saying, “It’s not in the (school board) standards because the scientific community has not reached a consensus.” What the scientific community has come to a broad consensus on is that evolution, whether fully accepting it or not, is the standard by which to judge its competitors. Creation is not even in the scientific ball park.
Zach Pickens is a senior in political science and French. He can be reached for comment at [email protected].
