For many years, the debate between creationism and evolution has raged on. The results of these ongoing debates can easily be seen by simply opening up a high school science textbook. Two years ago, conservatives on the Board of Education wanted to require that high school students learn about the flaws of natural selection, common ancestry, and other principles set forth by Charles Darwin. Now the debate has set forth again.
Of all the biology e-books that are being reviewed, some include sections supporting “intelligent design”, arguing that the development of living organisms is best explained by an intelligent creator rather than being explained as a process guided by natural selection. It is reported that the Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of intelligent design, submitted ten biology and evolution e-books for evaluation, but nine out of ten did not meet the Texas standards on teaching evolution.
Taking a step back, it sounds a bit like social conservatives, like the Discovery Institute and board Chairwoman, Barbara Cargill, are trying to push religious-flavored creationism into science textbooks even though it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. Believe it or not, there are good reasons for such a separation. But what about those who cry out “Evolution has a bunch of holes! We shouldn’t be teaching an incomplete theory to our kids! Teach intelligent design instead!” Okay, I’ll play along and believe that evolution has too many holes to teach in science classes.
So what evidence does creationism and intelligent design have? Where is the documentation for these theories? Where are the hypotheses and tests? That’s right, there are none. Why? Because there’s a part of the complexity of life that science has yet to fully explain and like our ancestors did before us, we rush to attach the unknown to supernatural origins; such a conclusion does not have a basis in science but in fear of the unknown or perhaps it’s a mixture of impatience and incompetence.
Whatever the case may be, there is no reason to diminish the beauty of nature with the invention of cheap man-made myths and monsters; and there is certainly no reason to teach these things in a science textbook. Yes, the theory of evolution may have holes, but this doesn’t mean we should discard the whole thing if some truth still resides. Rather, perhaps we should adjust the theory, based on the collection of more data, to obtain a more accurate result. This adjustment, however, does not allow one to say, “Zeus did it” or “God did it”. After all, that would not be very scientific.
Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed; faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. And this is why there is a separation. With every fiber of my being, I hope creationism does not replaced mainstream science in our textbooks. However, we will soon see the results of the final vote in a day or two.
UPDATE: It turns out the final result of the vote is a big victory for science education. Apparently materials adopted by the State Board do not have any “political or religiously-inspired changes that damage science education by weakening evolution content.” You can read more about the meeting at the Texas Observer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt that the Texas education system is in the lime light now days, and for all the wrong reasons it seems. Recent budget cuts have proven that keeping businesses in Texas is more important that the future of our children. This could prove fatal in the near future; the same jobs that come to Texas because of our supply of highly skilled and intelligent workers may soon leave because of a failing education system. Now, the information that children are being taught is being screened before it ever reaches a classroom. I believe that the strengths and flaws of both creationism and intelligent design, however unscientific, should be taught. With the current budget cuts, students are being deprived of enough, I do not believe that opposing ideas should also be excluded. I think that if both theories are taught, it will teach children from an early age to depend on their own reasoning and logic, not an outdated and politically pushed textbook or the teacher reading from it. I think that it is sad that schooling has come down to one or the other, not both.
ReplyDeleteBeing one of the more conservative states, the lines between church and state are often blurred, and legally so. Separation of church and state is a commonly used phrase that never actually appears in the Constitution. It was first used by Thomas Jefferson in 1802, in a letter written to a Baptist Parish where he said that a “wall of separation” had been established to protect the church from any government oppression. This was a phrase used to exclusively establish a protective barrier for the church against an oppressive government, today it is used the other way around; to keep the church out of the affairs of the state. Either way, where ever the theories comes from, I think it is terrible that one source, one government has the ultimate judgment as to what children will be taught. That just teaches children to be dependent on the provider of the information, and less inquisitive. Isn’t that what Thomas Jefferson was trying to avoid, one omnipresent force squashing opposing views?