Chapter 8

 

        SHOULD CREATIONISTS TEACH EVOLUTION IN PUBLIC

                                              SCHOOLS?

 

                                      Is there a problem?

 

 

This question cannot be answered without first defining both ÒevolutionÓ and ÒcreationismÓ.  If, by ÒevolutionÓ, you mean that life came to exist solely by unaided materialistic mechanisms or processes, and the creationist happens to be a Òyoung earthÓ creationist who rigidly interprets the Book of Genesis, then he would most likely tell his class, ÒI donÕt believe in evolution, but I have to teach it anyway.  So here goes.Ó

WhatÕs going on, here? According to a 2005 Pew Research Center poll, 60% of Americans favor creationism as opposed to evolutionism.  38% would prefer that creation be taught in schools, instead of evolution (www.pewforum.org/surveys/origins).  Now, letÕs make the assumption that 38% of the students mirror the general American population, in also being creationists.  But all creationists are not alike.  There is a spectrum that runs all the way from the ÒGenesis rigid-interpretational young earthÓ creationist, past the less conservative Òold earthÓ creationist, and then on to the Òevolutionary creationistÓ.  To some, Òevolutionary creationismÓ might seem a contradiction in terms.  But, it can simply refer to the view that any evolutionary relationships, mechanisms, or processes for which scientists have evidence, are not necessarily unguided.  Creationists (being theists) must admit that God could have created life by any means He chose to use.  Whether some aspect of the origin or emergence of life on earth happens to be scientifically explainable (or not) might be of lesser importance, at least to an evolutionary creationist, bearing in mind that all creationists believe in intelligent-design.

According to a survey by Birkman, et.al., at Pennsylvania State University, (mbb1@psu.edu), high school biology teachers devote an average of 13.7 hours of classroom time to teaching general evolutionary processes.  However, 25% of American biology teachers said they devote some classroom time to a consideration of creationism or intelligent design (either favorably or critically).  16% reported that they have a Òyoung earthÓ personal belief about creation, and 12% reported they teach creation or intelligent design in a positive light, as a valid scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution.  2% of the teachers surveyed said they do not cover evolution at all, and 17% do not cover human evolution. [Plos Biology 6(5), www.plosbiology.org./article/info:doi/10.1371/journal]

It requires considerable tact and skill to keep emotionally-charged confusion from rearing its ugly head in the high school biology classroom during the 13.7 (average) hours when the history of life is being considered.  The extent of the confusion depends upon the care with which the teacher focuses upon an inquiry approach to scientific evidence, and does not allow his own philosophical bias to interfere.  He must respect the belief systems of his students, instead of asking his students to put any religious views they may have on the shelf while they sit in his classroom.  It is important that an examination of the sequence during which life forms appeared on earth does not threaten the belief system of the student. 

Birkman cites three nationally circulated documents stating that science teachers are expected to provide evidence that evolution has attained the status of a unifying theme in the biological sciences.  It is possible for some teachers to couple this expectation with their own belief in philosophical materialism.  (At worst, it could be an attempt to undermine the faith of creation-believing students.)  When this happens, the practice is truly malicious.  ItÕs no small wonder that, in the minds of some creationist students, doing poorly (or getting a zero) on an evolution exam is a small price to pay for retaining their faith.

What is likely to happen when a Òyoung earthÓ creationist instructor attempts to teach the history of life in an evolutionary way, simply because his high school curriculum requires it?  If we assume that Pew Forum survey percentages also apply to students in an average high school biology class, 38% of the students would probably feel more comfortable being taught by a creationist instructor.  However, some of the remaining 62% might complain that the classroom presentation they experienced was biased in favor of a religious point of view.  If this happened in California, it would be in violation of State Education Code guidelines (section 60044a: Classroom teaching must be done in a manner that neither encourages nor discourages religious belief.).

Now letÕs turn the situation around.  LetÕs take the case of an instructor who believes that unguided evolution can, in principle, at least, offer a complete scientific explanation for the existence of life on our planet.  Many in our 38% group of creationist students could feel uneasy (or worse) merely upon reading the word ÒevolutionÓ in their textbook, or upon hearing it from their instructor --especially one who carelessly makes little effort to conceal his own personal belief that life came into existence solely as the result of unguided materialistic processes.  In his classroom, creationist students may feel Òacademically rebelliousÓ, even suffering a kind of mental block that results in a refusal to learn what the instructor is presenting in class.  The extent to which this type of negative reaction would occur depends upon where the creationist student happens to be, along a scale extending from ÒGenesis rigid-interpretationalismÓ all the way to evolutionary creationism.  In California, they, too, could complain that their teacher was violating Section 60044a.  Their complaint would be quite valid if the history of life on earth were taught in a manner implying, at least, that all life evolved as a long series of unguided materialistic processes.  This view would purport to give the student a complete scientific explanation for the existence of life (without the necessity of any supernatural design or guidance being involved).  To argue that such a presentation would discourage religious belief would not be difficult.

When I studied biology in the 8th and 10th grades (1945,1947), evolution was never mentioned.  However since the mid-20th century, the subject of evolution has gained increasing prominence in U.S. public high school curricula.  The result has been increased classroom tension among some students and some teachers.  At its root, this type of classroom tension most often results from conflicting philosophical worldviews in the minds of those present.   Among both students and teachers, some will be more comfortable with a worldview of philosophical materialism (atheistic), while others favor a theistic worldview in which a Supreme Being is responsible (at least ultimately) for life coming into existence and emerging to its present state.

              ItÕs very important that both students and teachers realize that the roots of the evolutionism-creationism conflict do not lie within the proper domain of science itself.  Sentence 1(g) on the final page of the California State Science Framework states that students should Òrecognize the usefulness and limitations of models and theories as scientific representations of reality.Ó  No model used in any scientific study of the natural history of life on earth should carry with it any implication that extends into a philosophical or religious area (e.g. beyond the proper limits of the scientific method).  No statement made by an instructor in a science classroom should imply that matter and its governing laws constitute the sum total of reality.  Whenever evolution is discussed in a biology class, the instructor must be careful not to rule out the possibility that a divine creator designed our universe and that that design has been implemented by guiding processes.  To infer that life as we know it came into existence by processes that are in principle entirely explainable by science is to make a mockery of the boundary between questions that can be approached by the scientific method and religious or philosophical questions that are beyond the ability of science to address.