Chapter 8
SHOULD CREATIONISTS TEACH EVOLUTION IN PUBLIC
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.