ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, March 14, 1996 TAG: 9603140023
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
THE PURVEYORS of "scientific" creationism just won't quit. Unable to gain even a small measure of scientific respectability for their views, they are turning - again - to legislatures and local school boards to try to insert their claims into America's classrooms.
Trouble is, "scientific" creationism is a sham: Whatever the ultimate truth or falsity of its conclusions - that, for example, humankind sprang full-blown as a separate species - they do not derive from scientific inquiry. At a time when science literacy is essential for America's schoolchildren to acquire, the political promotion of "scientific" creationism encourages disrespect for scientific reasoning.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, properly, that laws requiring or allowing the teaching of creationism alongside evolution, as if the two were of similar scientific weight, are simply an unconstitutional subterfuge for sneaking religious indoctrination into the public schools. Even so, a bill this year in the Georgia Legislature would have done just that, and other attempts to do so are popping up on the local level throughout much of the nation.
In other instances, the creationist assaults on science's theory of evolution have themselves evolved: Rather than bluntly promote the introduction of creationism into the science curriculum, for example, some creationists seek instead to discount evolution by fostering a misunderstanding of how science works.
A bill this year in Tennessee - home 70 years ago of the famous Scopes Monkey Trial - would have allowed local school districts to fire teachers who present evolution as fact rather than a theory of human origin. So far, the effort has stalled: Nobody has been fired, lately, for teaching evolution. Even so, the Tennessee bill is a reminder of the chilling effect that such turmoil all too often can have on teachers - some of whom, to forestall hassles, simply avoid the subject of evolution despite its centrality in modern science's understanding of biology.
Alabama has approved a disclaimer for insertion in biology textbooks: "[Evolution is] a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. ... No one was present when life first appeared on [E]arth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact."
Yes, evolution is what scientists call a "theory" - in that it is a rational and comprehensive explanation of the data, and claims a high degree of probability but not absolute certitude. Yes, too, it is "controversial" - in that being open to revision (and, perhaps someday, even displacement) in the light of new data is what the scientific method is all about.
But no significant body of scientists rejects the basics of evolutionary theory, however much they may disagree on important details. And contrary to the implication of the Alabama statement, none of this has anything to do with the absence of an observer at the scene. Most scientific knowledge derives from inferential evidence.
The scientific power of evolution stems from its ability to explain the data - from the fossil record, from molecular biology, from astronomical observation and calculation, from other sources - and submit to revision when anomalies arise. Unscientific "scientific" creationism, by contrast, seeks not to explain the data but to explain away the data with appeals to revealed truth. That isn't science, and it does schoolchildren no good to pretend otherwise.
LENGTH: Medium: 63 linesby CNB