ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, April 20, 1996 TAG: 9604220004
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CHARLENE M. LUTES
BILL SIZEMORE'S excellent article, "Scopes Monkey Trial revisited" (The Roanoke Times, April 1), shows clearly that 70 years of debate and court decisions since the Scopes trial have done little to bring agreement on what should be taught in science classes concerning the origin and history of life. A major reason is the failure to frame the discussion correctly with respect to the nature and methods of science, and to the purpose and objectives of education.
Education isn't indoctrination. Its objectives are for the learner to become informed and to gain the intellectual skills necessary to function in a complex society. Among the most important of these skills is the ability to obtain information on one's own, to express one's knowledge and ideas to others, and to evaluate statements and arguments made by others.
Citizens of a technological society who gives tremendous weight to scientific claims must be able to evaluate statements made in the name of science. For example, jurors in both criminal and civil trials are called on to decide issues based on scientific evidence, whether the identity of a murderer or the relationship between breast implants and symptoms of illness. Thus, the education of citizens must include information about the methods and principles of science.
According to Virginia's Standards of Learning, as cited in the article, all students should "investigate and understand" conclusions that have been reached by scientists, and should "demonstrate" the ability to use "scientific reasoning and logic" in evaluating scientific ideas. Note that students aren't required to accept either the conclusions reached by scientists or the methods used to reach them. To require understanding of ideas is a valid objective of education; to require acceptance would be indoctrination, not education.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction William Bosher, as quoted in the article, shows a clear understanding of the true status of creationism when he states that "creationism is not a theory." Indeed, it isn't a scientific theory, but a nonscientific explanation that some people profess on religious grounds. Scientists test the validity of a theory by making predictions based on that theory, which can be verified (or can't be) by observation.
As an example, the theory of evolution states that organisms have changed over time. If this is so, differences should exist in the fossils found in rock strata of different ages. When we observe rock strata, we do find differences in fossils from one layer to another. Our prediction is verified, and we become more confident of the validity of the theory of evolution since the prediction based on it has been found to be correct. If we had not found fossil differences, we would have had to rethink the theory on which the prediction was based.
The important point here is that the evolution theory, like any scientific theory, is falsifiable - that is, some possible observational results could demonstrate the theory to be untenable. Uniformity of the fossil record would be incompatible with the theory of evolution, and, if the fossil record were uniform over time, we would have to reject the theory. But the fossil record does vary with age of rocks, so we can accept evolution as a scientific theory.
Creationism, as a theory of origins, doesn't generate scientifically testable, falsifiable predictions. An intelligent, purposeful creator could have created any conceivable kind of natural world; therefore, predictions about the natural world made from a creationist theory cannot be falsified. Since scientific theories must be falsifiable, creationist theories aren't scientific. To teach creationism as science would be to misinform students about the nature and methods of science.
Scientists have great confidence in the methods of science as valid ways of understanding the natural world, past and present. That confidence is supported by spectacular demonstrations of the validity of scientific theories, such as the moon landings.
Ironically, our enthusiasm may lead us to make statements inconsistent with the principles of scientific inquiry. Science teachers shouldn't tell students that science "disproves creationism." Science says nothing about creationism, other than that it isn't science. The silence on this subject of the Virginia Standards of Learning is admirable.
Scientific conclusions about the validity of a theory or hypothesis are always tentative, subject to modification when and if observations inconsistent with the theory are made. Tentativeness and susceptibility to modification are very disturbing to many people. When fundamental questions such as the origin of humankind are involved, many prefer the "certainty" of religious dogmas, such as creationism.
People have every right to hold such religious beliefs. They don't have the right to require that these beliefs be taught as science in schools supported by taxpayers with many different viewpoints.
Science curricula should be developed by scientists and science educators, not by politicians or school administrators. School administrators and school boards have the duty to support teachers in implementing the standards, and to hold teachers responsible for adhering to those standards. Teaching creationism as science or failing to provide for students the opportunity to "investigate and understand the theory that organisms change over time" would be a dereliction of duty on the part of the science teacher.
Charlene M. Lutes of Blacksburg is a retired professor of biology at Radford University.
LENGTH: Medium: 95 linesby CNB