DATE: Thursday, May 22, 1997                TAG: 9705220003

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B12  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: OPINION 

SOURCE: BY JOHN C. MUNDAY JR. 

                                            LENGTH:   91 lines

THE BEST SCIENCE EDUCATION

The editorial ``Teach science'' (April 26) claimed that creationists start with beliefs but evolutionists do not. Justifying evolutionists this way is common but erroneous - both evolutionism and creationism are a combination of religious philosophy and science. Both start with beliefs and impose them on observation and analysis. Evolutionists believe life's development can be explained by physical science - this is reductionism, a philosophy, masquerading as science.

Even the scientific method itself rests on philosophic presuppositions. Science presupposes naturalism, claiming that explanations of phenomena must include only natural cause and effect. Most scientists assert strict naturalism, disbelieving all but natural causes. Others employ methodological naturalism, looking for only natural causes but leaving open the possibility of non-natural causes.

Science, because it presupposes materialism and naturalism, cannot justify itself. This is claimed not only by creationists and other theists but also by philosophers and atheist mainstream scientists. Science must appeal to philosophy or even religion for its justification. Therefore, the editorial is wrong to call for exclusion of creation science because its fundamental assertions come from religion. The origin of a claim about reality is not important; verification is. Claims about reality deriving from religion don't impair science so long as all claims are verified appropriately.

General evolution (or more properly, evolutionism) is not pure science. Proponents avoid discussing evolution's defects and contrary evidence. Did complex molecules of life arise by chance from simple molecules? Was the pre-Cambrian explosion of phyla evolutionary? These claims are crucial to evolution theory but have not been proved at all, leaving many well-known scientists dissatisfied with the theory. The improbability of life from chance has especially perturbed many scientists. British astronomer Hoyle postulated that life evolved elsewhere in the universe, which is far older than Earth, and arrived here after an intergalactic journey. Other scientists resort to ad hoc explanations, saying life's complex systems had to emerge because atoms have inherent self-organizational ability (making atoms like God). Worse, evolutionists lamely allege mankind's spiritual qualities evolved. Such thinking is grossly presumptuous.

Philip Johnson in Darwin on Trial put his finger on the naturalism and presumption in arguments for evolution. He quickly encountered proponents passionately defending their naturalism. Whence comes such passion if evolution emerges only from true science?

The irreducible complexity of molecular biological systems and the precise order of the cosmos are leading more and more mainstream scientists to re-examine the possibility of intelligent design of life and the cosmos. The idea of design may horrify evolutionists, but it is nevertheless part of mainstream science. If intelligent design is not admissible, then how is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) using radio telescopes scientific?

The connection between science and religion is too deep to sever. Physicist Paul Davies, winner of the 1995 $1 million Templeton Prize, declared in God and the New Physics that science is a surer route to God than religion. Guth from MIT postulated in an astrophysics conference that the universe began ex nihilo. If such a view is presented at an astrophysics conference, why can't it be taught in a science classroom?

We need a unified theory of truth. In orthodox Christianity, God is the author of both nature and verbal revelation (as in the Bible), and he speaks consistently in both. Our problem is to interret the two revelations. Neither one should be allowed to trump the other.

What should be taught in a public school science classroom? The 1987 Edwards vs. Aguillard Supreme Court decision made clear that different theories, even those with religious connections, may be freely taught in the classroom. The amount of attention given to each theory should reflect the weight of current scientific opinion favoring each. The strong majority of scientists believe in an old universe and in general evolution; others are troubled by the theory's weaknesses; and, finally, a small minority are persuaded Earth is young and that evolution is a fiction. Students will not be harmed, rather they will be enriched, by learning of this debate.

Students should also understand that evolution's faith in naturalism stacks the deck against intelligent design and other non-physical views of life's origin. To neglect these issues in the science classroom is to leave a distorted impression about science in young minds.

There is a rich interaction among science, faith and philosophy in discussion of the origin of life and cosmos. It demands that proper science education be similarly rich. Public school censorship of this richness is unfortunate, a lopsided outcome of First Amendment debate. Not that private, parochial and home schooling offer complete freedom to pursue these discussions with students. These schooling alternatives are thus positioned to offer a far superior education in science. Let us hope they all rise to the challenge. Meanwhile, the public schools should not be straitjacketed by insistence that only a reductionist view of life should be permitted in the science classroom. MEMO: John C. Munday Jr., professor of natural sciences, is associate

dean of Regent University.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu