The Common Education Committee of the Oklahoma state House of Representatives voted on Feb. 19 in favor of the “Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act,” also known as House Bill 1674, which purports to protect the rights of students, teachers, and administrators to explore scientific controversies more completely, the Oklahoman reports.
I’m automatically suspicious of any bill with “freedom” in the title anyway, but opinion pieces on Mother Jones and The Daily Beast have called this bill a fairly transparent attempt to encourage teachers to talk about intelligent design or creationism alongside evolution and natural selection.
“A student has the freedom to write a paper that points out that highly complex life may not be explained by chance mutations,” said Rep Gus Blackwell, the Republican author of the bill. The bill is not intended to bring religious beliefs, such as creationism, into the classroom, he said. According to language in the bill itself, it is intended to protect the teaching of scientific information and “shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine.”
Because if it were intended to promote religion or to bring religious beliefs like creationism into the classroom, it would be thrown out like the eight other creationism bills Oklahoma has tried to pass in the last nine years. None of them ever made it into law; nor should this one.
Why do we keep playing this game?
One of the most useful expressions in education—or at least it should be—is “Ne donnez jamais un coup de pied à un cheval mort.” It’s French, and it means, “Never kick a dead horse.” I thought the whole “biology teachers are afraid to teach evolution” debate was settled more than a decade ago, but every year, another state legislature shows its vast capacity to ignore the obvious.
And every time that happens, a bunch of writers who claim to be defending science and promoting a real education for our kids, offer the same incompetent, unqualified arguments against the creationism laws. I think I’m going to jump out a window the next time I read an analysis that says the creationists are “wrong.” Not only can’t they be proven wrong, but they don’t really care about “proof.”
So let me be clear: Evolution, as religious fundamentalists use the word, is a fact, as religious fundamentalists use the word. Scientists call it a “theory” in the sense that everything in science is a testable, provable or disprovable concept. But evolution happens, because we have seen it with our own eyes.
Let me now clarify with an example: If I pick up a pencil and let go, it will fall to the floor unless something like a table stops it first. The pencil falling to the ground is a fact. I can see it with my own eyes. The answer to the question of “why” that pencil falls to the ground is a scientific theory. We call it the theory of gravity.
Sir Isaac Newton also developed a few theories about how things move, and few scientists don’t know these theories can’t explain everything, such as the forces between subatomic particles. However, using nothing more than gravity, motion, and similar theories, scientists got us to the moon and back safely. In other words, the theory of gravity is full of holes, many of which were first hypothesized by Albert Einstein, just as every scientific theory is.
But make no mistake: These laws in Oklahoma, Missouri, and elsewhere are not designed to poke holes or allow teachers and students to investigate the scientific weaknesses of Newton’s laws of motion. No sir. They are designed to allow students to “explore” the comic relief provided by creationism and intelligent design. I would bet the writers of this proposed legislation have no idea that gravity has more holes in it than evolution, but that’s not really what they’re going for, is it? They’re going for the idea that teachers and students should put creationism on the same level as natural selection even while creationism isn’t a scientific theory at all (it’s not testable and can’t be proved or disproved).
We live in a democracy, and I’m very, very happy about that. However, will somebody please stand up for our schools?! Our classrooms are not run by majority voter opinion or by government officials who were elected by a majority of non-scientist voters. They are run by principals and teachers who, presumably, have some glimmer of understanding about the subjects they’re teaching. The closer the uninformed voters in a state or district get to enacting laws like this bill, the closer we as a society get to deteriorating the quality of education for our children.
I think legislators in Oklahoma should focus their time and effort on some of the problems government can help with in our schools, not the best way to teach certain subjects in our classrooms. I’m not worried, though. With the Internet and rapid global communication, it’s becoming more and more difficult for any one state or school district to keep the wool pulled over students’ eyes or to “indoctrinate” them, as much as certain government officials would like to do that.
What Christians today believe about evolution
A while back, I wrote a piece for students in a Christian religious education class. Please ignore any references to Christianity, but the debate over creationism is entirely a Christian opinion, and it must be met on its own terms. I hope the piece covers why the whole question of teaching science classes about creationism is fraught with problems:
Evolution, as we define it (see below), is a fact. It happens. New species evolve all the time. In some cases, we can witness evolution and the development of new species during our lifetimes. This occurs most commonly in microscopic organisms. But “how” evolution occurs—and more specifically, who directs the evolution of new species—is the question that hangs many people.
How do scientists define evolution?
Aspect 1, “Change over time.” Organisms that are simple, biologically speaking, came before organisms that are more complex. Most people think the simpler organisms changed into the more complex organisms over millions and millions of years. In other words, there has been an increase in the complexity of living organisms over time.
Aspect 2, “Common ancestry.” This is the hypothesis that any species evolved from a previous species. The hypothesis of “universal” common ancestry says that there was originally just one species of life on Earth, and by branching off that species, all other species were formed. Then, there was breaking off from those species, and so on.
Aspect 3, “Random mutations and natural selection.” Natural selection, a hypothesis first proposed by Charles Darwin, holds that random mutations occur in an organism’s genetic material (DNA) and those changes that make an organism better able to survive and reach reproductive age are passed onto the offspring. Over time, enough changes are retained to form a brand new species.
Aspect 4, “Naturalism and the Theory of Everything.” Some scientists believe that the evolutionary process can explain everything from biology to psychology to economics and so forth. These scientists essentially believe that all change in the universe results from random occurrences as opposed to purposeful acts. Such theories tend to be unscientific in nature and fall more into the realm of philosophy or religion than science itself.
The majority Christian opinion
Most Christians believe in the fact of evolution (Aspect 1), although there is considerable debate about the meaning of “over time” since new species can be observed arising, especially in single-celled organisms, within a few generations. This debate is not particular to Christian scientists, though.
Christians also accept the fact that new species evolve, and there is to some extent agreement on Aspect 2, common ancestry. Of course, whether there was just one original species of life on Earth or many is not agreed upon, even among atheists.
As for natural selection, there is considerable debate in the scientific community that natural selection is not the only factor in play. Most people would hold natural selection as true, but other changes in the genetic material that produce changes that are not very important to individuals in a population reaching reproductive age also contribute to the formation of new species. These factors are known as genetic drift or gene flow. They can contribute to the evolution of a new species, but the genes that drift and flow don’t necessarily make an organism more fit to survive and reproduce, as Darwin’s theories of natural selection hold.
And finally, Christians dismiss the entire scope of naturalism: life has a purpose; our seeking of God has a purpose; our understanding of the moral law has a purpose. For these elements of existence, especially of human existence, randomness can’t provide any answers.
But despite what some fundamentalist preachers say, Christians for the most part accept evolution as fact. It is the only viewpoint that is entirely consistent with God’s creation of the universe. Whether all species were created in six days or one species was created and then evolved into many others is open for debate among Christians, but the question itself isn’t all that important.
God is truth, and any known facts, including evolution, must be reconcilable with that truth. If the facts don’t fit one’s beliefs, then no matter how stubbornly one wants to hold onto those beliefs, they are not true. The simple fact that evolution occurs in our world, the world that God himself created, by whatever mechanism, would negate the entire premise of any argument against evolution.
Look, the Bible is not intended to be a science textbook. It’s not even that good a history book. Looking there for answers as to “how” evolution occurs—or how any process occurs—is a dead end. Science, on the other hand, provides hypotheses as to “how” things occur, but if you want to know the “who” behind something, science textbooks are admittedly underdeveloped. Instead of looking for reason and purpose in a science textbook, Christians tend to seek answers to that very different type of question from God.
Furthermore, asking if a supreme being “guides” evolution on Earth is a complete waste of time. Two possible answers exist: yes and no. If a supreme being does guide evolution, then we should commit ourselves to spreading the love he himself professed in the gospels. In the course of showing this love to one another, we will seek to understand the process of genetics, natural selection, and evolution as thoroughly as possible in order to comfort his children—i.e., to show them our love.
If a supreme being doesn’t exist or doesn’t guide the evolutionary process on Earth, then it is still integral to human nature to try to make some sense out of our world. Clearly, humans have compassion for each other, for other forms of life, and for the planet itself. Understanding the “how” behind the things that are important to us—even if our understanding lacks purpose or reasons—is very important. How can we care for the sick and ease their suffering if we don’t understand how physiology works? How bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics? (Hint: natural selection.)
But as to the question of evolution, there are no quick answers. I think we all need to be a little more humble when it comes to discussing evolution. Just remember that all truth belongs to God if you’re a Christian, and there is no scientific discovery that God will not use for his glory. Arguing about it may make for good entertainment on HBO shows, but in the ultimate analysis, it’s really not that interesting a question. Love and kindness will reign on Earth, whether people think those parts of human nature are from God or just from a random arrangement of molecules.