Public schools should teach scientific fact, not religious faith
This Op-Ed appeared recently in our local newspaper.
Public schools should teach scientific fact, not religious faithAnyone who wonders why the United States lags behind so many other nations in science literacy would know one reason why had he attended a recent forum of Buncombe County candidates for the state House of Representatives.
When asked whether the General Assembly should be involved in the issue of teaching creationism or evolution in public schools, not one of the five candidates who attended would say flatly that creationism should not be taught. Republican Tim Moffitt did not attend, though he showed up for a meet-and-greet afterward.
Democrat Jane Whilden said “both sides should be taught and discussed.” Democrats Susan Fisher and Patsy Keever said the matter should be left up to the state Board of Education. Republicans Mark Crawford and John Carroll stressed their Christian faith. Crawford said such decisions should be made by local boards.
There are not two sides to the issue; there is only one. Evolution is a scientific theory that has been validated time and again over the century and a half since it was promulgated by Charles Darwin.
Creationism is a religious doctrine based on a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis.
Are these office-seekers so ignorant they do not know this? Or, and this is more likely, were they dodging the question in order to avoid the wrath of the creationists? In either case, it was a sorry performance.
Falling back on one's Christian faith is no answer. While creationists are Christians, most Christians are not creationists.
Pseudoscience makes inroads because of two common misunderstandings about science. The first is that a theory is nothing more than an idea that popped into someone's head. The second is that science deals in certainties.
The best of the many definitions given for “theory” in Webster's Third New International Dictionary is “the coherent set of hypothetical, conceptual and pragmatic principles forming the general frame of reference for a field of inquiry.” That's a lot more than a guess, even an educated guess.
Any field of inquiry is full of uncertainties. A century after he set forth the theory of relativity, Einstein's concept still is subject to testing to see if it works under all circumstances. This is the “normal science” set out by Thomas S. Kuhn in his seminal book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.”
Results that do not fit the theory may cause a theory to be amended, but they do not automatically disprove the theory. Evolutionary theory has been adjusted constantly in response to such developments as the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics and the unearthing of various fossils, but the core principle that new species arise out of existing species through natural selection — the survival of the fittest — remains unassailable.
The most recent assessment among the 30 nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development showed the U.S. 17th in science literacy. Margaret Spellings, then the U.S. secretary of education, said the results show the need for “more rigor … additional resources … and stronger math and science education.”
None of that will help if students are not taught the difference between science and religion, and that will not happen as long as our leaders are unable or afraid to speak out.
http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20 ... ious-faith
Tweet This Topic
