Creationism Doesn't Belong in the Science Classroom

There is a measurable, meaningful difference between evolution and creationism. This difference justifies excluding creationism (in any of its wedge or Trojan horse variations) from being inserted into the public school science classroom.

Evolution is a mainstay of scientific thought. 300,000+ articles have been published in science journals keyed to the word evolution in the last 15 years, in comparison to a handful of ID review articles (containing no research). Evolution is a well-established, accepted theory, used every day by scientists all over the world. Contrast folks who graduate with a geology degree from a creationist college, who have to use old earth models of geology to find oil, and who admit that they are not able to use anything they learned at school, as it does not correspond with reality.

Compare the success of evolution in explaining the world with creationism, which offers no coherent theory, no reseach program, no facts - only apologetics, criticism of evolution, and a belief that it must be true because that is the way creationists read the bible. These are not competing ideas that deserve equal time. One explains the world around us, the other confounds our understanding by telling us that the clear facts we observe in nature are wrong.

All the pressure to insert "critical analysis" of evolution into public school classrooms comes from creationism camps, and parents & politicians who have been told by their religious leaders that this is an important issue. Especially telling is that calls for critical analysis in science are limited strictly to those items that contradict YEC claims (with the exception of geocentrism - I guess they have conceded on that one). What about controversies in areas that the Bible does not address? They aren't interested.

As a result, there is no scientific or educational value to teaching a creationism perspective on scientific controversy, since it is strictly an apologetics tool, intended to justify YEC theology.

What is worse, there is no legal or logical reason to limit the discussion to creationist talking points - so we are opening the door to astrology (as ID proponent Behe noted in the Dover trial) and any other form of religious belief being certified as science, as long as there are enough members of the local or state school board to insert it into the curriculum. This will result in children getting the clear message that all truth (even about the natural world) is a mater of personal conviction, based not on evidence, but on what religious leaders say must be true. This is a giant step back in knowledge, and presages a return to superstition, ignorance and fear as we lose our grasp on our understanding of the natural world.

Is Evolution Really The Problem?

From Dr. Kennedy's website:

Dr. Kennedy and The Coral Ridge Hour examine the bitter fruit of Darwin's theory that man evolved from matter. This broad-ranging DVD, Evolution: The Root of the Problem shows that Darwin's idea has unleashed horror—bringing death to millions through movements it fostered, such as Nazism and Communism. In America, Darwinism has displaced moral absolutes with moral anarchy in our courts and schools. Evolution: The Root of the Problem features a powerful message from Dr. Kennedy and five in-depth Coral Ridge Hour report.

There is a perceived link between science and atheism, because science provides natural explanations of the world, and seems to leave God out of the equation.

The argument then goes, if God is not needed to explain the world, he can be safely excluded from other parts of life- like religion.

With religion out of the picture, people no longer follow the moral rules laid out in the Bible.

By not following these rules, the argument goes, society falls apart.

Is this really something that can be laid at the feet of evolution? I seem to recall reading in 1 & 2 Kings that Isreal's society fell apart every other generation or so, and at no time was evolution part of the landscape.

At the same time, there is no doubt that accepting special creation is every bit a huge as the realization that the earth is not the center of the universe (the Copernican revolution). Theologians have always explained where people came from - that is, until scientists started investigating the world around them, and discovered that it was somewhat different from they way the Bible described it. Now there are two voices competing for attention - a religious voice, and a secular voice. And they are asking compelling questions.

On what underlying principle do we set up rules to guide us: the principle that we were created by God and so are answerable to him? Or the principle that we "just happened" and so are answerable to no one? This is a great question, but it is not connected to the truth of evolution.

I happen to think that the dichotomy is a false one - and one that faith is bound to lose, if it insists on asking its followers to believe things that are not true as the basic premise of their argument. We do share a common ancestor with other apes. Evolution does happen, and the earth is billions of years old. These are facts that we have to face, and we ought to be dealing with reality, not fighting it in the name of truth.