Creationism should not be taught as biology in our schools

Donald A. MacArthur

The Grand Rapids Press 12/09/2000 Page A15

My four-year-old son, Connor, recently bounded into the living room and
informed me that he knew where all the dinosaurs had gone. "They were all
killed  in the big flood," he announced. I'm not sure where my son picked
up such an  idea (certainly not from Jurassic Park!), but this, along with
the fact that he  has recently entered pre-school, started me thinking
about education in general  and science education in particular.

As a Christian, I am familiar with the culture war between religion and
science, which has been reflected over recent years in that most American
of  settings: the court of law.

Literature from the National Center for Science Education lists "seven
significant court decisions regarding evolution/creation issues." In every
one  of these cases, the central theme under consideration is whether a
theological  idea such as divine creation should be included as a
scientific concept in the  public school science curriculum. And, in each
instance, state and federal  courts answered emphatically in the negative.

Obviously, this is a question which engages the minds and hearts of many,
including science teachers, school board officials and professional
scientists.  The debate hits particularly close to home for parents, who
have an immediate  and very practical concern for how science should be
presented to their children  in an increasingly science-oriented world.

And so we must return to the question: Should theology be taught as biology
(or geology, physics or chemistry)? I would like to suggest that the courts
had  the right idea in their pronouncements on this issue, for three basic
reasons.

First, it should be evident that despite its name, "creation - science" is
not  really science at all. Science endeavors to examine and explain the
material  world by material means, describing its findings in material
terms. It is,  therefore, necessarily limited to what can be known through
the experience of  one's physical senses. Science follows the dictum
offered by the 17th century  philosopher, Francis Bacon, who was himself
simply echoing Aristotle: "About  nature consult nature herself."

Creationism, on the other hand, under whatever terminology, fails to meet
a proper definition of science, since it (creationism) involves
metaphysics rather  than physics, supernature instead of nature. As one
leading creationist, Duane  Gish, admits, "We cannot discover by
scientific investigations anything about  the creative processes used by
the Creator." Clearly, creationism is not  science.

Belief in divine creation is a theological conviction, not a scientific
conclusion. God and the spiritual realm, by definition immaterial (the
very meaning of "spirit:), are not physically quantifiable and so fall
outside the  domain of scientific investigation. This is not to say that
these realities  don't exist, only that science is methodologically
limited to material  realities.

Second, since creationism is a theological rather than a scientific
position,  it is clear that it should not be taught as science in the
public school  classroom. To do so would be a direct violation of the
First Amendment  prohibiting the establishment of religion by civil
government. This is a crucial  point addressed in the court cases
mentioned above.

According to the law, public schools may teach about religion (for example,
in a course on comparative religions), but may not advocate a theological
doctrine. The task of science education is to expose students to what
scientists  think, not to suggest what religious beliefs those students
ought to affirm.

Finally, the so-called "balanced treatment" position of creationism would
entail tremendous practical difficulties. For example, why should the
Christian  creation story be singled out for "equal time," and the
multitude of other  religious creation views (Hindu? Zulu? Hopi Indian?
Ancient Egyptian?) be  excluded? Must each of these, and countless others,
also be presented as  "science?"

No, it is not the job of science education to affirm the personal religious
convictions of each individual student (or of his or her parents), but to
provide students with accurate information concerning the state of
scientific  knowledge in general.

For these and other reasons, it seems prudent to answer our original
question  in the negative. Theology should not be taught as biology.
--
Donald A. MacArthur is a free-lance writer who recently earned a bachelor's
degree in philosophy from Aquinas College. He also holds a bachelor's
degree in  theology from Cornerstone University. He lives in Sparta.

POWRÓT