The Creation "Science" Agenda

The article (available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/opinion/21sat4.html?scp=19&sq=Religion%20Editorial&st=cse) editorializes against a piece of Louisiana legislation targeted at the state’s science curriculum. The legislation would allow teachers to incorporate dissenting supplementary materials and critiques alongside mandatory, mainstream textbooks describing Darwinian evolution and global warming. The editorial attacks the legislation as a “Trojan horse,” intending to undermine the near-universally accepted theory of evolution by implying that it is hotly contested.

At first, I didn’t understand what all the fuss was about. The legislation doesn’t appear particularly pernicious. It doesn’t ban Darwinism. It doesn’t endorse Creationism. It just allows for the provision of optional supplements. After doing a little more research however, I find my thoughts more in line with the editorial. Given historical context, the bill starts to look more suspicious. Back in the 1980s, Louisiana passed a “Creationism Act” that demanded “creation science” be taught alongside evolution in schools. Although this act was eventually discarded, fundamentalists tried again in 1994, requiring any instruction on evolution to be prefaced by a disclaimer that the instruction was “not intended to influence or dissuade the biblical version of creation or any other concept.” This one was eventually dragged to the attention of the Supreme Court. When the disclaimer was struck down as unconstitutional, the school board vowed to continue their crusade, possibly working to ban the teaching of evolution altogether. Given Louisiana’s record on evolution in school, I think it seems a little more reasonable to condemn the new bill.

This vehement opposition to evolution mirrors the introduction to William Martin’s With God on Our Side. In tracing the history of American fundamentalism, Martin describes the intense uproar against “modernist” ideas such as evolution. By providing a scientifically supported alternative to the literal interpretation of Genesis, evolution (in the eyes of Christian fundamentalists, at least), undermined the legitimacy of the Bible. The fundamentalists of the early twentieth century fought back against this perceived blasphemy by declaring war on evolution; if the recent business in Louisiana is any indication, that cause still resonates for some Christians today.

Seeing as this is my blog post, I suppose it would be appropriate for me to step in and editorialize. Creationism has no place in a science classroom. Science must be testable, and science must be confined to the natural world. Religion, meanwhile, meets neither criterion. We can’t “prove” God, and we certainly can’t confine God to the realm of the “natural.” Belief in natural selection can be supported by tracing the fossil record; belief in God stands on personal faith.

At the same time, I believe that acceptance of natural selection does nothing to diminish the acceptance of God. From the expanses of far galaxies, to the baffling nature of quantum mechanics, our universe is a complex, wondrous place; it’s “miraculous” even. If one sees in that miracle the touch of divine agency, then that’s a matter for his or her personal beliefs. Although we can’t scientifically verify (and, as such, teach) the presence of God, that does nothing to detract from personal faith.

And furthermore, rejecting a literal interpretation of Genesis does not reject the key tenets Christian faith. A scientific understanding of the formation of life does not clash with the central doctrines of mercy, humility, and salvation through Christ. This considered, opponents of evolution just come off as insecure. Really, what harm is done by interpreting Genesis metaphorically? What difference does that really make? Why feel compelled to sneak your doctrines into, of all places, a science classroom?

In this instance, I stand behind the editorial. Attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution in schools are misguided and inappropriate.