Creation and Evolution: A Battle for Young Minds in the Public Schools

Home Essays:Creation In Schools

Photo Courtesy Colin Purrington /Flickr

Outline

• Introduction
• Definitions
• Evolution
• Creation
• Arguments
• Solutions
• First Solution
• Better Solution
• Conclusion

Introduction

Creation and evolution issues are raging across America today. The settings range from courtrooms, schools, even between student and teacher. On the one hand, creationists insist that they have the same, equal right to give their theory for origins as evolutionists. Evolutionists, on the other hand, say that creationism is a religious statement wrapped up as “science.”

Creation and evolution ideas affect most Americans' everyday in social and political issues that they must decide the outcome. While students do not currently make any of these decisions, they are expected to, as they get older. Schools, whose mission is to educate students so that they may make informed choices on any issue, for themselves, should teach both evolution and creation in a fair and balanced manner. This can be accomplished by either presenting origin theories as equal ideas in a special class that deals with origins or with teachers presenting the known problems of evolution and creation fairly (Miller, Nicholas).

Definitions

Evolution

In order to discuss effectively about evolution and creation issues, an understanding of the terms involved is necessary. Evolution is often defined as “changes in the gene pool” (Starr, Cecie). This definition fits with Darwin's original idea of “descent with modification” (Darwin, Charles) and what is currently known about genetics. However, this definition has two distinct parts that are usually not talked about by evolutionists. The first part is changes within species. Examples of these changes are bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin, different varieties of cats and dogs, and differences in humans. Creationists generally refer to these changes as micro evolutionary. Evolutionists often cite these examples as “proof” of evolution. The other part of evolution theory though is that of macro evolutionary changes. Examples are changes between species such as cats changing into whales. Paleontologists and evolutionists often seek these examples but rarely, if ever, find any.

Another term that needs to be defined is natural selection. In general, natural selection refers to the processes by which animals with traits best suited for their environment, are favored, or selected to pass on their traits to future generations. Those not favored are allowed to die off. Natural selection is more popularly known as “survival of the fittest” (Darwin, Charles). In this form, however, natural selection often seems more like a tautology than a scientific fact of nature. Nevertheless, the effects of natural selection are observed and can therefore be considered scientific. Natural selection though has been observed to not eliminate all populations of species but merely limit and change their numbers (Johnson). For instance, the changes to the peppered moths' environment did not eliminate one group of moths or the other. Rather, both remained but their ratios changed between the two.

The final term that needs to be defined is mutations. Mutations are changes in the gene code of organisms that occur randomly. Almost all observed mutations have been harmful to the organism and those that are considered helpful by evolutionists have bad side effects. For instance, sickle-cell anemia is considered helpful by some evolutionists. The reason for this consideration is that if a person is a carrier for sickle cell they do not suffer the affects and are immune to malaria. However, people that have sickle cell have an increased risk of passing the disease on their offspring in the non-carrier form. This means that they are less likely to have successful reproduction.

Creation

Creation also has a few terms that should be defined. The first term is special-creation. Special-creation refers to the act of creation; simply stated special-creation says that an intelligent creator created everything in the universe. Special creation also makes the claim that people and animals were created separately. Strict creationism also makes the claim that animals were created according to a classified group called “kind.” While no one is sure how many species are included in each grouping, most creationists agree that a species of the “feline” kind was created; a species of the “canine” kind; and a species of the “horse” kind was created. These kinds were created separate and not capable of inter-breeding (creation FAQ).

Also, important to any argument between creation and evolution are the different variations. Many people have their own ideas about the origin of life, and while there may be as many ideas as there have been humans, the most popular creation theories are strict creation, the gaps theory, and the long-days theory. The main evolution theories are strict Darwinian, theistic evolution, and punctuated equilibrium theory. Covering all of these different theories is beyond the scope of this paper; so, only the issues involved with strict creation and Darwinian evolution will be discussed.

Arguments

The foundation and ultimate truth of creation-evolution arguments is that their differences lie not in evidence but in the worldview. In the creationist's view, all evidence points to the “fact” of creation; while a evolutionist may see that same evidence and conclude that evolution is correct. Both sides each have a different interpretation of the evidence and a separate paradigm, or model, of how to look at the evidence. The differences between a naturalistic paradigm, and a supernatural paradigm are what is really at the heart of the creation-evolution debate The naturalistic paradigm says that all processes, including evolution are natural, random, unguided, and need no creator to help. This is the view taken by most evolutionists. The supernatural paradigm says that a creator created the natural processes and set all things subject to them.

A great example of the interpretation differences can be seen in the viewing a fish fossil on mountaintops. A creationist might see that and immediately say that the fossil's location proves creation because the animal obviously died during the global flood and thus provided proof of creation. However, an evolutionist would say that the animal's location proved evolution because he obviously died when the earth was covered with water during that period of earth's long history. While this is a simplistic example, it does show what thoughts both sides would use in their paradigm to explain the evidence.

In addition, a careful look at what is empirically observed in both creation and evolution is important. Both sides recognize that neither creation nor evolution can be observed today. Both must rely on faith that they occurred. Creationists are fast to admit this and claim the evolutionists must also take this stance, but evolutionists, wanting to appear non-religious, deny theses claims. The Chairman of the International Conference on Creationism, Bob Walsh, states:

The problem with the whole origin debate is that neither creationism nor evolution satisfies all the phenomena of science--that it be observable, repeatable, testable, and falsifiable. No one alive has observed [evolution]. No one can test it, and we certainly can't repeat it. If creationism is not allowed to be taught in science class, neither should evolution. Evolution is just as much religious as creationism." (Chmelynski, Carol)

When in caught in candid moments, evolutionists are observed concurring with creationists about their faith and inability to observe evolution. According to Pglilucci”…it is a far cry from saying that we know much about the origin of life. We actually don't, despite plenty of theories on the subject “(Piglilucci, Massimo). While Pglilucci is attempting to further evolution in this quote, his words show that biologists and evolutionists are as much in the dark as creationists are concerning the truth of origins. Rather, what both side offer is a theory; both should be presented this way. Other evolutionists are just as quick to admit this failing, as Birch and Ehrlich are quoted (in the book Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools) to have said, “ Our theory of evolution has become… one which cannot be refuted by any possible observation” (Gish, Duane)

Since evolution in action has not been observed, evolution does fall into the category of a religious doctrine. Indeed, the claim that evolution is unguided, random, and natural can be seen as a religious tenet of evolution. As Miller states in his article concerning teaching about human origins:

Evolutionary scientists and philosophers are becoming more aware and more open about the religious nature of evolution, or at least of the religious way it is handled. The very evolutionary philosopher of science whom Judge Overton relied on in his McLean ruling, Michael Ruse, has recently revealed his change of perspective regarding the religious nature of evolutionary teaching.

He writes: I now think the Creationists ... are absolutely right in their complaint. Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion-a full fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint . . . the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today.78 (Miller, Nicholas)

Why is all this important? To determine whether creation should be taught in schools, one must understand the theologies and terms that surround both sides of the issue. Only then, can one look objectively at why creationists ask for “equal time” in presenting their ideas in the public schools.

Solutions

First Solution

We need also to understand the court's opinion of the constitution and separation of church and state. This will help us to find ways to present both theories in the classroom legally. The courts have repeatedly ruled that evolution cannot be banned from being taught as well as that creation cannot be promoted. However, with the Edward vs. Aguilgard case, a new method of presenting creation has been made clear. As Nicholas Miller has stated in his report on the Supreme Court's ruling:

Instruction in comparative origins could be offered as a part of courses in comparative religions, or as a stand-alone class of its own. Several different views of origins from different cultures, times, and religions would be presented, with no view being favored or disfavored, either in the format or substance of presentation. Under this option, the religiosity or irreligiosity of any particular view becomes irrelevant, as the teacher would merely be teaching about the views, and not criticizing, endorsing or advancing any view in particular. As Dr. Derek Davis of Baylor University's J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies puts it, "in short, creationism can be presented in public school settings, provided it is presented objectively and not as truth, thus eliminating religious purpose. What is required is pedagogical neutrality."

So a full-blown literalist version of the Genesis creation and flood could be presented in the public classroom, as long as a number of other origins beliefs, ancient and modern, were presented with equal time and emphasis. These could include the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, the Hindu cycles of creation, different Native American creation stories as well as the evolutionary story of the modern secularist. As many public schools already offer courses in comparative religions, these courses could be supplemented, where presently lacking, with materials on origins. Alternatively, such materials could be made a part of other related courses, such as sociology, anthropology, or history. Or, if given sufficient resources and interest, a course purely on the topic of comparative origins could be designed. (Miller, Nicholas)

Better Solution

The above method allows teachers to present the creation argument in a fair and balanced view with other religious views of creation without promoting any one religion. The main problem with this method is that students may be diluted with the other theories. They may not see creation as a valid theory compared to the other creation myths. The other suggested method for presenting creation in schools is to allow creationist to attack the principles of evolution and show how they are invalid:

The other option of origins instruction proffered by the Edwards Court-the option to present scientific evidence for origins that conflicts with the standard Darwinian model (alternative scientific views of origin)-is the one that has caused the most confusion in the courts and classrooms. While the Court stated that legislatures could even require that such evidence be presented, it was silent on the possible identity of these competing scientific theories.

There is some implicit guidance in the Court's statement. At its core, the modern evolutionary view of origins asserts that blind, undirected, purposeless, selective forces created life and the present diversity of the species. Numerous statements by leading scientific educators and researchers acknowledge this fact.40 It is also how evolution is understood at the primary and secondary level-as one popular high-school biology text succinctly puts it, "Evolution is random and undirected."41 Thus, if the Court's statement allowing for competing theories is to be meaningful, it needs to allow the teaching of scientific theories that support the notion that non-random, purposeful forces were involved in the origins and diversity of life. Such at least are the philosophical and scientific implications of the reasoning in Edwards.

Photo Courtesy CourtneyBolton /Flickr

So on its face, the Edwards decision would seem to allow for the type of critique posed by intelligent design, as that view claims that purpose and design can be found in the natural world, basing these claims on scientific observations, such as the irreducible complexity of bio-chemical systems,42 the statistical improbability, amounting to im- possibility [sic], of the chance formation of life's building blocks,43 and the specified complexity of life's genetic codes44-none of which is apparently explained by the chance, step-by-step building processes of undirected evolution.

Some may argue that Edwards bars intelligent design from the public school classroom because the ruling identified as a "religious belief" the view that "a supernatural creator was responsible for the creation of humankind."45 But this argument misunderstands what design theory proposes. While the "intelligence" of design theory is consistent with theistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, it is not identified by design principles with the God of the Bible or the Koran. Nor need it be identified with a transcendent, supernatural deity at all. Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick accepts the design critique of the impossibility of the chance origins of life on earth. He believes that life on earth was designed and sent by some intelligent designerbut [sic] as an agnostic he believes the designer was some form of extraterrestrial intelligence, and not a transcendent deity.46 Other agnostics have also expressed support for the design critique of evolution, showing that it is not dependent on a theistic outlook.47 (Miller, Nicholas).

Conclusion

This method would be the best method for the schools. In fact, this method of approach is very similar to what creationists are attempting to accomplish now. Their major problems are that the evolutionists and liberal court systems do not want to allow creationism to be taught inside the public school system, whether or not such teachings are constitutionally backed.

To conclude creation and evolution theories can affect our views on social and political thoughts and views. The battle that has been raging in the courts and schools has critical importance in society. Both sides show religious traits and therefore should be treated as such. Either both theories should be allowed to be taught in the public schools, or neither should have the opportunity. Since the courts have ruled that evolution cannot be banned, therefore creation should also be presented fairly. The best method for accomplishing this is to allow the “intelligent design” approach to hold a balanced position in the school system.

Piglucci, Massimo. “Creation Vs. Scientism” Free Inquiry 23 No3 (2003): 23-36

Rptd. In OCLC - First Search

Miller, Nicholas. “Life, the Universe, and Everything Constitutional: Origins in the Public Schools.” Journal of Church and State Summer 2001: 483-510

Rptd. In OCLC - First Search

Gordan, Darren. Creation Science FAQ. Penn. State U. Origins Club August 27, 2004. http://www.creationfaq.net

Starr, Cecie. Biology: Concepts and Applications 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Brook/Cole-Thompson Learning, 2003.

Gish, Duane. Teaching Creation Science in Public Schools. El Capion, CA: Institute for Creation Research, 1995.

Johnson, Phillip. Darwin on Trial. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1991.

Chmelynski, Carol. “The 'C' Word is Back: Creationism.” Education Digest. Nov 1994: 14-17

Rptd. In OCLC - First Search