Connecticut may seem like a surprising place to find creationism being promoted, but that's exactly what's happening these days. The recent election of Chester Harris to the school board serving the Connecticut towns of Haddam and Killingworth is very troubling and worthy of widespread attention.
Harris defines himself as a creationist, and in his first weeks on the job he's already met with science teachers to discuss the issue. There are serious problems with every aspect of this situation, from his discussions to the reasons he articulated for his anti-science position.
Let's start with the fact that he met with teachers to discuss the science curriculum. An article in the Hartford Courant quoted Charles J. Macunas, principal of Haddam-Killingworth High School, as defending Harris's actions. "As a new board member, he was just trying to get a handle on content that's taught in an area he's very passionate about." Given the power imbalance between principal and board member, could anyone possibly expect the former to do anything other than defend the actions of the latter?
The balance of power is skewed even further when science teachers are pitted against a board member. The fact that Harris is "very passionate about" creationism just raises the stakes even higher and makes it unlikely that this was just a friendly chat.
A while back, I published research examining the opinions high school biology teachers held on the evolution/creation controversy. That research has something important to teach us about the current situation. High school biology teachers reported that members of the administration were one of the leading sources of pressure to alter the teaching of evolution. From the people on the ground, the ones responsible for teaching our students, there simply can't be any idle conversations about this topic with a passionate member of the school board.
What about Harris's reasons for this position -- a position completely at odds with that of the world's scientific community and with the State of Connecticut's Core Science Curriculum Framework?
He asserts, "Evolution is basically an assumption that there is no God."
Wrong!
Evolution simply notes that alleles, alternative forms of genes, change in a population over time. More importantly, though, evolutionary theory, like all scientific theories, is silent on the existence of any god; such an issue is well beyond the boundaries of science. Religious leaders as well as scientists fully understand this point. Indeed, more than 13,000 religious leaders in the United States have joined The Clergy Letter Project and have signed one of three Clergy Letters imploring school boards to teach evolutionary theory in science classes.
Harris goes on to note that proponents of evolution "haven't proven anything. It's all still theory and faith."
Wrong! Wrong! And Wrong! It is amazing that Harris can make three significant errors in a mere nine words.
First, biologists have most certainly observed evolution in action in both the field and the laboratory. Second, since theory is as good as it gets in science, saying that evolution is "still theory," is actually quite a compliment. After all, it takes a huge amount of data for an idea to rise to the level of a scientific theory. Evolutionary theory is as comprehensive and robust a scientific theory as exists in any discipline; it offers us far more insight, for example, than does gravitational theory. Third, faith has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. If the data were to pose problems, scientists would be compelled to leave evolutionary theory behind. But the data, from genetics to developmental biology, from physiology to molecular biology, from every corner of the biological world, provide support for the theory of evolution.
Finally, Harris proclaims that "it's time for balance."
Wrong!
In fact, there's simply nothing to "balance." Evolutionary theory is the framework for all of biology -- it is the one thing that ties all portions of the subject together in a meaningful manner. As the great population geneticist Theodosious Dobzhansky said in 1973, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." For teachers today to imply that evolution is a controversial topic within the scientific community would be doing our students a grave disservice.
Even though Chester Harris's opinions are so very wrong, that doesn't make them unpopular. State legislatures around the country continue their political assault on evolution -- often in the name of religion. Just since the start of this year, for example, troubling bills have been introduced in Kentucky and Missouri.
Those of us who want our children to be scientifically literate and for our public school curricula not to be controlled by proponents of a single, narrow religious persuasion need to be vigilant. We need to educate our neighbors when people like Chester Harris make pronouncements that are so far from the facts. And, oddly enough, in this battle to protect science education, we need to heed the words of thousands of clergy members who have come together to proclaim , "We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge."
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Karl Giberson, Ph.D: How Darwin Sustains My Baptist Search for Truth
Re: "If the data were to pose problems, scientists would be compelled to leave evolutionary theory behind."
I diagree for the excellent reason that you are wrong on this count. Scientists are people with biases like the rest of us.
For example, Gould admitted: "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182). Yet rather than abandoning evolution because of the problems the data causes for traditional evolution, his faith causes him to hold onto darwinism and conveniently imagineers an extra saltation mechanism [punctuated equilibrium] instead.
In other words, your faith in the stereotypical objectivity of scientists is misplaced. Wait, didn't you say something about faith having nothing to do with evolution?" Are you sure you've thought that out properly? [Truly, the old faith versus reason chestnut is sophomoric, Z!]
-Rev Tony Breeden
CreationLetter.com
"I have not seen such faith. No, not in all Israel." - Jesus
The definition you provided for evolution ["Evolution simply notes that alleles, alternative forms of genes, change in a population over time"] is simply a description of observable natural selection and speciation, which creationists affirm [though we also observe there a limits to this variation so that it occurs within fixed kinds; be it a wolf, English bulldog or a weiner dog, a dog remains a dog and recognizably so. A more accurate definition of evolution would make a point of the common descent of all living organisms.
You quote Dobzhansky; in 1937 he wrote in Genetics and the Origin of Species: “There is no way toward an understanding of the mechanism of macroevolutionary changes, which require time on a geological scale, other than through a full comprehension of the microevolutionary processes observable within the human lifetime. For this reason we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of micro- and macroevolution, and proceeding on this assumption, to push our investigations as far ahead as this working hypothesis will permit.”
Though you say "faith has nothing to do with evolutionary theory," you must presume that observable forces that simply shuffle the deck are sufficient to account for unobservable vertical information gaining microbes-to-man evolution, when phyletic transformation has NEVER been observed, so evolution has EVERYTHING to do with faith. The dots are only connected in your head.
-Rev Tony Breeden
CreationLetter.com
It's because of faith in God that we have had so many scientific breakthrough over the last two centuries.
Creation IS anti-science. If you believe the earth was created about 6,000 years ago, that is anti-science.
PS: "Intelligent Design" is now the new far right term for "Creationism", the teaching of which SCOTUS declared to be unConstitutional as a violation of the separation of church and state.
gotta watch this, there's a precedence for intelligent design in school text books, in Dover pa a school tried to adopt a "biology text book" based on "intelligent design" saying it wasn't creationist, but during the trail a first draft of the text book was found showing that everywhere the that words "intelligent design" were found you could visibly see that it had been change from "creator"
The definition of evolution is "change over time".
There is overwhelming evidence that species have changed over time due to environmental factors, mutations, etc.
Science is not static. New evidence is being discovered all the time. Experiments are being conducted. This is not a fault of science. It is its greatest strength.
Science has strict rules it follows (the scientific method, anyone?) and does not require belief or faith, but evidence.
I have had kids in my former school bring in letters from parents that excused them from science because it might interfere with their faith. While I cannot understand a parent crippling a child like that, I much prefer it to trying to indoctrinate ALL the kids into religion.
So, how about that sort of compromise. Keep your kid out of science class and teach him science at home or at church. Better than making fools of all the students.
Also, creationists who use the excuse that science does not provide a cause FAIL. The proper statement is that science does not provide an ultimate cause YET. Science DOES NOT 'imply that something comes from nothing.' Science states, 'this is how far we've gotten and we don't know any more at this point in time, but we'll continue searching.'
A major difference between science and religion is that science CONTINUES the search for a plausible/credible/legitimate/provable cause, an answer or answers for questions that remain; whereas religion doesn't even try. Science acknowledges that all things are possible, yet only a few of the infinite possibilities are PROBABLE. Then science explores and tests those probabilities that provide the best explanation supported by observable, testable evidence. On the contrary, religion flat out states 'there is only ONE possibility, ONE answer' (a deity or deities depending on your faith), 'there are no others', 'don't bother looking/exploring further', 'THE END'. Is this not illogical thinking?
I am a small-town Presbyterian pastor, signatory of the Clergy Letter, and passionate advocate for the teaching of good science in the public schools. I also advocate for speaking honestly about religion and religious people.
The natural sciences, pretty much by definition, do not seek "final causes" (to use Aristotle's terminology). So they not only do not "provide an ultimate cause YET" but are not seeking one - if we are speaking of teleology, final causation.
It really is our schools' duty to educate our neighbors' children (and ours) in science. Obviously, any overtures I would make to my ultra-religious neighbors or their children would be rejected. Even my sisters (both teachers) cannot see that religion needs to be kept out of public schools.
Those in charge in school districts need to stand firm in their definition of science and science education. If the parents in the district really want bible stories to be taught, an elective course on world religions should be offered, not as doctrine, but as literature or comparative culture.
Science and religion are not equal and opposite. Until the powers that be realize this and take a stand on it, we are going to continue to have these same ignorant arguments and court cases over and over and over.
If creationists have a problem with evolution that's fine, but maybe they should start doing some actual work in science to come up with something better rather than try forcing all of us to drink the kool-aid of blind faith.
Your approach sounds good to me, but I don't think the religious folks will find any comparison in the things they believe and the equally ridiculous ones you are proposing. It really is like beating one's head against a brick wall. I know. I have sisters who are living for the afterlife instead of making the most of this life, all the while crippling their kids' senses of reality and their chances of finding decent employment.
The bible doesn't claim to contain nor have anything to do with scientific teachings and scientific theories don't claim to have anything to do with religious belief.
What have religionists proven? Nothing at all. THey don't even have scientific theories. It is all faith.
If this school gives in to the dictates of this man regarding the teaching of science vs religious faith, they are doing a mighty disservice to their students.
For students who want to enter the science fields of biology, chemistry, medicine or physics, try applying to a college using creationism as your argument to further your education in these fields.
1. Age of the earth/universe.
2. Fact of the evolution of species.
3. Origin, or cause, of it all.
1. The scientific process seems to support an old earth existence.
2. Evidence of true evolution seems woefully inadequate in the fossil record and Darwinianism has been replaced by 'punctuated equilibrium'. New species suddenly 'appear' on the scene.
3. Science has no 'scientific' explanation as to how something came from nothing. Creationism has a least a plausible explanation with a 'prime mover'.
True 'science' has only an answer to question No. 1.
Evolution is scientifically flawed, including the second law of thermodynamics.
And there is no scientific answer to No. 3 as science expects a 'cause and effect'.
Looks like the creationism/evolution thing could use a lot of serious investigation and discussion. The 'science' is hardly 'closed'.
The discussion is frustrated when a 'scientist' questions a 'creationist' about No. 1, the age of the earth, and the 'creationist' responds to No. 3, 'where did it all come from?
Or the 'creationist' questions a 'scientist' about No. 3 and gets a response about No. 1.
I wonder if we would have more discussion if we considered these components separately.
One is based on scietific evidence, such as the fossil record.'Determining that the Earth is round and not flat and that it revolves around the Sun, not the other way that the Church once believed. It was scientists that had to prove the Church wrong.
The other is based on religious belief, for which there is no scientific proof.
So really, you are trying to cpompare apples with oranges.,
If you want to teach creationism these are the fact that you have to contend with and as terrible as it might sound the logics is true. So teaching your children that we were created as Genesis stated it we also have to teach them the logical conclusionsas to the population growth after creation.