Basic HTML Version
Now SorneWant
CREATION
TaughtAs
''SCIENTIFIC
THEORY''!
I
N THE UNITED STATES
a
major new confrontation
between creationists and
the scientific establishment
has exploded in the press.
Balanced Treatment?
Two states have enacted contro–
versia! legislation on whether cre–
ation should be taught, together with
evolution, as a scientific theory. This
legislation requires that: "When cre–
ation or evolution is taught, each
shall be taught as a theory, rather
than as a proven scientifíc fact"
(Science,
7 August, 1981, article,
"Louisiana Puts God into Biology
Lessons").
By the 1982-83 school year a bill
caBed "The Balanced Treatment for
Creation-Science and Evolution–
Science Act" is expected to be in
effect in Louisiana.
A similar bill has already been
approved by the legislature of
Arkansas. It was signed into law by
Governor Frank White. The consti–
tutionality of the Arkansas bill has
been successfully challenged in Fed–
eral Court by the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU). The
grounds? That creation-science is
nothing more than religion masquer–
ading as science.
The creationists' drive is receiv-
March 1982
by
Sidney M. Hegvold
ing national attention in the press
and media. Similar bilis are
expected to be introduced in up to
20 state legislatures in the near
future.
A new draft of the "Balanced
Treatment" bill attempts to elimi–
nate any last vestige of religion -
to avoid legal challenges in the
courts. It will be known as the
"Unbiased Presentation of Cre–
ation-Science and Evolution–
Science Bill." This draft requires
both
creation and evolution to be
treated as
scientific theories.
Care–
ful attention is given to the wording
of these bilis to eliminate any words
or phrases that even sound reli–
gious. Thus, "evidences that indi–
cate creation of the universe, mat–
ter and energy suddenly" is used
for creation rather than the tradi–
tional "from nothing." No refer–
ence is made to a worldwide Flood.
The proponents of these bilis hope
in this way to avoid the constitu–
tional conflict of separation of
church and state.
Most scientists would agree that
the subject of or igins, from an evo–
lutionary point of view, is a legiti–
mate scientific issue and ought to
be discussed in the science class–
room. Thus we read:
"There are many legitimate
scientific issues relating to origins
and ends: What is the origin of the
human species? Where did plants
and animals come from? How did
life arise? the earth, the planets,
the sun, the stars? Does the uní–
verse have an origin, and if so,
what? And finally a st-ill more fun–
damental and exotic question,
which many scientists would say is
essentially untestabie and therefore
meaningless: Why are the laws of
nature the way they are?"
(Broca's
Brain,
Carl Sagan, page 285).
Rightly or wrongly evolutionary
models of origins are being taught
in the science classrooms
as
science.
The legal debate now going
on is to determine whether or not a
creation model of origins should
also be taught in the science class–
rooms
as science.
Who determines what is and
what is not science? The scientists!
Science is not just an abstract set of
laws and concepts. "Science is a
way of thinking more than it is a
body of knowledge"
(Broca 's
Brain,
Carl Sagan, page 13). And
again, rightly or wrongly, that
"way of thinking" by the vast
majority of scientists who consider
origins at all, is evolutionary.
The question remains: Is the
equal treatment of the two basic
accounts as
scientific theory
good
or bad? Christian fundamentalists
have long been deeply disturbed by
the way evolution has been taught
7