Creationism is still not science

by desert jim

Yesterday was the 149th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species. It was also a day that science teachers and concerned residents (this time in Texas) had to plead with their State Board of Education not to confuse public schoolchildren by watering down the teaching of evolution.  Once again, anti-evolutionists on a state board want teachers to teach the weaknesses or limitations of evolution.

Evolution is the unifying principle that explains all scientific observations of the diversity of life. It is as basic to our understanding of biology as the atomic theory is to our understanding of chemistry. At the same level, the theory of tectonic plates explains earthquakes and vulcanism and the germ theory explains communicable diseases. The only weakness or limitation that any theory could develop would be if it was unable to explain actual observations or data. That is not the case for evolution.

The most recent effort by creationists is to argue that they are proponents of academic freedom. They argue that teachers should be encouraged to, “Objectively present the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory.” This approach was developed after a judge in Pennsylvania ruled that teaching intelligent design in the public schools violated the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. I reiterate here my main point - evolution currently explains all available scientific observations and data. It has no more weaknesses than atomic theory or any of the other generally accepted scientific explanations of our universe.

The government in the United Kingdom has had enough of the creationists. New guidelines make it clear that creationism or its recent euphemism “intelligent design” do not belong in science classrooms. The guidelines state clearly, “Creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science National Curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science.” The guidelines go on to point out that, “In science [theory] means that there is a substantial amount of supporting evidence underpinned by principles and explanations accepted by the international scientific community.” By that definition, creationism is not a scientific theory.

149 years after Darwin made clear the way life has diversified on our planet, it is time to put the controversy between evolution and religion to rest, at least in our science classrooms

Labels: