As Catholic educators, scientists, and scholars we were dismayed to read the article "Creationism Simmers in Greensburg Salem" in the Monday, May 24, 1999 edition of the Tribune Review. The proposal brought forward by Director Maryann Roberts and supported by three other members of the Greensburg Salem School Board suggests that these members need to enroll in the science classes that they are attempting to manipulate. Ms. Roberts is grossly misinformed when she says that it is not "good science" to present the theory of evolution without presenting the "theory of creation". The teaching of creation is not a scientific theory; it is outside the realm of the scientific method. Presenting a non-existent "theory of creation" in a science class is both bad science and bad theology.
Unfortunately the follow-up editorial "Education vs. indoctrination" published in the Thursday, May 27, 1999 edition of the Tribune Review illustrates that misinformation regarding the process of science is more widespread than among just these members of the school board. The minority members of the school board and the editorial view of the Tribune Review state that biology students should be "exposed to conflicting theories on the origins of all species". In fact, no conflict actually exists. The editorial rightly reports that 4 out of 10 American scientists believe "in a personal God . . . a deity to whom they can pray". What the editorial authors fail to realize is that this belief does not conflict with these same scientists’ acceptance of evolution as a scientific explanation for the origins of all species. In fact, most scientists believe in a "theistic evolution" in which biological evolution is the method God uses to create the diversity of life on earth. This view is endorsed by most mainstream religious organizations.
It may be that a secular agenda of some scientists causes them to overstate the case of evolution. At times certain textbooks may imply that only a strictly Darwinian evolutionary approach is valid. However, in a corrective action recently, the National Education Association removed language from its scientific pedagogical platform that termed evolution "undirected" and without "intentionality". This was a step forward for scientists, who must not presume to speak about divine intent one way or another. In the same way, religious-minded people must not presume to delimit or manipulate scientific teaching.
The May 27th editorial calls the school board vote to not teach creationism a triumph of dogma over diversity. This analysis could not be more flawed. Saint Augustine concluded that "God did not intend [the book of Genesis] to teach [humanity] about the inner structure of nature". Further, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states that "we should not expect to look upon Genesis as possessing any scientific value for the modern world. It is impossible to maintain the Biblical stories of creation in their literal state." Indeed, Pope John Paul II stated in October 1981 that "the Bible speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its makeup, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationship of man with God and the universe." Many of our religious institutions and leading theologians teach us not to confuse the teaching of creation with scientific investigation. Instructing students in a literal interpretation of Biblical creation does not represent diversity of scientific thinking or diversity of religious thinking. Instead this recites the dogma of a very small minority of Biblical fundamentalists or individuals who are ignorant of the teaching of the religious institutions to which they profess membership. There can be no doubt that the interests of creationists are not scientific, but religious.
In an era when our students are testing very low in science and math compared to our global competitors, presenting a non-existent "theory of creation" as a possible scientific explanation for the history of life on earth equal to the theory of evolution is a dangerously reckless proposal. Science is an iterative method of obtaining explanations concerning the world around us by repeated experiments and observations. A scientific theory is an explanation that has withstood several rounds of experiment and observation without being falsified. Although it can never be proved true, a scientific theory becomes accepted after many independent investigations find that the theory’s predictions and implications agree with the results of experiments and observations. To date, "creation science" does not withstand the scrutiny of this method. The explanations proposed by "creation scientists" do not agree with observations and experiments; in fact, many observations and experiments are in direct contradiction. The theory of biological evolution, on the contrary, has withstood numerous tests over the past 140 years and some of its predictions can be demonstrated in laboratory experiments. At the same time, our belief in a Creator, a personal God, is based upon faith, not scientific inquiry. True faith, akin to the faith of Job, does not need to be verified by observation and experiment but instead transcends the scientific method.
This is not to say that the theory of biological evolution is without critics among serious scientists. Indeed as pointed out in the May 27th editorial, some scientists question whether the theory of biological evolution can explain all aspects of the complexity of life at the microscopic level. These arguments, often called intelligent design, rely on a fundamental understanding of the microbiology of cellular structure, biochemistry and indeed biological evolution itself - an understanding that we should be striving to impart on our high school students. Far from replacing the theory of biological evolution, these ideas hope to build upon the theory and are on the unproven frontier of biological science. Advocates of most "creation science", who interpret the Bible literally, would not recognize these scientific investigations as an acceptable "theory of creation". Additionally, most scientists do not view these scientific investigations as an accepted modification or addition to the theory of biological evolution because of a lack of supporting evidence. Exposing students to this scientific investigation may provide an "interesting assignment for a high school biology class" but it does not "test the creation model against an evolutionary alternative" as suggested by the editorial. Furthermore, this will not satisfy the minority who wishes to see a fundamental interpretation of Genesis integrated into the science curriculum of our high schools.
Proposing the teaching of a specific religious belief in a science class unnecessarily confuses the scholarly study of both science and religion. Too often the teaching of creation is perverted by amateur theologians into the "Trojan Horse of spiritual indoctrination" mentioned in the May 27th editorial. As stated in the May 27th editorial, creationism can be presented as a paper tiger easily disproved by experiment and observation as in most of the "creation science" available in popular literature. This is an overly simplified assignment having an unfortunate side effect that students often believe they are required to make false and unnecessary choices between scientific theories and religious beliefs. This assignment does not provide students with the opportunity "to reach a conclusion via honest inquiry, unfettered by sectarian or secular intolerance" as the editorial concludes. Instead of recognizing the inherent value of both disciplines, the teaching of creationism alongside the theory of evolution distorts the methods and undermines the teaching of both science and religion.
If the School Board wishes to mandate the teaching of creation it should be done outside the science class - a practice that Sister Margaret Hillary stated the local Catholic High Schools follow. In our public schools, the teaching of creation could be explored in a multicultural or cultural pluralism class. Science and religion give us necessary and complementary windows through which we strive to understand the world around us. Confusing the methods of each discipline - as Director Roberts’ proposal would mandate and as the Tribune Review editorial supports - detracts from the education of our students and undermines the values of scholarship we wish to instill. Creationism is neither "good science" nor generally accepted theology and does not belong in a science class.
Respectfully,
Dr. John J Smetanka, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Physics
Saint Vincent College
Latrobe, PA
724-532-6600 X2504
smetanka@acad1.stvincent.edu
Father Mark Gruber, Ph.D., O.S.B.
Professor of Sociology-Anthropology
Saint Vincent College
Latrobe, PA
Dr. Richard D. Wissolik, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Saint Vincent College
Latrobe, PA