Should Creationism be taught as part of the school science curriculum?

It has been suggested – especially by people of certain religious persuasions – that it is wrong to teach children that life on Earth came about as a result of Evolution, and that the science curriculum should therefore give at least equal billing to Creationism as a valid approach to explaining where all the animals – and people – came from. The current writer begs to differ!

Should Creationism be taught as part of the science curriculum?

One problem with this proposal is the word “taught”. To some people, “teach” is synonymous with “preach”, the implication being that approval is being given to a particular point of view and those being “taught” are expected to accept that point of view. Had the expression been “teach about”, more people would probably be inclined to accept the statement under discussion, although even that prospect is hardly a welcome one.

Another problem is “as part of the science curriculum”. The common perception is that whatever appears in a science curriculum is being presented as fact, not as theory, as opposed to courses in philosophy or religious studies where theories are discussed and examined more in terms of their logic and rigour. However, science is also very much involved in the world of theory. Scientific method, after all, is all about postulating a state of affairs and examining the evidence, then conducting experiments to see if the theory can be accepted as a basis of knowledge. Gravity is a theory, as is evolution! (Although there is also much confusion over what the word “theory” means)

That said, this writer still comes down on the No side of the debate, because the theory in question is not susceptible to the application of scientific method. There is no evidence that can be adduced in support of creationism, other than ancient myths and legends that have acquired a patina of religious faith. There are certainly no scientific experiments that could be conducted in schools to settle the matter one way or the other. Because creationism is so far outside the realms of scientific enquiry, it has no place in school science curricula.

Say No to pseudo-science!

Another reason for not including creationism in science lessons is that so doing would give it a status that it does not deserve. There are many “pseudo sciences” that might be thought worthy of inclusion on the curriculum by some people, but schools avoid them for the very reason that they are “pseudo”. For example, we do not teach astrology alongside astronomy, or alchemy as part of chemistry, with these being offered as potentially acceptable alternatives. However, this is precisely what is being expected of schools by those who advocate an “even handed” approach to creationism and evolution.

Science teaching should be about the theories and practices that have stood the test of time and form the basis of modern knowledge. We should not be confusing school students by suggesting that such ideas as creationism are equally valid, with the added implication that the evidence that supports Darwinian theory (and it is overwhelming) can be jettisoned if it does not accord with the beliefs of those who lead their lives based on literal Biblical interpretation.

If the question was “should creationism be included as a topic for discussion in school religious studies or philosophy classes”, then a Yes vote would be more appropriate.

© John Welford

Evolution is not "only a theory"

People who try to discredit the theory of evolution, preferring instead to rely on the Book of Genesis, will often say: “But it’s only a theory”. The implication is that it is unreliable and unproven and thus no more worthy of trust than the creationist view that they espouse.

However, what they are doing is misunderstanding what the word “theory” means. To them, something that is a theory is, by definition, “theoretical”. It is a back of the envelope idea, something thought up as an explanation that is no more than a thought and without any firm evidence to back it up. Another word meaning the same thing would be “hypothesis”.

That is indeed one meaning of “theory” but it is not the only meaning. To a scientist, a theory is a set of ideas that constitutes an explanation of how something works. It is the next stage beyond the hypothesis because it incorporates the evidence that any reasonable person would accept. It is the generally accepted account of the phenomenon in question, incorporating the laws and principles that govern what is known and observed.

There are many theories of the latter kind. The theory of gravity is one such, in that it is an explanation of how large masses exert attractive forces on smaller masses. Another is the heliocentric theory that describes how the sun sits at the centre of the solar system and the planets move round it in their orbits.

Neither of these theories can be described as unproven hypotheses, although this might well have been the case some centuries ago. When Galileo advanced the heliocentric theory of Copernicus he was thought to be a dangerous radical whose thinking was disputed because it challenged the teaching of the Church.

The theory of evolution has also been challenged because it is thought in some circles to be contrary to religious teaching. The “only a theory” jibe is therefore thrown at it just as it was at Galileo’s theory.

However, just as the heliocentric theory has moved from the “hypothesis” meaning of the word to that of “accepted explanation”, so has the theory of evolution. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that it has long moved beyond being a hypothesis, although this was not the case when Charles Darwin first proposed it. It is now a theory that is accepted as fact in the same way that the heliocentric theory or the theory of gravity is accepted as fact.

To say “only a theory” implies that there is something better than a theory, and that if evolution was worth its salt it would be this something else. However, outside the world of mathematics there is nothing better. Absolute proof of anything is impossible unless the terms are defined so rigorously as to be make proof inevitable, as happens with mathematical statements and formulae. In the real world there are plenty of accepted facts, but they are encased in what are conventionally called theories. They are proven for all practical purposes and are therefore completely reliable. There is nothing more factual and reliable that a well-formulated theory, in the non-hypothesis sense, and evolution is one such.

© John Welford