Is science really a battle between two systems, one creationist and one naturalist? Are God and Darwin really enemies?
PLAYING ON THE EMOTIONAL appeal of “fair play,” creationism proponents in Texas want the state’s board of education to rule that the “strengths and weaknesses” of the theory of evolution should be included in its science curriculum.
Surely a balanced examination of any theory should be welcomed as an educational approach in teaching science; the scientific method practically requires it, right?
Sure, but the “strengths and weaknesses” language appears to actually be code for “teach creationism.”
Kathy Miller, director of the Texas Freedom Network, tells the New York Times, “‘Strengths and weaknesses’ are regular words that have now been drafted into the rhetorical arsenal of creationists.”
Indeed, creationists rely on colloquial definitions, rather than established scientific meanings, to bolster the political case for teaching so-called Intelligent Design since proponents have ever failed to make a scientific case for the concept.
A WAR ON WORDS
Typical of the approach is the laser-like focus of creationists on the term “theory” to describe evolution. They fixate on the term being the equivalent of a hunch, speculation, supposition or even opinion.
In science, “theory” describes a well-substantiated explanation of key aspects of the natural world that includes facts, laws, predictions, and tested hypotheses.
This illustration from the Web site of Texans for Better Science Education attempts to rally support for the science curriculum changes that would highlight the “weaknesses” of the theory of evolution.
Gravity is merely a theory, too — part of Einstein’s theory of relativity, which is judged “a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology, which has so far passed every unambiguous observational and experimental test to which it has been subjected.”
If the “theory” weren’t true such things as nuclear reactors, particle accelerators, even atomic weapons, wouldn’t work. Yet they operate just as predicted by what’s merely a “theory.”
Do we see, then, such groups as Texans for Better Science Education clamoring for science teachers to present evidence against Einstein’s theory of relativity? Do they deny the observable, predictable and practical applications of the theory? Did not an atomic bomb obliterate two Japanese cities in 1945? Do nuclear reactors not provide nearly one-fifth of the world’s electricity needs?
Next: What other science is suspect? »
