To start with, I’d like to say that my remarks are based in the fact that I am a religious person, more specifically a Christian of the Lutheran persuasion. And it is precisely from this perspective that I oppose the efforts of "creation science" supporters to determine the way in which science can be taught in the public schools–because, in my own religious tradition, freedom of religious belief is a crucial principle, and no one religious group can speak for all as to what we all ought to be learning. The first amendment to the United States Constitution states that "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"–and it seems that those who dislike the scientific theory of evolution feel their religious views are being prohibited, even attacked, by the teaching of this theory in public schools. On the face of it, this may seem like a reasonable response. They will say that their children should not be forced to learn something that will contradict their faith. But does that also entitle them to determine the standards by which all our children will be taught, to leave out of required curricula the basic principles by which all our children will be taught, to leave out of required curricula the basic principles by which science proceeds? If so, then my religious rights will be trampled upon, for in my religious tradition there is no problem with reconciling the theory of evolution with a belief in a benevolent Creator god who has ordered the world and who sustains it through natural processes and laws. If one religious group determines for all of us what is acceptable, or what we are allowed to be taught, then the right of all citizens to a free and appropriate education is lost. The first amendment protects the free exercise of religion, but it also prevents the establishment of a particular religious view as the norm or as the basis for law or social policy, and this clause is essential to the protection of the freedom of religion. We would do well to remember that the founding fathers and mothers were religious people, representing those fleeing from tyranny, in many cases the religious tyranny of groups that sought to define what religious views are allowed. The United States is founded on the belief that all people are entitled to their own views regarding religion, and precisely for this reason, no single religious view can determine state action. Also, if we allow one group to exclude the teaching of material that offends them, where will we draw the line? Some parents will be offended by certain books read in school, so we pull those from the curriculum; others are offended by different books; perhaps I don’t want my child learning about certain periods of history or studying certain social issues or certain types of political systems–and soon, there is nothing left with which we all agree. Curriculum is not determined in this fashion, however. We learn about certain things in school not because everyone accepts them or because they contain absolute undisputed truth, but because they are part of the general traditions of knowledge which society as a whole embraces. Not everyone agrees with every aspect of the biological theory of evolution, but it is central to the way science is viewed and practiced in most cases. To not teach students about it is irresponsible, as it prohibits all students from receiving education about a recognized aspect of science that is only rejected by some.

Why then, so much support for creationism? In a recent poll conducted by the Gallup organization, 68% of those surveyed wanted both creationism and evolution taught in the classroom. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this issue in the general public; few realize that, if creationism was taught, that would represent an establishment of a particular religious view, which is prohibited by the Constitution. To be "fair," if we included Creation Science, we would have to include every religious view about creation, including not only biblical views but Native American creation stories, views of Hindus, Buddhists, not to mention atheistic accounts of how the world came to be. Science class would turn into religion class–and although there is no reason why the history of religion and religious beliefs can’t be studied in public schools (as long as one view is not favored), this is not what science class is about. Science and religion are different, and this is why the courts have consistently struck down as unconstitutional attempts by creationists to require that their views be taught alongside traditional evolutionary science.

This difference between science and religion, however, seems to be precisely what is not understood by the general populace. Many, perhaps most, of my students–before I set them straight, anyway–seem to believe that it is impossible to be both someone who believes God created the world, and to accept the scientific theory of evolution. I am puzzled by this in light of the fact that most of the major mainline denominations have held that belief in God is fully compatible with acceptance of evolutionary theory. The Roman Catholic church recently made this explicit, as have many groups within Christianity over the course of the last several decades. And yet, even those people who belong to these groups do not know the stance of their own churches, or that there need be no contradiction between faith and science in this regard. I believe this is because fundamentalist groups who do hold that there is a contradiction have hijacked discourse about the issue, publicizing their own views and making it seem as if theirs is the only possible Christian view. This is simply not the case, and churches need to do a much better job of making clear to their parishioners that there is no reason one cannot be a Christian and accept evolution.

Part of the problem is that there is a perception that belief in a scientific explanation of origins precludes belief in a deity as the ultimate explanation of those origins. Here what needs to be made clear is that while religion deals with primary causes, science deals with secondary causes; religion believes that the cause of anything being here at all is a transcendent God who stands outside the whole process, and science merely describes the secondary stages of that process, how it came to be the way it is now. Whether God made the world in six days in the way the Bible suggests, or through billions of years and rather differently, as science suggests, a believer in God will hold that no matter how we describe the process God is ultimately what is behind it. Evolution does not contradict belief in God, but only a particular description of that process found in the Bible. If the scientific view is presented as one that is necessarily atheistic, or which denies the possibility of God as part of its principles, then indeed it is a theory counter to the religious beliefs of all theists. But this is not in fact the case. Many religious people see no problem with believing in God and at the same time accepting evolution. Scientists also need to make it clear, then, that they are not advancing a "religious" account of origins, that is, one which speaks to the question of the primary cause of creation, or one which denies the need for a God. Science simply does not address that question. The ultimate cause behind the process of evolution, or the Big Bang, or even the basis for the laws of physics that determine how these processes occur, are not within the purview of science. Science cannot say one way or the other whether there is an ultimate cause behind the universe and the laws by which it operates–that is a religious matter, not one settled by evidence. And to view science as if it was tantamount to atheism, a religious view, is simply to miss the point as to what science is: a description of the process, not an ultimate account of why we are here at all. One can be a scientist and either be an atheist or not be an atheist. Holding scientific views does not necessitate a particular religious view.

It is also the case that the Bible is not very good science, a point often missed by the supporters of "creation science." If one insists on taking the Bible literally, then God created everything more or less instantly in a matter of six days, and the Earth is only 8-10 thousand years old, reckoning dates as the Bible does. This obviously contradicts the wealth of evidence that the Earth and the universe as a whole is much older; but more than that, the Bible contradicts itself, if taken as a literal narrative description of the process of creation. One finds this already by the time one has made it through the second chapter of Genesis. Genesis chapter one has it that God made plants on the third day, the sun and moon on the 4^th, animals of water and air on the 5^th, and land animals including humans on the 6^th. Genesis two, on the other hand, suggests that the sequence was man, then the plants, then the animals, and last of all, woman. That these two accounts do not harmonize literally was not a problem for those who put these stories together in the Bible, because they were not interested in making the Bible into a document which conforms to the criteria of modern science (which did not exist at that time, in any case.) The stories are not pointless because they are contradictory; rather, the point advanced by both stories is that a benevolent God created the world with care, in an orderly fashion, so that it would be good. This vision differed from that of many other near-eastern religions which envisioned the creation as a process of cosmic struggle between multiple deities who create the world almost accidentally, or as an afterthought of the battle. In contrast, the Bible teaches that God planned the creation and executed that plan well, with care and love, so that it ran according to an orderly structure. Ironically, this vision of an orderly creation actually contributed to the development of modern science and its vision of the world as orderly and logical rather than chaotic and lawless. The basic point of the Biblical creation story not only does not contradict science; it makes it possible.

Creation Science has been declared unconstitutional, in part, because it was seen to be religion, and not science; having been faced with this defeat, supporters of Creation Science have concluded that they should now go about showing that, if Creation Science isn’t very good science and is in fact religious, the same is true of evolutionary theory. One cannot observe or test evolution, it is said; you can’t repeat the experiment, or show what evidence would be required to falsify the theory. Evolution is based on the religious assumption that there is no God, they say, and not scientific "facts." I have already pointed out the fallacy of assuming that belief in evolution entails the denial of the existence of God; in addition, this criticism errs in believing that scientific theories are only based on "facts," understood here as indisputable data capable of only a single interpretation. In reality, theories are developed as explanations of data; they are not themselves the data. This is why theories can change, as evolutionary theory has changed with time, to be a better explanation of the data. All theories are open to revision and major changes have been made in science through Einsteinian relativity theory and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, to name just a couple of examples. But even though theories can and do change, and even though one cannot observe or repeat the macro-evolutionary process which helped develop life on this planet, that does not mean that the evidence is insufficient to continue to hold the theory of evolution in general as the best possible scientific explanation at this time (as has already been shown today by Drs. Burk and Kolok.) Religious groups are not and should not be in a position to second guess scientists and their own conclusions about evolution.

Of course, as the existence of "Creation Science" shows, there are in fact scientists who criticize evolutionary theory. But these are not representative of science as a whole, and their critiques are quite clearly religiously motivated. A small group cannot determine the curricula for the general populace regarding a certain academic area, just as historians who deny the Holocaust are not allowed to prevent mention of the Holocaust from appearing in public high school history textbooks. If we allow one such group to have this kind of power we all lose. Historians, like everyone else, have the right to deny the Holocaust if they so choose, but the overwhelming evidence seems to suggest it occurred, and that is why most historians accept its existence and the need to teach about it. It has been argued, of course, that ideology plays a role in the decision to teach about the Holocaust or Evolution–but ideology also plays a role in the decision not to teach about them. If we would not let our ideology be the sole factor that determines what we teach, we must look to publicly shareable data and the consensus of the academic field in question as to what explanations of that data are the most accepted with that field. Crackpot theories do not need to be taught in schools.

Finally, let me say a somewhat more conciliatory word to those who are uncomfortable with the teaching of evolution in public schools. Some people honestly believe that their religious beliefs are endangered by this teaching, and they are entitled to that view. I sympathize with their desire to hold to the uniqueness of humans and their place in God’s world, as well as the main features of the Biblical story. I do not find that I need to take the Bible literally to hold to those values, and in fact I find it impossible to read the Bible literally when it contradicts itself and modern science. But that is not the issue. They have the right to their views, as much as I have to mine. However, precisely out of concern for freedom of speech and freedom of religion, they do not have the right to censor what is taught in public schools, any more than I have that right. They may choose to put their children in other schools. They may choose to disagree with what is taught, and teach their children that their own views are different. But they cannot determine what we should all be taught, any more than I can determine that for them.

Copyright John Lyden October, 2000 All Rights Reserved