Anita Jeck

Co-founder, Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education (http://nrcse.creighton.edu)

Here in Nebraska, some anti-evolutionists have been heard crowing lately about a letter from Governor Johanns to Education Commissioner, Doug Christiansen, regarding the teaching of evolution in our public schools. In the letter, posted on the Family First website, the Governor states:

… I also appreciate the State Board of Education’s position that the science standards allow local districts and teachers the academic freedom to present and discuss arguments for and against the Darwinian theory of evolution rather than mandate the "teaching of" one particular evolutionary theory…

What’s going on here??

The state science content standards remain unchanged, and still include the theory of evolution. After hearing the testimony of a number of biologists and other scientists, the majority of State School Board members well realize that there are no scientifically valid alternatives to the theory of evolution, so they certainly would not endorse the teaching of any such alternative pseudoscience.

This looks suspiciously like back door political double talk, perhaps reflecting a change in the tactics of creationist and intelligent design proponents?no need to redesign science standards to be more amenable to a particular religious belief, just solicit the "academic freedom" to teach whatever.

This Sunday, February 23, at 3:00pm, Dr. Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute (the PR institute for intelligent design) and Dr. Massimo Pigliucci, from the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University Of Tennessee, will be at St. Paul’s United Methodist church in Lincoln to debate the question "Is Intelligent Design a Valid Scientific Alternative to Evolution?" Actually, there is no debate in the scientific community; evolution is overwhelmingly accepted as an indisputably valid theory, foundational to all life sciences?as valid as the theory of gravity, with mountains of evidence growing everyday. "Intelligent design" does not present even a proper hypothesis, let alone a theory. (So why should we pawn it onto the kids as science when the vast majority of scientists don’t buy it?)

But I wonder if Dr. Nelson or Dr. Pigliucci will touch upon the real issue, the more important, foundational question to the whole debate.

"What is so threatening about evolution?"

Certainly there are scientific concepts that are even more anti-intuitive and incomprehensible, like quantum mechanics, or even the theory of relativity. No one seems to be too concerned about those theories.

What is it about the theory of evolution that a large religious minority finds it so threatening that they would sooner believe that the vast majority of the world’s scientists of various religious and cultural perspectives are somehow engaged in a world-wide conspiracy to deceive the public? What is so threatening about the idea of evolution that some people are more willing to submit to incredible feats of mental gymnastics to deny it than accept the overwhelming evidence supporting it?

The most obvious answer points to the protection of a multi-million dollar investment based on Biblical literalism that could crumble if its adherents came to accept evolutionary theory.

But many well-meaning, ordinary, intelligent individuals seem to fear the concept of evolution. Why?

As fundamentalist arguments regarding Biblical literalism versus evolution break down, in the end there is always one argument left standing?the Bible is literally true because we need it to be true. If it isn’t true, then hope is lost. God is not there, there is no divine authority, and all will be chaos. This is the voice of fear, a fear that somehow, the very nature of God is at stake. Reason and evidence alone cannot assuage such fear. Many proponents of creationism and intelligent design play on that fear, painting their argument as a defense against godlessness. Denial of evolution in the face of overwhelming evidence is irrational. The fear of chaos, however, is understandable, especially in light of today’s frighteningly uncertain world.

These extremists say the answer is for everyone to get back to God, the particular concept of God they know, the one they interpret and describe from their Bibles, a God that is incompatible with scientific fact and the theory of evolution. Other extremists say that no, their idea of God, or Allah, is the only right one; and still others insist that their religious view is the only correct view. This inherently offensive and unnecessary battle for God rages on.

And they are all fundamentally wrong. Evolution does not rule out God. In fact, most religious denominations support the teaching of evolution. Catholic schools teach evolutionary theory without reservation under the strong endorsement of the Pope.

Conformity of religious belief is not the answer to the prospect of frightening chaos. The answer lies in working together as a diverse community that values a plurality of religious perspectives. The oneness of Buddhism, the love & forgiveness of Christianity, the importance of law and tradition from Judaism, the diversity of Hinduism, the interdependence of Paganism, the peace of Islam, or the Sacred Circle of Life from Native American religions?all these complex religious perspectives speak to an indescribable transcendence and sacredness. All are part of a larger and holy mystery, which religious folk of all hues humbly strive to comprehend and serve.

The study of science helps us to understand and appreciate this awesome universe. It can do so only when it operates outside all such religious bias. That is what we need to teach our science students?true science shows no deference to any particular religious view. That is its place, and therein lies its value of objectivity, as an ever-important and integral methodological tool in our on-going struggle to question, comprehend, and live together in peace.