Evolution is Your Friend
I don’t know why it continually shocks me that there are so many people in this country who insist that non-scientific theories be included in science classes, but yet it continually does. Back before I started this blog (all of a few weeks ago), I’d generally rant on my other page, and one of my more recent rants referenced a story about some IMax theaters in the South refusing to show a production entitled “Volcanoes of the Deep Sea” because it referenced the theory of evolution. I can’t blame the owners of the IMax theaters, because they knew that their Creationist-laden viewers wouldn’t pay to see a movie that talks about evolution. Beyond the lack of an audience, I’m sure some of them were worried about the possibility of protests from fundamentalists.
I was reminded of this story because of a recent article on The Register regarding the efforts of The National Academies and their efforts to promote the theory of evolution over the story of creationism. Regardless of your particular opinion on this debate, the very simple fact of the matter is that only evolution is a scientific theory. Follow my logic here: If evolution is a theory, and theory is defined in the scientific sense, then evolution should be taught in science classes. Furthermore, if creationism/intelligent design is not a theory, as theory is defined in a scientific sense, then creationism should NOT be taught in science classes.
I don’t care what people believe or don’t believe, even if some of what people believe boggles my mind, but the fact is there are proper forums for both beliefs. Public schools are government funded and the Constitution states that there shall be a separation of church and state. Because creationism is a theological belief, it should be taught either in church or at home by religious parents to their children. Science teachers, however, should only teach that which strictly adheres to scientific principles and avoid dabbling in the metaphysical/spiritual. I don’t see how this is difficult to understand or even hard to accept. If you’ve got a particularly burning urge to make a theory of creationism, then find a way to make it fit into the definition of scientific theory. Just remember the definition of “theory” in the scientific sense of the word. The problem with this is that believing in creationism currently requires one to have faith, which is inherently unscientific.
Take comfort, religious people, for the theory of evolution is still just a theory. The entire point of science is to disprove its own theories, so it’s still possible that evolution will be discarded in favor of another theory someday. In the meantime, here’s a quote for you to think about: “Those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution, as not adequately supported by facts, seem quite to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all.” —Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903
Of course, I really shouldn’t even bother arguing these points, for, as Carl Sagan once said, “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe.”
