As I mentioned in an earlier post, the Senate Committee on Education and Career Development passed SB 89 by a vote of 8-2. I have not yet seen the tally sheet, but that vote suggests to me that all of the Senate Republicans and one of the Senate Democrats on the Committee voted in favor of this measure.
The Indiana Senate Bill
It is very short, stating only: “The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.”
It’s a little ambiguous, but it pretty much has to mean that creation science can be taught as science in the classroom. Schools can already teach creationism as part of, say, a class on comparative religions or history or literature or anthropology or philosophy. Courts generally interpret statutes with the idea that the legislature intends them to actually do something and likely wouldn’t interpret this as a mere nullity, allowing schools to do that which they were already permitted to do.
Scientific Theory
The idea of teaching Creationism as a scientific theory is awful to me, not because I mind critiques of or challenges to evolutionary theory; but because it degrades science to pretend that creationism satisfies the elements of a scientific theory:
A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. Once a hypothesis is verified, it becomes a theory.
Why am I so protective of science? I suppose I don’t need to be; it’s probably able to take care of itself. But, it has proven to be a powerful tool for understanding the world around us. It’s not the only tool, many will point out. And they are correct. But, in those areas of life that lend themselves to observation and measurement, it has revolutionized human understanding. (I use the term “revolution” advisedly.) So, what is this scientific method? Generally speaking, scientific inquiry is distinguished from other methods of obtaining knowledge by falsifiable hypotheses where the tests yield repeatable results. It is a search for natural explanations for natural phenomena.
You attempt to observe, measure and define the subject of inquiry. You propose hypotheses that might explain the observations and predict behavior. You design experiments to test these predictions. And then you repeat the experiments to make sure the behavior is repeatable. A hypothesis that is not falsifiable, can’t be scientific. (For example, the hypothesis, “God creates every moment independently of the next – any relation one appears to have to the next is entirely through His grace.” is not falsifiable or testable. It could potentially be true, but it’s not scientific.)
These relatively simple principles led to an explosion of human understanding and knowledge. Consider the state of human knowledge in the 16th century when use of the scientific method was getting started to the state of human knowledge today. The advances are mind blowing. Comparatively speaking, the differences between the 11th century and the 16th are relatively small.
Evolution through Natural Selection and “Creation Science”
Charles Darwin came up with a hypothesis that species evolved by means of natural selection. This hypothesis competed with other notions, such as Lamarckism which speculated that progeny inherited particular traits based on use or disuse by the parents. (e.g. if a giraffe stretches its neck for leaves a lot during its lifetime, its kids would inherit longer necks.) Through observation and testing and modification to account for new observations (e.g. discovery of genetics), evolution through natural selection has become a bedrock scientific theory of biology.
Meanwhile, let’s take a quick look at “creation science,” which the Indiana General Assembly presumes to declare as a viable competitor to evolutionary theory.
Creation Science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution. Its most vocal proponents are fundamentalist Christians in the United States who seek to prove Biblical inerrancy and nullify the scientific evidence for evolution. The main ideas in creation science are: the belief in “creation ex nihilo”; the conviction that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years; the belief that mankind and other life on Earth were created as distinct fixed “baraminological” kinds; and the idea that fossils found in geological strata were deposited during a cataclysmic flood which completely covered the entire Earth.
It is sort of an effort to retcon the Bible (or maybe they’re retconning scientific observation to comport with the Bible) by those who cannot abide the idea that the Bible might be speaking in metaphor or allegories. Their faith, apparently, is dependent on every part of the Bible being a literally factual, historical document. Objections to “creation science” as science include:
#It’s not falsifiable; no testable bounds can be imposed on the creator.
#It does not comport with Occam’s Razor which disfavors positing a more complicated explanation where one with fewer assumptions will explain the observed phenomenon.
#Because it posits supernatural forces, it cannot be empirically or experimentally tested.
#It is not open to change in order to explain new evidence. Relying as it does on the Word of God as absolute truth, evidence that runs contrary must be disregarded. “In science, all claims are tentative, they are forever open to challenge, and must be discarded or adjusted when the weight of evidence demands it.”
Prior Litigation
The legislative introduction of Creationism as science has been tried before and, the Scopes Monkey Trial notwithstanding, has not gone well for the legislation. Notable are the cases of:
Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) – striking down laws that prohibit the teaching of human evolution in public schools.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) striking down a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught alongside evolution. It allowed that competing scientific theories could be taught along side evolution; but the key to that is scientific – for the reasons mentioned above, “creation science” is not “science.” The court also had no objection to teaching scientific critiques of prevailing thought. So, noting some of the things that evolutionary theory does not explain is fine. You just can’t fill those gaps with Biblical proclamations and call it “science.”
Now, the folks of Indiana are about a generation behind the creation science curve. Since the heyday of creation science, its proponents have tried to make it more sciencey, put some lipstick on the unscientific pig, and called it “Intelligent Design.” But, to no avail. The Dover Area School District in York County, Pennsylvania took a huge financial hit after it lost a challenge to the school district’s decision to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution. (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp 2d. 707 (M.D. Pa 2005)). Intelligent design, as creation science 2.0, differs from its predecessor in that it calls itself science and pretends that it is not religiously based; but it makes this attempt by attempting to redefine science in a way that would invoke untestable, unfalsifiable supernatural explanations.
After a trial, the Dover court issued a 139 page decision (pdf). The court noted that ID was, at heart, a religious argument and observed that the writings of leading intelligent design proponents reveal that the designer postulated by intellgient design is the Christian God. For purposes of this blog entry, probably this passage by the court gets to the heart of whether Creationism (or intelligent design) ought to be taught as science:
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena.
The court also did not think much of the Defendants’ protestations that they weren’t advocating that students be taught Intelligent Design itself. No, no! They were merely advocating that the ginned up, non-scientific “controversy” be taught. “This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.”
Dover School District’s prize for serving up this warmed over Creation Science? In addition to whatever it spent on its own legal fees, it was required to pay the legal fees of the Plaintiffs as well. Those fees were apparently in excess of $2 million; but, in the spirit of comity and out of recognition that this was a small school district, the Plaintiffs let it go for a mere $1 million.
What is the Point
So, what is the point of the law recommended to the full Senate by the eight Senators? Why do proponents want to pull down the fence and let school districts wander into the minefield? I suppose I can only guess. It certainly is not out of a deep and abiding concern for open scientific inquiry. Get away from matters touching on religious orthodoxy, and these proponents could not care less about the state of scientific debate. I can’t imagine it’s out of a real desire to promote spirituality. From my perspective, it looks like abuse to the Bible, contorting Genesis into a parody of science. It acknowledges, in word if not deed, fealty to the primacy of science while awkwardly attempting to stuff Biblical creation stories into the architecture of science which was not designed to hold such cargo.
I think what they’re trying to do is, once again, mark territory. There is a vocal subset of Christians who have a dominionist mindset. They want to make it clear that they enjoy cultural dominance. Evolution undermines that feeling of dominance by its strong suggestion that the Biblical creation story is likely not historically accurate. Most believers in the Bible are happy to allow evolutionary theory and Genesis to co-exist by regarding the latter as metaphor or allegory that express theological truths. But, for some, this kind of reconciliation apparently causes psychological trauma of some sort – even when it’s only practiced by others.
But, if this passes, what result are they hoping for? Do they really want science teachers chewing on creation science like a bone; giving their students chapter and verse on the comparative scientific merits of “creation science” versus evolution through natural selection? Even worse, what if schools did not stop at “creation science,” but went on to teach the alternative theory advocated by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
—Bobby Henderson
Of course, if the bill does not pass, its proponents will get to enjoy another round of being martyrs, basking in their own self-congratulatory sense of self-righteousness.
This is a horrible idea for Indiana; wrong on science, wrong on the law, and, ultimately, prohibitively expensive for school districts that act on the discretion given under the legislation.
So here’s my question: This in Indiana – home of the Indians. So why, if we’re going to teach “creation science” are we focusing on the creation story from bronze age people in Asia instead of the creations stories of the original inhabitants of this great land?
I have no problem if people want to teach their children that Jehovah or the Great Spirit, or some other diety created the world, but do it at home or in your own place of worship. To force this down the throats of other people’s children is just horribly wrong. But if Theocrat Mike Pence becomes Governor, I predict we will see a lot more of this sort of effort.
As usual an excellent article. I would like to read a counter statement that did not depend of “faith” based assumptions and assertions. I say this as a retired teacher who was licensed to teach general science and biology along with various agricultural areas, and had various experiences over more than 35 years in the classroom. I like others could ramble on as to various aspects of concern over the continued attempts to insert religion (each their own beliefs) into everything (I am thinking of Newt having settled with his lord–his statement) and that making every action acceptable.
Also, concerned that many people of religious beliefs are very narrow in their belief of what is right and what is wrong—Questions we hear include: should you vote for a Morman or a Catholic AND really challenge voting for a Muslim or a Jew or whatever. I will admit I will consider as a factor in voting for anyone who consistently is using religion as part of their rationale for being considered qualified.
I am not pleased with my state on this and similar issues.
Jack, I recommend the book “The Language of God”, by Francis Collins. It’s not at all a retort to Doug’s excellent post. But it is a well-done book by a scientist (who helped map the human genome) that science in general and evolution in particular are not necessarily incompatible with belief in a divine Creator. For what it is worth, Collins would agree that intelligent design or any other name you would apply to creationism is not science and should not be taught in a science curriculum.
For my part, I am devout Christian who agrees with this post: creationism has no part in a science curriculum. I have a general grievance that the General Assembly (and others) look at education as the tutelage and memorization of facts, rather than equipping kids to think critically about the origin of the universe or anything else. But that’s just me. This bill, and this issue, is a disgrace.
The Senate Committee on Education and Career Development, you say? The only way that teaching Middle-Eastern Bronze Age folk tales as science will help career development is if they intend for all of our kids to grow up to be evangelists or Indiana legislators.
Well said Mr. Masson! Appreciate the shout-out to the Pastafarians across Hoosierland. We’re mostly forgotten, neglected. sigh.
Marty, we may be neglected, but we certainly are never forgotten.
Party on September 19th!
May his noodly appendage grace your life!
Now is the time to seek getting the bill to specifically mention your interest area—bringing this up would likely put much of this in a light of what is coming. On the other hand, can you fathom a teacher trying to put all the various groups idea into a class unit. It will definitely reduce the time preparing for college prep and any chance at dual credit.
When we started sending our kids to (Episcopal) private school, friends and relatives said we were being “snobbish.” It’s a small price to pay for having science taught in science classes. Ironic that we had to send them to a religious school to get them away from creation ‘science’.
As a biology teacher, my favorite part of all this is the idea of intelligent design. Look up the term punctuated equilibrium in any chapter about evolution and compare that biological term to the relatively new term intelligent design. On another note, the state released the new biology standards last summer. Are we going to have to go back and change those standards, since no indicator under standard eight deals with creationism, and at the school were I teach we need to have the standard and indicator being taught that day written on the chalkboard.
So what repeatable experiments have been designed to test the hypothesis of macro-evolution?
None.
The most bizarre claim of the “science educators” is that there is no controversy. The theory is disbelieved by a majority of the general public, including thousands of scientists, yet it is not only true, but uncontroversial?
What’s this have to do with teaching creationism? Feel free to offer critiques of gaps in evolutionary theory, just don’t fill in the gaps with a supernatural being and call it science.
And, if you want to take the side that there is no scientific evidence supporting macro-evolution, you can contend with things like this: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
The idea that there even is such a thing as so-called “macroevolution” that is distinct in any meaningful way than the time span over which it occurs from so-called “microevolution” is nonsense and something invented by reason-hating creationists to manufacture a dispute where none actually exists among those who know what they’re talking about.
Thomas, simply because a majority of the general public disbelieves a scientific theory doesn’t mean they are correct. The general public once believed the Earth was at the center of the solar system.
Also, who are the thousands of scientists who reject the theory of evolution, and how do their numbers compare to the number of scientists who agree with the theory of evolution? Ten thousand on one side vs. two on the other side does not mean there is genuine controversy.
I did not say that a majority of the genral public or of scientists made anyone correct. I merely said the theory is controversial, and to claim otherwise is silly.
As for the percentage of scientists who disbelieve the theory, that would largely depend on how one chooses to define “scientist”. Take only Evolutionary Biologists and you will surely get unanimity. Throw open the doors to include all the science teachers, medical doctors, chemists, engineers, etc. and our sample begins to mirror that of the general public. Certainly, by any fair definition of “scientist”, a significant percentage disbelieves the theory. Probably your best bet is just to say that anyone who won’t fall in line is not a true scientist. That should get you consensus.
I’m just wondering if you really trust kids with information. Do you really want them to think like scientists? Do you want them to doubt, question, and consider alternative explanations? Or do you want to tell them that the experts who really understand these things have determined what the truth is, and that it must be accepted.
I am actually rather indifferent to what is taught in high schools, because the availablity of the information cannot be controlled. Kids who want to study the issues will study the issues. I do warn you of this however. Kids are by nature rebellious. When they get the sense that the public school is telling them what they have to believe and is excluding opposing viewpoints from the curriculum, this will certainly give the creationist arguments a special allure.
I don’t know that anyone is saying that you have to restrict the information. I’m certainly not. You just can’t call creationism science because it’s not.
Schools could have philosophy classes on epistemology where they talk about the scientific method and what it can tell us about truth and what it cannot as well as the same thing about religion. Schools can also talk about areas that are not well explained by evolution through natural selection — just like they can explain the theory of gravity and point out that we don’t really know why it works yet. That’s how science works.
The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record. There is no “valid supporting data” for evolution. In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “prove” the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis. In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality. For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestor” that humans and primates share is God Himself.
Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text). Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationism”, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis. How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error? You can’t do it. That is why Creationism fails. It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers.
The correct opposing view to evolution is the “Observations of Moses”, which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.
Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis. The truth has been available for more than 18 years. Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God’s Word.
There are no “creation stories” in Genesis. In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about. You can’t simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction.
For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years. The “male and female” in Genesis chapter one was not “Adam & Eve”. Has modern science discovered that yet?
Herman Cummings
ephraim7@aol.com
Just wonder if you have ever reviewed the close DNA of the various species you say could not have been related?
I stopped reading after the first sentence. You people are insane.
I am glad that the Catholic schools I attended taught the theory of evolution, which (now) comports with Catholic teaching. I am also grateful that my daughters, so far, have the same opportunity in Indiana public schools.