3.15.2010

Evolution of a Situation: The Real Danger of Teaching Creationism

Full disclosure: I am not a biologist, nor have I studied in depth the theory of evolution, but I fancy myself to have a better understanding than those discrediting it. I believe it to be an imperfect work in progress, but the closest thing we have to the truth. I also spent grades 4-12 in Catholic school, making my education during which I'd learn this very Christian.

That being said; ignoring the idea of evolution or teaching an alternate to evolution is nothing more than a disservice to the children. And to be honest, it has less to do with their beliefs etc. than one would imagine. The actual theory is really more of a biological history lesson in practicality, unless one becomes a biologist/geneticist whatevs, happening over such a long period of time that one would have a difficult time to perceive it, if it is perceived at all. I could go on bashing one theory while supporting the other, but that's really not the purpose of this article.

But first, some background information. Evolution was initially developed in the 19th century by Charles Darwin, who was influenced by Lamarke a century earlier. Until these two, the idea of an animal changing over the long course of time wasn't really proposed. It really wasn't a religious/scientific disagreement, it simply wasn't thought of.

Creationists/Intelligent Designers naturally get their start with Creationism, which is the larger theory based on the fact that God created the earth and everything as it is today period. This came about during the Protestant reformation. Up until then, religious scholars (both Christian and Jewish) were the ones who interpreted scripture, and had largely came to the consensus that the creation story as portrayed in the Bible (both Christians and Jews share this creation story in the old testament) was meant to be symbolic and allegorical. The fact that there appears to be two separate creation stories (I suppose subtitled part 1:the creation of the world, part 2:the creation of man) that aren't entirely congruous kinda points to this. With the Protestant reformation, people such as Martin Luther proposed more literal (some entirely) interpretations of the Bible. The word of God is for the people, after all, not for scholars. This, of course, led to the idea that if God created the world, the animals, and man; then God created the animals as is. The date of the creation of the world by these measures has also been up to some debate within evangelical circles, as there are no real specific things to go off of, datewise, except Jesus' birth, and that may have been erred itself. Many dates, even the one placed in the King James Bible, happen after the recorded beginning of civilized human history.

And there I start to ramble.

The problem with teaching creationist type theories has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with intellectual honesty, and intellectual laziness. If the facts present themselves to support one theory, perhaps not entirely; and at the very least, discredit the other; what choice is a rational person to make? Asking someone to ignore that which is more empirically based is dishonest and lazy. How do you teach the thought process of learning creationism? Faith is nice, but faith won't make one smarter, and it won't teach someone how to teach themself.

Frankly I have a hard time understanding how this is even an argument, and how entire schoolboards (and occassionally states) can decide that teaching creationism is ok.

This is entirely disregarding the separation of church and state that exists within our government. The United States of America is a nation of free religion. That doesn't mean you can practice whatever sect of Christianity you want. It means you can practice any religion in any sect (though the line I think is drawn where things like public safety are endangered), and why should a non-christian be forced to learn the christian teaching of creation in federally, state, and locally funded public schools.

Even Saint Thomas Aquinas would be horrified to see something like this, and he is one of the most important church scholars in history. If one can achieve sainthood while still pursuing rational and scientific pursuits, why is some of this nation scared of everything going to hell if we teach science?

Goddamnit, Texas



-- Knuttel

seriously, separation of church and state. only a matter of time before this is a court case, and its gonna be messy.

No comments: