Science in Christian Perspective
Play It Again Sam Creation/Evolution in California Education
Richard H. Bube
Stanford University
Stanford CA
From: JASA 30 (June
1978): 96-97.
The following Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 87 was
introduced into the California State Assembly on January 9, 1978
by Assemblyman Dannemeyer of Fullerton.
1 WHEREAS, It appears that most, if not all,
2 state-supported
educational institutions
require students
3 to take courses in which naturalistic concepts of evolution
4 are taught as scientific explanations of origins of the
5 universe, life, and
man; and
6 WHEREAS, Evolution is not demonstrable as scientific
7
fact or testable
as a scientific hypothesis, and therefore
8 must be accepted philosophically by
faith; and
9 WHEREAS, There is another concept of 10 origins namely,
that of special
creation of the universe,
11 life, and man by an omnipotent personal Creator -
which
12 is at least as satisfactory a scientific explanation of origins
13 as
is evolution, and is accepted as such by a large number
14 of scientists, and
other well-informed people; and
15 WHEREAS, Many citizens of this state believe
in the
16 special creation concept of origins and are convinced that
17 exclusive
indoctrination of their children in the
18 evolutionary concept
(including so-called
"theistic"
19 evolution) is inimical to their religious faith and to
their
20 moral and civic teachings, as well as to scientific
21
objectivity, academic
freedom, and civil rights; and
22 WHEREAS, Even most citizens who are
not opposed
to
23 the evolution concept at least favor a balanced treatment
24 of these two
alternative views of origins in their schools,
25 thus allowing
students to consider
all of the evidences
26 favoring each concept before deciding which to believe;
27 now, therefore be it
28 Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California,
the
29 Senate thereof concurring, That the Department of
30 Education and the
State Board of Education is hereby
31 requested to recommend to all
statesupported
32 educational institutions that a balanced treatment of
33 evolution
and special
creation be encouraged in all
34 courses, textbooks, library
materials and museum
displays
35 dealing in any way with the subject of origins, such
36 treatment
to be limited to the scientific, rather than
37 religious, aspects of the two
concepts.
Thus is resurrected on the political scene a debate that took
place in California within the State Board of Education in 1972
and 1973. Facing at that time the suggestion that the teaching of creation be
added to science instruction, the State Board with the advice of
Christian faculty
in science wisely decided not to add a basically religious teaching (creation)
to the science curriculum, but rather to remove from the science
curriculum such
nonscientific dogmatism as constituted a scientismic
''religious" approach.
Thus the integrity of both scientific and religious perspectives was preserved.
The charge to a Consultant Committee to the State Board of Education read,
That, on the subject of discussing origins in the Science textbooks,
the following
editing be done prior to execution of a contract (with a publisher):
I. That dogmatism
be changed to
conditional statements where speculation is offered as
explanation for origins. 2. That science emphasize "how"
and not "ultimate
cause" for origins.
The Dannemeyer Resolution ignores the entire history of this effort, returns us
back to square one with the same difficulties encountered in the
past, and strives
once again to accomplish for defenders of a special-creation view
what they failed
to accomplish previously. The Resolution is replete with misunderstandings and
misstatements; Christians of whatever persuasion should value the integrity of
science and their religious faith sufficiently to defeat this Resolution. Some
specific comments follow, with reference to the line in the
Resolution text.
3. To speak of naturalistic concepts of evolution is to suppose that
"natural"
is somehow necessarily opposed to God's activity in the world. This
is a fundamental
fallacy that interprets the availability of a description in terms of natural
process as automatically excluding a description in terms of God's
activity. Evolution
is a theory of human science; it must by definition be described in
natural concepts.
4. If science courses offer ultimate explanations for origins, then
these explanations
should be deleted. If science courses offer possible mechanisms for the origin
of life and man in the form of scientific descriptions of historical
events, this
is right and proper.
6. No major modern scientific theory in flux can be demonstrated
"as scientific
fact." Even to use this phrase indicates a misunderstanding of
the relationship
between facts and theories.
7. Evolution is certainly testable as a scientific hypothesis.
8. All major modern scientific theories in flux must "be
accepted philosophically
by faith," if they are going to be accepted philosophically at all. Why is
this essential? One of the purposes of science teaching should be to show the
tenuous connection between scientific descriptions and grounds for
philosophical
acceptance.
9. To speak of "another concept of origins," is to suppose
that another
scientifically viable concept exists. Indeed it does: it requires one to say,
"We don't understand it, but this just happened." This is always an
option, but it is hardly a recommended approach for science courses.
12. Since "special creation of the universe, life, and man" is in no
sense a "scientific explanation" at all, it can hardly be advanced as
"at least as satisfactory a scientific explanation of origins."
13. That this view might be accepted by a large number of scientists (a highly
debatable and questionable contention) is no more grounds for its
acceptance than
the counter view that a much larger number of scientists accepts evolution as
an ultimate explanation and that therefore it must be the only view taught.
14. The opinions of "well-informed people" hardly constitute grounds
for deciding on what is or is not science.
17. "Exclusive indoctrination" would be reprehensible and
this is exactly
what must be avoided. To include "theistic evolution" without a word
of explanation is hardly responsible.
15-21. Note the dangerous precedent of having a group of citizens decide what
should and should not be taught in a science course because they believe that
a current view conflicts with their religious convictions. It is not
science that
must be held in check; it is misinterpretations or extrapolations of
science into
nonscientific realms.
etc.......