Should science teach God?
By Meliqueica Meadows
Of the St. Louis American
Think of the warning label on media containing explicit material. Now imagine similar ones emblazoned on biology texts in public schools. That’s exactly what scientists and educators across the country want to keep from happening.
The “evolution verses intelligent design and creationism” debate was a major focal point of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2006 Annual Meeting held at America’s Center February 17 through 20. AAAS sponsored a special event for St. Louis-area teachers, “Evolution on the Front Line.”
“As scientists, we know that evolution is a theory in the same sense that gravitation is a theory,” said AAAS President Dr. Gilbert Omenn, a professor of medicine, genetics and public health at the University of Michigan.
“It is a robust organizing principle that has been thoroughly tested and well supported by a large body of evidence from many converging fields. Yet safely framing the subject matter in the classroom seems to be a challenge for many teachers on the frontline.
“Scientists love this term, theory. It’s the elegant, evidence-based summation, the convergence of information, and if the rest of the world considers that to mean guesses and speculation, we would be wise to find a different way to express our meaning.”
Legal battles over the teaching of evolution have popped up across the country. Some think a similar fight may be brewing in Missouri with the January 9, 2006 introduction of House Bill 1266.
Dubbed the Missouri Science Education Act, HB 1266 would require public school science teachers to comply with a list of “best practices to support the truthful identity of scientific information and minimize misrepresentation while promoting clarity, accuracy, and student understanding.” Evolution is the only topic explicitly identified as needing such revisions; the bill provides that “if a theory or hypothesis of biological origins is taught, a critical analysis of such theory or hypothesis shall be taught in a substantive amount.”
As a precursor to the annual meeting, AAAS officials conducted focus groups with local teachers. St. Louis area teachers said they didn’t teach evolution because it is not assessed by statewide standardized testing. Parochial school teachers said they experienced less pressure than their public school counterparts to insert religion into science classes.
“We’re stumbling through a political debate over teaching evolution in our public school systems. This has the potential to undermine the stability of science and hinder our focus on reaching new heights in the field of science,” said keynote speaker U.S. Rep. Russ Carnahan.
“Biological evolution is science. As such it should continue to be taught in science classes across the United States. Contemplation of our creator is a matter of faith and ought to be considered in places of worship.”
Earl Nance Jr., past president of the St. Louis Metropolitan Clergy Coalition and co-chair of Faith Beyond Walls, said intelligent design and creationism have their rightful place in science classrooms.
“As a minister, I believe in the Bible and in creation that is taught in church,” Nance said. “You just hope that the young people have faith in that even as they learn other ideas and theories.”
Omenn said that because neither intelligent design or creationism have been scientifically studied, neither should not be included in science curricula. Dr. Michael DeBaun of St. Louis Children’s Hospital does not agree.
“It is important to compel students to think and to have an understanding of the balanced viewpoints of both sides so they can make informed decisions for themselves,” DeBaun said.
“I’m a Christian and I believe that there is a God, but that does not preclude my beliefs in the scientific method. God is the creator, but there is scientific evidence that supports human evolution and I don’t think that one threatens the other.”
For more information about the American Association for the Advancement of Science, visit www.aaas.org.