Nothing wrong with teaching Biblical stories, but not in biology class

To the editor,

Nearly 86 years after the Scopes “Monkey Trial,” a few extremist N.H. legislators have introduced legislation that would seriously compromise the teaching of science in the state. The proposed legislation would not only make it mandatory to teach in public schools a narrow religious doctrine on an equal basis with evolutionary science but also require that teachers discredit evolution by labeling those who believe in it as evil and atheist. Its proponents blame tragedies from the Holocaust to Columbine on evolution and say it is a “criminal” theory that leaves no room for spirituality or morality.

There are several problems with this. The most obvious is that it would make every science teacher learn about the politics and world view of every scientist who ever supported evolution. Second, it is “bad law” in the sense that it probably will not pass judicial muster when it is inevitably challenged.

Furthermore, I resent the implication that those who do believe in evolution are somehow to blame for violence and other social problems. Doesn’t fundamentalist religion have a strong history of violence and hatred? I further reject the implication that this is “either/or” and that one has to choose between evolutionary science and faith in God. In reality, there are many devout Christians, Jews, and other people of faith — including the Pope — who believe it is possible to accept both.

Equally obnoxious is the suggestion that people who doubt the existence of God have no moral foundation and are therefore more likely to engage in criminal activity. I know agnostics and atheists who surpass many believers in their love, compassion, ethics, and morality.

Moreover, although the idea of teaching creationism in science classes is promoted as teaching “two sides” of a “scientific controversy,” creationism and “intelligent design” are not valid scientific “theories.” Science is what can be empirically demonstrated. Otherwise, it is a matter of faith or philosophy. Many scientists believe in God but admit they cannot demonstrate Him in a laboratory.

Evolutionary science is real science and in spite of what creationists claim, there is very little controversy about it in the scientific community. While there may be some debate over a few details, almost all legitimate scientists accept the basic concept. They also accept the evidence that the earth is approximately 4.5-billion years old in contrast to fundamentalists who believe it is just 6,000 years old.

Christian creationism and other pseudo-sciences only appear to be scientific. This is because many people do not understand what science really is. A scientist starts with the data and then builds the model. Creationists start with the model they like and then “cherry pick” data to back up that model.

There is nothing wrong with teaching students the Biblical story of creation—along with many other wonderful human creation myths. But this belongs in humanities courses, not in biology classes.

What’s next? There are fundamentalists who believe Copernicus was wrong. Will science teachers be required to teach that a geocentric solar system is an equally valid “scientific theory” about which there is serious controversy? And what about the creation stories from other cultures and religions? Should these also be taught in science classes?

We live in a country where students do much more poorly in science and math than those in many other developed countries. To teach pseudo-science as science will only exacerbate that problem.

E. Scott Cracraft

Gilford