Go Ahead, Teach Creationism

From the Archives, Oct. 2002

As most frequent readers of this column have come to realize, I am
a staunch supporter of the teaching of evolution in school. They
also know that I have always opposed the teaching of so-called
creation science.

But I have recently gone through a change of heart and mind
regarding the evolution/creation controversy. Although I don't
actively support the teaching of creation in the science
classroom, I no longer actively oppose it, either.

What's that you say? I've given up my belief in evolution in favor
of Special Creation? No, not at all.

Evolution remains the most widely accepted and logical scientific
explanation of how we got here. And I am still firmly convinced
that creationism as a science is laughable. It's not science at
all. It's not even a very good religion.

So why the change of heart?

It was the recent decision by the Ohio State School Board that
finally made me crack. That board gave a thumbs-up for schools to
teach what is termed "intelligent design." It's really just
creationism in disguise. Although the panel did not vote to
mandate its teaching, as some conservative groups wanted, it
allowed each school district to determine whether or not to teach
it along side of evolution.

It occurred to me that this debate isn't going to go away as long
as the religious fanatics have a voice in the electoral process.
And since they will always have a voice - a rather loud one - the
debate will linger.

This controversy has led many, if not most, school systems to skim
over evolution in biology classes. Some schools skip that chapter
altogether. Others merely touch on it. Few high school students
are adequately educated in the concepts of evolutionary theory
these days.

I figure the only way that evolution will ever get a thorough
examination in the science classrooms of America is if we
acquiesce to the zealots and allow creationism to be taught with
it.

The result is likely to be that more high school students will
graduate with the knowledge that evolution really happened and
that it can be used to make predictions in genetics, astronomy,
geology, and other sciences.

The reason I feel confident of this is that if both evolution and
creation are taught from a position of logical investigation, and
not from a position of dogma, then evolution will always win out.
There is no logic in creationism.

Teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution is something
akin to a track coach reading Aesop's "The Hare and the Tortoise"
and telling his runners that being tortoise-like is an alternative
tactic to winning track meets. It wouldn’t take long for students
to realize the futility of being a tortoise. If approached from an
evidentiary perspective, students will find it just as easy to
dismiss creationism.

Naturally, there will still be students who remain unconvinced of
evolution, despite the evidence and the logic behind it. But these
are the same students who would be unconvinced anyway. I am
confident that allowing creationism to be taught side-by-side with
evolution would be a great boon for science. It will not only
promote critical analysis of the theory of evolution, it will also
promote, in all fairness, critical analysis of creationism.

In such an analysis of the facts and evidence, most students will
quickly come to the conclusion that creationism really does
promote a myth. And anytime we can dispel a myth, it's a good
thing.

Just as astrology is discussed in most astronomy classes, if only
to provide a historical perspective, creationism can also be
discussed in biology classes along with evolution. It should
become clear to most students that creationism is to evolution
what astrology is to astronomy: merely a precursor to the accepted
reality – something that was believed before we knew better.


In an ideal world, creationism would never be allowed to
contaminate the science curriculum of any school – public or
private. But this isn’t an ideal world and sometimes a less-than-
ideal compromise is needed.

So, yes, I've changed my mind. Let loose the creationists in the
classroom. Just make them follow the same rules as science has to
follow. Then when they realize that most students will opt to
believe the evidence of science, they will be more than happy to
pull creationism from the curriculum themselves.

I did not Choose This

I'm not an atheist by choice. To not be an atheist I would have to DECIDE to believe in a god. To make that decision, I would have to choose a god that I believe is not only possible, but probable, or at least plausible. And since, knowing what I know, that doesn't seem likely, I'm stuck being an atheist. All gods I know of are completely implausible ideas and I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would believe they exist.

Why is Evidence-Based Reality not the Norm in America?

I get annoyed, angry, even depressed every time I get on Facebook these days and am confronted with yet another news item or opinion piece that points out how gullible, naive, undereducated, or silly the American public is when it comes to evidence-based reality. From new polls showing a backward trend to the public's acceptance of the highly-supported theory of evolution to TV preachers decrying the Air Force's decision to not require inductees to say "so help me God," to the idiot ramblings of those who still insist that vaccines cause autism, that the measured climate change is not due to human activity, or that GMOs are harmful. It's maddening!

The answer to all this is very, very, simple. It's childlike in its simplicity if only people would adopt it. If people would live their lives by the mantra of EVIDENCE-BASED REALITY instead of the pervasive faith-based reality that so many people cling to, humanity would be so much better off. Think about it: There would be no terrorist organizations, no borders defined by religious zealotry, no one telling others what to do based on their own narrow view of biblical morality, no TV evangelists and no more ducking tax payments due to religious privilege. Oh, I'm sure there would still be person-on-person judgment, but it wouldn't be faith based.

Empirical data and testable evidence is the only way we have of discovering reality! That's not to minimize feelings, like love, or actions such as charity. We, as humans, have emotions that were evolved within us to help us cope with being societal. But when it comes to learning about that society and our place within it, or when it comes to discovering things about the natural world, empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and data are all that matter. Faith is an incumbrance. Faith should be bestowed on other people, or oneself, when the evidence shows its justified. And hope can be useful as a motivational factor for trying. But putting faith in gods, fairies, spirits, angels, or other supernatural beings is not only worthless, it's pathetic. It means that critical thinking skills have been abdicated in favor of wishful thinking. It's cheating oneself, and all of society, out of realizing the potential that is inherent within us.

I live my life on empirical evidence, facts, data, logic, and critical thinking skills. There is no room in my life for faith, at least faith that is not derived from evidence. I hear so many people tell me, "you gotta believe in something! But why? Why do I have to believe in something that is not derived from evidence or logic? To me that's just silly. My life is not missing anything because I have no blind faith. I am not somehow disabled because of it, and yet people say they feel sorry for me for not knowing God or Jesus. I don't know God for the same reason that I don't know the tooth fairy: neither one of them exist in the real world.

People tell me "but you can't prove there is no god." That's right; I can't. But I don't have to. By following the empirical evidence, science has come to the understanding that the existence of a god is not necessary to explain things we know about the universe. And if God is not necessary, then it takes an extra step to believe God exists. Why put something in place that is not needed? That's like adding an extra cog to a motor that does nothing more than to satisfy the designer's propensity for using cogs.

And so what if you don't understand all the beauty and clockwork precision of the universe? Those who don't understand it often attribute its wonder to God. But all it means is that you don't understand the reality of it. Maybe nobody does. But why take the default position that if we don't know how it works then it must be due to God? Why not take the more appropriate position that we don't know how it works yet so let's try to find out?

Society would be far more efficient, less violent, less judgmental, and far more progressive if we left faith-based reality out of our decision making and relied solely on evidence-based reality. Because in doing so, we will come much closer to realizing true reality and not just wishful thinking.