Theorizing an End to the Debate

Evolution and creationism in American education is understandably a very controversial concept. But why is it so controversial? In the minds of the American public the ideas of evolution and creationism have come to represent the divide between science and religion, and the perception of a divide extends to those who take a stance on the debate: those who are proponents of evolution see creationism as irreconcilable with science, and perhaps even a danger to critical thinking; those who are proponents of creationism see evolution, and even the larger scientific institution, as attacks on their cultural and religious identity. These attitudes extend into the classroom, and the worries of both sides are as such more focused; in teaching evolution and ignoring creationism, are we eroding the religious values of a generation? Or are we endangering that same generation’s ability to think in scientific terms by teaching creationism?

The issue here isn’t the scientific validity of either creationism or evolution. Virtually the entire scientific majority agrees with the validity of evolutionary theory while classifying creationism as pseudo-science, and with good reason. Again, I point to falsifiability and the fact that science is used to describe natural phenomena. The issue is whether or not creationism should be taught in the classroom, and whether evolution should stay.

Perhaps what could bring an end to this divisive conflict is the subject matter itself—I’m talking about education. Many creationists have poor knowledge of what evolution actually is, and this plays a large part in their antipathy towards it. I think that popular misconceptions about evolution, such as equating it with abiogenesis or claiming it has no evidence, should be corrected in the public eye. If the public gained more insight into what is deceptively characterized as a simple hypothesis, the issue of having evolution in schools while excluding creationism would not be such an issue. Additionally, a better characterization of science would allow the general public to discern creationism as beyond science—the aim would not necessarily be to tell people what to believe, but to simply educate them on science to the point where they can make clear distinctions between evolution and creationism, and have them understand why only the former belongs in a public classroom.

I still stand by my stance of keeping creationism out of the classroom—but maybe only the science classroom. Perhaps in different contexts, it could be taught. Not as a viable scientific alternative to origins, no, but maybe as an example of a religious explanation for origins in a relevant class on theology or religion. Furthermore, classes on the controversy itself would be helpful in showing students the different roles that these two explanations have, and why it is important to distinguish between them in the way that this blog has been doing. The goal with such courses would not be to appease creationists, but to further education of the issue.

I understand that creationist beliefs are not something that can be surmounted so easily, especially in a country as religious as America, but the divisiveness of the issue can be subdued by a clearer presentation of what science and evolution is in the public eye, and by teaching about creationism and the controversy in purely religious and political terms, respectively.