Posted by William Gee
The Texas School Board of Education is once again divided about the educational material that is to be used in the teachings of Science. The constant debate between the Creationists and "intelligent design" advocates vs. Evolutionists is one that may never be laid to rest. Some school board members believe that additional educational material should be made available to students that would include other possible theories that contradict Darwin's theory of evolution. If this were to happen, I fear that science as we know it will eventually fade away as our youth will be exposed to unproven beliefs that will ultimately merge science and religion.
Being raised by parents who taught me that faith comes from within, led me to view science as being the study of all things natural and religion as being an interpretation of something transcendent. As a geology major and very science minded, I cannot deny the unified concept of evolution. The scientific facts are there and can no longer be proven otherwise. I guess the same goes for trying to prove to a true believer that God does not exist. One is based on facts, while the other is based on deeply rooted beliefs. However, those who hold to their religious beliefs must understand that science and religion should be viewed in a different context. Science has no claims to absolute knowledge, whereas, religion claims it does. Science should be taught as being practical without any regards to spiritual beliefs, the relativity of these beliefs, and in no way shared as common knowledge.
I do not believe that science is out to prove religion wrong(Earth is 4.5 billion years old), but rather to establish the validity of how or why things are the way they are. Merely using God as the answer to all of these questions does not safisfy the nature of science. In the issue of evolution, this scientific knowledge must be passed on with certainty through its demonstration of proven theory and must not be filled, included, or replaced with unnatural notions or guiding beliefs that cannot be proven.
Ultimately, in the debate with the Texas School Board of Education, the conclusion was made to allow alternative online material to be taught with evolution as the standard Science curriculum. This is a disappointing blow to the field of science. Can't we for once accredit "man's"achievements to science without the contradiction of an interpretation of the Bible? What will happen to the science curriculum when the board of education seats all right wing fundamentalists?
Neither science nor religion should ever meet in the middle. Religion is much too influencial and those who it influences shrug science in fear of turning their back on God. Both are viewed as either a whole truth or a whole lie. In any case, I hope I am right to believe in evolution. If not, there is always God there to forgive me, right?
A recent blog article, "Texas School Board of Gym Teachers" written by William Gee presents the continuous debate between Science and Religion teachings in the classroom. Science and technology have become the most ubiquitous of human creations, changing how we perceive our world and shaping the way we live. Science serves our innate need to know, helping us to deal effectively in some measure with forces of nature. For many, it provides meaning and understanding in facing life's realities and challenges. Science and Religion have their respective reasons for being. Each stand alone as independent human endeavors, having their own culture, body of knowledge, processes and procedures of verifying the truth, and ways of serving humanity. They do not have the same viewpoints about the nature of the world or agree about how the truth is perceived or confirmed.
ReplyDeleteTexas School Board of Education's debate regarding the teachings of Science versus Religion in the classroom is merely a political issue. Why would scientists be more qualified to critique the politics of the American classroom than, say, photography or car racing? For that matter, why would prominent TV evangelists be qualified to tell Americans what scientific content is appropriate for our children?
There's no question that there's battle for the minds of American children, no question that Creationism belongs in Sunday School and not high school Biology, and no question that we get our fair share of seriously disturbed hate mail because we say: the evidence is in. Just like the article stated, "The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old," early hominids go back over a million year, and homo sapiens emerged a hundred thousand years ago spreading to Europe around 40,000 years ago. We get no thanks for suggesting that, if you were going to teach Creationism, you would teach it as part of a survey of world religions, many of which have their own theories of creation, being sure to include the views of Buddhism, Judaism and Islam.
What is taught in American public schools is a political decision, and if you don't like it, you can teach your kids yourself, or put them in a private school that subscribes to your personal views. There are many valid reasons for doing so, but there are no valid reasons for trying to require children of other parents to absorb your views too. Instead of wasting time debating "Science vs. Religion," perhaps we need to stop, step back, and take a fresh look.
I don't see a conflict between Science and Religion, per se. What I see are global political conflicts between political demagogues acting in the name of the religions they claim to represent, but don't. If Americans can pause to rue the institutionalized destruction of "different" native American beliefs, values and culture, then surely we owe ourselves, as modern-day Americans, the same courtesy.
I disagree. I think that alternative views should be posed so people are not forced into believing something. Whether it’s Darwinism or religious beliefs, they are both theories and it all depends on where/who/what you are putting your faith in. Being a firm Christian believer myself, I do not think it is fair to present only one side of the argument in our textbooks. We are all entitled to our beliefs and I do not think that our society can continue to keep religious beliefs out of textbooks in regards to evolution. Since “science has no claims to absolute knowledge”, creationism should also be an argument in textbooks for that reason.
ReplyDeleteYou mentions that “one is based on facts, while the other is based on deeply rooted beliefs.” Yes, there was proof about finches and tortoises. But finches stayed finches. Tortoises stayed tortoises. They adapted, but were still primarily composed of the same genetic make up. It’s not like a finch evolved into a cow. Darwinism/evolutionism provides no factual evidence to prove how the world came to exist and ultimately cannot disprove the bible. There is not proof on how a human came to exist or that humans evolved from monkeys. I believe that God alone created humans and the earth. Again, this all depends on where you put your faith - in science or in religious beliefs.
You also states that religious people “shrug science in fear of turning their back on God”. I speak for myself here, but as a Christian I am not afraid of turning my back on God. I know that my God is an understanding and merciful God, but I believe in Him for his love. I do not believe in God because I am afraid of what he will do to me if I don’t believe. This is a whole other spiritual conversation that I should probably not get in to.
This controversy probably is never going to go anywhere. There will always be contradictory beliefs. Since it’s not a matter of proving who’s right and who’s wrong, why not just provide both arguments in textbooks?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe argument over evolution and its discrepancy with religious beliefs has sadly been left unresolved. In his article, Texas School Board of Gym Teachers, William Gee clearly points out the clash by pulling on his own experience of dealing with being a science major with a religious background. Although I agree with his idea that religion should not even be a debate as one is based on tested theories and the other on a set of 'deep rooted beliefs', I think it is important that children get a view on both perspectives. Perhaps Texas School Boards decision to have alternative online material to be taught along with evolution as a curriculum standard can be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteScience and religion are completely different realms and, as Gee has concluded, they should not be intertwined. Facts are facts and you can still trust them even if spiritually you are taught to believe in God. However, I feel it is vital for children to have a well rounded education and it is important for kids to see different perspectives on all issues in order to better form their own argument. For example, in my science classes whenever we learned about evolution we had to learn about creationism. It was not something I ever believed, but it really opened up my eyes to the existence of this debate. I had no idea it was out there before and I simply assumed that everyone believed in evolution. By learning about the other perspective and discussing the issue with my classmates, I think I learned to better approach the issue and try to understand the other side's argument. Therefore, I feel it is important for schools in Texas to have even a mandatory class on creationism in order to discuss its relevance to the whole debate. Perhaps this way, the children can be educated to understand the difference between science and theology and that it is okay to be religious yet still be a devote Christian. I think its especially relevant to Texas as I believe there are a lot of strictly conservative thinkers who should allow for healthy debate on the issue rather than force one perspective on children ie brainwashing them.
Therefore, although I understand your view Gee I think that its important to let science be science but also allow for other perspectives to be explored. I am not saying they are valid or that they should be presented in place of evolution- but they should be there for children to learn about, especially in Texas. Perhaps then the Texas School Boards decision was not a complete disaster after all. Unless of course, I misinterpreted what the meaning of 'alternative online material.' If so, this would be my only criticism about the article as it remained slightly unclear. All in all though, I really enjoyed the personal insight that was presented about the issue and the way the article was easy to read.
Aleksandra.
In response to William Gee's post, Texas School Board of Gym Teachers, I have a couple of different opinions. His argument is very well stated and I agree with his statement that science and religion are two different things and neither are around to disprove the other. However, I do disagree with evolution. It is important to know about evolution though as it is a huge part of science and biology. I'm sure we differ on our opinions because of the way I grew up. I have always been taught creationism and to believe in a higher power.
ReplyDeleteWhile I feel that kids should get the opportunity to learn both creationism and evolution, I don’t necessarily think that it is a good idea to have it be a course in grade school or to spend that much time on it; the reason being that most kids that have any knowledge of religion or ideology received it from their parents. Some of whom are very involved and serious about their faith expect for their kids to follow them in their beliefs. Children as they grow older and begin to find themselves as they strive for adulthood are mature enough to question their own faith and even what they’ve been taught. However, when younger youth are taught so many different things it can be very easily confused and it can be a nightmare for a parent to handle because the child is getting so much information from so many different sources.
The best analogy I can come up with is “Spanglish” which is not a real language, but a mixture of English and Spanish. A lot of the time young kids who learn both English and Spanish at the same time are confused when they grow older and have a hard time separating the two. This relates to my argument because these same young minds can become confused between what’s being taught at home and at school. I believe it would just be better off the way it is in school: spending just enough time on evolution to give kids and idea and a background on the content.