by Dane Roberts
Daily Lobo columnist
For its staying power, there are few controversies in America to match the debate pitting evolution against creationism in public schools. From its legendary beginnings in the 1925 Scopes Trial to the current case in York, Penn., concerning the constitutionality of including intelligent design in the curriculum, the partisans in this debate are determined and irreconcilable.
The court cases resurface every few years, and now creationism is back again, with a little more sophistication, in the form of intelligent design. Because I haven't looked into them, I have no opinion on the merit of the intelligent design theorists' arguments. I also have no opinion on the constitutionality of the current case, because I'm no legal expert and, as is usually the case, it involves more complex issues than merely whether creationism should be taught in schools.
But even if I were to study the creationism-evolution debate more carefully, I doubt much would be illuminated. The dispute seems less a matter of who has more evidence and more a matter of what your beginning assumptions are. Creationism will never replace evolution as a scientific theory, because the ground rules of science simply don't allow for the hypothesizing of supernatural forces.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
A scientist who has trouble explaining some phenomenon and therefore concludes it must be God's - or another nameless intelligent designer's - doing has just stopped practicing science. The fundamentalists, by the same token, will never accept a broad system of explanation that rules God out of bounds.
And that's what makes the problem so intractable. It's about a gap that won't be bridged by rational argument or the accumulation of evidence, and especially not by the ruling of a judge. The most ardent Christian fundamentalists will never be satisfied paying tax dollars to a school system that promotes a secular worldview that contradicts their most cherished beliefs. The most ardent secularists will never accept a school curriculum influenced by religious dogmas.
Is there any solution to a problem that involves such a deep conflict in citizens' values? If there is, it isn't the past or current course, for these cases have been coming before the courts at regular intervals for at least the last 80 years.
If we re-evaluate the whole controversy, though, we might decide that the problem lies in the assumption that the state should decide what children learn. The "how" and "what" of a child's education is so fundamentally tied up with values, it seems impossible that we could expect to agree on a single curriculum for all kids.
And that goes beyond the origin-of-life issue. Should children be taught about our nation in a way that promotes patriotism and honors military sacrifices through history? Or should children be taught to be skeptical, question historical motives and study injustice? Or should they be taught just the facts? Which facts?
Of course, whichever you choose, it will inevitably be a consequence of your values.
Every aspect of a school curriculum is value laden. Even if the "what" is generally agreed upon, such as in math, the "how" is not. Should kids learn math through the memorization of correct procedures from a front-of-the-room teacher, or through self-directed discovery in a democratic classroom?
Your answers to all these questions depend upon highly personal values. If you're a parent, do you want your child to learn concrete and marketable skills, respect for authority and faith in God? Or are you more interested in promoting creativity, critical thinking and global awareness, or both?
I won't make the mistake of saying you're either on one side or the other, that there are only two types of education. But clearly the kind of education you believe in, whatever it may be, is a reflection of who you are and what you believe in.
Although I certainly have my preferences, I wouldn't presume to tell a parent that any one educational philosophy is best for their children. So my question is, Why should the state?
If you've followed this far, a solution to the seemingly incurable problem of evolution versus creationism - along with all the other educational controversies - is in sight. It starts with a "V" and ends with an "O-U-C-H-E-R-S." If you want to know more about it, look for my next column, where I'll argue for it in more detail.
