It’s just a theory, but we’re not in Kansas anymore

This week, we asked our parent panelists: The state board of

education in Kansas is now considering whether nonscientific theories

about the origins of human life should be taught alongside the

scientific theories of evolution. What benefit do you see for public

school classrooms to include alternative theories about how humans

were created?

Although the media and some scientists like to mischaracterize it,

the intelligent design movement and the Kansas discussion are not

about teaching creationism, the Bible, religion or any

“nonscientific” theories. The purpose of the movement, which is

secular, not religious, is to allow for the full range of science to

be discussed and for students to have access to all current

scientific evidence which explains how life began.

Currently, the theory of evolution is the only permitted theory.

But there are many competing scientific interpretations of evidence.

Just because some think that these theories may have religious

implications, they should not be ignored or ridiculed and excluded

from science classrooms.

Denying our students the right to this information is censorship.

If it leads them to the conclusion that there is a creator, so be it.

Let them decide.

Academic freedom calls for students to learn about scientific

challenges to the Darwinian account. Students given the freedom to

examine alternative scientific evidence and ideas and to test,

modify, verify or refute all scientific theories will greatly refine

their critical-thinking skills.

We want our students to excel academically, but not to be told

only one side of the story. The stimulating debate might inspire some

to become scientists which the United States greatly needs.

New information, especially about DNA and cell structure, supports

life’s complexity and the possibility of a designer. More than a few

scientists are critical of Darwin and other evolutionists, such as

Stanley Miller whose famous experiment suggested life evolved from

chemicals. Scientists also disagree about the fossil record, peppered

moth doctrine, dating methods, macroevolution, the law of entropy and

the Big Bang, to name a few.

Those opposed to allowing the introduction of this scientific

information in public schools are nervous. But if their theories are

true and can withstand open examination by our students, then they

have nothing to worry about.

* WENDY LEECE is a Costa Mesa parent, former school board member

and member of the city’s parks and recreation commission.

Oh, for God’s sake, do we have to have this discussion again?

Whoops, I slipped and introduced religion into a question about

science in public schools. I hate it when that happens. It does keep

happening though, with an amazing persistence.

It’s like Whack-a-mole. It just keeps popping up, only to get

bopped back into its hole by the Constitution. The Kansas story is

just another example of wasting precious time and resources that

should be spent educating kids. It’s really simple -- if you want a

religious education for your kids, or you don’t like what’s taught in

public schools, send your kids to a religious school or teach them

yourself.

It’s always been OK to teach about religions in public schools --

as long as it’s in social studies, history or philosophy classes and

as long as they are covered in context and broadly. Religions have

played an important part in the evolution of society, and

understanding them is key to understanding other people and the

world.

It’s never been OK to teach religion itself in public schools.

It’s even more absurd to contemplate teaching religion in public

school science classes. Alternate creation theories are religious

doctrine, plain and simple. Evolution is the only creation science

backed by a massive body of evidence.

That doesn’t absolutely guarantee it’s correct, but it is quite a

bit more evidence than the zero scientific evidence there is for the

“alternative theories.” Should we teach alchemy in chemistry classes?

From where I stand, I can’t see any curvature, so I’m pretty sure

that the flat-earth scenario is worthy of scientific consideration.

I was walking in San Francisco the other day. A homeless guy

started walking with me, explaining his own theory of creation to me.

A serpent, a turtle and a bird were involved. Seemed a bit

far-fetched to me, but, hey, it’s possible. He also let me know that

the end of creation was very near, within days. I told him that he’d

need to have a little more proof before I’d buy into his theories,

but he went on without offering any, said I just had to believe in

the signs that were everywhere.

I offered him a buck to go away, and he accepted. He also said

that because I was generous, the world would go on for a few more

days. That’s just his theory, but I like the sound of it.

* MARK GLEASON is a Costa Mesa resident and parent.