In Theory: Should creationism be taught in schools?
- Share via
Respected scientist and TV host Bill Nye, better known as “The Science Guy,” has caused a stir by appearing in a video criticizing creationism and calling for children to be taught only the theory of evolution. The video, titled “Creationism is Not Appropriate for Children,” has garnered more than 3 million views and almost 80,000 comments since being posted on YouTube on Aug. 23.
In the 2-minute, 30-second video, Nye says that “[d]enial of evolution is unique to the United States” and claims that doubt about evolution could potentially hold America back in terms of science, research and engineering. He is particularly concerned about teaching creationism to children, saying, “I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine; but don’t make your kids do it, because we need them.”
Creationism is the belief that the world was created as described in Genesis. It refutes evolution as just a theory that doesn’t disprove the Bible. About 46% of Americans believe in the biblical story of the creation of Earth and life. The subject has long been a flashpoint of argument between those who want it taught in public schools and those who say it’s no better than teaching children that Santa Claus is real.
Q: What do you think of what Nye says?
Not only do I not believe in creationism, these days I’m getting twitchy even to use the word ‘Creator’ about God. It’s not just scientifically fishy; it’s inadequate theologically. It doesn’t say nearly enough about who God is.
The untranslatable, unpronounceable divine name, revealed to Moses from the burning bush, is simply the verb ‘to be’ repeated twice – God says, “I am ‘Am-ness’” (Exodus 3:14). God is ‘life-life,’ the life of all life, the hidden and holy essence and pulse of all things that cannot be named or defined but can be felt, merged into and sung, in our veins and in our souls.
And if God is the essence of life, God is also a force and a will for life, a will for goodness over evil, for healing over destruction.
And that, you see, is what matters. We are a people who regularly dash our own lives against the rocks; and it matters that God is a palpable force drawing us back into wholeness — which is what Genesis 1 is telling us that God always does.
In the Hebrew, there’s actually no ‘the’ in “In the beginning....”; the grammar is in the active, ongoing tense: “While beginning to create....” Genesis 1 isn’t about origins, but about how God is always creating and re-creating. Our lives may hit the rocks, but it’s the flowing nature of God to bring life out of nothing, life out of chaos, life out of death.
Call me crazy, but I think that’s more important than who made the stars. We are subject to vortexes of nothingness, chaos and death, regularly inviting us into the grayness of an unlived life or the darkness of a life destroyed. It matters that God is a dynamic force calling us back into life and light, constantly renewing us.
I don’t pretend to know how it all works. I’m just saying that to quibble about textbooks and test tubes entirely misses the point of what God means to us as the breath of holiness who is always recreating us and keeping us on the path of life.
The Rev. Amy Pringle
St. George’s Episcopal Church
La Cañada Flintridge
---
Hooray for Bill Nye! And he makes a good point that if parents want to live in their own Never Never Land, fine — but they have no right to condemn their children to medieval thinking.
I have never understood the furor over the idea of evolution. Genesis tells us that God created the heavens and the earth. But couldn’t God have chosen evolution as part of his great plan? In fact, my belief is that God did in fact do exactly that.
The way I see things, how can we not believe that evolution occurs? We human beings know so little.
Just this past week as I was washing my hands in the bathroom at home, I noticed a tiny spider trying to crawl up on a porcelain tissue container that my wife has tastefully placed near the sink. Seeing that itty-bitty spider, I thought of God and how that tiny little creature must fit into God’s great plan. I personally am not fond of bugs, and yet each one of them is a creation of God. I may not understand every icky thing that God has put on this earth, but God did as God wanted, and who am I to snuff the life out of some tiny creature that the Lord has made? Again, we know so little, and who can fathom the wisdom of the Most High?
When God speaks to Moses in the Burning Bush in Exodus 3, God tells Moses that his name is I Am, and that Moses should tell the Israelites in captivity in Egypt that I Am had sent him to deliver them. To me, that says that all we need to know is that God is, and however God wants to run his creation is up to God.
Are there believers who would dare to tell God that he can’t use evolution to run his creation? Sadly, there are, and those people seem to want to make God in their image, rather than the other way around. The Lord reigns, people, and that’s all you need to know.
The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge
---
I agree with Nye and legions of other scientists and lay people that evolution has shaped Earth’s inhabitants into their current forms.
Those who deny evolution often seize upon the word “theory,” using its popular meaning as mere opinion or something unproven to argue that creationism is equally valid in explaining our origins.
This is baseless nonsense. The theory of evolution has been scientifically corroborated again and again. Evolution is probably the theory most often successfully tested in all of science.
In fact, some biologists want to stop using “theory” to describe the large body of knowledge we call evolution. They say “fact of evolution” would be more accurate and possibly decrease its rejection by the misinformed.
I doubt that semantics will help to correct the unfortunate U.S. tendency to reject so much of science, and I also agree with Nye that such ignorance passed on to our youth — a reverse natural selection perpetuating traits unhelpful to the species — is hurting us competitively.
But I also don’t mind at all if, along with the reality of evolution, children hear about the numerous fanciful explanations people around the world throughout human history have spun to explain our beginnings. Genesis and the Koran’s similar version of Adam and Eve, China’s Pangu, the Raven of several Pacific Northwestern native myths, the Guatemalan Popol Vuh creation stories, plus dozens more from Africa — the list is long and the stories culturally revealing.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose
---
By definition, a theory is a plausible principle offered to explain phenomena, a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument, or an unproved assumption. Though it’s still called a theory, for all practical purposes the assumption, or hypothesis, or plausible principle of evolution is being taught as fact. That is nothing short of illogic, deception and even brainwashing. In reality, Nye is saying, “Your theory shouldn’t be taught in schools, but my theory should. Your assumptions aren’t acceptable, but my assumptions are.”
Creationism affirms that God has always existed apart from and above all creation. He created all that exists with order and purpose. Is that really a fantasy world of denial? How about the idea that everything that exists came from nothing for apparently no reason? That’s the assertion of Big Bang/Evolutionism.
I believe it’s inappropriate to teach children theory as if it were fact. It’s inappropriate to deny them exposure to the idea that “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth” (Genesis 1:1) — a well-accepted and as yet not unproven claim. Frankly, I believe that arguments against creationism are essentially attempts of people to free themselves from accountability to God. Romans 1:21 explains that “even though they knew God, they did not honor him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Speculations. Theories. They’re really the same thing, aren’t they?
Pastor Jon Barta
Valley Baptist Church
Burbank
---
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with fact; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complimentary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurity. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism.”
We need both evolution and creation in our understanding of the universe.
Evolution may explain the “how” of the universe, but creationism explains the “why.” I think that 42% of Americans deny evolution because there is a concern that evolution denies that life has a “why,” as well as a “how.” Genesis shows us that our creation was not an accident. Creation was made good and people were made in God’s likeness. Knowing that God made the universe good encourages us to continue in our efforts to preserve, understand, and enjoy nature. Knowing that humanity’s creation was in God’s image gives each human life profound value. It raises our expectations as to how we treat and understand each other.
Life’s goal is to know God and enjoy God fully. More people need to hear that there is this purpose in life beyond a scientific system. However, I am not sure that a science class is the place for ethics. I would be happy to simply see professors or teachers acknowledge the complementary nature to which Dr. King refers.
David Derus
Fuller Seminary Student
Pasadena
---
Nye makes an important point for American education. Creationism should not be taught in schools.
There are two reasons not to teach creationism. First, as Nye warns, we need to be teaching clear scientific thinking to students. Second, we should not be teaching a single religious viewpoint in our schools.
United States courts have consistently ruled that the teaching of creationism promotes the beliefs of some religious groups to the detriment of others. The creationism view is derived from the Christian Bible and so does not represent other beliefs.
Students should receive a quality education that teaches scientific reasoning. Creationism does not teach impartial reasoning but teaches the acceptance of a simple world view in the face of contrary evidence.
Nye’s argument supports both the Constitution and the needs of science education.
Steven Gibson
Atheist
Altadena
---
Over the past few centuries, scientific thought has experienced a profound revolution of ideas, and the accompanying debate continues. Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, was a contemporary of Charles Darwin. She was closely cognizant of the emerging concepts of evolution, as compared with the established religious view of that time, that God created species in their current forms.
In the Bible, she recognized two distinct threads in the Book of Genesis. Chapter 1 she regarded as a spiritual view of creation, where “God created man in his own image,” and where “God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.” That is the creation accepted by Christian Scientists. Chapter 2 is the opposite, where mankind is formed “of the dust of the ground,” a material interpretation of creation that accepts a fallen status of man, unlike God’s image, yet implying the truth of the spiritual creation in Chapter 1.
Eddy saw a problem in mixing the spiritual and the material. From the purely physical perspective, at a time when Darwin’s theory was newly published, she wrote in her book, “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,” “Darwin’s theory of evolution from a material basis is more consistent than most theories,” and “May not Darwin be right?” But she didn’t go further in that direction because her thrust was in perceiving the spiritual side of God and man, and the beneficial results of that perception.
Thus in a strict sense, Eddy’s views differ from both Darwinism and today’s creationism. What was important to her was the clear appreciation of a spiritual creation as outlined in Genesis 1, which doesn’t take away from sincere human endeavors. She even regarded the world’s scientific progress as evidence of unfolding thought outgrowing its limitations, increasingly revealing more of God’s unlimited concepts.
Scientific thinkers are unlikely to disagree with Nye’s statements, while at the same time an understanding of life based on the spiritual side of man brings out natural elements of harmony and progress for us all.
Graham Bothwell
First Church of Christ, Scientist
La Cañada Flintridge
---
Science generates knowledge through evidence used to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon. The evidence of science is objective observations that can be measured in some way, and are repeatable under similar circumstances. This is not to say that other sources of knowledge cannot be “true,” but they do not fit the criteria of “scientific evidence.”
Based on this definition, I do not think that creationism should be taught in public schools, as it is not knowledge gained through scientific study. I think creationism is best addressed by the family and the church.
I do, however, have concerns regarding the way evolution is currently being taught in schools. Too often it is put forth as so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter it. It is accurate that microevolution, (changes in traits within species due to variations in the gene pool) is evident everywhere. Microevolution operates through well-established processes of genetic mutation, migration and gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection.
Macroevolution (basic changes in structure and function at the species level and above) is assumed to occur using the same processes as microevolution over long periods of time. However, macroevolution involves gains in new genetic information that cannot be explained by the processes of microevolution alone. Many of these difficulties are never even mentioned, let alone discussed.
The heart of science is critical thinking; that is, being able to compare differing explanations to available evidence while maintaining an open, questioning stance. I think Nye’s concerns about our education system producing excellent scientists is better addressed by teaching both the difficulties as well as the strengths of evolution, rather than obsessing about how many people still believe in creation.
Pastor Ché Ahn
HRock Church
Pasadena
---
I don’t think that science will be stifled by belief in the biblical account of creation. It hasn’t been so far.
If we look only at the past 150 years, we’ve seen astounding progress in science and technology. We have advanced from primitive flight to space exploration, from the telegraph to smart phones, even as millions of parents have taught their children to believe in God and trust the Bible.
The purpose of the Scriptures is to teach us what we must do in order to grow spiritually and return to God’s presence. I believe, as the Bible teaches, that we were created in the image of God. However, I don’t think the creation account in Genesis was intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of how God formed our planet and placed life upon it.
Henry Eyring, a member of the LDS church, won honors, including the Wolf Prize and the National Medal of Science, for his work in theoretical chemistry. He embraced the search for truth that both science and religion require. In “Reflections of a Scientist,” he wrote:
“Contemplating the awe-inspiring order in the universe, extending from the almost infinitely small to the infinitely large, one is overwhelmed with its grandeur and with the limitless wisdom which conceived, created, and governs it all. Our understanding, great as it sometimes seems, can be nothing but the wide-eyed wonder of the child when measured against the Creator’s omniscience.”
I believe, as he did, that if we fully understood the process of creation, the seeming contradictions between science and religion would evaporate. We can teach our children religious truth confident in the knowledge that, despite what Nye says, faith is not incompatible with the advances of science.
Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta
---
I’m gobstopped! Bill Nye is now the scary guy, the pagan guy; one worshiping godless misdirection — where what’s known results from chance; where whales walk on land, becoming cows; and man evolves from Cornelius’ line. I’m saddened. Evolution is still theory because nobody has seen it and God doesn’t die despite faithless meanderings about his existence.
I don’t want my kids being force-fed evolution. Hearing the theory, the Monkey Trials, the felonious episodes in man’s rise, including Nebraska Man (the supposed link created whole-cloth from an archaeologist’s pig tooth) and Peking Man (later admitted to be monkey bones), sure. But as Nye fact, no. Scientists have financiers, y’know. They garner funding, find arti-“facts”, and pretend life’s knowledge. They’re ignorant, as Nye illustrates. I don’t like him anymore. Neither do my kids.
Nye declares that Christianity will cease next century. Voltaire said the same thing in the 1700’s. The Geneva Bible Society now publishes Bibles from Voltaire’s home. Dorks, both.
Look: Santa is real. Not as children imagine, but Nicholas of Myra was a pastor, like me. Similar to the acquired barnacles of Daniel Boone’s and Davy Crockett’s [legends], St. Nick has earned a red outfit and South Pole residence, but he was really in Turkey, and now lives in heaven. Santa is real.
Speaking creationally, we aren’t speaking of time. Time does squat. I have peaches preserved from 50 years ago and guess what? They’re still peaches — not new life forms. Creation says that God created us from elements, and specifically so. Deny this and deny God.
I’m a Christian who leans toward an older earth model, yet I reject the non-observable hypothesis that we came from primordial slime rather than an intelligent God, so I’ll take my number among the nearly half of all Americans that still believe in God. In God we trust.
The Rev. Bryan Griem
Montrose Community Church
Montrose
---
The United Methodist Church has gone on record opposing the introduction of faith-based theories such as creationism or intelligent design into the science curriculum of our public schools. This is based on a separation-of-church-and-state argument, which is valid, though I would say that our statement on science and theology is ultimately more helpful:
“We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.”
The creation accounts in Genesis are sacred explorations of the source and meaning of life; the nature of human relationships with each other and all of God’s creatures; and the dimensions of our relationship with our Creator. We don’t need to label Genesis stories “science” to say that they are God’s stories or to say that they are true. Truth and wisdom come at us in many forms — not just the scientifically provable ones.
The Rev. Paige Eaves
Crescenta Valley United Methodist Church
Montrose
---
It is a well-known, scientific fact that over time, all forms of life evolve and change for a variety of reasons; often these adaptations help creatures survive and thrive in their natural surroundings. Even the Bible itself makes occasional references to evolving nature, and I imagine that few rational people — regardless of their religious beliefs — would argue this basic point.
Nevertheless, while Charles Darwin was a great scientist and brilliant scholar, his thesis that all of creation comes from the same source denies the belief of the vast majority of Americans that mankind is unique and is set apart from all other animals, since we are created in the image of God. The conviction that man, unlike other creatures, is imbued with a special divine energy is essential if we hope to inspire people to change the world and make it into a better place.
Of all creatures on Earth, only humans have the intellectual and spiritual capacity to restrain our instincts and do what is right, rather than simply doing whatever might feel good at the moment. This exceptional and divine characteristic gives all of us hope that one day humanity will come to its collective senses and for the sake of the greater good, we will put down our weapons, make peace, and transform our world into a truly harmonious environment.
In my opinion, negating the divine core of man is potentially dangerous since it can lead to animalistic behavior among men and could stifle conflict resolution where it is most needed. Perhaps a case can be made that discussion of creationism in school might best be handled in a different way than a standard discussion of science, but I believe it would be a real mistake to remove this important concept from the classroom altogether.
Rabbi Simcha Backman
Chabad Jewish Center
Glendale
---
Comparing evolution to the Bible’s view of creation is like equating a laboratory experiment and a cultural story. They are not the same thing, nor do they have the same purpose. Evolution is a scientific explanation of how life came into being and changed throughout the last three billion years. The biblical explanation of creation is an account intended to explain to ancient people why the earth was the way they experienced it in their lifetimes. The book of Genesis is a myth, not the same as an untruth, whose purpose was, and is, to explain ideas and experiences that people did not understand at that time, and to glorify the power and majesty of God. To say that one contradicts the other is to misunderstand the complexity and function of both.
With that being said, I have to agree with Nye that the teaching of creationism, an attempt to make the Genesis story into science, in schools is wrongheaded on many levels. Our children need to learn the use of the scientific method in their schools and the concepts related to religion and the understanding of the divine in their churches and families. Trying to conflate the two gives our young people a very confusing picture of the world that does not jibe with what they see and experience in life today, and puts them at a serious disadvantage in academic fields.
The other reason not to confuse evolution with creationism is that many in our country today are not from the Judeo-Christian tradition. To teach the biblical explanation of creation in schools, where not all are from those traditions, is a form of religious evangelism in the guise of science.
My hope is that we can recognize and value both science and religion but not confuse them with each other, something that diminishes both.
Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills
La Crescenta