IS EVOLUTION STILL A VIABLE THEORY?

More than two-thirds of Americans favor teaching both evolution and creation in public schools. Some surveys show that eighty percent or more of Americans believe that God was involved in creating the world and us. Given these numbers, it is amazing that anyone was surprised this summer when President George W. Bush, from his Crawford, Texas ranch, endorsed the teaching in our nation's public schools of more than one theory regarding the origins of the universe and of life.

Many states and local school districts are beginning to take another look at their science curriculum. Can a public school present the latest scientific theories refuting evolution without violating the First Amendment's prohibition on government sponsored religious instruction? Courts have not yet definitively answered this question, but the simple answer, it seems, is "yes."

State and local school boards and school officials have broad discretion to determine the content of the public school curriculum. Approaches to teaching evolutionary theories vary greatly from region to region. There is a broad spectrum of approaches to this issue being considered by various states and localities.

Most states and school districts, unfortunately, continue to present evolution as an indisputable scientific fact, even though scientists themselves only consider it to be a theory. We must remember that Charles Darwin thought up this concept while sitting on a small island observing nature in the middle of the 19th century. Science has come a long way since then, and new scientific concepts do always comport with Darwin's ideas. Even Darwin himself purportedly no longer believed in his own theory when he died.

Why then do educators and courts fight so hard to prevent any legitimate critique of Darwin's theory? The answer is simple: evolution is the only theory of how we got here on this planet that does not require a belief in God.

The emergence of new scientific evidence refuting evolution has caused great uncertainty among public school science teachers and school boards when planning their science curriculum. Lawsuits and threats of lawsuits cause teachers and school districts to back away from teaching the science of origins in any way that would permit criticism of evolution. Some believe that even teaching about the controversy surrounding the theory of evolution would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. In fact, however, there is much that science teachers can present in their classrooms about various scientific theories surrounding the origins of life that in no way crosses the constitutional line.

GOOD SCIENCE

The most important issue regarding the teaching of up-to-date evolutionary theories in public school classrooms should not be the legal one. Instead, the question should be whether a science teacher who does not recognize that evolution is merely a theory and not a scientifically proven fact is really qualified to teach science at all.

By any modern scientific measure, macroevolution, evolution from one species to another, is an unproven theory, not a fact. Indeed, there is much lively debate in scientific circles today about macroevolution, the "Big Bang" theory, and many other issues of origins. Students who are not taught scientific arguments that both support and refute the theory of evolution, particularly macroevolution, are simply not being given a good science education.

Good science would allow public school teachers to teach about Dr. Charles Thaxton, who has completed post-doctoral studies in the history of science at Harvard University and molecular biology at Brandeis University, and Dr. Michael Behe who teaches biochemistry and molecular biology at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Dr. Thaxton was the first scientist to propose the theory of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution. A prominent atheistic scientist wrote the forward to Thaxton's groundbreaking book, The Mystery of the Origin of Life. Thaxton demonstrated that when scientists attempt to prove evolutionary theory, they are required to manipulate the building blocks of life in a manner that actually disproves evolution and points toward the need for an intelligent designer to be involved in the origins of life.

Behe's effective challenge to Darwinian theories is based on recent scientific data reported in his book, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. In this book, Behe spells out his theory of "irreducible complexity," noting, for example, that new scientific information about the biochemical cell structure demonstrates that species could not have evolved as Darwin theorized.

Neither Behe nor Thaxton ever mention creationism. They never suggest who or what may have been behind the intelligent design seen in the universe. Their theories support the thesis that some intelligent designer must be linked to the origin of life in much the same way as an intelligent designer is linked to the development of a computer program. Intelligent design, as suggested by these and other scientists, is a theory that is more compatible with religious views of creation, than it is with Darwinism. For this reason, proponents of the exclusive teaching of macroevolution as a fact are attempting to suggest that intelligent design is really just a back door way of getting religion into the public schools. However, proponents of freethinking in the field of science argue that public school children cannot be properly educated without learning the broad range of scientific theories. In fact, they contend that school children cannot be properly educated about these controversial issues unless all origin theories are taught objectively. Proponents who argue that public schools should teach intelligent design theories along with evolution believe that this approach is teaching good science, not religion. They argue that a sound education is based on intellectual fairness and not on the suppression of relevant evidence that does not support the current dominant theory of evolution.

Evolutionary scientists have not refuted the new scientific evidence presented by scientists such as Behe and Thaxton. Instead, most continue to blindly argue that teaching any theory other than evolution is teaching religion.

TEACHING ALTERNATIVE THEORIES

The United States Supreme Court has never mandated that Darwinism must be taught as fact rather than theory, nor have judges ever prohibited science teachers from teaching about scientific evidence disproving evolution. In fact, the Supreme Court has already indicated that it would approve of a science curriculum that would teach much more than evolution. In a 1987 case, the Supreme Court said: "Teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

Congress has also endorsed teaching evolution in a more balanced manner. The Congressional Report, which accompanied President Bush's education initiative in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, said:

Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.

The record is clear that school boards may constitutionally permit public school teachers to teach the critical new theories scientists are developing based on emerging data in the field of science. The theory of intelligent design is an objective development in this field, based upon new scientific data and research. Intelligent design does not unconstitutionally bring God into the classroom. Students are free to independently determine whether they believe God, an alien, or something else provided the intelligence that triggered life's origin. Recent trends in the law support such honest intellectualism in science classes.

Some school boards already concede that evolution is only a theory. They have tried unsuccessfully to communicate this message to their students by printing disclaimers on science textbooks, but have been prevented from doing so by the courts. One disclaimer struck down by the courts simply read:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Nevertheless, a court forced the school board to remove the disclaimer from textbooks, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause because it sent a message of endorsement for those who opposed the teaching of evolution for religious purposes. Other cases involving mandating the teaching of intelligent design along with evolution continue in the court system.

TEACHING CREATIONISM

Although the Supreme Court permits teachers to present a variety of scientific theories about the origin of life, when it comes to the teaching of creation science, different rules come into play. Creation science may not be taught alongside evolution as an alternative scientific theory. The Supreme Court has held that Creationism may not be taught as science in the classroom because creation science is a religious belief. This does not mean that Creationism may not be taught at all, but only that it must be taught as religion, not science.

There are appropriate and constitutional places in a school curriculum where various religious viewpoints regarding the origins of life may be presented. So long as such religious material is taught in a neutral, objective and academic mannerži.e., presenting students with various cultural and religious theories without expressing approval or disapproval of any one in particularžthe constitutional standards for teaching religion in school have been met.

TEACHER COMPLIANCE WITH CURRICULUM CRITICAL

There is one critical warning that must be mentioned in the current debate regarding teaching evolution in public schools. Teachers are always required to teach the curriculum mandated by the school board that employs them. Even if Congress and the courts agree that schools may teach intelligent design in schools, if a school board chooses not to include that material in the curriculum, teachers are obligated to follow the decisions of the local school board. In the absence of a legislative or judicial requirement that intelligent design be taught, local school boards maintain control over the curriculum, not classroom teachers.

Progressive school boards may permit teachers to include Intelligent Design or other material challenging evolution at their discretion. Some school boards already permit science teachers to choose their own curriculum material and to incorporate critiques of evolution where appropriate. Teachers, however, do not automatically have individual discretion to create their own science curriculum. For instance, if a school board policy requires the teaching of evolution as fact, the science teacher does not have discretion to ignore that policy and teach evolution only as a theory. If the school board requires the exclusive teaching of evolution, a teacher does not have discretion to teach alternative theories. A teacher who teaches material outside a school board established science curriculum should expect to be disciplined by the school board, and can also expect that a court will uphold the authority of the school board to enforce the teaching of its approved curriculum.

This is why it is so important for citizens to be active in school board elections and to monitor school board policies and decisions. Ultimately, it is the school board that sets school policy regarding the teaching of science and other educational issues. Christians must be actively involved in school board elections if they want to have input into these sorts of policies.

STUDENT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

It is important to remember that no matter what curriculum is mandated for a science class, students may constitutionally bring their own religious perspectives into the science classroom discussion. Students have a constitutional right to express their religious viewpoints in class. For example, it would be appropriate for students to choose topics or do class assignments analyzing which theories of origins best fit with current scientific evidence--whether those theories are secular or religious.

The United States Department of Education affirms this view. The 2003 Guidance on Constitutionally Protected Prayer in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools addresses the issue of class assignments as follows:

Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Such home and classroom work should be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the school.

Because state and local school officials have broad discretion to establish the public school curriculum, there is a great opportunity for Christians to influence what is taught in their local school district. Christians can elect school board members who are committed to teaching good science. Under the principle of academic freedom and excellence, Christians can lobby the school board for a curriculum that teaches more than one theory of origins and that permits teachers to present scientific information to students that refutes evolution.

Christians should promote the teaching of alternative theories for the origin of life as a matter of good science. This will prevent students from being indoctrinated into the unproven theory of macroevolution. Only then will children in public schools be free to weigh the scientific evidence in a neutral manner and choose for themselves whether to believe in creation, intelligent design, or evolution.