Do one scientific theory's shortcomings in some areas create the need for supplements that can explain those missing links? The answer to this question is a resounding yes. This is the big question being asked today in many public school systems around America. More specifically, the question is whether the shortcomings of the theory of evolution should be supplemented with theories such as creationism and/or intelligent design. For many the answer is no while for many others the answer is yes. Alternatives to evolution should be taught in public schools because of evolution's shortcomings and lack of sufficient explanations for the complexity of life on earth; alternatives will encourage critical thinking and increase the marketplace of ideas in public schools.
It is no mystery that the standard evolution theory has some shortcomings. In an article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution in 2002, Henry Schaefer, Professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia, discusses evolution and how it compares to other scientific theories using Stephen Hawking's criteria for a good scientific theory. According to Hawking, a good scientific theory "'[...] must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations'" (Schaefer, par. 2). Schaefer considers these demands to be an excellent definition for a scientific theory and uses it to evaluate evolution. Evolution performs quite well when put to the test against the first demand, but it does not hold up as well against the second. Over the past century and a half, scientists have made predictions about fossil specimens that will be observed in the future; unfortunately, many fossils have been found and many are contrary to the predictions of the expert evolution scientists. When compared to theories such as the atomic theory and gravity, evolution is weak and unpredictable.
What should be done to prevent this obviously imperfect theory from ruling the science classroom when it comes time to teach the origins of mankind?
Theories such as "Intelligent Design" and Creationism have valid evidence and should have their place in public school classrooms. The basic idea behind Intelligent Design is that complex life forms, like human beings, could not have come into existence through a random series of events; some sort of directed action was responsible for humankind's creation. The arguments against Intelligent Design are that there is no scientific evidence to back it up and that it is just "creationism" repackaged in an effort to meet constitutional requirements. Intelligent Design is gaining momentum and is getting support from respected scientists who are saying that there is scientific evidence for this theory's claims that has nothing to do with faith.
The other main alternative to Evolution is Creationism, commonly called "creation science" by its followers. Creationism is the belief that God created Earth in 6 days about six thousand years ago as evidenced mainly by the book of Genesis in the Old Testament of the Bible. Criticisms of creationism are that it has no scientific evidence to back it up and is completely faith-based. Despite criticisms by the science community, both Intelligent Design and Creationism would be acceptable alternatives or supplements to the evolution theory.
For most of the twentieth century and into this century, public schools have taught Darwinian Evolution to their students. There have been exceptions but they are short-lived because of the threat of lawsuits or other kinds of punishment and suppression.
While many evolution supporters argue that students who have been taught creationism and/or intelligent design will be in for a rude awakening when they advance to college, the contrary is true; students who have been taught multiple explanations for the origins of humankind will be more adept at critical thinking; an increased marketplace of ideas is vital in the development of students' ability to think critically. Students who have been exposed to more diverse ideas will be conditioned to thinking and mulling them over in their heads consequently becoming better critical thinkers.
The solution to this great question is to teach alternatives to evolution in public schools. The late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan Jr. said, "teaching a variety of theories about the origins of mankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction." Teaching alternatives to evolution will supplement the theory's shortcomings, will enhance students' ability to think critically, and will provide an overall better education for students in American public schools.
