The debate has been ongoing for decades. Religious leaders want their views taught (Creationism or Intelligent Design), and anti-religious scientists want their views taught (Darwinism or Evolution). Who is right? Who is wrong? Can we not both agree to be partly wrong, and at the same time partly right? In my opinion, students should be offered all of the information available on both sides of any disagreement, and be allowed to come to their own conclusions. These two basic theories should be taught along side of each other in our nation's Science classrooms; with neither of them being considered fully accurate. These two perspectives should also be offered in juxtaposition within Religion/Philosophy classes.
The battle lines have been drawn, sides have been taken, and opposers have been chosen. Whose interests are each side looking out for; the students' education, or their own belief systems? Evolutionists refuse to accept any scientific evidence related to a creator in fear of their beliefs being proven wrong. Religionists refuse any scientific evidence that cause doubt of the existence of the creator they put their faith in. The students are left with wide gaps between science and religion; with one always trying to prove the other wrong, but no one proving himself to be right beyond a shadow of doubt. It is time to put this war behind us, and begin to put the students' education as our top priority. Wernher von Braun, a pioneer rocket scientists, said it clearly, "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science." (B & L Publications, 2007) The two must come together.
The purpose and goal of Michigan's Science expectations is not for students to obtain facts pertaining to specific scientific information. Instead, it is to prepare students for "successful post-secondary engagement". (Michgan Department of Education, 2006) The standards are broken down into categories, with the desired outcome to be "Students who have useful and connected knowledge should be able to apply knowledge in new situations; to solve problems by generating new ideas; to make connections among what they read and hear in class, the world around them, and the future; and through their work, to develop leadership qualities while still in high school. In particular, high school graduates with useful and connected knowledge are able to engage in four key practices of science literacy." (Michgan Department of Education, 2006)
Those four key practices are; identifying science principles, using science principles, scientific inquiry, reflection and social implications. Let us focus on scientific inquiry. In studying evolution, a student can take the theory and expand on it through their private studies using the scientific formulas they learned. They can then take the theory of intelligent design and do the same with it. At the end of the study, they can compare their research and findings and create their own conclusions. This will help them develop their skills in the area of reflection and social implications; and possibly produce better informed future scientists. Students will leave the science classroom more equipped with a well rounded view of the scientific world.
I looked up what exactly it is our students are learning in relation to the theory of evolution. The specifics that our children are learning are basically the elements of the theory which have been tried, tested, evaluated, and verified. They are also elements that have improved scientific research. There is no harm in regards to the faith question that anti-evolutionists keep raising. Furthermore, the theory of intelligent design does not hold any evidence that would hurt the theories of the ant-religionist evolutionists.
Let us move on to the religion issues involved with these two theories. Most American High schools do not offer any type of religion based classes in their curriculum. In my personal opinion, I think it would greatly impact the future of our nation if these kinds of classes were offered. Not to promote faith in the classroom, but to promote gaining un-biased information on all religions, and the understanding of other people's beliefs. This would bridge the huge gap between the citizens of our country and our world.
Religion can be broken into two basic groups; nontheistic (absence of a greater power) and theistic (existence of a greater power or powers). There are many sub-categories of each, but for sake of argument, let us focus on these two greater categories. Many studies and research have already been published on the many forms of theistic beliefs, so I will assume you have a general understanding. Nontheistic beliefs, however, are not talked about as much. The people, who follow such ideals, are extremely varied in their basic beliefs systems; some are considered atheists, agnostics, mystics, or evolutionist (as I am trying to enlighten my readers of their own religion).
Evolutionism, and the strict obedience to science, could be offered as a sub-category to the study of nontheistic belief systems. They rely on scientific facts rather than faith in any greater form. They fight for their belief system by opposing any doctrine or research that tries to prove the existence of a deity or creator. They gather together in their churches (laboratories and press release rooms) to gain a better understanding, and share their wisdom, of the world around them and how they relate to it. They adhere to the laws of physics and biology as their dogma, and condemn anyone who is opposing their beliefs.
Offering these two theories together in the classroom will benefit more than hinder our students' education on a whole. When used together, they will provide an open atmosphere for critical thinking and analysis to develop in the students' minds. Taught together, they will bridge a gap that has been widening for decades. They will help foster creative and individual thinking in our students. The war has gone on long enough; let us put an end to it once and for all.
