Últimamente, este periódico estadounidense ha dedicado mucho espacio al creacionismo como consecuencia del debate reabierto en Texas sobre si merece o no ser una asignatura curricular. A continuación, y gracias a la amable colaboración de los señores Kat y Peis, un Editorial y una retahíla de cartas al director. Lo mejor, la viñeta para ilustrar todo esto, de Mikel Urmeneta (director creativo de kukuxumusu).
Mikel UrmenetaEditorial
The Cons of Creationism
When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology — or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view — are not being disadvantaged.
The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism.
It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching “intelligent design,” which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.
The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the “strengths and weaknesses” approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and “naturalist.”
The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.
Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.
The Cons of Creationism
When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology — or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view — are not being disadvantaged.
The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism.
It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching “intelligent design,” which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.
The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the “strengths and weaknesses” approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and “naturalist.”
The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.
Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.
Letters
Evolution and Creationism in Schools
To the Editor:
Re “The Cons of Creationism” (editorial, June 7):
The debate over science versus creationism is in part fueled by the notion that everybody’s opinions and beliefs are equally valid. While in a democratic society we should be respectful of each other’s opinions and beliefs, this is not how science operates.
The scientific method has well- defined rules by which we decide whether a solution to a scientific problem is correct or not. It is not that we believe or have the opinion that a certain solution is correct — we prove it scientifically one way or another.
Thus there are right and wrong solutions that may seem unfair, undemocratic and elitist. But this is how science advances and produces the marvelous technological developments that surround us. And this is not a belief. It is a fact.
Ivan K. Schuller La Jolla, Calif., June 7, 2008
The writer is a professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego.
•
To the Editor:
In addition to the points you raise, I’d add the fact that time wasted teaching the “nonsense” of creationism is time that could be spent teaching real science in order to improve our ability to compete globally.
It is highly unlikely that the children of those countries that outperform the United States on international science examinations are taught a “creationist system of science.”
Colleges and universities, through their admissions process, can play a positive role in encouraging the teaching of widely accepted scientific fact. Admissions officers should carefully evaluate whether a graduate of any school that teaches creationism, in any of its guises, is appropriately equipped for college-level course work.
Benjamin HodesPittsburgh, June 7, 2008
•
To the Editor:
Each time yet another school district considers including creationism in its science curriculum, I find myself wishing that the role of theory in science were more widely understood.
Theories are not simply speculations about how the world works. They’re intellectual tools that suggest and guide research, and in order to do so, they must be disprovable.
Creationism, resting on the actions of an all-powerful being whose intentions are not fully knowable, cannot specify what evidence would prove the “theory” false. That is, there are no findings that couldn’t be explained away by saying God simply makes the evidence look the way it does — for reasons no human can fully comprehend.
Teach creationism in a class on comparative religions or contemporary social issues, if you like. But don’t confuse it with science; it is not. School board members should know that.
Susan Mayer Chicago, June 7, 2008
•
To the Editor:
Re “Opponents of Evolution Are Adopting New Strategy” (news article, June 4):
If the faith-based Texas state legislators, Texas State Board of Education members and advocates at institutions like the Discovery Institute are serious about improving classroom instruction by requiring “strengths and weaknesses” analysis to the factual claims of evolution, why do they not take it a step further and require the same method of inquiry for religious studies?
Somehow, I think this is not about to happen!
Theo DzielakNorth Seattle, Wash., June 4, 2008
•
To the Editor:
Your article quotes Dr. Don McLeroy, a dentist who is chairman of the education board in Texas, as saying: “I believe a lot of incredible things. The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe.” I am very surprised to read that Jesus Christ created the universe.
It is well to remember that the theory of evolution rests on paleontology, paleoanthropology and biology, which rest on geology; geology on geophysics; and geophysics on physics (including cosmology).
Rejection of evolution is therefore the same as rejecting all of science, the evolution from the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago to the present. Surely, mysteries remain. We may never understand all of them, but try we must.
Oswald WernerAlbuquerque, June 4, 2008
The writer is professor emeritus of anthropology at Northwestern University.
•
To the Editor:
I was surprised to read that scientists are panicked that groups are advocating that public schools teach and discuss the strengths and weakness behind the theory of evolution.
Quite frankly, I thought this is what scientists were supposed to do, and I thought this is what we want our youth to do during the educational process.
Our body of scientific knowledge grows because scientists continue to explore, examine and research the weaknesses and strengths of all scientific theories. This was Albert Einstein’s brilliance, questioning and probing the prevailing beliefs of theoretical physics to prove them correct or to correct their errors.
Any scientist who is afraid of an honest, open discussion and exploration of the weaknesses and strengths on any scientific theory is not a good scientist and should be barred from academic research.
Unfortunately, we are living in an era where the scientific community is not open to allowing individuals to question the prevailing theories of evolution. We will all lose if this attitude prevails.
Linn HowardPittsburgh, June 4, 2008
•
To the Editor:
No reputable college or university will teach the “strengths and weaknesses” of atomic theory or the theory of gravity.
Evolutionary theory is no different, although I begin to despair whether it will ever be possible to drive a stake through the heart of the ever-shifting manifestations of the creationist.
David P. BarashRedmond, Wash., June 4, 2008
The writer, an evolutionary biologist, is professor of psychology at the University of Washington, Seattle.
