Science
in Christian PerspectiveScience
in Christian Perspective
CREATION AND EVOLUTION IN SCIENCE EDUCATION
Robert B.
Fischer
Richard H. Bube
The Commission on Science Education of the AAAS
California Consultant Committee Introductory Statement
From: JASA 25 (June 1973): 68-70.
In December 1972 a Consultant Committee of four members was appointed to make recommendations concerning changes in state-adopted science textbooks
in the state
of California. The charge to the Committee was "That oil the
subject of discussing
origins in the Science textbooks, the following editing be done prior
to execution
of a contract (with a publisher):
1. That dogmatism be changed to conditional statement where
speculation is offered
as explanation for origins. 2. That science emphasize "how" and not
"ultimate cause" far origins." Two of the members
whose statements
are given here, have served as President of the ASA in the late
60's. One state
((lent was prepared for presentation (it a meeting of the
California State Board
of Education in November 1972 by Dr. Robert B. Fischer, and the other is some
remarks by Dr. Richard H. Robe, also published subsequently in the California
Science Teacher's Journal, p. 15, February 1973.
********************************************************************************
Robert B. Fischer
I make this statement as one whose vocation is that of an academic
scientist and
who has long had avocation in Biblical studies, hermeneutics and theology.
The immediate issue is what to do about science textbooks. I submit
that, if this
immediate issue is to be resolved rationally and effectively, it must
he considered
in the context of its relation to the underlying, basic issue.
The basic issue is not one of creation vs. evolution. This is not
even a sharply-defined
issue. "Creation" signifies origin. There is ample evidence that the
universe, life and man have not always existed in any way even
remotely approximating
their present conditions, but rather that there were origins at some point or
points in time. "Evolution" signifies change and development. There
is ample evidence that significant change and development have
occurred over periods
of time. There are indeed issues in science as to the time or times of origin,
and over the extent and the detailed mechanisms of change and development, but
these are not the basic issue.
The basic issue is not one of design vs. change in nature. This, again, is not
a sharply-defined issue, "Design" signifies orderliness,
and "chance"
signifies randomness. On the one hand, there is general agreement that nature
exhibits orderliness and is describable in terms of natural laws. On the other
hand, there is varied evidence that some individual natural events
occur in apparent
randomness, in ways not individually predictable, at least not on the basis of
present scientific knowledge.
The basic issue is not one of whether or not scientists should engage
in speculation.
Speculation beyond immediately verifiable observational data is an
integral part
of the on-going development and application of scientific knowledge
and understanding.
Speculation may extend beyond those present limits of science which are set by
currently available knowledge and tools of measurement. Speculation
may even extend
beyond the limits. set by the very nature of scientific inquiry and may involve
presuppositions, for there are
basic limitations, and presuppositions of science and of
scientists.
What, then, is the basic issue? I submit that it is this . . . . does a Supreme
Being exist and, if so, of what essence is this existence and of what
relationship
is this existence to nature and to man generally and individually? Or
to restate
it with respect to the immediate issue . . . do the concepts of origin, change,
development and design signify an Originator, a Master-Changer, a
Master-Developer,
a Designer? This basic issue lies beyond the limits of science, but not beyond
the limits of speculation and of belief and of personal commitment by
human beings,
including human beings who are scientists. It involves man's
intellect and emotions
and actions; it involves the totality of man's being. Science
legitimately includes
the study of design in nature and of the natural mechanisms whereby this design
is exercised. But the basic underlying issue of the designer is much
more directly
within the realms of theology and of philosophy which, like natural
science, are
very relevant to all human beings.
The immediate circumstances and the immediate issue are surely not appropriate
for the full-scale consideration of the basic issue. I submit,
however, that frank
identification of what this basic issue is and of
what it is not points to a two-fold resolution of the immediate issue. First,
science authors and their publishers should exercise greater care to
insert identifying
and qualifying clauses when they engage, properly, in speculations beyond the
present or the ultimate limits of science, with open recognition as appropriate
of the weaknesses as well as the strengths of these speculations.
This is especially
difficult, yet especially important, in science materials which are necessarily
simplified, as for the elementary grades. Second, frank statements
should he made
as appropriate to the effect that science per se deals with natural phenomena
and with natural mechanisms, verifiable and/or speculative, of origins and of
design and not with more ultimate issues of an Originator and a Designer.
Robert B. Fischer
Dean, School of Natural Sciences and Mathematics and Professor of Chemistry
California State College, Dominguez Hills
The Commission on Science Education of the AAAS passed the following resolution
at its meeting on Oct. 13, 1972:
The Commission on Science Education, of the American Association far
the Advancement
of Science, is vigorously opposed to attempts by some boards of education, and
other groups, to require that religious accounts of creation be
taught in science
classes.
During the post century and a half, the earth's crust and the fossils preserved
in it have been intensively studied by geologists and
paleontologists. Biologists
have intensively studied the origin, structure, physiology, rind
genetics of living
organisms. The conclusion of these studies is that the living species
of animals
and plants have evolved from different species that lived in the
past. The scientists
involved in these studies have built up the body of knowledge known
as the biological
theory of the origin and evolution of life. There is no currently
acceptable alternative
scientific theory to explain the phenomena.
The canons accounts of creation that are part of the religious
heritage of many
people are not scientific statements or theories. They are statements that one
may choose to believe, but if lie does, this is a matter of faith, because such
statements are not subject to study or verification by the procedures
of science.
A scientific statement must be capable of test by observation and experiment.
It is acceptable only if, after repeated testing, it is found to
account satisfactorily
for the phenomena to which it is applied.
Thus the statements about creation that are part of many religions
have no place
in the domain of science and should not be regarded as reasonable alternatives
to scientific explanations far the origin and evolution of life.
Science courses should he devoted primarily to the teaching of
science. A scientific
theory is one that can in principle he contradicted by empirical
data. Any theory
that can in principle he contradicted by empirical data can he taught
in a science
course; any theory that cannot in principle he so contradicted should
not be taught
in a science course. The question is: can creation theory" he contradicted
in principle by empirical data in the same way that "evolution
theory"
can? If the answer is yes, then "creation theory" should be taught in
a science course; if the answer is no, then "creation theory" should
not he taught in a science course.
To the best of my knowledge, current forms of creation theory" cannot be,
contradicted by empirical data, even in principle. Wherever empirical
data might
be thought to contradict the theory, appeal to miracle (i.e., to a
non-scientific
description) is commonly made. In one popular form of "creation
theory"
it is proposed that the earth v vas recently created with the
appearance of age;
in such a case the scientific age of the earth is the age it appears to be, and
no possibility exists for contradicting the theory empirically. Indeed it may
well be argued that any theory' of ultimate origins (i.e., the origin of the
first matter or the energy of the universe) must remain intrinsically
speculative,
not definable in a form subject to ready contradiction by empirical
data. Unless
some form of "creation theory" is available with which I am
not familiar,
therefore, which can be contradicted empirically, I do not believe
that the teaching
of "creation theory" in a science course is appropriate.
On the other hand this does not mean that the common teaching of
"evolution
theory" shows clearly how it may be contradicted by empirical
data. I believe
that evolution theory" is in principle contradictable (e.g., by
an increase
in our understanding that showed that all age dating was in error by a factor
of a million-however unlikely that might seem to be at present), and
that therefore
it should be taught in a science course. But I also believe that
"evolution
theory" is all ton often presented in science teaching as some kind of an
absolutely infallible law free from all possibility of future
contradiction. For
many adherents, evolution has assumed the proportions of a religious faith
and this dogmatic
acceptance shows up in many texts on evolution. In other words, the
trouble with
science courses on "evolution theory" is that they
frequently misrepresent
what science really is and what science can really say authoritatively. In the
teaching of evolution, what we can say about the processes going on at present
is the must solidly based, what we can say about processes in the
immediate past
is probably largely valid, what we can say about processes in the distant past
becomes increasingly speculative, and we can say nothing scientific
at all about
absolute origins. Yet the typical discussion of evolution starts the other way
round, presenting theories about origins as if they were the foundation of our
evolutionary knowledge and established beyond the shadow of a doubt.
What evolution
teaching needs is not the introduction of an alternative
non-scientific "creation
theory," but the reformation of the present courses so that they
are faithful
to the potentialities and limitations of the scientific method. The
student should
be clearly informed, for example, that all science leads ultimately
hack to scientific
ignorance of necessity, that this happens in the ease of origins in
the universe
about which science can say nothing except in a speculative and
variable manner,
and that a quantitative theory of
evolution which shows exactly how it is possible for
natural selection and mutation to bring about the apparent changes in
living forms
over the allowable time span is not yet in existence.
The debate about creation
and evolution in education
has unfortunately involved itself in two major types of category
confusion. This
confusion appears in discussions of creation vs. evolution, and
design vs. chance.
The terms creation and "evolution," for example, are really used on
two quite different levels which may be distinguished as follows:
Worldview
Creation Evolution
Scientific
spontaneous evolutionary process
mechanism generation
(fiat creation)
Creation (with a capital C) refers to the entire Judaeo-Christian doctrine of
the origin and continual dependence of the world on the free power of God; Evolution
refers to that philosophical (and religious) worldview which dispenses with God
and considers an evolutionary process to be ultimately basic to all aspects of
life. Spontaneous generation (which is the scientific mechanisn appropriate to
what "creationists" call fiat creation) means the sudden coming into
existence where nothing was before; evolutionary process means the
gradual development
of new forms from existing matter. Creation and Evolution are
mutually exclusive
worldviews; in any given phenomenon (origin of life, origin of man),
spontaneous
generation and evolutionary process are mutually exclusive mechanisms. But it
should be clear that one could accept Creation and either spontaneous
generation
or evolutionary process without difficulty.
Worldview Design Chance
Scientific determinism chance
mechanism
Design refers to a worldview in which the character of the universe has been
formed in accordance with divine intelligence and concern; Chance refers to a
worldview in which the universe is the product of blind, meaningless
statistical
process. The choices in a scientific description are only twofold:
either a process
is describable in terms of exact mathematical relations
(deterministic description)
or it is describable in terms of a statistical approach only (called
"chance"
in science). To say that a scientific description is one of chance, therefore,
implies only that our present knowledge leads us to describe it in a
statistical
rather than a deterministic manner. Design and Chance are mutually
exclusive worldviews;
determinism and chance are mutually exclusive scientific mechanisms.
But it should
he clear that one could accept Design and either determinism or chance without
difficulty.
It is important that our students come to appreciate Creation and
Design as alternatives
to Evolution and Chance, but this must come in some other setting than that of
a science course. What we can do in a science course is avoid the
opposite extreme
of insisting that science somehow demands for us to accept only Evolution and
Chance as worldviews.
Richard H. Bube, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
Introductory Statement Proposed for Science
Textbooks Discussing Evolution by the California State Consultant
Committee:
The subject of origins-how, things began long agohas always been fascinating.
Certain questions about how things began science simply cannot
answer. Where the
first owner and energy came from is such a question, because it
cannot he treated
by the accepted methods of science. However, other questions of
origins are appropriate
for scientific investigation. For example, what are the physical
mechanisms involved
in the origin of life or the origin of specific living creatures?
Considerations
extending beyond a natural description of the physical universe, even
as to whether
any supernatural reality exists, are "non scientific," i.e., they lie
beyond the reach of science and belong to other disciplines such as philosophy
end religion. That such considerations are "non-scientific" does not
mean that they are untrue or unimportant, but only that they cannot
be evaluated
by the scientific method.
The term "evolution" may be used in a number of ways. One use of the
term describes processes that can be observed at present. These processes can
be described with great accuracy. Another use of the term
"evolution" refers to the hypotheses that ( 1) all life
forms now living
have come from a munch smaller number of life forms in the past; this may have
been just one or a few original sources of life; and (2) the great variety now
Ms existence has developed by slow changes over long periods of time
its response
to hereditary and environmental factors. This theory, commonly called
the "theory
of organic evolution," attempts to tie together all living creatures and
to explain similarities between living creatures in terms of slow change front
one fonts to another fonts better suited to survive in the local environment.
The accuracy of this theory, like that of all scientific theories,
depends largely
upon the validity of the assumption on which it is based.
Most scientists agree that the theory of organic evolution is the
best scientific
description ice have to account for the complex forms of life in the past and
present. The historical reconstructions of life in the past described in this
book are presented in terms of this theory of organic evolution.