sign in sign up
<<
Home , Creation science

Discussing

Creation Kenneth Kemp is an associate professor of philosophy at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO 80840, where he teaches ethics and the . He has degrees from Georgetown University, The University of Texas at Austin, St. John's College and the University of Notre Dame. His research interests include the history of the idea of and the rela- Capt. KennethW. Kemp tion between science and religion.

Creation science may be down, but it is surely not mined not by where the investigator gets his ideas, out. And despite the Supreme Court's verdict in but by what he does with them once he gets them. Aguillardv. Edwards,we can be sure that this will not The "religion in disguise" objection is, then, insuf- any more be the last word (not even the last legal ficient reason to refuse to discuss creation science in word) than were the earlierdecisions which declared the classroom. (To be sure, Overton did not rest his Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/50/2/76/43243/4448650.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 anti-evolution laws unconstitutional. argument exclusively on the objection rejected Many teachers believe that creation science above.) But this counterobjection does not by itself should be ignored. Indeed, among the plaintiffs in provide sufficient reason to discuss creation science McLeanv. Arkansaswas an school teacher either. who complained he could not in good conscience There is, after all, so much that could be included comply with the law. What I have to say here is not in a good biology course, and so little time. What intended as a defense of any legislative act proposing reason could there be for devoting any time at all to to lay out how high school biology should be taught. creation science? There are, I believe, at least two But I do want to argue that creation science has a such reasons. place in the biology classroom, and I want to say First, creation science represents a challenge to the something about what I think that place is. central organizing theory of modern biology. The challenge is not, it is true, a "scientific"challenge, if scientific is taken to mean a challenge made from Why Science TeachersShould Discuss within the . CreationScience (Creation scientists claim, of course, that they are part of the scientific community, as demonstratedby Before I proceed to argue that a discussion of cre- their advanced degrees in technical subjects, etc. But ation science belongs in the science classroom, I want virtually none of the work done by creationists is to fend off what I take to be the main objection published in, or even submitted to, refereed scientific against my position-that creation science is just re- journals, as they themselves were forced to admit ligion in disguise. This objection played a centralrole during the McLeantrial. For further information on in both the McLeanand the Aguillarddecisions. Judge this point, see Scott & Cole 1985.) Overton put it as follows But why should strictly scientific challenges be the The that creation science is inspired by the Book of only ones taken up in a high school biology Genesis and that Section 4(a) [of Act 590] is consistent classroom?The audience in such a classroom is, after with a literal interpretationof Genesis leaves no doubt all, not the scientific community, but the general that a major effect of the Act is the advancement of particularreligious beliefs. public, and there the challenge posed by creation science is taken seriously. A teacher should take his But this argument rests on a false assumption. The audience as he finds it. scientific status of an idea is not determined by its A second reason for considering the arguments origin. Friederichvon Kekule hit on the structure of raised by creation scientists is that doing so has a the benzene molecule in a dream, but he made a real good deal of educational value. A vigorous contro- contribution to science nonetheless. Even religious versy is, to my mind, always worth a look. Such con- origins by themselves do nothing to compromise the troversies provide a good context for cultivating crit- scientific status of the ideas to which they give rise. ical thinking skills, which, like writing, should be William Herschel's idea that the nebulae he saw in emphasized across the curriculum. To ignore cre- his telescope were distant clusters of stars was ation science is to miss a good opportunity. prompted in part by his views about Divine economy Further, it is not fair to students who may have (Clarkforthcoming) but that is no reason to discount heard something about creation science to dismiss it the quality of his work. Scientific status is deter- summarily without a word as to what is wrong with

76 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 50, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1988 it. Surely there is something to be said about why it ment . . . [were]written under the inspirationof the is bad. And understanding why scientists rejectinad- Holy Spirit [and] have God as their author. (Dei equate theories is part of what it is to be educated Verbum3:11) about science. The second principle, Theological Inerrancy, asserts that What They Should Say About It (P2)The booksof Scripturemust be acknowledgedas Assuming then that some kind of case for dis- teaching . . . without error that truth which God cussing creation science in the science classroom has wantedto put into the sacredwritings for the sakeof our salvation.(Dei Verbum3:11) been made, something needs to be said about how this is to be done. There are, I believe, three items A principle of inerrancy at least as strong as this one that should be on the agenda of any teacher who is probably entailed by the principle of inspiration proposes to discuss creation science in the classroom (given the doctrines of Divine Omniscience & Ve- distinguishing scientific from theological issues, racity). But theological inerrancyis silent on whether evaluating the creation science objections against the is correct in all the geographical, historical evolution and developing a deeper understanding of and scientific points that it mentions. This leads science itself. some Christians, including most fundamentalists, to Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/50/2/76/43243/4448650.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 seek a stronger principle of inerrancy, perhaps Separatingscientific from theological issues (P3)When all the factsbecome known, they will dem- Surely much of the heat that accompanies the onstratethat the Biblein its originalautographs and whole creation-evolution controversy stems from correctlyinterpreted is entirelytrue and neverfalse in many parents' belief that teaching evolution (at least all it affirms,whether that relates to doctrineor ethics in public high schools) represents an infringementof or to the social, physical,or life . (Feinberg 1984) their right to teach their children religion without in- terference from the state. This right is, of course, or even, given that the term "correctlyinterpreted" guaranteed them by the First Amendment and is still needs spelling out, surely essential to the peace of any religiously plu- ralist (P4)The Bible is to be interpretedwith strictexactness society. Anyone who does not understand the of word and meaning . . . by focusing upon the au- anger and frustration of these parents has not thor'swords in their plain, most obvioussense.... thought sufficiently of the possibility that the schools Thereis no roomfor specialconsideration for figura- might be used to teach views contrary to his or her tive literary forms such as poetry or metaphor own religion. But I believe that not only evolution, (Adaptedfrom Scott 1984). but even creation science, can be discussed without We might call the former principle "Extended Iner- running afoul of these legitimate constitutional con- rancy" and the latter "Literalism." (The difference straints. It is, after all, only religious views that are, between these two principles is emphasized by Barr or should be, constitutionally protected against crit- 1978:40-103.) ical discussion in the public schools. I want to argue Now, assuming we can use the term "Christian" that, despite what is commonly asserted, creation in a broad and non-partisan way, Christians can be science is not such a view and is therefore fair game. found on both sides of the question whether either There are, nevertheless, some theological issues in P3 or P4 is good . But whatever the sub- the neighborhood of creation science, and it is worth stance of a person's views, they must, I believe, be beginning our discussion by ascertaining exactly conceded to be religious and hence inappropriatefor what they are. The central theological point at issue discussion in the public school classroom. between creation scientists and evolutionists is not, But all of these beliefs can easily be separated from despite what creation scientists sometimes imply, creation science, which, as defined by 's whether the world was created by God and in some Act, means "the scientific evidences for sense remains dependent on Him for its existence. creation and inferences from those scientific evi- That may be the issue between creation scientists dences." To be sure, creationists are ambivalent on and atheists, but many evolutionists are neither. this point. Gish (1981) says that, "Creationistshave What sets creation scientists apart even from many repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution of their fellow Christians is rather the question of is a (and each is equally religious)," how the Bible is to be interpreted. At least four dis- but in 1983:200even he writes that, "the scientificev- tinct principles of the status of the Bible can be dis- idence both for creation and for evolution can and tinguished: Inspiration, Inerrancy (in two versions) must be taught without any religious doctrine." and Literalism.The first principle, Inspiration,can be Most people friendly to creation science, of course, summarized as follows accept it along with certain religious beliefs. Most (P1) The books of both the Old and the New Testa- also hold either literalism or extended inerrantism

CREATIONSCIENCE 77 and therefore accept the following further proposi- the latter believe there is some decisive (albeit non- tions scientific) evidence against evolution, namely, the (P5) The Bible says God created the world in a manner word of the person who created the world, while the inconsistent with the theory of evolution, and there- former believe there is not such counter-evidence. (It fore cannot be overemphasized that the evolutionists' be- (P6) God created the world in a manner inconsistent lief is not in any sense atheistic or even non-Chris- with the theory of evolution. tian. An atheist would, of course, believe that no such counter-evidence is available, but so would any Being derivable from religious beliefs like P3-5, P6 Christianwho, while accepting theological must also be conceded to be a inerrancy, (protected) religious does not accept extended inerrancy or literalism.) belief. But we do not reach creation science as de- Some scientists may be inclined to reject the at- fined above until we get to tempt to combine religious and scientificinsights into (P7) There is, currently available, good scientificevi- one comprehensive whole. Indeed, the National dence for P6, but no good evidence for the theory of Academy of Science (1984:6)warned that, "Religion evolution. and science are separate and mutually exclusive This, unlike P1-6, is not a religious belief. It does not realms of thought whose presentation in the follow from P4, P5, or even P6, and I have never seen same context leads to misunderstanding of both sci- Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/50/2/76/43243/4448650.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 anyone claim that it can be found in the Bible. Cre- entific theory and religious belief." But this is surely mistaken. ation science, then, unlike , ex- The quest for a comprehensive world view tended inerrantism, or even any particularversion of has been a central interest to scientists, as well as the doctrine of creation, is not a religious belief and is philosophers. not entailed by any religious belief, including Biblical In the late nineteenth century, Lord Kelvin ob- literalism and extended inerrantism. Although this jected that the physical evidence was hostile to the means one of the main arguments in the McLean de- idea of an earth that was as old as the geological uni- cision may be defective (unfortunately, not all bad formitariansand the evolutionary biologists needed. laws are unconstitutional), it also undermines (logi- New physical evidence (the existence of radioac- cally, if not practically) the argument that balanced tivity) change the preponderance of evidence, of treatment is required in order to respect fundamen- course, but it would have been irresponsible of the talist religious beliefs. geologists and biologists simply to have ignored The distinction between P3-6 and P7-the fact that Kelvin's arguments. the claim about non-evolutionary origins can be true It seems to me that what is true about biology and even while creation science is false-is an important physics (namely that inconsistency between them is one, and making it draws attention to a point, not so unsatisfactory) is also true of natural science (taken much about theology, as about science. The insight it as a whole) and theology. As Alfred North White- gives into science can be given the name "falli- head (1925:265-266)put it bilism." Science, even the best science, can be It would ... be missing the point to think that we wrong. Aristotle's physics explained a lot, but it was need not trouble ourselves about the conflict between ultimately forced to yield to Newton's better theory. science and religion. In an intellectualage there can be no active In the nineteenth century, interest which puts aside all hope of the vi- Newton's theory was sion of the harmony of truth. To acquiesce in discrep- clearly the most successful scientific theory ever pro- ancy is destructive of candour, and of moral cleanli- posed. It was hard even to imagine that it might be ness. It belongs to the self-respectof intellect to pursue wrong, but it too had to give way to a yet more suc- every tangle of thought to its final unravelment. cessful rival, Einstein's Theory of Relativity. And James B. Conant, president emeritus of Har- The best we can say about any scientific theory is vard, though skeptical of the possibility of that the preponderance of evidence is in its favor, construc- ting any "unifying world hypothesis," nevertheless that there seems to be no good reason to reject it. It made a similar point in his Eddington could, of course, be wrong, but that is a different Lecture question. To lay undue emphasis on the bare possi- (1967:27) bility of error is, at least in ordinarysituations, some- I should consider it the mark of an obscurantistto be what perverse. But if students are not unwilling to confront deductions from one's universe brought to re- as a alize that science is a fallible lay physicist with deductions from one's ideas as a enterprise and that its moralist or lay theologian. For example, if to accom- results can never have mathematicalcertainty, they modate my own or accepted reports of religious expe- are not brought to a good understanding of science. riences, I must postulate miracles, then I am under ob- This consideration can be brought to bear in a way ligation, to the extent that I am a man of reason, to that should help defuse some of the tension between confront this conclusion with a deduction from the conceptualscheme I acceptas a lay physicist. evolutionists and Biblicalliteralists or extended iner- rantists. For these two groups differ precisely in this; There is admittedly a danger to the fusion of theo-

78 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 50, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1988 logical and scientific beliefs. Each has its own only selects among preexisting characteristics. method of validation. Therefore, when the prepon- (Brown 1983:210) derance of evidence within two such distinct disci- * The chief candidate for such a transitional form plines diverges, there is always a danger that the [sc. between fishes and amphibians] was long partisans of each discipline will ride rough-shod over supposed to have been the coelacanth.... The the insights which the other claims to provide. But coelacanth was believed to have finished this this means only that caution is required.No scientist, transition sometime in the Mesozoic.... Evolu- theologian, or ordinary educated person should be tionists were embarrassed when it was discov- content with a bifurcated theory of the world, any ered in 1938 that these fishes are still alive and more than the scientist should be content with theo- well, living in the waters near Madagascar. ries in biology and that are incompatible (Morris 1974:82-83) with the best evidence from physics. Such a split Discussion of creation science criticismsof the theory view of the world may at certain times be a necessity; of evolution can also be used as a lead-in to a discus- it is never a desideratum. sion of the interrelationof distinct sciences (as in dis- Literalism(or extended inerrantism),then, at most cussion of , where the biologist commits those who accept it to the falsity of the depends on physical theory) and the way in which theory of evolution. It does not commit them to any background assumptions are handled (e.g., over the Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/50/2/76/43243/4448650.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 views about where the preponderance of scientific question whether we can know how much of the evidence (the only kind suitable for inclusion in the lead in a given sample of rock is radiogenic). science classrooms of the public schools) now lies. Any science teacher must in all honesty admit that Securinga deeperunderstanding of science the best scientific evidence could point in the wrong The importance of providing our students with a directionand that the theory he offers is only the best good understanding of science itself cannot be over- inference availableon the basis of the evidence of na- emphasized. In a sense, of course, such a deeper un- ture. Therefore, nothing he or she says about the derstanding of science should result from working strength of the theory of evolution or about the inad- through the first two items on the agenda. But there equacy of the current program of scientific cre- are several additional topics eminently worthy of dis- ationism need be seen as a religious challenge to cussion that would not naturally fall under either of someone who believes that God has given us a more those heads. reliable alternative account. The first of these additional topics is the difference If both the scientist and the literalisttheologian are between fact and theory. Indeed, one of the central careful not to make assertions stronger than their re- claims in the creation science arsenal is that the spective methods will allow, there is room for each to theory of evolution is "just a theory." Evolutionists, see the other as merely mistaken, not as irrationalor in response, often claim that it is a "fact," though perverse. they continue in other contexts to call it the theoryof evolution. (For quotations from a wide variety of Discussingthe relativemerits of evolution& sources ranging from President Reagan to Stephen J. creationscience Gould see Kottler 1983). The fact is that the fact-theorydistinction is used in The second item on the agenda in a discussion of two different:ways. It is sometimes used to distin- evolution and creation science should be the relative guish more from less certain accounts of some event merits of the two accounts as explanations of the evi- or phenomenon, as when someone says, "I think dence. Bringing evidence into the classroom and that . . ., but at this point it's still just a theory." In asking how the two theories attempt to account for it this sense, it is safe to say that evolution, in the sense should provide a good understanding of how science that the present diversity of species found in nature works. Discussing the criticisms of evolution by cre- is a result of descent with modification from one or a ation scientists can provide a good test of how well few first kinds of living beings, is a fact. students understand the theory of evolution. (A But at other times the terms are used to mark a good summary of these arguments is provided in rather different distinction, that between something Brown 1983.) What better way would there be of that is taken for granted in a particular dialectical testing a student's understanding than by seeing context and an explanatory account of what was how he or she would respond to the following kinds taken for granted. Thus, one might say that it is a fact of criticism? that dimetrodon had a kind of sail on its back. It is * Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life the theory of some palaeontologists that the sail was from inorganic material) has never been ob- used to help the animal keep its blood warm. In this served. (Brown 1983:208) second sense, evolution is most naturally seen as, * Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it and will perhaps always remain, a theory. (It could

CREATIONSCIENCE 79 perhaps become a "fact" even in this sense, since it ideas can be used to illustrate the contrast between could conceivably be taken as the explanandum of and creation science. some more comprehensive theory. But I cannot think Evolutionary biology exemplifies Kuhn's concept of an account of how this might occur.) The fact that of a (in the sense of an exemplar problem explanatory accounts will never be as certain as the solution) with its "Darwinian histories" of how or- data they explain tends to make these two uses of the ganisms get to be the way they are. Creationscience terms "fact" and "theory" merge, but they can and can claim no counterpart. To what problems has it ought to be distinguished. offered a model solution? Do its practitionersapply A second topic worthy of discussion here is the any such paradigm to the solution of outstanding question of how the scientist responds to unfriendly problems in natural history? evidence. Some quick and careless accounts of this Lakatosianinsights can be put to equally good use. aspect of the suggest that a theory The hard core of the evolutionary and creation must be abandoned the moment hostile evidence is science research program can be identified and con- turned up. But surely, at least with respect to well- trasted. Then it can be shown how the positive heu- embedded theories or those with broad explanatory ristic of evolutionary biology, the guidelines as to scope, this is not what happens. how the theory might be further developed to ex- Any theory of the scope of the theory of evolution plain new kinds of phenomena, has led to new in- Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/50/2/76/43243/4448650.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 will always be faced with anomalies, things that it sights into nature. (The Hardy-WeinbergLaw would cannot explain, or even things that seem to contra- seem to be an example of this.) dict it. Sometimes the theory can be modified to ac- It is not clear that creation science even has a posi- commodate the hostile evidence. Sometimes these tive heuristic. Those who work on the creation modifications are accepted; sometimes they are re- science research program seem to spend little time jected as ad hoc. Occasionally, but usually only when attempting to make sure that the hard core of their a better theory has already been proposed, an old research program can be squared with empiricalevi- theory is abandoned as incapable of ever accommo- dence. Rather, they spend most of their time criti- dating the anomalous phenomena. cizing evolutionary theories. (If all of the criticismof This can be illustrated by appeal to the history of evolution were expunged from their writings, in . The inability of Newtonian astronomers order to illumine their positive contributions to our to work out a satisfactory orbit for the moon in the understanding of the natural world, what would we eighteenth century, or of Uranus in the early nine- have left?) Their work is almost a classic case of what teenth, was not taken as a refutation of the New- Lakatoscalls a "degeneratingresearch program." We tonian theory. It was merely taken as a challenge that cannot be certain that evolutionary biology is correct, had to be overcome. Even the problem of the perihe- but we can at least be confident that it is the line of lion of Mercurywas not seen as forcing the abandon- inquiry that, at present, has the best prospect of ment of the Newtonian theory until a better theory deepening our understanding of the natural world. became available. The questions to be asked then in- How exactly a discussion of creation science clude the following: When is ad hoc modification a should be conducted will, of course, vary with the case of legitimate improvement of the theory being teaching style of the instructor and the aptitude of tested, and when is it an unacceptable refusal to ac- the students. To my mind, the best technique lies cept the verdict of nature?If empiricalaccuracy is not somewhere in the area of guided classroom discus- decisive in a scientist's acceptance or rejection of a sion or Socraticmethod. Since much of the benefit to theory, what are the other features on which he be derived from discussion of this question centers relies in making his decision? on cultivation of critical reasoning skills, students Discussion of questions like these is the bread and should be encouraged to try to work out the various butter of the philosophy of science. (Good introduc- distinctions, arguments and counter-arguments on tions to these issues are provided by Brown 1977and their own. Nevertheless, appreciationof some of the Chalmers 1982, both of which lead into a very read- more subtle points that have to be made here will able primaryliterature. For philosophers' application probably require more direct comment by the in- of these ideas to the creation science controversy, see structor. Kitcher 1982.) At least some of this materialcould be Perhaps discussion, and especially criticism,of cre- introduced with profit, even at the high school level. ation science in the classroom would stir up more A third topic might be pulled together from the trouble than it is worth. That practicalconsideration work of Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn (again, see may, for many teachers, be decisive. But I have tried Brown 1977 and Chalmers 1982, or the original to show that discussion of these issues is not without sources). There is not space here to elaborate their educational benefits. views about the nature of science. But those who First, it benefits the students both by enhancing have read them will perhaps appreciate how their their understanding of biology and, more impor-

80 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 50, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1988 tantly, by enhancing their understanding of science. Elwell, WalterA. (Ed.). (1984). EvangelicalDictionary of The- Second, it makes possible consideration of the theory ology. Grand Rapids: BakerBook House. of evolution without disrespect to the religious com- Feinberg, P.D. (1984). Bible, inerrancy and infallibilityof. In Walter A. Elwell (Ed.), EvangelicalDictionary of The- mitments of Biblical literalists or extended iner- ology. Grand Rapids: BakerBook House. rantists. And finally, it may help undermine the sup- Gish, Duane. (1981). Letterto the editor. Discover,2(7), 6-7. port fundamentalists now tend to show for a move- Gish, Duane et al. (1983). Summary of scientific evidence ment that is basically anti-scientificby showing them for creation. In J. Peter Zetterberg(Ed.), Evolutionvs. Cre- that a kind of scientific "agnosticism" about the evi- ationism: The Public School Controversy.Phoenix: Oryx Press. dence for evolution is, given their religious beliefs Jolly, E. Grady. (1985). Aguillardv. Edwards.765 F.2d 1251. and compared to creation science, a respectablealter- Kitcher,Philip. (1982).Abusing Science: The Case Against Cre- native. ationism.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Kottler, MalcolmJ. (1983). Evolution:Fact? Theory? ... or just a theory? In J. Peter Zetterberg (Ed.), Evolutionvs. References Creationism:The Public School Controversy. Phoenix: Oryx Press. Barr, James. (1978). .Philadelphia: West- Morris, Henry M. (1974). ScientificCreationism (General Edi- minster Press. tion). San Diego: Creation-LifePublishers.

Brown, Harold I. (1977). Perception,Theory, & Commitment: National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science and Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/50/2/76/43243/4448650.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 TheNew Philosphyof Science.Chicago: University of Chi- Creationism. (1984). Scienceand Creationism:A Viewfrom cago Press. the NationalAcademy of Sciences.Washington, DC: Na- Brown, WalterT. (1983).The scientificcase for creation:108 tional Academy Press. categories of evidence. In J. Peter Zetterberg (Ed.), Evo- Overton, WilliamR. (1982).McLean v. ArkansasBoard of Ed- lution vs. Creationism:The Public School Controversy. ucation. (529 F. Supp. 1255). Reprinted in Evolutionvs. Phoenix: Oryx Press. Creationism:The Public School Controversy (1983). Phoenix: Conant, James B. (1967). ScientificPrinciples & MoralCon- Oryx Press. duct:The Twentieth Arthur Stanley Eddington Memorial Lec- Scott, Eugenie & Henry Cole. (1985). The elusive scientific ture. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. basis of creation "science." QuarterlyReview of Biology, Chalmers, A.F. (1982). Whatis ThisThing Called Science? An 60(1), 21-30. Assessmentof the Nature& Statusof Science& its Methods. Scott, J.J., Jr. (1984). Literalism.In Walter A. Elwell (Ed.), St. Lucia, Qld.: University of Queensland Press. EvangelicalDictionary of Theology.Grand Rapids: Baker Clark, Kelly. (in press). The religious and philosophical Book House. views of Sir William Herschel. AstronomyQuarterly. Whitehead, Alfred North. (1925). Science in the Modern Dei Verbum(Dogmatic constitution on divine revelation). World.New York:Macmillan. (1966). In Walter M. Abbott, S.J. (Ed.), TheDocuments of Zetterberg,J. Peter. (Ed.). (1983). Evolutionvs. Creationism: VaticanII. New York:Guild Press. ThePublic Schol Controversy. Phoenix: Oryx Press.

* APPLE COMPUTER BIOLOGY LABS U * DRUGS AND HEARTBEAT: DISSECTIONS: Frog, Earthworm, * Experiments with a Daphnia Grasshopper, Crayfish, Starfish, Clam, Perch U Thedaphnia is a small,transparent "water flea." U *ItsIts heartbeat can be seen through a microscope...-microscope. .^ "9*#,ws_ AThese dissection programs prepare biology students for Students count and chart the heartbeat for one actual dissections bytaking themthroughthe procedure minute as alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, cocaine, / step-by-step on the computer screen. 10-20 color pic- valium and codeine are washed over the tures show the dissection steps and teach the names daphnia. This program is a data-taking lab ac- and functions of all intemal parts. questions " 50&self-test tivity with a deeper message. Students see for help students review what they have leamed. All pro- themselves that drugs can have dangerous grams are classroom tested. U * effects on the heart. Drugs and Heartbeat $39.95 $29.95/program $190/set U

IBM,APPLE, C-64 CREATE-A-TEST - 5,000 BIOLOGY QUESTIONS Use your computer to make perfectly typed tests in 1 0 minutes! You can write any kind of question with the Creat-A-Test text editor or use e m our disks of preparedquestion. 5,000 questions are availableon 12 disks. New: Apple only, 80 column version. IBMonly, "Grand Inquisitor"program. Write for information. * AP, C-64, Create-A-Test Program $89.95 AP Update $49.95 IBM"Grand Inquisitor"$125 All QuestIon Disks $49.95 U U FREECATALOG, CROSS EDUCATIONALSOFTWARE - P. O. Box 1536, Ruston, LA71270 (318) 255-8921

CREATION SCIENCE 81