Discussing Creation Science 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 philosophy of science. 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 evolution 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 biology 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 Arkansas 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 scientific community. 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 fact 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 Bible 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 sciences. (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 theology. 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 Louisiana's whether the world was created by God and in some Creationism 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 scientific theory (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.