No

by Eric Lannak

Created on: March 18, 2008   Last Updated: April 19, 2012

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is a hotly contested social and philosophical issue. Students will undoubtedly run into the creationism-vs.-evolution issue sometime in their lives, and should be educated on the subject.

But it should not be taught alongside evolution in a science curriculum. Creationism is not a science. It should be taught in Social Studies along with abortion issues and human rights.

For many religions and cultures, it is believed that some divine agent created the world, in more-or-less its current form. The history of creationism runs back to the earliest known writings and and beliefs, and is the foundation of most religious faiths.

But science is a rigorous discipline. Facts are analyzed, debated, defined, and verified. It is a method of inquiry, not a justification of faith.

The scientific approach

Science is the attempt to understand our world by organizing what we know, verifying what we think we know, and eliminating the stuff that can be disproved.

The scientific community is certainly guilty of marginalizing thoughts that lack sufficient proof, but it doesn't disallow those lines of thought. Indeed, some of the greatest scientific discoveries have come from exploring the unexplained or unverified. It was just such explorations that led Einstein, Newton, and Copernicus to their earthshaking conclusions.

But the scientific method starts with a hypothesis, an idea put together from available information. It then tests that hypothesis, hoping to prove or disprove it regardless of the outcome. Then the results are reported and other researchers test those results and build on them.

The creationist approach

The aim of creationism is to explain the world in terms of religious doctrine. This is a case of putting the cart before the horse... explaining the conclusion after you've made it. It is not investigation, it's justification. This is not the scientific method.

A more sophisticated version of creationism is "intelligent design", which aims to use statistical techniques to disprove current theories. Their aim is to poke holes in current thought on the creation of the universe and man.

You can read more about this on the Discovery Institute Center for Science and Culture at http://www.intelligentdesign.org/ . This is a leading intelligent design organization, and they make some persuasive arguments... but they offer no testing or proof. Their work is useful in that it brings up questions for researchers to address.

Intelligent design offers nothing more than "it's too complicated, God must have done it" as a solution. It points up gaps in scientific knowledge, but offers no hypotheses that can be tested, no proposals to examine.

Evolution and human origin

Science has shown that our current DNA record and human fossil evidence are clearly in synch. DNA research has shown a clear record of where "Eve" came from, and it matches the fossil evidence.

Human DNA has a fairly predictable rate of mutation it changes at a pretty predictable (and demonstrable) rate over time. One particular type of DNA, called mitochondrial DNA (which is found in the mitochondria the body that makes energy in a cell) is passed down from a person's mother.

By analyzing the mitchondrial DNA of a large number of people from around the world, and then plotting the amount of change backwards through time, it was found that everyone today probably spawned from a single female in what is now Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania, about 140,000 years ago. They identified the area by finding the spot that has shown the least variation of all the samples taken.

This matches (archaeologically speaking) with the fossils found of Homo sapiens idaltu, a subspecies of Homo sapiens that lived in that region 160,000 years ago. The date is verified by carbon dating, a proven and reliable way of testing fossils.

So, speaking solely of humans, science has a rational basis to say Homo sapiens as a species originated from a common African ancestor around 150,000 years ago, and evolved in a statistical and logical way into the biological creatures we are today.

Science also shows that other types of man existed, both before and during the existence of Homo sapiens. Neanderthals coexisted with Homo Sapiens in Europe. Both types of fossils have been found in the same geological layers, making it clear they did indeed coexist.

This is amazing evidence that man evolved along different lines, with Homo sapiens ultimately prevailing while the Neanderthals died out.

This also clearly demonstrates that evolution does indeed happen, and that it happens predictably.

Creationism on human origin

Creationism is clear, because it is based on dogma. Man was created. Period.

Intelligent design is more slippery, because it attempts to pass off the unsolved parts as proof of a "divine hand" in things.

But neither camp of creationism can address these recent discoveries in man's heritage. Old school creationists say the fossil record was "planted" as a test of our faith. But that would mean God would lie to us in order to test our faith. That makes no sense.

Intelligent design people might argue that we developed along different lines because a divine being was trying out different models, looking for the one that worked best. In other words, evolution took place... but attributing it to a Divine Being rather than natural processes.

Should creationism be taught as science?

No. Creationism and its latest form, intelligent design, are faith-based schools of thought that cannot be proven or disproven. In its latest incarnation as intelligent design, it is focused on finding ways around scientific thought, but has produced no evidence of its own.

Science is based on observing our world, experimenting, and testing theories. It is a method of discovering the truth. It leaves the unexplained as work for future scientists, rather than ascribing it to the work of a divine being.

Evolutionary science has demonstrated the existence of an Eve. Creationism has rejected it, because it's not the Eve they wanted. It's undeniable that Creationism is the pursuit of justification, not the pursuit of knowledge instead.

Creationism absolutely should not be taught in a science curriculum. Since it relies on accepting a dogma and will not accept testing or proof, it has no place being taught next to evolution in a science curriculum.

Learn more about this author, Eric Lannak.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.