November 9th 1984 page 91 God versus Darwin , KiD$ CAN Go IVERSITY / ision. His conclusions were unam- buous. In no respect whatsoever is eation science genuine science. It is t what the plaintiffs claimed it to be: de, dogmatic, Biblical literalism. insist that it be taught in the ools is a gross violation of the baration of church and state. The kansas. law, therefore, is uncons- ional and may not be enforced. e judgement has been reprinted in | in Science and should be read by eryone. It is a masterpiece-of logic, rity, and just plain common sense d decency. Before we rush to demn Arkansas, let us not forget At Overton is Arkansas born, bred, d educated.) orth of the border, we do not have igid separation between church and te. Hence, beating back the Crea- nists will be that much more icult. ou may think that | exaggerate the eat of Creationism in Canada. d that | did! Already, in the ls of some provinces, Alberta for ttance, Creationism is getting at st an equal--if not more-than-e- Al--airing, along with evolution. And en in Ontario, the authorities are not handing as firmly as one might expect hope. For instance, recently a high ool in the province (Morning Star ondary School, Mississauga) ap- ed to the Ontario Ministry of ucation for permission to give a ade 11 course in human biology: a rse which includes explicit discus- n of human evolution. | am glad to y that permission to give the course was granted, but then the Ministry added the dire admonition that ‘’the dogmatic teaching of evolution is unacceptable to the Ministry.”’ Surely, this is nothing to worry about? One would hardly approve of anything being taught dogmatically. Most particularly, science is some- thing that must be approached in the spirit of open inquiry. Indeed, at the Arkansas trial, a major part of the case | built showed that the distinguishing mark of science is the way in which it is tentative, always open to revision. But, while all of this is very true, the purity of the pedagogical motives of the Ontario Ministry are still open to question. After all, why was evolution singled out for caution--at this time of all times? Why did the Ministry not also say that the dogmatic teaching of physics and chemistry--or of any science--is not acceptable? Furthermore, why did the Ministry then go on to say that when teaching evolution, students must be ‘‘Ap- prised of alternative explanations.’’ We all know what the ‘alternative explanations’’ include. Put simply, in 1982 the Ontario Ministry of Education is insisting that teachers not talk of our evolutionary origins, without also bringing in the book of Genesis. Moreover, only a fool could deny that the way is now open for right-wing Christians to pressure school-boards and teachers to keep the evolutionary content of courses to a minimum. Undoubtedly, to avoid controversy, evolution will simply vanish from many classes. The very last thing that the average school-board official wants is anything which even hints of trouble. Bland is best. You may think me biased. And indeed, if by ‘‘biased’’ one means believing that evolution is one of the great ideas of all time, and that it should find its way into schools at all levels, then | freely and joyously admit to bias. But truly, my concern is one which should be shared by everyone: scientists, educators, and all concerned people, who care about truth and what our young people are to be taught. What is at stake here is more that the law of another land--the U.S. Constitution-- and the interpreta- tion that some clever New York lawyer puts upon it. For at least three major reasons, we in Canada must oppose Creationism no less vigorously than did the ACLU in Arkansas. First, Creation science simply is not science. There is just no physical evidence for it. Indeed, if one looks at the works of Creation scientists, one is amazed by the failure even to seek experimental or other natural justifica- tion. All one finds are criticisms of the works of evolutionists. | do not want to pretend that today’s evolutionists have all of the answers. | am sure that they do not! But they do try to.explain all of the facts. Moreover, evolutionists work openly, allowing other scientists to criticize and modify their views. And most importantly, evolutionists behave as scientists, eschewing mir- acles and looking always for natural lawbound causes. Whatever else it may be, Creation science is not genuine science. It is dishonest to fob it off on our children as if it were. Second, it is undeniable that Crea- tion science is religion. Again, the Creationists themselves are good authorities on the matter! All of the leading Creation scientists belong to the Creation Research Society, and in order to join they sign a document affirming the literal truth of the Bible. Spelt out, unambiguously, is each and every one of the items listed in the Arkansas bill: young earth, special creation of organisms, separate origin for man, universal flood. Creation science is no more and no less than Genesis, in pseudo-scientific garb. So what? Why is it wrong to teach religion (as religion) in secular state- supported schools? There are very strong reasons why it is wrong. In such schools, we have teachers and pupils from all backgrounds, with different faiths or with no faith at all. It can only be divisive, in such a context and such a situation, to offer up one brand of religion as the truth, or even as a reasonable alternative. Is a Jew to teach children about Christmas? Is a Jehovah’s Witness to teach the New Testament, ignoring all that makes his faith particularly vital to him? And, if the Jehovah’s Witness does touch on his faith, is that Grade 4 child with agnostic parents to sit there passively? Furthermore, the teaching of Crea- tionism is particularly divisive. Many people, believers and nonbelievers, find its stance grossly offensive. Interestingly, in Arkansas, we found that orthodox believers, both Christ- ians and Jews, argued that Creation- ism is blasphemous. The third and final reason why we must oppose Creationism is perhaps the strongest of them all. Contrary to the claims of people like the Reverend Ken Campbell, Leader of Renaissance International, the Canadian equivalent of the Moral Majority, evolution is not the path leading straight to Sodom and Gomorrah. We evolutionists certainly do not have a monopoly on virtue, but neither are we lust-filled perverts-- heads swimming with such intoxicat- ing notions as ‘‘sexual selection,’ “the struggle for existence,’ and “‘nature red in tooth and claw’ ’--itch- ing to wreck our twisted will on unsuspecting innocents. | hate to have to say so, but evolutionists have always tended to be rather dull chaps! More seriously, comparing the pos- sible moral influences of evolution and Creationism, the sign-posts seem to point the other way. Paradoxically, for all of the meally moral mouthings of its supporters, it is Creation science which points to the ethical wasteland. The distortions and half-truths in the various writings of the supporters of Creation science cannot fail to deaden the moral sensitivities of our children. Children will learn that all sorts of underhand tricks can pass as sound scholarship. Any intellectual slight of hand is acceptable, in order to draw desired conclusions. And once having learnt this, what protection will the next generation have against any false prophet, or against any shallow doc- trine of personal expediency and hedonism? Standards of intellectual ae moral integrity will simply crum- e. For these and other reasons, Crea- tion science must be opposed. Nor must we be seduced into compromise positions, based on such reasonable- sounding pleas as ‘‘balanced treat- ment”’ or ‘‘equal time.’’ Sound educa- tion has never meant the indifferent purveying of every idea that anyone has ever held. Teachers must select, choosing only the best. And _ this excludes Creation science absolutely — from the classroom. One would like to think that Minist- ries of Education would offer leader- ship and guidance. Apparently, this is a vain hope. Hence, we who care and know better must take up the task. Scientists, educators, parents, tax- payers, we must insist that science and only science is taught in science classrooms. Three hundred and fifty years after Galileo, the time has surely come to free learning from the shackles of dogmatic Biblical literal- ism. ACEDEMIA COMICS ANTHROPOLOGY LESSON #28 THE FIRST SIGN OF CULTURE IN PRE-HISTORIC MAN HOMO ERECTUS, MAY 12, 928,266 B.C. HOMO ERECTUS , MAY 27, 928,266 B.C.