What Part of "Science" Don't You Understand?

The Press-Citizen reported that more than 220 people, including 56 University of Iowa professors, have signed a faculty petition against House File 183 - The Evolution Academic Freedom Act, which was introduced this session by State Rep. Rod Roberts, R-Carroll. As you might imagine, Representative Roberts is not a scientist and, apparently, maybe not a very good lawmaker either. It does not come as a shock that he is, according to his biography "the Development Director with Christian Churches/Churches of Christ in Iowa."

Now if there is a desire to teach theological premises in schools, great--as an elective course, why not? A comparative religion course might actually be helpful to help young people to understand the beliefs of others and to better form their own beliefs. But to infuse a science curriculum with a discussion of a type of creationism that has no basis in science and must rely on faith is antithetical to the study of science.

In any case, churches are better suited to the teaching of their brand of religion and it is less confusing that way. There is a lot of good that comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ for instance, even without a basis in science. Treating people with dignity is a great idea whether it came from Christ, Mohamed, Confucius, or Pagans. So to Rep. Roberts, I say, respectfully, your beliefs and a need to produce students who have a mind for science need to be separated. People get enough mixed messages in our society.

You Say You Want an Evolution?

Happy Anniversary all you Survival-of-the-Fittest-lovers--Darwin would have been 200 today if he hadn't been done in by his evolutionary limitations or been smoted (depending on who you ask). In Iowa, proponents of Darwinism and Creationism continue to go after each other hammer and tong, and why not? What good is scientific fact about man's rise from the primordial ooze when God doing it in a day is so much more believable?

But because nothing is "certain" where the origins of man are concerned, states are passing "academic freedom" laws. Arguments over evolution are not took place at the local school board level, but Such laws elect to legislate support for teachers who discuss the scientific strengths and weaknesses of issues such as evolution ostensibly to protect freedom of speech of instructors and students, rather than get into the "he said/Thee said" that evolution and Intelligent Design proponents wrangle over. Such a bill passed in Louisiana last year.

Currently Iowa is in the company of Oklahoma, Alabama,and New Mexico as states that have this type of legislation in the mill. Will these bills pass? In the wake of the Louisiana result last year, similar bills were debated in Florida, Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina. All failed.

This change in focus is of concern to those in the science and teaching professions: As Robert Gropp, director of public policy for the American Institute of Biological Sciences in Washington is quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, "Quite honestly, there aren't any strengths and weaknesses to evolution in the way they say. It's the hook they use to introduce nonscientific explanations. You have to give [evolution opponents] credit: They've gotten crafty about arguments they make. 'Academic freedom' sounds very all-American, but the problem is it sets aside the way science is done, the way we teach science."

I don't think that school teachers should be put in a position to have to provide instruction on a subject that is not in their expertise. A science teacher has the expertise to teach science. Similarly, I would expect that evolution wouldn't be taught by theologians.

In any case, Happy Birthday Charles Darwin and God bless you.