On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, D. Daily wrote:

> Consistency is all I ask. If evolution shouldn't be taught because it
> can't be proved, then neither should creationism which can't be proved.
>
> Therefore, neither should be taught or both should be taught, they're
> on equal ground.


It is this sort of "open-minded" statement that is troubling.

The two approaches to origins stand on fundamentally different
foundations.

Evolution is a scientific theory -- which means that it is the best
current explanation for all of the data. If and when inconsistent data
comes along, the theory will have to be adjusted or discarded.

Creationism is based on the revealed word of god -- which means that any
onconsistent data is simply a test of our faith and that no data will ever
be sufficient to require adjustment or discarding.

If a person chooses to organize their understanding of the universe based
on the word of god as revealed in one or another of the books that he is
claimed to have written, that is well and good. Creationism can be a
wholly satisfactory explanation for where it all came from -- though there
are some difficulties in reconciling it with electric lightbulbs.

But is is not science and those who attempt to pass it off as such are at
least disingenuous. If someone chooses to believe in creationism they
ought to be honest enough to admit that it is not science but instead
religious belief.

Thus, the even-handed approach recommended by Mr. Daily amounts to
teaching religion -- and at a minimum leads to the question of which
religion ought to be taught? Vine Deloria has written an interesting book
titled (I think) "Red Earth, White Lies" that offers his tribal
perspective on the origins (that the various Indian peoples were created
from the earth of America) -- which is as valid an explanatory device as
the various takes on biblical creationism.


Dale Goble
Moscow