The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Evolution not about free speech

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Rob Hunter:

Patient Abandonment Bill targets women's rights (April 21, 2005)
Read ID Act goes too far infringing upon civil liberties (April 28, 2005)
Gay rights needed to protect equality (May 5, 2005)
Evolution not about free speech (March 17, 2005)

by Rob Hunter

Thursday, March 17, 2005

The Washington Post reports legislators in 19 states are currently debating proposals to mandate or allow the teaching of “alternative” theories on the origin of life in public-school classrooms. While nowhere is Biblical creationism being considered — the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that the doctrine may not be taught in public schools — the proposals generally call for classroom recognition of the controversy over the scientific legitimacy of evolution, which is, after all, “only a theory.”

As I wrote in this column last November (“Creationism is not sound science”), such arguments are absurd. Science is not a democratic discipline. Theories about the origin of life other than evolution do not deserve consideration simply because they are different, nor is evolution inadequate by virtue of being an unproven theory.

Most scientific knowledge is contained within bodies of theories, none of which are ever conclusively “proven” by data. Science as a discipline proceeds by retaining and refining those theories that are successful at explaining and predicting natural phenomena, and discarding those theories that fail. If it’s “unfair” to creationists to teach students evolution and not less-scientifically credible theories, it’s because science is not particularly fair to unsuccessful theories (such as geocentrism or pre-Mendelian genetics).

Simply because a large number of people are emotionally invested in a particular belief does not and should not privilege it in any scientifically meaningful way.

Recent attempts to discredit evolution, however, are presented in more-political terms rather than focused on its scientific merit. Of course, most efforts to challenge the teaching of evolution are usually political in character — behind every attempt to introduce “intelligent design” (the thesis that God is the active primary cause in evolution) into the classroom is a desire to combat what are perceived as the irreligious implications of evolution. But now, creationists and proponents of intelligent design are claiming they are the victims of a struggle over academic freedom — that their views, which deserve a fair hearing, are not being respected by a pro-evolution elite. As the conservative Republican Sen. Rick Santorum claims, “Anyone who expresses anything other than the dominant worldview is shunned and booted from the academy.”

Such claims are as unmerited as those made about the scientific illegitimacy of evolution — and for the same reasons. However, they have been successful in getting traction with high-profile figures such as Sen. Santorum because they play into a more generalized perception held by many Americans that large portions of American public life are under the thrall of secularism — a nebulously defined but malignant ideology that seeks to prohibit the exercise of religion.

In reality, for a nation to be secular (as ours is, by virtue of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) nothing more is required than for its laws to be grounded in popular sovereignty rather than the word of God, and for the workings of its government to be free of the direct influence of religion. Ours is a secular society not because most Americans are not religious (an absurd claim) but because keeping government and religion separate from one another is the best way to minimize religious conflict (between believers and nonbelievers alike).

Evolution is taught in schools because it is broadly accepted by the scientific community. To use legislation to require intelligent design to be taught alongside or instead of it is to make a mockery both of scientific practice and the principles of a free society. The teaching of evolution does not compel students to renounce religious belief, but requiring teachers to present creationistic accounts as scientifically viable forces them to be complicit in intellectual dishonesty and makes them agents of tyranny. This is not because religious conviction is in any way evil or wrong but because using the power of the state to advance a particular pattern of religious belief is precisely the danger that the delegates who adopted the First Amendment hoped to avoid.

Legislating against evolution is not only against the best educational interests of students but also gives rise to a political phenomenon that all Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs, should be concerned about: a government that imposes a given religion, at the expense and probable persecution of all others, on its citizens.

Rob Hunter (jrhunter@gmail.com) is a senior majoring in political science and philosophy.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 9:33am):

Didn't some politician propose a bill to change the value of pi to 3?

Ahh yes, Snopes to the rescue:

"In 1897 the Indiana House of Representatives unanimously passed a measure redefining the area of a circle and the value of pi. (House Bill no. 246, introduced by Rep. Taylor I. Record.) The bill died in the state Senate."

http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm

Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 2:49pm):

It doesn't really matter--most biology teachers just avoid the subject, both for the obvious political discomfort and the enormous crush of things to discuss in the course of a year.

I, for one, would be happy to see a honest deabte in the classroom between a powerful but flawed theory and an empty shell that surrounds a religious belief.

Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 4:22pm):

define religion Rob.

Is it a set of cultural beliefs? What is it exactly that the government can not do here? Remember, if the government defined what it considers a religion it is establishing a religion which is a violation of 1st amendment rights too. Is belief in evolution a religion? Evolution has never been proven to have happened to humans. (I hate to burst your bubble, but I am correct about this. Mutations in fruit flies have been observed, but that is far from proving human evolution) So evolutionists are also acting on faith. Is secularism a religion?

Anonymous (March 17, 2005 @ 4:28pm):

"An empty shell that surrounds a religious belief", or a religious belief that surrounds an empty shell? Religion has a lot more to it than explaining natural phenomena. In fact, its job is pretty much explaining SUPERnatural phenomena.

I guess that's just what I don't get about these topics. Why can't we let religion do what it does best- save souls- and let science do what it does best- make stuff work. They don't have to be at each others throats all the time, in fact they go hand in hand a lot.

Same thing with separation of church and state. It's not a church's job to pass the latest abortion initiative. It's not a church's job to register voters. It's not a church's job to even feed the homeless. The job is to preach and save souls.

Stop coloring outside the lines and we'll get along just fine, eh?

Rob Hunter (March 17, 2005 @ 5:07pm):

I have responded to some of the comments posted here on the opinion weblog, which may be reached here:

http://badgerherald.com/weblogs/republic/archives/2005/03/secularism_is_not_a_.php

or here:

http://xrl.us/fgs5

Anonymous (March 23, 2005 @ 9:29pm):

Now THIS is sickening:

http://www.alligator.org/pt2/050323freedom.php

"Some professors say, 'Evolution is a fact. I don't want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you don't like it, there's the door,'" Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.