Mr Darby,
Averi came to me this morning with your concerns about the evolution curriculum this fall.
I would like to let you know that I grew up in private Christian schools my entire life, and through college.
I am aware of the current debates and why people feel strongly about this issue. Many students at this school are from this similar background at home.
I was taught Creationism in school, and not much of evolution. I remember that the Creationism I did learn was not in science class, but usually in some sort of philosophy, or religious class.
In class, I strictly denote the difference between theory and fact.
It seems that Creationism, or Intelligent Design, is a belief based strictly on faith. Therefore I don't see it's relevance to science.
For example, when asked "why did this species mutate?", a Creationist may say: "Because of the actions of God." whereas an evolutionary theorists may say: "Because of the stresses put upon that creature by its natural environment." The first is a belief of faith. The second leaves ulitmate causes up to interpretation, and only states what we can physically record and observe.
I also think that many scientists have a faith about particular aspects of evolution--and this needs to be presented as theory.
For instance, the "Big Bang" is still a theory, though more and more evidence points toward its potential truth. The same is true of humans evolving from another primate. The evidence shows that humans share 98% of the same DNA as a chimpanzee; and fossils have been found that show creatures that aren't homo sapien, and are more similar than the nearest living primate. But connecting the dots is still theoretical.
Some scientists make the leap and "believe" that we evolved from apes. I will teach this as a theory because of the evidence.
The only thing I will teach as fact is what I like to call "micro evolution" as documented in mutations of bacteria, viruses, and birds.
If I teach that a Creator exists, then I wouldn't be scientific. I am more inclined to present the evidence and let the students decide for themselves. In fact, I do plan on having a "debate" in class, where students will have to use what they've learned to argue one way or the other. Last year I had some students come in and quote passages from the Bible. They did not receive a good grade because they did not use what they had learned in class as an argument tool. (Not to mention that our students represent several different faiths).
Because there are species in existence today that did not exist 100 years ago, I believe that creation is still happening, has been happening, and will continue to happen.
I make it a point not to share my personal beliefs with the students. But I tend to agree with Darwin that Creation and Evolution may be more complimentary than antagonistic.
Please feel free to come in and take a look at the curriculum. Most of it is about fossils, time lines, and survival. I do teach the theories of Darwin, but stay away from the origins of matter and of humans.
We will be finished with it by Thanksgiving.
-Todd Vandermeulen
************************************************************
my response
Mr. Vendermeulen,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I do plan to reply in more detail but I leave you with a few things to consider. Not, in an attempt to change your disposition, but to simply encourage you in the pursuit of equipping children with all of the tools needed to come to an intelligent place of reference on this subject.
Here is a basic overview of what runs around in my head regarding Intelligent Design vs. Evolution:
Cosmological Argument: every effect has a cause EXCEPT that of the "Uncaused Cause" and "Unmoved Mover". A thing cannot create -- creation cannot create itself. The universe must have been caused by Someone that was itself uncaused.
Hence, every finite and contingent being has a cause; nothing finite and dependent can cause itself; and a causal chain cannot be of infinite length (it has to end somewhere & that somewhere will be at the Uncaused Cause!
Teleological Argument: or argument from design (from the Greek telos which means end or purpose) -- the universe is too complex, orderly, beautiful, and purposeful to be random or accidental! Voltaire said, "If a watch proves the existence of a watchmaker but the universe does not prove the existence of a great Architect, then I consent to be called a fool."
-- The Anthropic Principle: there is an apparent delicate balance of conditions necessary for human life (e.g. the earth is JUST the right distance from the sun!)... that's not an accident - that is by Design!
Ontological Argument: (from the Greek ontos meaning "being" or "to be") -- this argument espouses that God is the entity greater than which no entity can be conceived or compared; the concept of God EXISTS IN HUMAN UNDERSTANDING; God is necessary and necessarily exists.
You have affirmed that the "Big Bang" is still a theory and that connecting the dots between the DNA of chimpanzees & fossils is still theoretical YET it appears that you are teaching it as "Science".
You also affirmed that some scientists make the leap and "believe" that we evolved from apes and that he will teach this as a theory... how can he teach it as "theory" 'because of the evidence' -- if there is 'evidence' wouldn't he then teach it as fact??? It takes MORE FAITH to believe that human beings (living material) evolved from non-living matter (a pre-supposition of evolutionists) than that of Intelligent Design...??
I look forward to our future discussion.
