Background

The Lamarck City School Board faces a citizens' petition to halt the teaching of evolution to senior high biology classes on the basis that it is "only a theory among scientists" about the development of life's many forms. In response, an opposing petition seeks to halt the intrusion of creationism into biology classrooms on the basis that it's not science. In its essentials, one side wants to teach only the creationist position and the other side wants to teach only the evolutionist position. In two weeks the Board needs to rule on this issue; the Board president has requested individual written statements from all Board members, including you. These statements will be used to render the School Board decision.

The Creationist Position

1. For years scientists have searched for the "missing links" which are predicted by Darwinian evolutionary theory, and found none. Now, instead of obeying their own announced principles and abandoning the theory for lack of critical evidence, they violate their own rules by citing the gaps as "proof" of discontinuous evolution ---punctuated equilibrium--- based on hypothetical catastrophes. Their new type of "evolution" sounds remarkably like Biblical Creation itself.
   
   
2. Evolution proponents cannot even agree among themselves about the nature of the thing they say has in fact taken place. The argument between Wilson and Gould is an excellent example of how flimsy evolutionary theory really is. Not only is shape and form supposed to evolved but now also behavior. The evolutionists themselves argue bitterly and question each other's evidence. The new evolutionary idea of sociobiology offered in the name of science smacks dangerously of sexism and racism of the very worst kind, reminiscent of the eugenics of the Third Reich. It appears politically motivated.
   
   
3. The teaching of evolution is in itself presenting a form of religion, namely, the atheistic point of view. such a view is certainly an opinion that should rate no higher than that which the creationists are accused of holding.
   
   
4. Not only is public prayer now prohibited in public schools but now the teaching of a view alternative to evolution, namely creation science, is threatened to be prohibited. If the teaching of evolution is to be permitted, then suppression of alternative viewpoints is no longer called teaching but is, instead, propaganda. If scientists are as open-minded as they claim to be, how come they are unwilling to consider creation science as an alternative to be taught in the classroom?

The presentation against teaching evolution concludes with the following statement:

While random formation of primitive nucleic acids can be explained, no one really understands how these components could have spontaneously assembled to form a living cell.... In a recent conversation, one scientist studying the question joked (off the record) that his work would be easier if he believed in a Supreme Being. That, of course, is what the creationists believe, and the riddle of the genetic code's origin is one of their strongest arguments. So says Gary Parker, a biologist with the Institute for Creation Research (San Diego)( who has co-authored several of the Institute's textbooks.... "All of us can recognize objects created by man," Parker says. He holds up a Dr. Pepper soda can setting on his desk. "All the time, all the chance in the world, all the natural reactions of aluminum with other kinds of elements are never going to result in a little blue can with 'Dr. Pepper' on it." Similarly, Parker argues, the complex system that forms a living cell could only have come about by the intelligent design of a Creator.
---Joel Gurin

The Evolutionist Position

1. Science is replete with theories (more properly called hypotheses) which include but are not limited to those concerning evolution. There are hypotheses about genetic structure, blood pressure control, and disease transmission, among others. A scientific hypothesis can be proved false but can never be proved to be true by any logical process of science; it can, however, accumulate impressive, sometimes overwhelming, evidence in its support. We conduct immunizations, perform surgery, and predict eclipses all on the basis of hypotheses supported, of course, by evidence.
   
   
2. Dialog and challenging argument are part of the proper process of science. Truth in science is not established by voting and ideas are not accepted by reputable scientists until they have withstood harsh challenge. That evolutionary theory is subject to debate is not noteworthy.
   
   
3. Living forms have changed and continue to change visibly, even within one human lifetime; this is fact. It is this fact which requires explanation. Darwin sought to explain both the fossil and contemporary records through his hypothesis. Although Darwinian evolution is supported by considerable evidence, it is not the only hypothesis under consideration. Neither is it the only one testable through the rules of observation and experiment. As such, if it fails, creationism does not thereby become the only remaining alternative explanation.
   
   
4. Science is a process, a way of thinking. The process invokes observation and experiment to test notions (hypotheses) of how things work. Science deals with physical evidence to explain the world around us. Matters of science are not to be confused with matters of faith. Things which are not testable through observation and experimentation necessarily lie outside the realm of science. "Creationism" and not "creation science" is thus the proper term to be applied to the creationism viewpoint, since that viewpoint depends upon assertions found in the Christian Bible and not upon experimentally verifiable observations. In contrast, the fossil and contemporary records are observable realities which can be examined by independent observers using the rules of science; evolutionary theory is the composite, written explanation to which the evidence corresponds. Thus, the teaching of evolution properly belongs within the teaching of science; the teaching of creationism does not.

The pro-teaching position concludes with the following statement:

Some creationists put all matters of scientific evidence to one side and consider all such things irrelevant. The Creator, they say, brought life and the earth and the entire universe into being 6000 years ago or so, complete with all the evidence for an eons-long evolutionary development. The fossil record, the decaying radioactivity, the receding galaxies were all created as they are, and the evidence they present is an illusion. what kind of a Creator would produce a universe containing so intricate an illusion? It would mean that the Creator formed a universe that contained human beings whom He had endowed with the faculty of curiosity and the ability to reason. He supplied those human beings with an enormous amount of subtle and cleverly consistent evidence designed to mislead them and cause them to be convinced that the universe was created 20 billion years ago and developed by evolutionary processes that included the creation and development of life on Earth. Why? Does the Creator take pleasure in fooling us?
---Isaac Asimov