Thu 2 Mar, 2006
The Boston Globe reported on President George Bush’s comments that public schools should teach both evolution and intelligent design. Bush made a laudable statement: “‘I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,’ Bush said. ‘You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.’”
However, Bush’s open-mindedness has its critics. The Boston Globe article quotes the following statement from the National Academy of Sciences: “‘The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted,’ the academy said in a 1999 assessment. ‘Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.’” This statement is technically accurate, but it betrays the loss of a true conception of science. The reason this debate is even occurring in public schools is because public schools are built on the philosophies of the Enlightenment and, increasingly, Modernism. Contrary to popular belief, science does not have its origins in the Enlightenment. Rather, the origins of science can be found in the Catholic conceptualization of the world, and indeed in Catholic history. That is why such a debate in a Catholic school would be ridiculous.
“Bush endorses ‘intelligent design’” contends theory should be taught with evolution” by Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder. Boston Globe August 2, 2005.
Let’s take a closer look at this debate, then see why you don’t (or at least shouldn’t) hear it in Catholic schools. The National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both support the idea that supernatural intervention in the creation of life is not provable by science, and therefore should not be presented in high schools as science. We can agree with this statement for the most part. Science is the study of the tangible world, using tools of sense perception and measurement. God cannot be perceived by the senses and so science cannot directly prove or disprove anything about Him. However, while this statement is technically accurate, it is also insufficient for two reasons.
- First, science is not the only method at our disposal for knowing truth. The Enlightenment did not create science, as is commonly believed, but it did isolate science from the other paths to truth. Before the Enlightenment, scientific exploration occurred hand-in-hand with philosophical and theological investigation. The Enlightenment judged theology as an unreliable tool for knowing truth, based solely on opinion. Modernism threw out Aristotelian philosophy, claiming that it was based on premises that could not be proven. Neither of these judgments is fair. Theology and philosophy are strict disciplines that are extremely useful in pondering truth. The only “problem” is that these disciplines help us to ponder truths about aspects of the world that are not tangible and measurable, so they are less acceptable to people who believe only what their eyes can see. However, does it take much to prove that there is more to this life than can be detected by the physical senses? Moreover, philosophy and theology provide theories (and the tools to test those theories) about how the scientific facts fit together, what they mean, and why they are significant. Without such an exercise, science can do no more than present us with meaningless digits of information. In the exploration of creation, ignoring philosophy and theology would be foolhardy. No, supernatural considerations are not science. But they are valid approaches to the discovery of truth.
- Second, there seems to be an assumption that only provable science is taught in high school science classrooms today. This assumption is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. The Boston Globe article states the common misconception that the theory of evolution was “first articulated by British naturalist Charles Darwin in 1859.” This is not accurate. In fact, Saint Augustine talked about creation as an act of God that slowly unfolded in history. He was probably not the first to do so. What was articulated by Charles Darwin was the atheistic notion of natural selection, the idea that evolutionary changes were passed through history by a process of mutation and competition for survival, all without the guiding hand of a Creator. While evolution and genetic mutation can be studied and measured by science, natural selection cannot. Even to the extent that it can, the claim that no Creator guided the process can be proven by science no more than the claim that Creation had supernatural origins. So, science classes are already teaching unscientific beliefs. Make no mistake about it, atheistic natural selection, known as Darwinism, is being taught in our schools. Look at any of a number of science videos for proof, or read a Biology textbook.
Of course, President Bush’s statement is not above reproach either. Don’t get me wrong, I am all for a multiplicity of ideas being presented to high school students. However, before we do that, we really need to give high school students the tools they need to analyze various theories and to judge where the truth lies. In other words, we need to teach high school students how to think. This is not a focus in public schools. Unfortunately, President Bush’s educational policies, which emphasize standardized testing, do not promote teaching students how to think either. Until students are taught how to think critically about various theories, to judge their strengths and weaknesses, presenting them with multiple theories does nothing more than cause them to despair that truth can ever be known. Of course, this is an outcome that Modernists and Post-Modernists would applaud, but most Americans don’t want tax dollars paying for schools that do nothing but confuse our children.
Why should this debate be foreign to a Catholic school? The immediate sardonic response would be that Catholic schools can get away with brainwashing students with propaganda, and therefore do not have to teach evolution at all. Catholic high schools do teach evolution. However, if a Catholic school is true to Catholic intellectual tradition, it does not isolate science from philosophy or theology. So, while students are learning the scientific facts about the origins of life, they are also learning critical thinking so they can explore the various philosophies that try to explain how the scientific facts fit together and what they mean. Catholics have nothing to fear from the truth. All truth comes from God, and therefore all authentic exploration of truth leads to God. Catholic schools should explore science, philosophy, and theology with the sole objective of discerning the truth. If Catholic schools were to do that, we would be able to offer the world a solution to this tired debate.
In the love of Christ,
Brother Thomas
Related Links:
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
fish says:
Hellow Jeff,
I work with Deb you sister, she Emailed me your blog. Im’ responding to this issue cause its the foundation of our entire being here. What building stands on shaky foundtions.
The catholic church has the solution to the debate but have set aside the answer. Its an unpopular answer but is arguably more supportable than any other answer.
What does the word of God mean. If I give you my word and its no good, then have I lied and if I have lied than I am not all truth. God gave us his word the bible, it does not contain lies but truth. He was there from the beginning, Christ is our creator and redeemer. He said he did it in 6 literal days. I believe Him. If I start from this Axiom than all science and all observations should fall with in its contexts properly or sensibly, and it does. If start with an axiom that is incorrect than I will have a much harder time encompassing all the evidence and making sense when things are not fitting the axiom.
The debate on origin is non-existant in the Catholic Church because the origin is God. The debate is how did God create, through pain death and suffering and natural selection or special creation. The best way to look at this argument is to make the two stand side by side and look at the Scientific data and see which axiom is supported better. This is a great way to teach school kids to use rational skills and logic that has been granted by our creator.
6000 year old earth time and time again will be supported by the observational science, Because that is the right axiom to start with. I’m not the one who said it take it up with God.
I would love to hash out where evidence does not fit billions and millions of years old earth, but is ok with 6000 year old earth.