Trying science in the courtroom shuts down scientific debate

Robert L. Crowther, II

Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center has published a column looking at the current court cases involving evolution. While he mistakenly looks at intelligent design theory as just the next step after creationism in the anti-evolutionary chain, he does have some interesting insights into the drawbacks for science of shutting down the debate.

“If school board resolutions aren’t the answer, who decides what, if any, critiques of evolution get into the curriculum?
The short answer is – or should be – scientists decide. But many in the science establishment worry that teaching the controversy – even conflicts among scientists about some aspects of evolutionary theory – would open the door to creationist or other religious views. That’s why so many scientists and science educators oppose any attempt to expose kids to debate over intelligent design or any other challenge to evolution. … If the aim of science education is scientific literacy, then students must learn the prevailing theories in science. But if we expect them to believe what they hear, they must also learn something about the conflicts and controversies surrounding those theories.”

Robert Crowther, II

Robert Crowther holds a BA in Journalism with an emphasis in public affairs and 20 years experience as a journalist, publisher, and brand marketing and media relations specialist. From 1994-2000 he was the Director of Public and Media Relations for Discovery Institute overseeing most aspects of communications for each of the Institute's major programs. In addition to handling public and media relations he managed the Institute's first three books to press, Justice Matters by Roberta Katz, Speaking of George Gilder edited by Frank Gregorsky, and The End of Money by Richard Rahn.

Share