The Evolution Debate

The debate on how evolution should be taught in American high schools is old. Kitzmiller vs. Dover is just the latest brawl. I have heard many viewpoints on the issue and they usually boil down to the following two main lines.

(1) Teach evolution only.
(2) Teach both evolution and Biblical Creationism. Or, if you prefer to call it by a different name, Intelligent Design.

As you might have noticed, the above two options do not form an exhaustive matrix. The four missing options that complete the matrix are:

(3) Teach Biblical Creationism only.
(4) Teach neither.
(5) Teach all possible Origin theories.
(6) Teach a non-trivial subset of all possible Origin theories that does not include Biblical Creationism or evolution.

Here's a discussion question that comes from all this. Why teach Biblical Creationism? Why not Hindu Creationism? It is funner. Really. If you don't believe me, consider that Hindu mythology has waaay more sex and alcohol. Word.

Why not teach Norse Creationism? What makes these creation hypotheses less compelling than the Christian creation hypothesis?

The standard argument is the argument from numbers. The argument is that the majority of Americans are Christians and so believes in the Christian version. Therefore the choice is clear.

My weighty, well-pondered, scientific response to that is: Fiddlesticks! The quality of a theory is entirely divorced from the number of subscribers to the theory. There was a time when the majority held to the idea that the earth is flat. Take that, Behe.

No religious creationist story is more credible than another. Without empirical evidence and testable ideas to back it up, any story is as good as the next. If you hold the door open for one, you might as well invite everybody else in.

My opinion is that the sensible approach is to teach the best-fit theory with the disclaimer that it is not an absolute truth, but only a reflection of the state of the art that most accurately explains observed reality. Darwinian evolution is the best-fit theory that most accurately explains observed reality.

On a related note, the most brilliant refutation of Darwinian evolution that I have personally ever heard came from a Senator in Arkansas, "If we teach kids that they were descended from monkeys, don't you think they'll act like monkeys?"

Yes, that is an actual quote.

If you ask me, I don't find it surprising that we are descended from monkeys and apes (which, technically speaking, we are not). I find it surprising that some of us, including senators, haven't quite made that leap yet.

[To be continued]