ORANGE COUNTY VOICES: CLASSROOM CONTROVERSY : Debate on Life’s Origin Is Really on Philosophies : Scientists don’t agree as to how we got here, so why should I be forced to teach that science has all the answers?

The time has come for the long-debated and, it seems, unending creation versus evolution issue to be exposed for what it is--two diametrically opposed religious philosophies that present explanations for how and why life exists on this planet.

The evolutionists argue, with increasing intensity, that evolution is a fact. They maintain that evolution is no more controversial than gravity or electricity, yet the issue remains a heated controversy. What makes evolutionism a fact? A majority opinion does not. Comparing evolutionism to empirical science does not. Therefore, how can a science teacher in good conscience teach evolutionism as a fact when the mechanisms for the alleged changes remain, even today with all our scientific knowledge, a complete mystery?

The idea of descent from a common ancestor as postulated by Darwin is based solely on faith, rendering it 100% religious. It seems that the “fact of evolution” is only in the minds of those who choose to accept it as their belief system.

If evolutionism is science, then let those who believe it to be such defend it on the basis of its scientific merits only, not by attacking creationism.

The creation model is a religious conception that cannot be supported scientifically. That is why I do not teach creationism in my biology class. Science classes are for science lessons, not dogma, which is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. So why am I being forced to teach the religion of evolutionism in my classroom?

The purpose of education is to consider the evidence, which, if presented non-dogmatically, will enable us to learn about what is alleged to be the scientific nature of evolutionism. If it is science, then let it be supported by itself, without the typical attacks on the “unbelieving” individual’s personality or credentials--and without the overused illogical reasoning that creationism is religious and therefore evolutionism must be science.

My refusal to accept the evolutionism-as-fact mentality is not directed against those who ascribe to its belief but rather against accepting a theory that cannot be subjected to a scientific test.

Evolutionists point to the large number of scientists and scientific journals that “accept” evolutionism as the only explanation for the origin of life, all the while not citing a shred of empirical data that legitimizes it as a valid scientific theory. Microevolutionary changes, or, more suitably, variation within species, is not in question; these changes can be observed and recorded through scientific investigation.

A noted biologist (and agnostic), Michael Denton, asks: “Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which--a functional protein or gene--is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?”

The scientific community is not in agreement as to how life got here on this planet, so why should I be forced to teach that science has all the answers when it clearly does not?

Let those who believe evolutionism is science have their belief, but they shouldn’t call it science, and they shouldn’t teach it as such to the children.

Isn’t it time we adults stopped being intellectually dishonest with ourselves and with those we influence, and accept the fact that creationism and evolutionism are religious concepts?

I believe that life is the result of intelligent design as opposed to random chance. I do not try to prove this scientifically. That would be impossible. But neither do I promote this belief to my students. If you choose to believe in creationism, that is an act of faith. If you choose to believe that life evolved by random chance, that is an act of faith too.

In addition to the pressure to teach religious evolutionism in my class, I have also been directed to refrain from role-modeling moral absolutes in and out of class. The education code states in part: “Teachers shall endeavor to impress upon the minds of their students the principles of morality, truth, justice and patriotism.” Whose morality? The officials of Capistrano Unified School District have directed me to stop role-modeling moral absolutes to my students by demanding that I somehow stop being a Christian when I come to school. I do not proselytize my students, in or out of class. I do my best to model appropriate behaviors to my students, as directed by the state, and will continue to do so despite pressure to do otherwise.

It seems that despite the laws to prohibit it, moral relativism or situational ethics is the “value” system our public school system is promoting.

Being aware of these conflicting world views should not prohibit science teachers such as I from presenting the abundance of circumstantial evidence related to the issue of origins. Students will always benefit from being given the opportunity to critically evaluate the data themselves, drawing their own conclusions and forming their own opinions. Science teachers should only present scientific data in their classes, never religious dogma, thus the rationale for why I never teach religious evolutionism or creationism under the guise of science. I teach science only, never religion.