EVOLUTION is a topic in the field of science that has managed to inspire controversy along every avenue that it crosses. Since the days of John Scopes, who was arrested for teaching the theories of Darwinism, religion and its beliefs on the creation of man have clashed constantly with the theories of evolution. Now, there is a new controversy over the teaching of evolution in the Ohio school system. Soon, the state Board of Education will vote on whether or not to include the presence of an omniscient being into the teaching of evolutionary theory. While this is a good attempt to incorporate and find a middle ground between religion and science, this is not the solution to the age-old debate. In schools, evolution and religion should be kept separate from each other, because it would be an insult to both if the two were integrated.
Unlike other debates, in which creationism is pitted against evolution, this proposal - while it deems the teaching of evolutionary theory to be permissible - is also in favor of acknowledging the existence of an omniscient being. Known as intelligent design, this theory claims that all beings were "designed" by an omniscient being, regardless of whether evolution occurred or not.
The school system of Ohio has undergone many changes since the old curriculum was deemed to be too ambiguous on scientific points. In a similar case in Kansas, newly implemented proposals aim to overturn a policy that was set in 1999, which removed many references to evolution from the curriculum. By creating a more scientifically oriented program with a direct reference to God, supporters of this proposal believe this to be a suitable compromise.
However, there are a number of flaws in thinking that this solves the problems. This proposal, while attempting to make a compromise, sacrifices the validity of both religion and science. Religion is out of place when compared to the rigorous proofs and research that scientific laws go through. Scientific theories, until they have been proven by modern standards, are not permitted to be taught in classrooms, and unless God's existence can be proven by scientific methods, it does not belong in a science classroom either.
Of course, this is not to denounce the merits of religion. Religion has and always will be based on a certain degree of faith. Religion, at many times, has no need for scientific explanation, because so many of its noble and miraculous events defy the stiff constructs of science. In many ways, it is the opposite of science: While science restricts itself with rules and theories that are self-imposed, religion is able to accept amazing happenings as being "just so" instead of needing to justify itself with theories that are created by humans. Religion accepts that God is able to do things beyond a human's comprehension, whereas science cannot.
For these reasons, both the scientific and religious world-view put themselves in a compromising situation in trying to blend the two together. Furthermore, while this compromise may please those students and faculty who follow religion but are not devout, it may offend those on either side of the spectrum. An atheist as well as a deeply religious person would not like to see their respective views tainted. The school board must remember that even though they may be pleasing the majority of moderately religious students with such a compromise, they are not accounting for the atheists, the deeply religious, nor those who practice a religion that does not teach creationism. The offense given to these respective groups needs to be noted.
Hopefully, the debate about teaching evolution and religion in schools will come to an abrupt end. In a free-willed and educational environment, students have the right to believe and not believe whatever they like. For this reason, no one should feel the need to compromise their belief systems. Science should remain as science, and religion should remain as religion. The mixing of the two should be left up to the individual student to deterimine rather than a school board.
(Kevin James Wong's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at kwong@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
