I was reading this article on CNN last week, and I started thinking about evolution and some of the points in the article.
In Washington state, when students ask teacher Faye Haas about the role of a higher being in the origin of life, she tells them: “That’s religion, that’s a belief, it’s not science theory.”
Genius! She is exactly right (although I’m going to take it in another direction). All theories about the origin of the universe are philosophical in nature–they are beliefs. Even beliefs that presuppose a naturalistic beginning.
In order for it to be a “science” it must be repeatable. It must be explainable. It must be observable. And as far as I can tell, the origin of the world does not meet any of those criteria.
The article continues:
“The thing about a (scientific) theory is it’s supported by a large body of evidence,” said Haas, a former biology instructor who teaches high school chemistry in a suburb of Seattle. “To spend half the time talking about things that speak against it doesn’t make any sense.”
I love how the writer adds “(scientific)” into the article to help clarify how “scientific” the theory of evolution must be. He (or she) gives creedence to the theory by adapting the quote.
Mainly, however, this brings to mind the absurdity of their argument. Haas purports that speaking against what is “acceptable” doesn’t make any sense. If people never spoke against science, the world would be flat, the universe would revolve around the earth, leeches would be an effective cure for disease…and the list could go on.
So I wonder…if you can’t say with absolutely certainty–what’s the harm of teaching both sides?