The State Board of Education is going to meet in January to debate whether to accept two biology textbooks that espouse the theory of evolution as the basis for the modern scientific understanding of life. Apparently concerns were raised over comments made by former Clemson professor Horace Skipper who criticised the books because "I didn't see where they had the scientific support that I think public schools need in a textbook." Having not read the textbooks, I have decided to comment on this issue only from a general, theoretical perspective.
First, the theory of evolution is not just a theory, as many of its detractors like to point out. If one ascribes to the paradigmatic view of science as illustrated in the classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, then one surely must concede that the theory of evolution ushered in a paradigm shift in scientific thought. It did not answer the questions, it framed the debate, rescued science from a series of pitfalls and red herrings, and brought about a new lense through which to look at our world. If one is a pragmatist, in the sense that one believes that truth is that which is proven through experience and results, then it is difficult to look at the relationship between science and technology as it exists today, as it has evolved since the paradigm shift brought about by Darwin's classic theory, and to deny that evolution essentially "works". Scientific research from within the evolutionary paradigm has given us cures for diseases once thought incurable, the cloning of entire organisms, the mapping and understanding of the human genome, the ability to turn stem cells into functioning organs, and the subsequent ability to turn other cells into stem cells.
The truth of the matter is that evolution is not up for debate in the scientific community. The only real topic for debate on evolution is at what level it occurs (e.g. macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution). That our State Board of Education would deny what has proven itself to be the truth to our students is alarming. I can only figure two possible reasons that this debate even exists today, one political and one based on the frailties of human nature.
The political, and largely cynical, view is that the members of the State Board of Education who consider themselves proponents of creationism or "intelligent design" (my favorite oxymoron) are simply pandering to what they perceive as their base, much like the Presidential candidates pander to the far reaches of their "base" in the primaries. This is why we see John McCain speaking at Jerry Falwell's "university", Mitt Romney getting a hunting license, or Hillary Clinton "singing" traditional African-American spirituals. Now we have conservative members of the State Board of Education pandering to what they consider to be their base: uneducated, religious conservatives. If I were one who considered myself a conservative, I would personally be offended that these people truly believe that they can placate me and reserve my support through passing off such rubbish on the already beleaguered South Carolina student.
The only other explanation I can think of for this aberration is one based on the frailties of human nature. This is based on my perception that many religious people think that there is a necessary conflict between evolutionary science and Christian faith. In short, these people are so afraid of going to Hell that they cannot possibly accept that the Bible might not be literally written. This is the frailty of human nature- fear of the unknown. The Bible, particularly as read by many of those on the more conservative side of religion, provides a quick and easy way to eternal bliss. Anything professing to be "knowledge" that may conflict with that path to bliss must be vehemently denied and hidden from the marketplace of ideas. My only answer to these people is that religion is an epistemology of faith. Science is an epistemology of reason. These are two entirely different ways of looking at the world, addressing very different subjects, and each ought to be separate. Just as Jefferson argued for the separation of church and state, I argue for the separation of church and science. When viewed properly, I believe that religion and science can be just as copacetic as apple pie and ice cream.
Ultimately, the dogmatic adherence to religious views when applied to scientific study will produce the same false beliefs that lead us to the "understanding" of spontaneous generation. Similarly, a dogmatic adherence to scientific views when applied outside of their scope will produce the same false beliefs that lead us to Social Darwinism and the Holocaust. We must temper our beliefs and our understandings. To the SC Board of Education I beseech you, please separate science and religion, please temper your views, open your eyes to the world around you- a world of shades of grey and nuanced understanding, not a world of black and white, good and evil.
