Not Much Evolution In The Creationism Debate

Suppose you're a candidate for school board in Texas. Suppose further that a reporter for the local newspaper asks you this question, "Are you in favor or opposed to the teaching of Creationism in science classes?"

The question sounds like a simple yes/no question, but it's anything but simple. Importantly, the question is not equivalent to asking, "Do you believe in Creationism?" Also, it's not equivalent to asking, "Will you attempt to include Creationism in the curriculum for science classes?" To do the question justice, it's important to provide both a yes/no answer and answers to the questions, "Why?" and "How will your beliefs influence your behavior as a school board trustee?"

So, how would you answer? After the jump, I examine the different tacks that might be taken.

---

The most obvious possible answers to the question, "Are you in favor of the teaching of Creationism in science classes?" might be:

1. Opposed. Creationism is not science and should not be taught in science class.

2. Opposed. Creationism is not science and should not be taught in science class. Perhaps in a social studies context, Creationism, along with various Hindu and Buddhist beliefs concerning the beginning of humanity, can be taught, discussed and debated.

3. Neither in favor nor opposed. The curriculum standards are set by the State Board of Education (SBOE). The SBOE neither mandates nor forbids the teaching of Creationism. Legal precedent allows for some discussion of Creationism but only in a strictly constrained fashion. So whether it should be taught in science class or not and how it should be taught are best decided only after consultation with teachers, administrators, parents and community members. My personal beliefs concerning Creationism do not play a role in that process.

   The last sentence of this answer might alternatively be, I do have an opinion concerning Creationism but it's only an opinion, not a final judgment. I will keep my opinion to myself for now, in order to keep an open mind and not prejudge the issue.

4. In favor. Creationism is a valid theory concerning the origin and diversity of life on Earth and should be taught in science class alongside alternative theories such as evolution by natural selection.

5. In favor. I believe Creationism is the best explanation for the origin and diversity of life on Earth and should be taught in science class.

None of these answers is comprehensive and satisfying. A candidate who gave either answer (1) or (2) would share my personal belief. I would not support a candidate who gave either answer (4) or (5). Answer (3) dodges the question. It may best capture the role of a school board member and the importance of getting community input; it may answer the question "Why?" but it doesn't answer the yes/no question itself. For me, the best answer would be some kind of combination of answers (2) and (3). Maybe this:

Opposed. The curriculum standards are set by the State Board of Education (SBOE). The SBOE neither mandates nor forbids the teaching of Creationism. Legal precedent allows for some discussion of Creationism but only in a strictly constrained fashion. The question whether it should be taught or not is best decided only after consultation with teachers, administrators, parents and community members. I personally believe that Creationism is not science and should not be taught in science class. Perhaps in a social studies context, Creationism, along with various Hindu and Buddhist beliefs concerning the beginning of humanity, can be taught, discussed and debated. That is the position I would advocate when collaborating with others to set district policy. In the end, as a school board member, I would be obligated to adhere to whatever the law and SBOE and district policy are.

Some of my answer incorporates words spoken by an actual RISD school board candidate. However, my purpose is not to endorse or disapprove of any individual candidate, so I won't name names.