Science and scripture.

Abstract

In their Editorial about the purging of evolution and cosmology from Kansas' public school curriculum requirements ( Science 's Compass, 17 Sept., p. 1847), R. Brooks Hanson and Floyd E. Bloom rightly criticize the lack of political leadership from those who might otherwise be expected to be science's most ardent advocates. Their observation that the Kansas decision “is not an isolated action” and is only “the tip of an iceberg of ignorance” takes on added force when one surveys the current political scene. When asked about the decision of Kansas' State Board of Education, Vice President Al Gore is reported to have said, “Localities should be free to teach creationism.” My first thought was that the vice president's statement was intentionally calculated not to offend a potent constituency in his bid to become president. But Hanson and Bloom's analysis suggests a more troubling possibility for the vice president's response: He simply may not understand the issues. Scientific literacy may be the most important criterion for culling acceptable candidates for high office. Politicians who would sit still for the dumbing down of educational standards will not be successful as we approach the next millennium. # {#article-title-2} Regarding the Editorial by Hanson and Bloom, there is one point of clarification that is important: Numerous political figures have come out in opposition to the depletion of science education standards, including those relevant to the teaching of evolution. Kansas governor Bill Graves, a moderate Republican, immediately supported the teaching of evolution. State legislators have been vocal too; one senator is advancing the idea of legislation requiring that all students admitted to the state universities know the concepts of evolution. There is already one announced candidate for the Kansas State Board of Education who opposes the current direction of that board. Many in Kansas are embarrassed that this has happened to us, but to be fair, many political figures have in fact been supportive of good science standards. # {#article-title-3} As a scientist who holds strong religious convictions and teaches in a Christian university, I would like to comment on what I see as the unfortunate approach to evolution that the Kansas State Board of Education has taken. It is my opinion that eliminating teaching about evolution and cosmology will not further the cause of evangelical Christianity, or of any faith. In fact, as I tell my students, I don't care whether you believe it or not, if you are going to be taken seriously in the world, you'd better understand it completely. Hanson and Bloom refer to “certain biblical literalists [who] would prefer that their young listeners not confront scripture with overwhelming scientific evidence.” It is too bad that there is such misunderstanding between scientists who embrace evolution completely and those of us who believe in the authority of the scriptures. We have confronted scriptures with overwhelming scientific evidence and have come away with an unshaken faith in those scriptures, while understanding how some could see evolution as part of what happened during the birth of the planet. Scripture and science do not represent a dichotomy. Any faith worth holding can stand scrutiny, whether it is a faith in scripture or a faith in evolution. Dialogue is not something to be feared. Sometimes the scientific community seems to be as afraid of creationists—and to misunderstand them as much—as the creationists are of the scientists.