Creationism vs. evolution: Ethics and Religion Talk

Matt Vande Bunte | By Matt Vande Bunte |
Follow on Twitter
on May 07, 2013 at 8:11 AM, updated May 07, 2013 at 8:12 AM
A1GODH_TU_C_^_TUEIQEthics and Religion Talk considers what school teachers should teach about the origin of the world: evolution and/or Creationism? 

GRAND RAPIDS, MI - It's National Teachers Day. Do you appreciate what Michigan schools teach about the origins of the universe and the beginning of life?

In this week's Ethics and Religion Talk, Rabbi David Krishef and his panel of clergy consider this question:

“Given that evolution is widely accepted scientific theory, is it ethical for religious schools to de-emphasize scientific support for evolution, and is it ethical for secular schools to ignore Creationism?”

Ethics and Religion Talk, by Rabbi David Krishef

From the panel:

  • The Rev. David Christian, a pastor of Resurrection Life Church in Grandville
    Not only is it ethical for religious schools to teach Creationism alongside evolution, it's unethical for public schools not to. I say this not to project my religion on you, but from a scientific viewpoint.

    “The ‘given’ in the question is true, but an increasing number of reputable scientists maintain that real science supports Creationism more than evolution. The companion assumption in the question is also widely accepted in our educational system, that science and Creationism are mutually exclusive. If you care to witness the bias on this issue, see the 2008 movie 'Expelled,' by Ben Stein.

    “Given that evolutionists have abandoned Darwin's gradualism (due to lack of evidence), and are now presenting punctuated equilibrium, they are faced with the need to produce evidence of even greater forward leaps of evolutionary mutation, of which there are still none.

    “The code sequences in your DNA are instructions equivalent to language. If all the DNA used in your body were typed, it would go from here to the moon 100,000 times, or fill the Grand Canyon 40 times. Yet, all your DNA wouldn't fill two teaspoons. Your DNA can only be produced with the aid of 20 different proteins, but the proteins are produced at the direction of your DNA. They had to jointly come into existence.

    Only an Intelligent Designer could do this.

    “What if the scientific data were plainly taught as information, and people could freely choose their own conclusions as to origins? (‘We report, you decide.’) Currently, evolution is presented as a conclusion, when it's truly only a theory.”

  • Sister Mary Timothy Prokes a member of the Franciscan Sisters of the Eucharist in Lowell
    “In contrasting ‘evolution’ and ‘Creationism’ it is essential to know how these terms are understood. They are often used with different meanings. Further, they require teachers well-prepared in different disciplines of study. ‘Evolution’ deals with scientific theories regarding the origin and development of material realities. ‘Creationism’ in its various uses is rooted in philosophical, biblical, and theological sources.

    From a Catholic perspective, it is not a matter of eliminating authentic findings of either science or faith. Education should pursue truth. Science seeks to verify theories through experimentation, instrumentation and replication. Theology fully employs human reason, but probes divine revelation which culminates in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ. The ethical position for any school, within its purpose and limitations, is a genuine respect for truth.

    “Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI noted a ‘fierce debate’ in both Germany and the United States ‘raging between so-called “Creationism"' and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favor of evolution, which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other hand, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: Where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe that this is of the utmost importance.’”

My position is very similar to Sister Mary Timothy’s: Using Genesis as a basis for teaching science ignores the fact that there are two distinct creation stories -- Genesis 1-2:4a and Genesis 2:4b-24. Here are some differences:

In Chapter 1, the order of creation of plant and animal life is vegetation, air and sea animals, land animals and human beings, both male and female. In Chapter 2, the order is the man, the garden (a place to live, food to eat), animals (for a companion) and, finally, woman (animals were not suitable companions).

In Chapter 1, human beings are commanded to fill the earth and master it with no restrictions. In Chapter 2, man is commanded to work the land and protect it, and he is warned that part of the garden is off limits.

In Chapter 1, the pinnacle of creation is the Sabbath, and the story ends with God resting after blessing the seventh day and declaring it holy. In Chapter 2, the focus of the story is the man and woman - everything was created for their sake, and there is no mention of the sabbath.

It is beyond the scope of this column to analyze the purpose of each of the creation stories. But the fact that there are two stories which fundamentally contradict each other is sufficient to prove that the beginning of Genesis cannot be used to teach a scientific, historical process of creation and/or evolution. Therefore, to use Genesis as a basis for teaching about the evolution of the world is bad science, no matter where or how it is taught.
