From Left Field
I imagine God sitting up in heaven (and everywhere else in the universe) right now reading The Guardian, flipping back to the International Briefs, and muttering to himself, "Look what this country is up to now. Oh yes, this is the same country on that little planet that had the big what-to-do in the 1920s about how and when I created them. Can't they just let me keep one secret? I mean seriously, I let them find out who Deep Throat was. Executive privilege, anyone?"
The whole question of how the earth came to be has always seemed one discoverable through the ability of the human mind. Processes of scientific thought and improvements of research methodologies provide clues, which lead to theories. These means of investigation can and do aid our scientists and scholars, whose knowledge should rightly be passed on to society at large. Climatic trends, chemical balances, fluctuations of ecosystems- understanding our world's history gives us the chance to make better decisions for agriculture, for commerce, for shelter, for survival.
The original Scopes trial focused on the how and when. It was Creationism vs. Evolution. It was Tyson vs. "Holy"field, with Creationism losing the ear that Peter took two thousand years before. Religious folks across the US were distraught. Public prayers, displays of nativity scenes and commandments fell out of vogue while tunics, sandals and long hair became popular with the godless hippies. It was the end of the world. It was time to change the focus. It was time for Intelligent Design.
The problem with Intelligent Design is that it does not set to prove anything in the scientific realm- it deals only in the philosophic. What neither side of this argument likes to admit is that no one really knows how or why the world came to be. It appears to me that this argument for placing ID into school curriculums is a last effort to infuse some bit of religion into our schools.
Though some liberals may disagree with me, I think its crucial that we provide some sort of instruction on religion in our schools. As a proud public school pupil, I think we had about 4 pages of Islam and about the same on Christianity in my world history class. Considering the large role of religion in world affairs, I thought even then that I was being short changed. Now short changed is hardly the tip of the iceberg.
Our schools should not be afraid to teach religion as a way of understanding culture. I don't see how we can honestly divorce the two. But we must be careful not to show preference for the practice of any one religion, or towards religion at all. If we're honest with our children, they'll appreciate it. Provided with a host of ideas, they may even become curious. And fostering curious children may be the most rewarding gift we can bestow on our youth.
And Out of Right Field
The debate around the new Scopes trial brings back a few vivid memories from days gone by. The first has to do with one of my high school science teachers, an avowed atheist, that taught the science of creation and then explained that some believe in a designer behind the design. Little more was said about the topic, but I left that classroom satisfied that both sides of a contentious old debate got a fair shake.
A few years later I found myself having a conversation with a fellow recruit in boot camp. This recruit explained to me that he doesn't believe in God because of his faith in science. I wondered aloud if God and science are mutually exclusive. My fellow recruit didn't have much of an answer and neither did I.
Fast forward several more years to a conversation with my Sunday school teacher. He surprised me by saying that there is strong evidence that the earth was created by something like a big bang. Like most Sunday school teachers, he had a full-time job outside of his church responsibilities. It just so happens that this Sunday school teacher doubles as a Physics professor Monday through Friday. So I guess I had my answer. God and science aren't mutually exclusive and it looks like God chose a bang as his method of choice to create the earth. A quick glance at Genesis doesn't rule out the possibility.
And today, I drive by a church and the sign out front reads, "'The big bang theory...not hardly' - God." Hmmmm. I wonder if my Sunday school teacher could ply his trade at that church. Not hardly.
My liberal friend is right when he intimates that we will never divine the truth about how this old ball started spinning around the sun. We'll only learn if there was an intelligent designer when we leave his design. So while we're postulating about how the design came into being, why not discuss the possibility of a designer? I don't see the harm in presenting the old teleological argument as one theory among many as to how we all got here. Just have the students look at the clock on the wall and tell them that some people believe that if one sees a clock, they can assume that someone made the clock. Same goes for the universe. The students are already staring at the clock waiting for the bell to ring so very little movement of the eyes will be necessary. Period. End of class.
The left fielder says that religion should be taught in the context of how it affects culture. He's right. However, there is no more harm in presenting one theory about creation alongside all the others than there is by granting equal time to Christianity, Islam, Judaism as they relate to culture. My high school science teacher did it with apparent ease and I'm unaware of any long-lasting emotional scars among my classmates. As my Sunday school teacher showed me, my fellow recruit was wrong to assume that God and science are mutually exclusive. Should schools perpetuate that error? Not hardly.
