CSC - New Louisiana Bill on Evolution: A Wedge for Creationism or an Opportunity for Reason?

Link to Original Article

A few days ago, the Louisiana State Legislature approved a new bill concerning the teaching of evolution in public schools. The move has been heavily criticized by atheists and proponents of evolutionary theory.

A New York Times editorial calls the legislation an "Assault on Darwin" and joins the Louisiana Coalition for Science in urging Gov. Bobby Jindal to veto the bill. These efforts have been echoed in popular atheist and Darwinist havens like Richard Dawkins´ Web site.

The problem I have is, even though I'm an atheist, I like the bill. A lot.

The way public schools in America teach science simply isn´t working. Students don´t learn how exciting and dynamic scientific discovery can be. Instead, they memorize (or, at least, they try to memorize) dry facts and formulas. Rarely do they engage in the sort of critical thinking and comparative analysis that makes science such an integral part of civilization.

This new bill may be supported by those who wish to see Creationism and Intelligent Design taught in public schools. However, what the bill supports is exactly what American students need: encouragement to think critically about controversial topics.

To bill is designed to "create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

The author of the New York Times editorial criticizes the bill for suggesting there are legitimate explanations for humanity competing with evolutionary theory. Since there will presumably be no critical thinking about, say, the second law of thermodynamics, students will be encouraged to think that evolutionary theory is optional.

I don´t buy that line of criticism, because, frankly, many students already think evolutionary theory is optional. Banning a critical discussion of the topic in public schools will not help them understand the situation any better. It will likely have the reverse effect.

Furthermore, I don't know of any scientific advancement that occured because somebody failed to think critically about received wisdom.

Some atheists and scientists have further criticized the bill because of its disclaimer, which states that the bill is not meant to promote the teaching of religious ideas in school. The criticism is that such a disclaimer is unnecessary, and thus evidence of the legislators´ surreptitious motives.

Well, I don´t care about their motives. I care about what is in the bill. And the bill is good. The bill is right. The bill should be embraced by atheists and scientists throughout the world.

Opponents of the bill view it as part of a "wedge" strategy, which is meant to create a foothold for Creationism in the door of public education. Well, if promoting critical thinking is such a foothold, so be it. But I don´t think it is.

State law forbids the teaching of religious ideas in schools, and this new bill acknowledges the limitations mandated by that law.

As it happens, I´d like to see students discussing religion openly in public schools, though I couldn´t tolerate it unless they had textbooks which taught religion from a critical, scientific perspective, and not as something to be accepted as unquestionable fact.

In a better education system, students would discuss the difference between religion and science, and gain a better understanding of both in the process. This bill looks like a step in the right direction to me.

Ultimately, by reacting negatively to this bill, atheists and supporters of Darwinian evolutionary theory are proving their opponents right: they are acting like reason and the facts are not on their side. This could be enormously damaging to their cause.

In short, let the students hear it from all sides and discuss it in the classroom. Whatever the outcome, it can´t be worse than what we have now.