Evolution or bust

There is a continuing debate that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the classroom. Advocates believe evolution should not be the only explanation for the 'origin of life' presented to our students. \nWhat is astonishing is the amount of disinformation surrounding the issue and, indeed, that the debate exists at all.\nProponents of creationism as an alternative to evolution have presented numerous arguments and doggedly come up with new stances each time the old are successfully rebutted by the science community. Hence, I have little hope in discussing them all comprehensively here. I encourage you to visit the National Center for Science Education Web site (www.ncseweb.org), which does. But I will address some of the more recent and/or blatantly erroneous statements on the "controversy" surrounding evolution.\nTo begin, evolution is not about the origins of life. The existence of life is assumed. Biological evolution is the cumulation of change in living organisms through time, or using Charles Darwin's words, "descent with modification." It is based on a concept of shared ancestry between all living things.\nThere is a duplicitous tactic by creationists to adopt euphemisms. The most recent is 'intelligent design theory,' which has been misconstrued as different from creationism. In truth, it is a revamp of an idea first put forth by the eighteenth-century theologian, William Paley. He argued that the presence of order and complexity in nature was proof of an omniscient designer -- God. If not, how else could they exist? The correct answer, of course, is via evolution. Do not be fooled; intelligent design is creation 'science.'\nIndeed, the notion that creationism/intelligent design is science is a fallacy. The American Heritage Dictionary defines science as "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Under this definition, intelligent design fails to qualify as science. \n As intelligent design is not science, there is no place for such ideologies in the science curriculum.\nAnother suggestion has been to teach evolution, but to also present evidence against evolution. This is ridiculous as no such evidence exists (just as there is no evidence supporting intelligent design or any other form of creationism). Every argument raised by creationists against evolution has been discredited by evolutionary biologists. If that statement troubles you, I refer you to the book, Evolutionary Biology (Life Sciences Library; QH366.2.F87). In there you will find a detailed section on 'Refuting Creationist Arguments.' \nSome school boards have adopted the alternative strategy of 'disclaimers' in the front of school texts discussing evolutionary theory. While not advertising religion, such caveats discourage the teaching of evolution and undermine science education. Thankfully, as of Nov. 2001, Alabama remained the only state to persist with the practice.\nYou can cite apparent 'experts' disparaging evolution until the cows come home or advocate an open mind when it comes to intelligent design. But the fact remains that creationism is not a credible antithesis to evolution and cannot be taught as such in the classroom without seriously misleading students. Neither biology nor earth science can be taught outside the context of evolution, or with a watered down version of evolution. To do so would fatally weaken the teaching of science in this country and leave our students for the poorer.