Ernest Dempsey — New theories and inventions, innovations, designs, and revisions—all must not fool you into believing that science 
is adding to its objectivity and credibility. Strategies operating outside the science realm can also determine how to present what science is and where its epistemological boundaries lie. As we speak of it, a proposed law in the state of Tennessee seeks to let teachers teach creationism as a viable theory of the origin of life on earth, as against the generally accepted Darwinian theory of evolution among scientists.
This law, which is said to be supported by the Republicans, has not been passed yet but is said to be close to approval, possibly making Tennessee the second state in US after Louisiana to teach “intelligent design” in classrooms in the state, implying to the young recipients of knowledge that a higher being was possibly the cause of the life we see on this planet. Scientists are obviously not happy with the Monkey Bill, as it is called, and are asking the state governor to veto it.
Whether creationism qualifies for being called a ‘theory’ is a separate question, and one very much open to discussion. The interesting point here is the way “scientific” is stretched to include things otherwise would have been filtered out. Instead of scientists deciding what is scientific, lawmakers are deciding it. As news have it, the proposed law is meant to encourage students to critically look at the current theory of life’s origin and persistence. This “reason” is but lame for more than one reason.
First, this simply falls outside of the domain of science. When you talk reason and critique, you are talking logic – in other words, the entire discussion should be in a philosophy class not in science where you study accepted facts based on scientific evidences, e.g., of Darwinian kind, satisfying physiochemical principles and supported by lab-testable materials and methods. Can we test the “higher being” in this way? Doesn’t sound very practicable, unless of course the definition of “testable” is also tailored—again not by science but by administrative authority—to serve the intended extension of meaning.
Adding to this, the move toward bringing creationism as life’s explanation in science by state law is akin to dividing science down administratively without any backing in the realm of knowledge. What would logically account for having different explanations of life on earth in two different states in a country? It sounds inconceivable that now the crown would decide what scientific is while the same won’t hold true a few miles away across the state boundary.
Science has been called a democratic system by scholars. But it certainly wasn’t in this political sense as the Monkey Bill proposes. Political democracy too has its own set of rules. It doesn’t remain democracy if by a state law you dictate that only those voting for Republicans can use ballots, for even though the voting system will remain intact, the basic principle of democracy is violated. Science is similar; you violate its “scientific” nature by riding the legal steed and dragging it behind by the rope of legislation in its neck.
Hopefully, Tennessee will not see the proposed Monkey Bill taking effect as a state law; instead, trash it as monkey business.
Have you ever been misled about a person? Maybe you heard others talk about him or quote him. You expected to dislike him—only to find, on getting to know him, that he had been misrepresented. Many have had such an experience regarding the Bible.
More than a few educated people take a dim view of the Bible. Can you understand why? That book is often represented or quoted in such a way that it sounds unreasonable, unscientific, or just plain wrong. Is it possible that the Bible has been misrepresented?
You may be surprised to learn that what the Bible says is scientifically accurate. Many people are. They are equally surprised to learn that the Bible does not say some of the things that many religions claim that it says. Some say, for example, that the Bible teaches that God made the universe and all life in it within six 24-hour days. In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts scientists’ various estimates on the age of the universe or the earth.
Furthermore, the Bible’s brief outline of how God brought life into being on this planet leaves ample room for scientific inquiry and theory. The Bible does state that God created all life and that living things are made “according to their kinds.” (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) These statements may be at odds with certain scientific theories, but not with established scientific fact. The history of science shows that theories come and go; the facts remain.
There are many people, though, who hesitate to investigate the Bible because they are disillusioned with religion. They look at organized religion and see hypocrisy, corruption, warmongering. But is it fair to judge the Bible by the behavior of some who claim to represent it? Many humane and sincere scientists have been horrified by the way that some violent bigots have used the evolution theory to support their racist aims. Would it be fair to judge the theory of evolution on that basis? Surely it is better to investigate the theory’s claims and compare them with the available evidence.
You may be pleasantly surprised to learn how profoundly the Bible’s teachings differ from those of most organized religions. Far from promoting wars and ethnic violence, the Bible teaches that God’s servants must repudiate war and even the hatred that leads to such violence. (Isaiah 2:2-4; Matthew 5:43, 44; 26:52) Far from advocating fanaticism and belief without evidence, the Bible teaches that evidence is essential to genuine faith and that the power of reason is an indispensable aid to serving God. (Romans 12:1; Hebrews 11:1) Far from squelching curiosity, the Bible encourages us to probe some of the most fascinating and challenging questions that humans have ever faced.
For example, have you ever wondered, ‘If there is a God, why does he allow wickedness?’ The Bible addresses that question, as well as many others, in a satisfying way. I urge you to pursue your quest for truth. You can find answers that are fascinating, thrilling, reasonable—and based on convincing evidence. And that is no accident.