I agree that, in a science class, “all the different scientific views” should be taught. However, beliefs about supernatural entities and causes fall outside the limits of what can properly be called “science.”
“Origins” is a not a scientific term. Some things, like the creation of the universe itself, or of the soul, are not part of science. Other things, like the origin of the Earth, or of living organisms, is part of science.
As the pope wrote, the origin of all living species from a common ancestor is “virtually certain.” He cites the large body of evidence from which this conclusion is inferred.
The data, as the Pope says, are clear. And they support one conclusion, not several.
The last significant scientist to endorse polygenesis was a creationist (Agassiz) who strongly disagreed with Darwin. I know of no scientist of any consequence, not even a creationist, who now accepts polygenesis.
Geology can show us that Yosemite Valley was carved by glaciers rather than by Noah’s Flood.
Like I said, there are no theories of origins which are scientific. The study of origins belongs to the field of history, not science. You cannot prove scientifically what did or did not happen. The best you can hope for is what could or could not happen. Even if you could prove that evolution could have occurred, you cannot prove that it did occur.
No, it can’t. The only way to prove whether a historical fact is true or not is by an absolutely reliable witness. Unless you were there at the time, you cannot prove it.
The study of the origin of the universe is called cosmology. The study of the origin of life is known as abiogenisis (or sometimes chemical evolution). Both are indeed sciences that have a historical element, much like archaeology, anthropology, geology—and, yes, evolutionary biology.
Science does not propose to “prove” things in any mathematical or syllogistic sense. No scientific principle yields “proof” in this manner. However, scientific theories provide models of the natural world that are supported by empirical data, and which can be held with a very high degree of confidence. Such theories as gravitation, the sphericity of the earth, heliocentrism, the laws of motion, cell theory, atomic theory, etc. do not “prove” the material realities they model, but few of us would discard them on that basis. Likewise with the theory of evolution, which is held within science with the very highest degree of confidence which the sciences provide.
I didn’t say “prove” – you added that word!
Call it whatever you want. Unless you have an eyewitness, you don’t know what happened.
Then science is no more certain than religion. If we were having this discussion in, say, 1825, the scientists would be swearing up and down that the inheritance of acquired characteristics was a known fact and not open to discussion. Prior to Pasteur, scientists knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that mice formed in piles of wheat. Their level of confidence was just as high then as it is now but guess what, they were very very wrong.
If you can’t prove evolution, then it is no better a belief than a belief in a six-day creation. In that case there is no reason to teach one view and not the other.
Gary, you don’t quite seem to understand how science works. In science everything is provisional and subject to correction. The Lamarckian theory of acquired characteristics was disproven by biologists precisely because it did not stand up to empirical tests.
Gary, if we are going to teach alternatives to the evolutionary story, we need to teach the Mayan myth in the Popol Vuh, and the Earth Diver myth from the Cherokee, as well as the Hebrew myth in Genesis 1-3.
The Popl Vuh
You’re (wrongly) equating “knowledge” with “mathematical certainty.” Yet, much scientific evidence is the result of indirect observation and testing. Observation doesn’t have to be direct and immediate for science to yield models of the world that bear a high degree of confidence. So, then, one doesn’t have to have absolute mathematical certainty of something (and how many things that we accept as true can we really claim such certainty for?) in order to claim “knowledge” of that thing. In fact, most of what you “know” is based upon secondhand information that can in no way be considered certain.
Who said anything about “certainty”? Science holds particular empirical views with confidence, while religion holds various theological views with confidence.
Hardly, since it was scientists who quickly falsified Lamarck’s particular mechanism for evolution. After nearly 150 years of scientific testing and theorizing, however, scientists have yet to “disprove” Darwin’s case for natural selection. There is nothing in science that is “not open to discussion.”
In any case, if Darwin’s theory ever is falsified (and that doesn’t appear likely), scientists will simply search for other empirically-based models for the development of life-forms on earth. Divine causes, however—being, as they are, religious convictions—will not be among such genuinely scientific theories.
Sorry, but this deserves a hearty
! I hear this all the time, and can’t help but smile. The scientific theory of evolution by natural selection is based upon a mountain of empirical data and evidence collected over a century-and-a-half of rigorous study. Religious beliefs are based upon divine revelation (in the case of Catholicism: Scripture and Tradition). I accept evolution on the basis of both direct and indirect observation regarding the application of scientific methodology. I affirm divine creation (the theological doctrine that God created all things other than himself) on the basis of divine revelation. Acknowledging evolution as a genuine process in nature in no way requires or employs “faith” in the same sense as that “faith” which we are called upon by the Christian tradition to exercise. Such a claim is, sadly, as uninformed as it is naive. 
Sure there is, and it’s this: Evolution is an empirically-based scientific conclusion, while “six-day creation” is a revelation-based theological conviction. The reason to teach evolution in the science classroom is that it qualifies as “science,” whereas creationism does not. (Now, that doesn’t mean that the doctrine of creation isn’t true, only that it isn’t science.)
And, I assume you are also referring to having a reliable eyewitness. Just any old eyewitness may not do. But, then, how do you determine the reliability of the eyewitness? Another eyewitness, perhaps? Is it " …eyewitnesses all the way down"?
Not to mention that eyewitness testimony isn’t necessarily all that it’s cracked up to be; see, for example writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.htmlDon, I like to point out to seminary students that there is no contradiction between creation and evolution, because to confuse them is to commit a category mistake. Asking whether you believe in creation or evolution is like asking whether a ball is spherical or purple, assuming it’s one or the other.
What I understand is that teaching creationism is condemned because God cannot be proven in the lab yet the same people are telling me that science does not prove anything in the lab either. However, any ridiculous idea that someone labels science can be taught. That is hypocrisy.
Creationism isn’t allowed in the classroom because it is not science. Science doesn’t deal with supernatural explanations. The rejection of creationism has nothing to do with whether God can be proven in a lab, it has to do with the fact that science is concerned with the natural world.
Actually, Lamarckian evolution never enjoyed the popular support of the scientific community the way the modern evolutionary synthesis has.
And what new discoveries would those be? And tell me, what would replace evolution? What new theory would explain bacterial mutation, and the fusion of two genes in humans?
The evidence supports modern geology? Seems like an excellent reason to me.