Letter to Science Teachers

I wrote this when I was working with a group that wanted to develop curriculum around a way of teaching the science of origins, the idea is called "intelligent design." The idea is that even if you do not buy the Genesis account, there is a vast body of evidence that calls evolution as it is taught into question. Instead, the evidence seems to point, at least, to some kind of intelligent design.

Dear Science Teacher:

The enclosed material is designed for every science teacher dedicated to teaching their students the most they possibly can about the science of their world. In particular, the enclosed material is designed to aid you in teaching the essentials of the science of origins in your classroom. Before you discard this material, we only ask that you read the content with some care. If you feel that there are significant inaccuracies in the material, we would appreciate your feedback. If you feel as we do, that the material represents a significant addition to the study of origins at the preparatory level, we invite you to use all or part of the material as a supplement to your existing text on this topic.

This material is not prepared to present a particular viewpoint on this topic. The purpose of this supplementary material is to offer a more complete picture of the SCIENCE of the origins of life. Somewhere in what is now a decades old battle over the teaching of creation vs. evolution, the two sides of this discussion, in our opinion, have become ridiculously polarized.

On one side, the creation viewpoint is represented almost solely by proponents that insist on an extremely narrow interpretation of relevant passages in the Book of Genesis in the Bible. This approach is not without it’s problems. Principally, it leads to the conclusion that the Earth is 6-10,000 years old. This appears to contradict significant scientific work that suggests that the Earth is much older than that.

This group has also endured much controversy because they represent a Christian viewpoint. Many in science education say religion has no place in the teaching of science. To this point we offer two responses; 1. Science deals with cause and effect. Unless one makes the dogmatic presupposition that all causes can only be natural (this in itself represents a religious viewpoint) then one must allow that a cause can be either natural or supernatural; 2. The idea that there may be a supernatural element in the explanation for the origins of life is hardly limited to Christians. Most major world religions hold to the idea that some sort of transcendent being or beings designed and built our world. Additionally, many scientists who do not profess a particular faith are moved to conclude that some aspects of life as we now observe it depend on a designer with intelligence beyond our current understanding.

On the other side of this sometimes extremely contentious battle are proponents that insist that evolution is a proven FACT. This group contends that no reasonable person can scientifically justify any position that does not embrace evolution as the method that explains the origins of life. Again, we contend that this position runs into significant problems when confronted with credible scientific findings.

Here is the question we request you ask yourself: Is it reasonable to say that the most complete scientific viewpoint of this extremely complex and controversial topic is somewhere between these two viewpoints? We believe that most science teachers would answer yes to that question.

Now, are your students exposed to a viewpoint somewhere in the middle? Are your students exposed to any competing explanations for the origins of life? Unfortunately, we believe the answer to that question is definitely no for nearly all public school students. We feel that the evolutionary viewpoint described above, or something very close to it, is the viewpoint taught to nearly all students in public school science classes. We have yet to encounter a textbook that presents any data that could call the theory into question or that suggests another viewpoint may explain the observable data. We feel teaching only this position is a great disservice to our students. Why? We believe it represents a relatively extreme position that is not tenable from a scientific standpoint. More importantly, it is not a fair representation of the available scientific findings.

We feel that our students are owed the opportunity to learn about ALL of the science surrounding the origins of life. To that end, we have prepared a summary of the current critiques of neo-Darwinism. Among the findings that we represent in the curriculum:

Those with the deepest knowledge and understanding of evolution acknowledge it is definitely not a proven fact. It is, most fairly stated, a working hypothesis.

There is a significant scientific difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Observable microevolution does not conclusive show that macroevolution is possible.

There is currently deep disagreement among evolutionary scientists. The two contending groups disagree about how to address the complete lack of fossil evidence in support of their theory. One proposes a radical change to the theory. The other feels that this change destroys the theory all together.

Studies in the nature of DNA and cell development have shown the overwhelming improbability of the formation of even a single protein let alone the complex chain or proteins and amino acids needed to form even on strand of DNA.

We hope that you find this curriculum interesting and enlightening. We also hope you find it user friendly and naturally hope that you will consider using all or some of the material to enrich the teaching of origins. We appreciate your time and consideration. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact us using the information below.

Sincerely,


Name of Organization
Phone No.
E-mail address
Mailing address