Study of Origins

The study of origins in natural science class is a politicized issue and thus produces generally unproductive discussion. Because of the strong emotions and disparate stances, the issue appears to be unresolvable. The analysis below is an attempt to re-frame the argument in a more productive light and perhaps bring about an equitable resolution.

Evolutionists say that only natural science should be taught in natural science class. Intelligent design (ID) proponents want their perspective included in the discussion as well, despite its irrelevance to natural science. In order to mediate this discussion, one should trace the argument back to the point where the two sides agree and then work from there to build consensus.

One has to go to the most basic point of the discussion to find where the two sides agree - the definition of natural science. There are many slight variations on this definition, but here is a working draft: "Natural science is a collection of testable theories which have been thoroughly observed, described, experimentally investigated and which remain unrefuted."

From here, both sides must agree that only that which falls within this definition should be taught in natural science class. At first, this might appear to be a clear 'win' for evolutionists, since this means that proponents of intelligent design must stop calling for ID to be taught in natural science class (no one was there to observe a deity create the worlds, and no one can reproduce this for observation and study).

However, if the definition is to be followed strictly, evolutionists also must stop teaching their hypothesis on how matter first organized itself (e.g. primordial soup, big bang, etc); that a fish became a bird, or anything else that cannot be reproduced for observation and study.

This does not limit teaching the aspects of evolution that are currently observed and studied in natural science class. There is plenty to observe, study and teach in the field of evolution that meet this criteria. However, any unobservable hypothesis (whether it includes deities, natural selection, or anything else) simply should not be included in natural science class. Otherwise, the name of the class should be changed to "natural science and untestable guesses."

Discussions on non-testable hypotheses of origins should continue - just not under the guise of natural science. Educational institutions should offer separate classes that provide a forum for this debate. Perhaps a worldview or historical studies class would be appropriate. All sides would be able to offer hypotheses and provide evidence (archaeological, scientific, sociological) for their beliefs. This would help remove the political baggage from this important debate, turning it into an academic discussion to be argued on merits instead of emotions.

Also see the WikiaCampaign's article on evolution and intelligent design.