Adam+Mistretta+week+6

Historically, the endless debate over teaching evolution over creationism has been portrayed as a battle, as science fighting the first amendment, or as Douglas Linder puts it, ” [A] titanic struggle between good and evil or truth and ignorance.” This is taken so seriously by the public and the government that we see the Scopes trial occur and then it ripples through history persisting to this day. In my opinion, none of these perspectives are relevant. That is not to say I am indifferent in the debate over evolution vs. creationism, merely that when the word “teaching” comes into play, the debate is much simpler. It all comes to this simple fact, evolution is a science, and creationism is a belief. Schools teach sciences and families and individuals in their homes practice beliefs, it is that simple. In the Scopes trial numerous references are made to humorous mocking of both sides’ beliefs, and into the modern debate, we see people debating which theory is true and which is not. This is wrong. If a person chooses to believe in creationism and teach it to their children, and share it with their friends, they are absolutely free to do so, this is the USA, freedom of speech and religion and two of our highest laws. However, these people must accept that another one of our highest laws is the separation of church and state, and as such, a school will not teach something that is taken entirely on faith, they will instead teach evolution, something which has its roots in analytic science. The debate should end here, the two beliefs are not rivals in the school and the home, they are things which the law says must exist separately, never has the government ever told anyone what to believe. All that being said, many will still want to have the debate over which is “right.” In a scientific environment, there is little question, that similarities in genetics, the way that more complex organisms are always slightly a step ahead of similar simpler species, screams for evolution as truth. At the same time, an enormous percentage of the world’s population deeply believe in the contents of the bible and will believe we were created as is by a supreme being no matter how many neon signs are posted to the contrary. The debate ruffles through the same worn out arguments. The creationists will say that no amount of evidence can contradict the clear teachings of their sacred book. While the scientists show facts and figures, a few of whom believe in god themselves, and say they only want to expose the methods of god’s work. A few will even bring up the fact that evolution is of itself, a type of intelligent design, that we could have been both created by a supreme being, and likewise given this ability to evolve as the earth changes around us. In the midst of all this heated debating, the answer to me appears clear. There will never be an answer which will suit everyone. We must revert to the tried and true method of separating that which we believe form a book, from that which we discover from observation. On the topic of Dr. Collins recent appointment as director of the National Institute of health, I see little to debate. He is clearly a man of qualified skills in biological sciences and with the proper experience and mind-set for the job. His devout belief in god is unusual in the modern age for a man of science, but it is in no way remarkable. Some might say that it is, “ a sign of mild [|dementia] ” and actually, I personally am one of those people, but that is not relevant. Once again, this is America; people believe what they choose to believe even though some may see religion as the opposite of intelligence, so long as Dr. Collins demonstrates he has ample scientific knowledge to fill the position, his personal beliefs are not relevant.