Guest columnist David Mills: Teach children scientific theory, not myths

Friday, July 22, 2005 | 4:59 a.m.

David Mills, who lives in Las Vegas, is Professor Emeritus of Physics at the College of the Redwoods in Eureka, Calif.

WEEKEND EDITION

July 23-24, 2005

In her letter to the editor published last Sunday, Marsha Norton argues for "sticking with the evidence and teaching children the facts." She suggests that school districts should provide an open forum for critical thinking and explore all theories about man's origins.

While I certainly am for critical thinking and find it impossible to argue against teaching children the facts, the exploration of all ideas concerning the origin of life is an unrealistic proposal. There are hundreds of them and attempting to examine them all would severely impact the rest of the curriculum. How would educators choose which myths to include? What criteria could they apply in making these selections? In what subject-matter areas would these stories be included?

Ms. Norton seems to be arguing for Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. If that is, in fact, what she is suggesting then it would have to be taught in science classes. As a science educator, I have no objection to Intelligent Design or other non-scientific ideas concerning the origin of life being a part of courses in mythology or literature, but I have strong objections to their inclusion in the science curriculum.

A scientific theory is not just anyone's preferred explanation of some phenomenon. A scientific theory begins as one or more hypotheses (tentative explanations). These hypotheses not only describe what is known about the given phenomenon, but also raise questions about the phenomenon that can be explored experimentally.

This second criterion means that any scientific explanation is vulnerable; it can be refuted -- shown to be wrong! Only after such a tentative explanation has received, often with revisions, significant experimental verification and demonstrated its robustness (the ability to account for all known facts) -- and has not been falsified -- is it identified as a theory.

Newton's Theory of Gravitation, Einstein's Theories of Special and General Relativity, the theories concerning molecular and atomic structures that led Mendeleev to the Periodic Table of the Elements, and Darwin's Theory of Evolution satisfy the criteria for a scientific theory. Creationism and Intelligent Design do not -- primarily because they are not falsifiable.

It is Darwin's Theory that has led us to the discovery of and an understanding of DNA. Creationism and Intelligent Design, as satisfying as these explanations may be to those of a religious worldview, do not satisfy the criteria of a scientific theory. The notion of a master creator is not verifiable (or, more importantly, refutable) and so any explanation of the origin of life that depends on the existence of a creator cannot ever become a scientific theory.

To include creationism in any of its disguises in the public school science curriculum would constitute a serious disservice to our students by leading them to believe that educated and informed people believe in an explanation of the origin of life for which there is not evidence.