Creation isn’t science

To the Arkansas Legislature re HB1701: Instead of deciding what should and shouldn’t be taught in a science classroom, some of you need to go back to school, because you have failed an important lesson. Let me help.

In common parlance, the word theory is used to mean a possible explanation. For example, I may say I have a theory about why Razorback basketball had such a great season, but it’s just an idea that I haven’t studied and tested.

Within the realm of science, the meaning changes dramatically. In science, these possible explanations are called hypotheses, while a theory actually carries a lot of weight. In science, a theory is an explanation for a set of observations of the natural world that has stood up to rigorous, repeated, peer-reviewed scrutiny without once being overturned. This is why biology has very few theories—cell theory, germ theory of disease, and the theory of evolution by natural selection are three that come to mind.

HB1701 would allow creationism to be taught as a theory in science classrooms. To elevate a religious text to the standing of scientific theory quite simply defies everything about the way science works. Where are the controlled studies? Where are the data? It would be a big step backwards and do a great disservice to our students.

I urge the Legislature to ask for testimony from working biologists from our state universities before moving forward on HB1701 and allowing the Genesis creation stories to be elevated—at least in their minds—to a scientific theory. I assure you that scientists, without considerable evidence, will not make that leap with you. And if you do bother to talk to our biology professors, why not take a minute to ask them how our Legislature could best support science education in Arkansas?

SUZANNE WILMOTH

Rogers