Let me tell you a story Ð a rags to riches story about a young Russian peasant who rose to the pinnacle of Russian science. I warn you now Ð this is not a story with a happy ending.
Trofim Lysenko was born in 1898 in the Ukraine, back when it was part of the USSR, to two peasant farmers. A bright lad, he was also interested in easing the plight of peasants by improving methods of agriculture, and by the time he was 29, he had come to the attention of the Soviet newspapers and government by claiming that he could double , transform summer grains into winter ones, and produce richer milk from cows. Lysenko was the embodiment of the much-touted Soviet peasant genius and quickly became the most influential scientist in Russia.
Russian peasants eagerly implemented LysenkoÕs policies for increasing production. They froze wheat seeds to make them grow in winter. They fed high-fat chocolate to cows to increase the richness of their milk. They planted up to 4 million seeds per acre because cooperation is a good thing. The payoff? Massive famine. Millions of Russian peasants died when their crops failed. LysenkoÕs ideas were later implemented by Mao Tse Tung in China with the same disastrous results.
What happened? How could the agricultural programs have failed so miserably? The problem is that none of LysenkoÕs claims were based on research, scientific principles, or agricultural practices. LysenkoÕs ideas were based on Marxist political ideology which rejected both genetics and evolution.
As president of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Lysenko led a wholesale attack on natural and physical sciences, condemning to death or imprisoning scientists who did not subscribe to Marxist science.
Names and ideas were expunged from books, and the scientific press was virtually closed down. An entire generation of Russian and Chinese students failed to learn about modern biological sciences.
My father used to get to this point in a story and ask me, ÒWhatÕs the moral?Ó I guess he thought that if I did not learn from history, I would be doomed to repeating its mistakes.
HereÕs one of the things I learned from studying Lysenkoism. Unquestioned commitment to a way of thought is dangerous.
When the standard for knowledge and education is its ability to support a political or religious philosophy, itÕs perilous policy. Russia and China paid the price in destroyed lives, devastated economies, and obliterated intellectual integrity.
But here we are Ð once again facing an ideology that threatens the fabric of science and education. This time it is not Marxism, but Biblical literalism, creationism, or intelligent design (sometimes called creationism lite) and the claim is that (a) if scientists donÕt understand something, it must have been done by God and (b) public schools should be teaching religious doctrines and supernatural explanations in science classes.
LetÕs face it. From a scientific perspective, evolution is as well supported as theories of atoms, gravity, or electromagnetic radiation. So whatÕs the beef?
The ideological position of creationism is that human beings are specially created in the image of God, a doctrine which is the foundation of all other truth. Evolution is envisioned at SatanÕs greatest weapon in the war against God. As one of the leaders of the movement, John Morris, said, ÒChristianity is engaged in a worldview war and needs all her soldiers.Ó
I want to stress at this point that this is not the position of most Christian theologians, most of whom believe evolution and religion, science and theism, are completely compatible.
Yet the argument about what to believe has become an argument about what to teach, and the debate is raging from the comic pages to the White House, catching school boards, teachers, and students in its grip. In actuality, despite, or perhaps because of, the debates, neither creationism nor evolution has been taught in most biology classrooms. Students are denied knowledge about the fundamental organizing principle in biology. Most teachers and school boards would prefer to stay in the safety of physiology, molecules, and sex É oh, wait, thatÕs another talk.
LetÕs get specific. What does evolution contribute to our knowledge? Why should we understand it?
Let me give you three examples.
But understand that this ideology embraces not just evolution, but the very heart and soul of science. It is about whether to accept scienceÕs commitment to natural, physical and material explanations or whether science should be based on a specific understanding of Christian theology. Imagine a classroom where supernatural explanations are taught as alternatives to science.
Well, the teacher might say, yesterday we studied astronomy, today we give equal time to astrology. Or yesterday, we did some chemical reactions in lab; today, we will try to transmute lead into gold. If it doesnÕt work, either it is not GodÕs will or you are not praying enough.
Most of us would understand that astrology, alchemy, and creationism are not scientific explanations. They do not belong in science classrooms.
At its best, science is not about finding ultimate truth; it is not about supporting an ideological position. It is about skepticism and curiosity, about observing, explaining, predicting, analyzing, verifying through the collective efforts of thousands of critical thinkers and researchers. It is about finding natural explanations for natural events.
Is this a battle over freedom of speech? No, it is about whether Biblical literalism is the only way to find meaning and purpose in life. It is about whether people can act morally if they are not given rules of behavior by God himself. It is about whether GodÕs creation is perfect, or whether it is dynamic and changeable.
One of our principles is that we will pursue the truth with open hearts and minds. This is about how we work together, but it is also about education. Teaching children to seek the truth and helping them learn the skills and tools to make our world a better place is part of what we do as UUÕs. We owe it to our children.