In 1981 the state of Louisiana passed a law, called the “Balanced treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act.” This law says that if teachers deal with the topic of the origin of man, of life, of the earth, or of the universe, they must give a “balanced treatment” to the theories of creation and evolution. And neither theory must be presented as proven scientific fact. (1)

The question might be asked, first of all, whether there should be. equal treatment for both evolution and creation in the schools. How does it have to be equal? Equal in quality, or in time? What makes it balanced? Certainly we can not be purely objective! Does not much depend on the perspective or orientation of each individual school? When dealing with these matters, the subject material should first of all be presented in a very factual way. The evolution or creation perspective can then be added to that. After all, the perspective of the Christian schools is not the same as that of the “public” schools. If they were the same, there would be no need for separate Christian schools.

One would also question whether it is the prerogative or proper sphere for the Supreme Court to rule what may and what may not be taught in the science classroom. Government may set goals and standards, but may content of subject material be dictated by the legislature? We would expect that in our free country there would be room for academic freedom regarding the treatment of creation and evolution. And we would hope that every instructor then would be objective and considerate in his presentation of these two positions, and not offend any of the students in the class.

It seems that it would be extremely difficult for an atheistic evolutionist to make an acceptable presentation of the creation position, when he himself does not believe in Jehovah God as Creator. Would he not be tempted to put the creation story and the creationist position in a bad light? On the other hand, how can the creationist science teacher make a presentation in which the story of evolution comes off as being credible? Would he not point out the fallacies in the theory as he sees them? Certainly it is hard for either side to make a balanced presentation of both views.

We know, of course, that we cannot prove that God created, much less how he created. We know about God’s creative acts only because this has been revealed to us by the Creator Himself. There is no other way of attaining this kind of knowledge. So we accept this by faith. But what about the evolutionist? We know, too, that the process of evolution is only an assumed process, and that it cannot be demonstrated to be taking place today, or to have taken place in the past. One evolutionist (2) clearly stated that the evolution of not a single species has been demonstrated. The theory of evolution then, too, is accepted on the basis of faith. Neither theory can be demonstrated as “scientific fact.”

Is creation then to be equated with religion, as is often done in anti-creation literature?(3) And is evolution to be equated with science? The answer to that must be an unequivocal NO! Whether one believes that God created or that living things evolved by natural processes is a person’s starting point, and not something one concludes from scientific studies. While both come with their religious convictions, both can also be scientific. The world of inorganic and living things out there is real, and we all have equal access to it. Facts are facts. And they can be investigated by any scientist. What they do with these facts may not be the same, but it can be ascertained whether or not the scientific work they do is rigorous, and whether it is consistent with their basic starting point and commitments. That is crucial. And if their work is indeed rigorous and consistent, we can call it scientific, whether or not we agree with the conclusion.

If I were hired at a secular university to teach courses in Biology, I would commit myself to presenting the facts as they are. I would then give both the secular evolutionist viewpoint and the Christian viewpoint. I would have to point out how these two viewpoints differ and how they both attempt to be consistent with the basic presuppositions with which they start. Both can be reasonable, if we consider their starting point. And both have a right to be called scientific. In presenting these materials, my own position would, of course, be obvious.

It appears that the Louisiana court will need a lot of wisdom to decide on this issue of balanced treatment. It will certainly need a good criterion on the basis of which to decide which textbooks may or must be used by the science teachers. Let us pray that both the legislators and the science teachers will be able to see the issues from the right perspective and that justice may be done to the students of that state.

(1) As reported in Christian Renewal 5(2):1 +7; Sept. 22, 1986

(2) Blackwelder, R. E. Taxonomy; a Text and Reference Book. Wiley, N.Y. 1967, p.363: “In fact, for it to be possible to claim that there ore phylogenies known, one would have to define a phylogeny as the supposed or postulated history of the species. If it is defined as the actual history, surely there ore none that could qualify.”

(3) See for example the public statements by: a) “the American Humanist Association, claiming in their Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science,” that “Creationism is not scientific, but is a purely religious view held by some religious sects and persons . . .” b) the Iowa Academy of Science saying in their 1981 position statement that “creationism when called ‘scientific’ is a religious doctrine posed as science.”

c) the Iowa deportment of Public Instruction which in its 1978 position paper on Creation-Evolution and Public Education states: “Generally creationism is a religious concept” (p. 1). And on p. 4 it says: “Students should be adivised that it is their responsibility, as informed citizens, to hove creationism explained to them by theological experts.”

Dr. Aoldert Mennega is Professor of Biology at Dordt College at Sioux Center, Iowa.