More Letters on the Evolution Debate

Science Verse Religion.

More Letters on the Evolution Debate and the Real Fundamentalist' Agenda

Confusion about science at heart of incident

October 02, 2003

The suspension of Colonial Heights Middle School students is a sad and unfortunate reminder of the deep, but still all-too-common misunderstandings that surround the place of science in our society generally, and the teaching of evolution in particular.

The eighth-graders were suspended after they placed a religious pamphlet on a teacher's desk and repeatedly discussed religious beliefs with a teacher after being told not to. While the suspensions involved an issue of disobedience, the underlying religious motivation of the behavior deserves further examination.

According to school officials, the incident arose out of a biology class discussion covering the Big Bang Theory of creation.

According to Colonial Heights principal Mike Cline, some students in the class wanted to discuss "Creationism," but were told by the teacher that she could not lead a discussion related to religion. Creationism is the doctrine, first advanced in the late 19th century, that attributes the various forms of life on Earth and of the existence of the universe itself as the divine creation of God, usually in the way described in Genesis.

According to CHMS principal Cline, "What always pops up when they teach these kinds of things is kids want to talk about (religion), and our teachers say we can't discuss those things in school. What happens is these kids get in their minds that, OK, she (the teacher) doesn't want to talk about religion and Christianity, then therefore she must be an atheist. We've talked to the kids and warned them not to say these things. It is hurtful. After we warn them, then there are consequences."

The principal says one student was initially chastised for being part of a rumor mill concerning the teacher's religious beliefs that were disrupting class and proving harmful to the teacher. But even after that warning, Cline says, the student persisted, encouraging another student to place a Christian pamphlet on the teacher's desk. At that point, the teacher reported the incident to school officials and the punishment - a one-day suspension - was ordered.

This is only the latest in a disturbing pattern seen across the nation's schools. Among other things, such incidents point to the critical need for science teachers and the scientific community to do a better job explaining what science is - and what it is not.

If public polls are to be believed, a clear majority of American adults believe Creationism should be taught along with evolution in public schools. But science does not and cannot reach its conclusions on the basis of polls or public sentiment. Nor should a religious belief be taught as science, when it is not a result of the scientific process.

The mathematical equation two plus two equals four is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Similarly, the concepts that undergird science are not something susceptible to vote. Gravity would not cease to exist merely because a majority of the population wished to deny it.

Creationism, likewise, should not be taught alongside evolution for the same reason that we don't teach a flat-Earth model along with a round-Earth model.

There are two main reasons that Creationism continues to attract the attention it does. The first is the absolutely appalling state of scientific illiteracy in the general population despite the hundreds of billions of dollars expended on our nation's schools. The second reason is that more than a few people believe evolution precludes the very foundation of Christian faith.

And yet, there was a period in Western civilization when virtually 100 percent of the populace believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. After all, the Bible describes a stationary Earth in several places and common sense seemed to demonstrate that the sun rose in the east and set in the west. Moreover, the church severely persecuted or muzzled the handful of people who first recognized - on the basis of scientific inquiry - that the reverse was true.

The faith of our fathers may make us believe that it is an insult to human dignity that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, but we cannot move it there. We may find moral or aesthetic objections to the manner in which natural history appears to have unfolded, but we cannot command nature to take another course.

Short-changing, distorting, or omitting a frank discussion of science, especially evolution, makes the teaching of the life sciences essentially impossible. And no matter what one's faith, no one can reasonably argue that a scientifically unacceptable belief like Creationism should be taught - even if a majority of students or their parents hold that opinion. Likewise, neither should beliefs of various other religions be a matter of discussion in a school science class.

The desire of parents to raise their children to think as they do is understandable. But if the parents' belief is based on a poor understanding of the content and methods of science, it is well if they hope and expect that their children will understand science better than they do. In doing so, parents will provide the means to expose their children to expertise beyond their own.

Indeed, that is precisely why most parents want to send their children to school. As Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. once observed, "A mind, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions."

Although not every student or parent appreciates this "mind stretching," such intellectual exercise has always been the foundation of every successful society and the mission of every teacher worthy of the name.

The editorial Confusion about science at heart of incident brought all kinds of attacks on the Kingsport Times-News as illustrated below. The real issue is the demand by religious fundamentalists in Sullivan County to have Genesis taught as science. (Creationism is codeword for Genesis.)

This all started when a local student harassed her teacher until she got suspended over this issue. The local fundamentalists made a huge stink out of it claiming persecution and praising the disruptive student for showing her "love" for the intended target. Slander and badgering is hardly a description of love. This has been raging on in Sullivan county for almost six months with no end in sight. See the many links at the bottom of the page for more on this issue.

Keep one thing in mind as you read these letters. First, they try to limit the entire debate to either Genesis or attempt to make evolution a belief in atheism. Evolution disproves the literal Six-Day Creationism they harp in church that isn't even accepted in many more moderate churches. Evolution in any form disproves their religious theology and thus undermines their demands for power and control. he facts are less then 5% of the population is atheist yet less then 50% believe in the Genesis myth as far as science goes. My comments appear in bold below.

Both sides

The editorial Oct. 2, "Confusion about Science," is aptly titled. Our local media and some of our schools are confused about science.

Science stresses what can be known by observation. It is not guesswork, nor is it advanced by unproven theory. I wish our public schools could hold a frank discussion of science, especially evolution. Unfortunately, the government's established religious cult of secular humanism prevents children from learning that evolution, not creationism, was "first advanced in the ... 19th century."

The above statements are nonsense. He is promoting Christianity and the disproven literal six-day creationism in Genesis. Evolution in its basic form was known by the Greeks and even the church fathers, but was rejected because it conflicted with the Bible. Evolution only describes the METHOD by which life evolved and does not disprove God or a creator. 85% of those that believe in evolution believe in God (as I do) but not the two conflicting Genesis creation stories.

The doctrine of creationism has been around for thousands of years. The promotion of the theory of evolution also tends to muzzle discussion on the verification of this doctrine. Evolution is as much an unproven religious belief as creationism. Many reputable scientists (including non-Christians) have ridiculed the doctrine of macro-evolution.

There is no discussion of evolution in our schools. That is the problem. This is not a flat or round Earth debate which can be proven by observation. Instead this is a debate which simply cannot be proven. What scientist can prove evolution by facts? He cannot go back in time to observe how the Earth was formed.

Evolutionists can only provide theory based on interpretation of data. Schools should teach that evolution is just one interpretation of collected data and encourage students to explore others. Why can't students be taught how to think through the evolutional interpretation and then prove whether it is correct or incorrect? Even that would be a step forward to a frank discussion of the matter. Instead, students are often asked to blindly accept this theory as fact.

I believe science is an important subject. Yet the facts show that the "absolutely appalling state of scientific illiteracy in the general population despite the hundreds of billions of dollars expended in our nation's schools'' has come about since the evolutionists have had their way in public education by successfully prohibiting free speech in the science classroom. In few other areas of American life have those who muzzle debate on an issue been so successful. Maybe it's about time that students of science are permitted to hear both sides.

John M. Irwin
Kingsport

Letters to The Editor - 10/27/2003

Study the evidence

There are so many aspects of the editorial on "Confusion about science at the heart of incident" that should be addressed, but I will limit myself to two - science education and evidence for creation.

I am strongly in favor of science education and the "mind stretching" mentioned by the author. Even though the study of origins is clearly outside the realm of science, I would be in favor of presenting evidence that might give insight into our origin, as long as all the relevant evidence is presented.

See Creationist' Tactics

Clearly the discovery of transitional forms between species would provide some credibility to the idea of our origin being by evolution. I believe, however, that a critical examination of the fossils found to date will lead most reasonable people to conclude that the case for evolution is very weak.

The most interesting thing to me in this whole debate is the large percentage of people that still believe in creation even though only evolution is taught in the schools.

This seems to make a number of educators very angry. I presume that they are angry because their students have drawn a different conclusion than theirs based on an examination of the evidence. Isn't that what education is all about - learning to think for oneself?

Each day your students see through their eyes a marvelous universe that they conclude was designed for them. In fact, our incredibly complex eyes may be the best evidence for creation. It stretches the bounds of reason to believe that our eyes could have been the product of chance and time. May we all to continue to study the evidence and seek the truth.

Alan White
Kingsport

Who is ignorant?

Your editorial "confusion about science" states that "there are two main reasons that creationism continues to attract the attention it does. The first is the absolutely appalling state of scientific illiteracy in the general population ... the second reason is that more than a few people believe evolution precludes the very foundation of Christian faith."

I find it disturbing when belief in a creator is associated with ignorance. You also state that "no matter what one's faith, no one can reasonably argue that a scientifically unacceptable belief like creationism should be taught." Why is creationism scientifically unacceptable? After all the Big Bang and evolution are theories.

My Webster's Dictionary defines a theory as a conjecture or speculation. We have no concrete proof that these theories are correct. Therefore, why should we not discuss other theories, such as intelligent design?

The intelligent design theory advances the idea that an organism's complexity is evidence of a cosmic designer and the natural world contains abundant evidence of a supernatural creator.

This theory is advanced by such scientists as Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. in biochemistry and a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University of Penn.; William A. Dembski, Ph.D. in mathematics and philosophy, and associate professor at Baylor University; and Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology, who has worked as a postdoctoral research scientist at the University of Calif., Berkeley. Are these men scientifically illiterate? Just because a viewpoint is not held by mainstream scientists, it doesn't mean it is invalid.

All of the men listed above come from a website like answersingenesis.org and have been discredited. Everyone she listed is not even in any field related to evolution. This is the typical use a false authority. See Evolution Debate in Schools

The minority opinion has been discovered to be true countless times. Perhaps we need to open our classrooms to thoughtful discussions of several theories, instead of labeling those who believe in a creator as ignorant.

Rebecca McGrady
Kingsport

No proof

Although I agree with the title of the Oct. 2 editorial, "Confusion about Science at Heart of Incident," I find myself disagreeing with its conclusions. In fact, the arguments seem to provide support for teaching creationism in our public schools.

The editorial states, "Nor should a religious belief be taught as science, when it is not a result of the scientific process." The scientific process consists of an observation, a hypothesis, testing through controlled experiments, then revising the hypothesis.

Keeping this process in mind, and the fact that there has never been a controlled experiment demonstrating evolution, we should stop teaching evolution immediately. The infamous proof for evolution rests on finding the "missing link," i.e. half-ape, half-man creature. Many "missing links" - Neanderthal Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, and more recently "Lucy" - have been reported throughout our history.

Why couldn't it be the evolutionists who are wrong? In fact, this chapter in our history only emphasizes the need to include alternative theories until undeniable proof can be given to substantiate only one theory. It is also interesting to look at this issue from the common sense perspective.

When you see a sand castle do you think to yourself that it is the result of millions of years of grains of sand randomly falling on top of one another? More than likely you assume that an intelligent being created it.

Eric Peterson
Kingsport

Homepage
Master Article List

Visitors since
March 2002