This is a letter to the editor that my friend brought to my attention recently along with her rebuttal. Great food for thought on a timely issue.
Teaching of creationism would be brief
Saturday, September 03, 2005
The fact that a majority in a poll says schools should teach both evolution and creationism (New York Times article, Dispatch, Aug. 31) causes me monumental confusion, but if that’s the way things are these days, I guess I will just pile that onto the many other things about popular opinion that I cannot figure out.
Actually, after further pondering the poll results, I have found a shining point of clarity and the poll results annoy me just a little less. Here is why: It will only take three to five minutes of class time to teach creationism and/or intelligent design.
It is the first day of class. The biology teacher stands up and says:
"Class, today we are going to begin to learn about biological mutation, natural selection and the evolution that results from these observable occurrences.
"But first, I need to mention that some people believe that the universe and
all living and nonliving things were created as they are by an all-knowing,
all-powerful entity or entities.
"Others accept that mutation, natural selection and evolution occur, but that these occurrences are guided by the same or similar entity or entities.
"Now, on to the observable-science part."
A science teacher is not qualified to answer questions based on personal belief, and to expect him or her to do so is asking him or her not to do his or her job.
Therefore, if students wish to discuss the merits of belief, a science class is not the place.
These discussions belong in a philosophy or comparative-religion class.
Or, since some primary schools do not have philosophy or comparative-religion classes, these discussions should be left in the hands of the parents and the religious groups to which the parents and children adhere.
JAMES McINTYREThe following response was written by my very articulate, Christian homeschooling friend, Holly. You go girl!Mr. McIntyre (Teaching of Creationism would be brief 9/3/05) eloquently though inadvertently illustrates the need for schools to "teach the controversy" rather than merely indoctrinate students in the religion of evolution.
To be accurate, his hypothetical biology teacher must arise and say: "Class, today we are going to study biological mutation, natural selection and the evolution within kinds (micro-evolution) that result from these observable occurrences. Creation scientists, intelligent design scientists and evolutionists all agree such processes occur and postulate theories based on these processes."
"But first, I need to mention all these scientists have differing ideas of how life arose. Creationists have a belief best discussed in religion class. ID scientists' research shows random processes can not account for life's origins while evolutionists posit the exact opposite. We'll examine both. Since life's origin was a one time event in the distant past, unable to be observed or recreated experimentally, it is outside the realm of observable, experimental science."
"Now, on to the observable science part. While many changes within "kinds" have been noted (micro-evolution), science and the fossil record have not found transitional forms indicating changes from one kind to another (macro-evolution). The Cambian explosion does show that when life arrived, it arrived suddenly and in many different forms. Both types of scientists view the same evidence yet arrive at different conclusions from it."
Had Mr. McIntyre received such an education, perhaps he, and the bulk of our citizenry, would be able to more accurately represent the scientific and religious thinking of all three groups: creation scientists, ID scientists and evolutionists.
Holly
