Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Politics put above sense
(Editorial, The Baton Rouge Advocate, August 9, 2010)

If there is one value in our community that ought to be near-universal, it is that we do everything possible for our children to have a better future than we did. The path toward that goal is education.

Responsible parents will make their children do their homework, provide them books and educational materials, even pay for prep guides for college entrance exams.

Why, then, would educators introduce into classrooms materials that might induce children to give wrong answers on tests and college entrance exams? We fear that’s what Livingston Parish schools are willing to do with a political initiative to question the theory of evolution.

Members of Livingston’s School Board expressed interest in including “creationism” in science classes in the public schools. The system’s curriculum director, Jan Benton, said that under a new state law “critical thinking and creationism” materials can be introduced into science classes.

“Critical thinking” is the code for questioning evolution because of a fundamentalist belief in the literal story of the Creation in Genesis. While most faiths would not say Genesis is incompatible with evolution, there are those who differ — and they are politically engaged and ready to impose their beliefs on others.

Professional educators who promote this idea are not lining themselves up as profiles in courage.

Livingston Parish, to its credit, has in the past avoided this ridiculous idea. While board President Keith Martin said he would be open to reconsidering the issue, he raised very practical concerns: You don’t want teachers teaching different things in different sections of biology, for example.

Officials say they are only studying the idea; at the earliest, it would be a full school year before evolution comes under fire in Livingston schools.

This is a bad idea, period.

Must science bend to the false god of politics? If it does in Livingston, then the School Board members will have taken a conscious decision to make it more difficult for their students in the world.

If there is one value in our community that ought to be near-universal, it is that we do everything possible for our children to have a better future than we did.

Must science bend to the false god of politics? If it does in Livingston, then the School Board members will have taken a conscious decision to make it more difficult for their students in the world.

Richard Dawkins causes outcry after likening the burka to a bin liner.
Richard Dawkins, the outspoken atheist, has courted fresh controversy by likening the burka to a bin liner.

By Heidi Blake
Published: 9:36AM BST 10 Aug 2010
Richard Dawkins sparks outcry after likening the burka to a bin liner. REUTERS

The 69-year-old author and Oxford academic said he is filled with “visceral revulsion” when he sees women wearing the traditional Islamic covering.

Its interesting that he publishes in "LIBERTY UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL.

While perhaps there is room for scientific disagreement over Raven and
Johnson’s claims, there should be little disagreement that these ID critics
are confronted with the following dilemma: either ID is a religious
viewpoint that is unconstitutionally opposed, inhibited, and disapproved
when this textbook is used in public schools, or ID is not a religious
viewpoint and is thereby fair game for all forms of government-sponsored
attacks, disparagement, hostility, as well as endorsement.

“there is no
scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that the earth is only a few
thousand years old, and none that indicates that every species of organism
was created separately.”72 The textbook states that these conclusions “can
be reached only on the basis of arbitrary faith” because they “are untestable,
and as such, they lie outside the realm of science.”73
Regardless of whether one agrees with the claims of the scientific
creationists (this author is not a young earth creationist and accepts the
conventional geological age of the earth), calling such views a “set of
religious beliefs” that comprise an “arbitrary faith” clearly represents an
attack upon a religious viewpoint

What evidence does he offer that it is a religion?

None really. Oh, he throws a lot of dust up in the air that will get those that agree with him nodding. But it isn't an argument that would hold up if questioned or judged by an impartial jury.

a “set of
religious beliefs” that comprise an “arbitrary faith”

What was the argument?

a “set of
religious beliefs” that comprise an “arbitrary faith”

The textbook states that these conclusions “can
be reached only on the basis of arbitrary faith” because they “are untestable,
and as such, they lie outside the realm of science.”
Regardless of whether one agrees with the claims of the scientific
creationists (this author is not a young earth creationist and accepts the
conventional geological age of the earth), calling such views a “set of
religious beliefs” that comprise an “arbitrary faith” clearly represents an
attack upon a religious viewpoint.