Not too long ago I thought it would be fair if evolution and creationism were taught side by side, so that "everyone would hear both sides." My high school freshmen biology teacher made this argument as well, but now I believe he only did so because of his audience. He was to be the first person to teach evolution in that school system, at least in awhile. It was also his first year teaching, and he didn't want political backlash from Bible Belt parents to ruin his career right from the start. It was only a few short years later that he dropped this pretense. He established himself as invaluable to the school system (becoming the AP biology teacher and turning out more 5 and 4s on the exam than any in the state) and began to speak his mind. This is when I realized that I only agreed with teaching creationism out of a compromise, because I just wanted people to shut up about it, and I thought evolution was so important to learn that it had to get in the classrooms somehow. I started to look critically at the idea of creationism, and now I realize that it can only be taught in theology (and I don't know many high schools around here that have a theology course). Because you see, creationism is not science. It cannot even be called a theory, it does not have any peer-reviewed, critical evidence backing it up (because that is what a theory is, my friends). Believe it if you want, but it is high time for it to only be taught in church classrooms, not the public one.
the·o·ry
[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
noun, plural the·o·ries.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used asprinciples of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrastto well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms:idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3.
Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.
the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from itspractice: music theory.
5.
a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system ofrules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.
This article points out many of the flaws not just with the documentary "Evolution's Achilles' Heels" but with the entire idea of creationism as a science. In science, peer review is a must. If work is not critically torn apart, retested, and retested again then it is not considered creditable. Many "scientists" of creationism do not allow any skepticism on the subject, an example being the disabling of comments on the trailer. One of the most common examples I know of, "If you question it you're questioning God, and that's bad." Also, the claim that evolution cannot be seen or tested is unfounded. We have seen evolution in insects, whose populations are much larger and faster growing than our own, therefore their evolution occurs at a faster rate, one we can observe. Also microorganisms, and there are currently fish in the process of growing legs. They seem to forget that creationism is the one that cannot be tested. To deny evolution at this point, when there is an abundance of evidence, is equivalent to denying gravity or denying oxygen.
Thankfully, some places are finally taking that brave step and saying "No!" to creationists.
Thankfully, some places are finally taking that brave step and saying "No!" to creationists.
No comments:
Post a Comment