Letters: Central School System science policy

I read The Advocate’s Sept. 11 article about the Central Community School System’s new science policy, including the criticism of the policy as a thinly disguised attempt to promote creationism. Up front, I want to say that as a Central parent and a Christian believer, I would personally like nothing better than to have the schools present what I believe is the truth about life origins and other difficult subjects.

However, I am also a longtime supporter of public schools and I fully understand the reality of the current Establishment Clause environment. I accept my responsibility to teach my children about topics that are understandably controversial in a secular school system.

I studied the resolution and policy for myself, attended meetings and talked to board members and other parents. In my opinion, the policy takes great effort to accomplish two goals: to clarify the teachers’ freedom to teach all sides of controversial subjects and to keep the school system out of court.

Cutting to the chase, obviously the main battleground is the ongoing debate between evolution theorists on one side and proponents of creationism/intelligent design on the other.

Both sides will eagerly “prove” how the other has not established scientific credibility. However, activist evolution supporters vehemently insist that their side be accepted as the only “facts” that can be taught and cry foul if any flaws in their beliefs are allowed to be discussed, even if the various evolutionary theories are constantly evolving themselves. This is counterproductive to the learning environment and the scientific method, just as it would be if the public schools taught creationism as indisputable fact to the exclusion of all other theories.

Therefore, I strongly support the type of policy adopted by the Central system, and hope others will follow. Students are in school to learn the critical thinking process as well as facts, not to be indoctrinated or held hostage to the fear of litigation.

Jon Simmons

project manager

Central

Comments

1) Comment by potkcalb - 20/09/2012

Sorry if I'm a littler slow this morning gerald. What either is or isn't?

2) Comment by [e-mail] - 20/09/2012

potkcalb, I agree with your post; either it is or it isn't. I can stipulate without fear of contradiction that one is correct.

3) Comment by prbeav - 19/09/2012

Articles by Kathryn Lopez give interesting perspectives on the debate. For example, see http://townhall.com/columnists/kathrynlopez/2012/09/15/losing_our_religion/page/full/ about recent attacks on US embassies.>>She quotes Thomas F. Farr, a diplomat by training and director of the Religious Freedom Project, “No one should insult the sacred beliefs of another. It is an assault on human dignity and respect for others.” Farr is no better than the next person but apparently lacks the integrity to admit to himself that stupidity defended as sacred belief is still stupidity.>> There is no dignity in asserting ideas that are obviously false, and the only obligation the public has in the face of falsehood is intolerance. In the arena of social debate, there is no excuse for tolerance: one either respects or appreciates another person’s opinion. Showing tolerance for stupidity invites aggression.>>Politicians become stupid when they think the majority of voters are stupid. The voters should be intolerant of such politicians.>>Lopez goes on with a term new to me: defamation of religion. Certainly, because it is a practice of speculating about heartfelt concerns (such as fear of death, concerns that may be self inflicted or picked up by hearsay), and then trying to live accordingly, religion is defamed by its very nature. However, what really defames religion is false doctrine expressed in the public square, such as “the earth was created 6000 years ago.” Fortunately for them, 2012 children can discover human understanding beyond their parents’ beliefs at a young age.

4) Comment by potkcalb - 19/09/2012

I might have added rgerald that it is not the prerogative of science to "please both sides," or to please anyone. Science is not beholden to what people want if it invalidates science. Science that compromises to please is not science. Science has nothing to do with democracy or consensus or majority rule. That's how the band is selected for the senior prom.

5) Comment by DMJ - 19/09/2012

I actually agree with Jon....sort of. He says he wants science education to be secular because of the Establishment Clause. Amen to that. He also says that accepting previous scientific conclusions as gospel is counterproductive. Agreed. Here's the problem....there are no credible scientific alternative to the theory of evolution. Sure, there are things we haven't learned about evolution yet, but the basic theory is sound. Creationism, on the other hand, has absolutely no basis in science and should never be taught in a public school or a school funded by public money.

6) Comment by potkcalb - 19/09/2012

It was science, not faith, that put Curiosity on Mars. Evolution is based on approximately 150 years of science , not faith.

7) Comment by [e-mail] - 19/09/2012

My comment is this; Mr. Simmons is trying to please both sides of the debate and is simply supporting his school system. He took great pains to explain his position in a non critical way, but there is no consensus of opinion for something like this topic since it comes down to a matter of faith either way. Believe scientists or believe religion; apparently never the twain shall meet.

8) Comment by [e-mail] - 19/09/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****

9) Comment by potkcalb - 19/09/2012

Of course there were things that Charles Darwin "couldn't explain" 150 years ago Bighug. Biology, genetics, and paleoanthropology were in their infancy. See the PBS program "What Darwin Never Knew" for the answers to what Darwin did not know or in some instances got wrong.

10) Comment by potkcalb - 19/09/2012

Of course there were things that Charles Darwin "couldn't explain" 150 years ago Bighug. Biology, genetics, and paleoanthropology were in their infancy. See the PBS program "What Darwin Never Knew" for the answers to what Darwin did not know or in some instances got wrong.

11) Comment by potkcalb - 19/09/2012

We are supposed to be talking science here Phil. You are just preaching to the choir.

12) Comment by Bighug - 19/09/2012

Even Charles Darwin discussed in his books some aspects of evolution that he couldn't explain, but that doesn't mean evolution is an invalid theory. Will the schools be required to teach every silly religious story of how its god created the world and life? It is time we got past the writings of ignorant goatherders of 6,000 years ago. OK, in Louisiana, that is not 6,000 years ago, it is today. God is another creation by man, phil. All the gods.

13) Comment by chem - 19/09/2012

I'll take the Christopher Hitchens tack on this. Hitchens was well known for telling it like it is. He pulled no punches. Jon Simmons should be ashamed for letting his religious delusion get in the way of giving children a proper education. Only one side will be eager to prove they are right and that is the idiotic creationism viewpoint. Evolution, for the umpteenth time, is setted scientific fact. It is a shame that in 2012 we are still having to deal with delusional fanatics like Simmons. Louisiana, Kansas, Arkansas, and a few other backward religious states are an embarrassment to this country. It's no wonder we have one of the worst education systems in the U.S.

14) Comment by phil - 18/09/2012

I can agree in a sense creationism/intelligent design is a supernatural belief since it is a super and natural belief based on God and religion. Science is a field created by mankind to try to explain what God created. It would not be so unusual that science is based on facts since God created science. Mankind will probably never understand concepts like eternity and the concept of what exactly nothing is, and how something was created from nothing. We get a little knowledge and we think we are as a god. I think we are not so intelligent after all.

15) Comment by potkcalb - 18/09/2012

"Creationism/intelligent design" is a supernatural belief for which there is no scientific basis.To consider the supernatural in science education is an oxymoron. Scientists and science teachers can and do acknowledge that many explanations, including a myriad of religious ones, have been posited. But religious explanations are not amenable to evidence gathering or scientific analysis no matter how clothed in hypocritical pseudo-scientific jargon such as "creation science...irreducible complexity...intelligent design...guided intervention...or critical thinking" to make them sound science based. There are no "various evolutionary theories" Mr. Simmons. There is only one theory of evolution. A scientific theory is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. The theory of evolution meets all of those criteria. No other purported explanation meets any of them. Scientists are always open to new ideas, and they are not opposed to theories in addition to, or in lieu of, evolution but they have to qualify as theories. Beliefs, opinions, conjectures, surmises do not qualify as theories.The sole purpose of the legislation is to inject religion into science education.