Letter: Science is science, religion is religion

A recent letter called for our schools to no longer teach theories such as evolution, creationism or intelligent design in our public schools. Others call for the teaching of all these theories.

Again, many have missed the point. We must teach science to our children. Science includes building theories to explain the data. In science class, different theories should be taught based on the evidence for each. In this case, there is great scientific evidence for evolution. There is zero scientific evidence for creationism and intelligent design, which fail to meet the criteria to be considered scientific concepts.

If a school is private and thus may teach religion, teaching creationism and intelligent design is acceptable. Hopefully science and religion are not confused there. We are concerned about our public schools, which are prohibited from teaching religion by our Constitution.

Evolution is within science.

Creationism and intelligent design are within religion.

Maybe more important than teaching our children biology is teaching them the difference between science and religion, as it is obvious that too many of our citizens haven’t learned the difference.

Tom Hannie

retired psychologist

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by potkcalb - 15/01/2013

In a state like Louisiana that is populated with stump jumping yokels it's no wonder to me.

2) Comment by Bouncer - 15/01/2013

In a state with a truly educated and enlightened populace, this would not even be an issue. Religion would be kept in the church, and science would be taught in schools. It is small wonder to me that on a national scale, Louisiana is the butt of a great many jokes.

3) Comment by phil - 11/01/2013

I think someone here just called people who believe in God pathetic primates. Like I already said, some people just choose to ignore the actual proof of God. The fact that something exists vs nothing is proof. What started the "natural processes" from nothing? Did this computer program we are now using write itself as part of some natural process - or did a human write it? "Critical thinking" then leads me to believe that the actual "natural process" was the process of God writing the chemical program we now call DNA. It is all just to complicated to have evolved on its own - including the development of chemicals that make up DNA, the elements that make up the chemicals - and down the list until you actually get back to nothing again.

4) Comment by chem - 10/01/2013

For all of the pathetic primates that are so blinded by their religious delusions that they have lost all reason, I have a simple request: Why doesn't your god just show himself to everyone in the world at the same time, talking to each person in his/her native language. That would certainly cause me to convert. But to simply say that natural processes are "proof of god" demonstrates a serious loss of critical thinking.

5) Comment by phil - 10/01/2013

If anything, God was discovered, not invented. Perhaps God did invent life and humans (and science), though. This computer program that we are using to write these comments was written by man (someone with some intelligence). Do you really think the complex chemical program of DNA just wrote itself? Proof of God does exist, but many people just choose to ignore the proof.

6) Comment by prbeav - 10/01/2013

A dictionary might help each of us. I tried one and found “evolution; biology” -- the study of change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. “Creation” -- the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.>>>>Thus, "evolution" refers to a study and "Creation" defines an unrelated hypothesis.

7) Comment by DMJ - 10/01/2013

Or man...who also invented god(s).

8) Comment by phil - 10/01/2013

Who (or what) invented science? Maybe God?

9) Comment by DMJ - 10/01/2013

Great letter, Tom. What's sad is that there is even a debate about this. Religion poisons science and science disproves religion. Better we keep them separate.

10) Comment by potkcalb - 10/01/2013

Gerald Neanderthals are walking among us. Modern humans have as much as 3% Neanderthal dna (Europeans have the most). The NOVA Science Now program presented last night was a reiteration of what has been known for some time. Modern paleoanthropology and evolutionary genetics is replete with evidence of species morphing into other species. Visit a natural science museum or, for that matter, look in a mirror. Every branch of modern science confirms the modern theory of evolution.

11) Comment by [e-mail] - 10/01/2013

Hey, maybe Mr. Hannie doesn't know the difference? Maybe Neanderthals still walk among us, who knows? Maybe evolutionary theories are right, but who can say it definitively? Should we teach something not proven as science? We all know that species can change due to selection, natural or otherwise, but how doees that fact explain the appearance of a species? Scientists, evolution defenders, and nobody else has ever produced one example of a species morphing into another due to natural selection. Not one.

12) Comment by swinham - 10/01/2013

Great letter and comments! There are many good reasons for separation of church and state - good for both religion and government. Many people of faith reconcile the creation story with the theory of evolution on exactly the same basis they accept other tenets of their faith. Demanding the teaching of creationism in public schools begs for religious persecution of the students trying to hold to their religious beliefs. There is no good argument for teaching creationism in public schools. Thank you, Dr. Hannie & regards to Rosemary.

13) Comment by postscript56 - 10/01/2013

The politicians that author, sponsor and vote for creationist legislation do so because they perceive a political advantage. Most of them would probably claim to really believe, but if there was no perceived advantage it would never come up for a vote. The small number of vocal, radical Christians who push this type of legislation do so either because they believe they have been appointed by God to save man from himself or because their own faith is too weak to withstand the fact that not everyone shares it. Common sense can't make a dent in either one.

14) Comment by Bighug - 10/01/2013

Great letter, Dr. Hannie. It is unfortunate that the average person in LA doesn't seem to understand what you have stated. Those who push for teaching creationism are interested only in their own myth. I haven't heard of anyone proposing teaching of the American Indian myth about a god who rises from underground to create people. It would be just as out of place in a science class as intelligent design.

15) Comment by tradewinns - 09/01/2013

religion has no base in facts, all just beliefs. just suppose, as an example, we could actually see what happened in days gone by. we concentrate on jesus' last days and we see people sneek into his tomb (the guards aren't to worried about jesus coming out-he's dead, so they are dead drunk and passed out. but to admit this tomorrow will mean their life so they wouldn't) remove his body and rebury him somewhere else. he didn't rise, he's still dead! is the entire christian world shopping for a new religion tomorrow or just deny what they have seen. it's what they want to believe that counts. no imperial proof required.

16) Comment by prbeav - 09/01/2013

It's obviously not about teaching: it's about power.

17) Comment by potkcalb - 09/01/2013

Agreed Mr. Hannie, but please understand that creationism and intelligent design are beliefs, beliefs that prevailed before the Age of Enlightenment, not scientific theories. In science a theory is not a belief, opinion, surmise, or conjecture. A scientific theory is a "well- substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world (note natural,not supernatural) based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." The modern theory of evolution meets al of those criteria. Currently no other purported explanation of how life forms change, evolve, meets any of them.