Creationism and Intelligent Design Should Be Kept Out of the Classroom

February 3, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (71)

By John Aloysius Farrell, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

Over to your right, at the start of his U.S. News op-ed on creationism, Henry Morris contends that 60 percent of Americans believe in the Jewish and Christian myth of creation: that some 10,000 years ago, a Supreme Being created an Adam and Eve and so began the human race.

He cites this statistic as a reason for including creationism, along with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, in public school biology classes.

By doing so, of course, Morris exposes the silliness in his own argument.

Humans believe in lots of stupid stuff. Ghosts. UFOs. Satan. Collateralized Debt Obligations.

Our ancestors believed that the sun was a flying God named Apollo. The Hopi, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Mormons, and many other peoples have composed elaborately varying songs of creation. It is our nature, when looking out at the great twin expanses of space and eternity, to come up with comforting myths.

The alternative—"They give birth astride of a grave, the light gleams an instant, then it's night once more"—makes for truly courageous literature, but too many sleepless nights. 

Here's a challenge for Mr. Morris, as we consider the seriousness of popular opinion. Name one great movie star who hasn't played a supernatural being, or otherwise starred in a science fiction or fantasy flick.

The pop culture industry—that supposed font of liberal atheism—constantly fills our heads (and its bank accounts) with comforting imagery of dancing angels, talking pigs, kung fu pandas, star cruisers, zombies, cavemen riding dinosaurs, sensuous vampires, lost loved ones who linger as friendly spirits, comic book superheroes, cuddly aliens, prep schools for wizards, and cute beeping robots.

The Force is ever with us. When you add all that mythology to the pervasive influence of Sunday church services, religious schooling, and Christian rock radio, it's a wonder that science can carve out any space in our culture at all.

Skeptical journalism? Well, consider U.S. News—which gives Mr. Morris and his superstitions equal time, in homage to "objectivity."

And yet, we humans can compartmentalize. We may not want to weigh the pointlessness of life in every waking moment—there are too many fun things to do. But at some level we acknowledge that myths are myths and facts are facts and it's better for the race if we keep the two things separate. The place for that is science class. And we need to keep it that way. 

Tags:
evolution,
science,
education,
religion,
public schools

Reader Comments Read all comments (71)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Comment on Ferrell's statement below :

"The Force is ever with us. When you add all that mythology to the pervasive influence of Sunday church services, religious schooling, and Christian rock radio, it's a wonder that science can carve out any space in our culture at all."

BOO HOO! Oh those poor, poor, atheists and evolutionists - they can't get anyone to listen to them ! NOOOO, NOT AT ALL !

After all they have only hijacked every primary science classroom in the country along with the textbooks they use, only every museum and zoo is like a temple to the god of evolution, only countless shows on cable like the discovery channel, pbs, ect.. , and thank goodness for Mr. Ferrell because you know there really is no other commentators on this subject out there !

Give me a break, what a self-centered view of the world you and yours must have to feel SOOO MISTREATED by society !!!

BOOOOOO!

Jeff of NJ of NJ 7:15PM January 30, 2010

"Evolution is descent with modification, which just means if Mom and/or Dad had it and passed it to me, now I've got it, and if I and my siblings who also have it are busy enough and successfully pass it around, eventually a good chunk or all of the population will have it. Then the population will have evolved.

So, you know what? Any inherited change that spreads through THE POPULATION, however small, is in fact evolution, and while the change may be neutral rather than beneficial or harmful, the concept is far from meaningless. In fact, it is fundamental. I don't believe there is a lot of confusion among evolutionary biologists about this. On the other hand, perhaps it is you who are confused..."

No, sadly I think it is you GalapagosPete of CA this is confused.

What you described is VARIATION NOT EVOLUTION.

The concept of variation is not disputed.

Evolution takes variation one step further to try and explain how a totally new species could be created by the accumulation of all of these random mutations. It ultimately contrives a very complex (lets hope so) process by which the "original species" is cutoff from the "new" species by both physical barriers so that eventually the "new" species has mutated to the point that is no longer able to breed with the "original" species. A key part of the Natural Selection process is the rate of procreation - which is really the most important feature since this is how a mutation in a single organism would eventually "spread" thru the population - the organisms with the mutation simple procreate at a faster rate than the general population.

Perhaps you need to review Biology 101 again yourself

Jeff of NJ of NJ 3:18PM January 30, 2010

I agree that the class room should not be used to "prove creation".

Why anything exists at all is an existential matter - not a scientific one.

Having said that, it seems that people are more fixated with the religious beliefs of a scientist rather than his critique of data or theory.

Regardless of how or why one develops his/her hypothesis, that is not the question - the question is what is the OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE that supports this hypothesis.

If the evidence supports the hypothesis, then the debate begins as to who's hypothesis is has the strongest evidence and which should be given preference.

Many of the accepted "facts" we have today are actually based on a lot of ASSUMPTIONS. It is kind of like backing into a mathmatical equation where the "answer" is known and you have some of the variables. It then because a matter of simply solving for the unknown variables (ie, "assumptions").

There is only one thing scarier than religious intolerance, that's "Scientific Intolerance"

Jeff of NJ of NJ 2:13PM January 30, 2010

John A. Farrell

John A. Farrell

John Aloysius Farrell is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. An award-winning Washington reporter, he has written for The Boston Globe and The Denver Post and is the author of Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century and an upcoming biography of the great American defense attorney, Clarence Darrow.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Latest Videos

advertisement