Letters to the Editor
-
drop the 'drink the kool aid' cliche
Can we put a moratorium on that one? It's become almost as tired as 'thrown under the bus' or even 'the pot calling the kettle.'
I'll grant, however, that, in this case, it's appropriate. Cary, I agree that people ought to have the freedom to believe stupid shit if they want to, but saying that you should be tolerant of your friend's crackpot views is completely different from saying that he ought to be allowed to cloak his nonsense in politically motivated pseudo-science and disseminate it as truth to impressionable kids.
Evolution is not a 'belief,' nor were its conclusions derived for the purpose of any agenda other than getting as close to the truth behind the mystery of creation as possible. Intelligent Design and 'Creationism' are pure sophistry--bogus arguments made in the service of a social, religious, and political agenda. They are not an unbiased effort to uncover the truth, but a shameless ploy to invent a scientific rationale for a mythic tradition that serves a biased, exclusive, intolerant, anti-intellectual interest group.
Intelligent design can be fairly compared to the 'research studies' on the effects of smoking funded by big tobacco companies.
LW, tell your buddy to leave it in Sunday School where it belongs. Cary, I dig that you want to be open-minded and avoid the kind of knee-jerk discrimination us lefties tend to vent on the bible-thumpers, and you're right to remind us that tolerance is a two-way street. But we also have an obligation to objectivity, particularly in our learning institutions, that is more important than being polite.
-
Sorry, Cary ...
Maybe a commenter has mentioned this already, so sorry if this is redundant, but you seem more intent on defending the validity of creationism, rather than the actual question about the appropriateness of teaching creationism to unsophisticated *children.* A child cannot understand the nuance of your response, which might have merit only if creationism were being taught to adults who can make the distinction between religious belief and scientific method. When done to kids, especially without their parents' consent, I find that a form of brainwashing. It's the same perniciousness as promoting the propaganda term "intelligent design."
One last thought: tell me how teaching children that creationism has as much merit as science helps get across the threat that is climate change? If creationism is on the same plane, then genuflecting to some supreme creator and hoping it will intervene before the sea levels rise 20 feet should be just as helpful as anything else we can do.
-
We teach kids all sorts of nonsense
I was taught that Columbus discovered America. Later, I was taught that Amerigo Vespucci discovered America. I was taught all kinds of other nonsense in public school, and eventually learned more about it and am closer to knowing the truth. Kids will be taught religious and secular falsehoods throughout their schooling, in public or private schools. That isn't the issue, nor is it a question of child abuse.
The question is should the LW's friend be the one teaching the nonsense. If the LW's friend believes the nonsense, he should teach it. If he doesn't, he shouldn't be teaching it.
If the LW feels that believing the nonsense is OK, but teaching it somehow crosses a line, then she is splitting hairs. You can believe in science and in a form of creationism, but the actual creationism curriculum taught in schools (and what LW's friend will be teaching) is mutually exclusive to science.
It is silly to ask someone not to judge you for your beliefs, or not to judge your beliefs. If you believe in little green men from mars, you will be judged based on that belief, and there should be no moral guilt associated with that judgment. Obviously the creationists out there pass judgment on those who believe in science and don't feel like they are committing a moral transgression in doing so.
-
Just to get this out of my system: LW
There are things you tolerate, and then there are things you don't tolerate.
And one of the things you do not tolerate is someone in a postion of trust abusing that trust.
That is what your friend LW, is contemplating doing. Those kids are going to look up to your friend as a teacher, as someone who is going to guide their education.
Now, some people will argue that if not him, a fundementalist who has never read Darwin will take the same job, and they are right, except for one thing:
Your friend by the sounds of it doesn't believe in creationism, is trying to believe it and is going to end up faking believing it - in order to teach those kids something which will stunt their acedemic growth and hurt their earning ability as they age into a world that knows better.
It is no accident that the Bible Belt has higher poverty levels.
The consequences of what they will learn cannot be easily undone and this is something that if your friend is a decent person, will haunt him as he sees his students go precisely nowhere.
This is not simply an issue of whether your friend believes in God, this is an issue of whether your friend believes in truth. Tell him your feelings on the subject be honest and be blunt, disagreements amongst friends only end friendships when those friendships are weak. This is your friend, advise him against doing something he will regret forever after.
-
Why?!?!
Why can't the eternal omnipitant lord of all creation have taken 13 billion or so years for everything to get to its present state? The fundamentalists are always going on about how all-knowing & all-powerful God is. To me, this means that time doesn't matter to him/her. A billion years can be passed with a snap of his/hers mighty fingers, etc.
I think this whole thing (young earth, creationism, etc.) is just a wedge issue they forment to try and sow dissension between their followers & the 'pointy headed intellectuals'.
If the people like LW's friend ever gave it a moments thought, they would see that their God can easily have created everything & taken (what is for humans) a hell of a long time to do it.