1. Teaching creationism and intelligent design in
biology classes at the behest of religious lobbyists
 |
| This map first appeared in 2002 in Scientific American, and was based on data collected by Lawrence S. Lerner of California State University at Long Beach. |
"Fanatical evolutionists, many of whom claim scientific
credentials, are blinded by an anti-God bias. Over the years they have
concocted schemes which allow them to pass off their wizardry as science. Since
they call it scientific, it must be accepted as such without question."
Dr. Billy McCormack, board of directors for the Christian Coalition of America
Why do tax dollars fund school curricula that support the
religious views of one group: young earth Christians? Sure, 40% of American
adults are young earth Christians, but it does not follow that the other 60% of
Americans should support these beliefs through their taxes. Also, just because 40% of the people believe something to be true doesn’t
make it so. Education should be evidence-based. There is no scientific evidence
for the creationism account.
Creationism is based
on the interpretation of the bible, which is a Christian religious document. If creationism is to be taught
in schools or, like in Tennessee, teachers are allowed to discuss with students
the “problems with evolution”, why are we not funding other creation accounts
like those of the Native Americans, Hindus, and ancient Greeks? Why are we
preferencing one religion’s views on the origins of life when that is so
clearly in violation of our Constitution?
Finally, what does it say about the Christian account of the origin of life that they need school boards and state governments to back it up? If the teaching is sound on its own, why does it need a government stamp of approval? Christians don't require schools to teach about the virgin birth of Jesus in sex ed classes or his resurrection in history classes. Why does creation need to be taught in science classes? Why does it need government backing?
The very fact that young earth creationists are pushing so hard to be part of science curricula is telling. It's almost as if they don't even believe in creationism. They call their story 'creation science' as if adding 'science' to creation lends it validation. But if the term and the idea it represents are theologically valid, why seek scientific validation? Again, Christians don't try to prove the virgin birth or the resurrection. They take those things on faith even though they both are contrary to what nature has revealed to us about the human body. So why seek scientific validation on creation?
It is as if Christians are saying that faith is not enough and that only science can validate this belief. If faith is not enough and requires science to make it true, why not go straight to science for truth? Also, if science can validate theology, then why is the science that validates evolution faulty? Is it because, as Dr. McCormack says, evolution is 'anti-god'? So only science that validates God (as understood by the Bible) is good science?
He goes on to say, "Over the years they have concocted schemes which allow them to pass off their wizardry as science. Since they call it scientific, it must be accepted as such without question."
Replace the word 'science' with 'theology' and there you have the crux of the problem. Christian leaders don't like anything being accepted without question other than their interpretation of the Bible. This is not about evolution. It is about who is looked to for truths about life. Over the years religious leaders were the gatekeepers of truth. They concocted schemes to allow them to pass of their beliefs as truth. Now many people look to scientists as the gatekeepers of truth.
Even Christians value science over theology. If they did not, they would not use science to validate their theology. If faith was enough, it would stand alone. But even the most ardent creationists, by seeking to insert creation into science curricula, are admitting that faith is not enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment