In the Star Press of Muncie, Indiana we encountered this pathetic editorial: What’s so bad about creationism in public schools?
They’re talking about the stunningly stupid bill working its way through the Indiana Senate, about which we last wrote a couple of days ago (see Indiana Creationism Bill Moves Forward).
First they discuss some other bills in the legislature, and then they say:
The Republican-controlled Senate Education Committee voted 8-2 Wednesday to allow creationism to be taught in the state’s public schools. The bill now goes to the full Senate.
What does the esteemed editorial board think of that? Here are some excerpts from the editorial, with bold font added by us:
Opponents will argue this bill chips away at the separation of church and state and brings an unwelcome mixing of theocracy and scientific theory into the classroom. Not necessarily.
Oh really? Let’s read on:
Much would depend on how teachers handle the origins of life in a biology or science class. And there is no provision in the bill that states creationism must be taught as a science subject. Courts have ruled that using the Bible as an educational tool is permissible. We see nothing that would change that here, and note the bill stresses “theories” on the origins of life.
How can they say that creationism won’t be taught as a science subject when the proposed law — Senate Bill 0089 — provides:
The governing body of a school corporation may require the teaching of various theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science, within the school corporation.
Where else will “theories concerning the origin of life, including creation science” be taught — in algebra class? And the editorial mentions that the bill stresses “theories” on the origins of life. Do the esteemed editors know what a scientific theory is? Apparently not. We continue:
The march down the slippery slope occurs when theories are presented as facts.
Scientific theories are just that, and they should be taught as theories — which are both testable and supported by facts. Creationism isn’t a theory — it’s a religious doctrine supported by faith. There’s nothing scientific about it. Here’s more:
This bill could act as a safeguard against an educator mentioning creationism, and then possibly getting sued for promoting religion in the classroom.
Indeed. That’s one of the reasons why it’s a bad bill. Moving along:
Certainly, there is much empirical scientific evidence to support evolution, and some pretty good philosophical arguments to support creationism. It’s unfortunate, though, that the latter has to be tagged as a science.
What are these people saying? No one in his right mind says a philosophy is a science. Well, there’s that stuff called social science, but that’s a different topic. Here’s another excerpt:
We think a thorough education exposes students to different theories, and if schools have done a good job of developing a student’s critical thinking skills, there is no harm done.
We think the editorial board of this newspaper is totally lacking in critical thinking skills, and there’s a great deal of harm being done as a result. One more excerpt from the editorial:
Presenting theories in an educational setting is not an endorsement of religion, but an acknowledgment there are other ways of looking at an issue.
Again, it’s obvious that these journalists haven’t a clue as to the meaning of “theory” in science. Indeed, it’s apparent to us that they haven’t a clue about anything.
People of Muncie, heed the Curmudgeon: Your newspaper is written by fools!
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.