Creationist Wisdom #674: Teach Both Sides

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Post and Courier, the website of which gives no clue about their location — except for their weather report, which suggests Charleston, South Carolina. The letter is titled Teach both sides, and the newspaper has a comments feature.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is Dale. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

Neither the Bible nor science can state the “how” of creation, and it’s often argued that the timeline is also at issue.

That sentence has two totally different ideas in it. Regarding the first, we usually see the statement that science explains “how” things happen and religion explains “why,” but we never saw anyone say that science doesn’t even explain “how.” As for the rest of that sentence — Dale seems to have studied long and hard, and has noticed that the timeline of creation is also an issue. That’s impressive! Then he says:

Both sides have their theories [Aaaargh!!], and neither side can ultimately prove the “process” of creation [Aaaargh!!], particularly that of life and more importantly, that of man [Aaaargh!!]. Science does not say what this process is [Aaaargh!!].

Regarding our four objections to the foregoing paragraph: (1) Creationism, i.e., God (or intelligent designer) did it, isn’t a comprehensible, testable theory; (2) scientific theories are never proved; rather, they’re supported by tests and observations; (3) science suggests several natural ways that life could have begun; and (4) we know a great deal, supported by evidence, about the origin of man. Let’s read on:

Atheists and some Christians believe that evolution is the right “theory” [Dale’s quotation marks], and within that discussion there is major disagreement on whether God was or was not involved. On the other side of the argument, many Christians believe in the intelligent design theory [Aaaargh!!].

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory — see Discovery Institute: Intelligent Design Redefined, and also Kitzmiller v. Dover: Is ID Science? Dale continues:

As science delves into fossil facts trying to support evolution, it becomes more and more difficult to find supporting evidence without making up fantastic theories about gaps in data.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Nothing, however, quite as fantastic as God of the gaps. Here’s more:

More data reveal the incredible science behind the sustaining of life in the universe and within our own bodies. It points more directly to the likelihood of an intelligent creator, which most refer to as God. Why one theory is taught in schools and the other is not is simply bias.

Dale has noticed that the Discoveroids carefully avoid stating that their magical designer — blessed be he! — is God, but that’s because of the legal system’s unreasonable bias against Oogity Boogity! And now we come to the end:

Why do we insist on an educational system of indoctrination, instead of presenting our youth with competing theories, and then teaching them to think for themselves? Are we truly that worried that they might come up with the wrong answer, or are we fearful that those in control will lose their power and influence?

A powerful letter, ending with powerful questions. Well, dear reader, now that Dale has exposed your bias, why do you persist in pushing your one-sided educational system of indoctrination?

Copyright © 2016. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

13 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #674: Teach Both Sides

  1. Teach both sides? Biblical, creationist fiction versus scientific facts. Okay.

  2. OK, let’s hear the alternative theory for what happens so that life turns out as it does.
    Like, human organs are so much like the organs of chimps and other apes. When there are so many different possibilities. We could have eyes (or arms) like insects or like octopuses. The Intelligent Designers chose, and what did they do to implement their choice?

  3. “As science delves into fossil facts trying to support evolution, it becomes more and more difficult to find supporting evidence without making up fantastic theories about gaps in data.”
    Dale must be a very happy man – the more fossil facts the more gaps he can plug his god in!

    “Why one theory is taught in schools and the other is not is simply bias.”
    Indeed. Why one theory is taught in Sunday schools and the other not is simply bias.”

    “Why do we insist on an educational system of indoctrination”
    Exactly! The USA should have get rid of the Sunday school system long ago. Dale is Da Man!

  4. Just think of the indoctrination going on with sports.
    Sports like golf and racing, the smaller number Is the winner. Why make the arbitrary decision that the larger number is the winner in football and basketball?
    Why is Calvinball not given a fair chance?

  5. RetiredSciGuy

    Dale (who might be a woman; can’t tell from the name) asks,
    “Why do we insist on an educational system of indoctrination, instead of presenting our youth with competing theories, and then teaching them to think for themselves?”

    Dale, it’s the churches that do indoctrination, and they definitely do not teach children “to think for themselves.” Quite the contrary. Religions tell children (of all ages) what they are to believe, at risk of everlasting condemnation. (My apologies, mnb0. I just now read your last paragraph above. Still, it is such an important point that it bears repeating.)

    So, Dale, why is this preferable to science? Science is based on observation of physical reality, and the theories of science are formed to fit those observations. Students are not told what to believe; they are shown the evidence that has led to our understanding. They are free to believe that there is more to the story that may be revealed by new observations, and this might lead them to make those observations themselves.

  6. I’ve always been a fan of teaching the Zeus theory of lightning. Those government funded indoctrination factories don’t give a fair hearing to His Lightning-Boltness who sits atop Olympus and hurls down bolts. Why not give it a fair hearing? Are THEY afraid of students thinking for themselves? Teach both sides!

  7. I truly wish I could say you must really work hard to find the few idiots that believe this crap! But I’m afraid it is too easy to find them!

  8. Dale wants “both sides” taught? Sweet! Let’s start with sex ed. Let’s expose (heh) the kids to both abstinence-only and to the full-frontal (heh again) version of sex ed, to include a discussion on the use of all different kinds of contraceptives, the whys and wherefores of STDs, and… everything else. The textbook will be the kama sutra. Let’s really teach the kids to think for themselves
    TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!

  9. RetiredSciGuy

    Hey, Gary, I like your idea! It would certainly cut down on the number of totally neurotic people in this country. We should really get into teaching the “how-tos” of good love-making. We’d have a lot more happy, well- adjusted people with healthy sex lives.

    Too bad it will never happen in this country. They do a decent job in the Netherlands, I understand. Just read something on that but don’t have time to find the link.

  10. If you want Italian food do you a) go to Italian restaurant or b) go to Chinese restaurant and insist they serve Italian?

    If you want faith-based ideas do you a) go to church or b) go to reason/evidence based public school class and insist they serve faith?

  11. Is it true as I have heard, that in Quebec Chinese restaurants must have their menus in French?