Creationist Wisdom #1,089: Our Schools Are Unjust

Today we have a new letter-to-the-editor for you. It appears in the Record Eagle of Traverse City, Michigan, population 15,678. The letter is titled Indoctrination in schools, and the newspaper has a comments feature — with no comments yet.

Unless the writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. Today’s letter-writer has the same name as someone with a responsible position, but the newspaper doesn’t say that’s who he is. We’ll use only his first name, which is Tony. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!

Indoctrinate: “To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view.” Indoctrination in public school classrooms is codified by the Michigan Science Standards, which requires a high school graduate to be able to “Communicate scientific information that common ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence.” (HS-LS4-1).

Egad — that’s evolution! Tony doesn’t like it. He says:

Gradual indoctrination starts in kindergarten. Yet there is no requirement that a student learn scientific evidence for design [Gasp!]: for example, cosmic fine tuning, and the origin of life and biological information. Public school libraries are largely void of design thought.

No information about design? That’s horrible! Then he tells us:

Teachers are trained to teach only one side of the controversy. Those indoctrinated, indoctrinate. [Yeah!] If students or parents object, they cry “no religion allowed here!” as they promote their protected origins ideology. Most mean no malice but have themselves embraced one “ideological point of view” and must meet the standards.

The teachers are indoctrinated with the ideology of evolution. That’s horrible! Tony continues:

It has been effective. Our society suffers as a result.

We’re suffering because evolution (and not design) is taught in the schools? Tony explains what he means:

I see it in the lives of college students who believe science disproves God because they’ve never encountered evidence for cosmic and biological design.

Ooooooooooooh! They’ve never seen the evidence for design!
And now we come to the end:

This is tragic. It is unjust. It is indoctrination.

Tony writes a powerful letter. Will it have any effect? We shall see.

Copyright © 2022. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

15 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #1,089: Our Schools Are Unjust

  1. docbill1351

    Awwwww, Tony has a sad.

  2. I fear for everyone because there is no cure for the Tonys of the world.

  3. Sorry Tony, common ancestry and biological evolution ARE supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence, unlike your favorite sky fairy, whoever he/she/or it my be.

  4. I tried to post this note on the paper’s website, but couldn’t log in:

    “It should not be considered “indoctrination” if what the teacher presents is the observational evidence on which the theory of natural selection is based. The fossil record shows very clearly that life on earth has changed over time. Now, was God responsible for all these changes? Perhaps, but we should not teach it as such in the public schools because that would be religious indoctrination.

    Life changing over time is evolution. Darwin proposed that natural selection over many generations was responsible for this change. That’s not to say that God didn’t cause this natural selection; it may well be the way He chose to make it happen. The problem is, there’s no way to prove it. Accepting natural selection as the cause of evolution does not require the rejection of God.

  5. Aarrgh! Forgot the close quote. Oh, well.

  6. “… college students who believe science disproves God”. And Tony wants to have the opposite: science proves God. Sorry Tony, neither works.

  7. Dave Luckett

    Which is, of course, the point. God’s existence and works cannot be demonstrated by material, physical means. Christians and Jews are specifically warned that they are not to put the Lord their God to the test, anyway.

    More directly, there is no unimpeachable evidence for God, for there never could be any. All phenomena, all observations whatsoever, can be dismissed as evidence, no matter what is claimed. All are inessential, mistaken, delusional or fraudulent.

    If Richard Dawkins or P Z Myers or Aron Ra looked up at the sky and saw God’s face looking down at them, and heard the choir of Heaven, they would immediately dismiss it as autosuggestion, perhaps with pareidolia from a chance arrangement of clouds. They would ask, with David Hume, “What is more likely?” And they’d be right. Perhaps I am more suggestible than they, for it would convince me, but that’s just me. I’d prefer to believe in God to believing that I’d gone insane. But they’d be right, all the same.

    So Tony’s error is not only that there is scientific evidence for God – there isn’t, but let that go by. It is that he thinks there could be. To be fair, that’s an error he shares with most of those who demand it, from the other side of the fence.

  8. “I see it in the lives of college students who believe science disproves God because they’ve never encountered evidence for cosmic and biological design.”

    Why do I get the feeling he don’t see squat other than the polemic in front of his own eyes as he thinks up things to type out and fill up space with words? Why do I get that feeling.

  9. I’d like him to be more specific about the lives of college students he sees. Something tells me he’s making that up.

  10. I think Tony needs a healthy dose of cross examination. Since he believes in ghosts I would suggest he hire Johnnie Cochran, because Tony’s testimony stanks like a ripe banana.

  11. @David Luckett In this situation, I would fetch my camera and see whether God’s face appears in its images, too. If it does, I would probably believe that God is real.

  12. Dave Luckett

    rumpelio: And thus you might convince yourself. “Probably”, as you say. But suppose God’s face did appear in the photo. Would that convince one or more of the gentlemen I named? I very much doubt it. You’d find either your credulity or your bona fides criticised.

    Or suppose the photograph did not show an undoubted face, merely an incandescent cloud-and-sunshine pattern that looked like one, but the photo lacked the grandeur and glory that you saw – because cameras, clever devices as they are, do not capture such qualities. Would that still convince you? That is, would you not doubt your own perceptions, knowing them to be fallible?

  13. Back in the day a pack of travelling scam-vangelists visited our church and told us miraculous stories and sold any takers photos of Jesus in the clouds for five bucks a pop. That was back when five dollars meant something.

  14. Jesus is a white hippie looking dude in robes with his arms out like he wanted to play the hand slaps game with people by the way.

  15. So if you ever wany to play hand slaps, white Jesus guy is your goto dude for that.