Connections & Lies

A story & a letter to the editor in the TU today, Thursday, Dec. 6 had the unfortunate effect of getting a few of my grey cells moving.  The story was one by Deirdre Conner of the TU concerning the continuing battle of evolution in schools.  (Don’t ask me why the battle is still on)  It tells of an ousted educator who was chosen to be the new K-12 chancellor of education (why a person like this was picked in the first place is beyond me) who happened to be a creationist.  There were worries that his influence would try to “water down the teaching of evolution.”  I think this a fair concern.  In 2005, the story goes, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute gave Florida an F grade in science education. (A bit about that later) The good news is that grades were improved & science was vindicated.

The not necessarily bad news is that some parents think that their children should be taught alternative theories to evolution.  There’s nothing new there.  I also agree that teaching an alternative to just about anything can be useful.  After all, there are alternative ways of cutting a piece of wood, getting on base to score a run or making a touchdown.  At this point I should say that intelligent design was never mentioned in the article & the only time the word, “creationist,” was mentioned was in describing the chancellor.  But in the past few years intelligent design was the only flavor of the religious sector.  My objections are that ID is not a science or a theory & should not be taught in a science class.  Teaching it in a religious class or a comparative religion class is fine, but it has no business in the field of science.

This story got me to search the files because I remembered other connections to this subject.  The first was from a report published this past November from the American Institutes of Research which stated that, & here I’ll quote for accuracy, “American students even in low performing states like Alabama do better on math & science tests than students in most foreign countries, including Italy & Norway.”  Once again, that’s the good news.  The bad news?  “The bad news is that students in Singapore and several other Asian countries significantly out perform American students, even those in high achieving states like Massachusets.”

What’s that got to do about the story in the TU?  Got me to thinking @ another article I read, so back to the files.  In an op-ed column by James K. Willmot as a special to the Louisville, Ky. Courier-Journal dated December 2, 2007, the question, “Is creationism museum good for kids?” was asked.  This was concerning the new creationism museum in KY  Without going into detail, the position taken was that while the museum is certainly entertaining, taken in context & combined with the numbers of home schooled children whose only teaching is non scientific, what will be the effect?  We will be producing children woefully unprepared for the scientific/technological realities of the future and not the distant future, either.  This will be tantamount to asking two people to build a house.  One has not only the latest & best tools available but a vast practical background on building.  The other person is basically clueless and is armed with only a cracked hammer & a rusty, bent screwdriver.  That is what will happen, in effect, if we allow anything other than science to be taught in science classes.  We can’t allow the students of our country to be so ill prepared for living in the future & facing the realities of every day life.

The lies we are told.  A letter to the editor today sparked this idea.  It has to do with the double fallacy of a so called war on Christmas (something of which I’m afraid we will hear more) and equating secularism with being anti religious.  In my humble opinion, these ideas are not only outright wrong, but are being used for the sole purpose of inflaming opinion against any one not in the majority religion.

Think about it.  Think @ it the next time you hear or read a story @ it.  Every argument @ the war on Christmas & secular philosophy has two very consistent themes.  One is it is repeated often, loudly, without any evidence & in all too many cases, blindly accepted.

The second is what is not said.  That is, that in no recorded case has any person, group or government agency ever prohibited anyone from practicing their religion, displaying religious symbols or observing their religious holy days, under the law, in their home, on their property, their religious activities or in their respective places of worship. So just where is this supposed war?  Objecting to governmental backing of a particular religion is not a war.  Objecting to using public monies to fund a religious activity is not a war.  That is adherence to the law.

As for a secular system being anti religious is just wrong thinking, among other things.  (I'm being nice & keeping it clean)  Perhaps those who proclaim this philosophy forget that it is a secular system that protects their right to practice their religion.  It is a secular system that gives them special tax exempt status, special zoning privileges & prevents any other person or group from prohibiting their right to their religion as opposed to another.

As I said, think @ it the next time some one is ranting on the top of their voice about a war against religion or a secular person being anti religion.  JATFUR.

RichK