BCT Editorial – 5/17/05

This page was last updated on May 22, 2005.

Slippery slope; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 17, 2005.

I oppose teaching religion in public schools. I think teaching about religions is fine, but I don’t believe specific religious beliefs should govern public school curriculum. That holds true for creationism/“intelligent design.” I tend to believe in evolution, but I also believe evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive.

This editorial has a different agenda, however. In a not so subtle manner, the editorial tries to smear believers of “intelligent design” with images of Stalinism. I believe this is despicable.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Soviet-style science is alive and well and masquerading as intelligent design in the United States.”

[RWC] You’d think liberals would come up with new tactics. More often than not, if you disagree with liberals they raise the specter of Nazis, Stalin, et cetera. Of course, all these monsters were on the liberal end of the economic, political, and social spectrum.

Of course, even Republicans err. Recently on the Senate floor during the judicial filibuster debate Rick Santorum said, “Some are suggesting we are trying to change the law, we are trying to break the rules. Remarkable hubris. Imagine, the rule that this is the way we confirm judges has been in place for 214 years, broken by the other side 2 years ago, and the audacity of some Members to stand up and say, How dare you break this rule, it is the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying: I’m in Paris, how dare you invade me, how dare you bomb my city. It’s mine. This is no more the rule of the Senate than it was the rule of the Senate before not to filibuster. It was an understanding, an agreement, and it has been abused.”

Invoking Hitler was both wrong and stupid. Regardless of how objectionable the Democrat actions regarding judicial nominees, they don’t compare to Hitler. I expect far more from congressmen.

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sen. Santorum issued a clarification. Santorum said his Hitler comment was “meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues. My point was that it is preposterous for someone to trample a well-established principle, and then accuse his opponents of acting unlawfully when they try to reestablish that principle. Nevertheless, it was a mistake and I meant no offense.”¹ It’s hard to accept no offense is meant when you make comparisons to Hitler. It’s bad enough Democrats use this “tactic” on a routine base; I hope Santorum’s “slip” doesn’t become a Republican trend.

“Opponents of evolution are pushing to have intelligent design taught as an alternative to evolution in biology classes around the nation. It’s an issue in the Dover School Board primary election today and its presence in the classroom is being debated, again, in Kansas.”

[RWC] This paragraph contradicts the first. Nothing can be “Soviet-style” when alternatives are allowed.

The editorial glossed over the Dover situation. The school board did not change the curriculum to teach intelligent design and Dover does not teach intelligent design. Below are the statements the board required teachers to read to biology class students.

“Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design. The Origins of Life is not taught.

“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

“Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

“Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

“With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.”

Most or all of the science teachers refused to read the statement, so district administrators read the statement.

“Let’s start with this. Intelligent design seeks to impose a religious test to science, and that is something that cannot be done. As George Murphy wrote in ‘Evolution: Cosmic and Biological’ in the Bulletin of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology, ‘Science does not study God but the tools of God.’

“Or, as the National Academy of Sciences explained in ‘Science and Creationism,’ ‘Science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each.’

“To have some idea as to the impact that a faux science such as intelligent design can have on true science, we can look back to the Stalin-dominated Soviet Union. Instead of religion and intelligent design interfering with science, it was the communist beliefs of the despotic Joseph Stalin and the crackpot genetics of Timofei Lysenko that did the damage.”

[RWC] In case you missed it, the editorial just claimed evolution is “true science” and creationism is bogus. Perhaps the author can provide us with his information sources so we can all be 100% certain that anyone who believes in creation is undeniably wrong.

“In his book ‘Stalin: A Biography,’ Robert Service reports that Stalin was ‘attracted to any scientific idea which appeared congenial to the crude version of Marxist epistemology and ontology which he espoused. ... The most notorious case was Timofei Lysenko, a self-styled geneticist who claimed to be able to breed new strains of plant by changing their climatic environment. Trained geneticists such as (Nikolai) Vavilov protested that Lysenko ignored decades of proof that plants did not pass their environmentally acquired characteristics from one generation to another.’

“Their arguments were to no avail. Because Lysenko’s ideas meshed with Stalin’s political beliefs, they became the law of the land as far as Soviet science went. The ‘result was a catastrophe for Soviet genetics and the consignment of Vavilov to a forced-labor camp,’ Service reports.

“Finally, don’t buy the canard about only wanting to present alternatives to evolution. Many of those who piously argue they only want to present alternatives to evolution in science classes are hypocrites because they won’t allow the same freedom in their churches and colleges.

“For instance, many colleges that call themselves Christian have policies that forbid the hiring of Catholics as members of the administrative staff and faculty. Only evangelical Protestants need apply. They support diversity, except when it comes to presenting alternatives to their faith.”

[RWC] Reread the previous two paragraphs. It’s hard to know where to begin addressing the idiocy.

First, people who attend churches and church-affiliated schools choose to do so. You and/or your kids attend church-affiliated schools because you believe in that religion’s teachings. Unless you are well off and/or are willing to make significant financial sacrifices, your kids must attend public schools. Does the Times want us to believe churches have an obligation to teach the beliefs of other religions?

I know this undermines the picture the editorial wants to paint, but we also learned about evolution in addition to creation when I attended St. Titus grade school back in the 1960s. Perhaps that’s why I believe evolution and creationism aren’t mutually exclusive.

Second, why should church-affiliated schools hire employees who don’t share the religion’s beliefs? Does the Times believe churches have a responsibility to present “alternatives to their faith?”

Let’s look at this in terms the Times can understand. Does the Times believe labor union management should promote anti-union activities? Should the Democrat party promote conservative principles?

The editorial would have us believe the teaching and hiring policies of religious organizations should be the same as government-run schools!

“There are things that ‘current evolutionary theories haven’t yet explained,’ Murphy acknowledges. ‘But it is not legitimate to make the jumps from ‘Science hasn’t explained this’ to ‘Science can’t explain this’ to ‘An Intelligent Designer (aka God) did this directly.’’”

[RWC] True, just as it is not legitimate to smear people who support intelligent design with images of Joseph Stalin, an anti-religion mass murderer.

1. Frist starts countdown to final vote on nominee; Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; May 20, 2005.