BCT Editorial – 11/14/05

This page was last updated on November 14, 2005.

Salutes & Boots; Editorial; Beaver County Times; November 14, 2005.

As I noted in a previous critique, I get a kick out of this debate. I learned about evolution during my eight years (1958 - 1966) at St. Titus (a grade school) and it was made clear that evolution and creationism were not mutually exclusive.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Salute: To the voters in the Dover School District who replaced nearly the entire school board with a slate that called for removing ‘intelligent design’ from the high school science curriculum. The Associated Press reported that eight of nine school board members were up for election on Tuesday, and all eight were voted out in a showdown over how evolution is to be taught and the cost of the district’s policy on intelligent design.”

[RWC] What did the editorial omit? The votes garnered by both groups. The winners got only from 50.2% to 51.5% depending on the open seat. Given that fact, I think it’s fair to say the ousted school board members weren’t out on the fringe of public thought on this topic.

“Boot: To the Kansas Board of Education for approving science standards for public schools that cast doubt on the theory of evolution and for redefining the word ‘science’ so that it’s not limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena. Ironically, that 6-4 vote took place on the same day that Dover voters were rejecting the intelligent design slate. The Kansas decision is a huge step backward. American children already are doing poorly in math and science when compared with their counterparts in other countries, and this decision doesn’t help. These relentless, theology-based attacks on science, especially if they continue to achieve success as was achieved last week in Kansas, are nothing less than unilateral academic disarmament.”

[RWC] What’s wrong with casting doubt on a theory? By definition, theories have doubt cast on them because they are as yet unproven. When a theory is proven, it is no longer a theory; it becomes a fact. If we didn’t cast doubt on theories, we’d still believe the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth. If evolution as an explanation for the source of life on Earth were a proven fact, it would not be a theory. As I already noted, theories are unproven by definition. Apparently, though, the Times believes theories – or at least the theory of evolution – should be taught as proven facts.

Second, why should not creation be considered a “natural explanation of phenomena?” I’m not saying I believe in creationism, but why would it be unnatural?

Finally, I believe it would be just as wrong to teach creationism at the exclusion of evolution as it would be to teach evolution at the exclusion of creationism. Neither evolution as the source of all life nor creation can be proven.