School board considers censoring books, handing out Bibles

Re:evolution?
What scientists mean by the word “theory” is not what the average lay person means by the word “theory.”

Evolution is a fact, well-supported not only in the fossil record but also by what “creation science” advocates claim can’t exist, experimental demonstration. The “theory of evolution” is what attempts to explain to observed scientific fact of evolution–just like the theory of gravity attempts to explain gravity.

Evolution, and the theory of evolution, are a part of science, subject to experimental test. If we’ve gotten something wrong, eventually we’ll find the approach that falsifies what we’ve done so far–just as Newton’s laws of motion were potentially falsifiable, and eventually falsified, by Einstein’s mathematics.

“Creation science” is not science, and does not belong in the science classroom, because it is _by_ _definition_ not falsifiable and not subject to scientific test. God created everything in a single day. Why do the oldest animal teeth we have show the wear of daily use, when presumably at least some of those animals came into existence as fully formed adults, with never-used teeth? Why, because the teeth wouldn’t have been properly useful without that wear! And so on. Once you grant creationism as an explanation for anything, it explains _everything_, it provides a deus ex machina for any potential weaknesses. It’s simply not science. It provides nothing to work with, no method for gaining greater knowledge of the physical world.

And, as a religious believer, I find this bizarre and unacceptable. God gave us marvelous brains; I have to conclude that he He intended us to use them. “Creation science” is a barrier, not an avenue, to the use of the brain. I believe God created the universe; I don’t believe He planted fake physical evidence to lie to us and pointlessly test our faith. We might have some things about evolution wrong, but “creation science” is blasphemous.

Teaching religion has no place in the _public_ schools, if for no other reason than that we don’t all hold the same religious beliefs that we want taught to our children. Religious instruction belongs in the home, and in the religious schools and places of worship that families choose for themselves.

Re:evolution?
But I’m not going to be making that argument in the context of science instruction, because it’s true but it’s _not_ _science_. Science instruction should be about _science_, not about other ways of knowing other kinds of truth. Not about your religious beliefs, not about my religious beliefs, not about Native American religious beliefs, not about Christian fundamentalists’ religious beliefs. _Science_.

And yes, all versions of “creation science” that are pushing for teaching “creation science” in the public schools DO insist on a version that rejects, at a minimum, human evolution from non-human predecessors. Religious believers who accept evolution and believe that “in His own image” relates to the soul, not the physical form, aren’t pushing for teaching religion in science class. They are, in fact, on the other side of the argument, _because_ “creation science” is not, in fact, another scientific theory, and not a doctrinally-neutral acknowledgment of God (what would that look like, anyway), but a rival religious doctrine, propounded by people who regard Catholics and mainstream Protestants as “not Christians”.

Thinking that all religious belief is the same religious belief is a mistake fraught with peril.

Re:evolution?
Saying that The Lord of the Rings is an immensely popular work of fiction by an Oxford don is a true statement, but it’s not theology, and has no place in CCD class.

Science deals in facts, which, no, is not quite the same thing as truth. Science is about the physical world–what and how and when. Religion and philosophy are about why, and ought to, and should.

Religion can’t answer questions about the physical world, and science can’t tell us what we should _do_ about those physical facts.

As for life evolving from a single cell being “as provable as Adam & Eve”–change from one species to another species has been demonstrated, and not just in microbes but in plants. DNA studies show relationships between species that do match what evolutionary theory predicts but don’t make any sense if you insist on creationism. Throw out evolution, and you’re not just throwing out most of biology, but also most of how we do science–which does seem rather extreme and hard to defend, given the fact that the methodology of modern science quite demonstrably works.