I read the New York Times every day, and on the whole I find it to be a pretty good source of news. Though the New York Times leans liberal as with most news agencies in the US, I do not buy into the right wing conspiracy theories that the New York Times exists as a propaganda wing of the DNC or anything like that. However today there was an editorial that was so false and offensive, that I was compelled to respond. The first thing that is offensive about it is that it was printed as an editorial, this means no one had to attach their name to it. If you’re going to express your opinion, especially one so controversial, be vertebrate enough to attach your name to it. I have reprinted the article below in its entirety, it is of course copyright, the New York Times, 2008, and you can go to the original article by clicking on the title. My responses are in italics.
The Cons of Creationism
When it comes to science, creationists tend to struggle with reality. They believe, after all, that evolution by means of natural selection is false and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They also believe that students who are taught a creationist view of biology — or who are taught to disregard the Darwinist view — are not being disadvantaged.
This first paragraph serves no purpose except to set up the enemies of the New York Times editorial board in a bad light by associating them with the name, creationist. The New York Times has stooped the same level as drunk kids, who call the police, the Gestapo. They are trying to generate negative sympathy by calling names.
The Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution, setting an example that several other states are likely to follow. This is code for teaching creationism.
Not only is this a lie, but it’s not a very good lie. Any human who is not in a vegetative state, should be able to distinguish between teaching the strengths and weaknesses of one theory from teaching a totally different theory. The New York Times has effectively said that, “teaching the advantages and disadvantages of freestyle swimming is the same thing as teaching the backstroke.”
Any theory that is to be taught should be taught in its strengths and its weaknesses, to do otherwise would be to teach dogma, not science. Education should be about teaching children how to think. The New York Times seems to believe education is about teaching children to regurgitate facts given them by their betters. In the pursuit of truth, all facts should be allowed to come to light. If the New York Times is so confident in the theory of evolution than they certainly have nothing to fear from teaching its weaknesses.
It has the advantage of sounding more balanced than teaching “intelligent design,” which the courts have consistently banned from science classrooms. It has the disadvantage of being nonsense.
Because there cannot possibly be weakness in dogma.
The chairman of the Texas board, a dentist named Don McLeroy, advocates the “strengths and weaknesses” approach, as does a near majority of the board. The system accommodates what Dr. McLeroy calls two systems of science, creationist and “naturalist.”
The trouble is, a creationist system of science is not science at all. It is faith. All science is “naturalist” to the extent that it tries to understand the laws of nature and the character of the universe on their own terms, without reference to a divine creator. Every student who hopes to understand the scientific reality of life will sooner or later need to accept the elegant truth of evolution as it has itself evolved since it was first postulated by Darwin. If the creationist view prevails in Texas, students interested in learning how science really works and what scientists really understand about life will first have to overcome the handicap of their own education.
With this first statement, I completely agree. The Genesis story is a story that must be taken on faith. However, the New York Times is once again resorted to equating Darwinism’s weaknesses with creationism. There is no reason whatsoever to reference any divine creator, when speaking of the weaknesses of a scientific theory.
If evolution has evolved since the time of Darwin, then it must necessarily have had weaknesses. If it had no weakness then it could not have evolved.
Students will certainly be handicapped by not having the approved dogma drilled into their skulls. After all, they are only deltas. They are not capable of examining evidence without the guidance of someone superior to themselves. Instead, they will have a scientific theory that as the New York Times rightly points out is evolving, taught to them in its strengths and weaknesses. Who knows what this could do to a Delta’s mind? It is obviously in their own best interest of a shield them from this.
Scientists are always probing the strengths and weakness of their hypotheses. That is the very nature of the enterprise. But evolution is no longer a hypothesis. It is a theory rigorously supported by abundant evidence. The weaknesses that creationists hope to teach as a way of refuting evolution are themselves antiquated, long since filed away as solved. The religious faith underlying creationism has a place, in church and social studies courses. Science belongs in science classrooms.
Ahhh, I get it now. Evolution is exempt from examination.
If the weaknesses are antiquated and long since solved, then teach that. It is not too difficult to do, “this is a purported weakness, and this is how it has been purported to be solved.”
This last sentence is the most offensive of the entire article. The condescension and patronization is blatant and disgusting. They believe that people of faith are too stupid to see that this is mockery in the clothing of a concession. The New York Times has spent several paragraphs, demonstrating that they believe creationism to be a fantasy. Then they have the gall to elaborate on where it should be taught! No I’m sorry, it is never appropriate to teach fantasies as realities.
The origins debate rarely rises above the level of a playground brawl on either side, and that is a shame. However, the New York Times has brought it to a new low. In the past people such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris have argued that religious faith was nothing more than fantasy, but they had the decency to state the obvious, that fantasy should not be taught anywhere. They also had the decency to write their names on the front of their books.
J. W. Kraft