"Star-Bulletin"
Tuesday, August 7, 2001
Creationism debate curious on both sides
The recent controversy over teaching creationism in our schools has
left me both bemused and bewildered.
I am bemused at the vehemence of the letters against such a
proposal. Frankly, if evolution is true, I should
think the writers of those letters would welcome a chance for our
children to debate its merits along side
any and all other claims to the origin of our species. But no, they
seem to be more intent on maintaining the
status quo than any honest attempt at a rational debate on the facts.
On the other hand, I am bewildered by the lack of response from
those who believe creationism is true. Do
they agree with the evolutionists that creationism is a myth,
something that can only be received by blind
faith, regardless of the facts? If so, surely creationism has no
place in our schools or anywhere else in our
society. If on the other hand creationism is a more reasonable
explanation of our existence, why has there
been little if any protest from those who have examined the facts
and determined that indeed it is evolution
that is the myth and creationism that is fact?
Dean Schmucker
Wailuku, Maui
Creationism editorial missed the point
Sunday's editorial, "Creationism debacle drowned out meaningful
discussion of beliefs," shows a lack of
understanding of the issue.
There can be no "meaningful" discussion of beliefs if you are
debating creationism versus science, which
the Darwinism natural selective process clearly is. Science has
nothing to do with faith-based belief.
Science is based on compiled data over long periods of time that has
been subjected to the most rigorous
challenges. Religion, which is based on faith, has nothing to do
with science or scientific inquiry.
The editorial position that there could have been a more meaningful
discussion of beliefs is naive. How can
there be meaningful discussion when the creationists, whose ideas
are based on faith, are trying to abrogate
the tenets of science, which is based on established, demonstrable fact?
To have discussions on world religions apart from science could be
meaningful and might provide insight
into the truth that forms the basis of all the worlds great religions.
Furthermore, it might even open eyes to the relativity of belief
itself, thereby making possible the
acceptance of the mystery that underlies all creation.
Wendell Davenport
Oryginal: http://starbulletin.com/2001/08/07/editorial/letters.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Star-Bulletin"
Letters to the Editor
Thursday, August 2, 2001
[snip]
Why didn't board members speak up?
In the dispute over creationism vs. evolution, why did members of
the Board of Education sit silent, not asserting that adaptation
is the means by which species not well-suited over time to their
habitat and environment, can become new species (i.e. ape to
human) in the evolutionary process. Evolution happens naturally
and inevitably through adaptation, survival of the fittest and
other means of natural selection.
Not one board member questioned Denise Matsumoto's assertion that
creationism is a theory supported by "scientific data," by
implication equivalent to that scientific data supporting the
theory of evolution.
I, personally and as a priest, can make a good argument that
creationism is true in the sense that God did create the heavens
and Earth and all that is in and on them -- but by his own
miraculous, rational system of evolving species, one from another.
That is a matter of faith, though, not something to be taught in
public schools. This understanding of and belief in God's creative
process neither negates nor refutes the facts of evolution. It is
a matter of faith -- just that -- not a matter of scholarship.
The Rev. Layton Zimmer
Wailuku, Maui
Religious beliefs don't belong in science class
Denise Matsumoto of the Hawaii Board of Education, the body
charged with guiding the education of Hawaii's children, considers
creationism a "theory supported by science" worthy of being taught
as a valid alternative to the theory of evolution. This assertion
is appalling and, frankly, dangerous.
To argue that creationism should be taught as a reasonable
alternative to evolution is logically absurd. The theory of
evolution, like all scientific theories, is built upon a large
number of objective, reproducible observations, logically and
systematically organized. It is itself a product of a series of
tested, rejected and refined hypotheses -- scientific evolution if
you will. Creationism is not a product of testing, questioning or
reproducible observations, but rather is a faith-based, subjective
justification for that which we can't logically explain.
Creationism should not be taught as an alternative to evolution.
They are not interchangeable. A person could believe that "it all
had to start from something" (creation) and still accept that the
scientifically documented biological process of evolution occurs.
Pitting this natural human plea for an explanation of our ultimate
beginning against a scientifically sound natural process is
specious and is not acceptable in our public education system. It
is regressive and we can't allow it.
Kevin Johnson
Research geologist
Bishop Museum
Face it, no one will ever really know Amazing. Who knew so many were around to observe the origin of our
universe?
Of course, all of these witnesses stringently held to the
scientific method when it happened -- first observing the
phenomenon, then gathering data about it via their five senses,
then hypothesizing about it, then carrying out experiments to
prove/disprove their hypothesis, then reforming their hypothesis,
then experimenting some more, then reforming their hypothesis
again, and finally gathering enough unchanging facts for an
official scientific theory.
But that can't possibly have happened because absolutely no one
was around to physically observe the origin of the universe. No
one has ever been able to recreate it. No one has ever been able
to prove it through experiments. And no one can consider their
version of our beginnings as anything other than the theories that
they are.
Scott Yoshino
Mililani
Evolution passes test; creationism does not
Proponents of creationism and the equally bogus "Intelligent
Design" movement claim their pet theory is science. They are
wrong. A scientific theory must be able to explain the evidence
available. Creationism and Intelligent Design fail miserably at
this task. They do not belong in a science classroom.
In science, it is difficult to prove a theory, but it is easy to
disprove theories that are significantly wrong. Creationism has
failed to explain the vast amounts of evidence from biology,
archeology, geology and astronomy. Evolution succeeds at this
task. It would be a lie to teach creationism as a valid
alternative theory.
Eugene Magnier
Astronomer
Kamuela, Hawaii
Faith is churches' business, not schools
Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory that seeks to account for
the facts. It is the nature of science that no theory can ever be
final. Every claim of the theory must be testable and tested. If a
fact appears that the theory cannot account for, or a claim is
tested and found wanting, then the theory must be changed.
Darwin's theory has had many details changed over the years as new
data have been found.
Creationism is not a theory. It is an allegation of fact. Since no
evidence could prove its central claims are false, they are
untestable. One cannot know that they are true. One can only
believe, or not. They are not, therefore, comparable.
Interestingly enough, just as the theory of evolution has seen
some of its details change over the years; so also has
creationism. When I was a kid a creationist insisted to me that
God had created the universe in 4004 B.C. with those dinosaur
bones buried under the ground to test my faith. Few creationists
would make such a statement today, but the nature of creationism
has not changed. For all its pretense, it is still an allegation
of fact, not a testable theory attempting to account for all the
data. It does not belong in the science curriculum until it is.
My personal opinion as a science-trained clergyman is that, if God
exists, God created the wonderful diversity of species by means of
something very like that described in the theory of evolution. And
the first chapter of Genesis is a poem of praise for the goodness
of that creation, not an attempt to describe God's technique.
I call upon clergy of all faiths, and all people of faith, to stop
trying to turn the public schools into Sunday School. That is our
business, not theirs.
The Rev. Mike Young
Minister First Unitarian Church
Book may help some to see the light
Regarding the Star Bulletin's Aug. 1 letter signed by 62
University of Hawaii educators regarding their dismay at the
possibility of the Board of Education's proposed changes,
particularly the issue of creationism vs. evolution, I pose a
friendly challenge.
I ask that all who oppose teaching creationism read a book that
can be found in any of our libraries. It is called, "A Case For
Faith" by Lee Strobel, an award-winning legal editor with the
Chicago Tribune.
His intention was to prove creationism wrong. But after
interviewing well-known scientists Walter L. Bradley, James Tour,
Norman L. Geisler, and others, he found that the possibility of
evolution without creationism is nearly impossible to the point of
putting the odds at 1 to 10 with 60 zeros behind it.
This book is a remarkable piece of honest reporting and
investigative talent. I implore all UH professors and educators to
read and discuss it honestly. There is nothing wrong in being
wrong, but to deny a truth in fact, is worse.
Bob Ruiz
Educated people know both sides of story
It was a pleasant surprise to read about a state school board
member's proposal to include the theory of creationism in our
public school curriculum.
I think it's a good idea, but naturally we are hearing howls of
protest from outraged opponents. Such folks might do their blood
pressure a favor by considering the example of an old nun I used
to know.
She taught biology in a Catholic high school in South Texas 35
years ago and every semester she'd tell her students:
"We all know that God created the heavens and the Earth and
everything therein, but we're going to study Darwin's Theory of
Evolution because educated people need to understand opposing
viewpoints."
Evelyn Cook
Kapaa, Kauai
Oryginal: http://starbulletin.com/2001/08/02/editorial/letters.html
POWRÓT