Obviously, flaws or contradictions in the theory of evolution should be investigated, as they should in any scientific theory. The scientific method demands that, if observations and experimentation do not support current hypothesis, then the theory should be reexamined.
However, since creationism is by definition NOT scientific in nature, it still should not be taught as such. It takes the scientific method and upends it...taking observations and forcing them to fit the theory. The theory itself is never questioned or modified.
This writer are illiterate.
Well, I'm gonna be all pedantic and quibblish.
I reject entirely the idea that something cannot be scientific "by definition". As I have said many times, the nature of science is determined by the content of science. If a genuinely successful and useful theory fails to meet some defining criteria of what is supposed to constitute an acceptable scientific theory, then the criteria will be changed and the theory retained. This has happened over and over again in the history of science.
The only reason that creationism should not be taught is that it is not, in fact, part of the content of science (as can be determined objectively by consulting the professional literature). It may be interesting to opine about whether creationism could be scientific, or whether that is impossible for some reason or another, but this is ultimately superfluous. There either is, or there is not, some creationistic theory that "works," that is useful to working scientist pursuing their research projects.
At present there is not such a theory. I can't imagine that there ever will be such a theory. But if I'm wrong, and some genuinely successful creationistic theory should emerge, and be actually (not just as a pretence) utilized and implicated in ongoing research by working scientists, then fine. And if that should ever happen, then the theory WILL be taught in the public schools, simply because it will in fact be a part of science. That's how this all works.
It takes the scientific method and upends it...taking observations and forcing them to fit the theory.
Yes. Granted that this is how it works out, so far, as a sociological fact. For instance every creationist organization that I know of has a "statement of faith," and these invariably commit members a priori to at least some scientific (as well as theological) conclusions. However should some genuinely successful creationistic theory emerge (however unlikely that may be) then it would not require such twisted and ideologically narrow support.
The theory itself is never questioned or modified.
This just isn't true. First of all there is no "theory" of creationism. At best there are scenarios and narratives on the one hand, or vacuous sub-theoretical generalizations on the other; and they are multiple. Different flavors of creationism often differ from each other as dramatically as they each differ from mainstream scientific accounts.
Secondly, modifications do occur. It may not always be for the right reasons. For instance it may have to do with a balancing act between "how much bible can we work in" versus "how much conventional science do we have to jettison," but changes do occur. For instance it used to be dogma at the Institute for Creation Research that "entropy" began with the fall of man (after Adam ate the apple). ICR president Henry Morris insisted on this idea, but other creationists said this was nonsense, and the idea was quietly dropped when Morris retired. The "vapor canopy" theory also used to be all the rage among YECs, but it too has fallen into disrepute among most. (This is mainly due, I think, to the problem with the ocean boiling heat that would be released when the vapor becomes liquid. For whatever reason, creationists don't want to invoke a miracle here.)
No, not at all. The article's first sentence says this:
Some people think evolution should not be mentioned at all in public schools, while others think any evidence that may contradict evolution should not be allowed.No truth in the part I underlined. The article goes on to say this:
For example, a growing number of prominent biologists are signing on to the following statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Written in 2001 to encourage open-mindedness within the scientific community ...That gives an entirely false impression. The genuine scientists who question evolution are an extremely small number. (When I say "genuine scientists" I'm aware of the 2 or 3 biologists who have been said to be "leaving evolution in droves"; and I intentionally exclude charlatans who, like Duane Gish, are trained primarily in the engineering of sanitation facilities.) The article ignores items like this: Project Steve: FAQs (National Center for Science Education) which demonstrates what a joke the "anti-evolution bandwagon" really is. The article also says:
However, I'm concerned that some citizens and committee members want Darwinian evolution taught as undisputed fact while prohibiting any critical analysis of this and other scientific theories. This is no less biased than those who do not want evolution mentioned at all. History reveals how such suppression of data actually hinders science, while honest inquiry promotes it.Purest garbage. Evolution is a theory, and should be tought as such. It explains facts, which is what theories are supposed to do. There are no competing scientific theories, so it's insane to speak of "suppression" of honest inquiry.
What is the liberal fear about this subject, claiming mixed messages.. Geeeze our kids are getting mixed messages everywhere they turn. Why is this debate so damned dangerous to their future , and the Queer vs straight contradiction so friggin healthy?
Since science is not religious in nature it should not be taught as such. That means it should not be taught as a means of promoting atheism and destroying religious belief. Science does not and perhaps never will be able to answer the mystery of life, the universe and everything.