Creeping creationism in Chicagoland

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Creeping creationism in Chicagoland

I wouldn’t have thought it possible. In the South, maybe, but not in supposedly enlightened Chicagoland. But creationism is extending its tentacles into our area, trying, like Putin, to rear its ugly head in the public schools:

First, as the Daily Herald reports, two candidates for the Fremont School board (about an hour north of here) are in favor of teaching creationism in public school science classes. One is the current board president:

“I think from a scientific standpoint it can be given as a viewpoint,” board President Sandra Bickley said in the interview. “(It’s) another theory to consider.”

Fellow candidate Kim Hansen had a similar take on the controversial topic.

“It should be presented in a very broad type of curriculum or structure,” said Hansen, a first-time candidate.

And get this:

Bickley and Hansen were asked about creationism’s potential role in the school district’s curriculum toward the end of Monday’s candidate interviews.

Bickley called creationism “one set of theory” and thought it should be taught in science classes as part of a unit, although not necessarily promoted.

“It’s something out there,” she said. “I don’t think it’s something that should be ignored.”

Hansen also thought creationism belonged on public-school curriculums.

“There is no right or wrong” when it comes to people’s beliefs, she said.

Note the common trope that creationism is, like evolution, just a competing “theory.” And note as well the view that evolution is a “belief” and that such beliefs are neither “right nor wrong.” It’s this kind of populist postmodernism that throws me into despair. I don’t think it can be fixed with any amount of education in evolution: those views come straight from religion.

And if that’s not depressing enough, all four candidates for school board in nearby Lake Zurich favor instruction in creationism in public school science classes. That, too, is reported in The Daily Herald, and there’s so much fail here:

[Incumbent member Tony] Pietro believes creationism should be taught in science class to give students “as much information as possible” about the origins of life.

“I think we can say this is a theory,” he said Thursday. “None of us were here when man was created.”

When man was created? Sorry, there was no creation: we have the fossils showing our gradual evolution from apelike ancestors. The fail: misunderstanding of theory and acceptance of the common notion that evidence is only meaningful if we can see things happening before our eyes. (Does Pietro accept the existence of Napoleon?)

When the court rulings on the issue were mentioned, Pietro didn’t waver.

“When we teach (it), we need to say this is a theory,” he said.

Wallace took an even stronger stance on the issue.

“Creationism to me is factual,” he said. “Darwinism is a theory.”

As for court rulings against teaching creationism in science classes, Wallace said people must work within the law or change it.

The fail: misunderstanding of the word “theory” as it’s used scientifically, complete ignorance of the massive evidence for evolution, and the belief that the Bible is factual. Religion again, of course.

[Doug] Goldberg also emphatically supported adding creationism to the science curriculum.

“I’m a good, God-fearing American and the answer is ‘Yes,’” he said. “Clearly, religion in general is a big part of our daily lives as Americans. I believe that allowing a student to be exposed to the theory of creationism is a relevant and reasonable thing to do.”

Goldberg said he “hadn’t studied the legal ramifications” of the issue.

The fail: ignorance of the First Amendment and of the many court cases that explicit prohibit what Goldberg wants. Note, too, the adjective “God-fearing”. It’s never “God-loving,” is it? Teach creationism or you’ll boil for eternity in molten sulfur.

But the worst is the intellectual cowardice of another incumbent, who accepts evolution but wants creationism taught to the kids—even though it’s wrong:

[Jim] Burke also said “yes,” but not as enthusiastically as the other candidates. He acknowledged scientific evidence supports evolution.

“It’s not a belief, it’s proven fact,” Burke said. “I would hate to see the line between those two things blurred.”

If teaching creationism in science classes is unconstitutional, officials shouldn’t try to get around the law, he added.

So far I can’t find who won the elections, but since all four candidates in Lake Zurich are pro-creationism, we can safely assume that some of them won.
What’s to be done about this? I don’t think that my going up north and giving a bunch of lectures on the evidence for evolution will work. Nor will telling these people that evolution and faith are compatible. (Burke, at least, already knows that.) And will that make them change their minds on teaching creationism alongside evolution?

The only thing that stands between the school children and their inculcation with the ideas of Gish, Comfort, and Dumbski is the courts. And the issue will never go away in America until religion does.

[klr]

Rule #1 about human society: There are idiots everywhere.

[Thinking Aloud]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Illinois creationists retreat, tail between legs
whyevolutionistrue | March 5, 2011 at 9:01 am

Two days ago I wrote about candidates for both the Fremont and Lake Zurich school boards, in northern Illinois, who were in favor of teaching creationism alongside evolution in public school science classes. I was distressed to learn that all four of the Lake Zurich candidates answered "yes" to the question, “Do you believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes?”

Cue a rapid retreat of three of them (all incumbents) after they were excoriated for their stand. As the Daily Herald reports,

In a separate telephone interview, [Doug] Goldberg said he misunderstood the context of the original question.

Goldberg said he’s researched the issue since the original Daily Herald interview session and understands teaching creationism in science class is against the law.

In a separate telephone interview, [Tony] Pietro said he misunderstood the question and didn’t remember that it specifically referred to science classes.

“I would like to retract the comment as it pertains to creationism in the science classroom,” he said. “Creationism is not a scientific theory, and creationism has no place in a science classroom.”

If creationism is taught at school, it would have to be in a world culture or sociology class that gives all religions equal time, Pietro said.

He apologized for the confusion.

[Jim] Burke could not be reached for comment Friday. At the previous night’s public forum, he said he has never supported creationism in science class and that “any quote that may make it look like I do has been taken out of context.”

Nonincumbent Chris Wallace stands by his statement. People of Lake Zurich—DEFEAT HIM!

And, rattled, the Lake Zurich Board of Education published a letter on its web page asserting that creationism is not part of their school curriculum, that they're scrupulously following the law, and that there is no "controversy" over creationism:

The Illinois Learning Standards and the laws of Illinois do not allow for the teaching of creationism in science class, and we do not do so.

For at least the past six years during which current Board members have been seated, never once has the subject of creationism been discussed or even mentioned. No sitting Board member has ever asked to have the issue of creationism put on a meeting agenda, nor has any current Board member expressed plans to do so. Simply put, the issue of whether to teach creationism in a science class is not a controversy that exists in District 95. It is a controversy that has been created by an article published by the Daily Herald last Friday.

That's all well and good, and I'm pretty sure creationism won't rear its head in Lake Zurich schools, but the letter is a bit disingenuous. For one thing, it was signed by Burke, Goldberg, and Pietro—the very incumbents who made the pro-creationist statements. Further, the controversy was not created by the newspaper; it was created by these three mushheads and their non-repentant crony saying stupid things in public, and betraying an ignorance of the law. They've already revealed their beliefs, and the incumbents have shown themselves to be weasels, politicians without honor (is that an oxymoron?)