As a resident and graduate of the Springboro school district, I am standing up for our students by telling the Springboro Board of Education that creationism, and all religious-based education in public schools, violates the First Amendment and does not belong in the curriculum. Evolution is science and creationism is a religious ideology. Therefore, it cannot be placed on equal ground for any debate or discussion.
Teaching critical thinking doesn’t mean presenting irrelevant and ill-founded “alternatives” to basic knowledge that all students need to understand. Science is not democratic. We do not decide what to teach based on the desires of pressure groups. We teach what has stood the test of time and been accepted by the scientific community: evolution, not creationism.
The supplementary materials in teaching creationism are from political and/or creationists sources, and are not legitimate scientific materials. They consist of inaccurate, misleading, or false claims about evolution that circulate in those creationist sources. A fair science curriculum is one that teaches children the most up-to-date, accurate information that is accepted in the scientific community. It’s not fair to harm the education of all of the students because of narrow sectarian objections to evolution.
A good curriculum also requires science teachers and students to use scientific standards of evidence and inference in classroom discussions, rather than unsupported opinions.
It’s religious discrimination: Teaching creationism privileges a single religious viewpoint. Most mainstream Christians, Jews and Muslims, along with Hindus, Buddhists, deists, and those of other faiths, reject many or all of the doctrines held by creationists. Again, there is no majority rule when it comes to religion. The First Amendment is designed to protect the rights of all religious minorities. …
Remove all religious-based, non-scientific information from the curriculum. KAREN ROBINSON, SPRINGBORO
‘What’s wrong with exploring theory of creationism?’
I’m a senior who has seen this situation come up over and over through the years. It always amazes me how easy people accept the theory of evolution as fact today, and how afraid they seem to be of even discussing any alternative.
First, we have to remember that the origin of life is still just a theory. If we can agree on this, then what’s wrong with exploring the theory of creationism or, as some would call it, intelligent design? What is there to be afraid of?
It’s time to think about making school interesting. Whose thinking needs to be stimulated more than our students, who are tomorrow’s problem-solvers? Where better to start their thinking about the origin of life, global warming, gun control, immigration, etc., than in the classroom, rather than the television news or Internet blogs? How about these students researching these subjects, instead of researching the gossip about their favorite celebrities on Facebook?
Go for it, Springboro. Be the school district that "thinks outside the box" and starts something new and exciting for its students. MIKE KLINEFELTER, MIDDLETOWN
Class where creationism is taught could be an elective
… Teaching critical free thinking is a good thing. Teaching (not to be mistaken with preaching or proselytizing, or ramming some belief down someone’s throat) of all world religious beliefs (yes, to include creationism) can only help to create a more well-rounded, critical-thinking individual.
Creationism or world religions do not have to be taught in a science class. Social studies or even a history class might be a good fit. Make this class an elective limited to high school, where higher critical thinking is starting to emerge. This would also allow a non-believing parent to forbid their child from taking the class for fear of converting to Christianity.
Heaven forbid schools attempt to brainwash a third-grader or even a seventh-grader to think that the universe may have been created by a supernatural power, versus the galaxies were "evolutionized" out of nothingness, or that "well, son, they just always existed!" Let's teach only scientific evolutionary "theory" proven by testable "hypothesis" and let the parents straighten out the confusion when little Johnny hears of two scenarios that are 180 degrees out. GARY NEWCOMER, KETTERING
‘Creationism bugs the heck out of arrogant’ liberals
I’m college-educated and I support creationism. Why? Because creationism bugs the heck out of arrogant liberal want-to-be dictators with delusions of godhood.
Modern American liberals are evil to the core. Their top goals are to encourage partial-birth abortions, pass gun-control laws designed by criminals to disarm potential victims, establish institutionalized reverse racism by calling it “diversity,” and put the working poor out of work by flooding the U.S. with illegal immigrants who will work for peanuts. Liberals also want to micro-manage every single detail of other people’s lives, all the way down to the maximum size soft drink you can buy.
Every minute that liberals spend fighting creationism is a minute they can't spend doing something unspeakably evil. So every sensible person should support creationism. REX TINCHER, KETTERING
‘Keep religion out of our public school system’
I am a religious person and recognize the importance of faith to a great life, but please keep religion out of our public school system. I do not want “captive students” to be indoctrinated religiously by any “missionary teachers” whose job it is to save students.
I do not want taxpayer dollars spent to spread an ideology. Once one allows an ideology into the school, all other religions are free to demand equal treatment. …
Keep religion out of public schools; keep religion a family responsibility. MURL E. HUFFMAN, CENTERVILLE
Perhaps the school board should consult ayatollahs
I, for one, heartily applaud the efforts by Springboro school board members to introduce creationism into local public education, but feel their efforts don’t go far enough. I think a perfect model can be found in the religious schools (madrassas) in operation in places such as Iran and Pakistan. There, real science is completely eliminated from the curriculum and replaced by rote memorization of religious doctrine. Cheaper and less controversial, I say.
And while we are at it, of what use are such expensive and wasteful education institutions such as medical schools? Can’t we eliminate Wright State University’s school of medicine and replace it with a much simpler and less expensive course on faith healing?
Finally, why are we spending so much money on criminal law instruction and education at the University of Dayton? Can’t we all agree that such expenditures, combined with money spent on infrastructure such as judges, police, prisons, etc., is totally wasted when crime and punishment are already covered extensively in our sermons on hellfire and damnation? Why duplicate?
Thankfully, the enlightened school board members in Springboro are getting out in front on these issues. I recommend they contact the ayatollahs in Iran and other Middle Eastern countries to learn from the experts how helpful and cost-saving it is to substitute religion for that messy and expensive science in public education. EDWIN BABBITT, BEAVERCREEK
Why not include creation myths from other cultures?
I have been teaching creationism for years in Yellow Springs as a part of the Greek mythology unit. It is astounding how many creation stories there are. Some are told louder than others. Many have been lost forever.
The Greek creation myth begins with existence of chaos and out of the dark comes love, the unifying force. It is very beautiful until the gods begin to be mean and murderous. Infanticide and patricide, angry Mother Earth … it is rich with recurring themes. With the creation of animals, there comes the bestowal of traits and characteristics.
There are so many stories that teach us much about the way our ancestors made sense of the cosmos, human nature, and our role as noble keepers and thinkers, as opposed to creepers and animals motivated purely by instinct.
These are the discussion topics for religions of the world classes, philosophy, literature, history, and the Bible as literature classes, where it is clear whose myth is being interpreted. Do not attempt to declare one myth truth because it is spoken more frequently.
Keep science in the realm of ideas and theories which the scientific method attempts to prove. This is the labor of mathematicians, physicists, astro-geophysicists, paleontologists and biologists.
Yes, teach the children to marvel at the wonders of creation; to comprehend the power of metaphor and allegory; to always reflect and meditate on the purpose for each individual’s own creation; to know that there is a circle of life; and to glory in all that is seen, unseen and yet to be explored. Let there remain both the arts and sciences as liberal arts education should provide.
So Springboro school board, you need to do your homework. When you speak so authoritatively about creationism, of the myriad stories, whose story will you teach? … AURELIA BLAKE, YELLOW SPRINGS
What about the constitutional rights of Christians?
Recently, I read an article about the debate on teaching creation as part of the school curriculum on how the world was made.
For far too long, people have thrown around the “against our constitutional rights” phrase when it comes to Christian beliefs. They tend to forget that this country was founded on Christian beliefs. They also should take into consideration the constitutional rights of Christians in this country. We are tax-paying citizens also.
I believe that schools should teach both perspectives when they are teaching how the world came to be. They should say scientific theory states “that,” when talking about evolution theory, and Biblical perspective states “this,” when talking about creation. That way, working, tax-paying Christian parents would not have to sit up late hours re-teaching their now-confused children, all because their values were not taken into consideration and their constitutional rights were looked over.
People want to call on God anytime there is a crisis in a school, but they don’t want to let him in at all any other time! I think that is a sad thing. …
The way things are today, Christian children hardly have a chance because all of their rights seem to be taken away from them by non-Christians who have a problem with anything about God being said in a school.
As a tax-paying Christian, I cannot stand the thought of my children being lost to an eternity in Hell, all because some non-believers think they are the only people with constitutional rights. That same constitution applies to Christians also. When is it our turn to be heard? TENNIA OLINGER, SPRINGFIELD
Why are we afraid of letting students examine both theories?
What is the goal of education and science? Is it to limit our students’ exposure to ideas and theories (brainwashing)? Or is it to teach them to be able to think critically, compare and contrast different ideas, and know the existence of alternatives in every area of the academic disciplines? In the social sciences, do we not value the study of different cultures? In the language arts, do we not encourage the study of different languages? In politics, do we not encourage the examination of different philosophies of governance? Do literature professors try to exclude one type of literary genre over another?
Why are we afraid to let students examine the only other competing theory of origin that is equally as unscientific as the evolutionary model? MICHAEL MOOREHEAD, HAMILTON
How did something come from absolutely nothing?
Certainly, creationism is faith, not science, and should not be taught as science. On the other hand, at this point, evolution has both a science component and a faith component. The science of evolution has never been able to scientifically prove that everything we see and have today initially started to evolve from absolutely “nothing.”
The newspaper’s letter writers insist on evidence-based natural laws; so are they willing and able to explain in the classroom how scientifically something came from absolutely nothing? Indeed, scientists have attempted to find that proof, going so far as to explore the definition of “nothing.”
But even "nothing," as they try to define it, at this point still relies on the existence of some unknown catalyst that cannot be explained and therefore relies on faith. That leaves us today with creation at some point as at least a possibility. Presenting and explaining this possibility in the classroom is not promoting creation as science or as fact. And it is not in conflict with evolutionary science, as far back as it goes today. JOSEPH BRAFFORD, BEAVERCREEK
About the Author