Substantial Commentary #1

In the editorial, The Cons of Creationism, the author states how the Texas State Board of Education is once again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. If this legislation passes, this may set an example that several other states will follow. The author believes that this really just "code for teaching creationism."

The author is very much opposed to this and believes it is nonsense and that creationists do not have a firm grip on reality. He argues that creationists do not deal with science at all, but only faith. Science provides laws of nature that make logical sense and provides theories backed with substantial evidence, all "without reference to a divine creator." The author contends how evolution needs to be accepted, and if the creationist view prevails in Texas, students will not learn enough about real science. This could create a huge handicap for students.

I mostly agree with the author. Evolution is accepted science and is appropriate for science class. Creationism is mythology and not appropriate for science class. Also, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, just how life has changed over time. I suppose if you wanted to have a mythology class to discuss religious ideas about creation, then that would be fine. But you would need to include all religious viewpoints. The theory of evolution is based on substantial viable evidence. In my opinion, when it comes down to which is more plausible -- creationism or evolution -- evolution tends to win out. The “weaknesses” or “holes” in evolution, are explained within most science textbooks already. It is not slanted from what I can see. The laws of separation of church and state should not be overruled.