Letters

Letters 08-31-2015

Inalienable Rights This is a response to the “No More State Theatre” in your August 24th edition. I think I will not be the only response to this pathetic and narrow-minded letter that seems rather out of place in the northern Michigan that I know. To think we will not be getting your 25 cents for the movie you refused to see, but more importantly we will be without your “two cents” on your thoughts of a marriage at the State Theatre...

Enthusiastically Democratic Since I was one of the approximately 160 people present at when Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 in Charlevoix, I was surprised to read in a letter to Northern Express that there was a “rather muted” response to Debbie’s announcement that she has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president...

Not Hurting I surely think the State Theatre will survive not having the homophobic presence of Colleen Smith and her family attend any matinees. I think “Ms.” Smith might also want to make sure that any medical personnel, bank staff, grocery store staff, waiters and/or waitress, etc. are not homosexual before accepting any service or product from them...

Stay Home I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read the letter of the extremely homophobic, “disgusted” writer. She now refuses to patronize the State Theatre because she evidently feels that its confines have been poisoned by the gay wedding ceremony held there...

Keep Away In response to Colleen Smith of Cadillac who refused to bring her family to the State Theatre because there was a gay wedding there: Keep your 25 cents and your family out of Traverse City...

Celebrating Moore And A Theatre I was 10 years old when I had the privilege to see my first film at the State Theatre. I will never forget that experience. The screen was almost the size of my bedroom I shared with my older sister. The bursting sounds made me believe I was part of the film...

Outdated Thinking This letter is in response to Colleen Smith. She made public her choice to no longer go to the State Theater due to the fact that “some homosexuals” got married there. I’m not outraged by her choice; we don’t need any more hateful, self-righteous bigots in our town. She can keep her 25 cents...

Mackinac Pipeline Must Be Shut Down Crude oil flowing through Enbridge’s 60-yearold pipeline beneath the Mackinac Straits and the largest collection of fresh water on the planet should be a serious concern for every resident of the USA and Canada. Enbridge has a very “accident” prone track record...

Your Rights To Colleen, who wrote about the State Theatre: Let me thank you for sharing your views; I think most of us are well in support of the first amendment, because as you know- it gives everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. I also wanted to thank Northern Express for not shutting down these types of letters right at the source but rather giving the community a platform for education...

No Role Model [Fascinating Person from last week’s issue] Jada quoted: “I want to be a role model for girls who are interested in being in the outdoors.” I enjoy being in the outdoors, but I don’t want to kill animals for trophy...

Home · Articles · News · Other Opinions · Creationism has No Place...
. . . .

Creationism has No Place in our Schools

Oran Kelley - August 14th, 2003
It seems Michigan may soon join the ranks of Dayton, Tennessee and the state of Kansas as world centers of Luddism and willful ignorance. This, at least, if a proposal by Michigan State Representative Ken Bradstreet is approved by our lawmakers.
Bradstreet, a Republican from Gaylord, has put forward House Bill 4946, which would mandate that creationism be taught alongside evolution in Michigan‘s public schools. Bradstreet thus joined a long line of opponents of the advancement of knowledge in general and the teaching of evolution more particularly.
The most famous instance in this long history happened almost 80 years ago in the fair city of Dayton, Tennessee. In the famous “Scopes Monkey Trial,“ the state tried John Scopes for the crime of teaching evolution in his public school classroom. It didn‘t matter that Scopes was teaching what then was almost universally accepted science. And it didn‘t matter the alternative curriculum -- the biblical Genesis story -- was a blatant violation of the separation of church and state when taught in the public schools. What mattered was that the forces that hounded Scopes were determined to use compulsory education as an instrument for their own views of religion and as a bulwark against progress in general.
The forces arrayed against Scopes won the case, but were exposed to such ridicule through the trial that they lost the war -- in the years following 1925, real science (rather than the wishful thinking of the faithful) gradually gained a foothold in school curricula. But, it some ways surprisingly little has changed since the Scopes trial of 1925.
Today, anti-evolutionary forces are on the warpath, but rather than asking for schools to teach Genesis, they now ask only for “fairness“ and to cast as much doubt as they can on evolution. “Thousands of scientists,“ we are told, believe in the new creationism, now called “intelligent design.“ But the “scientific establishment,“ including everyone from the National Academy of Sciences to university biology departments to academic journals to high school curricula refuse to listen!
And, we are told, the supporters of evolution itself are a deeply divided camp. Evolution, it is said, is a dead theory and it is time to let in some other views.
But who are these “thousands of scientists“? Do they study in fields that are relevant to evolution? Are they the products of reputable science departments at universities? Have they made a particular and unimpassioned study of the development of life on this planet? In almost all cases the answers to at least one of these questions is a resounding NO.
The fact of the matter is, almost all scientists who have made a serious study the theory of evolution and the evidence behind it believe Darwin‘s theory to be *the* explanation for the development of life on this planet.
As for disputes within the camp of evolutionists -- those are real; they are hotly contested and they have nothing to do with the fundamental truth of evolutionary theory. The disputes between famous biologists like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins are about how evolution works, about which mechanism ought to be emphasized and about where evolutionary thinking can be applied. But Gould and Dawkins, who apparently despised one another, agreed on at least on this evolution has happened and is happening largely as Darwin explained it, and that it is an incredibly powerful theory for explaining the world around us.
Commentators who complain that science is prejudiced against “intelligent design“ are correct. Science is prejudiced against all theories which don‘t fit the facts and are forwarded for reasons other than an attempt to account for the facts. Science isn‘t an encounter session where “all voices get heard.“ Scientists take and use ideas that help them explain things in the real world, they shun and cast aside those that don‘t. Intelligent design falls into the latter category.
As Bradstreet‘s proposal gets kicked around in the coming months (if it gets that far) we are bound to hear proclamations that evolution is “dead“ or is “just a theory“ (like gravity and relativity) or is deeply questionable. These proclamations reveal very little knowledge of Darwin or science in general, but a deep appreciation of the wisdom of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda genius.
When you are losing an argument, the “Big Lie,“ even when it is almost transparently a falsehood, is often an extremely effective weapon. Hopefully it will not be so against our school systems.

Oran Kelley is a Traverse City writer with a strong interest in the topics of evolution and sociobiology.
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close