Tuesday, Oct. 25, 2005 | 9:33 a.m.
I've been thoroughly enjoying the daily back and forth letters on the issue of creationism vs. evolution. I've noticed that some of the letters have been in favor of creationism or "intelligent design" as a viable scientific theory. I've found it interesting that in touting the validity of creationism, those who support it have unintentionally laid out a perfect argument as to why it is not science and why it definitely should not be taught in our public schools as science.
In last Sunday's edition, one letter by Timothy Carroll, headlined "Plenty of evidence for creationism," identified the theory as "biblical creationism" and argued that proof of creationism was all around us, in the Scriptures, in the Resurrection of Christ and in Jewish and Roman historical narratives. Sure sounds like empirical scientific evidence to me!
C'mon folks, let's not get confused. Religion has not fared well in the scientific realm. Remember the Earth as the center of the universe? How about the Sun orbiting around the Earth? Or maybe that the Earth rests on pillars (1 Samuel 2:8). Galileo, Kepler and Copernicus, all of these scientists had to withstand intense religious opposition to what eventually would become grade school basics.
I do not begrudge anyone their religious beliefs, but let's be clear -- creationism and its new spiffy intelligent design packaging is, as Mr. Carroll understands, religion. And, although you can praise it and embrace its comforting effects all day long, religion does not belong in science class, because when we let religion become science, we'll all be the guinea pigs.
Gabriel L. Grasso Las Vegas
archive
