Five Ways to Keep Creationism Out of Public Schools

February 28, 2013

Nineteen-year-old activist Zack Kopplin says that including creationism in science class concerns him because “we need to be teaching evolution and embryology and the big bang theory … good, established science. We’re not gonna keep our way of life and ensure the survival of the human race if we don’t teach our students science.”

Here are five things you can do to get creationism out of science class.

• Tell your story: If you have been taught creationism in school, post a message on Kopplin’s Facebook page or website. You may also contact the National Center for Science Education or the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

• Call your representative: If you live in a state that has a creationism law, like Louisiana, or in a state that is considering one, like Tennessee, call your legislators and ask them not to support the teaching of creationism as science in public schools and to vote these laws down.

• Report a school: If you live in a state where there is a school voucher program — particularly Arizona — and have more information about creationist voucher schools, contact Kopplin on Facebook or via his website. He will add your school to his map.

• Track the Issue: Learn about Kopplin’s Second Giant Leap Campaign which asks President Obama to put an end to science denial legislation and to appropriate 1 trillion dollars in new funding to scientific research and development. Stay on top of this issue by following Kopplin on Twitter (@RepealtheLSEA) or by liking his Facebook page.

More about Zack Kopplin »

From the show

Full Show: Fighting Creeping Creationism

Related Features

TOPICS: Democracy & Government, Faith & Reason, Health & Science

TAGS: creationism, public schools, school vouchers, take action, widget

Are you aware of our Comment Policy?

http://www.facebook.com/herman.cummings.12 Herman Cummings
You are advocating to continue to only teach Atheism, with is unconstitutional. We need to also teach the “Observations of Moses”.
Herman Cummings
Aly
No, atheism is a lack of belief in god. No one is teaching lack of belief in god. What is being taught is science, in science classrooms. There is no room for religion to be taught in the classroom. That is what the home and church are for.
http://www.facebook.com/RyanBurkhart333 Ryan Burkhart
Not allowing the Unconstitutional teaching of Creationism in public schools does not mean they “teach atheism”. It’s simply the government upholding its Constitutional requirement to NOT endorse any religion, denomination OR lack-thereof.
With atheism, there is nothing to “teach” anyhow; it’s simply disbelief regarding the existence of gods – it’s not a religion, dogma, philosophy, worldview, etc..
Churches and parents can teach mythology to THEIR children if they want them to remain ignorant; schools should only teach facts.
Government should not be used as a tool of religious indoctrination or to keep ignorant the children of others.
Without freedom FROM the religious beliefs of others, there is no freedom OF religious belief and practice.
http://profiles.google.com/armstrong.matt Matt Armstrong
You don’t teach a “lack of belief”. That comes naturally as one gains intelligence and learns about the world around them and stops believing in fairy tales. Far too many people are happy covering their eyes and plugging their ears saying “NOPE! NOPE! NOT LISTENING! NOT LISTENING!” and going about their daily lives blinded by ignorance. Creation is NOT science, nor is it fact.
If you want to teach creation in the science class, then you’d better be prepared to teach each and every origin story from each and every religion, else you will find lawsuit after lawsuit about religious discrimination.
You have your religious schools to teach your religion. You keep your religion to yourself and don’t force it upon anyone else.
Dan Eastwood
Oh Herman, you’re such a kidder!
For those not familiar with his work, Herman Cummings is the worlds foremost authority on Genesis. Just ask him, he will tell you. He’s also mostly harmless.
http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin
Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.
http://www.facebook.com/weisschr Christopher R Weiss
He’s also a little nuts….
http://www.facebook.com/lisa.kazmier Lisa Kazmier
I think someone should bring up the equal validity of the FSM and demand that any school using creationism had it, too, or neither.
Thomas Kelly
Another way around this insanity, which may actually
increase knowledge and not stunt it, is to allow the teaching of creationism –
and be sure to teach ALL of the creation stories. Given the vague
“creationism” label, this can be done legally.
I would like to see examples of *other* creation
stories noted in these debates. There are a few active religions with differing
creation stories. Perhaps this would provide those in favor of
“their” creationism being taught with much needed perspective.
Background: I was brought up a nice Irish Catholic
boy. In my teen years I became heavily involved in the Methodist Church. I was
Youth Group President, Lay Leader, and I went on missions. At around 18 I
stopped going for two reasons. First – I was struck by a revelation (pardon the
pun). As I learned more about the world, I realized so many other people in the
world (and certainly in the history of the world) believed something completely
different. Thus, realizing I simply assimilated the religion that I was exposed
to. I then asked myself, “As most of the world believed different things
(some with even greater conviction than those around me), how can I know that
what I have been told is *the* Truth? Especially as I seem to only be linked with
this particular religion as a result of being born to this particular family, in
this exact part of the world”
Concomitant with this realization was also an
understanding that my association with the Church had become exclusively socially-driven,
and was no longer faith-based.
http://www.facebook.com/skeptic.ny Skeptic NY
I advocate the teaching of not collecting stamps as a hobby!
Anonymous
They should just teach Joseph Campbell’s course on mythology, which covers all religions and their evolution (ironic?) over the centuries. This would clear the “establishment” hurdle and give the students a broad perspective of what it actually means to be religious.
beairdboy
Why not allow both theories? I see science in Genesis and both hold value to me.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1144762705 Dan Crane
Because evolution is a scientific theory, and the book of Genesis is an unscientific religious creation myth.
Anonymous
That would be awesome. I am always struck at how the evolution of Judaism and Christianity, for example, is so unknown by anyone but the skeptics that I know. Even the frequency of ancient characters who were reputedly born of a virgin, born on Dec 25th, resurrected, had 12 disciples, etc. just being aware of how often plagiarized that stuff was would be an eye opener.
Anonymous
For starters, creation is not a theory, it’s a story. As a story it is not science and does not belong in a science classroom. Also, google “theory”.
http://www.facebook.com/weisschr Christopher R Weiss
Really? Genesis got even the order of appearance of animals wrong. It claimed, water, then air, then land when the evidence says water, land, then air. There is no science in genesis when even the most fundamental and basic facts claimed in the story are wrong.
http://www.facebook.com/weisschr Christopher R Weiss
The “observations of Moses” is still a creationist position. This has already been ruled unconstitutional.
Wordsmith818
Because “both” is a language mistake here. Evolution is one theory, and there is no other theory. Creationism is not one theory or one story, but a thousand stories expressed by a thousand belief systems. Teach evolution in science class, and all the creation stories in literature class. They are wonderful. The Genesis version isn’t even the best one, so don’t limit yourselves to just that one.
http://www.facebook.com/theo.tsourdalakis Theo Tsourdalakis
No. Atheism is a BELIEF that there is no God.
I agree with you that in the science classroom, the scientifc method should prevail. Observation, measurement, repeatability – but does Darwinian/Macro evolution satisfy these criteria?
What empirical evidence is there that our great ……….. great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?
Dr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the GeneGun) said .
“The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can’t create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
http://www.facebook.com/theo.tsourdalakis Theo Tsourdalakis
Atheism is a BELIEF that there is no God. That belief can be propagated.
Evolution is its key doctrine and that is why it is being treated like a sacred cow and shielded from scientific scruity.
The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion – this is baloney!
The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.
The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1144762705 Dan Crane
Well, the Genesis creation myth is actually kind of crap…incredibly misogynistic in character. But there are most definitely a lot of interesting creation stories – as one of the above commentors noted, Joseph Campbell’s work in the area of mythology is excellent reading material.
http://www.facebook.com/theo.tsourdalakis Theo Tsourdalakis
Regardless of Genesis. The scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution is woeful. The scientific evidence CONDEMNS Darwinian/Macro evolution if you apply it rigorously.
Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel recognizes that Darwinism is not true. In his book “Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False ” he said
“.. for a long time I have found the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works.
The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. …
It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected to abandon this naive response not in favor of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples”
(pp. 5-6).
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1144762705 Dan Crane
“The scientific evidence supporting Darwinian/Macro evolution is woeful.
The scientific evidence CONDEMNS Darwinian/Macro evolution if you apply
it rigorously.”
Considering the distinction between macro and micro evolution is usually only insisted upon by creationists, as there is no barrier between the two. Macroevolution is merely an accumulation of microevolution, when the mutations eventually change an organism beyond the species level. And speciation has been observed. There’s also plenty of DNA and fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution – to say it is “woeful” is simply untrue.
Nagel essentially argued from incredulity – essentially trying to argue that things were too complex to have evolved by chance. And a wide array of scientists have pointed out the flaws in this stance, including science Nagel failed to account for. Of course, it would also be prudent to point out that Nagel doesn’t dismiss darwinism (micro or macro) – he’s being critical of materialism.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1144762705 Dan Crane
“Atheism is a BELIEF that there is no God. That belief can be propagated. Evolution is its key doctrine and that is why it is being treated like a sacred cow and shielded from scientific scruity.”
Quite simply, you don’t know what you’re talking about. An atheist does not believe in god – there are no doctrines or dogma beyond that definition.
“The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When
Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it
crumbles.”
Except for all the research and experimentation to the contrary. This is, of course, the new fundamentalist creationist tact – ignore the scientific consensus, ignore the fact that evolutionary theory has a vast amount of empirical and experimental support. Instead, falsely insist that it isn’t real science and doesn’t belong in the classroom.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1144762705 Dan Crane
The same Dr. John Sanford who now currently identifies as a young-earth creationist, despite the mountains of evidence that give lie to that position. He’s seeking to justify his unscientific faith-based beliefs, and in order to do that, he has to try and dismantle science that disagrees with his adopted fundamentalist nonsense.
Frank E. Lohrke
I find that the only arguments I see expressed against Darwinian evolution are made by people who have no knowledge of science and usually very little understanding of the religion they profess belief in.
It does no use trying to debate these fundamentalist’s. Their only agenda is to promote their version of religion at the expense of the rest of us. Even at the expense of our children getting a serious education allowing them to compete in a global society.
Why not stick to teaching facts in our public schools and leave the religious teaching in church where it belongs.
DickVanstone
Yarrgh!
DickVanstone
Atheism is a belief there is no god just as NOT collecting stamps is a hobby
Tock Teebles
Microevolution which is scientifically observable should certainly be taught. However, a paramecium turning into a porpoise is a complete different story. Instincts, metamorphosis, DNA, and the incredible diversity of life is in scientific opposition to the belief that it all arose without a god.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1144762705 Dan Crane
The insistence on a separation between micro and macro evolution is completely arbitrary – there is no barrier between the two. Macro evolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes which causes the organism to transcend the species level.
Instincts (?), metamorphosis, DNA and the diversity of life don’t provide any scientific justification whatsoever for believing in a god.
Rufus Rams
They would only use “extra biblical” scolars like Josephus as a rebuttal to those claims. It’s sickening.
http://www.facebook.com/theo.tsourdalakis Theo Tsourdalakis
The distinction between Micro and Macro evolution is real.
We can observe micro evolution (minor changes) but we cannot observe Macro Evolution (the development of new body parts or functions).
It is poor science to conclude that just because observe Micro evolution that Macro evolution “must have happened”. There are many examples where extrapolation leads to fatal results. Consider 2 examples:
a) If you have a headache you take 2 aspirin and you feel better; you may think that taking 20 aspirin would make you feel fantastic – but it does not. It will probably kill you.
b) Sunshine is nice, you need it make make vitamin D; however it is good only in small doses; big doses will give you skin cancer.
Conclusion: Micro Evolution does NOT prove Macro evolution.
Even the Berkely, evolution website (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIE2bDetailsoforigin.shtml) confirms micro and macro evolution are distinctly differen
Evolutionists deceive the unsuspecting by doing a “bait and switch”. The show overwhelm the students with details of micro evolution; the IMPLY that this proves macro evolution. This deception has been played long enough.
http://www.facebook.com/edna.bambrick.7 Edna Bambrick
Keep religion in your churches. Same with your child raping and sodomy. Thank you.
http://www.facebook.com/deirdre.seim Deirdre Seim
This is like believing that my feet have the power to walk down to the corner store, but that the same step after step motion could not possibly carry me the theater across town…. Walking is transportation that will take you, slowly, to wherever the road leads. Evolution is nothing more mysterious–is it the same step over and over and over– it is wondrous but perfectly predictable that a porpoise is one long term result.
mad as hell
I don’t believe a trustworthy educational system should ever forbid discussion of any thoughts. But that’s OK. I don’t consider what we have in the US as an educational system. Having been a credentialed teacher in public schools I can assure you not much is learned there. That assessment was validated by a German exchange student boarded with my neighbor that assured me his studies here were not impeded by his slow formal English understanding, “It’s OK. This school is teaching what I learned in Germany 2-3 years ago, so I’m doing fine.”
mad as hell
To the reply, So you actually believe monkeys given enough time will actually type something even close to poetry, not to mention Shakespeare? I have a baccalaureate of science in biology and microbiology and recombinant DNA and am aware of the number of these “accidents” that would need to occur AND ACCUMULATE without natural pressures (habitat availability, weather, lack of predators) , making the new quality once again unavailable (aka. extinct). All of the scientists I got to talk to say it’s impossible, and one even did a published simulation to show that it would take waaayy longer than scientists believe the earth has existed for that paramecium (which is extremely complex by the way) to develop into another form. If you can’t get recognized phd experts in recombinant DNA, thermodynamics, microbial physiology, to accept that it was an accident, why, or better yet, how can you insist we have all the answers to nature and no one should be allowed to discuss it anymore? Very simplistic, & very dangerous to knowledge to not allow free exchange of ideas. Also, if it is only a series of happenstances, why worry about extinctions? They’ll come back again in perhaps a little different form.
Mad as hell
I find the title “Creeping Creationism” of the show amusing! It’s antithesis is “creeping evolution”! I love the open discussions on Moyers’ show!!!! This discussion often shows belief in science as a religion. If you are angry when you discuss how silly creationism is and how right science is then please know this, your religion is science, a very popular sect in the world right now. Just saying.

From the show

Related Features

Meet the Organizers