Replying to a School Newspaper Article on Evolution

[Exonerate]

Just a week or two ago, my school's newspaper printed an opinion column titled "Should our science classes teach origin theories besides Evolution?", with a pro and con writer for each side. Accompanying the articles was a small poll in which 57% of the polled students answered "Yes" Needless to say, I felt compelled to submit a response and hopefully at least expose students to what the teaching of alternative theories really entails. I've come up with a draft for the letter I plan to submit - additional input would be appreciated.

I am writing this letter as a response to <Person's> argument in favor of teaching alternatives to evolution within our science classrooms. I must say that I find it disheartening that such a large percentage of our students polled in favor of introducing alternative explanations for the origin of species. Furthermore, it appears to me that a significant portion of the student body is unaware of what these so-called “alternative theories” actually signify.

When I say “theories”, I use the term loosely. There is a major difference between a scientific theory that has been tested and observed and a casual conjecture made with little support. And when I was referring to alternative theories, I was referring to theories of the latter nature. And when I was referring to alternative theories, I really should’ve been referring to creationism.

Intelligent Design (ID), a euphemism for creationism, is basically the idea that an outside entity must have somehow designed life as we know it. When people speak of introducing “alternative theories”, ID, or creationism, is what they are talking about. ID is also not a valid scientific theory and is little than a bold, unsupported assertion. Science is an attempt to explain what we observe naturally. By invoking an outside deity, as ID does, it has automatically lost whatever scientific value it possessed. Evolution has been supported by more than a hundred years of observation and testing and evidence millions of years old, while creationism is forced to rely on ancient texts that were never meant to be taken literally.

Our educational system does not concern itself with what is “fair” in objective fields of study. Its mission is to teach what is correct. It is not the job of the school to expose its students to unsubstantiated viewpoints. In biology, there is no other theory that is even close to being a viable alternative to evolution. It is the best theory we currently have. Creationism was not, is not, and will never be a feasible scientific theory in any field. ID has absolutely no place in a science classroom – it would be akin to teaching that Egyptian pyramids were possibly built with the help of space aliens in a history class.

It would be absolutely ridiculous to teach ID as a viable alternative to evolution, because it’s not. ID is basically creationism rehashed to evade Separation of Church and State. If it were to be taught in school, teach it in a cultural studies class if you must. The forced insertion of ID into the syllabus of schools across the nation is driven by religious fundamentalists who wish to ram their beliefs down the throats of impressionable youth. Students can choose to believe or disbelieve evolution, but inserting ID into our curriculum would be an assault on all our rights as a student to be free from religious indoctrination at school. Science classes should teach science, and that does not include creationism.

I've had to condense it a bit, since space is limited in the paper. The target audience is primarily students 7th-12th grade, with a few faculty members mixed in. I'm hoping to try and avoid offending people with religious beliefs - after all, it's hard to persuade people when they feel like they're under attack.

As I've said before, constructive criticism would be welcomed. Any major points I should address, arguments to make, grammatical errors, anything.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Could you post the actual article itself so as to get a feel of what it was talking about?

[Exonerate]

Hmm. I'd have to type up the entire article, and I really don't feel like punishing my fingers... I can summarize it though. It begins with a short introduction trying to portray evolution as a theory still being disputed among scientists. It calls for the teaching of alternative theories to provide a "good, balanced education for students." There's actually an admission that these creation myths are not "on the same scientific level as evolution", but contends that they should be presented anyways just for the sake of exposing students to it. The conclusion claims that doing so would appease people who are complaining about the lack of alternative theories and just reasserts the position that evolution should be taught alongside with other theories.

[SeebianWurm]

I am writing this letter as a response to <Person's> argument in favor of teaching alternatives to evolution within our science classrooms. I must say that I find it disheartening that such a large percentage of our students polled in favor of introducing alternative explanations for the origin of species. Furthermore, it appears to me that a significant portion of the student body is unaware of what these so-called “alternative theories” actually signify.

When I say “theories”, I use the term loosely. There is a major difference between a scientific theory that has been tested and observed and a casual conjecture made with little support. And when I was referring to alternative theories, I was referring to theories of the latter nature. And when I was referring to alternative theories, I really should’ve been referring to creationism.

Intelligent Design (ID), a euphemism for creationism, is basically the idea that an outside entity must have somehow designed life as we know it. When people speak of introducing “alternative theories”, ID, or creationism, is what they are talking about. ID is also not a valid scientific theory and is little more than a bold, unsupported assertion. Science is an attempt to explain what we observe naturally. By invoking an outside deity, as ID does, it has automatically lost whatever scientific value it possessed. Evolution has been supported by more than a hundred years of observation and testing and evidence millions of years old, while creationism is forced to rely on ancient texts that were never meant to be taken literally.

Our educational system does not concern itself with what is “fair” in objective fields of study. Its mission is to teach what is correct. It is not the job of the school to expose its students to unsubstantiated viewpoints. In biology, there is no other theory that is even close to being a viable alternative to evolution. It is the best theory we currently have. Creationism was not, is not, and will never be a feasible scientific theory in any field. ID has absolutely no place in a science classroom – it would be akin to teaching that Egyptian pyramids were possibly built with the help of space aliens in a history class.

It would be absolutely ridiculous to teach ID as a viable alternative to evolution, because it’s not. ID is basically creationism rehashed to evade Separation of Church and State. If it were to be taught in school, teach it in a cultural studies class if you must. The forced insertion of ID into the syllabus of schools across the nation is driven by religious fundamentalists who wish to ram their beliefs down the throats of impressionable youth. Students can choose to believe or disbelieve evolution, but inserting ID into our curriculum would be an assault on all our rights as a student to be free from religious indoctrination at school. Science classes should teach science, and that does not include creationism.

The only unambiguous error I saw has been fixed in cyan.

Also, for your target audience, I think you're speaking a little too professionally. If you actually want to convince your peers that the ID kids are full of shit, be a little more straightforward. As it stands, the majority of readers are going to stop at the second sentence because it will seem intimidating to them. I would encourage you to adopt a more conversational style in general. This doesn't mean you can't use the important terminology; it just means that you should make it so the critical jargon and the central idea are all that the readers will have to think about.

For the most part, crouching anything in specific jargon that the target audience will not understand immediately is counterproductive. The question you have to ask yourself is, do you want to look like you're a godlike expert on this subject? Or do you want to convince people that you're right by appealing to their logic and knowledge? I assume it's the second. So talk to your audience, not to people who are already experts. This is critical to persuasive writing in general, and it would be a bad thing to ignore.

[Keevan_Colton]

For the most part, crouching anything in specific jargon that the target audience will not understand immediately is counterproductive. The question you have to ask yourself is, do you want to look like you're a godlike expert on this subject? Or do you want to convince people that you're right by appealing to their logic and knowledge? I assume it's the second. So talk to your audience, not to people who are already experts. This is critical to persuasive writing in general, and it would be a bad thing to ignore.

Indeed, it is best to use simple language whenever possible when writing for publication. This is a source of great contention between the journalists and academics teaching here, I fall on the side of telling people where to shove "proper academic register" and "intellectual prose".

Use simple clear language and let the ideas be the only thing people have to devote time to understanding.

[Terr Fangbite]

I say let them be teached then systematically destroyed if evolution is that definate. I remember the theories on dinosaur destruction ranging from asteroids to bad gas (farting dinosaurs killed the species off). Virtually all theories except the asteroid were torn to shreds. I see teaching alternate theories as a plus. Teach them, then tear them to shreads with science.

[Lucifer]

IDers on another forum wanted to make it more scientific, so they claimed to use something called CSI, but it's not measurable. Just pure nonsense. When I asked them what units CSI is measured in, if it is measurable, all they would say is that it depends on the structure. They just avoided the answer completely and gave me another crap-ass spin off. Since it's not measurable, much less observable, it can't be scientific.

[Vendetta]

I say let them be teached then systematically destroyed if evolution is that definate. I remember the theories on dinosaur destruction ranging from asteroids to bad gas (farting dinosaurs killed the species off). Virtually all theories except the asteroid were torn to shreds. I see teaching alternate theories as a plus. Teach them, then tear them to shreads with science.

The trouble with thhis is that by and large the other theores already have been destroyed. Speciation, natural selection, and the process we derive from them called 'evolution' is something that has been observed in action.

Hell, ask any farmer, or pedigree animal breeder and they'll tell you about selective breeding, what it is, and what it means. It's not just a 'scientific theory', it's something we've been consciously applying to the world around us long before Darwin got his feet wet.

[Rye]

I say let them be teached then systematically destroyed if evolution is that definate. I remember the theories on dinosaur destruction ranging from asteroids to bad gas (farting dinosaurs killed the species off). Virtually all theories except the asteroid were torn to shreds. I see teaching alternate theories as a plus. Teach them, then tear them to shreads with science.

Take too much good science time up with nonsense stuff. Imagine physics lessons teaching newtonian gravity, for example, then one about little angels that push things down towards centres of mass, then one where little angels pull things, then one where gravity is merely the stickiness of the floor.

[Dark Sider]

Two issues I would suggest you take into consideration.

1) I personally would avoid using the phrase "ramming their beiefs down the throats of impressionable youth." It comes across rather combative; i.e., it implies that the "other side" is "attacking" something. We can all agree that sometimes, if not all the time, that this is the case. However, I believe diplomacy to be the best route of choice with the audience...especially if most of them probably believe in God (a safe assumption IMO).

2) Try to balance using simple language and scientific jargon. I think this is the biggest stumbling block for people who try to educate the masses on evolution. Science is difficult for many people. The problem we face is that to the layman God really is the simplest answer because here you are trying to boil down evolution to be simple and still come off with "Well, we still do not know yet."

As a fig leaf, I would argue in your paper that Creationism definately be taught in the classroom. The catch? Look at all the creation myths around the world and analyze them philosophically and as scientifically as one can in a highschool environment...and not a science class.

[wolveraptor]

i agree with others who say that you need to simplify your explanation. in my experience, 7th-12th graders are pretty damn stupid (at least your average student is). i have encountered 8th graders who do not know what the word efficiency means.

any one who refers to the word efficiency as a "big word" definitely isn't too smart.

i do think that students should be taught in science how to debunk creationism. in an america where more than half of the people believe in creationism, these things can't be bypassed. IMHO, no biology course should be considered complete until students know the classic fundie arguments.

[Patrick Degan]

I am writing this letter as a response to <Person's> argument in favor of teaching alternatives to evolution within our science classrooms. I must say that I find it disheartening that such a large percentage of our students polled in favor of introducing alternative explanations for the origin of species. Furthermore, it appears to me that a significant portion of the student body is unaware of what these so-called “alternative theories” actually signify.

When I say “theories”, I use the term loosely. There is a major difference between a scientific theory that has been tested and observed and a casual conjecture made with little support. And when I was referring to alternative theories, I was referring to theories of the latter nature. And when I was referring to alternative theories, I really should’ve been referring to creationism.

Intelligent Design (ID), a euphemism for creationism, is basically the idea that an outside entity must have somehow designed life as we know it. When people speak of introducing “alternative theories”, ID, or creationism, is what they are talking about. ID is also not a valid scientific theory and is little than a bold, unsupported assertion. Science is an attempt to explain what we observe naturally. By invoking an outside deity, as ID does, it has automatically lost whatever scientific value it possessed. Evolution has been supported by more than a hundred years of observation and testing and evidence millions of years old, while creationism is forced to rely on ancient texts that were never meant to be taken literally.

Our educational system does not concern itself with what is “fair” in objective fields of study. Its mission is to teach what is correct. It is not the job of the school to expose its students to unsubstantiated viewpoints. In biology, there is no other theory that is even close to being a viable alternative to evolution. It is the best theory we currently have. Creationism was not, is not, and will never be a feasible scientific theory in any field. ID has absolutely no place in a science classroom – it would be akin to teaching that Egyptian pyramids were possibly built with the help of space aliens in a history class.

It would be absolutely ridiculous to teach ID as a viable alternative to evolution, because it’s not. ID is basically creationism rehashed to evade Separation of Church and State. If it were to be taught in school, teach it in a cultural studies class if you must. The forced insertion of ID into the syllabus of schools across the nation is driven by religious fundamentalists who wish to ram their beliefs down the throats of impressionable youth. Students can choose to believe or disbelieve evolution, but inserting ID into our curriculum would be an assault on all our rights as a student to be free from religious indoctrination at school. Science classes should teach science, and that does not include creationism.

If you're writing a competing column for the newspaper, you need detailing to your arguments. But if you're writing a letter, then it has to be brief. Editors toss anything more than two paragraphs into the bin most times. So for a letter to the paper, you have to be concise and to the point.

My response would be to state bluntly that if science classes are going to bog themselves down with teaching "alternative origin theories" —i.e. Intelligent Design/Creationism— then they may as well also teach the theory that the sun and planets all orbit the Earth and also the theory that the Earth actually rests on the back of a giant cosmic turtle; those being the "alternatives" to heliocentrism. They may also want to introduce the Flat Earth theory as the "alternative" to the Round Earth theory.

Something like that.

[Exonerate]

Thanks for the input guys, I'll consider it.

Although my audience includes 7th graders, I'm hoping that the majority of them should be able to comprehend the letter without too much difficulty (We're one of those high-achieving smartass schools)

I did consider that "ramming their beiefs down the throats of impressionable youth." might offend a few, but I wanted to illustrate why exactly these alternatives shouldn't be taught in school.

I know it's kinda long for a letter to the newspaper, but they have space - other letters that have been sent in and published were longer than mine.

I'll see what I can do about making it a little less informal...