Robert Boston email re: Surveys to determine validity of science

I saw Robert Boston on CNN last night in the report about creationism in our society.

When Anderson Cooper brought up polls that show more than 50% of US does not accept evolution, so why not teach creation in the schools if polls show people want it. Mr. Boston responded with a definition of science.

Having faced my share of attacks as a science teacher in Vista, California, I have found the following arguments may work better. How many chromosomes do humans have? Should we take a poll to determine how many we tell our students that humans have? Even better for Evangelicals who feel that astrology is “of the devil”. Say that many Americans believe in astrology, should we teach that with astronomy in science class? What about ghosts? (Ghosts and spirits are also “of the devil” according to Evangelicals) Many perhaps most Americans believe in ghosts and spirits, should we teach about those in science class? They also hate Transcendental Meditation and Ouija boards but many Americans believe in both of those, should they be taught in science class? What about Tom Cruise’s Scientology (of the devil), should we teach that in science class?

The Family Research spokeswoman said something like science should want to examine all the evidence. We Christians just want everything presented. I would answer her as follows, ‘science has already looked at all the evidence repeatedly, it leads to evolution. Only those who will not examine all evidence think that there is science evidence leading away from evolution.’ ‘A Scientific theory must account for all evidence or it is not science. Any scientist who could disprove an established theory like evolution would become instantly famous and would get the Noble Prize for science. There is no conspiracy to ignore evidence.’

Biggest lie of Family Research Council and other “little god” organizations is that if someone understands and accepts the evidence for evolution, then they are not Christian. This is a new theology. It was very marginal when I was young. Few people in the church believed it. They were the crazies. At that time “good people could differ about the beginnings and ending of the Bible.” Every protestant Christian was supposed to read the Bible on his/her own and come to his/her own conclusions. That was the basis of the Martin Luther Reformation. Baptist call this concept the Priesthood of the Individual.

Another Big Lie is that people believe in evolution. The ‘little god” Christians structure it as though it is a belief system like belief in God. No one believes in evolution. We understand and accept all the evidence and allow it to lead to a conclusion. Our belief system is that evidence leads to answers. We do not believe in Evolution or Darwin as they believe in Christ. Allowing them to frame the question as believing in evolution means they always win with their followers. The only chance to make an impression is to not allow that false framing.

Scientists use the same belief system as a good police detective. If OJ’s blood is at the crime scene, if Nicole Brown Simpson’s blood is at his house, if a bloody glove is found at both places, we let the evidence lead us to a conclusion. Detectives and scientist use evidence based reasoning. We believe in that concept, but no one believes in evolution. (Mother’s also believe in following the evidence, a trail of crumbs and crumbs on the face of the toddker, when determining what happened to the cookies in the cookie jar

By the way, say hello to Robert Boston for me. I met him in 1995 at the Bertice Berry television show in Chicago. I was the science teacher from Vista. Out here we had just suffered through two years of turmoil with a Religious Right school board. Weird how those same people now run the Executive Branch of the United States. I never thought it would get that far.

I also “debated” Duane Gish of the Institute of Creation Research on Wisconsin NPR in 1995. He cheated. He just talked and talked allowing almost no time for response. When I did force a word in edgewise, to why the seas weren’t salty enough to be 4 billion years old. (Great salt deposits under Mediterranean, Gulf Coast and chemical reactions that remove minerals at the bottom of ocean—manganese nodules.), Gish just ignored and kept throwing out different factoids that had nothing to do with salt in the ocean. Then he claimed he had “won” the debate. Next time I want a moderator that makes sure there is equal time and who knows enough science to stop Gish when he says things that are clearly scientifically incorrect.

Former science teacher Vista Unified School District