Creationists: Please Have More Faith

I'd like to respond to Craig K. Svensson's article "A Creationist Responds" (The Scientist, January 26, 1987, p. 12). First, speaking as a scientist, it seems to me that the science curriculum taught in the public schools should be determined primarily on the basis of the science that practicing scientists are doing. A look at the scientific literature shows that this means evolution, not creationism. It's not even that mainstream scientists are, as is often suggested, closed to alternative idea

Written byPhilip Sakimoto

| 2 min read

Save for Later

Listen with Speechify

0:00

2:00

A study quoted in Science (vol. 228, p. 837, May 17, 1985) showed that only 18 of 135,000 manuscripts submitted to 1,000 science and technical journals over a three-year period dealt with creationism. All (save three that were still under review at the time of the study) were rejected for failure to present a coherent, systematic treatment of their material.

If creationism is a science, why isn't it being presented as such to the scientific community? Further, if it's not being presented to the scientific community, why should it be presented as science to children in public schools? The public school curriculum should include only evolution because that is a wholly accurate reflection of the current activities of the scientific community at large.

If creationists wish to have their children excused from evolution units in their schools, I would not try to stop them on legal grounds. I would, however, ...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!

Join for free today

Already a member? Login Here