Creationist Silliness: Part Fourteen (Don't Worry, It's Almost Over)

Today's question comes from a lady who either has one hell of a worried smirk, or doesn't actually believe the nonsense she's scrawled out. I'm hoping for the latter, in which case, well played, troll... well played. I'm going to feed it anyway. It's kind of what I do.

"Because science by definition is a "theory" - not testable, obsevvable [sic], nor repeatable" why do you object to creationism or intelligent design being taught in school?"

Fuck me gently with a thirty year old textbook!

Science, by definition, is not a theory. It's the process by which we test hypotheses that will either be proven, and subsequently become theories (evolution, the big bang, et al), or fail and be shit-canned as bad fucking ideas with no merit (creationism, intelligent design, etc).

I'm not even certain from where you get the "-not testable, obse[r]vable, nor repeatable" bit. As a matter of fact, by definition, a scientific theory IS testable, observable, and repeatable.

It's exactly the fucking opposite of what you think it is.

And this is why we can't teach our kids properly. They go home, and parents like you tell them exactly the opposite of everything you've sent them to school to fucking learn! YOU'RE SHOOTING YOURSELF IN THE GOD DAMNED FOOT! Those kids are going to choose your nursing home. You'd do well to remember that.

That being said, I personally do not object to teaching about (there is a difference) Creationism and / or intelligent design in school. Just not in science class. It doesn't belong there. Teach about (again, emphasis on "about") these things in psychology and sociology, even philosophy classes. That's absolutely legitimate. After all, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, no?

This is why it's perfectly acceptable to teach about bloodletting, home remedies, and divining rods in school, BUT NOT IN MEDICAL SCHOOL.

It's the very same reason we teach about geocentrism, but we don't teach geocentrism. We now know that heliocentrism is the truth. We give pupils the information that the common knowledge used to be that the sun revolves around the Earth, but now we know better.

You know why?

Way back when they were figuring out how best to prepare our kids to take over the reigns as they become adults (believe it or not, this was before the whole No Child Left Behind debacle, which I like to think of much the same way Germans think of the 1930's and 40's - they don't exist), someone came up with the spec-fucking-tacular notion that it might be a great idea to give them comparative examples for growth. I.E. "Everyone makes mistakes, and look at how we learn from them."

You want to teach kids about creationism and intelligent design? Fine. I think that's a swell idea. Just don't teach them that things we can prove to be true are wrong because some bronze-age tribal elder knew better than the scientists who can take him or her by the hand, lead them to a telescope, and pop them up on a stool so they can look directly at the evidence themselves.

Do you realize that you're essentially teaching them not to believe their own eyes?

Teach kids to question, yes. Teach them to think critically, and not accept that what they are being told is true because someone larger with more body hair says so, absolutely. Do not teach them to dismiss scientific facts because the fairytale is easier to grasp. That's wrong, and you're doing them and everyone that will eventually be around them a great disservice.

This is why teachers ought to be paid more. Part of their job is unraveling the clusterfuck of nonsensical shit being crammed into our children's skulls like a sad, aging ex-homecoming queen's cottage cheese ass being shoved into her old cheerleading outfit before they can give them the actual, real information.

It's a messy fucking job.