iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Zack Kopplin

GET UPDATES FROM Zack Kopplin
 

Creationism's New Trojan Horse

Posted: 01/24/2013 4:55 pm

School vouchers that give students public tax dollars to attend private or parochial schools are creationism's new Trojan Horse. In schools across the country, millions of dollars in public money is funding the teaching of creationism, and this public money is even finding its way to the Creation Museum.

Working with MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry Show, I exposed over 300 schools in nine states and the District of Columbia teaching creationism, and receiving tens of millions of dollars, maybe even hundreds of millions, in public money, through these voucher programs.

Three of the most egregious schools MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry Show highlighted were:

  • Liberty Christian School, in Anderson, Indiana, has field trips to the Creation Museum and students learn from the creationist A Beka curriculum.
  • Creekside Christian Academy in McDonough, Georgia says,"The universe, a direct creation of God, refutes the man-made idea of evolution. Students will be called upon to see the divine order of creation and its implications on other subject areas."
  • Rocky Bayou Christian School, in Niceville, Florida, says in its section on educational philosophy, "Man is presumed to be an evolutionary being shaped by matter, energy, and chance... God commands His people not to teach their children the way of the heathen."

Voucher advocates argue our students will get a better education in these private schools. That is not true. Teaching our students creationism is wrong. American citizens must stand up and demand that their state governments stop funding creationism with public money. We must advocate against the passage of voucher programs in states like Tennessee and Texas who are considering creating voucher programs. We must teach evidence based science and not fund voucher schools which will fail our students.

Zack Kopplin is a student at Rice University and is one of the leading voices against teaching creationism.

 

Follow Zack Kopplin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zackkopplin

FOLLOW EDUCATION
 
 
  • Comments
  • 54
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoNa2CO3x3H2O2
Never stop Asking
11:51 AM on 01/27/2013
Creationism posits that God created the fish and the lizard separately, while Darwinism posits that the fish sprouted lungs and legs and walked on land for no readily apparent reason.

Determining which of these is the truth has no bearing on physics or chemistry, or any fields related to physics or chemistry.

We don't need to know that God created the Lizard, or that the lizard evolved from the fish, to understand how the lizard works. Creationism and Darwinism have almost no bearing on biology.

In short: both Darwinism and creationism are religious dogma masquerading as bad science.

So the only acceptable position for schools that receive public funding is that neither should be taught.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:46 AM on 02/17/2013
One problem: Creationism isn't science, but Evolution is. To equate the two demonstrates an ignorance of scientific method and practice. Creationism begins and ends within religious dogma. Evolution begins and actually adds to humanity's understanding of this universe. You offer a false equivalency. But then, 2+2 could = 5, by faith:-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoNa2CO3x3H2O2
Never stop Asking
10:45 AM on 02/17/2013
Another "religious dogma" red flag: bare assertions learned by rote repetition and repeated without offering any supporting statements. 
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicholas Hylton
Earth, Orion Spiral Arm
09:19 PM on 02/28/2013
"Darwinism posits that the fish sprouted lungs and legs and walked on land for no readily apparent reason. "

You make it sound like those changes happened last week instead of taking millions of years.
There is no 'reason' other than genetic variability in large populations allowing adaptations to changing environmental and competitive pressures.

There is no equivalent to radioisotope dating or 'molecular clocks' in religion to establish dates and trace the rates of speciation. Are biological systems complex? Of course. Are there still questions that need to be answered? Naturally. Regardless, evolution through natural selection is the best description of what we see in the present world and in the fossil record - until such time as someone can come up with a better model.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TwoNa2CO3x3H2O2
Never stop Asking
09:56 PM on 02/28/2013
Bu..bu...bu.... Darwin's theory of evolution is still irrelevant when calculating an acceleration curve, or the strength of a covalent bond. /snark
Seriously though, I'm not questioning the validity of the evolutionary model as much as I'm wondering about its relevance to the present functioning of biological systems. I would suggest teaching how the nervous system works in elementary and high school(as well as other systems, obviously), then explore where it came from in college.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

FTR, I do know that a theory to a scientist is quite a bit stronger than a theory to a non-scientist. It's been tested and retested and retested and it stands. For the theory to be TOTALLY valid it has to be open to being proven wrong. That's why Creationism isn't valid science, there's no opening to prove it wrong. There has to be such an opening for Darwin's theory, I just don't know what it is.
photo
mwalsh9489
"Facts are stubborn things." John Adams
10:28 PM on 01/26/2013
This story illustrates the problem of faith. The whole idea behind faith is for the individual to forget about reason and established knowledge in favor of some magical idea because god commands it. Now, why would any god worth its salt endow human beings with the capacities of reason and inquiry and then order them to suspend those capacities when considering religious matters. Religious people say their beliefs must be respected. I say bunk. I will respect the fact that you hold those beliefs, but to me they must be held to the same standard to which I would hold any theory. In this light, Darwin stands head and shoulders above the Bible.
12:48 PM on 01/28/2013
I think this story illustrates the importance of tax payers having control over where their tax dollars are spent. Zack demonstrates a profound ignorance of where these tax dollars come from to begin with. Faith is not about abandoning reason. Some choose to do this and follow ancient dogma that has no basis in scriptures, but we don't need religion to be so blinded. I know many atheists who gamble beyond their ability, smoke, steal from their employer and hold to a whole hose of irrational belief systems. This is human nature not religion.
photo
mwalsh9489
"Facts are stubborn things." John Adams
04:58 PM on 01/28/2013
Not sure what you mean about "ancient dogma that has no basis in scriptures" You know some rotten atheists. I don't think we're going to be teaching smoking, stealing and gambling in schools any time soon.
09:52 PM on 02/08/2013
Yeah, like believing that things become more complicated over time even though we see this happening nowhere. Nope, no faith at all, all science. Or that everythiing was created in a huge explosion. No faith here, move along please. Or how about a mutation that is good for an organism, can't remember that ever happening these days but i have faith it does.
photo
mwalsh9489
"Facts are stubborn things." John Adams
08:11 AM on 02/09/2013
Here's the difference. Scientific theory is always open to change through evidence. The theory is never absolute or sacred. Religion demands strict adherence to doctrine even in the face of conflicting evidence, e.g. Copernicus, Galileo, archaic attitudes regarding sex and the role of women in society. The doctrines are not open for debate or questioning. That is by definition unreasonable.
05:08 PM on 01/25/2013
Creationism is not a "new" Trojan horse. It is a very old one.

You can't teach people who are not interested in learning, and in particular, teaching is highly unlikely to have any impact on somebody whose beliefs are absolute and is only looking for snippets of "facts" to justify or rationalize their beliefs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Cat
Low probability events occur
10:01 PM on 01/25/2013
We are talking about children here. They rarely have "absolute beliefs" because they are children.

Children don't need to be confused by being taught that Creationism, a fantasy, is as valid and solid as say, geography or math.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
05:46 AM on 01/25/2013
It's a real shame that the vaccination process against ignorance is so time consuming and expensive. Nevertheless, keep it up.
01:58 AM on 01/25/2013
I still find it unbelievable that in this day and age people still believe in a fairy tale that has been disproven over and over again. Why not teach these poor kids that the earth is flat too? Makes just as much sense.
12:41 PM on 01/25/2013
Perhaps you can explain how Creationism has been disproven? The only logical argument of the evolutionist is that Creationism cannot be proven (an argument I have fought elsewhere) and therefore is not science. This does not suppose evolution has been proven only that because of the powers of observation, evolution MAY be proven. In other words, evolution (monkey to man) is true because it is testable not because it has been proven. So if Creationism is not provable, how can you assert it is dis-provable? Even if evolution does indeed "prove" itself, at very best it proves the effects post-creation. Evolution explains how goo became man, but not how nothing became goo. That is the real impossibility.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CanadianSkeptic
Amazingly, thinking can solve most problems
07:22 PM on 01/25/2013
"Perhaps you can explain how Creationism has been disproven? "
~~~It hasn't been. Creationism is unfalsifiable, which is why it is not science. The problem with creationism is not that is hasn't been disprove, it is that is has never been proven in the first place. Creationism has absolutely zero supporting evidence and is based entirely on the premise that you first accept the Christian God and the Bible as accurate. It's religion.

"This does not suppose evolution has been proven only that because of the powers of observation, evolution MAY be proven."
~~~You need to read more. Try searching "evolution" in Google Scholar. Lots of evidence.

"In other words, evolution (monkey to man) is true because it is testable not because it has been proven."
~~~This just proves your lack of understanding of evolution. Only people who don't understand evolution think it means humans evolved from monkeys. Humans and primates share a common ancestor. It's like Canadians and Americans. We both came from British people (overly generalized of course).

cont (1/2)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CanadianSkeptic
Amazingly, thinking can solve most problems
07:22 PM on 01/25/2013
(2/2)

"So if Creationism is not provable, how can you assert it is dis-provable?"
~~~Basic logic and the scientific method. First, basic logic. When making a claim, the burden of proof lies with the party making the positive claim. Thus, those who espouse creationism are required to provided supporting evidence. The default position is to not accept creationism without compelling evidence. Second, the scientific method. Hypothesizes and theories in science require supporting positive evidence. Attempting to merely poke holes in evolution does not provide positive evidence for creationism. You need to familiarize yourself with the scientific method.

"Evolution explains how goo became man, but not how nothing became goo. That is the real impossibility."
~~~Again, this demonstrates you're limited understanding of what the theory of evolution actual says. Nowhere does the current theory of evolution attempt to explain how life began. That's abiogenesis. Criticizing evolution for this is a strawman argument and does not have a logical basis.
12:20 AM on 01/25/2013
I am from Colombia, living in the USA since 2007. I am just stunned that this is actually happening in the USA. Teaching creationism and intelligent design in the 21st Century? I thought evangelization was happening only in the "third world countries" because of illiteracy rates (due to poor access to books and lack of public libraries, poverty, etc). Very sad!!!
08:51 PM on 01/25/2013
Welcome to the 21st Century Yoka. Makes me wonder what the 22nd Century will be like.
11:50 PM on 01/24/2013
Zach, I agree with you on Creationism in public schools, but I fully disagree with your reasoning in your fight against the voucher systems. I think a far better argument would be to fight against the voucher system based on the potential negative impact on the public school system, diverting tax payer dollars away from public schools when we should be increasing public school funding and developing strong Louisiana public schools. But if the voucher system is the only viable short term solution in Louisiana, or the only solution our legislature can agree upon, then we should not oppose it on the basis of Creationism.
If an underprivileged student receives a voucher, and his or her parents want them to attend a school that teaches Creationism, would you deny them the opportunity to attend that school? You are pushing against private, Christian institutions who are not going to deny the existence of Creationism, they are going to deny these students who could benefit so greatly from the voucher system. That, not the teaching of an archaic ideology, would be the real shame worth writing articles about.
To restate my earlier point, the voucher system, especially in Louisiana is a band aid on a mortal wound, but at least it creates a chance in the short term for our young people to receive a quality education, albeit in some cases including Creationism, until a viable, long term solution for fixing the public school situation in Louisiana can be agreed upon.
08:34 AM on 01/27/2013
You've got a major misconception in there. For the most part, students who accept vouchers don't learn any more than they would in public schools. The available evidence suggests that they learn LESS. Most of what determines how well a student does in school has nothing to do with the school; it comes from home. That's why the sort of students who usually go to private school do better: they've got parents who are usually educated, with stable homes and enough money to pay for private school. That's also why vouchers don't work: they don't change the home environment. But what research has been done on the impact of public vs private schools, while showing that it's small, suggests that with equivalent students, public schools are more effective.

So vouchers aren't even a "short term solution." They just create problems.
12:49 PM on 01/28/2013
As a student who received a scholarship to a private school, and one who lacked the home environment you are referring to as being the sole benefit of private schools, I must disagree with you on a personal level. I think, without being a citizen of Louisiana, one cannot understand the absolute disparity between an average public school and an average private school in terms of the quality of education. We do have magnet schools, and those schools are excellent, but they have their private school counterparts who produce students with the same level of excellence. We are only talking about underperforming Louisiana schools in this case, and underperforming public schools in Louisiana are worse than any other state in the US, so I would have to disagree with your research (albeit unprovided) in the case at hand.
11:23 PM on 01/24/2013
'Trojan horse' is a great analogy. All children have a right to a good education where they learn critical thinking skills, not religious doctrine.
bbailey123
Uteri of the world, UNITE
10:55 AM on 01/25/2013
Hve you read Creationism Trojan Horse by Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross? It will scare sane people.
04:42 PM on 01/25/2013
Why not share both instead of deciding for themselves? That would be "fair and liberal"...Or are you afraid that creationism may be true.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Cat
Low probability events occur
10:05 PM on 01/25/2013
Why should both be shared, when Creationism is fantasy? Schools don't need to be "fair and liberal" and present every fantasy notion out there for debate. A school's job is to educate about reality.

Teaching Creationism is like teaching children in Biology class that the Easter Bunny is real.
08:35 AM on 01/27/2013
Share both. Teach the impact of religion in history classes, and teach science in science classes. The problem isn't letting kids be aware of religion; the problems is when it's presented as if it's an equivalent alternative to science.
been2there
Facts have a liberal bias.
09:55 PM on 01/24/2013
I agree with the author. I also want to stress that creationism is a misuse of both religion and science. Some scientists do not believe God; most do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Cat
Low probability events occur
10:06 PM on 01/25/2013
Have you polled scientists to find out if most believe in god?

No?
been2there
Facts have a liberal bias.
05:56 PM on 01/28/2013
I am a scientist and I work with scientists.  I speak from experience.
06:04 PM on 01/24/2013
Thanks for all your work on this Zack.
05:33 PM on 01/24/2013
Well done Zack! Keep up the good work! Is there anything we can do in other states such as Utah to assist?
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Zack Kopplin
09:16 PM on 01/24/2013
Challenge your school voucher program

http://creationistvouchers.com/2012/12/01/utah/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robert Cat
Low probability events occur
10:06 PM on 01/25/2013
Yes, good job. We need more young people like you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:18 PM on 01/24/2013
Go Zack go!