Teach facts, not views on creation

As a physics professor and taxpayer, I was appalled to read your Feb. 14 article “Candidates: Teach creationism in science classes” about the Fremont school board election.

According to your article, candidates Sandra Bickley and Kim Hansen said that creationism is “another theory to consider” and that it “should be presented in a very broad type of curriculum or structure”.

They also said that “there is no right or wrong” regarding people’s beliefs.

Well, I don’t know about the right or wrong of one’s beliefs, but I can tell you that there most certainly are right and wrong answers in science.

And the evidence overwhelmingly shows that creationism, as science, is dead wrong.

If there were anything substantial, in a scientific sense, to creationism, why is it that we don’t use creationism to make modern vaccines & antibiotics, as we do with evolutionary biology? We don’t because creationism doesn’t work as science, period.

As for the “teach all views” argument, which version of creationism should we teach? Should it be young-Earth (the Earth is 6,000 years old) or old-Earth (the Earth is billions of years old) creationism?

What about teaching non-Christian versions, such as Raelianism (they believe we were created by aliens, not God)? Perhaps after we get done “teaching all views”, the students might have a couple of weeks left in the school year to learn real science.

They don’t waste time with this nonsense in science classes in China and India, whose populations are becoming better educated and more competitive with the United States every year.

I suggest the taxpayers consider that fact when casting their votes in the upcoming school board election.

Matthew Lowry

Vernon Hills