Keep creationism out of science class

After reading the letter by Lisa Szatkowski (Sept. 5, Fence Post), a forceful refutation of her thesis is in order. I'm not quite sure why Ms. Szatkowski continues to advocate the teaching of creationism in the public schools when such curriculum initiatives have twice been determined by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and illegal (Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968; Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987). A more recent Pennsylvania District Court decision (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 2005) affirmed the unconstitutionality of teaching creation-based science (in this case it masqueraded as "Intelligent Design," though) in public schools.

Her commentary is especially confounding with respect to her definition of the term theory. In the scientific realm, "theory" does not refer to unsupported hypotheses or weak assertions; theories are generated for the sole purpose of explaining facts. Who in this day and age would find fault with atomic theory, the heliocentric theory of our universe, gravitational theory, or the germ theory of disease? Evolutionary theory is as much or more supported as the aforementioned theories by extensive, time-tested, documentary evidence over a broad range of organisms.

It is baffling to me that evolution alone among the natural sciences is subject to such sociopolitical scrutiny by so many in the general public who have no idea what it is or how its many processes operate in nature over time to account for past and present species assemblages and diversity. Ardent anti-science lobbies and supporters nationwide continually make overtures to state and local legislative bodies and school boards in an effort to control the content of public science education.

As a longtime biology instructor, I wish to reiterate that creationism in any form is not science and thus deserves no forum in the science classroom.

Greg Yarnik

College of DuPage

Department of Biology

Glen Ellyn