July 2, 2008 12:00
Your coverage of the Louisiana Science Education Act would lead readers to believe that there is no controversy over the theory of evolution among scientists and that, as Louisianians, we are backwards for even considering that there might be.

But there is obviously enough doubt over its validity to cause some well-educated scientists to question it. Why should our students be robbed of all the information needed to be enlightened critical thinkers in the debate?

We should absolutely allow our educators to teach the holes in the theory of evolution. The pink elephant in the room of evolution is, how did it all start? Evolutionists don’t have a good answer for that. Whether you believe it started with a lightning bolt, a big bang, or even, yes, a Creator (just don’t say so in the presence of a mainstream reporter or you might be labeled a religious fanatic or a poor, pitiful simpleton), our children ought to know that there are theories that offer answers to that and other questions left unanswered by the theory of evolution. For example, the second law of thermodynamics, an accepted scientific law (not theory), shows that anything left alone and to itself will naturally deteriorate, not evolve to a higher life form.

What is the problem with teaching the opposing viewpoints anyway? If evolution is undeniable, then maybe by allowing the criticisms of it to surface during primary education, our bright, young future scientists can start researching now and may one day bring forth the evidence to close up those holes in the theory. Or is it that evolutionists are afraid that there is no way to close up those holes without acknowledging some sort of intelligent designer and allowing a student’s mind to wander in that direction might lead to the belief in a supernatural being which could translate to their belief in, oh horror of horrors, God?

Have we come so far as a society in our mission to squelch God, that we would deny the right to teach the valid weaknesses of and alternatives to a scientific theory for fear that doing so might cause a person to think about the possibility that He exists?

But we must steer clear of violating the first amendment, you say. Does the idea that something must have created the things that “spontaneously” came into existence really amount to the governmental establishment of religion? Isn’t it just common sense, and we are laughably ignoring it in an effort not to offend the academia who cannot figure out how to fit God into a beaker or a scientific formula?

I submit that there a lot more scientists and intellectuals out there who would admit to the weaknesses in the theory of evolution if their viewpoints were covered with accuracy, fairness and without the vitriolic bias that seeks to shame them into silence. Then we might have a truly intelligent debate.

Read the flipping paper