Dear Editor,

I understand that as a highly acclaimed high school student publication, it is inevitable that the paper will cover controversial topics. While reading the September 11^th issue, I was that pages 12-15 covered the current controversy over teaching evolution and creation in schools. The story however, fails to be objective and presents misleading and inaccurate information regarding the issue of creation in schools.

Although there is no explicit statement of the writer’s opinion, the tone of the article implies that the teaching of creation is under academic “persecution” and ought to be taught as an alternate “scientific theory”. The title of the article itself, “The Great Debate” suggests that there is scientific disagreement over the validity of evolution. This is simply not the case and grossly misrepresents the issue at hand.

The article sensationalizes the issue by trying to arouse controversy over evolution when there simply is none. Evolution has been accepted as a scientific truth for the past 150 years, when Charles Darwin published his book “On the Origin of Species”. During the late 19^th century and 20^th century, evolution was continuously scrutinized by the scientific community, but has stood the test of time. The expansion and development of scientific fields has only strengthened the evidence backing evolution and its recognition among scientists. According to professor Brian Alters, “99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution,” showing there is scientific unanimity regarding the theory of evolution.

Creation on the other hand, lacks scientific validity. The idea is little more than an outgrowth of religion, expressing the “literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative.” The foundations of creationism are found not in scientific inquiry, but religious dogmatism. That it is prohibited in science classrooms is not surprising considering the dearth of evidence supporting the idea. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that teaching creation is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, evidenced by the federal court cases Edwards v Aguillard and Dover v Kitzmiller. Proponents of creationism want it taught in classrooms solely to promote the bible in school, not to enhance science instruction.

The story itself utilizes opinion rather than fact to convey its message. It is poorly researched and gives little hard evidence to support teaching an alternate viewpoint. Most of the story consists of only the main source, a creationist, giving her opinions over the matter. Little attention is paid to the other side of the argument. The writer also seemed to have forgotten to ask why creation is not taught in the school, otherwise he would realize that it is not considered science. Overall, the article lacks real content, deciding to speculate instead on the issue of teaching creationism.

While the article generally lacks facts to support its claim, the most egregious error of the article is that the only piece of evidence the writer cites is completely taken outside of context and misrepresented. The writer cherry picks his evidence by citing a single line in the court case Edwards v Aguillard. The story states “In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court ruled that ‘teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be done with the clear intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science education.” Ironically, the ruling in the court case completely contradicts the premise of the article! The writer ignores the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in the court case that Louisana’s “Creationism Law” which required schools to teach creation along with evolution was unconstitutional, and banned the teaching of creationism in schools. Clearly, Edwards v Aguillard did not permit the teaching of creationism in schools, contrary to what the article suggests. While the court did rule that secular scientific theories may be taught, creationism is an obvious attempt to force religion into schools, thus violating the Establishment Clause, and not applicable to the court case.

In addition to ignoring the context of Edwards v Aguillard, the writer also neglects the numerous federal court ruling that promote the teaching of evolution and ban creationism starting with Epperson v Arkansas in 1968 to Dover v Kitzmiller in 2005. In fact, after Edwards v Aguillard, creationism, which was ruled unconstitutional, was discarded in favor of the term “intelligent design” by religious proponents. Nevertheless, in Dover v Kitzmiller, the judge ruled that, “the overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID (intelligence design) is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” The courts have made it abundantly clear that creationism lacks scientific validity and is simply a repackaging of Genesis.

The story on pages 12-15 on creationism in schools fails to give an objective picture over the debate. The article is simply an example of sensationalism, not fact-checked for accuracy. Journalistic integrity should not be compromised for the sole purpose of writing an interesting story. The goal of a newspaper is to provide timely, objective and factual stories, something that the Hilite has failed to provide in the article. It is imperative that the Hilite respects these values during the news cycle, in order to be regarded as a credible publication. While I understand the desire to report on controversial topics, please make sure stories correctly represent the issue and do not take shortcuts during or neglect the fact checking process.

Sincerely,

Kevin Mi