Christian News Takes On Zack Kopplin

The Christian News Network is apparently not a fan of Zack Kopplin. After the young activist published an article in Slate detailing the creationist nonsense being taught at publicly-funded charter schools in Texas, they decided more nonsense was needed. To wit:

Zack Kopplin is a 20-year-old political activist who believes evolution should be the only scientific theory taught in government-funded schools.

Nope, that’s either a lie or just plain ignorance. I’m sure Zack supports teaching a whole bunch of other scientific theories too, like the germ theory of disease, the theory of relativity and the big bang theory. As far as biology and life on earth, I’m sure he believes evolution should be the only scientific theory taught because it’s the only scientific theory there is on the subject. Creationism, in whatever form it may take, is not a scientific theory at all.

Rosalinda Gonzalez, vice president of academic affairs for RES, told Kopplin that their charter schools’ curriculum “teaches evolution,” while at the same time “noting, but not exploring, the existence of competing theories.”

However, Kopplin insists that this is unlawful, asserting the teaching of biblical creation in government-funded schools is “on a fundamental level … unconstitutional.”

This is not merely Zack’s assertion, however. Multiple federal courts have ruled that teaching Biblical creationism is unconstitutional, including the Supreme Court by a 7-2 margin.

But despite criticism from evolutionists, many scientists maintain that empirical evidence does not line up with the theory of evolution.

Funny how none of them who lack an a priori commitment to a religious ideology that forbids it, though. Among scientists who accept evolution you can find every imaginable religious viewpoint — Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, atheist, and so forth. Among those who doubt evolution, you find only a particular brand of Christian who believe that evolution conflicts with the tenets of their faith. And none of them can present anything remotely resembling either a coherent critique of evolution (they rely on long-discredited arguments) or an alternative explanation that fits the evidence (whenever creationism is stated in a form that is testable and falsifiable, it has been falsified).

"COMMMUNISM=LIBERALS!Control of Elite From the TopTheir Government under ONE PARTY with a LEADER aka Fuehrer, ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"NO IDIOTS WILL CONTROL FREE PEOPLE!INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM vs SOCIALISM!"

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"Nationalists!Republicans are a social and cultural American association that is of our national heritageOUR GOALDeconstruction ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."
"Make YOUR OWN plans!SimpleJob of Government is threefold onlyProtectLifeLibertyPropertySO YOU CAN GET ON WITH YOUR ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Wylann

    To be fair, you could probably find a few muslims too….

  • eric

    In terms of amount of fail, I liked this sentence the best:

    “A recent article published by Ken Ham and Roger Patterson of Answers in Genesis suggests that secularists desire their religious beliefs to be the only worldview taught in schools.”

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Among those who doubt evolution, you find only a particular brand of Christian who believe that evolution conflicts with the tenets of their faith.

    There are quite a few Muslim creationists.

    And once I actually met a Hindu creationist. That was different.

  • colnago80

    Re Reginald Selkirk @ #3

    As a matter of fact, acceptance of the Theory of Evolution is lower in all Muslim majority countries then it is in the US.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    I’ve also heard of the existence of Native American “creationists,” who at least once seemed intent on taking possession of human remains that might have refuted their own religious creation stories. I tried to look it up just now, but either my google-fu sucks or I’m misremembering the spelling. “Kennouek Man?”

  • http://www.facebook.com/anthony.barcellos anthonybarcellos
  • tbp1

    Nice to note most of the comments are on the side of sanity.

  • Alverant

    I wonder how many names and disciplines of these “many scientists” are actually listed so they can be confirmed.

  • Moggie

    Alverant:

    I wonder how many names and disciplines of these “many scientists” are actually listed so they can be confirmed.

    Bring it! We still have Project Steve

  • lordshipmayhem

    To be fair, there are probably Muslim and Hebrew scientists forced by their religious prejudices to reject evolution as well. However, here is a comprehensive list of all scientists who became creationists after studying the evidence.

  • rationalinks

    My girlfriend works with a guy who is Jewish. He’s totally a creationist. I’ve tried discussing it with him but he just comes back with “I don’t know enough about evolution to argue with you, but I believe that it is a lie.”. The conversation doesn’t go much further than that….willful ignorance at its finest.

  • colnago80

    Re rationalinks @ #11

    My mind is made up, the facts are irrelevant.

  • peterh

    The article Ed links to carries the clear implication – deliberate? – that Ken Ham is a scientist. So much for journal.ism in Texas.

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    Among those who doubt evolution, you find only a particular brand of Christian who believe that evolution conflicts with the tenets of their faith.

    Late to the party here, but Harun Yahya.

  • Sastra

    Among those who doubt evolution, you find only a particular brand of Christian who believe that evolution conflicts with the tenets of their faith.

    I’ll contribute to the dog pile on Ed here and to the growing list of “Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, and Native American” creationists I’ll add New Age. Yes, there are “Spiritual but not Religious” doubts expressed on evolution. And no, they don’t all involve space aliens (though of course some do.) Belief in the supernatural combines with the belief that the supernatural is not being given enough serious consideration: science took a wrong turn in the 16th century and stopped giving primacy to Consciousness.

    Politically speaking though Ed’s right. The other groups are not anywhere near as well organized in the United States.

  • nrdo

    @ Reginald Selkirk

    I’ve also met a few Jewish creationists, actually Intelligent Design-ers, since Jews are less wedded to Biblical literalism than their Christian counterparts. I suspect though, that it’s the right-wing Christians who have worked the hardest to give their views the faux – science veneer.

  • jnorris

    … who believes evolution should be the only scientific theory taught in government-funded schools.

    Imagine that young whipper-snapper thinking government schools have to follow the law. The nerve! Of course the Christians could stop funding millionaire mega church preachers and instead open Christian only schools where their children can be taught to be an uneducated economic drag on the nation.

  • Trebuchet

    @7, TBP1:

    Nice to note most of the comments are on the side of sanity.

    That sort of surprises me, since every time I look at the comments on Phil Plait’s Slate blog the insanity is rampant. Makes me feel better about Slate screwing up may account so I can’t comment any more.

  • Reptile Dysfunction

    Since they ‘improved’ the site, I can’t even read the comments over on Slate any more.

  • colnago80

    Re Trebuchet @ #18

    Most of the crap comments that appear on Phil Plait’s blog are on the subject of climate change. Every time he posts something on climate change, the shills for the Koch brothers come out in droves. The only climate change denier who sometimes appears on this blog is Sir Lancelot.

  • colnago80

    Re #19

    I just went to Plait’s blog at Slate and was able to bring up the comments, using the latest version of Firefox I also tried Chrome with the same result.

    What one has to do is the following.

    1. Bring up the post in question on a separate tab or window.

    2. Just below the title of the post and on the right are three circles with labels. The comments are accessed via the third circle (the one on the far right).

    3. Mouse click once on the third circle. This will bring up a window with the comments. Do not try to open the window in a separate tab or window; it doesn’t work.

  • eric

    Re: nonchristian creationists. Ed certainly got that detail wrong but I think his initial general statement is basically correct. You only see creationism being defended by scientists who had a prior ideological commitment to it – regardless of what faith tradition that commitment came from. No prior ideological commitment to it => not creationist.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730511544 billdaniels

    I was once in a discussion of creationism on another site. The creationist in the discussion kept saying that he knew 50 prominent scientists who, after years of teaching evolution, became creationists. I asked for a list. After several days of bargaining he produced a list of ten “evolutionists” who converted to creationism. I went to Wikipedia to get the basic background of the converts. Most of them weren’t scientists. There were a few engineers and a couple of people with degrees in science. All of them were lifelong fundamentalists. One of them had been teaching at Calvin College for thirty years. I doubt if he ever taught evolution there.

    These people are not only liars, they are lazy liars. But, then again, facts don’t seem to matter to them.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    Thanks for the correction, anthonybarcellos. And here’s the example of Native American creationism I was looking for:

    The Umatilla argued that their oral history goes back 10,000 years and say that their people have been present on their historical territory since the dawn of time,[16] so a government statement that Kennewick Man is not Native American is detrimental to their religious beliefs.

  • http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ Raging Bee

    PS: Glad to see the study of Kennewick Man’s remains did not get interrupted.

  • spamamander, internet amphibian

    Somebody already beat me to the correction for Kennewick man. Being from the area it’s been a massive facepalm for me every time it comes up. There also has been the issue of when do human remains go from being archaeological to within “family”, the tribes arguing that they remains belong to them as opposed to being appropriate for study. Since there’s no way to know whom this person might have been related or to what group of people he belonged to, going along with the idea that “we have always been here, so he is Umatilla” is… sighs.

  • dingojack

    So how would they prove that Kennewick Man wasn’t a complete stranger who wandered into the area and died in the 13,569,990,000 years between the ‘dawn of time’ and their earliest oral history?*

    Dingo

    ——–

    * or indeed the 190,000 years between the earliest Homo sapiens sapiens and the beginning of their oral history?