To the editor:

In a recent letter, Don Marquis urged us to teach “the evidence for creationism” in public schools so students could then really understand “why poorly supported scientific hypotheses are poorly supported.”

Here is an example: Early mountaintop measurements of the fall of meteoritic dust on the Earth gave large numbers that suggested that the moon should be covered with a thick layer, and caused concern for the Apollo missions. Creationists use this as a proof that the universe is young, since not much dust was found. However, the mountaintop measurements had already been shown to be faulty by satellite studies; the earlier ones were contaminated by dust blown up from below. Creationists still use this argument, though.

Going through examples like this would teach something, but not very much about science. It would teach about propaganda techniques.

Creationism is not a poorly supported scientific hypothesis, in the sense that it is not a scientific hypothesis at all: Its supporters are not able to abandon it when evidence goes against it. By teaching the (nonexistent) evidence for creationism, should we delude our students about the dust, then explain that we had lied by omission? Wouldn’t it be better to choose some other, less emotion-laden topic such as the plogiston theory of heat?

The “teach the controversy” ploy (which now comes from Intelligent Design supporters) fails to note that this is a political controversy, not a scientific one. There are better choices of failed science for students to learn about.

Adrian Melott,

Lawrence