To the editor:

In a recent letter, Adrian Melott argues that the evidence for creationism should not be discussed in science classes because such supposed evidence is merely propaganda, because the creationism-evolution controversy really is not scientific, but political, because its supporters are unwilling to abandon their claims when the evidence goes against them and because this issue is too laden with emotion.

If Melott is making a claim about ALL creationists, then his claims, if true, might count as good reasons for not teaching creationism. However, he has not offered good evidence for his claims understood in that way.

If Melott is making a claim about SOME creationists, then I suspect his claims are probably correct. Dogmatists and propagandists are associated with almost any side of almost any controversy with which I am acquainted. However, from Melott’s letter we can construct a good reason FOR discussing the evidence for creationism. To refuse to discuss this evidence in a careful analytical way is to turn the teaching of the educable creationists over to the dogmatists, the propagandists, and those who engage in emotion-laden tirades. Is that what we want?

Democracy comes in degrees. Better democracies are those in which more of the citizenry think carefully about the evidence for and arguments concerning EACH side of important public policy issues that are controversial and often emotional. Some of these issues involve science. Teaching our young people such critical thinking skills is surely one of the most important tasks for educators in a free society. In my view, we do a far poorer job in this area than we should.

Don Marquis,

Lawrence