On My Mind: Kentucky Fried Creationism Part 1

by on December 18th, 2010
Share Button

(first read “Kentucky Educational System vs. Creationist Theme Park “)

I write these “On My Mind” pieces with two rules; I must stay within the context of the referenced article and I will not support my opinion with proof. Proof would discredit this as strictly opinion.

I think the most offensive thing about this story is that I could write pages on how wrong it is. I will limit it to two. There are so many factors present here that I am wondering if Kentucky is some how fudging their test results to be 12th ranking in educational success in the country. That’s right, America. Kentucky is 12th. If you aren’t asking yourself how, you will be when I am done.

Here we have a state that has accepted biblical text as a source of scientific explanation. Creationism is not, according to Kentucky, religious doctrine. They outline Creationism as limited to passages that highlight the specific act of bringing the world into existence through God. In Kentucky, that is science.

” The Ark Encounter” is a Creationist theme park. They have been cleared as a non-profit organization and are, under religious sanction, allowed to ask for and accept donations to support their purpose. They have even received a massive tax break as a non-profit religious organization.

But wait… I thought Creationism was a science now? How exactly is it that science is getting a tax break as a religious group? If Creationism not religious doctrine, then the theme park shouldn’t get religious tax breaks and contribution benefits. If Creationism isn’t science, what the hell is it doing in school?

It can’t be both. Science is based on facts, proofs, and evidence. Faith is based on belief in something unproven. The concept of fact, proof, and evidence actually eliminates faith. Faith and science are mortal enemies.

Next, we have the blatant contradiction of Governor Beshear’s swagger in the placing and success of his state’s education system and his wish to cut school funding. If this claim is weighted in on just knowing math and English (as standardized testing seems to focus on) then this is, in my opinion, an empty claim. If other curriculum is gauged, then we have their ability to understand how the earth is only 6,000-10,000 years old as acceptable science. I am still unimpressed.
(to be continued)


Prev Article: »
Next Article: «

Related Articles