Some Thoughts, Suggestions on Teaching How Earth Was Born

Once again, ignorance raises its head. The controversy of science versus creationism is alive (“Parents Protest Reprimand of Teacher Over Creationism,” April 2).

John Peloza says he wants to teach both sides. The problem is that one side is science and the other is religion, regardless of his assertion that he does not “ . . . quote Genesis . . . “ in his classroom. Peloza’s idea of a design to life is an old one that scientists rejected many years ago. In philosophy, it is called a tautological argument (circular reasoning) and is not considered a scientific explanation since it is incapable of being falsified.

Peloza’s problem, then, is that he is not teaching science. Instead, he is trying to interject a form of religion into his classroom at the expense of his students.

Peloza says: “I refuse to teach macro-evolution as fact because there is no empirical data to support that . . . “ This is a common argument by creationists. However, it simply is not true. There is an overabundance of evidence that science has, but creationists refuse to accept it.

JOHN O. MATSON, Buena Park