Recently, U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., told an assembled crowd that he believes that evolution and the Big Bang Theory are “lies straight from the pit of hell.” Normally, this nonsense should be ignored; however, what caught me was that this congressman sits on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
As a certified math and science teacher, I am appalled that a person who holds such beliefs is allowed to sit on a committee that makes decisions about science, space and technology. I am appalled that voters have actually elected a man like this to represent them in our government. I am appalled that with members of Congress holding views such as this, they will turn and point their fingers at teachers and blame us for our students' low tests scores when compared with other countries.
Other countries are not teaching creationist pseudoscience in their classrooms, are not attacking teachers who teach accepted science and do not have politicians openly denouncing science as “lies straight from the pit of hell” just to score political points.
If the American public is truly concerned with how our students score in math and science compared to other countries' students, they need to stop electing men like Rep. Broun and appointing them to positions that govern our policies on science, space and technology.
The writer is assisting the Greater Latrobe School District with mathematics remediation on a yearlong AmeriCorps assignment.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.