In 1925 the issue of evolution versus creationism (i.e. Intelligent Design) in the classroom began in the United States with the John T. Scopes trial in Tennessee. John T. Scopes, an unknown biology teacher tried to introduce the theory of evolution to his Dayton, Tennessee classroom. The laws of the Scopes trial era simply made the teaching of evolution illegal, but after effectively muzzling scientific opinion for forty years the Supreme Court finally struck down this strategy in 1967. (Scope) Evolution is a theory first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, according to which life has evolved from simpler forms, which have survived changing conditions by adapting through natural selection. Natural selection works like this: Since life is hard, not all animals survive. Creatures that were a little faster or a little smarter lived longer and made more babies, so their genes became over-represented in the next generation. After a few billion years, little changes add up to big ones. This is quite a simple idea, yet extremely powerful in its explanatory and predictive power. Thus, according to evolution, as with all species, human beings have evolved from simpler forms, in our case, from more primitive primates. (Evolution) Since the Supreme Court decision there have been a well-organized movement by opponents to evolution to have an alternative theory taught called creationism which ironically has evolved into Intelligent Design. Creationism or Creation Science comes in different versions but in general it is the view that the universe, life, or humanity, or any combination of these, was created by some being or beings. (Creationism) One of this movement successes was when the Kansas Board of Education by a six to four vote on August 10th, 1999 decided to delete any mention of evolution from the state’s recommended science curriculum and its standardized tests. I thought the issue was dead after the decision of the Board was overturned in 2001. Ironically, this issue has now resurfaced in Texas Panel for Biology Textbooks. The situation with regard to evolution versus creationism in this Texas Panel portrays a classic conflict between religion and science. Therefore we are left to explore the questions; 1) what is science, 2) what is meant by theory and are both creationism and evolution a scientific theory and 3) should the two propositions be taught in the classroom?
What is science? Science comes from the Latin scientia which, means knowledge. This knowledge is organized with reference to the physical world, both living and non-living, however an appropriate explanation would also have to include the method and theories through which this organization of knowledge is formed. (Science) Thus, the scientific method and its theories normally define science or scientific knowledge. The scientific method as Irving M. Copi article in which Sherlock Holmes is used as a case study, The Detective as Science, indicates it is a combination of three philosophies; rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism, which means it does not based itself on one of these ideas single-handedly. (Burr and Goldinger 502-510) Rationalism is the belief that all knowledge is derived from innate ideas or reason, which also has its basis in a criterion of certainty or a matter of fact. The Rationalist view is brought out by Rene Decartes’ Meditations I and II. He reaches the conclusion of certainty, because he is aware of his doubt, since he knows he is doubting even his doubts, this implies the innate idea that he is cognizant of something and therefore is a thinking being. (Burr and Goldinger 483-492) The opposite of Rationalism is Empiricism, which is the doctrine, that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Friedrich Paulsen argues that our reason or innate ideas alone cannot reveal what does or doesn’t exist. Paulsen uses two types of sciences to illustrate his point (conceptual science, which includes mathematics and objective science, which includes physics) that rationalism alone cannot answer certainty or matter of fact. Paulsen concludes that absolute knowledge seems impossible, however we can have knowledge if we relinquish rationalism demand that knowledge be certain or absolute. (Burr and Goldinger 493-496) Skepticism believes that the possibility of knowledge or truth is limited either because of the restraint of the mind or because of the diffidence of its object. David Hume in describing his view of skepticism coins his version as migrated skepticism in which the search for knowledge should be within the limits of our understanding and common sense. He argues that if we follow Pyrrhonism or excessively doubting every innate idea or sense experience, we lose the incentive to seek knowledge and the motivation to continue to live. (Burr and Goldinger 497-501) Therefore, science is the knowledge acquired by the scientific method, which involves the innate idea or recognition of a problem (rationalism), the collection of information through examination and testing (empiricism), and the formulation and examination of hypotheses (through mitigated skepticism).
Since I defined science as being defined by scientific method and theory. This leads us into asking what is a theory? Theory in science, are sets of propositions put forward to explain facts or observations. They could come to be widely known to be true and thereby become facts (or sets of facts). One example of that is the heliocentric or sun-centered theory of our solar system. Though not initially known to be true, several centuries ago it became a set of facts. A theory cannot be in conflict with independent observations from other areas of science. (Science) Theories typically undergo decades of rigorous experimentation. Therefore, the main standard used to define a theory is: (1) experimentation (i.e., test procedures that appeal to interpersonal observations) and (2) compatible with natural law (i.e., conforming to the known laws of nature). Scientific theories satisfy these two standards, whereas unscientific ones do not. (Science) If a theory is unscientific, it is because it is not part of an experimental pursuit of knowledge but something else, perhaps a system of thought based on revelation or authority, or something derived only from personal experiences or imagination rather than interpersonal observations. As a result, calling a scientific explanation a theory expresses the highest confidence that it is a correct explanation of a set of facts and laws.
Moreover, I have defined science as organized knowledge composed of methods and theories, and I have defined the scientific method and theory. This leads to the question; are Creationism and Evolution scientific theories? According to Duane Gish’s article, The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins, neither evolution nor creationism is a scientific theory, they are inferences based on circumstantial evidence. He concludes that since both are concerning events that allegedly happened in the past and that since they can’t be observed or proven false then neither are scientific theories. He also argues that they are religious, because both involve a philosophical view of the world, he believes that creationism view is theistic and evolution is atheistic. He adds that since they are trying to give an explanation to our origins, they are science, and that both should be taught in the classroom. (Burr and Goldinger 515 - 519) A. David Kline disagrees with Gish, by saying that Gish and other Creationist are using prescientific definitions for the word “theory”. He also states that evolution is a fact, in which the theory of natural selection is the best scientific explanation that describes its process. (Burr and Goldinger 520-527) Moreover, evolution does not conflict with other areas of science; it is observation of facts in the fields of comparative anatomy, embryology, geographical distribution, and paleontology. (Evolution) In other words, evolution is an observable process, a fact of life. It refers to changes in gene frequencies between generations of animals or plants. It occurs every day and has been demonstrated in many species, for instance in the rapid evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or the evolution of resistance to DDT in mosquitoes. (Baumgartner) Also, it comes from decades of rigorous experimentation and observation, before it became a theory. It also meets the requirement of natural phenomenon, because it uses the laws of nature in its theory. However, the theory of creation works in the exact opposite way. With creationism, the theory came first and, thousands of years later, the search for facts to support the theory began. As stated by Kline, the creationist theory fails to meet scientific require of natural phenomena, because it requires a supernatural creator. He also adds that if creationists want science to accept it as a theory, they must be willing to say that the Creator is a natural phenomenon like Darwin’s Natural Selection. (Burr and Goldinger 520-527) Therefore, evolution is a scientific theory because it meets the standards of experimentation, also it extracts its data from observable scientific facts; its consistent with other areas of science and it uses natural phenomena to explain its hypothesis. Whereas, creationism is not a scientific theory, because it must use a supernatural phenomenon to explain a natural one and since you can’t observe the creator or creators, it’s unobservable. Creationism is not a scientific theory, but a faith-based one. Faith is rooted in revelation, not observation, whereas, science is root in observation and experimentation.
It is obvious that evolution is a scientific theory one is left to ask why does Darwin's idea cause such alarm among some people? There are many other scientific theories which to call merely “theories”, however you don’t see creationist asking for atomic theory to be stricken from physics and chemistry books, nor do they suggest that gravity is "only a theory" and thus advocate stepping out of skyscraper windows. The reason is that creationists would like divine creation presented in biology class as a valid scientific theory is because if Darwin was right, then they know very well that the biblical creation story of Genesis had to be wrong. And if the Creation story was wrong, then other things in the Bible might be wrong, as well. This isn’t about true science, if one visit Duane Gish’s organization website, Institute for Creation, it is a “Christ focused creation ministry”, its not a science focused creation ministry, and thus one question their motives. (Institute) As Ernest Nagel and Morrison Cohen concluded faith is based on person choice and divides men, whereas, science unites and is the measuring rods for what we consider civilization. (Burr and Goldinger 511-514)
Furthermore, I must ask the question of the two propositions, which of the two have contributed to science or scientific study? When the Church was in power, what was the scientific technology that was brought forth? As I mentioned before, creationism has been believed in for thousands of years, and has not did anything to encourage scientific inquiry. As Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian, argues the Christian religion has opposed every step of progress made by science and technology. (Burr and Goldinger 146-157) In fact the belief in creationism suppressed science in those 15 centuries the church was in power. While in the 153 years since the theory evolution has been postulated, we have an incentive and thereby an explosion in scientific knowledge and experiments. I value science and technology as a tool that could enhance my life. I don’t know what I would do if I did have the conveniences, in which science has produced, like electricity, the automobile, computers, and etc. I am not a scientist, however, I based my personal judgement on whether something has solved problems such as the elimination of polio or small pox, and other things of importance like genetic research. Thus, comparing what evolution and creationism has contributed to science, there is no doubt that the theory of evolution has contributed more to the understanding of mankind and his environment in an 143 years compared to the thousand of years of the belief in creationism.
Why do students need to learn evolution, even if it offends some people? The reason is because evolution is the organizing principle or explanation, which composes our knowledge of the biological sciences. Without a clear and unbiased understanding of the unifying theory of life, it is very difficult for students to make sense of biological science. (Baumgartner) Furthermore, to answer this question, we need to go to the polls. A 1997 Gallup Poll posed the following alternatives to Americans and asked which most closely represents their belief: 1. Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; 2. Humans developed over millions of years, but God had no part in the process; or 3. God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years. Forty-nine percent of Americans agreed with either option 1 or 2 (that is, that humans developed over millions of years, with or without God’s help). Amazingly, forty-four percent chose option #3 (that is, God created that human in pretty much our present form at some time within the last 10,000 years). (Seven percent had no opinion.) So, in other words, it appears that Americans are almost exactly evenly divided between those who believe that humans developed over millions of years, as scientists say we did, and those who believe that God created humans pretty much in our present form less than 10,000 years ago, as suggested by a literal interpretation of the Bible. (Chang) Furthermore, this will give parents and children reason to communicate with one another. If my children had a question about their faith and science, whom would I want to give this explanation, a teacher or myself? It is critically important for the future of this country that our schools produce a well-educated, scientifically literate society. I’m afraid; our scientific illiteracy shows only too plainly.
So, with the majority of the organized scientific community supporting evolution and minority of the organized scientific community supporting creationism why in the world should creationism get equal billing with evolution in our schools? Under our Constitution, one religion cannot be promoted over another in school. If creationism were taught, whose version of creation would they use? Many creationists like Gish believe that their version of creation is the only explanation for the existence of life. I guess he has never read Plotinus, whom idea of creation is more of an emanation or overflowing substance flowing from a single entity, which he called the One. (Plotinus) This goes more in line with our idea of the big bang cosmology. That the universe from a single highly condense energy source as small as dime, expanded, then cool, and the various lepton and quarks that existed created the nucleus of an atom and now we have a universe. (Cosmology) Maybe he failed to read Lao Tzu’s Chinese explanation for creation the that the Tao gave birth to One, the One to two, the two to three, and three to the ten thousand things. (Tao Deh Ching 42) Since the US is an amalgamation of various cultures, how then can creationist offer a unified theory that does not violate the US Constitution? To this date, they have not presented a unified theory like the theory of evolution because creationism is based on belief, not interpersonal observation. For those who believe in creationism, go right ahead, this is a free country (I guess). Therefore, our educational system should be secular, because any other alternative would violate an individual’s constitutional right. As a result, creationism should be taught in Sunday school and in church, where it belongs, but not in our nation’s public classrooms. Plus how can you teach a controversy that does not exist? Evolution is science, and Intelligent Design isn't; end of discussion.
Cited works:
Baumgartner, Mark “Darwin Takes a Drubbing” ABCnews.com April 18, 2002
Website: < http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolution980617.html>
Burr, John R. and Goldinger, Milton. Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Eight Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall 2000
Chang, Kenneth, “ Evolutionary Belief ”, ABCnews.com April 11, 2002 Website: Friday, October 4, 2013
Keep Creationism Out of the Classroom (Teach the Controversy? What Controversy?)
In 1925 the issue of evolution versus creationism (i.e. Intelligent Design) in the classroom began in the United States with the John T. Scopes trial in Tennessee. John T. Scopes, an unknown biology teacher tried to introduce the theory of evolution to his Dayton, Tennessee classroom. The laws of the Scopes trial era simply made the teaching of evolution illegal, but after effectively muzzling scientific opinion for forty years the Supreme Court finally struck down this strategy in 1967. (Scope) Evolution is a theory first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, according to which life has evolved from simpler forms, which have survived changing conditions by adapting through natural selection. Natural selection works like this: Since life is hard, not all animals survive. Creatures that were a little faster or a little smarter lived longer and made more babies, so their genes became over-represented in the next generation. After a few billion years, little changes add up to big ones. This is quite a simple idea, yet extremely powerful in its explanatory and predictive power. Thus, according to evolution, as with all species, human beings have evolved from simpler forms, in our case, from more primitive primates. (Evolution) Since the Supreme Court decision there have been a well-organized movement by opponents to evolution to have an alternative theory taught called creationism which ironically has evolved into Intelligent Design. Creationism or Creation Science comes in different versions but in general it is the view that the universe, life, or humanity, or any combination of these, was created by some being or beings. (Creationism) One of this movement successes was when the Kansas Board of Education by a six to four vote on August 10th, 1999 decided to delete any mention of evolution from the state’s recommended science curriculum and its standardized tests. I thought the issue was dead after the decision of the Board was overturned in 2001. Ironically, this issue has now resurfaced in Texas Panel for Biology Textbooks. The situation with regard to evolution versus creationism in this Texas Panel portrays a classic conflict between religion and science. Therefore we are left to explore the questions; 1) what is science, 2) what is meant by theory and are both creationism and evolution a scientific theory and 3) should the two propositions be taught in the classroom?
What is science? Science comes from the Latin scientia which, means knowledge. This knowledge is organized with reference to the physical world, both living and non-living, however an appropriate explanation would also have to include the method and theories through which this organization of knowledge is formed. (Science) Thus, the scientific method and its theories normally define science or scientific knowledge. The scientific method as Irving M. Copi article in which Sherlock Holmes is used as a case study, The Detective as Science, indicates it is a combination of three philosophies; rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism, which means it does not based itself on one of these ideas single-handedly. (Burr and Goldinger 502-510) Rationalism is the belief that all knowledge is derived from innate ideas or reason, which also has its basis in a criterion of certainty or a matter of fact. The Rationalist view is brought out by Rene Decartes’ Meditations I and II. He reaches the conclusion of certainty, because he is aware of his doubt, since he knows he is doubting even his doubts, this implies the innate idea that he is cognizant of something and therefore is a thinking being. (Burr and Goldinger 483-492) The opposite of Rationalism is Empiricism, which is the doctrine, that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Friedrich Paulsen argues that our reason or innate ideas alone cannot reveal what does or doesn’t exist. Paulsen uses two types of sciences to illustrate his point (conceptual science, which includes mathematics and objective science, which includes physics) that rationalism alone cannot answer certainty or matter of fact. Paulsen concludes that absolute knowledge seems impossible, however we can have knowledge if we relinquish rationalism demand that knowledge be certain or absolute. (Burr and Goldinger 493-496) Skepticism believes that the possibility of knowledge or truth is limited either because of the restraint of the mind or because of the diffidence of its object. David Hume in describing his view of skepticism coins his version as migrated skepticism in which the search for knowledge should be within the limits of our understanding and common sense. He argues that if we follow Pyrrhonism or excessively doubting every innate idea or sense experience, we lose the incentive to seek knowledge and the motivation to continue to live. (Burr and Goldinger 497-501) Therefore, science is the knowledge acquired by the scientific method, which involves the innate idea or recognition of a problem (rationalism), the collection of information through examination and testing (empiricism), and the formulation and examination of hypotheses (through mitigated skepticism).
Since I defined science as being defined by scientific method and theory. This leads us into asking what is a theory? Theory in science, are sets of propositions put forward to explain facts or observations. They could come to be widely known to be true and thereby become facts (or sets of facts). One example of that is the heliocentric or sun-centered theory of our solar system. Though not initially known to be true, several centuries ago it became a set of facts. A theory cannot be in conflict with independent observations from other areas of science. (Science) Theories typically undergo decades of rigorous experimentation. Therefore, the main standard used to define a theory is: (1) experimentation (i.e., test procedures that appeal to interpersonal observations) and (2) compatible with natural law (i.e., conforming to the known laws of nature). Scientific theories satisfy these two standards, whereas unscientific ones do not. (Science) If a theory is unscientific, it is because it is not part of an experimental pursuit of knowledge but something else, perhaps a system of thought based on revelation or authority, or something derived only from personal experiences or imagination rather than interpersonal observations. As a result, calling a scientific explanation a theory expresses the highest confidence that it is a correct explanation of a set of facts and laws.
Moreover, I have defined science as organized knowledge composed of methods and theories, and I have defined the scientific method and theory. This leads to the question; are Creationism and Evolution scientific theories? According to Duane Gish’s article, The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins, neither evolution nor creationism is a scientific theory, they are inferences based on circumstantial evidence. He concludes that since both are concerning events that allegedly happened in the past and that since they can’t be observed or proven false then neither are scientific theories. He also argues that they are religious, because both involve a philosophical view of the world, he believes that creationism view is theistic and evolution is atheistic. He adds that since they are trying to give an explanation to our origins, they are science, and that both should be taught in the classroom. (Burr and Goldinger 515 - 519) A. David Kline disagrees with Gish, by saying that Gish and other Creationist are using prescientific definitions for the word “theory”. He also states that evolution is a fact, in which the theory of natural selection is the best scientific explanation that describes its process. (Burr and Goldinger 520-527) Moreover, evolution does not conflict with other areas of science; it is observation of facts in the fields of comparative anatomy, embryology, geographical distribution, and paleontology. (Evolution) In other words, evolution is an observable process, a fact of life. It refers to changes in gene frequencies between generations of animals or plants. It occurs every day and has been demonstrated in many species, for instance in the rapid evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or the evolution of resistance to DDT in mosquitoes. (Baumgartner) Also, it comes from decades of rigorous experimentation and observation, before it became a theory. It also meets the requirement of natural phenomenon, because it uses the laws of nature in its theory. However, the theory of creation works in the exact opposite way. With creationism, the theory came first and, thousands of years later, the search for facts to support the theory began. As stated by Kline, the creationist theory fails to meet scientific require of natural phenomena, because it requires a supernatural creator. He also adds that if creationists want science to accept it as a theory, they must be willing to say that the Creator is a natural phenomenon like Darwin’s Natural Selection. (Burr and Goldinger 520-527) Therefore, evolution is a scientific theory because it meets the standards of experimentation, also it extracts its data from observable scientific facts; its consistent with other areas of science and it uses natural phenomena to explain its hypothesis. Whereas, creationism is not a scientific theory, because it must use a supernatural phenomenon to explain a natural one and since you can’t observe the creator or creators, it’s unobservable. Creationism is not a scientific theory, but a faith-based one. Faith is rooted in revelation, not observation, whereas, science is root in observation and experimentation.
It is obvious that evolution is a scientific theory one is left to ask why does Darwin's idea cause such alarm among some people? There are many other scientific theories which to call merely “theories”, however you don’t see creationist asking for atomic theory to be stricken from physics and chemistry books, nor do they suggest that gravity is "only a theory" and thus advocate stepping out of skyscraper windows. The reason is that creationists would like divine creation presented in biology class as a valid scientific theory is because if Darwin was right, then they know very well that the biblical creation story of Genesis had to be wrong. And if the Creation story was wrong, then other things in the Bible might be wrong, as well. This isn’t about true science, if one visit Duane Gish’s organization website, Institute for Creation, it is a “Christ focused creation ministry”, its not a science focused creation ministry, and thus one question their motives. (Institute) As Ernest Nagel and Morrison Cohen concluded faith is based on person choice and divides men, whereas, science unites and is the measuring rods for what we consider civilization. (Burr and Goldinger 511-514)
Furthermore, I must ask the question of the two propositions, which of the two have contributed to science or scientific study? When the Church was in power, what was the scientific technology that was brought forth? As I mentioned before, creationism has been believed in for thousands of years, and has not did anything to encourage scientific inquiry. As Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian, argues the Christian religion has opposed every step of progress made by science and technology. (Burr and Goldinger 146-157) In fact the belief in creationism suppressed science in those 15 centuries the church was in power. While in the 153 years since the theory evolution has been postulated, we have an incentive and thereby an explosion in scientific knowledge and experiments. I value science and technology as a tool that could enhance my life. I don’t know what I would do if I did have the conveniences, in which science has produced, like electricity, the automobile, computers, and etc. I am not a scientist, however, I based my personal judgement on whether something has solved problems such as the elimination of polio or small pox, and other things of importance like genetic research. Thus, comparing what evolution and creationism has contributed to science, there is no doubt that the theory of evolution has contributed more to the understanding of mankind and his environment in an 143 years compared to the thousand of years of the belief in creationism.
Why do students need to learn evolution, even if it offends some people? The reason is because evolution is the organizing principle or explanation, which composes our knowledge of the biological sciences. Without a clear and unbiased understanding of the unifying theory of life, it is very difficult for students to make sense of biological science. (Baumgartner) Furthermore, to answer this question, we need to go to the polls. A 1997 Gallup Poll posed the following alternatives to Americans and asked which most closely represents their belief: 1. Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; 2. Humans developed over millions of years, but God had no part in the process; or 3. God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years. Forty-nine percent of Americans agreed with either option 1 or 2 (that is, that humans developed over millions of years, with or without God’s help). Amazingly, forty-four percent chose option #3 (that is, God created that human in pretty much our present form at some time within the last 10,000 years). (Seven percent had no opinion.) So, in other words, it appears that Americans are almost exactly evenly divided between those who believe that humans developed over millions of years, as scientists say we did, and those who believe that God created humans pretty much in our present form less than 10,000 years ago, as suggested by a literal interpretation of the Bible. (Chang) Furthermore, this will give parents and children reason to communicate with one another. If my children had a question about their faith and science, whom would I want to give this explanation, a teacher or myself? It is critically important for the future of this country that our schools produce a well-educated, scientifically literate society. I’m afraid; our scientific illiteracy shows only too plainly.
So, with the majority of the organized scientific community supporting evolution and minority of the organized scientific community supporting creationism why in the world should creationism get equal billing with evolution in our schools? Under our Constitution, one religion cannot be promoted over another in school. If creationism were taught, whose version of creation would they use? Many creationists like Gish believe that their version of creation is the only explanation for the existence of life. I guess he has never read Plotinus, whom idea of creation is more of an emanation or overflowing substance flowing from a single entity, which he called the One. (Plotinus) This goes more in line with our idea of the big bang cosmology. That the universe from a single highly condense energy source as small as dime, expanded, then cool, and the various lepton and quarks that existed created the nucleus of an atom and now we have a universe. (Cosmology) Maybe he failed to read Lao Tzu’s Chinese explanation for creation the that the Tao gave birth to One, the One to two, the two to three, and three to the ten thousand things. (Tao Deh Ching 42) Since the US is an amalgamation of various cultures, how then can creationist offer a unified theory that does not violate the US Constitution? To this date, they have not presented a unified theory like the theory of evolution because creationism is based on belief, not interpersonal observation. For those who believe in creationism, go right ahead, this is a free country (I guess). Therefore, our educational system should be secular, because any other alternative would violate an individual’s constitutional right. As a result, creationism should be taught in Sunday school and in church, where it belongs, but not in our nation’s public classrooms. Plus how can you teach a controversy that does not exist? Evolution is science, and Intelligent Design isn't; end of discussion.
Cited works:
Baumgartner, Mark “Darwin Takes a Drubbing” ABCnews.com April 18, 2002
Website: < http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolution980617.html>
Burr, John R. and Goldinger, Milton. Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Eight Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall 2000
Chang, Kenneth, “ Evolutionary Belief ”, ABCnews.com April 11, 2002 Website: 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment