Posted on 01/07/2005 2:42:22 PM PST by Ed Current
The "creation" controversy has splashed down in Gull Lake, Mich. Last spring, according to the Kalamazoo Gazette, a parent complained that two middle school biology teachers were giving the concept of "intelligent design" equal treatment in the classroom with the theory of evolution. The district has told them to stop, and both are now crying foul, appealing to the community for help.
Gull Lake parents are divided.
"Intelligent design," or ID, contends that the diversity of life on Earth and the complexity of some biological systems could not have arisen by means of evolution. To correct that perceived inadequacy, ID stipulates that an "intelligent designer" authored the world’s species.
Proponents argue that intelligent design is a serious scientific theory, and that, at the very least, its existence should be taught in biology classes. Opponents dismiss it as a superficially secular attempt to inject biblical creationism into public school classrooms – a Lamb of God in sheep’s clothing.
Michigan isn’t alone. All told, roughly 40 states are now embroiled in battles over the teaching of evolution. On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pennsylvania parents objecting to their school board’s decision to teach ID. Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education told the Gazette that "by lobbying school boards to include creationism or weaken evolution in their science curricula, (biblical) creationists are politicizing science education."
But Ms. Scott understates the problem — and mislays the blame.
Every aspect of the public school curriculum, not just science education, is inherently political. Decisions over what and how to teach are made by elected and appointed government officials. Because there is only one official state organ of education, everyone wants it to conform to their own views.
That is impossible.
In a pluralistic society, there are countless different and incompatible worldviews. Our effort to serve that diverse audience through a monolithic school system has not only failed to forge common ground; it has bred animosity and discord.
But this failure of compelled conformity is no cause for alarm; it is unnecessary to force all Americans to accept a single view on the origins of man. While there are certainly issues on which consensus is important in a free society, such as a commitment to the democratic process, respect for the rule of law and equal rights for all citizens, the origin of humanity is not among them.
Nor is it clear that centrally planned public schooling is the best means of nurturing societal agreement in those special areas where it is important. Research shows private school students to be as tolerant and civic-minded as their public school counterparts, and it also shows private schools to be, if anything, more meaningfully integrated than public schools.
Private schools, with their diverse world views, coexist as peacefully as private churches. If every family in America had the financial resources to choose the public or private school they preferred, as they would under a universal education tax credit system, we could enjoy the same harmonious relations in education that we have experienced in the field of religion. Thanks to the separation of church and state, American religious life has avoided most of the political and ideological conflicts that have beset our official state schools.
And honestly, is anyone happy with the way schools currently handle this issue?
Adherents of intelligent design presumably aren’t. They must fight to have their views heard in the public schools, and when they succeed, they immediately face legal challenges. Even if ID prevails in court (as biblical creationism did not), will science teachers present it in a way that will satisfy its advocates?
Adherents of evolution have nothing to cheer about, either. Virtually all biologists see evolution as the fundamental structuring principle of their entire discipline. By contrast, schools often teach it as a brief, isolated unit to avoid controversy. Tellingly, after generations of public school instruction in the theory of evolution, a recent Gallup poll found that 45 percent of Americans believe humanity is the comparatively recent product of divine creation, while only one-third believe that evolution is a theory well-supported by scientific evidence.
These results must dismay most scientists, and they should cause intelligent design advocates to question the wisdom of entrusting their own views to the public schools.
Back in Gull Lake, both sides are digging in their heels, and accusations of miseducation and brainwashing have started to fly. So long as we stick with a single official state school system, however, there will always be ideological winners and losers, and such antagonism will remain.
Wouldn’t we all be better off giving school choice a chance instead?
#####
Andrew J. Coulson is senior fellow for education policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.
A Change of Mind for Antony FlewWhile Flew restricts the design argument to situations where no ‘satisfactory naturalistic explanation has been developed’ (something that not all design argument advocates, let alone all theists, would agree with), it is significant to find Flew arguing against Dawkins that natural selection does not explain the existence of life, affirming that there is today no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the first emergence of living from non-living matter, or for the capacity of life to reproduce itself genetically, and observing that there isn’t even any sign of such an explanation on the horizon ‘if indeed there ever could be.’
Darwinists top the censorship food chainA Chinese scholar observed, "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.
The only evidence in the record of the "received meaning and acceptation" of "creation science" is found in five affidavits filed by appellants. In those affidavits, two scientists, a philosopher, a theologian, and an educator, all of whom claim extensive knowledge of creation science, swear that it is essentially a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that the physical universe and life within it appeared suddenly, and have not changed substantially since appearing. See App. to Juris. Statement A-19 (Kenyon); id. at A-36 (Morrow); id. at A-41 (Miethe). These experts insist that creation science is a strictly scientific concept that can be presented without religious reference. See id. at A-19 - A-20, A-35 (Kenyon); id. at A-36 - A-38 (Morrow); id. at A-40, A-41, A-43 (Miethe); id. at A-47, A-48 (Most); id. at A-49 (Clinkert). At this point, then, we must assume that the Balanced Treatment Act does not require the presentation of religious doctrine. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD.html
Welcome to The Barna Group! Thousands of public schools around the country do not allow the biblical perspective on the creation process to be taught in their classrooms. The survey shows that most Americans are dismayed by that point-of-view. About six out of every ten adults (59%) favor teaching creationism while less than four out of ten (38%) do not want it added to the public school curriculum content. The Chart shows 29% of ATHEISTS/AGNOSTIC support teaching Creationism in public schools.
The True.Origin Archive - was established to provide an intellectually honest response to the claims of evolutionism’s proponents (including, but not limited to, the likes of the "Talk.Origins" newsgroup and website).
Isn't this a "republic"? If the majority in the community wish that evolution be taught and creationism not be taught, so be it. The converse is also true. If you don't like it, move to another community that will accomodate you. Then ... sit and watch ... inevitable it will happen ... God will show his favor where he wishes.
*Creation* was not being taught in lieu of evolution; "intelligent design" was being talk along side evoultion as another explanation of origins.
But, in regard to your comment, aside from the debate about evolution vs. creation, you think that in a republic, truth should be determined by what the people want?
Forty states? The monopolists can see their monopoly crumbling. No wonder the panic.
Public schools are a perfect example of how socialism can lead to disharmony. Privatize schools, and we will be a more civil nation for it.
If parents want to misinform their kids, the solution is not government indoctrination. The solution is to let the free market produce choices and results. It has, afterall, produced in this country the most desired higher education system in the world.
What is the matter with teaching the truth? Why teach untrue things? Because the people want it? If evolution can't survive in academia without coercion and a massive infusion of public tax money, let it die.
The purpose of republic is to defend MINORITY rights, not MAJORITY wishes. You're thinking of democracy. Republicanism is the solution to democracy's tyranny.
What you speak of is factionalism and is a problem in any form of government, but more so in democracy than republicanism. Republicanism protects minority rights by protecting individual rights. Majorities consist of individuals.
In the end, its about restricting anyone from being able to impose his views on anyone else.
Very true. (Of course, I would give the example of trying to persuade a poofist from embracing his cultish nonsense). However, the point is that people with very different views can live quite well together so long as an armtwister isn't extorting one for the benefit of the other.
Civility isn't about who is right. It is simply about how people are treated, whether they are rational like Darwin or nutty like poofists.
Or: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (within a church); or abridging the freedom of speech (unless religious), or of the press (unless religious); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (for nonreligious reasons), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Christianity has a proven ability to survive without government support and even in the face of government harassment. Evolution hasn't a prayer of passing that same test.
Does an "intelligent designer" in the processes we observe necessitate "personhood" on the part of that designer?
If it is that fast-acting, it must be punctuated EvoLotion
It probably does, since the truth usually wins out in the end.
And it is wrong to equate Christianity with Creationism.
Evolution happened and is still happening. My children go to a Catholic school and they are told about the Creation as part of their religious curriculum, and they are taught about evolution as part of their science studies. I received the same education, and it worked for me. This shouldn't be a big deal. I see no reason to debate the issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.