Posted on 02/07/2005 3:50:28 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Al Frisby has spent the better part of his life in rooms filled with rebellious teenagers, but the last years have been particularly trying for the high school biology teacher. He has met parents who want him to teach that God created Eve out of Adam's rib, and then then adjusted the chromosomes to make her a woman, and who insist that Noah invited dinosaurs aboard the ark. And it is getting more difficult to keep such talk out of the classroom.
"Somewhere along the line, the students have been told the theory of evolution is not valid," he said. "In the last few years, I've had students question my teaching about cell classification and genetics, and there have been a number of comments from students saying: 'Didn't God do that'?" In Kansas, the geographical centre of America, the heart of the American heartland, the state-approved answer might soon be Yes. In the coming weeks, state educators will decide on proposed curriculum changes for high school science put forward by subscribers to the notion of "intelligent design", a modern version of creationism. If the religious right has its way, and it is a powerful force in Kansas, high school science teachers could be teaching creationist material by next September, charting an important victory in America's modern-day revolt against evolutionary science.
Legal debate
Similar classroom confrontations between God and science are under way in 17 states, according to the National Centre for Science Education. In Missouri, state legislators are drafting a bill laying down that science texts contain a chapter on so-called alternative theories to evolution. Textbooks in Arkansas and Alabama contain disclaimers on evolution, and in a Wisconsin school district, teachers are required to instruct their students in the "scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory". Last month, a judge in Georgia ordered a school district to remove stickers on school textbooks that warned: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."
For the conservative forces engaged in the struggle for America's soul, the true battleground is public education, the laboratory of the next generation, and an opportunity for the religious right to effect lasting change on popular culture. Officially, the teaching of creationism has been outlawed since 1987 when the supreme court ruled that the inclusion of religious material in science classes in public teaching was unconstitutional. In recent years, however, opponents of evolution have regrouped, challenging science education with the doctrine of "intelligent design" which has been carefully stripped of all references to God and religion. Unlike traditional creationism, which posits that God created the earth in six days, proponents of intelligent design assert that the workings of this planet are too complex to be ascribed to evolution. There must have been a designer working to a plan - that is, a creator.
In their campaign to persuade parents in Kansas to welcome the new version of creationism into the classroom, subscribers to intelligent design have appealed to a sense of fair play, arguing that it would be in their children's interest to be exposed to all schools of thought on the earth's origins. "We are looking for science standards that would be more informative, that would open the discussion about origins, rather than close it," said John Calvert, founder of the Intelligent Design network, the prime mover in the campaign to discredit the teaching of evolution in Kansas.
Other supporters of intelligent design go further, saying evolution is as much an article of faith as creationism. "Certainly there are clear religious implications," said William Harris, a research biochemist and co-founder of the design network in Kansas. "There are creation myths on both sides. Which one do you teach?" For Mr. Harris, an expert on fish oils and prevention of heart disease at the premier teaching hospital in Kansas City, the very premise of evolution was intolerable. He describes his conversion as a graduate student many years ago almost as an epiphany. "It hit me that if monkeys are supposed to be so close to us as relatives then what explains the incredible gap between monkeys and humans. I had a realisation that there was a vast chasm between the two types of animals, and the standard explanation just didn't fit."
Other scientists on the school board's advisory committee see no clash in values between religion and science. "Prominent conservative Christians, evangelical Christians, have found no inherent conflict between an evolutionary understanding of the history of life, and an orthodox understanding of the theology of creation," said Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University, who describes himself as a practising Christian.
But in Kansas, as in the rest of America, it would seem a slim majority continue to believe God created the heaven and the earth. During the past five years, subscribers to intelligent design have assembled a roster of influential supporters in the state, including a smattering of people with PhDs, such as Mr Harris, to lend their cause a veneer of scientific credibility. When conservative Republicans took control of the Kansas state school board last November, the creationists seized their chance, installing supporters on the committee reviewing the high school science curriculum.
The suggested changes under consideration seem innocuous at first. "A minor addition makes it clear that evolution is a theory and not a fact," says the proposed revision to the 8th grade science standard. However, Jack Krebs, a high school maths teacher on the committee drafting the new standards, argues that the campaign against evolution amounts to a stealth assault on the entire body of scientific thought. "There are two planes where they are attacking. One is evolution, and one is science itself," he said.
"They believe that the naturalistic bias of science is in fact atheistic, and that if we don't change science, we can't believe in God. And so this is really an attack on all of science. Evolution is just the weak link."
It would certainly seem so in Kansas. At the first of a series of public hearings on the new course material, the audience was equally split between the defenders of established science, and the anti-evolution rebels. The breakdown has educators worried. With the religious right now in control of the Kansas state school board, the circumstances favour the creationists.
In a crowded high school auditorium, biology teachers, mathematicians, a veterinarian, and a high school student made passionate speeches on the need for cold, scientific detachment, and the damage that would be done to the state's reputation and biotechnology industry if Kansas became known as a haven for creationists. They were countered by John James, who warned that the teaching of evolution led to nihilism, and to the gates of Auschwitz. "Are we producing little Kansas Nazis?" he asked. But the largest applause of the evening was reserved for a silver-haired gentleman in a navy blue blazer. "I have a question: if man comes from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why do you waste time teaching something in science class that is not scientific?" he thundered.
Science teachers believe that the genteel questioning of the intelligent design movements masks a larger project to discredit an entire body of rational thought. If the Kansas state school board allows science teachers to question evolution, where will it stop? Will religious teachers bring their beliefs into the classroom?
"They are trying to create a climate where anything an individual teacher wants to include in science class can be considered science," said Harry McDonald, a retired biology teacher and president of Kansas Citizens for Science Education. "They want to redefine science."
Religious right
Young Earth creationism: God created the Earth, and all the species on it, in six days, 6,000 years ago
Old Earth creationism: The Earth is 4.5bn years old, but God created each living organism on the planet, although not necessarily in six days
Intelligent design: Emerged as a theory in 1989. Maintains that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that Earth's complexity can be explained only by the idea of an intelligent designer - or a creator
|
Darwinian Evolution is NOT Science,but Theory no more valid
nor invalid than Creationism. Perhaps the salad shooters
evolved by random happenstance from monkeys that came by way of happenstance from an amoeba that evolved by happenstance from some other form of matter-but by God someone had to Create th efreakin' Matter and anti-matter
But it doesn't matter to the salad shooters.
Oh well, I guess it's all right. We'll be at the technological mercy of China and India, but By God, we'll have saved our souls!
Intelligent design, at least as noted in the article, got ONE thing right. Evolution is a theory, albeit one with quite a bit of support.
But the issues are being skewed here: science is NOT supposed to provide TRUTH. Science catalogs facts in the observed universe, and uses those facts to create highly-detailed working models of reality, accurately matching the universe at large in sufficient detail to be reliably used for engineering or predictive purposes. It may be totally wrong (especially in causation), but it provides RELIABLE RESULTS. . .
You want Truth, hit the Religion or Philosophy Departments. . .you want reliable, empirical results, hit the Science Department and the Engineering School
/another 'Tea' party?
Memo to you: the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, while Creationism is a religious belief. Don't you dare to confuse the two!
Evolution is science. It is both fact and theory, in that evolution has happened, and the modern synthesis is the theory that explains how. It has shown by the millions of points of data that support it. Creationism is nothing more than a bronze-age, Middle Eastern myth that only children and the pathetically ignorant believe to be literally true.
It is evolution that is anti-Science.
It is CHRISTIANS that developed every major science field to the greatness it is, and each of those Christians was a Creationist of some sort.
Evolution is a religious belief, just as much as Creationism.
Evolution says that there was NO God there.
Creationism says it was ALL God there.
BOTH are religious views.
Actually, science is what they teach at the university
You're right. Savings souls is more important.
WRONG...
wacko-nut jobs will split the conservative movement and allow the democrats an opportunity to regain power.
religous extremists need to be restrained by the majority...
You have just insulted a lot of people. Why do you think you have all the answers?
I would hardly call someone who believes in God a religious extremist.
The ones who read the Guardian, certainly - bunch of elitist snobs.
Evolution is a fact: it is the way God has created our bodies. Not so our souls.
Of more pressing concern is this idea that Science and Religion somehow contradict each other. This cannot be. There is only one truth, not two or three parallel truths.
If a fact really is true, then by definition no other path of truth can contradict it. No observable fact in the universe can really deny the existence of God, if he exists. Aquinas was right on top of this. Those of us on this board who believe need not fear any scientific revelation.
Nothing of the sort. It just does not specify where the God is (was). Usage of the concept of God qualifies something as a religious belief. As long as the theory of evolution does not use it - it is NOT a religious belief. You seem to confuse the theory of evolution with a blanket atheistic statement that there is no god. Atheism itself is a religious ideology, and a dangerous one, but let us leave the poor old evolution theory to the care of the egg-heads with Ph.D.
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.