 |
 Jeffrey Selman |
Posted on 09/07/2002 7:55:51 PM PDT by mhking
|
|
Cobb dads enter fray over evolution in schools
By MARY MacDONALD
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
When Jeffrey Selman learned the Cobb County public schools had put disclaimers on evolution in thousands of science books, he skipped his usual outlet, a letter of protest.
The 56-year-old computer programmer sued the district to remove the textbook stickers. And he is ready to broaden the suit's scope if the school board allows science teachers to discuss what he sees as faith-based alternatives to evolution.
"I saw something wrong, and I went after it," Selman said.
Five miles away, in another east Cobb neighborhood, Larry Taylor had his own visceral reaction to the debate over science and religion.
Well-read and articulate, Taylor grew tired of seeing critics of evolution dismissed as uneducated rubes.
The construction manager attended his first school board meeting two weeks ago to urge members to require teachers to expose flaws in evolution.
"If it raises tough questions in the classroom, that's why they're there," Taylor said.
The men, both fathers of students in east Cobb schools, inserted themselves into a fray that neither expected would turn national. Both have found the attention unsettling. They worry about the impact on their families and will not disclose the names of their wives or children. Both screen phone calls. But neither regrets taking a public stance on an issue that has divided Cobb and drawn national media attention.
The board vote on instruction policy is set for Sept. 26.
Selman: I'm a patriot|
The division among parents is unprecedented, said board Chairman Curt Johnston, who is receiving 15 messages a day, divided on either side. "This is the most difficult and polarized debate the board has had since I've been on the board," he said. "Right now, we're just listening."
Selman, the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the district by the American Civil Liberties Union, said his decision to seek court intervention took perhaps "half a second." A transplanted New Yorker, Selman wants people to know he believes in God. A practicing Jew, he attends temple several times a year. He does not want to be equated with the California atheist whose challenge of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance drew national scorn.
Selman describes his lawsuit as a patriotic action, stopping a move toward government-sanctioned religion. While the textbook advisories are vague, Selman and many other parents think the school board discussions that produced the inserts reflect a conservative Christian intent.
The advisories were approved after the board heard about two dozen parents protest the teaching of evolution, many on religious grounds. They produced a petition signed by nearly 2,000 parents who demanded accurate science texts. Many petitions circulated in Cobb churches.
A counterpetition is now circulating among pro-evolution parents, who will demand that the board maintain "traditional academic standards and integrity in the sciences."
Selman isn't sure what sparked the anti-evolution movement in Cobb, a county he and his wife chose nearly 10 years ago based on the good reputation of its schools. He thinks the board is pandering to a small group of parents. His own actions have produced a few dozen phone calls to his home, more supportive than not.
"This is one battleground," said Selman, who has a child in elementary school. "I'm sure they're not going to stop at this. The next thing, the moment of silence is going to be attacked, which is a beautiful piece of compromise."
Nancy Myers, a co-worker, wasn't surprised that Selman became involved in the dispute. "He's got a hot justice button," she said. "When he sees wrong being done, he wants to do something about it. I'd call him principled."
Although Selman thinks his lawsuit will squash any attempt to dilute evolution, he suspects the board policy will open classrooms to religious-based instruction. "The side for scientific education was asleep," he said. "We felt safe. This is the 21st century, for crying out loud. We can't go back to this."
Taylor: Teach all facts|
Taylor, 41, moved to Cobb as a child and was educated in its public schools. But like Selman, he now questions whether the county schools live up to their generally good reputation. He has two daughters and a son, in middle and high school.
While he disagrees with biological evolution, Taylor will not identify himself as a creationist or an advocate of "intelligent design," which argues that the diversity of life is the result of some master plan by an unidentified "designer."
But Taylor has read "Darwin's Black Box," a challenge of evolution by a biochemist at Lehigh University, and a stack of other books that question evolution. He has given copies to friends and co-workers.
Taylor believes these critiques, many written by scientists if not biologists, are being ignored unfairly by public school teachers and the media. "The media presents it as the educated scientists vs. the religious, fanatical extremists."
He was particularly angered when science teachers told the Cobb school board that criticism of evolution was based in religion.
"All the facts should be taught in the science class," he said. "There are many credible scientists in America who believe evolution has many flaws."
Taylor attends his church, Trinity Fellowship in west Cobb, twice weekly. The Rev. Richard Hemphill said the church had not become involved with the evolution dispute. Taylor has spoken out before, taking a position against abortion in a letter published in a newspaper. His pastor is not surprised to see him take a stance on something that affects his family.
"When he talks about an issue, he has studied it thoroughly," Hemphill said.
Parents and teachers who dismiss views opposing evolution are practicing their own form of religion, Taylor said. He insists intelligent design is not a faith-based approach.
"The supporters of evolution have an agenda as well. Their agenda is to keep God out, even if the evidence points to God. . . . It's faith. Those people are as fervent in their beliefs as Christians are in believing God created Earth."
Did I not just say that? Are you perhaps reading only the first sentence of anything I post?
I certainly agree with you on this. There is no question that the Bill of Rights was in no way antithetical to the Constitution, as a lot of folks seemed to think in the 1960's.
I already covered Adams, from Samuel Adams biographical remarks, in a previous post.
Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it is certainly the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others. (George Washington, letter to the Religious Society called the Quakers, September 28, 1789. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 500.)
It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of the people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support. (George Washington, letter to the congregation of Touro Synagogue Jews, Newport, Rhode Island, August, 1790. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 500.)
Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. (George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726.)
In the Enlightened Age and in this Land of equal Liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States. (George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793. Quoted in Richard B. Morris, Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, Harper & Row, 1973, p. 269.)
No citizens ... were more sensitive to Washington's role as an upholder of liberties than the religious minorities. These groups were less anxious to cultivate what they had in common with other Americans than to sustain what kept them apart. Washington recognized this, just as he recognized the tenacity of regional and economic interests, and he took pains to explain precisely what national unity meant to him. He carried to his countrymen a vision of "organic" rather than "mechanical" solidarity, a union based on difference and interdependence rather than uniformity of belief and conduct. Washington's understanding of the kind of integration appropriate to a modern state was not shared by the most powerful Protestant establishments, the New England Congregationalists and Presbyterians; but other religious groups could not have been more pleased.... Acknowledging in each instance that respect for diversity was a fair price for commitment to the nation and its regime, Washington abolished deep-rooted fears that would have otherwise alienated a large part of the population from the nation-building process. For this large minority, he embodied not the ideal of union, nor even that of liberty, but rather the reconciliation of union and liberty. (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York: The Free Press, 1987, pp. 85-86.)
To the Ministers and Ruling Elders delegated to represent the churches in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, which compose the First Presbytery of the Eastward. The tribute of thanksgiving which you offer to the gracious Father of lights, for his inspiration of our public councils with wisdom and firmness to complete the national Constitution, is worthy of men who, devoted to the pious purposes of religion, desire their accomplishment by such means as advance the temporal happiness of mankind. And here, I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe, that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little Political attention. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna Charta of our country. To the guidance of the ministers of the gospel this important object is, perhaps, more properly committed. It will be your care to instruct the ignorant, to reclaim the devious; and in the progress of morality and science, to which our government will give every furtherance, we may expect confidently, the advancement of true religion and the completion of happiness. I pray the munificent rewarder of every virtue, that your agency in this good work may receive its compensation here and hereafter. George Washington. Excerpt from a letter written by G. Washington, October 1789. George Washington & Religion, By Paul F. Boller, Jr.. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, 1962, pp 180-181
If this isn't enough, there's plenty more to be found. Washington was acknowledged, even by his own minister, to be a closet deist. He publicly refused the rites of his own church, even on his deathbed. His dislike for religion harnessed to government was abundently tangible in even his most casual correspondence.
We seem to agree about abolishing the governmental provision of education. In the meantime, the ones who pay the piper have the right to call the tune.
As for Samuel Adams, the Adams you referred to was his cousin John. Samuel Adams played an insignifigant role in the founding, as opposed to the revolutionary process, and was in almost complete disagreement with John in his political attitudes.
Then let the scientists pay for it. In my occupation, the employer tells the employee what to do. If the employee doesn't like it, they can quit.
I did not say "autobiographical" I said "biographical". I was, indeed, refering to the same Adams as you. If you wish to argue with something I've said, it would work better if you read it.
Of course that is not true, there is no law compelling children to attend public schools, just that they be educated. Abolishing that law would be a good start. People who do not want to be educated, can't be educated.
Schoolchildren are not employees--for the purposes of their education, they are slaves of the state, rather like draftees. Your analogy is brain-damaged--scientists are too busy in their labs to give a rats ass, other than by occasional lip service. The urge to teach science, like the urge to teach grammar, comes from a desire on the part of school boards, administrators, and federal curriculum overseers to produce children that don't shame the commmunity they came from by being pig-ignorant about the major things our culture values. If your local board doesn't think science is one of those things, fine--don't teach it, otherwise, the science they should teach should not be a specially concocted brew that satisfies the sensibilities of the general community, but, rather science as it is actually practiced. Do you think grammar should be taught as spoken at the local monster truck rallies, or do you think grammar should be taught as spoken in college fine arts classes?
I think that grammar should be taught in any way that the taxpayers desire.
On this, at least, we are in agreement. Public schooling is a waste of money and a fundamental betrayal of the spirit of the Constitution. That we don't trust the government to hang on to our guns, or filter what we can say, but we trust the government with the minds of our children, is such a colossal indication of the general fecklessness of the general population it staggers imagination.
If we think watching Laverne and Shirley reruns is a better use of our time than taking responsibility for the education of our young, or the comfort of our elders--then we shall have richly deserved the boot on our behind from the omnipotent welfare state tyranny that arises therefrom like the night follows the day.
It is incontestable on the evidence that educated children happen because of educated and motivated parents at miniscule cost. What public schools spend, because of the arguments of universal access to education that have prevailed in this previous two centuries, in comparison to their results is incredible. Incredible that they have been tolerated all this time.
Undereducated, communistically indoctrinated cheerleaders coupled to a bored, unwilling, mandated audience is a recipe for cultural disaster. Parents ought to raise their own kids, rather than sluff it off on glorified babysitters on a mildly disguised public dole. What an amazing concept.
I think that grammar should be taught as parents desire. As soon as you talk about taxpayers, you are talking about the public realm, the public commons, and the public cops whose ultimate resource is not persuasion, but guns and jails. In this realm, you are not free to legislate as you damn well please just because you are a majority, unless you are overly fond of anarchy or tyranny. That was the point, as you may recall, of establishing a constitutionally limited republic, rather than a democracy, and the same principals should apply to schoolboards.
You have my full support, provided you clearly mark the distinction between actual science, history of science and speculation that may, or may not, someday precipitate out a science.
I do support discussion of the "ignorant twaddle" theory, if many of the parents of those children believe it to be true, you bet. Parents should not be sending their children to school only to have the school tell them everything they hear from their parents, and their Pastor on Sunday is unquestionably wrong.
Nor should children be hearing from their pastor and parents that their teachers are liars or fools. Unfortunately, if one teaches science, one must eventually make a positive statement constraining the universe in some manner by physical laws which may fall afoul of some parent's teaching. Wiccans are parents, as are flat-earthers and astrologers, and one cannot teach modern science without flatly contradicting flat-earthers, astrologers and wiccans.
Let the scientist's views be known... but we don't have to stop there as if no one else has a theory.
No you don't, but you still don't get to label anything you like as science. So long as theologens stay out of sciences' business no conflict need arise. Nothing about modern science precludes the existence of God. It would be nice if that respect were reciprocated toward modern biology.
I am a free American citizen. I get to label anything that I want to with any label that I want to. With a little luck, that will become the label that everyone uses, and earlier ones will be forgotten.
Be that as it may, in regard to the question of what was on the minds of our founding fathers, the American Revolution and the production of the Bill of Rights are, indeed, the same event.
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.