Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
In a poll released last week, two-thirds of Americans said they wanted to see creationism taught to public-school science pupils alongside evolution. Thirty-seven percent said they wanted to see creationism taught instead of evolution.
So why shouldn't majority rule? That's democracy, right?
Wrong. Science isn't a matter of votes -- or beliefs. It's a system of verifiable facts, an approach that must be preserved and fought for if American pupils are going to get the kind of education they need to complete in an increasingly global techno-economy.
Unfortunately, the debate over evolution and creationism is back, with a spiffy new look and a mass of plausible-sounding talking points, traveling under the seemingly secular name of "intelligent design."
This "theory" doesn't spend much time pondering which intelligence did the designing. Instead, it backwards-engineers its way into a complicated rationale, capitalizing on a few biological oddities to "prove" life could not have evolved by natural selection.
On the strength of this redesigned premise -- what Wired Magazine dubbed "creationism in a lab coat" -- school districts across the country are being bombarded by activists seeking to have their version given equal footing with established evolutionary theory in biology textbooks. School boards in Ohio, Georgia and most recently Dover, Pa., have all succumbed.
There's no problem with letting pupils know that debate exists over the origin of man, along with other animal and plant life. But peddling junk science in the name of "furthering the discussion" won't help their search for knowledge. Instead, pupils should be given a framework for understanding the gaps in evidence and credibility between the two camps.
A lot of the confusion springs from use of the word "theory" itself. Used in science, it signifies a maxim that is believed to be true, but has not been directly observed. Since evolution takes place over millions of years, it would be inaccurate to say that man has directly observed it -- but it is reasonable to say that evolution is thoroughly supported by a vast weight of scientific evidence and research.
That's not to say it's irrefutable. Some day, scientists may find enough evidence to mount a credible challenge to evolutionary theory -- in fact, some of Charles Darwin's original suppositions have been successfully challenged.
But that day has not come. As a theory, intelligent design is not ready to steal, or even share, the spotlight, and it's unfair to burden children with pseudoscience to further an agenda that is more political than academic.
> Which creation stories do you want left out? Odin?
You dare not leave out Odin from Creationism. How would you defend yourself when you stand before him in Valhalla?
Nice post. But like my links, I fear it may go un-read by those who could benefit the most. Whatcha gonna do?
Nope. Evolution is a scientific theory, the other is not. Pretty simple really.
What irritates me about this issue is that both sides are acting as if science ONLY EVER discusses the origins of the earth. Why can the teachers simply not focus on teaching the scientific method? Is there truly an unwillingness amongst the creationists to accept the Linnean classification system? Is it really necessary for the advancement of technology to insist upon a secular view of the earth? Why is it that science itself has become a political game rather than a pure method of study? I think this is what has cause the most problems. Both sides are guilty of forgetting what science is in the first place. A pox on both your houses!
Not true. See my post #60
I see your ignorance showing.
Keep trying to educate. :-)
> They're already teaching one such story as if it were fact (evolution). Might as well put the other theory on the table, too.
Which "the other theory?"
1) The Raelians: Aliens put us here
2) Scientologists: Aliens put us here (sorta, I think...)
3) The Hindus: Ummmm....
4) The Nation of Islam: White People were Intelligently Designed by a mad scientist
5) The Great Green Arkleseizure: The universe was sneezed out his nose.
6) Communists: Lamarkian selection
7) Spiritualists: We're degraded forms from the Golden Age
8) Christians: Poofism
There seem to be a LOT of "theories" to rate alongside Creationism. Of course, only Natural Selection fits the standards of science, being verifiable, disprovable and observable, while all the rest are faith-based handwaving, but hey... so long as we're gonna teach one form of Creationism, why not teach them all?
What can you possibly be afraid of?
Excuse me but many scientists question evolution. I wouldn't consider them ignorant. With as complicated and intricate life is and all that must sustain it, I find it much harder to believe it just happened on its own. Evolution requires more faith than I have.
Although I can see how you might reason your way to such a statement, it is not logically supportable. The existence of God is not a logical prerequisite for theories stating that "Intelligent Design" is responsible for at least some of what we can observe of life on Earth.
If you're honest, you'll see that your statement relies on seceral Very Big Assumptions, including the following:
1. There is no life in the universe, except on Earth. (Otherwise, you'd admit the possibility that species from other planets could have played a role in creating life on Earth)
2. Intelligent Design and Evolution are mutually exclusive processes (this is a poor assumption -- a theory of "assisted evolution" easily combines the two, and helps to explain the fossil record)
3. God is the only possible intelligent designer (provably false: humans have demonstrated the ability to do it)
I think what you're really aiming at here is a global statement about the origin of life in the universe -- and you're claiming it sprang up randomly, and not through the actions of God. But you cannot apply such a theory to life on Earth.
Oooooh! The babbling of a psychologist. And from 1983. How very authoritative.
When I was in school, this was pretty easily handled by my teachers... that science can perhaps explain 'what happened' in the history of the world, but in no way can address who might have made it happen or why. Science and theology are not asking the same question, and the answers are understandably not interchangeable.
"And I suppose you know all there is to know in the entire universe"
That is correct.
"Evolution requires more faith than I have."
I respect that. Creationism and ID require far more faith than I have!
ALL written by subjective beings who are typically wrong more often than right and who use less than 10% of their brains to understand very nearly nothing about the universe. These articles prove nothing other than the fact that I can find plenty of things to prove my point. A house of cards may be intricate, beautiful and well desinged but it will still fall.
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.