Evolution Shmevolution

FREDONEVERYTHING.NET ^ | 10/16/2005 | Fred Reed

[Tax-chick]

I'm saying that "interpreting" the First Amendment to prohibit local school boards from teaching alternatives to evolution, if they choose to, is a overreach that would never have crossed the mind of the Founders.

Are you aware that actual religion and prayer, as opposed to possibly-religious discussions of the causes of observable facts, were a common practice in public schools until the 1960's?

"Establishment of religion" means just that - that Congress or a state legislature identifies an official church for the polity, that church being supported by tax revenue and having legal privileges above other churches'. In the early years after the Constitution's adoption, a number of states (but not the United States as whole: "Congress shall make no law ...") had established churches: Episcopalian in Virginia, Congregational in Massachusetts, etc.

The idea that the First Amendment means "Nobody can mention anything about reality in a school, other than 'It all just happened, somehow,' " is really far out.

[Ichneumon]

It's not as if Christians don't already know that 'evolution' has but one real agenda, to undermine Scripture and Christianity

Are your really so ignorant as to say something utterly false like this, or are you just lying about it?

Hey, moron: The chief prosecution witness in the Dover trial, who wholeheartedly supports evolution, is a biologist who is also a Christian. As are the majority of evolution-accepting Americans.

Sorry if that makes your head explode, or shatters your remarkably stupid little conspiracy theory.

Just once, I'd like to see some indication that anti-evolutionists had even the first clue what in the hell they were talking about.

[Tribune7]

Sure it is... But if they do it by dropping math or English or real science then they shouldn't expect those kids to be treated as if they had a valid high school education.

Why not? The quasi-literates public high schools now produce are.

[Ichneumon]

I'm saying that "interpreting" the First Amendment to prohibit local school boards from teaching alternatives to evolution, if they choose to, is a overreach that would never have crossed the mind of the Founders. <> And if anyone ever *does* interpret the First Amendment that way, I'll be glad to side with you in opposing it.

However, that's not what's at issue in the Dover case.

Are you aware that actual religion and prayer, as opposed to possibly-religious discussions of the causes of observable facts, were a common practice in public schools until the 1960's?

Sure.

"Establishment of religion" means just that - that Congress or a state legislature identifies an official church for the polity, that church being supported by tax revenue and having legal privileges above other churches'.

You greatly overstate the case.

In the early years after the Constitution's adoption, a number of states (but not the United States as whole: "Congress shall make no law ...") had established churches: Episcopalian in Virginia, Congregational in Massachusetts, etc.

...and since then, the Fourteenth Amendment extended the First Amendment prohibition to the states as well.

The idea that the First Amendment means "Nobody can mention anything about reality in a school, other than 'It all just happened, somehow,' " is really far out.

Again, you are misrepresenting the Dover case, in *two* different ways.

[Tribune7]

If I decide to pull my child from a science class because they start teaching religion, does my child get a pass?

The exact same pass a child gets when his parents pull him out to home-school.

[Tribune7]

Thank you for agreeing that the plaintiffs in the Dover, PA lawsuit -- who are parents -- have the right to challenge

The absolutely do. Run against the existing school board. Keep it out of the courts.

[gondramB]

" Why not? The quasi-literates public high schools now produce are."

That could be used to argue either side..you could say considering how screwed up public schools are why invest our time and energy to make the education even worse by attacking science or you could say what difference does it make if we hurt science education since things are already so bad?

[Tribune7]

That could be used to argue either side..you could say considering how screwed up public schools are why invest our time and energy to make the education even worse by attacking science or you could say what difference does it make if we hurt science education since things are already so bad?

Or you could say science isn't being taught now. I'd be interested in the scientific/technical literacy of home-school/Christian school kids vs. public school kids.

End government schools. School choice is the solution that would make everybody happy.

[Ichneumon]

I am not arguing against evolution. We know from observation that variations in species occur based on stresses in the environment. We have not yet observed one species to change into another.

Yes we have. Do not post falsehoods, please. I know that's a common tactic (almost a requirement) for critics of evolution, but it gets tiresome. We don't need any Michael Moores on the conservative side.

From Johnson's website: That insight is the starting point for my inquiry into Darwinian evolution and its relationship to creation, because Darwinism is the answer to two very different kinds of questions. First, Darwinian theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity in life forms can develop once we have various types of complex living organisms already in existence. If a small population of birds happens to migrate to an isolated island, for example, a combination of inbreeding, mutation, and natural selection may cause this isolated population to develop different characteristics from those possessed by the ancestral population on the mainland. When the theory is understood in this limited sense, Darwinian evolution is uncontroversial, and has no important philosophical or theological implications.

Short form: "It doesn't clash with my religion, so I'm not going to freak out about *that* part of it, anyway, unlike the following."

Evolutionary biologists are not content merely to explain how variation occurs within limits, however. They aspire to answer a much broader question-which is how complex organisms like birds, and flowers, and human beings came into existence in the first place. The Darwinian answer to this second question is that the creative force that produced complex plants and animals from single-celled predecessors over long stretches of geological time is essentially the same as the mechanism that produces variations in flowers, insects, and domestic animals before our very eyes.

...because the evidence and research supporting that conclusion is overwhelming. Johnson sort of "forgets" to mention this.

In the words of Ernst Mayr, the dean of living Darwinists, "transspecific evolution [i.e., macroevolution] is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species."

See above -- Mayr has superb reasons for arriving at this conclusion.

Neo-Darwinian evolution in this broad sense is a philosophical doctrine so lacking in empirical support that Mayr's successor at Harvard, Stephen Jay Gould, once pronounced it in a reckless moment to be "effectively dead."

Johnson is lying and is also quoting Gould grossly out of context in a dishonest manner.

Yet neo-Darwinism is far from dead; on the contrary, it is continually proclaimed in the textbooks and the media as unchallengeable fact.

Because it is.

How does it happen that so many scientists and intellectuals, who pride themselves on their empiricism and open-mindedness, continue to accept an unempirical theory as scientific fact?

Because Johnson is simply lying about it being "unempirical". You don't have to be a baldfaced liar to be an anti-evolutionist, but it certainly helps.

Meanwhile, speaking of Johnson and deception:

[Ichneumon]

Or you could say science isn't being taught now.

You could if you wanted to misrepresent the situation.

I'd be interested in the scientific/technical literacy of home-school/Christian school kids vs. public school kids.

When it comes to evolutionary biology, geology, nuclear physics, cosmology, and a host of other things that fundamentalists object to because they think it clashes with their religion, it's a safe bet that kids who are home-schooled by anti-evolution creationists are mentally crippled when it comes to scientific/technical literacy. I've seen some of the "textbooks" that are often used, like "Of Pandas and People", and Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind's claptrap, and this drek is filling kids' heads with gross misrepresentations about science and how science is done.

End government schools. School choice is the solution that would make everybody happy.

It wouldn't make me happy if a large portion of the population was fed a steady diet of creationist propaganda. I'd rather the next generation actually learned critical thinking skills and actual facts.

[jwalsh07]

Ideology knows no principle. Statism gone wild is always Okie Dokie as long as one agrees with the outcome. So it was written....

[Ichneumon]

[Thank you for agreeing that the plaintiffs in the Dover, PA lawsuit -- who are parents -- have the right to challenge]

The absolutely do.

Thank you for your support.

Run against the existing school board.

After the publicity from this trial, that's almost a certainty. <> Keep it out of the courts.

I know you'd like that, because the creationists are taking a beating, but you'll just have to live with the fact that even non-creationists have rights too, and are allowed to protect them via court action when necessary.

[Quark2005]

...like "Of Pandas and People", and Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind's claptrap...

I'm willing to bet these books and videos are pretty entertaining, along the lines of Jack Chick's classic "Big Daddy". If it wasn't for the fact that I'd be helping to line the pockets of charlatans, I'd be tempted to pay to see them myself.

Maybe I can find a used copy of Hovind's videos on EBay....

[Ichneumon]

["The Catholic Church once burned heretics.]

For the history challenged evolutionists out there, the Spanish Inquisition was instituted by the King and Queen of Spain, not the Catholic Church. [snip] But who could expect an evolutionist to know true history, or any truth at all, for that matter? Truth and enlightenment comes from God, not from Darwin and his army of evolved apes.

Pssst. Hey, stupid: The person who wrote the passage about the Catholic Church burning heretics was not an "evolutionist", he was writing an essay *against* evolutionists.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

We await your retraction and apology for your misguided tirade against "evolutionists". Thanks in advance.

Here, let me modify your text more appropriately given your bone-headed error, and the actual affinity of the person who made the "error" which invoked your wrath:

"For the comprehension-challenged anti-evolutionists out there... [...] But who could expect an anti-evolutionist to know true comprehension, or make any sense at all, for that matter? Truth and enlightenment comes from mental acuity, not from the anti-evolution movement and its army of dim malcontents."

There, much better.

Come back and try again after you sober up.

[Tax-chick]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other ...

However, on the general topic, there's a simple test to determine whether what a student has learned in high school is adequate. Student registers for a college course and pays the tuition. If the student does well in the course, either his preparation was adequate, or he worked his tail off to make up his deficiency. If he does poorly, either he was unprepared, or he failed for some other reason. Either way, the college collected the tuition :-).

[RobRoy]

Shouldn't one acquire a minimal level of subject knowledge before writing insulting screeds equating people who try to defend science education in this country with Marxists?

From the article, and it defends itself well:

"This is the behavior not of scientists but of true believers. I have spent countless hours as a reporter talking to scientists, as distinct from zealots with a scientific background. Without exception that I can remember, they were rational, honest, and forthcoming. Yes, they were often trying to establish a pet theory. But they said, “I think this is so, and here’s the evidence, and I think it’s pretty solid, but I still need to show this or that, and no, we haven’t, but I hope we will.” If I expressed doubts, they either showed my clearly and civilly why I was wrong, or said, “Good point. Here’s what we think.” Parenthetically, my impression, based on a small sample, is that the more incensed of the Evolutionists tend to be either of the hard Right or the hard Left: those who need to believe one thing categorically seem to need to believe other things categorically. Which means that if they are wrong, they are unlikely to notice it."

[microgood]

Since they have the people, they should form a private school and educate their kids there. Or if they perfer a cheaper solution, teach there kids Creationism and other Bible studies in after-class meetings.

I would agree if they did not have to pay for the public schools as well, but why should they have to pay for two buildings instead of one? It is their property after all. Why just because their money is laundered through government due they lose all their rights about how it is used. One word: tyranny.

From 1776 to 1962 people could even pray in school if they wanted to. In the west, as it was being settled, most of the schools were churches. But in 1962, a bunch of activist black robes decided that tyranny was a better path than freedom. What changed was not the Constitution, but the quality of people on the Court.

When I was in grade school Christmas was a magic time. We had a choir and sang Christmas songs and a play of the Nativity scene. And in our public parks we had Nativity Scenes as well as Jewish symbols. I feel sorry for the kids today. They do not even get to learn to sing in a choir anymore.

The secular marxists have been winning since the 60s. But the war for freedom is not over yet.

[RobRoy]

From the article:

"And this is what disturbs me about them. I do not object to the content of Evolutionism. Some, all, or part of it may be correct. I would like to know. A more fascinating question does not readily come to mind. But dispassionate discussion with them is not possible, anymore than it is with Gloria Steinem or Herbert Marcuse or Cornell West, and for exactly the same reasons. They are the same people. How sad."

[WildTurkey]

"If Pennsylvania wants to mention Creationism, or to require three years of French for graduation, it seems mightily to me that these things are the business of parents in Pennslyvania.

He's right.

Careful. They are also including teaching children that God may be dead. Careful what you wish for.

[WildTurkey]

I haven't seen the video but I looked at the illustrations on their website of the dinosaurs with saddles on them ...