New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US

New Scientist ^ | 7/9/2008 | Amanda Gefter

[Soliton]

Louisiana is another story. A hub of creationist activism since the early 1980s, it was Louisiana that enacted the Balanced Treatment Act, which required that creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools. In a landmark 1987 case known as Edwards vs Aguillard, the US Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, effectively closing the door on teaching "creation science" in public schools. ID was invented soon afterwards as a way of proffering creationist concepts without specific reference to God.

[allmendream]

The side of Science is in no way “Godless”. It is Scientific. I am a Scientist, and like most Scientists in the USA am a person of faith. This is twice at least now you have accused me of promoting or having a “godless worldview”. It is ridiculous. My stance is the same as the Pope's, basically that evolution is the means that God used to create the diversity and abundance of life on Earth. The evolution part is Science, the “means that God used” part is theology. We teach the Science part in Science class, and they can get the theology part in Church and at home.

I am against Public Schools as well, but only because Socialism always seems to turn out an inferior product at higher cost.

[atlaw]

For your entertainment:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html

[allmendream]

There are apparently no other options in your very limited view.

Should Science say “gravitational acceleration at sea level is 9.8 m/s^2 neglecting air friction, unless God wants to change it” for Gravity to not be a “godless” theory?

What a waste of words. What an asinine assumption that unless every sentence is laced with pious nonsense that it is “godless”.

How would one go about getting the non-Christian world to accept your Scientific findings if it is laced with pious nonsense about “unless God wants to change it” or “because God wanted it to be this way”?

Separation of Church and State. Yes, for both will exist in greater purity the more they are kept apart.

Separation of Church and Science. A necessity for Science to even be Science.

Separation of Education and State. Absolutely. Vouchers now!

[MrB]

You’re of the opinion that education can be values neutral, and I disagree with that.

[Amelia]

By the way, I an my husband attended Catholic schools. We both have doctorates. His is in biochemistry. Mine is in a highly competitive and respected health field. My husband worked as a research leader for one of the world's largest chemical firms. He holds 6 patents, lectured worldwide, won many professional honors, and was published frequently in some of the world's most respected scientific peer-reviewed journals.

You've already said that your husband didn't need to mention God in his patent applications or journal articles. Does that mean they were based on a Godless worldview, or does that mean that mention of God is unnecessary in the explanation of some scientific concepts?

[Amelia]

If you just like hearing yourself prostheletize then it’s a perfectly good argument.

I think you just nailed it. ;-)

[Amelia]

You’re of the opinion that education can be values neutral, and I disagree with that.

Overall, maybe not, but I don't think there are too many values judgements in, say, arithmetic.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Darwin's theories will be proved incorrect by science itself.

Nobody resists scientific progress more than scientists desperately clinging to their obsolete paradigm. One day Darwinism will be considered as ridiculous as the idea of a flat Earth.

[MrB]

I agree there - hard, but not impossible, to draw a theological conclusion from mathematics. The existance of certain constants and natural logs might point to a “designer”.

Physics starts to reveal design, simply because the formulas that explain physical phenoma are so elegant and relate to each other so “coincidentally”, pointing to the larger concept of the fine tuning of the universe.

[vpintheak]

What theory are you talking about?

[allmendream]

The theory of evolution through natural selection of course.

[Tailgunner Joe]

The truth is that Darwin's theories have already been shown to be in error.

For example, Darwin posited that evolution operated by small changes over long periods of time, but the fossil record does not reflect that. Species appear in the fossil record inexplicably. The gradual and uniform evolution Darwin suggested is not reflected by the fossil record. So the scientists came up with a new theory punctuated equilibrium, to explain why evolution apparently occurs not gradually at all, but in rapid spurts.

When actual evidence proved their theory wrong, they just moved the bar and came up with a new theory just like they always do.

One day there will be even better theories to replace the current ones. These better theories won't be perfect, but they will be seen as far superior to the inadequate understanding we have today.

[valkyry1]

//The gradual and uniform evolution Darwin suggested is not reflected by the fossil record. So the scientists came up with a new theory punctuated equilibrium, to explain why evolution apparently occurs not gradually at all, but in rapid spurts.//

I think this is a good example which only demonstrates that replacing one theory with another does not get any closer to the truth because they are both based on the same faulty premise.

[Citizen Blade]

If you believe that education can be taught from something other than a godless or God-centered worldview, then please describe to us how it can.

This statement puzzles me. Very little in education involves the mention of a supreme being- how do you make math God-centred or atheistic? What about English? Chemistry? Your statement makes as much sense as claiming that it is impossible to make ice cream in a religiously neutral manner.

I suppose you can try to shoehorn the topic of religion into any subject, but that just seems like a waste of time. I don't remember the topic of religion coming up one way or the other- our teachers were too busy trying to teach us trig, or understanding Shakespeare, or making us memorize the the periodic table of elements.

There are parochial schools that incorporate religious teachingas into the subject-matter. But most parents don't have any real interest in that- they would prefer to be the ones to teach religion, while using the schools as a place for their kids to focus on non-religious subjects.

[M203M4]

School choice completely nullifies this entire strain of argument. Parents choose the school, deciding what sort of education they (not the state) want for their children. Some parents will choose curricula which all but preclude the acceptance of their children into a particular set of post-secondary academic programs (without remedial coursework at least).

I'm content to let the free market set the rewards and standards of education.
Numerology replaces Math?
Astrology replaces Astronomy?
Alchemy replaces Chemistry?
Fiction replaces History?
Ebonics replaces English?
ID replaces Biology?
Transgendered Studies replaces Sociology?
Marxist Theory replaces Economics?
Meditative Breathing replaces Physical Education?
Deep Ecology replaces Environmental Science?
Queer Studies replaces Sex Ed?
Genesis replaces Geology?
Advanced Blogging replaces Computer Science?
Paranormal Studies replaces Physics?
EVERYTHING is replaced by Diversity Education?

So long as such stupidity is not inflicted upon my kid, ALL OF THIS IS FINE WITH ME. This silliness with political statements in education may come to a screeching halt once the outcome of inferior curricula selection is no longer collectivized. If not, more opportunities for MY family = bonus.

[vpintheak]

So what do you believe about that theory? I am a little unclear on your position.

[allmendream]

I know that the theory you described doesn’t even bear a passing resemblance to the actual Scientific theory of evolution through natural selection.

[vpintheak]

Well me being the Christian idiot, who can possibly know nothing at all about science, actually took some college level biology courses, at a public university. This was a little while ago mind you, so things could have radically changed in the last 8 years.
Would you be so kind as to fill me in? Please use stories and games to help me out. I don’t think I could understand you in plain english with my mind all hazy with that God stuff going on in there.

[allmendream]

what makes you think I am not a Christian as well?

The majority of Scientists in the USA are people of faith such as I. It seems that once again you have constructed a strawman. But it must be easier to tilt at windmills than to actually face any giants.