Ending the Evolutionary War

Mackinac Center for Public Policy ^ | Jan. 6, 2005 | Andrew J. Coulson

[Ed Current]

Alliance for the Separation of School & State The Berlin Wall was destined to fall, but nobody knew when. Similarly, School Liberation is possible, but we don't know when. We don't even know what event will trigger the collapse of support for government schools. What we do know is we are further along than most people think. Two national polls show that 1/4 of the U.S. population (50 million) already favor ending tax financing of schools and compulsory attendance. Another 50 million agree with the proviso that poor children get enough voluntary scholarships to go to better schools than today.

A Change of Mind for Antony FlewWhile Flew restricts the design argument to situations where no ‘satisfactory naturalistic explanation has been developed’ (something that not all design argument advocates, let alone all theists, would agree with), it is significant to find Flew arguing against Dawkins that natural selection does not explain the existence of life, affirming that there is today no satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the first emergence of living from non-living matter, or for the capacity of life to reproduce itself genetically, and observing that there isn’t even any sign of such an explanation on the horizon ‘if indeed there ever could be.’

Darwinists top the censorship food chainA Chinese scholar observed, "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin."

JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.

The only evidence in the record of the "received meaning and acceptation" of "creation science" is found in five affidavits filed by appellants. In those affidavits, two scientists, a philosopher, a theologian, and an educator, all of whom claim extensive knowledge of creation science, swear that it is essentially a collection of scientific data supporting the theory that the physical universe and life within it appeared suddenly, and have not changed substantially since appearing. See App. to Juris. Statement A-19 (Kenyon); id. at A-36 (Morrow); id. at A-41 (Miethe). These experts insist that creation science is a strictly scientific concept that can be presented without religious reference. See id. at A-19 - A-20, A-35 (Kenyon); id. at A-36 - A-38 (Morrow); id. at A-40, A-41, A-43 (Miethe); id. at A-47, A-48 (Most); id. at A-49 (Clinkert). At this point, then, we must assume that the Balanced Treatment Act does not require the presentation of religious doctrine. ^{http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD.html}

Welcome to The Barna Group! Thousands of public schools around the country do not allow the biblical perspective on the creation process to be taught in their classrooms. The survey shows that most Americans are dismayed by that point-of-view. About six out of every ten adults (59%) favor teaching creationism while less than four out of ten (38%) do not want it added to the public school curriculum content. The Chart shows 29% of ATHEISTS/AGNOSTIC support teaching Creationism in public schools.

The True.Origin Archive - was established to provide an intellectually honest response to the claims of evolutionism’s proponents (including, but not limited to, the likes of the "Talk.Origins" newsgroup and website).

[so_real]

Isn't this a "republic"? If the majority in the community wish that evolution be taught and creationism not be taught, so be it. The converse is also true. If you don't like it, move to another community that will accomodate you. Then ... sit and watch ... inevitable it will happen ... God will show his favor where he wishes.

[My2Cents]

If the majority in the community wish that evolution be taught and creationism not be taught, so be it.

*Creation* was not being taught in lieu of evolution; "intelligent design" was being talk along side evoultion as another explanation of origins.

But, in regard to your comment, aside from the debate about evolution vs. creation, you think that in a republic, truth should be determined by what the people want?

[Dataman]

Forty states? The monopolists can see their monopoly crumbling. No wonder the panic.

[beavus]

Public schools are a perfect example of how socialism can lead to disharmony. Privatize schools, and we will be a more civil nation for it.

If parents want to misinform their kids, the solution is not government indoctrination. The solution is to let the free market produce choices and results. It has, afterall, produced in this country the most desired higher education system in the world.

[Dataman]

If the majority in the community wish that evolution be taught and creationism not be taught, so be it. The converse is also true

What is the matter with teaching the truth? Why teach untrue things? Because the people want it? If evolution can't survive in academia without coercion and a massive infusion of public tax money, let it die.

[beavus]

Isn't this a "republic"? If the majority in the community wish that evolution be taught and creationism not be taught, so be it. The converse is also true. If you don't like it, move to another community that will accomodate you.

The purpose of republic is to defend MINORITY rights, not MAJORITY wishes. You're thinking of democracy. Republicanism is the solution to democracy's tyranny.

[so_real]

Well, I'd argue that "intelligent design" is the "politically correct" terminology for "creationism". There's too much effort in trying to be politically correct, so I call it creationism and am comfortable with that.

you think that in a republic, truth should be determined by what the people want?

Hmmm. A fair and honest question. Now you got me thinking (nice job!).

Using a non-religious parallel, you are asking me if I think it is okay (for example) for a math teacher to teach "1 + 1 = 3" if that's what the community wants. After a little pondering, I have to answer 'yes'. Let that community teach "1 + 1 = 3" if it so desires and let all the parents with common sense move elsewhere. Then, when the community with questionable math skills goes bankrupt because it could not manage money, let them look to the thriving non-mathematically-impaired communities for help. Then those who know that "1 + 1 = 2" can be effective in helping.

Sometimes a person has to hit rock bottom before realizing there must be a better way. In a republic, I think everyone has the right to hit rock bottom as well as to claw there ways back up and out. It's just a shame when modern political correctness allows a person heading down to drag everyone down with them.

[so_real]

The purpose of republic is to defend MINORITY rights, not MAJORITY wishes. You're thinking of democracy. Republicanism is the solution to democracy's tyranny.

Not entirely so. Sometimes the MAJORITY has it right and need their rights protected (ie. the attempt of a homosexual minority to coerce the majority's heterosexual marriage). I view a "republic" as a system of government that allows the cream to float and the crud to sink even while handing everyone the same paddle. (Gosh, that's cute, I better write that down.)

[so_real]

What is the matter with teaching the truth? Why teach untrue things? Because the people want it? If evolution can't survive in academia without coercion and a massive infusion of public tax money, let it die.

There is nothing wrong with teaching the truth (especially when people want to hear it) but you can't force someone who doesn't want to hear it to listen. Sometimes you have to let a person hit rock bottom before they become "willing" to be helped. I believe evolution theory will hit rock bottom, and I advocate allowing it to fall (and thus allowing its followers to look elsewhere) than to force it underground (where it will survive in private waiting to rear its ugly head again).

[beavus]

Not entirely so. Sometimes the MAJORITY has it right and need their rights protected (ie. the attempt of a homosexual minority to coerce the majority's heterosexual marriage). I view a "republic" as a system of government that allows the cream to float and the crud to sink even while handing everyone the same paddle. (Gosh, that's cute, I better write that down.)

What you speak of is factionalism and is a problem in any form of government, but more so in democracy than republicanism. Republicanism protects minority rights by protecting individual rights. Majorities consist of individuals.

In the end, its about restricting anyone from being able to impose his views on anyone else.

[AndyTheBear]

To summarize the ACLU position then: It is self evident that man was endowed by his Creator with the inalienable right to not be exposed to the concept that there might be a Creator.

[beavus]

There is nothing wrong with teaching the truth (especially when people want to hear it) but you can't force someone who doesn't want to hear it to listen.

Very true. (Of course, I would give the example of trying to persuade a poofist from embracing his cultish nonsense). However, the point is that people with very different views can live quite well together so long as an armtwister isn't extorting one for the benefit of the other.

Civility isn't about who is right. It is simply about how people are treated, whether they are rational like Darwin or nutty like poofists.

[beavus]

To summarize the ACLU position then: It is self evident that man was endowed by his Creator with the inalienable right to not be exposed to the concept that there might be a Creator.

Or: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (within a church); or abridging the freedom of speech (unless religious), or of the press (unless religious); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (for nonreligious reasons), and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[judywillow]

[judywillow]

Christianity has a proven ability to survive without government support and even in the face of government harassment. Evolution hasn't a prayer of passing that same test.

[Fester Chugabrew]

ID stipulates that an "intelligent designer" authored the world’s species.

Does an "intelligent designer" in the processes we observe necessitate "personhood" on the part of that designer?

[Ed Current]

If it is that fast-acting, it must be punctuated EvoLotion

[beavus]

Evolution hasn't a prayer of passing that same test.

It probably does, since the truth usually wins out in the end.

And it is wrong to equate Christianity with Creationism.

[ExtremeUnction]

Evolution hasn't a prayer of passing that same test.

Evolution happened and is still happening. My children go to a Catholic school and they are told about the Creation as part of their religious curriculum, and they are taught about evolution as part of their science studies. I received the same education, and it worked for me. This shouldn't be a big deal. I see no reason to debate the issue.