Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]

Berkshire Eagle (Mass.) ^ | 22 January 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

A movement to drag the teaching of science in the United States back into the Dark Ages continues to gain momentum. So far, it's a handful of judges -- "activist judges" in the view of their critics -- who are preventing the spread of Saudi-style religious dogma into more and more of America's public-school classrooms.

The ruling this month in Georgia by Federal District Judge Clarence Cooper ordering the Cobb County School Board to remove stickers it had inserted in biology textbooks questioning Darwin's theory of evolution is being appealed by the suburban Atlanta district. Similar legal battles pitting evolution against biblical creationism are erupting across the country. Judges are conscientiously observing the constitutionally required separation of church and state, and specifically a 1987 Supreme Court ruling forbidding the teaching of creationism, a religious belief, in public schools. But seekers of scientific truth have to be unnerved by a November 2004 CBS News poll in which nearly two-thirds of Americans favored teaching creationism, the notion that God created heaven and earth in six days, alongside evolution in schools.

If this style of "science" ever took hold in U.S. schools, it is safe to say that as a nation we could well be headed for Third World status, along with everything that dire label implies. Much of the Arab world is stuck in a miasma of imam-enforced repression and non-thought. Could it happen here? Our Constitution protects creativity and dissent, but no civilization has lasted forever, and our current national leaders seem happy with the present trends.

It is the creationists, of course, who forecast doom if U.S. schools follow a secularist path. Science, however, by its nature, relies on evidence, and all the fossil and other evidence points toward an evolved human species over millions of years on a planet tens of millions of years old [ooops!] in a universe over two billion years in existence [ooops again!].

Some creationists are promoting an idea they call "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism, eliminating the randomness and survival-of-the-fittest of Darwinian thought. But, again, no evidence exists to support any theory of evolution except Charles Darwin's. Science classes can only teach the scientific method or they become meaningless.

Many creationists say that teaching Darwin is tantamount to teaching atheism, but most science teachers, believers as well as non-believers, scoff at that. The Rev. Warren Eschbach, a professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pa., believes that "science is figuring out what God has already done" and the book of Genesis was never "meant to be a science textbook for the 21st century." Rev. Eschbach is the father of Robert Eschbach, one of the science teachers in Dover, Pa., who refused to teach a school-board-mandated statement to biology students criticizing the theory of evolution and promoting intelligent design. Last week, the school district gathered students together and the statement was read to them by an assistant superintendent.

Similar pro-creationist initiatives are underway in Texas, Wisconsin and South Carolina. And a newly elected creationist majority on the state board of education in Kansas plans to rewrite the entire state's science curriculum this spring. This means the state's public-school science teachers will have to choose between being scientists or ayatollahs -- or perhaps abandoning their students and fleeing Kansas, like academic truth-seekers in China in the 1980s or Tehran today.

[WildTurkey]

Pointing out, falsely, that evolution explains the origin of life is perhaps a little over the edge?

[WildTurkey]

I was under the impression that keeping an open mind was the most scientific thing someone could do.

That is the basis of scientific thinking. Putting a sticker on ONE subject serves only to undermine that subject and that is what you want to do, correct?

[WildTurkey]

The starting point is understanding how that Jesus is central to all of the meaning of the Bible. It is all about Him.

How can you say that you know what it is about. The Jews had the Bible before the Christians and you reject their views of Jesus Christ.

[WildTurkey]

For example, most scientific theories assume that the laws of nature work the same in all places at all times. They have not changed. Now, this is in fact impossible to prove. However, it is also a reasonable premise.

WRONG! Newton's theory of gravity has been replaced. We know that gravity affects the way the universe is shaped and we know that light behaves differently under different circumstances. In fact we have TWO theories on light, light as a photo and light as a wave, to explain different behavior. And all these things have been proven.

[WildTurkey]

You make the assumption that Christianity has a superior knowledge of God. That is a mighty presumptious assumption.

[narby]

there are people with a political agenda who would like to use this or any other tool at their disposal to assault the religious and moral values of children in the schools.

If there are such people, then they are just as outside of the scientific community as the ID people. Science seeks the truth, as well as can be obtained by studying what God created. Science should not be hijacked for any outside agenda, which is my problem with ID, because that's what it does.

Who gets to control the children's education?

Ultimately, the parents, that at the extreme can remove their children from public schools and teach them anything they want.

They are free to teach them that there is a contradiction between Gods Creation and Gods Word all they want. I don't think there is a contradiction, and when the subject is the study of Gods Creation, I think the scientists are the group that has it about right. Science studies Gods Creation directly, rather than the circuitous route of interpreting the few human words in Genesis.

Gods Creation has a much higher bandwidth of information than His Word. And both are equally valid to study directly.

Gods Word has other purposes than the study of His Creation. Genesis says that "God made it", and that's all that's really necessary to know.

[TChris]

The more hysterical and inflammatory the rhetoric, the less factual substance will be found. - TC's Third Law of Argumentation

[narby]

If you do not think it should be debated, why are you debating it now?

I am attempting to convey the message to conservative politicians that this controversy is not something they want. And I am trying to convince Christians that there is nothing to gain, and indeed much to lose by fighting this issue.

This fight isn't nearly as big as it could be, and I'm trying to prevent it from getting that big.

I was under the impression that keeping an open mind was the most scientific thing someone could do

When there is new information about Gods Creation to study, then I will take that into consideration in this debate. The subject at hand is Gods Creation. Therefore I think it is appropriate to believe those who study Gods Creation (which is what science does) over those who merely study Gods Word (which is what religions do). I believe there is no contradiction between Gods Word vs. Gods Creation. Only contradictions between men.

When the subject is my spiritual life, then it is appropriate to study Gods Word. As Science doesn't speak to that subject.

Science is honest enough to admit it does not have the answers to my spiritual life, while creationists are dishonest enough to think they know about my spiritual life AND the physical world. They apparently think they know everything about everything.

[unlearner]

"He said once before that Moses gave the law from the hardness in men's hearts. "

No. Moses gave them a precept (not command) regarding divorce because of their hard hearts. Jesus forced the hand of His critics by asking them what was COMMANDED regarding divorce. They had to admit Moses permitted (not commanded) divorce. One precept is not the same as the entire Pentateuch.

Jesus showed His disciples that the writings of the Old Testament were about Him. (Luke 24:25-27, 44-47) He said the Old Testament scriptures were to be believed. They testified of Jesus.

Sodom was a literal city. Matthew 11:23 states "If the mighty works which have been done in [Capernaum], had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day." As I said, a fictional city could not have remained until Jesus' day.

"...none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." You apply this so broadly it would contradict the surrounding passages. Jesus performed many signs. When a "wicked and adulterous generation" came demanding a sign, He refused. These are not the pure in heart who get to see God. Jesus presence was miraculous, but these men could not even recognize it because they were blinded.

"Dust is dust. Dust can be anywhere."

But coming from the ocean is not compatible with being formed out of the "dust of the ground". (Gen. 2:7 and 3:19)

"I don't think you understand that all truths are subject to logic and reason. That the event happened and was caused by certain people, that did certain things is verifiable, because the evidence exists to look at."

Of course they are. But as a point of fact, you did not use scientific deduction to know about the 9/11 events. You relied on the testimony of others, most of it secondhand. I am not saying it is unreliable testimony. I am simply pointing out that science is not the only way we gain knowledge. Further, a scientific theory must rely upon axioms which cannot, by definition, be proved by the theory itself. These axioms are "reasonable" assumptions - things like we assume that the laws of nature are constant at all places and for all times in the universe.

Re: water above the firmament you said, "With what, sky hooks and baggies? The DOD's been all over Iraq. It's understandable that they can't find Zarcowie, since they can't even find a churubim waving a flaming sword back and forth."

How is a matter of speculation. Perhaps it was a canopy. Perhaps water formed a ring around our planet. (You are aware that rings do sometimes exist around planets.) I am just addressing the issue of the rainbow and why things were different, according to the Bible, before the deluge.

As far as the flaming sword, this was placed to guard the tree of life. This tree is no longer in Iraq. (Revelation 2:7)

"No it's not. Fate is not a universal belief for those outside the Bible. Ever here of coyote and grandfather? God believes in cause and effect. Satin [sic] will try to convince you otherwise."

After further consideration, I will concede this point. Fatalism exists among believers of the Bible as well as those who do not believe it. And people are not necessarily fatalistic depending upon their belief in the Bible.

Cause and effect exists. So does personal freedom to make choices.

[unlearner]

It would be presumptuous if it was based on my personal abilities, skills, goodness, etc.

But I base it on revelation. God reveals Himself. I did not go on a quest to find Him, He found me.

I can only testify what I have seen and heard. That is all anyone can testify.

I really cannot keep up with all of your posts. You replied with several when I had one. This makes it very difficult to keep up with. I am having several conversations and am not able to continue this due to time. But I will try to reply.

"WRONG! Newton's theory of gravity has been replaced."

When I said "They have not changed." The term "they" was intended to refer to the laws of of nature not the theories describing them. Perhaps I was not clear enough. My point was that we ASSUME that laws of nature are constant. This is a reasonable axiom, but could be found false at some point. So yes, Newton's theory of gravity has been modified (not replaced really); but gravity continues to work the same way (as far as we know).

[unlearner]

My biggest concern is how this issue plays out legally.

So much of what is being taught in public schools is just propaganda instead of learning essential skills.

If someone thinks evolution fits within the Bible or some other religion, they are free to believe that.

I have a problem with using tax funded schools to undermine the beliefs parents wish to teach their children.

This position applies even where I do not agree with what parents want to teach their children.

[WildTurkey]

It would be presumptuous if it was based on my personal abilities, skills, goodness, etc. But I base it on revelation. God reveals Himself. I did not go on a quest to find Him, He found me. I can only testify what I have seen and heard. That is all anyone can testify.

That is why Christianity is not about God, it is about the superiority of Christianity. Any deeply religious person (not bound to the ties of the archaic structure of his church) would realize that no man (or church) has dominion over the ways of the Lord and no one religion is superior to others. It is presumptuous of you to think otherwise.

[VadeRetro]

I was under the impression that keeping an open mind was the most scientific thing someone could do.

Science makes progress by throwing discredited ideas away when it's time. That's why some ideas don't get equal time with some others no matter how fair the idea of equal time may sound. Most of the theories that have ever been advanced don't get equal time because they were wrong.

There's nothing out there as a competing theory in science vying with evolution as an explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. That contest ended. Some people outside of science don't like it.

[unlearner]

If the contest ended, half the people here do not know it. That may be your point, but what makes us not scientific?

Perhaps "science" is just a convenient label for what you agree with. Then everyone else can be "unscientific" and therefore wrong by default.

Please provide your definition of "science".

And do you feel that only science should be taught in public schools?

[VadeRetro]

If the contest ended, half the people here do not know it. That may be your point, but what makes us not scientific?

The fact that half of that same half can barely spell "science?" OK, that was flippant. But 99.9 percent of evolution-deniers on these threads couldn't give a concise and correct statement of what the theory of evolution even is. Feel free to prove you're not one of them.

Perhaps "science" is just a convenient label for what you agree with.

That's a wonderfully liberal, relativistic position. "Anything can be ... well, just sort of anything you want it to be ... especially if it's part of your cultural background." That's the kind of thing you do when the evidence is against you. No wonder you and the liberals share an attachment to such a tactic.

There is a real human activity called "science." It is a systematic investigation of nature. While the text of what science tells us has changed over time, that has allowed science to converge upon an increasingly accurate description of nature.

There are people called "scientists" who work at science full time as a profession. They tend to know more than do you and I about their areas of expertise. It is such authorities as this who have moved long ago past any idea that species do not evolve but were suddenly zapped into existence by some sort of supernatural agency. Long ago. Sometime, say, between 1870 and 1900, the preponderance of opinion in real science swung.

Let me add that life on Earth has a real, objective history. Something really happened to get us here. It isn't anything you want it to be.

And do you feel that only science should be taught in public schools?

Only science should be taught in science class. We have other classes for other subjects.

[VadeRetro]

... 99.9 percent of evolution-deniers on these threads couldn't give a concise and correct statement of what the theory of evolution even is.

"Goo to you, via the zoo" (IIRC a Duane Gish strawman) would be an example of "not it."

[unlearner]

"no one religion is superior to others. It is presumptuous of you to think otherwise."

Au contraire. For someone who asserts the supremacy of science it comes as quite a surprise that you would abandon a fundamental precept of logic, namely that two contradictory ideas cannot both be true.

For this reason, when Jesus claims deity, He is either egregiously wrong or the rightful object of the veneration of humanity. This is why not all religions can be right.

Now you can observe, "God has not spoken to me". But it is incorrect to conclude, "God has not spoken to anyone else."

It is apparent from what you say that your experience with professing Christians has been unpleasant. Please allow me to apologize on the behalf of all of us. I am sure I have been guilty of offending people as much as anyone.

Christians should be the last people to be arrogant. We believe that we are saved by grace. We cast ourselves on the mercy of God. The Bible says, "Pardon my iniquity Lord, for it is great." We might naturally be inclined to think that having a small amount of sin would predispose us to divine favor. This is not the case.

We find forgiveness not because of how small, innocent or harmless our infractions are, but because of the greatness of God's mercy, grace and love.

Often those who are the greatest sinners are the ones who find respite in the mercy of God. Jesus said, "He who is forgiven much will love [God] much, and he who is forgiven little will love a little."

The doctrines that Christ taught demand a response. There is no neutrality. This may offend some, but it is true regardless. It is intended to require our response. We must answer the question, "What shall I do with Jesus, who is called the Christ?"

[WildTurkey]

Now you can observe, "God has not spoken to me".

But he has.

[unlearner]

"Feel free to prove you're not one of them."

OK. I'll try. Hopefully I will not mess it up since I know you and several hundred of your closest friends will quickly straighten me out. But, without any quick googling to hide my ignorance, here I go...

Evolution is the theory that proposes that living things originated over the history of the earth by gradual changes from simpler life forms.

The current version of this theory goes beyond saying that animal / human life adapts to the environment, and claims that there is incontrovertible evidence of speciation, and further that all animal / human life has a common ancestry.

Feel free to correct my misunderstanding of your views.

Your definition of science, "a systematic investigation of nature", is inadequate. True. Science INVOLVES this, but what else?

Science requires us to observe, test, explain natural phenomena. And what else?

Before we do any of these things we need a hypothesis. This involve FAITH and creativity. Maybe you will find a word you like better than "faith". But this is a simple fact. By creativity, I am referring to the intuition that leads someone like Darwin to the conjecture of "might these life forms be derived from a common source?" (Or perhaps someone else thought of this before Darwin. That's not my point.)

For every hypothesis, there must be one or more axioms which are ASSUMED to be true. Sometimes a theory is "true" within the boundaries set by its axioms, but it is not true in reality because the axiom is false.

For example, Euclidean geometry is "true" within the context of mathematical calculations. However, Euclidean geometry does not accurately represent the real world. It only approximates the real world.

" There are people called 'scientists' who work at science full time as a profession. They tend to know more than do you and I about their areas of expertise."

First, you define a scientist according to profession and the amount of time they spend at it. You also ASSUME I am not one. How do you know if you are speaking to a physics professor or a doctor or a chemist or a material science specialist researching breakthrough developments in nanotechnology?

What about armchair scientists? Or, as far as your definition of what makes a scientist, exactly how much expertise and specialization does it take to qualify?

These loose, working definitions and standards underscore my earlier proposition that you are defining science by what fits your needs. Your quickness to assume something without knowing all the facts also reflects tremendously on your objectivity on this issue.

OK. Maybe you have discussed evolution with 8,000 creationists, and found they were all lacking in a basic understanding of science. So, maybe it was fair to assume the next one you talk to will be the same. Just don't get stuck in that rut, or you'll be as guilty of dogmatism as the ones you are debating.

Since you recognize that there are other worthy subjects than science, what makes evolution more related to the learning category of physics, for instance, than some other, like world history?

I despise evolution being categorized with a true science like physics. Here's why. With physics we can use empirical data to validate or invalidate a theory. We can test a mathematical proof. We can used CONTROLLED experiments. Evolution (as a basis for the origins of species and of man in particular) is full of so much conjecture that cannot be adequately tested.

If someone could really work backward from the scientific data available today and prove definitively that all life came from the same source, and describe the manner in which life evolved from the earlier sources, that person could also predict the future with similar accuracy.

This is the OPPOSITE of controlled experimentation. There are so many variables that the conclusions become nonsensical.

" Only science should be taught in science class."

So if a science teacher wanted to perform TESTS on human subjects like the Nazi's, you would not object because only science should be taught? It would be inappropriate to introduce ethics or morality into it, right? Or maybe we should leave out the history of how we have certain scientific achievements, because that belongs in the history class, correct? And throw out spelling since that should remain in the grammar class.

No. Learning is an integrated process. It will not hurt children to simply inform them that many people do not agree with the validity of evolutionary theory. It will hurt them to misrepresent science as being equivalent to dogma which does not allow for any revision in its findings or challenges to its premises.

Let's get down to brass tax. What I really want to ask is, "How do you think a person can KNOW anything?"

[unlearner]

Good. I was using that as a hypothetical example. By "you" I meant any person. I cannot say God did not speak to you either.

Keep listening, and be sure to test the validity of what you hear.