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.

[Zeroisanumber]

Why are they so against just advising students that evolution is a theory?

I got out of public high school less than 10 years ago, and I live in a blue state (MN). The Theory of Evolution was always refered to as just that "The Theory of Evolution" and was usually followed up with a discussion of how scientists differentiate between a Hypothesis, a Theory, and a Law.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Fusion. Thanks for the refresher. Additional comments follow.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Interesting read. Thanks for the link. 4.6 billion years give or take a few orders of magnitude, God knows.... :)

Additional comments follow.

[Dimensio]

I said no other theories regarding origin of life were being taught.

Evolution is not a theory regarding the origin of life. I'm not aware of any scientific explanation for the origin of life that has reached the status of "theory" yet.

[Zeroisanumber]

Why are you against God? For generations the Bible was read in schools and teachers prayed and everyone survived. I don't understand why people are against God in school.

I'm an Atheist. I went to school with Jews, Muslims, and a sprinkling of Hindus, Bhuddists, and others. For them, and for me, the idea of praying to a Christian God (or any god in my case) was deeply offensive. We do not live in a land where everyone is of the same opinion on the nature of the afterlife, and to have a government institution promote one faith (or any faith) is both wrong and unconstitutional.

I don't have a problem with Christianity itself, and I acknowledge that many of the founders were Christians. But to your question, a question: Why can't you keep your faith part of your private life? How is it made stronger by the government promoting it?

[Zeroisanumber]

You post an article that basically calls doubters of evolution "Ayatolla's" and you want us to be nice? What's the matter, you couldn't find an article that calls us "terrorists" or charge us with killing innocent women and children?

The Ayatollas demand government sponsored religious teachings, and those who want this "Intelligent Design" crap taught in schools demand government sponsored religious teachings. I think that the comparison is rather apt in this case.

[norton]

"Theory" in science is as close to fact as one could possibly get."
Last I heard a theory was a hypothesis that seems to work, may have some gaps in it, and has not been proved or disproved. NOT as close to fact as you can get.
Science is full of such theories - allowing science to build or branch off to discover other theories and/or (oops) missing links between theories.
That is not the issue - the issue is that THIS one theory seems to be mandated by some part of the academic community as an absolute and as being able to answer questions that are beyond it.

The scientific community appears terrified that any other view might be presented, and worse, accepted by most of society.

From another post: "I'm just amazed that people seem driven to reject Evolution, when I see no real conflict between it and Genesis. It's all in the interpretation."
I could not agree more. Except that what also amazes me is that those posting here as 'true scientists' are driven to fear at the thought of dissent. That they are so heavily barricaded behind their beliefs that the only response left is hostility to ANY other belief structure.

The gratuitous use of 'Taliban' in this thread does seem better applied to the 'scientific' side and not to those who want to see the other theory addressed along side theirs - if you can accept them both in a religion class, that's OK with me.

Disclaimer:
I have no idea who the Discovery Institute might be and do not need their help in forming my own opinions.
I have no interest in declaring that the local university has an evil goal of disestablishing religion in America, although many of its residents and employees seem to be of that bent. And,
My own opinions don't fit either extreme in this debate.

PS: Last time I was in a church was to bury someone, there's a lot of that after you hit 55.

[js1138]

If it must be unlearned, why is it taught?

Learning complex subjects is iterative. No one can grasp the latest and most complete version of a scientific theory in a few days of high school. You learn simplified versions, then progressively more complex versions. If you make a creer in any field of science you will eventuall reach a point where experts disagree with each other. These disagreements will often be at a level that can't even be understood by non-professionals.

Being realistic, the thing in biologists that is being protested is common descent. Since DNA sequencing became available, common descent is as certain as anything in science. The lab work and theoretical underpinnings are identical to those used in court to identify people and confirm parentage.

[Dimensio]

Last I heard a theory was a hypothesis that seems to work, may have some gaps in it, and has not been proved or disproved.

You heard wrong.

A theory is what happens to a hypothesis after it has been tested, had its predictions verified, been refined with all available new evidence and has reached a strong level of confidence amongst the scientists working with it. It is true that a theory has not been "proved", but that is because theories are never proven.

The scientific community appears terrified that any other view might be presented, and worse, accepted by most of society.

Terrified isn't the right word. Disgusted that a completely non-scientific explanation is shoe-horned into science classrooms, thus promoting ignorance of the scientific method is a better description.

[js1138]

...and has not been proved or disproved

Nothing in science has ever been proved.

[Southack]

"However, you know that once the sequence leading to the first life is demonstrated in the lab, the IDers will point out that it couldn't have come about without the intervention of intelligence -- i.e., the researchers."

Scientific ID'ers will have no problem with Rasmussen's Los Alamos experiment, though a few apostate religionists might.

Rasmussen has a very clever angle, one that is actually mathematically possible (i.e. PNA peptides instead of DNA). Now he's just got to show that it is *physically* possible for a life form that simple to be formed from entirely inanimate original material.

...And he may very well do that precise thing. At this point, however, he's merely the best hope for Evolutionists. It's no sure thing that Rasmussen will succeed, and his failure, should that occur along with the other major abiogenesis experiments worldwide, would again put the Intelligent Design theory back ahead of the various unaided theories of the origin of life.

The jury is still out.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

As stated earlier, my hypothesis about the gravitational effect on planets by a somewhat larger "old-earth" sun/solar system is just that: my hypothesis, based on my layman's knowledge and interest in astronomy and physics. I have no Alice's Restaurant VW van full of 141 8x10 glossies, PowerPoint presentations or other implements of evolutionary destruction to show the blind judge and seeing eye dog ;) I do have my own teeth, Spunkets, perhaps rather than derogatory jeering we can show mutual respect and raise the level of discourse a notch or two above the Barbara Boxer level....

Whether the 'fire' of the sun is by oxidization or nuclear, the fact remains that energy is radiated away from the sun; it is not a closed system. Estimates about its probable reduction in size (estimated only about 1% over estimated millions/BILLIONS of years, etc.) are ESTIMATES--some including I would say biased to fit a particular set of presuppositions. Nevertheless, I have been duly corrected in my statement about the type of reaction about the sun. I'm man enough and intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that I made a statement in error. Now I am slightly the wiser. I stand corrected.

Now I will refer you back to my post #71 and ask the anti-Creationists: why only glom onto my one point and conveniently sidestep a more salient issue? Why have you not replied to my assertions and valid questions about not removing Buddhism, Roman and Greek mythology etc. and the Koran in public schools? Have you written, or will you write, letters to your local school board to help an all-or-none policy be implemented and enforced? If you are consistent, you have integrity. If you are inconsistent, you either lack the courage of your stated convictions--or are willingly and knowingly a hypocrite. Sorry, no dodging that bullet.

[mlc9852]

Why should you as an atheist have more rights than I do as a Christian? This country was founded by Christians. To deny that is to deny the truth. If you study history, you know although there was no official church, society was based on the beliefs of Christians. Who are you to change my country's history and try to deny its foundation? The first school systems were Bible-based as were the first colleges. This country was founded to honor God. The Constitution only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion as the "official" religion. Congress has not established any religion by local governments allowing religious expression by Christians. You would bend history itself to conform to your non-belief.

[balrog666]

Why have you not replied to my assertions and valid questions about not removing Buddhism, Roman and Greek mythology etc. and the Koran in public schools?

I must have missed it - where are they taught as science?

[jennyp]

Duh! Evolution is the only theory being taught. You need to pay attention to the argument here.

Really? You mean the Dover Area schools aren't teaching the germ theory of disease in their biology classes? The theory of relativity in their physics classes? Electron cloud theory in their chemistry classes?

Man, the situation there is worse than I thought!

[Oztrich Boy]

Every crevo thread I've ever read on these boards, this point about the word 'theory' needs to be made repeatedly... repeatedly, and then repeatedly.

When you've explained theory again, it'll be time to answer:
If one species evolved from another, why don't we find transistorized forms?

[Southack]

"Since it would take an astronomical amount of time for the monkeys to type shakepeare, life could not have evolved? What kind of a lame argument is that?!?! It makes absolutely no sense. Just because he wrestled us through his grade 8 math tutorial on probability, we should just believe his conclusion..."

I'm surprised that you failed to understand his logic. He dumbed down mathematical probabilities so much that even grade school children could grasp the basics of his point.

In brief, it is mathematically impossible, given the 17 billion years in age of our universe, for unaided processes to precisely sequence data longer than a few scores.

His conclusion is that there *must* be some bias, some outside aid, to correctly sequence long series of data.

You are welcome to argue with his *math* on that thread (it would a digression from this one), but his conclusion is supported by his math.

In other words, if you can't fault his math with math of your own, then any attempt to fault his conclusion would be itself unsupported.

[Dimensio]

Why should you as an atheist have more rights than I do as a Christian?

When did anyone here ask that atheists have more rights than Christians?

[js1138]

It's no sure thing that Rasmussen will succeed, and his failure, should that occur along with the other major abiogenesis experiments worldwide, would again put the Intelligent Design theory back ahead of the various unaided theories of the origin of life.

Failure to produce some entirely new synthetic compound in chemistry gives no solice to the assertion that it can't be done. No more than the failure year after year to cure cancer proves it can't be done. It just means you don't yet have it right.

[jennyp]

This country was founded by Christians. To deny that is to deny the truth. If you study history, you know although there was no official church, society was based on the beliefs of Christians. Who are you to change my country's history and try to deny its foundation? The first school systems were Bible-based as were the first colleges. This country was founded to honor God. The Constitution only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion as the "official" religion. Congress has not established any religion by local governments allowing religious expression by Christians. You would bend history itself to conform to your non-belief.

Oh, c'mon. I have NEVER seen anybody on our side argue that religion - let alone christianity - let alone creationism - be removed from history, literature, or comparative religions classes. NOOOOOOO-BODY.