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.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

It's the "establishment of religion" on public land quasi-issue pertaining to the Danbury Letter.

Now, Balrog, back to my question. Should Bibles and prayer be allowed in schools, or should all Korans be banned from campus--along with all stories of the mythological Roman and Greek gods, etc? Answer me, please, exactly what is your position and why?

[Zeroisanumber]

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

I don't, the 1st Amendment protects my right to not practice religion as much as it protects your right to practice.

This country was founded by Christians. To deny that is to deny the truth.

I don't. Though I will debate their piety with you any day of the week.

If you study history, you know although there was no official church, society was based on the beliefs of Christians.

American law and society was (and still is) based on English common law, most of which is designed to define and protect property rights.

Who are you to change my country's history and try to deny its foundation?

It's my country too, compadre. Excercising my rights to be free from religion in the public sphere is neither denying history nor denying the foundations of my country. Rather, I think of it as honoring the Constitution and the men who wrote it.

The first school systems were Bible-based as were the first colleges.

Interesting, but not pertinent.

This country was founded to honor God.

I disagree. It was to give good men a chance to live free of tyrrany.

The Constitution only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion as the "official" religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." In mandating the teaching of ID, or otherwise intruding on religious grounds into the teaching of a public school class creates a situation where Congress is making a law respecting the establishment of religion.

Congress has not established any religion by local governments allowing religious expression by Christians.

Local governments are as bound by the Constitution as the Federal government is. Local laws violating the 1st Amendment are equally as unconstitutional.

You would bend history itself to conform to your non-belief.

You would bend the Constitution to conform to your beliefs.

You didn't answer my earlier questions.

[Southack]

"Here we go AGAIN! You don't postulate a theory. You postulate a hypothesis and then a hypothesis becomes a theory AFTER substantial observations verify the validity of the hypothesis."

No, it's not "here we go again." You've failed to comprehend to what I replied.

The claim was that *theory* was the closest possible thing to the truth. I corrected the poster by pointing out that reality, actual observations of facts in the wild and in the lab, is/are much closer to the truth than mere postulations of a theory to an audience, no matter how well thought said theory may be.

Thus, the observations of the truth, when accurate, are considered more precise than theoritical ramblings.

[Oztrich Boy]

The sun HAD to be larger. It's on fire!

Doth thou trolleth?

[RightWingAtheist]

The creationist attempt to "diversify" the science curriculum is at its heart no different than the attempt by the liberals to "diversify" the history and English curriculums with "feminist," "Afrocentric" or so help me, "queer-positive" additions. It's based not just on a disregard for people who happen to have different beliefs or values, but a complete disregard for facts, and an abject refusal to look straight at the truth and say "OK, this is how things are. I'm, just going to have to deal with it".

Hmmmm...they're also very much like those protestors at the inagural.

[narby]

Why all of a sudden must God be kicked out of schools and other institutions?

I support prayer in schools. I think the more Christianty in schools, the better (although I'm sensitive to how Jews think about this). And within a reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment.

But there just is no reason to believe that Genesis procribes Evolution, except in some peoples interpretations that I don't agree with.

And Evolution, despite all the bleating around here, I am firmly convinced as fact. I do not want to teach children false science, merely to ease the sensibilities of a few fundamentalist Christians (you do realize that the Catholic church and other major denominations do not have a problem with Evolution).

God does not manhandle the earth in its orbit around the sun. And I don't believe that Genesis says that God zapped man into existence in 6 litteral days. Gravity and orbital mechanics (created by God) takes care of the planet, and Evolution (created by God) takes care of life.

No problem.

[curiosity]

I'm seriously worried that Creationism has the potential to destroy the Republican party. As I've said before, this issue will hang like an albatross around our necks. And that's why I think these threads are so important.

I agree. The problem is, I don't think science alone is going to convince evangelicals to drop this issue. They will reject whatever scientific argument you give them so long as they believe evolution conflicts with Christianity. That's why we need to focus on how the two are compatible. Unfortunately, I don't see too much progress being made on this front.

[Southack]

"Oh, you mean that debunked probability analysis that assumes there is no order to nature and that everything is totally random."

You've seen no math to "debunk" the link that I provided, I assure you, though if you disagree you are welcome to post such math (you won't).

Likewise, you've failed to correctly characterize the debate. Big shock.

I'll do it for you (this is like being the teacher who gave you the answers to your tests in advance).

There are two possibilites:

1. That the origin of species is due to an unaided, unintelligent, natural process or processes... or

2. That the origin of species is due to an aided, intelligent intervention of some sort.

Those are your only two choices. There are no others, though it is *feasible* that both may be valid (at this point, we don't know).

This does *not* mean, as you incorrectly stated above, that everything must be "random." In fact, mathematically, we already know that there must be some form of bias. This bias may turn out to be from a natural process and/or from an intelligent intervention (i.e. one or both of options 1 and 2 above).

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"Doth thou trolleth?"

Mainly I fish from the shore.

You?

[narby]

So much that they will pretend they don't understand the semantics of the word 'theory' simply not to disturb their beliefs?

And some pretend that they haven't yet had the explanation of what is "theory" and what is "fact".

My example of "Music Theory" classes in college certianly should have swayed most open minded. But some around here want to impose their own definitions on science, and they're sticking with it.

Believe what you want, but you're still wrong.

[mlc9852]

I interpret the Constitution literally, just as I interpret the Bible literally. And I don't believe there is such thing as an atheist - just humans who imagine they are greater than God. The federal government has no business in local school matters. The Department of Education should be abolished and all powers and responsibilities for education returned to the states.

[Southack]

"Please prove your claim that abiogenesis teachings state that their [sic] is no "aid"."

There are 2 possibilities that I claim, not just 1.

One possibility is that abiogenesis was unaided.

The other possibility is that abiogenesis is aided.

Rasmussen's current experiment at Los Alamos is attempting to prove that the first possibility above is feasible.

In contrast, we've *already* proven that aided abiogenesis is possible (e.g. computer viri, self-replicating machines, cloning, etc.).

[Southack]

"If you think calculating the probability of life's origin gives a precise scientific origin, guy, they sure didn't do a good job teaching it in your school."

On the contrary, math gives wonderfully precise answers.

[Junior]

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. In science, a theory has already met the criteria of being tested, and being consistent with the available data. It is an order of magnitude up from hypothesis.

[balrog666]

Should Bibles and prayer be allowed in schools, or should all Korans be banned from campus--along with all stories of the mythological Roman and Greek gods, etc? Answer me, please, exactly what is your position and why?

Not in science classes.

[Junior]

I'm open to any possibilities that meet the criteria of being a scientific theory. ID does not yet do that.

[Dimensio]

And I don't believe there is such thing as an atheist - just humans who imagine they are greater than God.

Which God?

[Junior]

We post the links to show our sources. That way, anyone who wants to can check our claims. Creationists often forget to "footnote" their work.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Let me clarify: the science-only aspect is a subset of the larger question of religion on campus/the purported Establishment Clause.

I do not contend that Greek mythology is taught as science. Nor do I contend that creation should be taught as science. I contend that evolution should NOT be taught as science in that it is neither proven nor replicable. (IMO, in the same speculative class as Creationism. BTW, I am glad to know of real Missing Links in the 'fossil record'...)

Now back to the other issue. Seek: Do you contend prayer and Bibles on campus are OK, or do you discriminate against the Jews and Christians while finding the Koran, other Eastern religions and occultic books and practices OK?