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.

[metacognative]

After having experienced a few of the evolution religion exchanges ...it is obvious that the darwin cult is the most hysterical, desperate and defensive. All the other sides are doing the Lord's work to show them the light.
But don't expect the willingly blind to see.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

If you don't want creation OR evolution to be taught as science, than what DO you want taught when it comes to that subject?

TEACHER:
"OK class, today we are going to start discussion of two quasi-scientific belief systems pertaining to the origin of the universe and the origin of the species. Some people believe one way, some believe the other way--and some believe in a combination of the two. We are going to look at the origins of the belief systems and what some leaders say about each of the two, for and against, so you can make up your own minds."

< humor on
And for lab work, we will dissect one of each
< / humor off

[js1138]

Christians will lose. Big time.

That, and tghe fact that conservatism is already losing many potential converts, is why some of us post.

If you insist that ID gets mentioned in school, teachers are going to challenge students to find examples of research that supports it. Other than the bogus probability argument there isn't any.

[norton]

"being consistent with a significant amount of the available data.

Neither proven nor unproven.

[Southack]

"Math give precision, but only answers the question asked. No one can ask the question needed to settle the question of abiogenesis, because no one knows what steps are necessary and sufficient."

Probability Math tells us that the odds of intelligently sequencing data into a specific order is usually 1.

That same math also shows that the probability of correctly sequencing billions of genetic programming instructions without any aid/bias is 0, given any amount of time less than infinity (e.g. the 17 billion years of our universe's existence).

This doesn't tell us that abiogenesis was aided or unaided, but it does show that there has to be some bias (either natural or intelligent) of some form to sequence so many instructions correctly.

[Dimensio]

Neither proven nor unproven.

Nothing in science is ever proven.

[Southack]

"If you insist that ID gets mentioned in school, teachers are going to challenge students to find examples of research that supports it."

Such examples abound. Intelligent Design correctly explains the creation of computer viri, artifically intelligent software, self-replicating machines, cloning, etc.

[Oztrich Boy]

Dave Breese break

There has been a nonstop virulent attack on Christianity for 80+ years. Thomas Dewey, Freud, Marx, Darwin and others "rule from the grave" as has been said. These are indeed genuine attacks, always have been as far back as the Scopes trial and earlier....Some teachers and professors constantly challenge the faith of students daily....

You Might Be a Fundamentalist If...

[norton]

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

Holding the door open a little bit?
Does that not allow for discussion of the two without the demagoguery?

[js1138]

All the other sides are doing the Lord's work to show them the light...

Is lying part of the Lord's work? What do you say to the manufactured quotations found on dozens of the most popular creationism web sites?

[mlc9852]

I won't bother to respond.

[Southack]

"Nothing in science is ever proven."

You mean we haven't proven the Speed of Light? Or that the Earth's Gravity attracts at 9.8m/ss?!

Goodness! < /mocking! >

[bondserv]

Why do yo distort. No one here has ever said that. In fact, many have supported the teaching of religions in a RELIGION class. But not in a science class.

If the Big Bang theory might have been the genesis of the universe, should it be taught in science class?

or

If the theory that God might have been the genesis of the universe, should it be taught in science class?

[mlc9852]

Are you saying Christians should be afraid of Newdow and his pathetic ilk?

[Dimensio]

You mean we haven't proven the Speed of Light? Or that the Earth's Gravity attracts at 9.8m/ss?!

Nope. Could be wrong. Or, at the very least, the fundamental principles behind the measurements could be wrong. Thus far the measurements have served us well, but science must always be ready to accept that their discoveries could be overturned tomorrow.

[VadeRetro]

The sun HAD to be larger. It's on fire! The fire that creates the heat from our sun is burning something.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but I trust you've been taking a proper pounding for this post. I'll risk the following and hope it hasn't been anticipated already. (It's been on many another thread, of course.)

Nuclear fusion makes stars to shine.
Tropisms ma-ake the i-ivy twine!
Ray-ayleigh scattering makes skies so blue.
Testicular hormones are why I love you!

It's so sweet and sentimental I have to fight back the tears as I type. Hope you like it.

[Dimensio]

If the theory that God might have been the genesis of the universe, should it be taught in science class?

Hypothetically, how could this "theory" be falsified?

[Southack]

"Nope. Could be wrong. Or, at the very least, the fundamental principles behind the measurements could be wrong."

You're grasping. I expect better from you. Do try harder next time.

[bondserv]

If the Big Bang theory might have been the genesis of the universe, should it be taught in science class?

Hypothetically, how could this "theory" be falsified?

[Dimensio]

Aww. I'm sorry that I didn't concede to your lame attempt to "prove" that science does something that it does not do.