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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You are 99.4400000000000000000000000000000% correct.

[Southack]

"So you say. Now what values are to be used in the math?"

The entire superset of all known and potentially feasable sequences of viable DNA sets, just to be conservative. The entire Time of our universe's existence, using the most optimistic longevity value. The most optimistic calculation of the numbers of viable life-sustaining environments in our universe, and the most optimistic number of possible molecules in said environments...all while giving each molecule the theoretical ability to self-form into a viable DNA sequence.

The link that I gave you gives the math for all of the above, along with the highest probability for such a hit occuring given that much time in that many worlds: 0 (rounded to the nearest 185th decimal place).

[narby]

There are a couple of other threads out there within the last few days that have the wording. Basically, it says that students should evaluate Evolution carefully because it is only a theory. (if you haven't kept up with the discussions on what is, and is not a scientific theory, then please don't say "well, it IS only a theory". Been there, done that, that's incorrect)

[Southack]

"Primarily the article is irrelevant because it ignores selection."

No.

"Selection" merely culls from an existing population. The math in the article gave credit to *any* correct sequence in the entire population. Thus, it is "selection" that is irrelevant to the debate, not that article.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Hypothetically, how could this "theory" [big bang] be falsified?

Were the microwave background rather different from what is measured, that would falsify the big bang theory. Another falisification would obtain were the redshifts different.

Now, answer the question. How do you falsify the theory that God created the universe? (For that matter, how do you falisify the theory that the universe was created Thursday last?) Be specific. Propose experiments.

[anguish]

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

It's factually incorrect since (1) evolution is both a theory and a fact, and (2) it has nothing to do with the origin of life. That aside, the purpose of the sticker was to accomodate parents that held that God created everything (6000 or so years ago). The court applied Chief Justice Warren Burger's "Lemon test" that says:

To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

... and found that the sticker failed the 'Effect' part, as a "reasonable observer" "would perceive the School Board to be aligning itself with proponents of religious theories of origin."

[Doctor Stochastic]

His claims were wrong then and they are wrong now. He has not learned even when the computations were presented. I didn't follup as he kindly posted the link to the refutation of the claims.

[Texasforever]

It's factually incorrect since (1) evolution is both a theory and a fact

Ok, tell me how it is a "fact".

[anguish]

The entire superset of all known and potentially feasable sequences

How can that be? Noone can define such a set as we don't know the combinations that can create life.

[Texasforever]

It's factually incorrect since (1) evolution is both a theory and a fact

This statement is very confusing. How can a theory be fact? If something is factual then it leaves the realm of theory doesn't it?

[anguish]

Ok, tell me how it is a "fact".

Easiest example to understand is that of bacteria. We continiously come up with new antibiotics because they evolve and develop resistance to the old kinds. This is so easily demonstrated that highschool students can do the experiment.

[narby]

The sad part is that these idiots may have lost in court, but they have actually won this battle. By getting themselves into the press, they will be receiving a great deal of new donations from people who had never heard of them before.

In a way, we're playing into their hands. Had this never made the media outside of the local paper, they would have spent more in legal bills than new donations would bring.

This is the same way that the left works. The Greens fight seemingly impossible fights, like to prevent drilling ANWR. That oil has been there millions of years, and any thinking person would know that someday, real soon, it will be drilled. Even a couple hundred years from now is soon in geologic terms. That oil is going nowhere.

But they keep fighting it, because it is a rallying point, and an emotional issue they can keep their faithful stirred up and sending them money.

I feel confident that the Discovery Institute working this ID crap is operating the same way. The political right is an untapped market for such NGO groups, since most now operate on the left.

The sad part is that decent Christians will be taken in by this, and I'm still convinced that in the end it will harm religious life in the US. But the DI doesn't care. They're merely working a market of customers that want their product, even if that product is sheer ignorance itself.

[Southack]

"His claims were wrong then and they are wrong now. He has not learned even when the computations were presented. I didn't follup as he kindly posted the link to the refutation of the claims."

I posted the link because it supports, rather than refutes, my point. A more thorough followup on your part might have revealed that fact to you.

[jennyp]

Nothing-new-under-the-sun PLACEMARKER.

[blackbart.223]

"If something is factual then it leaves the realm of theory doesn't it?"

That makes sense to me.

[Texasforever]

Easiest example to understand is that of bacteria. We continiously come up with new antibiotics because they evolve and develop resistance to the old kinds. This is so easily demonstrated that highschool students can do the experiment.

When do we get to something that can bee seen without a microscope? Look, I believe in adaptation and I don't believe the world is only 6000 years old BUT I still have problems with the religious faith the scientific community holds for the subject of evolution. If evolution is a scientific fact that precludes any type of intelligent design then it is past time for the high priests of that view to say it and let the chips fall where they may.

[anguish]

This statement is very confusing. How can a theory be fact? If something is factual then it leaves the realm of theory doesn't it?

Evolution (the process) is a fact that we can observe, and the 'theory of evolution' is the theory that is used to explain this fact. A theory never graduates to become a fact and is never 'proven' (two common misconceptions). A theory can however be falsified (proven to be incorrect) and is then kicked out of the world of science.

[Southack]

"Easiest example to understand is that of bacteria. We continiously come up with new antibiotics because they evolve and develop resistance to the old kinds. This is so easily demonstrated that highschool students can do the experiment."

Bacteria are examples of natural selection, not evolution. Antibiotics cull all but a certain already-existing subset of bacteria. That already-existing subsubset then goes on to thrive...but no new modification came into play...it already existed.

[narby]

Yeah, true. But one of these threads will someday be lurked by Sean Hannity, or O'Reilly, or Hugh Hewett (all of whom have spoken favorably about ID), and maybe they will think twice. That's one reason I argue the points I do. Because I believe these folks are reasonably intellegent, and can be pursuaded that either pursuing ID is damaging to conservatisim. Or is at least questionable enough within conservative circles that they will drop it.

So I keep arguing, and pointing out the same points over and over. At least while my patience holds up. Sometimes I get cranky.

[narby]

Bacteria are examples of natural selection, not evolution.

What was it, around post 408 that I proclaimed you ignorant on the subject of Evolution.

This gets funnier by the minute.