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.

[js1138]

The math in the article gave credit to *any* correct sequence in the entire population.

How, exactly, do you define a "correct" sequence? Are you assuming that anything not identical to a current genome is incorrect? If so why? If not, what makes it incorrect?

Do you have a list of correct and incorrect sequences? Do you have some objective formula for defining correct and incorrect. If so, that would be worth aa Nobel Prize. Have you published?

[Junior]

People attack the Bible or agree with attackers of the Bible because it suits their lifestyle.

That's a bit shortsighted. What about the people who attack the Bible because some parts of it are obviously not correct? For instance, the Bible says rabbits chew their cud. Pointing this out does not mean I want to go participate in an orgy -- I'd want to do that regardless.

[js1138]

Consider, if you applied an antibiotic to which no member of a colony was immune...

You seem to have trouble reading. The size of the original colony is one individual.

[js1138]

again....give me one. Not just google sites.

I wasn't really expecting you to have any curiosity. I post for the lurkers.

[js1138]

I think any probability estimate must take into account the reasonable assumption that there are an infinite number of universes, and that somewhere, even the most improbable event has happened.

Aternately, there is the many universe interpretation of quantum theory, in which every possible event actually happens.

[Thatcherite]

Not believing the Bible is not so much an issue of intellect as an issue of faith and morality.

Faith yes, morality no. Intellect says that the bible is not literally true, but that does not stop numerous people and faiths from simultaneously embracing intellect and the bible. Fundamentalists of all religions require the rejection of intellect.

People attack the Bible or agree with attackers of the Bible because it suits their lifestyle.

What about the numerous people who attack it because they believe that it is false, and/or because they have been taught that some other holy book is revealed truth.

Self-righteous, unrepentant people do not want to have their sinfulness reproved and exposed.

Most of the self-righteousness and presumed moral superiority comes from the believers who largely appear to be smugly self-satisfied in their fast track to eternal bliss that is denied to 99+% of humanity according to their beliefs.

God can forgive your sins if you come to Him in humility. Or do you think you have no need of forgiveness?

We are all sinners, as I understand it God made us so we can be no other. Why do we require His forgiveness for being the way that we were born to be? The only answers I ever see for this are doubletalk.

[unlearner]

Me: " Jesus interpreted Genesis literally."

You: "He did not. "

Actually, He cited Adam and Eve as a pattern for marriage. He treated the existence of Sodom literally. He treated the deluge literally. He treated Moses literally.

Regarding signs, I am not a sign-seeker. I am a truth seeker. The fact is that Jesus performed many signs. His resurrection is the most important of those signs. Jesus was kind enough to not perform a "sign" for the wicked. That sign would necessarily be fire from heaven to consume them.

Science is not truth-seeking. It is knowledge-seeking. Knowledge is a good thing, but is not the same as truth.

"The unceertainty [sic] principle has nothing to do with the claim made."

Yes it does. My point is that you cannot know everything by scientific observation. We know what happened on 9/11 historically, not scientifically. Yes, science will confirm the facts; but it cannot stand alone.

Take crime scene investigation. Why have witnesses? If all we need is scientific observation, just send in a scientist to the crime scene. With careful observation he will deduce with absolute certainty what took place and who is the culprit. Right?

"It's a science class. Scripture doesn't belong there, because it's not a science book. The cut from Gen 3 I gave you says plainly that man came from dust and will return to it. That is what science has found and you argue with it. You are also attempting to conjure up miraculous signs evident in the history of dust with ID, even though you were told they are not there."

I am no expert on current evolutionary opinions, but I was under the impression that evolutionists think man descended from life that came from the ocean, not from earth.

And you use circular reasoning. You make an arbitrary rule that only a certain set of opinions are valid then proceed to invalidate anyone who disagrees. Last time I checked, my school science books contained historical information about who made certain discoveries and how. Most of them used other tools like mathematics. By your logic, I could say you should not use math in the physics class because this is a science class not a math class. Or you might want to remove any references to HOW scientific discoveries were made, since that would be teaching history instead of science.

What you so arrogantly and inaccurately infer by your arbitrary rule is that the Bible has no merit other than promoting sectarian religious beliefs. The truth is the Bible is also great literature. It also contains important and reliable historical data. It also influenced history greatly. It also contributed largely to the legal philosophy of our nation. The moral ideas of property ownership, personal freedom, sanctity of life, etc. are greatly influence by the Bible. Contrary to your opinion, the Bible is also scientific. Learning the Bible is essential to a good education, though I do not think anyone should be forced to study it.

"Science is rational thought"

I hope you realize that science is more than just thought.

You quote from the Bible. Do you actually believe the Bible?

[Nataku X]

The idea has merit. Biology cannot be understood without a firm grounding in physics and chemistry, and public schools are woefully lacking in both. The only thing I remember from the standard high school biology class was a bunch of we're-all-doomed ecology nonsense with a good deal of class warfare mixed in it.

[unlearner]

"I guess you may have some conflict with the 'four corners of the earth' "

No. If you were truly scientific, you would take at least some time to investigate whether your attacks have any scientific basis.

Four points can exist in three dimensions. One shape, for example, defined by four points is a pyramid. A plane, though often represented as a rectangle in geometry, is actually better represented by three points. Two points represent a line (or line segment). Three points always exist on the same plane.

Four points do not necessarily exist on the same plain.

As far as God shaking the earth, He is going to shake it soon. I hope you are prepared when that day arrives.

[Southack]

"It is a fact of chemistry that self-replication can occur with relatively simple compounds. The problem of abiogenesis has not been solved, but it is absolutely false to assert that known properties of matter make it impossible."

It is also absolutely false to claim or imply that I said such a thing was impossible.

Quite the contrary, we are here today, ergo abiogenesis did in fact occur at some point. That's not even debatable (though you attempt that straw man anyway).

What is debatable is whether or not abiogenesis occurred unaided, due solely to natural processes, or occurred due to some form of bias or aid (perhaps even Intelligent aid).

...And for *that* answer we turn to probability math to determine if genetic *sequencing* of any great length can occur without bias or aid.

[Southack]

"ID asks, "How can we calculate the odds of this poofing into existence in one step, under currently known conditions?"

No. In fact, the math that I showed you is valid for incremental sequencing; it does NOT require that a long sequence occur in a single step.

For probability calculations, in fact, the chances of getting a final long (unaided) sequence correct are the *same* whether such a sequence if formed all at once or in stages compromised of the same or other processes.

[unlearner]

Chewing the cud (as the Bible refers to) can and does include eating partially digested food that passes through the body. It does not have to be regurgitated. This is what the passage refers to and why it falls into the appropriate kosher dietary guidelines. So scientists who challenge the Bible here were just looking at the wrong end (of the animal).

"Pointing this out does not mean I want to go participate in an orgy -- I'd want to do that regardless."

So your immorality and rejection of the Bible are coincidental. Amazing how that coincidence seems to happen so frequently.

[Southack]

"The ID question is not science. It is anti-science. It is hostile to inquiry. It is hostile to curiosity. It is fundamentally motivated by belief in original sin, the belief that the desire for earthly knowledge is sinful."

You are confusing Intelligent Design (probably deliberately), with religious Creationism. The two are not interchangeable.

Intelligent Design can predict that an Intelligent agent such as a Man will make a self-replicating biological machine or DNA computer (see earlier posts to this thread for examples). That doesn't mean that God made that DNA computer; that would be the field of religious Creationism.

[Southack]

"Every individual organism that contains genetic mutations, insertions, deletions or other modifications is a new form of life."

Do you also claim that each new organism is a new Species?

Moreover, do you claim that you can have a new Species without originating a new form of life?

[unlearner]

Surely you will at least admit that SOME people reject the Bible without any serious inquiry just because they do not want to abide by the standards it teaches.

"We are all sinners, as I understand it God made us so we can be no other. Why do we require His forgiveness for being the way that we were born to be? The only answers I ever see for this are doubletalk."

This really gets to the heart of the matter. Do you believe people have the ability to make choices or that everything is fate?

[DannyTN]

"I have been called far worse on this board (as have others). At no time did you object to such comments. Why should your current mewling be taken seriously?"

You've never been called worse by me. And I trust that you can handle yourself on the threads. But in this case Patrick Henry used the post itself as a way of calling anti-evolutionists names and then had the audacity to tell us to "be nice".

[iconoclast]

I was taught that it was a theory about 45 years ago and as far as I know it is always taught as a theory.

Oh well, end of discussion.

Everyone knows the gubmint schools haven't changed any in 50-60 years. (/sarcasm)

[spunkets]

"He treated Moses literally. He cited Adam and Eve as a pattern for marriage."

Matt 19:3-9,
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
“Haven't you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

“Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Moses said his laws came from God. God contradicts that and says the law came from Moses and the motivation for it was the hardness in their own hearts.

"He treated the existence of Sodom literally. He treated the deluge literally."

Luke 17:20-
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”

Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. Men will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

“Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

“It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

“It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot's wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.”

There's no literal interpretation here, only a reference to the story. Jesus is in fact speaking to everyone in all ages personally here. What He is telling them is to be constantly vigilent and concerned with what is important-in particular, the matters He addressed. The reason is that all will see His coming.

"Jesus was kind enough to not perform a "sign" for the wicked. That sign would necessarily be fire from heaven to consume them."

He gives no sign unless He is personally present. The sign of the resurrection He gives is the Holy Spirit; there is no other. Neither you, nor anyone else can point to proof, or "sign" that He exists other than the presence of the Holy Spirit. That is, because it is His intent for each to either accept, or reject the Holy Spirit on their own accord and grounds. He said so here: Matt 12:31-32
"And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

He also said in Matt 13:...29-30,
“The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’
“ ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’ ”

You have nothing more than was given to all and what was given is the Holy Spirit. Science shows from dust and back to it, nothing more.

"I was under the impression that evolutionists think man descended from life that came from the ocean, not from earth. "

Dust is dust.

" We know what happened on 9/11 historically, not scientifically."

I know what happened scientifically. History and all other knowledge that fails a rational test is rubbish.

"by your arbitrary rule is that the Bible has no merit other than promoting sectarian religious beliefs."

I told you the Bible is not a science book, nor can it be used as such. I pointed out what God said was important. He was a carpenter, yet there's no mention of even how to build a toolbox, or any comment on the particular utilities of various woods.

"The moral ideas of property ownership, personal freedom, sanctity of life, etc. are greatly influence by the Bible.

They are not topics of science.

" Contrary to your opinion, the Bible is also scientific."

No, it is not. The rainbow is due to Raleigh scattering. The mechanism is the same reason the sky is blue. The rainbow existed before the flood. Post an example of science from the Bible.

[iconoclast]

Darwinism is many examples from nature ... fossils, change within species such as color change (none observable across species lines that I have ever heard of) those occurring over long periods of time are connected by pure speculation.

How does that constitute a scientific theory, much less an inarguable fact?

[mlc9852]

I thought the tsunami was the result of shifting tectonic plates, but if you have other info, I'd be interested to know.