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.

[WildTurkey]

You're a nanny stater, you are under the impression that the federal government in the form of unelected judges, has the power to judge what local school boards can or can't do.

Interesting how you defend false propaganda in the name of creationism.

[VadeRetro]

Well, learn someting new. If a bacterium does have two or more genes for a trait, you still have dominance/recession. Full disclosure: I didn't know that.

However, sexual species except as noted routinely as part of the mechanism of reproduction will have multiple genes. It is part and parcel of the paired-chromosome diploid/haploid scheme of eukaryotic sex.

Bacteria will not reliably have multiple genes for a trait. They have duplication mutations, which is part of how genetic diversity happens, the very thing you are disputing. Also, they do this conjugation thing even among unrelated species. It doesn't typically reproduce individuals but it exchanges genetic material. You were clearly in your post referring to sexual dominance/regression from paired chromosomes. That was still inappropriate and wrong for bacteria.

And you don't dodge the emergence of new alleles this way unless you can show that every trait that has ever seemed to emerge as new is on a paired gene.

[js1138]

That explains it.

Your analytical powers are devistating.

[Southack]

"Well, learn someting new. If a bacterium does have two or more genes for a trait, you still have dominance/recession. Full disclosure: I didn't know that."

Glad to help out. Seriously.

You do owe me an apology, however. Prior to learning that bacteria really do have recessive traits, you were quite vicious.

That's not a problem for *me*, personally, but such character assaults detract from useful scientific debate, and for *that*, you should be sorry.

[unlearner]

For such a long reply you might have at least answered my question:

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

I will attempt to answer you point by point.

There is really no point debating the finer points of theology with someone who does not even believe in what is being debated.

You do a great deal of violence to the texts. For example, you pit Jesus against Moses. I can hardly wait to hear your explanation for how Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus' day.

I also wonder how you would explain Sodom remaining until Jesus' day IF they had seen the works He did (because they would have repented). Jesus treats the characters of a story (in your opinion) as real people.

You do recognize how the Holy Spirit is an evidence of the resurrection, but your position puts God in a box. The Holy Spirit, the scripture explicitly states, manifests Himself. How does He manifest Himself? Through spiritual gifts. The Holy Spirit can and does demonstrate God's existence through miracles and healings IF HE SO CHOOSES.

You seem to deny the supernatural. I do not base my faith in miracles. I believe whether God speaks or His word is scarce, whether He delivers from the fiery furnace or does not. He is able, but He chooses to do what He wants to do.

I have seen firsthand God's intervention, so I can testify what I have seen and heard.

We agree that man came from dust. I think you will find some disagreement with the evolutionists who think life came from the ocean, and man evolved from this. So do you believe evolution is wrong about this?

You claim to know what happened on 9/11 scientifically rather than historically. How? The facts of what happened do not contradict the laws of nature as we currently understand them. That is altogether different than saying we know what events took place through science.

If you know what happened on 9/11 through science, I have great news. You are entitled to a lot of money. All you have to do is deduce where Osama Bin Laden is, using science of course, then notify your local law enforcement. I will quickly concede you have won this point of the debate. Go ahead. We will all thank you and admire you.

The rainbow appeared, according to the Bible, after the deluge. Before this there was no record of rain. The Bible is also clear that a large portion of the water currently on the earth was, before the deluge, suspended above the first firmament, i.e. the atmosphere.

You want an example of science. The very idea that we can learn and affect the future though our choices is Biblical. The idea that all is not fate is Biblical. Non-biblical thinking might evaluate all existence as nothing more than cause and effect, and lead some people to view life fatalistically. So when God says to consider the ant (part of His creation), learn from the ant, and be wise; this is scientific.

[unlearner]

The Bible has not changed. People have changed the Bible.

Obviously, when there are competing, contradictory versions of the Bible, they cannot all be accurately preserving the original scriptures.

First, I believe the original writing of scripture was inspired. Second, I believe God has adequately preserved the scripture so that those who seek the truth will be able to find it.

I regard the KJV to be a very good translation of the Received Text, which I believe is without error. (However, my faith is not founded upon the Received Text. If it could be demonstrated that there were sources closer to the originals generationally, I might be willing to concede even this point.) Even the KJV translators themselves did not regard their translating abilities to be infallible or the only best possible meaning of the text they relied upon. Anyone can read this in the KJV translator notes.

And please do not waste time exploring how many revisions were made to the KJV. These were primarily to correct spelling and word usage issues which were not standardized at the release of the first version.

I will reply to each of your posts separately, but I would appreciate it if you would try to limit the conversation to each of us taking one turn at a time. This will help both of us avoid confusion. You are probably, like me, carrying on multiple conversations. Thanks.

[Southack]

"Recessive traits come to the fore in sexually-reproducing critters. Bacteria ain't them."

That's incorrect. See Post #680.

[unlearner]

Points in geometry are intended to represent corners of geometric shapes. I don't see how the way I used them is incorrect.

Both a geometric point and a corner might be considered as the intersection of two or more lines.

I am unsure what scripture you are referring to. Please clarify. I am aware of one in Leviticus that mentions the "corners" of our heads. Am I to assume you interpret that to mean your head is square and flat?

[Southack]

"This threat is a real keeper. The sun is on fire. It's gravity is weakening. Bacteria have recessive traits. Not since the days of 1720 have we had so much fun. Time to post an ascii bat."

Do you claim that bacteria do *not* have recessive traits?

[Southack]

"Ah yes ... it's a high fly ball ... over center field ... easy out."

...And yet, you dropped the ball.

[Southack]

"You know, I've been reading for years on these threads the claim that the bacteria/antibiotic experiment is just selecting traits already present, but is never occurred to me how anyone could arrive at that claim. Now I know. Antibiotic resistence is a RECESSIVE trait. Wow. It's so simple. Someone should get a Nobel prize for this. And to think, so many tenured professors of biology have overlooked this for so long."

Name such a professor. Even one, who has "overlooked" recessive traits in bacteria in regards to antibiotic resistence.

You can't name one of course. It isn't "overlooked" at all (at least, by those in the know in that field).

Nice try, though.

Yawn. Not really challenging, but nice try.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Let's just say they're obsessed with the idea that WE'RE obsessed with sex.

It's not unusual with the chiffoniered ipsi.

[unlearner]

Me: "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."

You: "That is about the DUMBEST statement I have ever seen."

Well, even if it is one of the dumbest things you have ever seen, I am in good company. Because Einstein asked a similar question in the first chapter of his book on relativity (by that title).

You are correct that math is a model. In fact, you are right in believing math to be a type of science itself, maybe the purest one.

But science concerns itself primarily with three things: ideas, observations, and logical reasoning.

To arbitrarily exclude the Bible from scientific endeavors is unscientific.

You may present a scientific argument or proposition wherein you may assert that all reality can be comprehended through our five senses. From that proposition (axiom) you may assert particular "truths" that logically follow. However, you cannot limit all scientific inquiry to this arbitrary rule.

It has already been demonstrated that some scientific inquiry required our ability to explore beyond the bounds of our five senses. Relativity (the general theory) required that. Some of the conclusions Einstein made could not be verified by experiment during his lifetime. Later, they were confirmed to be true.

Again, I refer you to Einstein's writing. "The question of the 'truth' of individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one of the 'truth' of the axioms. Now it has long been known that the last question is not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely without meaning.... The concept of 'true' does not tally with the assertions of pure geometry, because the word 'true' we are eventually in the habit of designating always the correspondence with a 'real' object; geometry, however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves."

The problems of the evolution-creationism debate is that the views are different axiomatically.

This is why I keep coming back to the primary issue of how a person can know anything.

Evolutionists constantly claim that they rely only on science. Nonsense. I have never met one person, no matter how smart, resourceful and knowledgeable, who had personally learned the disciplines they use to make their case for evolution. They all rely on the trustworthiness of other scientists. They all rely on peer review. Are all scientist to be trusted (axiomatically)? Or does the majority vote on who is correct? Is it impossible for scientists to let their personal biases affect their research?

How do you know what you know?

[unlearner]

???

Sorry. I completely do not follow what you are talking about here. Please elaborate. Are you saying I gave false testimony?

[unlearner]

I see in post 637 you changed what you originally said from "want" to "thought about". But OK I understand you mean it as a joke anyway. I am not trying to nitpick.

As far as chewing the cud, yes the Bible puts the camel and hare in the same category - animals unfit for eating (under Kosher laws).

God gave the Jews some general rules for how to tell if an animal was Kosher or not. The verse you mentioned is one of many guideline (or rules, if you prefer).

If chewing the cud can refer to regurgitating food and chewing it again (like a cow) or passing it out like other waste and eating it again (like the hare), I am unsure what problem you have with this issue.

Fortunately, gentiles are not required to keep these dietary rules to be saved. Personally, I tend to avoid non-kosher foods as a preference.

Do you have a point with this or are we playing trivial pursuit?

[Thatcherite]

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.

That may be true of a small number, but I doubt that many people think, "I want to sin a lot, so I'd better not accept Christianity".

Surely you will at least admit that SOME people reject scientific knowledge without any serious inquiry just because they do not want to face the possibility that their religion teaches falsehood.

To believe Genesis I is a literal description of what happened c 6000 years ago is to ignore all other objective evidence that we have managed to collect. Why did God make the universe seem ancient to open-minded seekers after knowledge? As one easily-understood and hard-to-handwave-away example how would you reconcile SN1987A with a 6000yo universe?

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

Of course people have the ability to make choices, and should take the responsibility for their own actions and decisions. But Christianity says that we will fail to avoid sin, no matter how hard we try. Why should we be punished for an unavoidable failure?

[Thatcherite]

So that leaves us with self-educating and discerning the truth for ourself. We are accountable for our own ideas, and being always spoon fed by experts, shuts off the critical thinker.

Who is accountable then for the bunkum on your profile page that plainly hasn't been examined with a shred of critical thought (and certainly not examined by anyone with basic geology or soil mechanics skills)? I see you haven't yet corrected the geological cross-sections to show the angular unconformities in the Grand Canyon. And you haven't removed the nonsensical and ignorant comparison between a rapidly formed small canyon in new volcanic ash at Mt St Helens and the 1000ft sheer cliffs in incredibly strong sedimentary deposits in the Grand Canyon (they'd have to be strong when it was formed, or you wouldn't get a sheer cliff of that size). Any reason why you haven't removed it yet? You really shouldn't leave errors like that on your profile page, because that is lying once the error has been pointed out to you. What will God think?

BTW, when are you going to come up with an achievement or accomplishment of modern creation science that runs counter to mainstream science. Something like a new effect or gadget or significant mineral find will do. You tell us that creation scientists are being joined in droves from the mainstream, and that they have all the advantages of not clinging to mainstream error. Where are their achievements? You've had quite a while to think of one now.

[Junior]

You're a nanny stater, you are under the impression that the federal government in the form of unelected judges, has the power to judge what local school boards can or can't do.

So, you're saying the judge putting a stop to a school board lying to our kids and our supporting his decision makes us nannny staters? I'm waiting for the white rabbit, now.

[Junior]

Do you have a point with this or are we playing trivial pursuit?

The Bible was written by men who made the mistakes men make when they observe phenomena. The Bible is not God; it is not infallible -- and any objective perusal of the text shows this to be the case. Scripture might have been inspired by the Almighty, but the writers have done a poor job in transcribing His thoughts.

[PatrickHenry]

you dropped the ball

Yes. And you Googled furiously, to good advantage. Your batting average has moved out of negative territory, and now approaches .001. (A tad of humor.) Actually, I'm pleased to increase my information.

Note, however, how the evolution side deals with factual information. It's informative when placed in contrast to the creationist side.