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]

"now cite "If God were a good god, he would allow innocent babies to suffer, therefore he is an evil god."

FALSE PREMISE. GOD'S NATURE DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSALITY OR OBLIGATION REGARDING HIS FREE WILL TO PERMIT CREATION TO HAVE FREE WILL.

Then you are saying that God is neither Good nor Evil. He is without effect on the lives of those on earth.

AND YOUR CITATION IS A DE FACTO SLAM ON ABORTIONISTS, BY EXTENSION.

Off topic.

[Alacarte]

No, observing a direct fact in the lab or in the wild is much, much closer than postulating a mere theory.

Oh! So you just don't agree with the established definition of a theory in science. Despite the fact that the scientific community itself has absolutely no problem with it... If you can't beat them, just change the rules!

[WildTurkey]

Regarding the huge old-earth sun and its larger gravitational pull that would suck planets into it-- That is my own hypothesis, not one I've ever noted elsewhere.

Oh, it's a hypothesis now. Before you stated it was a fact!

And quit with the "my own". It is all over the creationists' web-sites and thoroughly refuted on many other web-sites.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Premise is spelled with an e.

The sun HAD to be larger. It's on fire! The fire that creates the heat from our sun is burning something. Gaseous mixture ratios have to be within a certain range to burn, thus a further argument for its shrinking to maintain density equilibrium. Similarly the newest era of missles that sucks out the O^2 from the atmosphere creates suction. Review the laws of thermodynamics and physics and then we can talk again.

[ThirstyMan]

ping

[Alacarte]

Newton didn't have a bunch of white papers to point his skeptics

Newton didn't just throw out random hypothesis based on his religious beliefs either! He gathered data and tested his hypotheses... it's called science.

Can you refute--or do you just sit with your mouse eagerly

seeking to take pot shots at I who dare create your cognitive dissonance by citing somebody who agrees with you?

haha! I believe the burden of proof is on you my friend. You made the outrageous claim, so you back it up. It is not my responsibility to prove your ridiculous hypothesis wrong, or else it's right! Citing people who agree with me? You mean the scientific community??? Yeah, what do astronomers and physicists know about our solar system compared to you, and I'm guessing your education on the subject is not post-graduate yet.

[WildTurkey]

The sun HAD to be larger. It's on fire! The fire that creates the heat from our sun is burning something. Gaseous mixture ratios have to be within a certain range to burn, thus a further argument for its shrinking to maintain density equilibrium. Similarly the newest era of missles that sucks out the O^2 from the atmosphere creates suction. Review the laws of thermodynamics and physics and then we can talk again.

Uh, the sun is NOT on fire. Review and then we can talk again.

[PatrickHenry]

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

Your information is a bit out of date: The Age of the Sun.

[Junior]

We're not against God. Hell, I'm one of the Almighty's biggest fans (and probably His most argumentative one at that). What we're against is a particular interpretation of Scripture -- one that flies in the face of all the physical evidence. We're against the dishonest tactics and claims of those promoting creationism and ID. I personally believe that creationism is Satan's greatest gambit to discredit Christianity yet conceived.

[UltraKonservativen]

...What the ID movement may spawn in 50 years we will probably not like....

You mean like...
..."What the public school systems has spawn in 50 years we definetely do not like"....

By the way you can start your study of political movements by reading "The Prince" by Machiavelli and then go on to "Mein Kampf" by a strong believer in Darwin's theory of natural selection. The author was a fanatic about the principle of the survival of the fittest. What he spawned was'nt too pretty,IMHO.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

"NOT that the Creationists don't know it, but because many of them don't care. The idea is to discredit evolution."

Your statement applies at least equally when speaking of evolutionists seeking to not just discredit--but censor and burn any biblical/creationism-friendly teaching including Intelligent Design.

If evolutionists were all honest and consistent, you would ban from campus--not just the Bible--but also all Roman and Greek mythology, all teachings of the Koran, Hinduism, Buddhism, the existence on campus of The Arabian Nights and The Brothers Grimm fairy tales and the Roc creator-bird, as well as all Wiccan clubs and books, Black Magic, Halloween and other events, holidays, teachings, books and tales which purport to explain or advocate belief in anything other than the theory of evolution. But I shall say it--MOST evolutionists are utter hypocrites in this inconsistency. I don't say all--I say most. And in the spiritual realm, and I say this sadly and not in a way intended to provoke hostility here but in drawing a parallel--evolutionists are Satan's Useful Idiots just as the Peaceniks have been likewise to Marxism. Not said as invective, not said in anger. And if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. Try on this one:

Is there a Satan? If God doesn't exist, if the Bible was man-made, if Satan didn't exist, if there were no power in prayer, if there wasn't power in the name and death and resurrection of Jesus, and if there were no such thing as evil: WHY would Michael Newdow, the ACLU and evolutionists be (in such a case) so pathologically focused on such a consuming, pathetic, quixotic mission as merely eliminating prayer in schools, banishing public crosses, seeking the removal of Ten Commandments from courthouses and "Under God" from our Pledge of Allegiance? If evolutionists are indeed greater thinkers, if evolutionists are indeed 'more evolved' then why would they bother with what us little-more-than-chimps would believe, knowing that one day we will be extinct? I submit that the cognitive dissonance of many who advocate evolution is greater than acknowledged and that it is from a position of perceived desperation and lack of credibility of their beliefs that so many evolutionists insist that no creationism or Intelligent Design model be taught as a contrasting theory, using the ruse of 'government-sponsored religion as their cloak. Otherwise they would be GLAD to posit them side-by-side and disprove creationism. But the Word of God changes lives, it opens eyes--thus it must be stopped by Satan...and his Useful Idiots. Truly sorry if that's you.

DON'T write me back immediately. Ask yourself if there might some TRUTH to my assertions about the inconsistency. Sleep on it. Maybe even pray about it. Then we can talk again another time, post me later if you like. For now, I must leave this thread and tend to other matters. Best to all.

[Junior]

Actually, the same evidence that supports Darwinism supports Intelligent Design.

Be honest. Any evidence supports ID, because "that's just the way the Designer did it."

[PatrickHenry]

... "Mein Kampf" by a strong believer in Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Ah ... Hitler appears once again. Time for some information:

There are over 9,000 biology teachers in the US. All of them exposed to the allegedly destructive teachings of Darwin. How many of them are mass murderers? Tyrants? Nazis? Can you name even one? Darwin wasn't a criminal, and he was certainly a "Darwinist."

Actually, Hitler was a creationist. In his own words:

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.
-- Adolph Hitler, creationist

Source: Book 2, Chapter 10, Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
Discussed at Adolf Hitler's Religion.

[Junior]

Observations do not equate to facts. You could observe the same phenomenon a thousand times, but there is always the possibility the next time will turn out different.

[WildTurkey]

What "we" dislike is your use of "false-science" and the attempt to put faith on the same podium with science when they are entirely different subjects.

[WildTurkey]

Now be honest. You want to put "religion" into the science class. How would you feel if "we" wanted to put science into your church teachings?

[Southack]

"You seriously don't see the difference between cars, with absolutely no reproductive ability, hence evolution is not possible, to living things?"

Of course I see differences, but fail to see why "reproduction" is the only possible way for evolution to occur. Would you dare claim that software can not modify itself without reproducing?! Can a person not add or delete an organ (e.g. via surgery) without reproducing?! Can a robot welding machine not weld something to itself without first reproducing?!

Frankly, your above dependence on reproduction sounds like black magic science of the form "the miracle occurs in this invisible reproduction stage that we can't show you" instead of out in the open where Evolution could be observed in an existing entity.

Does Evolution happen only during the literal reproduction stage itself, in your opinion?!

[WildTurkey]

Observations do not equate to facts. You could observe the same phenomenon a thousand times, but there is always the possibility the next time will turn out different.

I thought observations were facts. At least that is what some C said earlier.

[Southack]

Intelligent Design precisely and accurately explains why computer programs are sequenced into their precise electronic coding order. - Southack

"Hey! This is my field, PLEASE post your data on this so I can check it."

It's safe to say that most software programs are created by Intelligent Designers, though in your case... (just kidding).

[Junior]

You are ignoring the challenges. What do you make of Michael Denton's books except to call him a 'creationist'.

There are no credible challenges.

Review of Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crisis