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.

[JohnnyM]

our discussion was about the compatibility of the creation account in Genesis and evolution. Nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of religion in science class.

You claim that God used evolution as his method for creation, so the argument is about if this claim is valid based upon Scripture.

My argument is that your views are contrary to Scripture. You can believe in evolution all you want, but it is false to assume that Christianity and the creation account are compatible with such views.

JM

[WildTurkey]

When a person makes unbelief (or a different false belief) axiomatic there is little room for discussion. So, as I said, your mind is made up. What else is there to say?

You could always take the Christian position and make amends for implying something about my character that is not true ...

[JohnnyM]

"It rained beore the flood "

Chapter and verse please.

JM

[WildTurkey]

My argument is that your views are contrary to Scripture. You can believe in evolution all you want, but it is false to assume that Christianity and the creation account are compatible with such views.

No, it is not false. All it takes is for one to think and reason (Didn't God give us those functions) and just not fall for that first grade Sunday School rhetoric.

[spunkets]

Forget the chapter and verse nonsense. It rained before the flood-that's reality. Want to explain how the DOD can't find the chubim waiving the sword in Iraq. Did the cherubim fall victim to Sadam's reign of terror?

[WildTurkey]

You claim that God used evolution as his method for creation, so the argument is about if this claim is valid based upon Scripture.

What is it about y'all creationists that you keep making claims about others that are not true?

[WildTurkey]

And we have an evolutionist who believes the Sun was the source of light before the Sun was created? So around and round we go.

What is it about creationists that there argument is so weak they have to go around bearing false witness on others ...

[JohnnyM]

What evolution says:
Birds evolved from dinosaurs.
What creation says:
Birds appeared (day 5) before land animals (day 6).

What evolution says:
Evolution happens over a long period of time.
What creation says:
Different species of life were created in a matter of days. Also, the Sun was created on the 4th day, so plants created on the 3rd day could not live if these days represented thousands of years.

What evolution says:
Man evolved from apes.
What creation says:
Man was made in the image of God, formed from the dust of the earth.

If you believe evolution and creation are compatible than reason is pointless.

Either evolution is true and creation is false, creation is true and evolution is false, or they are both false, but they cannot both be true

JM

[JohnnyM]

"You claim that God used evolution as his method for creation"

Is this statement not correct? If so, where is it in error? This, I thought, was the basis for our discussion.

JM

[JohnnyM]

Forget the chapter and verse nonsense.

I see where you stand on the Scriptures.

JM

[spunkets]

" I see where you stand on the Scriptures. "

I note you prefer darkness.

[WildTurkey]

Now I am really confused! First, God created the animals then man but then later he created man first and the animals to give him company! This is sort of like JFK's I voted for it before I voted against it.

---

001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
..............
002:018 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
002:019 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
002:020 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

[WildTurkey]

"You claim that God used evolution as his method for creation"

Is this statement not correct? If so, where is it in error? This, I thought, was the basis for our discussion.

It is in error simply because I never claimed such. The basis was whether the Bible (Genesis) could be considered to be consistent with evolution.

[JohnnyM]

Gen 2:6 - but a mist came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

This was how the plants were watered prior to the flood.

JM

[JohnnyM]

Do you believe the Bible is consistent with evolution?

JM

[JohnnyM]

"First, God created the animals then man but then later he created man first and the animals to give him company"

I can reconcile the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, but can this be reconciled with evolution? The answer is no.

JM

[bondserv]

While someone Googles furiously for his next "Tah-dah!" to prove he isn't dumb, I'm out for a better-late-than-never bite to eat.

Beware of those who learn something today and hold another in contempt for not knowing it tomorrow, for they are the most despicable type of deceiver. Honesty resides not in them, for the ultimate hypocrisy causes them not to blink their own eye.

[JohnnyM]

The problem is in the translation. The words used in v.19 do not indicate that the animals were created at that moment for Adam to name, but that the animals had been created by God in the past. A more accurate translation would be :

"The LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air."

The order of creation is not changed. However, if you believe that the Chapters are contradictory, how do you reconcile this with evolution? How do you reconcile God forming all the animals for Adam to name in a short period of time. Also, would not Adam's existence before the animals go contrary to evolution?

Are evolution and the Scripture compatible? The answer is no.

JM

[VadeRetro]

Beware of those who learn something today and hold another in contempt for not knowing it tomorrow, for they are the most despicable type of deceiver. Honesty resides not in them, for the ultimate hypocrisy causes them not to blink their own eye.

Beware the people who don't acknowledge their f***ups, for it is one thing to be wrong today about one thing. It is another thing to be wrong every day about everything thou hast ever been wrong about.

And shun the FB.

[WildTurkey]

I can reconcile the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2,

Ok. Which came first. Man or animal? Did animals come first as in evolution or did animals come after to give company to Adam, as God said.