Posted on 01/23/2005 1:11:01 AM PST by rdb3
ritics of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution become more wily with each passing year. Creationists who believe that God made the world and everything in it pretty much as described in the Bible were frustrated when their efforts to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools or inject the teaching of creationism were judged unconstitutional by the courts. But over the past decade or more a new generation of critics has emerged with a softer, more roundabout approach that they hope can pass constitutional muster.
One line of attack - on display in Cobb County, Ga., in recent weeks - is to discredit evolution as little more than a theory that is open to question. Another strategy - now playing out in Dover, Pa. - is to make students aware of an alternative theory called "intelligent design," which infers the existence of an intelligent agent without any specific reference to God. These new approaches may seem harmless to a casual observer, but they still constitute an improper effort by religious advocates to impose their own slant on the teaching of evolution.
The Cobb County fight centers on a sticker that the board inserted into a new biology textbook to placate opponents of evolution. The school board, to its credit, was trying to strengthen the teaching of evolution after years in which it banned study of human origins in the elementary and middle schools and sidelined the topic as an elective in high school, in apparent violation of state curriculum standards. When the new course of study raised hackles among parents and citizens (more than 2,300 signed a petition), the board sought to quiet the controversy by placing a three-sentence sticker in the textbooks:
"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."
Although the board clearly thought this was a reasonable compromise, and many readers might think it unexceptional, it is actually an insidious effort to undermine the science curriculum. The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography. Evolution is so awful that the reader must be warned that it is discussed inside the textbook. The second sentence makes it sound as though evolution is little more than a hunch, the popular understanding of the word "theory," whereas theories in science are carefully constructed frameworks for understanding a vast array of facts. The National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have" and says it is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus.
The third sentence, urging that evolution be studied carefully and critically, seems like a fine idea. The only problem is, it singles out evolution as the only subject so shaky it needs critical judgment. Every subject in the curriculum should be studied carefully and critically. Indeed, the interpretations taught in history, economics, sociology, political science, literature and other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology.
A more honest sticker would describe evolution as the dominant theory in the field and an extremely fruitful scientific tool. The sad fact is, the school board, in its zeal to be accommodating, swallowed the language of the anti-evolution crowd. Although the sticker makes no mention of religion and the school board as a whole was not trying to advance religion, a federal judge in Georgia ruled that the sticker amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because it was rooted in long-running religious challenges to evolution. In particular, the sticker's assertion that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" adopted the latest tactical language used by anti-evolutionists to dilute Darwinism, thereby putting the school board on the side of religious critics of evolution. That court decision is being appealed. Supporters of sound science education can only hope that the courts, and school districts, find a way to repel this latest assault on the most well-grounded theory in modern biology.
In the Pennsylvania case, the school board went further and became the first in the nation to require, albeit somewhat circuitously, that attention be paid in school to "intelligent design." This is the notion that some things in nature, such as the workings of the cell and intricate organs like the eye, are so complex that they could not have developed gradually through the force of Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic variations. Instead, it is argued, they must have been designed by some sort of higher intelligence. Leading expositors of intelligent design accept that the theory of evolution can explain what they consider small changes in a species over time, but they infer a designer's hand at work in what they consider big evolutionary jumps.
The Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania became the first in the country to place intelligent design before its students, albeit mostly one step removed from the classroom. Last week school administrators read a brief statement to ninth-grade biology classes (the teachers refused to do it) asserting that evolution was a theory, not a fact, that it had gaps for which there was no evidence, that intelligent design was a differing explanation of the origin of life, and that a book on intelligent design was available for interested students, who were, of course, encouraged to keep an open mind. That policy, which is being challenged in the courts, suffers from some of the same defects found in the Georgia sticker. It denigrates evolution as a theory, not a fact, and adds weight to that message by having administrators deliver it aloud.
Districts around the country are pondering whether to inject intelligent design into science classes, and the constitutional problems are underscored by practical issues. There is little enough time to discuss mainstream evolution in most schools; the Dover students get two 90-minute classes devoted to the subject. Before installing intelligent design in the already jam-packed science curriculum, school boards and citizens need to be aware that it is not a recognized field of science. There is no body of research to support its claims nor even a real plan to conduct such research. In 2002, more than a decade after the movement began, a pioneer of intelligent design lamented that the movement had many sympathizers but few research workers, no biology texts and no sustained curriculum to offer educators. Another leading expositor told a Christian magazine last year that the field had no theory of biological design to guide research, just "a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions." If evolution is derided as "only a theory," intelligent design needs to be recognized as "not even a theory" or "not yet a theory." It should not be taught or even described as a scientific alternative to one of the crowning theories of modern science.
That said, in districts where evolution is a burning issue, there ought to be some place in school where the religious and cultural criticisms of evolution can be discussed, perhaps in a comparative religion class or a history or current events course. But school boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific explanation of the evolution of life.
Careful there. You're itching for excommunication from the Church of Evolution.
If I could afford it I would very much enjoy studying under you. Alas, however, as a self-taught janitor even my recent raise places me beyond that possibility. Perhaps you use a textbook I could borrow from the library?
What do you think science is, other than making reasonable inferences about the world around us?
Don't splatter FR with general insults and then expect people who fall into the categories you insult to make nice to you.
Then you're speaking a foreign language. Conjecture and inference are utterly different things. For example, consider the difference between conjecturing OJ might be a killer, and inferring he is a killer.
Wait, you weren't on that jury, were you?
All I need to know about ID I learned at Falls Creek Baptist Assembly at a retreat sometime in the early 70's.
A decon at our church, who was a local College prof during the week days, taught a class looking at Genesis and Evolution. The conclusion was the Genesis did not contradict science. I have no reason to research it further, since without a contradiction between science and the Bible, there is nothing to study.
On the other hand, I note that there are several non-profits that have geared up recently promoting ID using the same techniques the Sierra Club uses to stir up the lefties. Except they took on a new customer base, the religious conservatives, a new untapped market.
I judge these ID groups based on the techniques they use to fool people with the junk science of ID. They seem to want science to "prove" that God exists. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You must believe by faith, not by science.
All I said was 'science' doesn't study "Jack", and I'll add it doesn't study "Jill" either. Science, as well, doesn't study why scientists fail to study Christians, or Christian beliefs, and neither do, shock!, scientists.
Science is not a living breathing thing, though scientists write reverently that 'science' is the fount of hope. Science also doesn't study why scientists frequently compare Christians to Islamists; neither do the scientists themselves. Talking about it thoughtfully is verboten.
But I have given it some thought. Christians (the bible fundie types usually) and Islamists and Nazis appear to share something in common on the surface: a patriarchal organizational approach to family government. Scientists, Communists, Hollywoods elite, NY's publishing elite, MSM, Socialists, and Liberal Democrats, share something in common too: a matriarchal approach to family gov't (that is if Dad actually endures it and sleeps at home)
(Germany is the Fatherland, and Russia is ... anyone? anyone?)
When scientists go home after a long hard day at the lab, they usually have to go home to a woman who is .... in charge.
If there is a fight in the kitchen, who usually wins? Her, usually, because somehow, she as a full and equal partner is just more trustworthy on a day to day basis. But in a Christian home, who has the final say so? Him, usually, because somehow, he is just more suited for this role on a day to day basis.
Utter seperation from reality ... HA!! Who wins the fight in the end near the cul-de-sac where you live? That answer determines whether or not you mutter 'islamo freak' when you see him. And of course, this has just nothing to do with evolution and how it is taught to kids. Riiiiiiight....
I thought I made some pretty good points about the wonders of God's design of Evolution. But you don't even care to discuss my arguments or reasonably point out contentions. You merely want to poke fun.
Well, what else can I expect from a janitor?
A 'good' scientist? Is there such a man or woman out there? I don't think so. I think there are many many people who practice GREAT scientific research. I think there are great hollywood actors too, like Sterling Hayden. He really IS a great actor. He was a pretty bad man. Scientists don't really prove anything anyway. They just illuminate what is already here more effectively.
It is when they try to illuminate what is NOT here, like fossils which bridge gaps in the evolutionary record, like the working intermediate mechanisms for the development of the system that allows blood to clot when an organism is injured....
That is when scientists enter the Faith room, but still keep jumping up and down and pointing their fingers and yell 'it is science still!! you have to believe this!!"
I'm only amazed that science hasn't yet fully counter attacked by going after apparent contradictions in the Bible. The Noah flood story is especially ripe for scientists to find "holes", like ID claims to have found in Evolution.
IDers are kicking at a rattle snake, and it's rattling. It just hasn't struck back yet. It's just too bad that the real victims will be the believers that will reject their faith in the process of the fight.
It's too bad about this whole mess. There are so many more constructive things that Christians could occupy themselves with than attempting to destroy science.
Projecting, maybe?
You did. In fact, I would not be surprised if you were second or third in line to be God. Pray real hard and maybe at least He'll follow your advice about evolution.
Just think, you could ask someone a morality question and then turn on the God-o-meter and it would say whether God liked their answer.
You could point it at a Southern Baptist and then a Hassidic Jew and it would say which one was a member of the chosen people.
You might point it at the newspaper story of the Tsunami and find out why God did that.
The ideas are just endless.
Now all you IDers have to do is invent the thing. Science confirms God, you know, so there must be some way to measure Him.
How did you get my picture? I did not authorize you to post it, and I am no relation to Smartaleck that I care to admit. But I've got the chicks, baby!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.