What are they going to do? Bleed on us?
The "Times of London" has no vote here, the last I heard.
Posted on 01/29/2005 6:54:41 PM PST by PatrickHenry
THE Republican “red states” that voted for President George W Bush in America’s Bible Belt are claiming their reward in an unexpected area: rolling back the teaching of evolution in schools.
Bold initiatives to introduce the concept of “intelligent design”, wrought by a god or higher being, into theories about Earth’s creation are being sponsored in towns and communities across America.
Religious fundamentalists — or “theocons” — opposed to Darwinism have adopted sophisticated tactics enabling them to pass under the political and legal radar that keeps church separate from state and forbids the promotion of religion in schools.
The champions of intelligent design, who are mindful not to specify a particular creator, are poised for victory in Kansas later this year after a new school board favouring the teaching of evolution as a theory rather than a fact was elected in November by a majority of six votes to four.
Jack Krebs of Kansas Citizens for Science said: “The re-election of Bush has emboldened the intelligent design movement. They feel they have the wind at their backs.”
The president, a born-again Christian, has proclaimed his own scepticism about Darwinism in the past. “On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the Earth,” he once said. A recent CBS poll found that 55% of Americans and 67% of those who voted for Bush do not believe in evolution.
This Tuesday marks the start of a series of public meetings in Kansas on the teaching of Darwinism and the battle lines are firmly drawn.
The prairie town of Salina, Kansas, in the centre of the United States is modern enough to have a two-mile airstrip. When it comes to religion, however, little has changed for some families since the pioneers rolled by on their wagons.
In a small diner on the outskirts of the town, Ruth Coleman, 58, the mother of a Baptist pastor, was treating her five-year-old granddaughter Kendra to lunch. “I am creationist,” she said stoutly. “I believe God made the Earth 6,000 years ago and he deserves the credit. If there was evolution, why are there still monkeys?”
A 14-year-old girl asked members of Coleman’s congregation last Sunday for guidance on how to answer exam questions about the origin of mankind. “Shall I give the right answer and fail the test or give the wrong answer and pass?” the puzzled teenager asked.
“We teach kids not to lie and if we believe in creationism, evolution is a lie, so the grown-ups were kind of stumbling,” Coleman said. “A mom said, ‘Just put the textbook says this, but I believe that.’ Everybody thought it was a really good idea.”
Educationists across the state arrived in Salina last week for a meeting of a science standards committee on rewriting the curriculum. The leading protagonists on each side traded barbs as they discussed changes that would open the door to challenging evolution.
“Darwinism is a non-theistic religion,” protested one supporter of intelligent design, “and you’re trying to give it to our kids even though they don’t want it.” An opponent retorted: “The alternative to natural causation is supernatural causation . . . and that’s what you are trying to open the door to.”
The well-funded, nationally based intelligent design movement is casting itself as the promoter of academic freedom. It is hard for opponents to write the group off as the American equivalent of Afghanistan’s fundamentalist Taliban when it appears to be challenging received wisdom rather than stifling debate.
For Bill Harris, a 56-year-old scientist and a Christian, the question is: “Is it impossible that a god created the Earth? If it is impossible, then take it off the table, but if it’s possible don’t ignore it.”
He believes evolution should continue to be taught with important caveats. “There are definitely elements of Darwin’s theory that are well founded, but the origins of the universe, the origins of life and the origins of the genetic code are currently unknown. We can’t state frequently enough that science is still looking for the answers.”
Harris believes the finely tuned relationship between the planet and its living creatures point to the existence of a higher designer. “It’s not a religious debate,” he insisted. “It’s a scientific debate with religious implications.”
Krebs, 56, a veteran of skirmishes with anti-evolutionists, said his opponents had learnt from past mistakes. “It used to be easy to dismiss the views of young Earth creationists as an embarrassment, but the intelligent design movement is deliberately keeping them in the background. It is a cleverly designed strategy to say, ‘You guys are being dogmatic’, and we wind up looking like the ones who want to limit science.”
There are signs that the tactic is paying off, even among staunch supporters of evolution. In the same diner as Coleman, Doug Guenther, 48, had just finished a plate of fried chicken. His job for the Kansas rural water authority has led him to develop a passionate amateur interest in fossils.
“I’ve dug up shark teeth that go back 67m years to the Cretaceous period when the sea spread from Texas all the way to Canada,” he said proudly. “I’ve seen mammoth teeth, camel teeth and large arrowheads belonging to early man. It would be pretty hard to explain that in the Bible.”
Yet Guenther has no problems with teaching children about intelligent design. “Evolution is definitely not a theory — it is a fact. But you can fit in it with the Bible as long as you don’t believe everything it says literally.”
Evangelical Christians, such as James Dobson’s influential Focus on the Family movement, are delighted by the success of intelligent design as a “wedge” issue to challenge and undermine Darwinism.
Changes to the science curriculum are being sought by religious conservatives in Wisconsin, Missouri, Mississippi, South Carolina, Montana and Pennsylvania, where one educational district has already placed stickers in biology textbooks with the warning that evolution is a theory rather than a fact. It plans to appeal against a recent court decision ordering the schools to remove them.
Send a copy to the Times. They apparently think "how the world got here" is related to the question of evolution. When IDers or Creationists suggest such a link, they get blasted pretty quickly here.
What are they going to do? Bleed on us?
The "Times of London" has no vote here, the last I heard.
......and that's never happened before!!
And how is this established? Common traits (which can be ascribed to a Creator); the fossil record (which the article admits is weak even without referring to the Cambrian Explosion); phylogeny (which stems from the crushingly descredited Haeckel); and genetic sequencing which actually makes some sense for the theory although that too has problems. For instance, The comparative mapping data based on the consensus linkage map show a considerable amount of chromosomal conservation retained between man and chicken during evolution. This is in sharp contrast with the comparative mapping data between chicken and mouse, in which the amount of chromosomal conservation is considerably lower.
Now, if God exists (and He does) what's the problem with believing in a Creator who involves Himself in His creation? This is nothing rational about attacking lines of thought that questions the belief that life sprang by chance from a single cell which somehow popped up in violation of biological law.
BTTT
Do you believe that it is fair to teach the criticism of Darwin?
What, exactly, is the point of painful (and routinely fatal to the mother until very recently with modern medicine in advanced countries) childbirth if designed by God?
Sort of ironic to see someone arguing that imperfections in life forms are evidence they were created by a deity.
As it turns out the problem seems to be the size of the cranium is a fairly recent development in hominids and female womb size hasn't caught up. The advantages of big heads containing big brains outweighed the childbirth problems. Evolution is messy.
2. What was an eyeball before it could see? What purpose did it serve before the pupil developed or did along the way it "know" that it would be able to see in a few thousand years?
Eyes began as eye spots that could only basically tell if it was light or dark.
3. If everything evolved from something and where did the original "something" come from?
Pick your theory. The Biblical Christian God, space aliens from the planet Xenu, or abiogenesis. All are compatible with Evolution.
4. Would you agree that if we have no hope of eternal life that we are nothing more than animals and are free to live as animals do?
Evolution has nothing to do with whether you have any hope of eternal life or not.
Only if you define sane as those geologists that agree with you. There are geologists who disagree with you.
I don't believe there happen to be any in the Grand Canyon, but Angular Unconformities throw a monkey wrench of colossal proportions into silly "all sedimentary rock everywhere laid down by the Great Flood" theories.
No creation scientist believes ALL sedimentary rock was laid down by the great flood. You had history before the flood and you had history after the flood. Plate tectonics, erosion, and smaller catastropic events have occurred since. What's more there appears to have been significant geologic changes during the flood. Remember the flood lasted a whole year. During that time there were huge changes in the earth. Mountains rose, valleys sank. There may have been major change in the ocean floors.
Psalm 104:6 Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. 7 At thy rebuke they fled; at the sound of thy thunder they took to flight. 8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down to the place which thou didst appoint for them.
The idea that the flood accounts for all of the geologic column and the idea tha the flood was as peaceful as a backyard catfish pond, are both strawmen thrown out by evolutionists.
Physician, heal thyself!
Why are you bearing false witness like that?- Ichneumon
Why are you accusing me of bearing false witness? Do a web search. You can't miss it.
And #5?
But if you pick the Biblical Christian God, you have a problem with evolution. It says, God created Eve from Adam's rib. Now if man evolved, then clearly God didn't create eve from a rib.
All the gap theories or day/age theories in the world aren't going to get you past that one.
You missed the logic on #4. I apologize for not being clear. Why do we all not just live like animals then? From what did our compassion and other emotions evolve from?
It's an odd question. Darwin himself devoted the last chapter of On the Origins to problems with his theory. So you could say he taught it himself. Also, a lot of people who complain here about "Darwinism" don't seem to understand that what is taught today in biology class is just a little bit of Darwin's work, with a vast amount of knowledge developed since. Science is constantly criticizing itself and building upon itself and of course such criticisms should be made. The idea that they are not made is in error.
If you are talking about criticisms that are religious in nature, no, I do not believe these belong in biology class. I do believe there is a place for them . . . Sunday school, church, philosophy and comparative religion classes.
At this point I suppose it may be inevitable that students will bring up ID in biology class regardless of whether it is formally in the curriculum. If this happened I would probably be loathe to just cut off discussion. My inclination would be to engage the students in an analysis of whether ID can be considered a scientific theory. I assume you know what I think.
Is the faith of creationists so weak that they feel the need to have their faith buttressed by science and academic disciplines that only exist in Universities?
Hovind and Gish love folks like you 'cuz you will happily pay $90 for nonsense.
P.T. Barnum must've had creationists in mind when he uttered the immortal "There's a sucker born every minute"
What is the problem with teaching creationism in Sunday school, which is where it belongs, if folks need to teach it.
The point of ID is that it is impossible that we are here by chance and natural selection. How would you address that?
Cheap shot! Pat yourself on the back while studying your fake embryo charts from Haskell.
None were from Hovind.
Two are from Dr. Jobe Martin of Baylor University, who came to Baylor to teach evolution but converted to Creationism when challenged to look into the assumptions behind evolution. When he started looking at the assumptions, he realized that evolutionists were making unsupportable claims.
Duh. "Religion" (as he calls it) isn't SUPPOSED to change, nitwit. If religion evolves, there's something wrong with it, 'cos God is "consistently the same."
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.