Posted on 02/07/2005 3:50:28 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Al Frisby has spent the better part of his life in rooms filled with rebellious teenagers, but the last years have been particularly trying for the high school biology teacher. He has met parents who want him to teach that God created Eve out of Adam's rib, and then then adjusted the chromosomes to make her a woman, and who insist that Noah invited dinosaurs aboard the ark. And it is getting more difficult to keep such talk out of the classroom.
"Somewhere along the line, the students have been told the theory of evolution is not valid," he said. "In the last few years, I've had students question my teaching about cell classification and genetics, and there have been a number of comments from students saying: 'Didn't God do that'?" In Kansas, the geographical centre of America, the heart of the American heartland, the state-approved answer might soon be Yes. In the coming weeks, state educators will decide on proposed curriculum changes for high school science put forward by subscribers to the notion of "intelligent design", a modern version of creationism. If the religious right has its way, and it is a powerful force in Kansas, high school science teachers could be teaching creationist material by next September, charting an important victory in America's modern-day revolt against evolutionary science.
Legal debate
Similar classroom confrontations between God and science are under way in 17 states, according to the National Centre for Science Education. In Missouri, state legislators are drafting a bill laying down that science texts contain a chapter on so-called alternative theories to evolution. Textbooks in Arkansas and Alabama contain disclaimers on evolution, and in a Wisconsin school district, teachers are required to instruct their students in the "scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory". Last month, a judge in Georgia ordered a school district to remove stickers on school textbooks that warned: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."
For the conservative forces engaged in the struggle for America's soul, the true battleground is public education, the laboratory of the next generation, and an opportunity for the religious right to effect lasting change on popular culture. Officially, the teaching of creationism has been outlawed since 1987 when the supreme court ruled that the inclusion of religious material in science classes in public teaching was unconstitutional. In recent years, however, opponents of evolution have regrouped, challenging science education with the doctrine of "intelligent design" which has been carefully stripped of all references to God and religion. Unlike traditional creationism, which posits that God created the earth in six days, proponents of intelligent design assert that the workings of this planet are too complex to be ascribed to evolution. There must have been a designer working to a plan - that is, a creator.
In their campaign to persuade parents in Kansas to welcome the new version of creationism into the classroom, subscribers to intelligent design have appealed to a sense of fair play, arguing that it would be in their children's interest to be exposed to all schools of thought on the earth's origins. "We are looking for science standards that would be more informative, that would open the discussion about origins, rather than close it," said John Calvert, founder of the Intelligent Design network, the prime mover in the campaign to discredit the teaching of evolution in Kansas.
Other supporters of intelligent design go further, saying evolution is as much an article of faith as creationism. "Certainly there are clear religious implications," said William Harris, a research biochemist and co-founder of the design network in Kansas. "There are creation myths on both sides. Which one do you teach?" For Mr. Harris, an expert on fish oils and prevention of heart disease at the premier teaching hospital in Kansas City, the very premise of evolution was intolerable. He describes his conversion as a graduate student many years ago almost as an epiphany. "It hit me that if monkeys are supposed to be so close to us as relatives then what explains the incredible gap between monkeys and humans. I had a realisation that there was a vast chasm between the two types of animals, and the standard explanation just didn't fit."
Other scientists on the school board's advisory committee see no clash in values between religion and science. "Prominent conservative Christians, evangelical Christians, have found no inherent conflict between an evolutionary understanding of the history of life, and an orthodox understanding of the theology of creation," said Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University, who describes himself as a practising Christian.
But in Kansas, as in the rest of America, it would seem a slim majority continue to believe God created the heaven and the earth. During the past five years, subscribers to intelligent design have assembled a roster of influential supporters in the state, including a smattering of people with PhDs, such as Mr Harris, to lend their cause a veneer of scientific credibility. When conservative Republicans took control of the Kansas state school board last November, the creationists seized their chance, installing supporters on the committee reviewing the high school science curriculum.
The suggested changes under consideration seem innocuous at first. "A minor addition makes it clear that evolution is a theory and not a fact," says the proposed revision to the 8th grade science standard. However, Jack Krebs, a high school maths teacher on the committee drafting the new standards, argues that the campaign against evolution amounts to a stealth assault on the entire body of scientific thought. "There are two planes where they are attacking. One is evolution, and one is science itself," he said.
"They believe that the naturalistic bias of science is in fact atheistic, and that if we don't change science, we can't believe in God. And so this is really an attack on all of science. Evolution is just the weak link."
It would certainly seem so in Kansas. At the first of a series of public hearings on the new course material, the audience was equally split between the defenders of established science, and the anti-evolution rebels. The breakdown has educators worried. With the religious right now in control of the Kansas state school board, the circumstances favour the creationists.
In a crowded high school auditorium, biology teachers, mathematicians, a veterinarian, and a high school student made passionate speeches on the need for cold, scientific detachment, and the damage that would be done to the state's reputation and biotechnology industry if Kansas became known as a haven for creationists. They were countered by John James, who warned that the teaching of evolution led to nihilism, and to the gates of Auschwitz. "Are we producing little Kansas Nazis?" he asked. But the largest applause of the evening was reserved for a silver-haired gentleman in a navy blue blazer. "I have a question: if man comes from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why do you waste time teaching something in science class that is not scientific?" he thundered.
Science teachers believe that the genteel questioning of the intelligent design movements masks a larger project to discredit an entire body of rational thought. If the Kansas state school board allows science teachers to question evolution, where will it stop? Will religious teachers bring their beliefs into the classroom?
"They are trying to create a climate where anything an individual teacher wants to include in science class can be considered science," said Harry McDonald, a retired biology teacher and president of Kansas Citizens for Science Education. "They want to redefine science."
Religious right
Young Earth creationism: God created the Earth, and all the species on it, in six days, 6,000 years ago
Old Earth creationism: The Earth is 4.5bn years old, but God created each living organism on the planet, although not necessarily in six days
Intelligent design: Emerged as a theory in 1989. Maintains that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that Earth's complexity can be explained only by the idea of an intelligent designer - or a creator
I am stating that from a literal perspective, Genesis is in error. There still is no conflict between the basic concepts between the two. There is no explicit denial of one from the other. It is in the interpetation that the conflict, for some, exists. Evolution describes populations of living things changing over time. No reference to supernatural interference. The Bible simply acknowledges a higher power but does not deny the operation of physical principles.
Hell, I don't know they know the difference. To judge from television commercials and modern culture, you would think that chimpanzees are monkeys. It seems that most people don't know the difference between a monkey and an ape.
If that is the level of science that is being taught in the schools, those advocating teaching ID so that the students will learn "to think for themselves" or to develop "critical thinking skills" are delusional. If you can't get through the hormone haze that monkeys and apes are different, you won't have "critically thinking" students. You'll just have students deficient in a basic science education.
How do they lie about the Bible?
Wow,
What I said was clear, yet you missed it all.
No, what you said was clear, but it was completely irrelevant.
I will admit that souless science is popular amongst atheists, but not all scientists are atheists. Nor are all proponents of evolutionary sciences atheists. Science cannot answer spiritual questions. A true sceintist knows this. An atheist who uses evolution as proof against God knows as much about evolution as a creation scientist. However, under the technical definition of Intelligent Design, an atheist could theoretically believe that.
I already posted that are DNA is slightly different.
Totally depends on your frame of reference. from a frame of reference with the earth at the center, yes the sun does orbit the earth. This is equally valid to any other frame of reference (although admittedly it is not the easiest frame to work within)
Again, what's your point? Somebody who does not believe in deities clearly cannot believe in theistic Creation.
However, that does not mean that everyone who accepts the TOE is an atheist or that the TOE has anything to do with religious beliefs.
| Apes have: | Humans have: | ||
| 1. | Small brain size, averaging about 400 cc (ancient apes had brains up to 530 cc) | 1. | large but very variable brain size, averaging about 1400 cc (fossils range from 700 to 1700 cc) |
| 2. | Arms longer than the legs | 2. | Legs longer than the arms |
| 3. | feet like hands with opposable big toe | 3. | feet for walking, not climbing |
| 4. | walking on all fours | 4. | upright posture and gait |
| 5. | spine joins skull from the back | 5. | spine joins skull from below |
| 6. | 47 facial muscles for expression | ||
| 7. | flesh and organ tissue more like pigs than apes | ||
| 6. | a knee joint that will not lock upright | 8. | knee joints that lock upright |
| 7. | very hairy body (for heat insulation) | 9. | short, low-density hair over most of the body |
| 8. | coloured sclera of the eye (brown) | 10. | white sclera |
| 9. | vocal cords capable of only simple sounds | 11. | voice-box capable of complex sounds and singing |
| 10. | apes have ears sensitive to frequencies of one and eight kilohertz, and therefore have different shaped ear parts. | 12. | humans have ears that are sensitive to frequencies between two and four kilohertz, suitable for hearing speech. |
| 11. | earlier sexual maturity | 13. | later sexual maturity |
| 12. | no hymen or ‘live’ clitoris in female | 14. | hymen, clitoris, pubic hair, sexual climax in female |
| 13. | mammary glands purely for milk production | 15. | female breasts enhanced (by body fat) |
True, but nobody has ever said that it is. What has been said about ID is that it is not a scientific theory. Since ID proponents are very careful to NOT say anything about the nature of the designer, it is impossible for us to look at any potential observation and say that this observation is inconsistent with ID. In order for ID to be scientific, its proponents must take a risk and point out some things that, if observed, would show that ID is false. It must then look specifically for these potentially falsifying observations. If ID proponents and other scientists are unable to find any of the potentially falsifying observations, then ID will be a scientific theory. Just saying, each time some new information is found, that the new information supports ID is insufficient.
Hummmm, "fundamentally" dishonest ... seems so obvious when phrased that way.
Except for twins, everyone has different DNA. You and I have different DNA. What, if anything, does that say about our similarities and differences?
For example the Hebrew "Ha Yom" -- "The Day", by itself refers to Yom Kippur, the yearly judgement day. In that regard a day is a judgement cycle. Day and Night -- in that context could be understood as the processes of discovery/observation and deliberation/analysis. The old saying "Let's sleep on that." applies to difficult,. weighty decisions. So in the context of OOD, "day" could refer to a judgement cycle object.
You and Race have been discussing the "day" as the solar day experienced at a place on Earth. That is alternatively 24 hours, or a full solar period. The two are not the same, and certainly the length of a solar period has changed -- as recently as the giant tsunami--causing earthquake.
Either "day-concept" could be generalized under OOD as a day object. Under a "24 hour day" concept, we can still have very long long days -- say if we were to place our clock on the super-fast spinning edge of a black hole.
All this is to suggest that one should not limit one's understanding of what "day" means, and one CAN somehow fit accurate scientific observation -- Truth of one form, to the Book of Genesis and the other four Books, Truth is another form, and more Truthful form. Yet it is obvious from history and current discussion that such "fitting" engenders emotional discussions, contentions that are very difficlt to settle, and thus may not be a productive use of one's relatively short time in existance.
Bad logic on your part. I say no such thing. Try again. I'm saying that because of their lack of study, they may be missing (and in AiG's case ARE) much of the point of evolution, because they have not learned about all of the evidence available.
Correction: should be "To an evolutionist"
That was covered before and you were shown to be in error before, too.
How many times does it have to be posted before you actually read it?
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.