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
Where's the missing link? Where are the intermediate species?
So YOU answer the question: How did nature go from monkeys to Man?
Read the following (Courtesy of the great Freeper, PatrickHenry):
Human Ancestors.
The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "You have no evidence" crowd.
Comparison of all Hominid skulls
Is-the-conservative-movement-becoming-a-moral-failure PLACEMARKER.
Is-the-conservative-movement-becoming-a-moral-failure PLACEMARKER
By thinking scientifically/analytically?
Why would I attempt to answer that question? It has nothing to do with evolution. Do your homework and explain why that question has no meaning in terms of evolution.
Not at all. But the point is very subtle. I can understand why I may have failed to convince you of it.
Their names are ont he site, you made the asseertion they didnt have the credentials, you prove your statement first.
This article is exaggerating by quite a bit what the State Board is actually considering.
It would not even remotely mandate the teaching of creationism.
No one ever promised you that the creationists would exhibit any creativity.
I'm not sure creativity in argument is the issue. It's not even about fundamental assumptions about existence, because I believe in God and accept evolution as a likely theory to explain how we got where we are. Creationists see evolution as a theology; that is, they see it as a way of explaining Existence with a big E--whereas I just view it as a descriptive theory of existence.
It's not just evolution. They see everything as theology. The entire intellectual domain that compliments the world of faith, which most of us know as reason, and which certainly includes the scientific method, is not only unknown to them, it is literally inconceivable to them. So of course they imagine that evolution (and the rest of the scientific enterprise) is "just another cult."
When you look at their arguments, their whole approach is what you'd expect if it were one cult bashing another, because that's exactly the kind of debate they think they're engaged in. They imagine that they score points by insulting Darwin. They think they're really making progress when they can find (or invent) some quote somewhere that seems to support them. They sweep away more than a century of discoveries by claiming it's all bogus, much as one swami would dismiss the alleged wonders accomplished by a competitor.
And that's why the dialogue never seems to click.
But shouldn't man strive to acquire more knowledge? The process has already brought us some great things (for example the computer you are reading this on).
They're trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause - Peter Gabriel
Great song! Great album!
"But shouldn't man strive to acquire more knowledge? The process has already brought us some great things (for example the computer you are reading this on)."
Absolutely!
It was my first exposure to Genesis. I was hooked. I even own two different documentaries on the band. They are definitely outside the norm.
A century of discoveries? Name 10 facts that prove evolution.
Lets try a little experiment to help me get my point across that you are missing. OK? Forget everything about evolution and creationism as they don't apply to this discussion in any way.
Imagine that you are on one spaceship and I am on another both out in deep intergalactic space (that is, there are no distinguishing features nearby to mark one place as being any different from another place).
As our ships pass each other. To me it looks like you are moving as you are drawing closer to me and I have no sensation of movement. To you it looks like I am moving.
Who is really moving depends entirely on your frame of reference. If I was motionless (in reference to the center of the milkyway galaxy for example) and you were moving (relative to the same reference point) we would experience the ships passing EXACTLY as if you were motionless and I was moving. Frame of reference is everything.
Now in the universe we know that the earth is moving around the sun and the sun is orbiting the center of the galaxy and the galaxy is moving relative to other galaxies etc. So from the frame of reference wide enough to see all these things we can say that the earth is orbiting the sun.
BUT, and this is a very big but, from the frame of reference of the earth the sun is orbiting the earth. Whatever point you hold to be motionless determines the motions of everything around them.
If I were on a train, is the train moving over the ground or is the ground moving under the train? It all depends on my frame of reference. Since I know that the earth revolves around me I know that the ground is moving under the train because the train is motionless relative to me. :^)
All frames of reference are correct. Some are much easier to work in but all are correct.
So, the person who says that the earth orbits the sun is just as correct as the person who says the sun orbits the earth. All depends on frame of reference.
Now I never intended my comment to Dimensio to be a great point of contention and since I never heard anything from him (her?) I assume that he understood what I was saying. I made no attack on evolution or defense of creationism.
I would think that any one who was scientifically minded would understand frame of reference
What you say about frames of reference is correct scientifically. The real question is how does this square with the Bible, which states clearly that the earth is fixed and does not move. If a reference frame of the stationary earth is correct, so is the one in which the sun is stationary, from a scientific point of view. However, Biblically, the stationary sun reference frame must be incorrect, because in this frame, the earth does move. Thus, general relativity and the Bible are in conflict, assuming a literal reading of the Bible. I wonder why Biblical literalists hone in on evolution so much and ignore relativity.
"Whatever point you hold to be motionless determines the motions of everything around them."
No. Just because you 'hold the point to be motionless' does not MAKE that point motionless!!
"So, the person who says that the earth orbits the sun is just as correct as the person who says the sun orbits the earth. All depends on frame of reference."
Sorry, but that doesn't change the FACT that the earth revolves around the sun, regardless of 'frame of reference' (FOR) I do see your point, but you can't make something not move just by changing your own FOR. The earth still quietly continues to rotate around the sun, regardless of FOR.
If I look at a cloud in the sky and see a rabbit, due to my FOR, that cloud doesn't become a rabbit - it stays a cloud.
I'm unfamiliar with the verse that says the earth is fixed and doesn't move. BUt even if it is there, there are parts of the bible to be read literally and parts to be read figuratively.
Unfortunately I don't have much time today to continue this.
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.