Religious right fights science for the heart of America [Evolution vs. Creationism]

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.

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."

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

no, He didn't.

Genesis doesn't have to be written as a science textbook, all it has to be is true.

The story of Creation is one of teaching us that there is a creator, and some small points on how He created, so that we realize that we are humans created specially by God, and therefore here for a reason.

Genesis does not have to be a science book to teach us the order of days that Creation was, nor does it have to be a science book to describe what came first, the chicken or the egg.

God made it clear in Genesis that we are specially created beings, that ALL life is specially created, and that therefore any attempts to infuse evolution into the argument is false.

And there is no twisting of the creation accounts between Genesis 1 and 2.

Genesis 2 clearly starts with saying that the creation is complete. Gen 2:4 is clearly spoken as a metaphor, while the days of Genesis 1 are CLEARLY added to with modifiers to make them known as single, 24 hour days.

Someone brought this up on another thread a couple days ago. Here was my response to him::

have no idea where you got that from, but here is what the Bible actually says in Genesis 2::

(Gen 2:1 KJV) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

(Gen 2:2 KJV) And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

(Gen 2:3 KJV) And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

(Gen 2:4 KJV) These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

(Gen 2:5 KJV) And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

(Gen 2:6 KJV) But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

(Gen 2:7 KJV) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

;
;
Notice there is NO MENTION of the Creation days as singular events. It is an overview of the events written in a way that some scholars call the geneology pattern listing the origin of some kingdoms of the Mid-East (See Gleason Archer and others). Nor is there any mention of Adam being around before plants existed. In fact, Genesis 2:5 clearly says plants were there BEFORE there was a man.

The only way you can get confused is if you twist Gen 2:4, IN THE DAY.

WE USE THAT type of speech today, referring to In the days of Clinton, the Day of our revolutionary fathers and such, and we dont mean a single day, we mean a time period.

If a person just reads it plainly, like it was written to be read, it is obvious Gen 2:4 means a time period, not an individual day referring to the whole Creation week.

As for the lack of a literal day, if there was no literal day in the description of Evening, Morning, and then the term DAY, then we have no reason to believe any word day means a day.

The days of Genesis 1 are the most clearly defined 24 hour periods in the Bible, and it is only those who wish to do away with the meaning of the word day who try to say otherwise.

And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

You must observe what you are trying to say when you deny the days of Genesis 1 are not 24 hour days:
Day 1, the creation of the Heavens and the Earth took an undetermined time, possible what we would call a million years

day 2, the firmament separating the waters above from the waters below took an indeterminate length of time, possible what we would call a million years

day 3, the creation of plants and herbs took an indeterminate length of time, possible what we would call a million years

day 4, Stars, the sun and moon took an indeterminate length of time, possible what we would call a million years
WHICH CAN ONLY MEAN GOD HAD PLANTS THAT WERE CREATED ON DAY 3 EXIST FOR MAYBE A MILLION YEARS WITHOUT SUNLIGHT, something we KNOW cannot happen today!

day 5, all the whales, the sea monsters, the birds, the fish took an indeterminate length of time, possible what we would call a million years

day 6, all the cattle, beasts including dinosaurs and cows, crickets and mice and MAN took an indeterminate length of time, possible what we would call a million years

day 7, God's REST took an indeterminate length of time, possible what we would call a million years

And what you need to notice, that order of Creation is DIFFERENT from an evolutionist order of events.

SO, if you call the Bible a lie because you dont want to believe the LITERAL DAY of Genesis::

And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And the evening and the morning were the second day.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

IF you dont believe that a DAY means a DAY when it clearly has modifiers next to the word DAY EXPLAINING it is a 24 hour day, then you have no reason at ALL to believe that the word day means a 24 hour period anywhere in the Bible.

You also call GOD Himself a liar, for GOD HIMSELF said 6 days was the length of Creation::

(Exo 20:8 KJV) Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

(Exo 20:9 KJV) Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

(Exo 20:10 KJV) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

(Exo 20:11 KJV) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

If the days were not LITERAL DAYS, then there was no reason for GOD HIMSELF to use the word DAY here, was there? You are calling God a liar when you do that...

Also, if you believe the days of Creation were ages, then the NIGHTS of each Creation days were AGES also.

That means not only the daylight portions were ages, but the nightime portions were ages also.

See it yet?

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.