Stop picking on the intellectual leaders of Kansas.
Kathy Martin, creationist cutie.
Posted on 05/07/2005 1:26:46 PM PDT by followerofchrist
TOPEKA, Kan. - Witnesses trying to persuade Kansas officials to encourage more criticism of evolution in public school classrooms are making statements some scientists say betrayed creationist views.
Witnesses in a State Board of Education hearing on how the theory should be taught also have acknowledged they hadn't fully read evolution-friendly science standards proposed by educators. Nor had two of three presiding board members.
snip
Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages. Later, board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, also said she had only scanned it.
Martin said during a break: "I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information."
(Excerpt) Read more at home.peoplepc.com ...
That's almost too stupid a statement to be in print.
But I wonder if you see a difference between your statement and this one:
They are UNWILLING to admit even the possibility of Jagadhamba working in the evolutionary process.
Or this one:
They are UNWILLING to admit even the possibility of Invisible Pink Unicorns working in the evolutionary process.
I agree with the statement, and I do not suggest that a belief in theistic evolution is incompatible with acceptance of modern science ... unless that belief requires the injection of religious or semi-religious concepts into science class. You've already stated you would not support that, so it looks like you and I are in agreement.
In an ideal world, I wouldn't want that in a science class. But I think political reality demands it. It would not take up much time, and it would, I think, make some students, who would otherwise be hostile to the theory, more open to it. It might also diffuse some of the hostility of religious parents.
What do you think?
Well, that's not quite correct. It certainly rules out a god who created the world in six days only some 6000 years ago or a god who drowned almost every living thing in a world wide flood.
Their problem with evolution is not that it's incompatible with any conceivable deity (and I'm sure not even Dawkins or Provine argue this point) but with their version of God.
The schools do a rotten enough job teaching science as it is. Introducing non-scientific material into class entirely as a response to political pressure is a bad idea fo several reasons. You can't get the Baptists to agree with the Presbyterians on matters of doctrine, much less the non-Christian believers. What about Jewish students? Orthodox, Conservative (that version has my vote), or Reformed? In our school district, we have a lot of students whose parents came from Korea, Japan, and China. Do we accomodate the religious implications for them too? Once we've satisfied everyone, then can we get on with science? Maybe not. Should we cover the vedic point of view?
The course material you propose might make an interesting Philosophy course or "History of Science" course, but unless things have changed since I was in school, such courses begin at the college level.
Secondly, the real issue is natural selection. The scientist speaks of natural laws, but the theologian sees God's active hand in nature, and I seriously doubt he will see natural selection as the laws of God in operation. He may or may not be a Biblical Creationist, but I doubt it. That said, it is my suspicion he will say from the church's point of view natural selection is in reality theistic selection. He will see God as not only the Creator, but as the Sustainer and active agent in nature.Interesting. So you think he might say that God is doing the selecting out of harmful mutations?
And I'm only suggesting this be done in places like Kansas where there is significant religious opposition to evolution. I doubt that is going to be the case in areas where there are large Korean, Japanese, or Chinese populations.
As for politics influencing the curriculum, there's no way of avoiding that in a democracy.
The way I see it, there's two options here. One, science will get watered down because of political pressure. Or two, we spend half a class diffusing religious objections to science by showing that religion and science need not conflict.
I prefer the latter option. What about you?
He urged the board to adopt the critical approach to help alleviate that ill will. "This is not the only reason for anti-Westernism, but it is an important one," he said.
These blind creationists continue to step in it!
Stop picking on the intellectual leaders of Kansas.
Kathy Martin, creationist cutie.
Most Christians are not strict Biblical literalists, so evolution is perfectly compatible with most denominations' view of God.
Their problem with evolution is not that it's incompatible with any conceivable deity (and I'm sure not even Dawkins or Provine argue this point) but with their version of God.
What you say is certainly true of strict Biblical litearlists, but not all Christian opponents of evolution are Biblical literalists. None of the intelligent design advocates, for instance, are.
The problem is that evolution has become synonymous with atheism in the minds of many Christians. That's partly due to irresponsible preachers who do not understand evolution, and it's partly due to people like Provine. You're right, Provine does not say that evolution rules out any conceivable deity, but he does claim it rules out a personal God who involves himself in the lives of men. That is not something any Christian, even one who rejects young earth six-day global flood creationism, can accept.
Agreed. But there's more to life than science. Just because science cannot address the supernatural does not mean it does not exist. If it is unscientific to invoke the supernatural, it is just as unscientific to deny it.
BTW, just to clarify, I'm NOT advocating the teaching of ID or any theistic evolution in biology class. At most, where it is prudent to do so, I advocate mentioning to students that many religions do not consider evolution to be incompatible with their belief systems. And I also advocate pointing out that there is no basis in science for the rejection of theism.
I believe that science class needs to stick to science. No distractions with "scientific creationism," astrology, or Lawsonomy.
Additionally, I do not believe the purpose of education is to reinforce anyone's preconceptions.
While politics, speaking practically here, is going to have an effect in a democracy, it should be kept as far as possible from science. Science is not a democracy, and pretending it is won't make it one. And it won't make it better science, it will make it non-science and then non-sense.
The author proposes a way to teach evolution while avoiding the conflicts that we can't seem to avoid here.
Agreed. But additionally it's always interested me how very similar the thinking of aggressive "scientific atheists" like Provine or Dawkins is to that of many antievolutionary creationists. They disagree as to ultimate conclusions, but they agree on most major premises. Whole sections of that Provine quote -- e.g. ridiculing theistic evolution as inconsistent, nonsensical and irrelevant -- sound amazingly like something arch creationist Henry Morris might have written. They both agree that there is no middle ground, they both agree about how the Bible should be interpreted vis-a-vis modern science, they both agree that the absence of miraculous/interventionist "special creation" events implies atheism.
IOW they're about equally dogmatic, superficial, and naive.
BTW, in a democratic system, everything is political. Even science. This is one of the drawbacks of democray, and it is why I don't think democracy is the best system for all societies (though I believe it is for ours). Either we live with it, or we abandon democracy.
Gotta go.
Teachers of both high school and college have told me that many students come into a class with the attitude that evolution is somehow unacceptable for a religious person. Such students are reluctant to learn about evolution. One way to assuage their concerns is to use the "creation/evolution continuum" to illustrate the wide range of opinion within Christianity towards evolution, which helps religious students understand that there are many options available to them as people of faith. Most students will recognize themselves somewhere on the continuum, whether believers or nonbelievers; it makes for an engaging lecture. It is perfectly legal for teachers to describe religious views in a classroom; it is only unconstitutional for teachers to advocate religious ideas in the classroom.
How can God be an active agent in nature if that agency does not pervade nature's regular behavior, including natural selection. If your proposed "theistic selection" is incommensurable with natural selection then it suggests a deficiency in God's governance of nature, such that disconsinent interventions are required to "get it right".
This also tends to drive one toward a false (IMHO) distinction between miraculous interventions and God's "normal" governance of the world, and that drives one away from theism and toward deism. That is a God who is occasionally present in "theisitic selection" is by implication occasionally absent when only "natural selection" is operative. In my own view, at least, theism requires a God who is always present.
A Christian has to make some distinction between normal governance of the world and miraculous interventions. How else is it possible to believe in the Virgin Birth or the Ressurection? Obviously, these events had to be miraculous interventions as they violate the laws of nature.
I don't see how believing that God normally operates through the laws of nature and on rare occasion performs a miracle necessarily leads to deism.
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.