Posted on 05/23/2005 4:20:51 AM PDT by Crackingham
Eighty years after the Scopes "Monkey Trial," the battle between those who support the validity of biological evolution and those who oppose it rages on in Kansas--and in more than a dozen other states around the country. The controversy may appear to be simply about the teaching of science in the classroom. But it represents a far more complex, widespread clash of politics, religion, science and culture that transcends the borders of conservative, so-called red states and their more liberal blue counterparts.
"This controversy is going to happen everywhere. It's going to happen in all 50 states. This controversy is not going away," said Jeff Tamblyn, 52, an owner of Merriam, Kan.-based Origin Films, which is making a feature film about the current fight over whether to introduce a more critical approach to evolution in Kansas' school science standards.
So far in 2005, the issue of evolution has sparked at least 21 instances of controversy on the local and/or state level in at least 18 states, according to the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland-based non-profit organization that defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. Although such controversies have occurred regularly over the years, some attribute the recent wave to the success of conservatives in 2004 elections.
At the national level, one attempt to diminish the prominence of evolution in public school curricula and introduce alternative views came in the form of a proposed amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. Sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) (R-Pa.), the amendment suggested that evolution is in question among scientists and recommended that a "full range of scientific views" be taught. But it was cut from the bill.
Seeking to explain the passion that the issue often ignites, Tamblyn said: "Partly, it's the mixture of religion and politics. If that doesn't get you going, what does?"
Indeed, the theory of evolution, which some opponents say is consonant with atheism because it provides no role for the divine, has been provoking controversy since 1859, when Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection."
And if the contentious nature of the Kansas State Board of Education's recent public hearings here on evolution is any indication, the issue remains as explosive today as it was in Tennessee 80 years ago.
An evolutionary vowel coupled with an atheistic vowel.
Hmmm.
A soft consonant or a hard consonant?
HA HA HA.
While the bird flu is busy evolving into a devastating people flu, we're spending money and attention on this.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the biological facts of evolution, nor in the theory as to how species differentiated that dimininshes God. To believe so is to underestimate His power.
Like abortion, evolution is mandated by 'authorities' and cramed down people's throats whether they agree with it or not. Since abortion law rightly belongs in the State Houses, let the evolution/creation debate belong to the local school boards and let the parents hash it out with their 'civil servants.'
If the kids wish to pursue a career in a biological field, there is plenty of evolutionary information out there (and probably better taught) to satisfy educational needs for the interested. Once the kiddies are in college, of course, they'll learn all about it along with their basic coursework in anal fisting, the slavery based economy of the United States and post-modern lesbian Marxist poetry.
I have no problem with people believing Darwin's theory, provided that they don't insist that the rest of us must also be taught to believe it.
Noboy is forcing anybody to believe that Darwin's theory is TRUE -- only that it is SCIENTIFIC, which is more than can be said for the biblical account in Genesis.
As such, Darwin's theory is what ought to be taught in SCIENCE CLASS, although if there are any legitimate scientific arguments against it, those also should be taught in SCIENCE CLASS. It is possible that Darwin's theory fails to explain all observable facts, and that in time it must be supplanted -- just as Einstien's theories replaced Newton's.
But Creationist whack jobs who insist that a literal interpretation of Genesis be taken seriously as science are just really bizarre. I cringe every time I read their comments on FR. Such benighted irrationality discredits all of us who frequent this site.
I don't think either creationism or evolution (of man) should be taught in public schools. There is no need for a teenager to learn how man evolved from lower order primates. I learned about australopithicus, homo habilus, homo erectus, and crow-magnon man as a kid, and have had no occasion to use the info except while arguing about it on internet forums.
Focus on teaching science that is more useful in real life, and we won't have an unnecessary cultural war over this.
Apparently some individuals believe that without God hand-creating every organism we humans would all run around randomly killing and stealing and suchlike, despite the fact that very few other mammals engage in this type behavior with one another.
Agreed. The culture battle engendered in this debate is completely pointless and the greatly fevered theoretical indoctrination has nothing to do with 99.999% of the problems students will ever face. It does, however, have a great deal to do with the complete world picture many seek to promote.
Their alternative "scientific" theory called "Panspermia" (sp?), credited space aliens with DNA.
Is this the rational SCIENCE that you were referring to?
What I am saying is that the Genesis explanation of the creation is NOT science. I am not conversant with Watson and Crick's alternate theory as you described it, but I doubt it is actually a theory -- more like speculation.
There is an actual SCIENTIFIC method, and any theory that is not derived through that process is by definition NOT science.
I don't know what your point is. Are you saying that science is not scientific? Or that there is no such thing as science?
Maybe God did, in fact, create the world in 6 days. I don't know, since I wasn't there. But I am saying that if He did, there is not one scintilla of observable fact, supported by a SCIENTIFIC analysis, to support that proposition.
Again. I differentiate between what is TRUE, and what is SCIENCE. Scientists have been proven wrong time and again by other scientists. But that is all part of the scientific process.
If you are saying that science is not rational, or that it is wrong, you are entitled to your opinion. But any holes in Darwin's theory are not proof that God created the world in six days, which is a completely unscientific assertion that has no place being taught in a science class.
My point is that SCIENCE class ought to teach SCIENCE, not religious doctrine unsupported by the scientific method.
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for LifeIt certainly clarifies Charles Darwin's agenda a lot (and those of his followers) doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. For anyone who read the book -- and that leaves out people who never got past the title -- Darwin often used the term "race" as interchangeable with "species." And before you get yourself all worked up over that, in Descent of Man he considered the view -- which was popular in his day -- that the Negro was a separate species. He concluded that he was not. All clear now?
|
Typical creationist ad hominem. Care to back up your claim that contemporary supporters of the TOE favor 19th century eugenic and racialist philosophies?
Or, maybe you'd like to compare Darwin's view of race with that of the typical Christian/Creationist of the 19th century.
Thanks for the ping!
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.