Posted on 10/07/2005 4:59:16 AM PDT by shuckmaster
How should evolution be taught in schools? This being America, judges will decide
HALF of all Americans either don't know or don't believe that living creatures evolved. And now a Pennsylvania school board is trying to keep its pupils ignorant. It is the kind of story about America that makes secular Europeans chortle smugly before turning to the horoscope page. Yet it is more complex than it appears.
In Harrisburg a trial began last week that many are comparing to the Scopes “monkey” trial of 1925, when a Tennessee teacher was prosecuted for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Now the gag is on the other mouth. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public-school science classes was an unconstitutional blurring of church and state. But those who think Darwinism unGodly have fought back.
Last year, the school board in Dover, a small rural school district near Harrisburg, mandated a brief disclaimer before pupils are taught about evolution. They are to be told that “The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.” And that if they wish to investigate the alternative theory of “intelligent design”, they should consult a book called “Of Pandas and People” in the school library.
Eleven parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, two lobby groups, are suing to have the disclaimer dropped. Intelligent design, they say, is merely a clever repackaging of creationism, and as such belongs in a sermon, not a science class.
The school board's defence is that intelligent design is science, not religion. It is a new theory, which holds that present-day organisms are too complex to have evolved by the accumulation of random mutations, and must have been shaped by some intelligent entity. Unlike old-style creationism, it does not explicitly mention God. It also accepts that the earth is billions of years old and uses more sophisticated arguments to poke holes in Darwinism.
Almost all biologists, however, think it is bunk. Kenneth Miller, the author of a popular biology textbook and the plaintiffs' first witness, said that, to his knowledge, every major American scientific organisation with a view on the subject supported the theory of evolution and dismissed the notion of intelligent design. As for “Of Pandas and People”, he pronounced that the book was “inaccurate and downright false in every section”.
The plaintiffs have carefully called expert witnesses who believe not only in the separation of church and state but also in God. Mr Miller is a practising Roman Catholic. So is John Haught, a theology professor who testified on September 30th that life is like a cup of tea.
To illustrate the difference between scientific and religious “levels of understanding”, Mr Haught asked a simple question. What causes a kettle to boil? One could answer, he said, that it is the rapid vibration of water molecules. Or that it is because one has asked one's spouse to switch on the stove. Or that it is “because I want a cup of tea.” None of these explanations conflicts with the others. In the same way, belief in evolution is compatible with religious faith: an omnipotent God could have created a universe in which life subsequently evolved.
It makes no sense, argued the professor, to confuse the study of molecular movements by bringing in the “I want tea” explanation. That, he argued, is what the proponents of intelligent design are trying to do when they seek to air their theory—which he called “appalling theology”—in science classes.
Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Intelligent designers deny that this is why they attack it, but this week the court was told by one critic that the authors of “Of Pandas and People” had culled explicitly creationist language from early drafts after the Supreme Court barred creationism from science classes.
In the Dover case, intelligent design appears to have found unusually clueless champions. If the plaintiffs' testimony is accurate, members of the school board made no effort until recently to hide their religious agenda. For years, they expressed pious horror at the idea of apes evolving into men and tried to make science teachers teach old-fashioned creationism. (The board members in question deny, or claim not to remember, having made remarks along these lines at public meetings.)
Intelligent design's more sophisticated proponents, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, are too polite to say they hate to see their ideas championed by such clods. They should not be surprised, however. America's schools are far more democratic than those in most other countries. School districts are tiny—there are 501 in Pennsylvania alone—and school boards are directly elected. In a country where 65% of people think that creationism and evolution should be taught side by side, some boards inevitably agree, and seize upon intelligent design as the closest approximation they think they can get away with. But they may not be able to get away with it for long. If the case is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, intelligent design could be labelled religious and barred from biology classes nationwide.
Find me one Hebrew scholar that agees with anything other than the word day in Genesis 1 being anything other than 24 hours or a ltetarl 24 hour day. There are none, got it even the ones who believe in evolution agree that in the Genesis account a day means a day, one 24 hour period.
Appeal to authority is a fallacy. Don't argue with me - argue with the rules of logical reasoning. It's well-known. A proposition is not true because a group of people say it is. Therefore, it matters little that 100 scientists say evolution is true, while 10 others say it isn't. Only the objective validity of the evidence matters, and that becomes a muddled arena since there is no such thing as an OBJECTIVE observer or scientist. They all look at evidence through the lens of their philosophical presuppositions. However, it seems that Anthony Flew (one of the most renowned atheists in the world) has cast aside some of his presuppositions in light of some powerful evidence for intelligent design. But then, he's an idiot isn't he? :)
No, not at all. Q woldwide flood would result in all things that breathe air thru the nostrils being dead, some would sink to the bottom and get covered with mud, intact, others would get busted up.
That is the worst analogy I've ever seen. If you had access to free medical care or paid medical care, you'd probably be an idiot for paying for it. If you can get Darwin's books for free, why pay for them? I mean, unless you're a creationist who has never actually Googled the web for information, but rather has relied on someone else to get it for him.
That's a poor excuse for indoctrinating kids into philosophical naturalism.
It would be if I had written it as any sort of "excuse" for doing such a thing, but since I didn't, why don't you try to keep up your end of the conversation without wandering off into lala-land?
Focus, son, focus. YOU had advocated showing schoolkids, and I quote, "But students should be presented with ALL of the evidence for and AGAINST the theory of evolution". All I did was point out to you just how insane your proposal was, by describing how HUGE was the accumulated "ALL" evidence for evolution. What words in my reply did you have difficulty with?
[See above. Showing them "all the evidence" would take most of a lifetime. That's how much evidence has been accumulated supporting evolution. Deal with it.]
Puh-lease. They are not presented with all of the evidence for evolution now, so this is a poor argument.
Huh? What are you babbling about here? You made a specific proposal -- presenting "ALL" (your capital letters, not mine) of the evidence for (and against) evolution to schoolkids. I demonstrated how stupid an idea that was. Deal with it. My only "argument" was that you didn't have any idea what you were talking about, or else you wouldn't have made such a wildly impractical suggestion about how to approach the subject in schools.
And the fact that they aren't being presented with "all the evidence" now doesn't make your proposal any less ridiculous.
Your screenname does not seem terribly apt.
[There is no such censorship. Nor is there any such evidence, unless you can come up with something better than the last several hundred clueless anti-evolutionists I've talked to. Feel free to show us what you've got, though. But don't waste our time with this manure, we've seen it a thousand times before. Try something new and original.]
Yes, I know you guys are good at phoney denials.
Dodge #1. I asked you to present some of your alleged "evidence against evolution". When specifically asked to do so, you lamely avoid doing so and spew insults.
The fact remains that the dogmatic high evo priests won't even allow a simple disclaimer on a textbook cover even though the school board in Atlanta wanted it!
Dodge #2. Evidence -- you said you had evidence. Where is it? Changing the subject all of a sudden doesn't distract anyone from the fact that you're running off in all directions instead of just answering the question. Where's your "evidence against evolution"?
That is the epitomy of CENSORSHIP.
Oh no, a pointless sticker got rejected. Poor baby.
Now, where's that evidence against evolution you promised us, then ran away when invited to show it?
I read a good quote today that sums it up: "When people accept the theory of evolution as an article of faith
We don't, we accept it as supported by overwhelming evidence.
and teach it as a matter of fact
Parts of it are fact.
and permit no dissent whatsoever from their doctrine,
Horse manure. Dissent all you want, no matter how stupidly. Just don't try to present your ill-informed dissent as another valid branch of science, because it's not. Lying to students is a sin, you'll go to hell for that.
they are the ones wo are promoting religious dogma to all students."
So religion is a *bad* thing, you're saying? But dry your tears, we're not teaching religion, we're teaching science. Try to learn the difference.
Now, where's that evidence you said you had?
Besides, presenting scientific evidence of intelligent design is hardly akin to promoting a state religion.
If you actually *had* any scientific evidence for Intelligent Design, you're right, it wouldn't be akin to promoting a state religion.
But since you don't *have* evidence of that sort, since you're instead pushing religious beliefs dressed up in a cheap styrofoam Trojan Horse with the label "ID science" scotch-taped to the side, and doing your damnedest to get it presented in science classes, then yes, you *are* trying to promote your religion with government institutions.
Read the first amendment -- only Congress can establish a national religion.
Um, read it yourself, that's not what it says.
Nothing in my post refers to a tail bone. Your reading comprehension is at about the same level as your scientific and religious knowledge.
No, but your quoting Flew on the matter would appear to be an appeal to authority.
And it was another english christian - William Wilberforce - whose efforts resulted in the abolishment of slavery in the english empire in 1835. Thenceforth, the Royal Navy also interdicted slave ships to the United States and so began the beginning othe end of slavery in the United States as well (where Christians were also responsible for its abolition).
No, not at all. Q woldwide flood would result in all things that breathe air thru the nostrils being dead, some would sink to the bottom and get covered with mud, intact, others would get busted up.
Okay, admit it -- you're just having a big practical joke here, right?
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. [Gen 6:6-7]
How do you know how old each layers is? Well do you not say, “we know this layer is this old because of the fossils in it?”
Source, The Science museum in Boston, the one in Portland, Maine and that great big one in Washington goes by the name of smith something or other.
Go to a museum and just ask them:
How do you know the age of these fossils?
Later ask them "How do you know the age of these layers?"
See what you get for an answer. Let me know if you find a museum or reachers that says other than I have stated.
I call it circular logic others call it circular reasoning.
Smart[sic]Citizen: And it was another english[sic] christian[sic] - William Wilberforce - whose efforts resulted in the abolishment of slavery in the english empire in 1835. Thenceforth, the Royal Navy also interdicted slave ships to the United States and so began the beginning othe[sic] end of slavery in the United States as well (where Christians were also responsible for its abolition).
So your point is that even the most devout Christians can't agree on what the Bible means?
Thank you, Gummy. But back to you SC; you've failed to answer my question regarding the acceptance of information from "authorities". Do you mean to imply that they are always wrong?
I didn't say it did. But seeing as these are the experts in the area of biology their consensus view overrules the consensus view of school boards, politicians and plumbers. Ignoring the consensus view of scientists and going with someone elses view is more likely than not going to result in you being wrong.
Appealing to authority is not always a fallacy either. Wikipedia lists a set of conditions for a legitimate argument from authority:
"1. The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.
2. The judgement must be within the authority's field of competence.
3. The authority must be interpreted correctly.
4. Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.
5. The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs). This is why appealing to one's own authority is always illegitimate.
6. The judgement must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample).
7. A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
--------------------------------------------------
In this case of biologists being authorities on the validity of evolution, the points are satisfied. Note point 6 especially.
Anthony Flew still believes in evolution. What does that do to your attempted point, whatever it might have been?
Furthermore, Flew did NOT base his change of mind on "some powerful evidence for intelligent design". Please don't lie, it only makes you look, well, dishonest.
Finally, Flew has recanted on his two primary reasons for his change of mind, which it turns out were not well based in the first place. So yeah, he does seem to be rather something of an idiot. See: Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of
Now, what point did you think you were making?
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.