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.
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.
Next time try asking a qualified scientist and not the creationist protesters handing out pamphlets.
Here is precisely what it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibitng the free exercise thereof."
Now, do you see any room in there for anyone but Congress with the authority to establish a national religion? Couple that with the fact that ONLY Congress can establish law (Article I, U. S. Constitution). So, tell me again: HOw does a "school district" become "Congress" and how does "scrutinizing evolution more closely" in a school become the same as "establishing a religion?" I can't wait to hear this...
Besides, how is placing a mere disclaimer in the cover of a book that teaches kids to "critically" consider the validity of your sacred theory akin to teaching a religion? Now, read the 1st Amendment again. Do you see the "free exercise clause" in there? That means evos and atheists do not have the authority to deny people their GOD-given right to the FREE EXERCISE of their religion EVEN IF placing doubt on your stupid theory is the same as teaching religion (which it clearly is not!).
Oh, wait ...
A less complex explanation of the same process can be found here.
can you spell wacko ?
. Who says? You? Another appeal to authority - yourself this time. Again, don't argue with me -argue with the long-established rules of logic. You committed a logical fallacy.
Don't you get it? Only the evidence counts. Nothing else.
Anyhoo, the gist of this whole thing is, you really are not nearly as well-read religiously as you like to think you are.
"I can tell from your comment that you have never read the Scripture you are referring to, so let us look at it and you will see that Peter is not talking about the days of Creation but instead that God is not restricted to time as we are, that He is eternal and to Him a day is like a thousand years to us."
Well now Peter uses the phrase "beginning of the creation" so that seems to indicate he is talking about the "days of creation" which seems to be what the willingly ignorant description stems from. Else for what purpose since he is talking about the beginning of the creation would he inject the length of a day???
Now Peter is also describing a flood completely different from what he decribes in the prior chapter when referring to Noah's flood as in this flood Peter uses that word "perish" and is referring to what Jeremiah describes in Jeremiah 4: 22 about foolish, and sottish children.
I do not understand why Peter describing three different heaven and earth "ages" is so difficult to comprehend.
Peter begins this with verse one wherein he states
1. This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance;
2. That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
So Peter is telling US what he is about to say that his words are to "stir up pure minds by way of remembrance" then he further states that we are to "be mindful of the words spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandment of us the apostles". This is all inclusive of what we are told by the prophets such as Moses who penned Genesis, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, King David, Solomon, and all the rest. Without their inspired writings what Peter pens is not understandable in what instruction he is seeking to stir up remembrance of.
Why was man placed in the flesh, and when were the souls created? Flesh is a temporal condition and when the flesh dies the soul returns to the Father that sent it.
Hebrews 2: 14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
The devil was never in flesh and will never be in flesh. Yet the devil, that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the serpent, was in the Garden of Eden, so says Ezekiel 28:12.
Now, do you see any room in there for anyone but Congress with the authority to establish a national religion?
Now that we've seen you interpret "Congress shall make no law" as meaning "Only Congress shall make a law," we're beginning to understand your other posts.
And still they should be jumbled. All the critters I cited were air breathers, with the exception of megaladon (a shark). They were grouped by size to make a point -- the fossil record does not support a worldwide flood.
I bring flowers and ask them to dinner, but I find that women my age get pretty cranky if you actually refer to them as "fossils".
you say “we found this fossil in this layer so it is this many years old”. 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?”
Wrong again, but you must be getting used to that by now.
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.
Ooookay....
Go to a museum and just ask them: How do you know the age of these fossils?
Why would I go ask a museum to tell me something I already know?
Later ask them "How do you know the age of these layers?" See what you get for an answer.
I'll get the right answer, which is not what we get from you.
Let me know if you find a museum or reachers that says other than I have stated.
You mean besides, "all of them"?
I call it circular logic others call it circular reasoning.
No, we call it your usual confusion. Here, try to learn something for a change: Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?.
The page I pointed you to (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) lists a number of popular, but flawed criticisms of evolution. You said criticisms of evolution should be taught. I wanted to know if you meant even the flawed ones. For example:
Claim 150: If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?
For a person who knew next to nothing about the theory of evoluton this might seem like a valid criticism. But for anyone with even a shred of knowledge about the subject it is as ridiculous as "if the earth is a sphere, how come people in australia don't fall off"
Is this the kind of criticism of evolution you think should be taught in schools? If not, who exactly is going to judge the criticisms to determine which ones are valid and which are ridiculous?
Okay, then what *does* the evidence say?
Not at all. My point is that Christians are responsible for abolishing slavery. Where were the atheists? Secondly, my point is that there absolute moral truths, and the failure of some people to follow them in no way erases the fact that absolute moral truths exist. Would you like to take the unscientific metaphysical atheistic side in this argument? Please do - I love to make relativists look foolish.
Read the first amendment -- only Congress can establish a national religion.
I see a judgeship in someones future.
That is the plain meaning of the amendment. And we know that judges nor the executive branch, nor teachers, nor school districts, nor anyone else, has the authority to make law in the United States of America. The legislative branch and ONLY the legislative branch has that authority. Care to argue further? YOu don't have a constiuttional leg to stand on.
I can play this absurd game too:
You just commited an appeal to authority by claiming the "long-established rules of logic" are an authority.
Don't you get it? Only the evidence counts. Nothing else.
And the people who review the evidence and are experts in the field do have an authority in the matter, and using that authority is not a fallacy. Is the president commiting a fallacy by relying on advisors?
...we are tight together by our pubic hair (economically) ?
That depends upon the subjective observer (and there is no other type), and the quality of the evidence.
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.