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.
this is a DU trickster trolling to find someone stupid enough to buy his spiel. College kids used to do this with Ann Landers.
Is that a rhetorical question?
He's pretty hilarious, though. So were the college kids, come to think of it.
Right. It doesn't say anything about animals, plants or bacteria dying or not dying. It says Adam and Eve have become subject to death. Like I said the no death (of anything) idea is because of flood geology, and flood geology is because of Ellen G. White. Neither are affirmed by anything the Bible itself says.
So what you are saying is that the clear and unambiguous instruction to slaves to obey their masters, even when their masters are unjust, will lead to the end of slavery.
And you are saying that Biblical slavery was less oppressive than say, Southern slavery, because masters had to pay a fine if a slave died within 24 hours of a beating. But if the slave lived 24 hours and one minute, everything was OK.
What a response to my question. Just goes to show that any statement by a creationist is off off your map. End of story.
Darwin didn't do anything to turn people away from the Bible. Only the devil and his lies does that.
You gotta be joking. Try this: Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." Also, check out Titus 3:9
True. However, you are forgetting that science relies on more than just one observer making the observation. Statistically, the sum total of these observations will "flatten out" giving a result as close to objective as humans are likely to get.
Oh, our "dogmatic" impulses go much further and deeper than that. Guess what, we would fight any disclaimer against a particular scientific theory or field, even if it targeted something totally un-"sexy" like the theory of photosynthesis, the depiction of Krebs cycle, or whatever. Even if the disclaimer wasn't religiously motivated (and so we didn't have the same legal recourses) we would still oppose it in any way possible.
At the same time, any GENERAL disclaimer, that referred to the provisional nature of ANY and ALL scientific theories (and/or laws, principles, facts, etc) so long as reasonably worded and not shrilly anti-scientific, wouldn't bother us at all. In fact we'd likely endorse it.
And why are antievolutionists never satisfied with such GENERAL disclaimers? (They've several times been proposed early on in attempts to settle controversies like this one.) For the matter of that, why are you guys totally unconcerned about the hundreds of theories that are invariably taught MORE "dogmatically" than evolution? (Ever come across a textbook referring to what "some scientists think" about photosynthesis?)
Now tell me who's pushing dogma here.
I am against slavery, and I am aware that the Bible appears to endorse slavery (subject to all kinds of apologetic logic chopping about chattels/slaves/bondservants). Now, what is your position on slavery? As far as I can make out you endorse it, and claim biblical support for your position. Is that so?
And even more so for the believer who objects to slavery, and desperately wants to escape the repeated biblical endorsement and codification of the practice, including approving endorsement by Jesus of slave-beating.
Which simply means that Congress is the only branch that can make law and therefore the only branch that could establish a religion if it were not prohibited by the 1st amendment.
The questions remain: 1. How does a teacher or school district publishing a disclaimer about evolution (or passing on basic tenets of ID theory) constitute a violation of the 1st amendment? 2. Is the teacher in a position to establish a religion as is required to violate the 1st Amendment (i.e. is the teacher a lawmaking entity?) 3. Does teaching about ID theory constitute "establishment of religion" as is required to violate the 1st amendment? Now, answer the questions directly and stop twisting what I say.
Well, there is also a deep study of Scripture and its relationships in history that can have that effect, too. For instance, my turning point was when I discovered Mithraism had a virgin birth of its savior and his death to redeem mankind 200 years before Christ. At that point I realized that Paul had taken the teachings of an otherwise decent Jewish rabbi and turned them into some messianic bastardization of a number of Mideastern religions.
You aren't familiar with Christian doctrine are you? All men are sinful. The bible is clear on that. You can't judge Christ by the sinners he saved. "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Jer. 17:9 That only reinforces Christian doctrine which our founding fathers clearly saw in forging separation of powers and checks and balances. That's also why all are doomed to judgment without the righteousness of Christ.
Nope. Though shalt not steal governs the right and wrong of slavery. No one may own, or userp the sovereignty of another's will. Cain did that and the Egypitans did it to the Israelites.
"Try this: Colossians 3:22 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."
Just as Moses gave you the divorce laws out of the hardness of your hearts, Paul gave you that command for the very same reason.
" Also, check out Titus 3:9"
I refer you to God's exposition on the 7 woes in Matt 23. God's word is the foundation and the guide, not Paul's. It starts out with:
Matt 23:1-4 "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
Are you an authority on the bible? Are you a bible scholar? Yes or no. I say no you are not. You probably know a total of 20 verses, and those you got from a skeptic anti-Christian website. Even if you read the whole bible, you would still be ignorant. How do I know? The bible says you could not possible be: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, because they are spiritually discerrned." 1Cor2:14. The bible is proven true again. Now, we are off topic, so if you want to disprove Christianity, start your own thread.
What you have shown is an eerie consistency in that you twist my words as much as you twist the words of the Constitution. You are simply a twister of words. It's a form of lying.
Failure to answer the actual point I made noted. This all span off from the unevidenced accusation of Darwin's racism. It is interesting how the spittle starts to fly when I point out that your hero is flawed.
Don't argue with these God-hating liars. They claim that evolution has nothing to do with belief in God, then they proceed to bash Christianity in the very same thread. They never miss the opportunity. Don't cast your pearls to swine.
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.