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.
I was amazed to see that you didn't take the opportunity Ichneumon gave you to back off this absurd statement.
C'mon even trained, working scientists focusing their career on a restricted field (never mind something as broad as "evolution" in toto) often struggle to keep up merely with incremental additions to the evidence relevant to their research.
Yet you want students in high school, or maybe even earlier, to be presented with "ALL" the evidence? In one (or a few) years, in one class (that has to cover many other things as well)?!
Again, how is this even possible? Oh, and you obviously want them to genuinely consider the evidence, not just be presented with it. This means they have to understand it. Which means they will need to have deep knowledge of multiple scientific fields, knowledge of technical terms and professional shorthand, etc. Which means they wouldn't need an INTRODUCTORY science class in the first place!
Seriously, now. Don't you see how silly this is?
No, I've never claimed to be one.
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 that were true, which it isn't, it would place my biblical knowledge considerably ahead of your biological knowledge, and you got that from lie-sites like Answers in Genesis. Does that stop you from parading your ignorance of biology to all who will read it? No.
YOu pointed out no such thing. All you pointed out is your ignorance of the bible, and your HATRED for Christianity. So much for the notion that evolutionists are not atheistic God-hating anti-christian bigots... If you want to start a thread bashing Christianity, feel free, better men than you have tried to discredit it and failed. But it is off topic here.
So, what is your position on slavery then? Do you endorse masters beating their slaves like your hero?
So I'm a liar? Where have I lied?
"
"They claim that evolution has nothing to do with belief in God,
Evolution is simply what happened and what is.
" then they proceed to bash Christianity in the very same thread."
Really? Where have I done that?
Pole-vaulting over mouse tirds now are we? I didn't mean "ALL" in the literal sense. I meant a review of the basic tenets of course. My central point remains. What are you, some sort of pedantic coxcomb?
Read the whole thread.
What does that have to do with the Bible's endorsement of slavery? Why would it be a sin do do somthing that is sanctioned by the Bible?
I feel no need to defend Jesus Christ to you. I don't care what you believe and I feel no need to defend my faith to a hostile hater of the faith. Your further off-topic slanderous posts will be ignored. You will answer to Him one day, then you can ask Him yourself. :)
I didn't write the whole thread smarty pants. Point out where I lied and where I bashed Christianity and God!
Failure to answer whether or not you endorse slave-beating noted.
You know, if there were even the slightest shread of anti-slavery sentiment in the Bible I would be overjoyed to see it, but when the beating death of a slave is discounted as a loss of property, it's difficult to get worked up by people claiming that their morality is absolute.
Don't bother posting to me any further as I will not bother to read it.
Blackguards.
The protections of the Bill of Rights (and the associated prohibitions on sub-federal governments) were extended to the citizens of the several states via the 14th Amendment passed after the Civil War. It says in part (emphasis added):
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The courts have held that "liberty" means at minimum the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments to the constitution. So a local school board, which is enforcing state laws on education, is also restricted from promulgating a policy "respecting an establishment of religion," which is understood to be any policy that advances religion. (Unless the advancement is incidental to a valid secular purpose. So for instance if "Intelligent Design" really was an important scientific discipline -- rather than a popular and political movement -- it could be included in science curricula even if it advanced religion, since teaching science in a science class is obviously a valid secular purpose.)
I think that teaching about ID in a philosophy class or a history of science class would have a valid secular purpose.
But teaching that ID is more than a conjecture in science is a fraud. At any given moment there are thousands of conjectures floating around in the sciences -- tens of thousands if you count those like ID that have no basis in evidence.
So noted.
"It's like beating one's head against a brick wall - a complete waste of time and energy."
God doesn't think so.
" I'm done with this thread as of right now.
You haven't shown where I have lied, or bashed God and Christianity yet. It appears your accusations are simply empty outbursts made in self righteous anger.
Please explain where I have been slanderous, or withdraw your accusation. This subject got into the thread as a result of your claim that Christians were solely responsible for ending slavery, and that subject itself got into the thread because someone on the creationist side (I cannot remember if it was you or not) made the unevidenced claim that Darwin was a racist. Your inability to keep your cool is not my problem.
The subject is on-topic for another reason: In the past slave-holders claimed biblical authority for their actions, and I assume (perhaps wrongly as you haven't made your position clear) that you would disagree with them. Modern fundamentalist Christians claim biblical authority for their rejection of evolution. A parallel exists and is worth debating.
You will answer to Him one day, then you can ask Him yourself. :)
Smug threat that creationists often fall back on noted.
Wonderful, I have never been called a blackguard before. A badge to wear with pride.
I don't think God deniers and evolutionists have ever stopped to look up at the firmament on a clear dark night.
If they were to do so, they might rethink their arrogant beliefs on how the universe and life began.
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.