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.
They got the ball on the fourth post and are running in the wrong direction. I'm inclined to let them score.
You can teach them pretty much whatever you want in your own home. The public school though is a public institution. There the truth matters.
Science does not included the rejection of science that ID preaches. ID is not science, it is pure unadultered fabrication founded on erroneous constructs and claims. ID does not belong in the science class at all.
What an insult to Phrenology.
The endless loop...
didn't use to be that way - until the federal government started interfering where it doesn't constitutionally belong. Your support for big government control is perfectly in line with Stailin and Mao. You marxist evo-bots love oppression and suppression.
"didn't use to be that way - until the federal government started interfering where it doesn't constitutionally belong.
Tax money should not be spent teaching and advancing your religion, or any religion. The 14th Amend demands that a minority of taxpayers be rpotected against a majority of tyrants using tax money to promote and futher their religion. That is the Constituitonal justification for the feds interfering. It was to stop the abuse.
"Your support for big government control is perfectly in line with Stailin and Mao. You marxist evo-bots love oppression and suppression."
Whatever makes you feel good.
Or yours - philosophical naturalism and rationalism, which essentially equate to promoting atheism in schools - a clear violation of the Establishment Clause. You have the power of government behind you - but might doesn't make right. It's a violation of the foundational principle of self-government. Schools should reject federal money and support their own schools, then the govt has no say at all.
Why is it then that there is an ongoing assault on home-schooling (even though home schoolers consistently outperform public school morons by a wide margin)?
What can account for this?...either 1) ignorance due to apathy or poor education OR 2) disbelief due to understanding of the issue. Are there other explanations?
In a country where 65% of people think that creationism and evolution should be taught side by side, some boards inevitably agree,...
This really is the point - who should control the schools?...the courts or the parents/communities? Of course, if you take state money, you're subject to state regulation.
One solution: SEPARATION OF SCHOOL AND STATE.
Which sort of scientists? The balanced ones like Copernicus and Galileo, who are in the minority, or the unbalanced ones or will always be in the majority - like Darwin:
"Origin of man now proved. -- Metaphysics must flourish. - He who understands baboon would do more toward Metaphysics than Locke." --- Darwin, Notebook M, August 16, 1838
So I'm guessing that you think ID is about religion and shouldn't be taught in science class?
Authoritarians love control. Just as you're part of an athoritarian mob attempting to usurp the science class for your own purpose, the communitarian mob demands that everyone be subject to their rule.
So be it, but keep this in mind my little atheist.
The word of God, the Holy Bible teaches: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Not, And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: only if they believe in the Holy and Sacred Trinity.
What you care to believe is up to you, it is called free will, but, that does not alter the fact that God created you and as such you are His to do whatever He so chooses to do with you at the time of judgement.
Personally I would prefer not to share my heaven with you.
I await your apology.
And as for you, well, God's word says you are full of horse dung. Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
This alone tells me that the bible is no science book. And do you care to provide the scientific underpinning for "the sun stopping for a day" without invoking the 'miracle' word?
Truth hurts. I've been watching this one coming for a while.
Are yon claiming that hitler was not both a racist and a firm believer in evolution? If so, you need to read his book, mein kemp.
God's account of creation and satan's theory of evolution are 180 degrees opposite of one another.
God tell us that He created everything in six literal 24 hour days. Satan's theory of evolution tells us that everything started as nothing, nothing at all and that, that nothing at all became something. Which after millions and millions of years became a tadpole and then a fish and then a lizard and then a monkey and then after millions and billions of years, a man.
God tells us that there was no death till Adam and Eve sinned some 6,417 years ago. The satan lackeys who embrace evolution, tell us that they have established their theory based upon a fossil record that, they claim proves, through the fossils of dead things, that they earth is billions and billions of years old. Therefore claiming that things have been dying for billions and billions of years.
God tells us that He created us and that we are responsible to Him and that He has laid down rules and we are to obey those rules or be punished. Evolution tells us that there is no God, that we are responsible to ourselves, that laws come from man, and that when you die you are plant food, worm food or nothing at all.
So, you see, the Word of God, the Holy Bible, and the word of satan, the theory of evolution, are complete opposites. You can not abide by one without accusing the other of being a lie.
Further proof:
God says: Thou shalt not kill. ... do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood. Yet, those who embrace evolution embrace abortion and euthanasia.
God says: Thou shalt not commit adultery. And ...whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already.. The embracers of evolution tell us that adultery is not against the law, it is just a moral issue.
God says: But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Evolution has brought you socialism, communism, welfare, and no fault divorce.
As you take seriously the study of God's word and see how wrong and opposite satan's theory of evolution is, you come to one conclusion and one only. Even though evolution is, when you look at it and seriously study it, nothing but a lie, a fools mind game. They who believe in it do so for one reason. If they did not believe in evolution they would have to accept the fact that God created the world. And that is the problem. For them to admit that there is a God means that they likewise have to admit that they will one day be held accountable for their actions, and that includes their sexual sin. Homosexuality, pornography, racism, murders, lesbianism, adultery, sexual abuse, etc.
And speaking of racism. A careful look at what Darwin, the high priest of the evolutionist, said about races explains nazism, racism, the muslim attitude towards women, communism, slavery, etc. Think about it, if man evolved from monkeys, are not those who look, via color, more like monkeys and therefore on a lower evolutionary plane? Does that not explain how the Japanese justified their desire to rule the world? The Japanese have less body hair than all other humans, so does that not cause one to conclude that they have evolved further and are therefore superior? Yet, God goes out of His way to list generation after generation in Genesis 1-11 to prove to us conclusively that we are all descendants of Noah and one of his three sons. And that before Noah we all trace our lineage back to Adam thru his son Seth.
So satan's flunkies, the evolutionist have brought us racism which brought about the justification for Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, slavery, the abortionist, and those who kill old and sick people. But God tells us that we are all related and equal.
He drank water and breathed air too, so you're doomed.
I am not claiming that you lie about God's word, so scripture is irrelevant. But is a lie to say that by and of itself evolution and atheism are the same thing. Atheism is the belief that no God exists, whereas your problem with evolution is that it contradicts your particular interpretation of Christianity. Numerous religious believers accept evolution; many of them consider themselves to be Christians, and many others are of other religions. Doubtless you are relaxed about worshipping a deity who you believe will toss all such people into the lake of fire for their error while the tiny proportion of people who think exactly like you are ushered into heaven. But for you to call them atheist is a lie, pure and simple.
So you owe all religious believers who accept evolution an apology, and a withdrawal.
Would you say that geologists are satan's flunkies as well? They clearly disagree with the biblical account of geologic processes.
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.