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.
True, it's a bit like saying that the Theory of General Relativity negates morality because it teaches that everything is relative to the observer, and therefore morality is subjective.
The misappropriation and misapplication of a concept does nothing to negate the concept.
Similar to the Marxist equating of slavery with wages.
Of course, taxation isn't slavery; it's theft.
Can't handle the awful truth can ya? So you go off into self induced laugh land.
LOL
In Gal 3:28 St Paul writes:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
The above is the Christian message on slavery as opposed to this:
The evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith, wrote:
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’
‘The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’
He was wrong. Hitler was a creationist.
The thinking processes of evolutionists amaze in their sheer ignorant output and pathetic attempts to push their ideology.
You are the poster boy for that kind of pushiness.
Think about it, can you?
So, no argument against Hitler being a creationist? Only ad hominen attacks? He wasn't an evolutionist. He thought that by protecting the Aryan Race he was protecting God's most special creation. Deal with it.
You will now apologize for not presenting the full context of the Gould quote which clearly shows that Gould neither supports racism nor believes that the theory of evolution actually supports racism, right?
You will now apologize ...
tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Nein herr dimensio. It stands there clearly to be seen by all.
Deal with it partially or fully - your choice.
‘Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.’
You need a good night's sleep.
Your snide responses do not negate the fact that you dishonestly presented an out-of-context quote.
I had high hopes that we might get the first clear denouncement from Eleni; well actually I didn't. Clarity on this issue from those who get all their morals from the bible seems to be in short supply (even that isn't quite true, the pro-slavery crowd are admirably clear, just sickening)
======
[taxesareforever] #375 My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves.
This is the first of the posts being discussed. (Incidentally it was removed by the moderators shortly after it was posted--they are correct, we don't need this kind of thinking on FR, no matter the source.)
In spite of many opportunities, as Thatcherite points out, those on the creationist side of the debate in this thread somehow can't seem to say "This view of slavery is absolute BS!" From the quotes earlier on this thread, it seems that they think there is some justification for slavery in the bible.
I think jennyp summed it up rather well: I, an atheist conservative, forthrightly and without reservation state that slavery is morally wrong.
Well done, jennyp. I agree as well. Now, can any of those on the creationist side other side join in too?
In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.
How can that be? I thought this site was for freedom of thought and discussion. Do some believe that it is only a one way street?
So where is the free exercise of opinion? My statement isn't even allowed to be expounded on? What kind of free excercise of opinion is this? It is despicable that people instantly label a statement as wrong without even thinking it thru. Are they afraid that it will raise the hackles of a few? Apparently, and that is the reason our freedom of speech is slowing being controlled in the name of not being offensive.
Where is the free exercise of opinion?
Point of order. Post #375 wasn't mine. Mine about slavery was not removed.
Well, that's your interpretation of why rabbits chew cud in the Bible.
I notice you now appear to explain away the problem by saying the people at the time didn't distinguish between what cows do and what rabbits do. That's a perfectly fine explanation if you believe the Bible was written by people who didn't have today's knowledge. But haven't you said the Bible is the inerrant workd of God? How is it that God was unable to spot the difference?
You force me to side with the skeptics.
You also didn't address the "locusts with four legs" issue. What's the excuse for this -- the Hebrew word for "four" and "six" is the same? (Rhetorical question; don't bother answering).
So who is it who can't handle the truth?
Use of distorted quote to create a logical fallacy placemarker at post 600.
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.