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.
How does one reinterpret my statement "Try following it" into your response of "I just told you what I believe and you say I don't."
What is your problem with following what is commonly called the Golden Rule?
I would hesitate to attack this. There's no evidence that the statement is really wrong. Furthermore, if he wasn't using the Bible to guide his life he might have settled upon an outdated copy of some state's motor vehicle code or even who-knows-what?
I don't attack it. I celebrate it. It's rare to see such honesty. Well worth preserving in The List-O-Links where others can see it.
Wouldn't have believed it if I wasn't there at the time.
The Golden Rule is no different from the Ten Commandments. They are all law and obeying the law does not get a person into heaven. Believing the Gospel gets people to heaven. You can do as much good as you want but unless it is done out of love for Christ it is not considered good in His eyes.
So that is why God kills all those innocent children?
Ah, when caught in the trap, start with insinuating the other guy is "odd man out" in the group (this board). Documented communist tactic used in the US.
Or the Sears Catalog....... oh, the horror, the horror!
Finding common ground?
Since you are so insightful let me know when God's trial begins.
Oh wise guru, who put you in touch with this thread? Did they think your wisdom was better than theirs? I really doubt that it is.
"I am not capable of believing without Him working faith in me. Rational? No. True? Yes."
Or maybe not, how do YOU know? Did the Holy Spirit tell you that slavery was OK and that anything a government enacts into law is OK? How does the Golden Rule mesh with your belief that slavery isn't a moral issue?
"That is the reason that people who think rationally usually reject God because the thought of a God who could accomplish so much is just not rational and therefore unbelievable."
So know you are saying that on rational grounds atheism makes a lot of sense, therefore, it is wrong! Embrace the Mystical! (I am not saying your above example is necessarily rational or logical, and you wouldn't know because you have already admitted you can't make rational decisions by yourself.)
"However, God does not make us robots and therefore we still have the ability to deny the validity of God and His Holy Word."
In other words, using your above logic, if a person uses his God given ability to reason, he will come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. By doing so he will have sinned and be damned to Hell. The only way to Heaven is to forsake the gifts God gave you. Embrace the Stupidity!
You are really providing some hilarious posts for us; don't stop now!
First, and most important, I do not, ever, challenge a person's faith. So, when I ask the question in post 780:
"How does one reinterpret my statement "Try following it" into your response of "I just told you what I believe and you say I don't.""
....this was not a challenge to your faith but a question as to how a suggestion to try following the Golden Rule could possibly be interpreted as any kind of challenge.
I'm sorry that you seem not to be able to understand that.
Note again that no Creationist has come out opposing taxesareforever's statement that slavery is not wrong.
Now we have the following statement:
"That is the reason that people who think rationally usually reject God because the thought of a God who could accomplish so much is just not rational and therefore unbelievable."
paired with:
"The Golden Rule is no different from the Ten Commandments. They are all law and obeying the law does not get a person into heaven. Believing the Gospel gets people to heaven. You can do as much good as you want but unless it is done out of love for Christ it is not considered good in His eyes."
Thus a simple formula that explains the nature of these threads:
1. Believe that you love Christ.
2. Believe that loving Christ is all that will get you into heaven.(thus any behavior that shows you love Christ is ok.)
3. Believe that rational behavior is a indicator that the person doing it does not believe in God and therefor does not love Christ.
There goes science, because practiioners of science do not by definition believe in God and love Christ, and (inferential jump here) there also goes the need for honesty in debate with them because they are bad non Christ lovers.
Worse yet, rational behavior is, in and of itself, an indicator that the person doing it does not believe in God and is probably, therefor, a bad guy
That is your opinion because you have already disclaimed any and all opinions from those scientists who support the Institute for Creation Research.
Okay, I'll take this as a misinterpretation on my part. However, the phrase "Try following it" is all I can do. I am a sinner and no matter how hard I try I go against the Golden Rule every day. Matter of fact, everyone does since we are all sinners.
I don't consider rational thinking as a gift. It might be thought of as the Devil's play book.
Wow placemark
Mine!
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.