Posted on 12/06/2005 11:55:32 AM PST by MRMEAN
Andrew J. Coulson is director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute.
Supporters of the theory of human origins known as "intelligent design" want it taught alongside the theory of evolution. Opponents will do anything to keep it out of science classrooms. The disagreement is clear.
But why does everyone assume that we must settle it through an ideological death-match in the town square?
Intelligent design contends that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved naturally, and so must be the product of an unspecified intelligent designer. Most adherents of this idea would undoubtedly be happy just to have it taught to their own children, and most of my fellow evolutionists presumably believe they should have that right. So why are we fighting?
We're fighting because the institution of public schooling forces us to, by permitting only one government-sanctioned explanation of human origins. The only way for one side to have its views reflected in the official curriculum is at the expense of the other side.
This manufactured conflict serves no public good. After all, does it really matter if some Americans believe intelligent design is a valid scientific theory while others see it as a Lamb of God in sheep's clothing? Surely not. While there are certainly issues on which consensus is key — respect for the rule of law and the rights of fellow citizens, tolerance of differing viewpoints, etc. — the origin of species is not one of them.
The sad truth is that state-run schooling has created a multitude of similarly pointless battles. Nothing is gained, for instance, by compelling conformity on school prayer, random drug testing, the set of religious holidays that are worth observing, or the most appropriate forms of sex education.
Not only are these conflicts unnecessary, they are socially corrosive. Every time we fight over the official government curriculum, it breeds more resentment and animosity within our communities. These public-schooling-induced battles have done much to inflame tensions between Red and Blue America.
But while Americans bicker incessantly over pedagogical teachings, we seldom fight over theological ones. The difference, of course, is that the Bill of Rights precludes the establishment of an official religion. Our founding fathers were prescient in calling for the separation of church and state, but failed to foresee the dire social consequences of entangling education and state. Those consequences are now all too apparent.
Fortunately, there is a way to end the cycle of educational violence: parental choice. Why not reorganize our schools so that parents can easily get the sort of education they value for their own children without having to force it on their neighbors?
Doing so would not be difficult. A combination of tax relief for middle income families and financial assistance for low-income families would give everyone access to the independent education marketplace. A few strokes of the legislative pen could thus bring peace along the entire "education front" of America's culture war.
But let's be honest. At least a few Americans see our recurrent battles over the government curriculum as a price worth paying. Even in the "land of the free," there is a temptation to seize the apparatus of state schooling and use it to proselytize our neighbors with our own ideas or beliefs.
In addition to being socially divisive and utterly incompatible with American ideals, such propagandizing is also ineffectual. After generations in which evolution has been public schooling's sole explanation of human origins, only a third of Americans consider it a theory well-supported by scientific evidence. By contrast, 51 percent of Americans believe "God created human beings in their present form."
These findings should give pause not only to evolutionists but to supporters of intelligent design as well. After all, if public schooling has made such a hash of teaching evolution, why expect it to do any better with I.D.?
Admittedly, the promotion of social harmony is an unusual justification for replacing public schools with parent-driven education markets. Most arguments for parental choice rest on the private sector's superior academic performance or cost-effectiveness. But when you stop and think about it, doesn't the combination of these advantages suggest that free markets would be a far more intelligent design for American education?
This article appeared on FOXNews.com on November 18, 2005.
Huh?
WHAT 'wisdom'???
20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
We are indeed not doing a good job educating the public in basic science. But whose fault is that? There is active and intense pressure on school districts and individual teachers to not teach evolution, so in many places, evolution is taught in a sketchy manner or simply not mentioned. Standard biology textbooks that in previous decades had entire chapters devoted to evolution now might only have a page or two. I share the concern that science education is in jeopardy here. The industries of the future will involve biology, and US leadership in these new industries is threatened when the public does not understand biology.
The reason I stay around, is to post some really great Scripture to those who seem to be unaware of it.
(You know who you are ;^)
Where did the Sun get IT'S energy?
Amen!
And the transmission mode ain't near as fun!
Hee hee!
I missed that!
Brush the dust off of that reply so we can read it.
Well, that sure ain't any of us C types fault!!!
How did the FEWER than 32 get to be 'replicated' or 'changed' into 32+???
Yea, 20^1000 is ONLY 1.07150860718626732094842504906e+1301
If you had an ounce of honesty in your body you would admit that this doesn't change my argument one bit. You could try a trillion, trillion combinations every single second for 4.5 BILLION years and it would not amount to a drop in the ocean, literally. Even if there were a trillion, trillion possible "right" combinations the chances of the right combination forming are about 2.38e+1235 to 1.
You can add 100 billion years or 100 trillion years to the age of the universe and you STILL cannot escape the math.
Ain't it the truth!
And your reduction tof the wonder of life to random combinations of mud, water, and rocks (i.e. life accidentally came from non-living objects) serves only to belittle and further degrade our school systems and society into a godless, government-worshipping, self-indulgent country that will fall just like every other great civilization.
Your ultimate message is this: "Life means nothing. You came from random chemical reactions and exist only to procreate. There is no being who created anything. When you die, you will be dead and gone forever. If you can get away with it on this earth, you will never have to answer for it. You have no more right to live than a bacteria because you are nothing more than a descendent of bacteria."
With a message like that, there should be no wonder that our children have little value for human life. Yet all in the name of your god, "science", you plow steadily on and to hell with the consequences.
Then WHY, in God's nmae, don't the E's rant about the DD in ALL the other subjects???
Simple. We do.
We oppose dumbing down education in all subjects, from Ebonics to ID. PC is just as silly, and just as dangerous, whether it comes from the right or the left.
Yes - And the theory of evolution requires death before man and the Bible says that death came from the sin of Adam.
Thanks for the reply. My comments are well past the failure of teaching evolution, but of science in general. If people can't tell the difference between a scientific theory and the lay use of the word, then we are in big trouble. The hard part is that there is a lot of really, really cool stuff in all disciplines, but it's difficult for many researchers to step back and communicate their work in such a way that the general public can understand it. Also, academics are not the most politically saavy people since they are used to thinking in black and white technical terms. They aren't used to or are comfortable with areas rich in opinion and weak in fact, like politics.
If astrology were presented in science class as science, the way you all want ID taught, I have no doubt it would confuse many people. Just look at the number of people who read their horoscopes or rub their crystals or whatever now. It would be a terrible thing to do.
I see it all the time, actually. If a conservative supports abortion, and a liberal opposes abortion, many of the religious right jump ship and vote for the liberal. It doesn't matter if the liberal is a hard-core communist.
My point is that once reproduction is possible, evolution could be possible. That is part of the reason why the "tornado in the junkyard" analogies regarding inanimate objects don't work - laptop computers, cars and watches don't reproduce themselves.
How did the FEWER than 32 get to be 'replicated' or 'changed' into 32+???
I honestly don't know. You'll have to ask someone with some more expertise in biochemistry that question. (There may be a good answer to that question that I am not aware of.)
I do know that complexity can be added to higher life forms via gene replication; that is, genes can replicate themselves (this has been directly observed) - each replicated gene is then free to mutate independently and hence add genetic "information".
Best regards (missed seeing your cute wisecracks as of late...)
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.