Posted on 12/31/2005 12:41:23 PM PST by streetpreacher
| Darwin's Pyrrhic victory Posted: December 28, 2005
By Patrick J. Buchanan © 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.
"Intelligent Design Derailed," exulted the headline. "By now, the Christian conservatives who once dominated the school board in Dover, Pa., ought to rue their recklessness in forcing biology classes to hear about 'intelligent design' as an alternative to the theory of evolution," declared the New York Times, which added its own caning to the Christians who dared challenge the revealed truths of Darwinian scripture. Noting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is a Bush appointee, the Washington Post called his decision "a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members for lying under oath and for their 'breathtaking inanity' in trying to inject religion into science classes." But is it really game, set, match, Darwin? Have these fellows forgotten that John Scopes, the teacher in that 1925 "Monkey Trial," lost in court, and was convicted of violating Tennessee law against the teaching of evolution and fined $100? Yet Darwin went on to conquer public education, and American Civil Liberties Union atheists went on to purge Christianity and the Bible from our public schools.
The Dover defeat notwithstanding, the pendulum is clearly swinging back. Darwinism is on the defensive. For, as Tom Bethell, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science," reminds us, there is no better way to make kids curious about "intelligent design" than to have some Neanderthal forbid its being mentioned in biology class. In ideological politics, winning by losing is textbook stuff. The Goldwater defeat of 1964, which a triumphant left said would bury the right forever, turned out to be liberalism's last hurrah. Like Marxism and Freudianism, Darwinism appears destined for the graveyard of discredited ideas, no matter the breathtaking inanity of the trial judge. In his opinion, Judge Jones the Third declared:
But if intelligent design is creationism or fundamentalism in drag, how does Judge Jones explain how that greatest of ancient thinkers, Aristotle, who died 300 years before Christ, concluded that the physical universe points directly to an unmoved First Mover? As Aristotle wrote in his "Physics": "Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. But this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some First Mover." A man of science and reason, Aristotle used his observations of the physical universe to reach conclusions about how it came about. Where is the evidence he channeled the Torah and creation story of Genesis before positing his theory about a prime mover? Darwinism is in trouble today for the reason creationism was in trouble 80 years ago. It makes claims that are beyond the capacity of science to prove. Darwinism claims, for example, that matter evolved from non-matter – i.e., something from nothing – that life evolved from non-life; that, through natural selection, rudimentary forms evolved into more complex forms; and that men are descended from animals or apes. Now, all of this is unproven theory. And as the Darwinists have never been able to create matter out of non-matter or life out of non-life, or extract from the fossil record the "missing links" between species, what they are asking is that we accept it all on faith. And the response they are getting in the classroom and public forum is: "Prove it," and, "Where is your evidence?" And while Darwinism suggests our physical universe and its operations happened by chance and accident, intelligent design seems to comport more with what men can observe and reason to.
If, for example, we are all atop the Grand Canyon being told by a tour guide that nature, in the form of a surging river over eons of time, carved out the canyon, we might all nod in agreement. But if we ask how "Kilroy was here!" got painted on the opposite wall of the canyon, and the tour guide says the river did it, we would all howl. A retreating glacier may have created the mountain, but the glacier didn't build the cabin on top of it. Reason tells us the cabin came about through intelligent design. Darwinism is headed for the compost pile of discarded ideas because it cannot back up its claims. It must be taken on faith. It contains dogmas men may believe, but cannot stand the burden of proof, the acid of attack or the demands of science. Where science says, "No miracles allowed," Darwinism asks us to believe in miracles.
|
Once again, you are correct: I did not write that evolution was not a tool to get atheism into schools. I don't know that it is, therefore I would not have asserted something that I do not know to be true.
Having taught (briefly) in a public school, I don't have that much confidence in the ability of most teachers to teach something that is not clearly lined out in the curriculum. These are people who do not think out of the box. In fact, they like being in the box.
Additionally, since I am actually familiar with current science textbooks and curriculum, I don't find that your statement that atheism is being taught is accurate. Just ain't so.
If you could present some actual documentation to back up your assertions, I would be happy to see them.
Umm, that wasn't my statement.
OK, I'm moving on. I prefer to discuss ideas and facts, and not play word games.
####I had no idea they were involved in such an elaborate conspiracy.####
Who said anything about a conspiracy? It's just the way the public schools operate these days. Why do you think so many conservatives & Christians home school, while leftists in Congress and the teachers' unions seem delighted with the public schools?
Accepting the theory of evolution doesn't necessarily make someone an atheist, but the current public school regime on evolution plays right into atheist hands. Otherwise, the ACLU and the Christian-bashing leftist press wouldn't care much about the issue.
But this is no "theory":
"... he has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.” Ecclesiastes 3:11
And many "probability theorists" think that those who believe the above words have a god that looks like this, don't they?:
"To claim that evolution does not deal with the soup is to diminish the TOE meaning"
No it isn't. It's truthly representing what the theory actually says, rather than the lies of creationists about what it says.
"I can only say evolution by its very nature removes the supernatural status of Christ, you can't see that, NOT my problem"
Only if you accept as a starting point lies about the theory.
"think about what evolutionists have done to million upon millions of young children by teaching them to deny the Heavenly Father. Christ did have something to say about harming little children."
Lie based upon lies.
"Oh so are you saying for the record that there never was a hot primordial bowl of soup, wherein one single cell divided and set forth the beginnings of what we see on this earth this day????"
I'm saying that that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Evolution.
I know you're just kidding when you write stuff like that. People dumb enough to believe it aren't smart enough to type messages on an internet forum.
"I'm saying that that has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Evolution."
That is NOT an acceptable answer, because this theory of common descent had to begin somewhere, and you are not denying a hot primordial bowl of soup.
Schools reflect the fact that the United States has, since the time of the great General Washington, been a secular country. Besides which, I pay taxes too and have no desire to see public schools turned into Evangelical cultural preserves.
"That is NOT an acceptable answer, because this theory of common descent had to begin somewhere, and you are not denying a hot primordial bowl of soup."
Why are you trying to change the subject? Is it because you realise the emptiness of your arguments? Theories of abiogenesis have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. You want to discuss them, feel free to start another thread. I'm sure you'd just embarrass yourself in that one as well though...
By the way, do you also favor eliminating chaplains in the military? Your taxes pay for them, too.
Changing demographics and a growing urban population brought about the death of the homogonized country schools and necessitated a much bigger public school system. When you have children from many different backgrounds and faiths all learning in the same place you obviously have to be avowedly secular.
By the way, do you also favor eliminating chaplains in the military? Your taxes pay for them, too.
Military chaplains are a different situation. Chaplains provide beneficial spiritual guidance for those who want it, but no one is required to participate in any sort of religious service. They fulfill the same function as a parish priest.
These changing demographics took place well before the 1960s, especially in urbanized environments. It seems people were able to work out on their own what they wanted in their school curricula without judges imposing it on them.
Chaplains provide beneficial spiritual guidance for those who want it, but no one is required to participate in any sort of religious service.
No one suggested requiring schoolchildren to participate in religious activity. That doesn't mean schools are somehow constitutionally obligated to censor their curricula to avoid offending small minorities.
Demographics continued to change and are still changing. When I started school in 1985 there were only white kids in my class, by the time I graduated high school in 1997 a good 15% of my class were minorites. And even when it was all just a bunch of white kids, all of our parents had very different ideas about religion.
It seems people were able to work out on their own what they wanted in their school curricula without judges imposing it on them.
The Constitution and Congress mandate equality, judges merely enforce it.
No one suggested requiring schoolchildren to participate in religious activity. That doesn't mean schools are somehow constitutionally obligated to censor their curricula to avoid offending small minorities.
The poster that I originally responded to was indeed suggesting just that. And schools are not required to "censor curricula", just to maintiain neutrality on the subject of religion.
There is quite a large contengent of people out there who keep trying to inject their religious beliefs into public schools. I know that not everyone wants public schools to be avowedly secular, but given the fact that students come from a variety of backgrounds and beliefs it really is the best way to make sure that everyone recieves an equal education.
Thanks for your post.
I never considered the point that natural selection tends against Marxist ideology. The extent to which atheistic assumptions have become predominant in science textbooks warrants a more level-headed approach, but the controversy should be reserved for later years. Nomenclature and factual explanations of how things work would suffice until high school age. The bottom line is that public schools ought to reflect the pluralistic nature of the population lest it tacitly engage in the establishment of religion, including atheism. If they cannot do this, then it is time for the fedral government to desist from allocating tax money to public schools.
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.