WorldWatch - Creation and Evolution in the Schools

World Watch and The Rhinoceros Times ^ | January 8, 2006 | Orson Scott Card

[Fester Chugabrew]

You're free to believe whatever you want, but you can't use my tax money to proselytize your religion.

I fail to see how the notion that organized matter behaving according to laws as explained by the possibility of intelligent design amounts to "proselytizing" or "indoctrinatiiong" people. You must believe people to be wholy weak-minded. You don't trust them to think for themselves. You would argue against free inquiry, and that is hardly the part of science.

I also fail to see how "proof of the existence of God" impinges upon the discussion. What kind of "proof" are you talking about? Regardless, public schools are, like you said, open to people of all faiths and lack thereof. They can either be open to all points of view or they can operate unconstitutionally as agents for the state indoctrination of non-theistic principles.

The debate between theistic and non-theistic principles in public schools is not an either/or debate, but both/and debate. Otherwise shut them down.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Why is it impossible for government education of the young to be neutral in its content or consequences?

Because humans by nature are not neutral. Neither are scientists. Of all the educational endeavors that have an effect on one's world view, the so-called natural sciences are it. Hence it is no surprise the debate between theistic and non-theistic principles is a heated one. Non-theistic principles are not neutral, either morally or scientifically.

Many scientific disciplines, and much education, may carry on without invoking either one, but when they do, it is incumbent upon the educator openly to admit as much. As it is, the larger part of evolutionism in public schools is non-theistic philosophy foisted by stealth upon a captive audience in the name of science. The old canard that organized matter and purpose can only be understood as a religious concept seems to have been swallowed whole cloth by we the people who pay for public education, along with the old canard of "wall of separation."

I share your view that public schools are a disgraceful abuse of the human mind, not to mention physical resources. Vouchers would be a good way for those intellectually superior atheists to start and support their own schools without all that superstitious psychobabble dragging them down and, as a result, get all those super high paying jobs, like head curator at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History.

[darkocean]

Basically, Behe's approach was this: Complex systems in advanced organisms depend on many biochemical steps, all of which must be in place for the system to work at all.

So how, Behe asked, could such a complex system have evolved, if the only method available was random variation plus natural selection?

It would be impossible to believe that the entire series of steps in the complex system could randomly appear all at once. But any one step along the way, since it does nothing by itself, could not give the organism that had it any competitive advantage. So why would each of those traits persist and prevail long enough for the complex system to fall into place?

That's way too logical for the evolution crowd.

[Dimensio]

That's way too logical for the evolution crowd.

It's not "logical", it's limited thinking. It assumes that only additive processes can bring about new traits, when there's no reason to believe that subtractive processes could also bring about physical features.

[darkocean]

That's way too logical for the evolution crowd.

It's not "logical", it's limited thinking. It assumes that only additive processes can bring about new traits, when there's no reason to believe that subtractive processes could also bring about physical features.

That's even funnier than most evolution arguments. What all then do you need to cut off a chimpanzee or a monkey to turn him into a man? What do you cut off of some non-flying dinosaur to turn him into a bird?

[Dimensio]

That's even funnier than most evolution arguments.

Only by those who wish to ridicule rather than learn.

What all then do you need to cut off a chimpanzee or a monkey to turn him into a man?

Who said that anything on a monkey or chimpanzee could simply be "cut off" to produce a man?

You seem to again be playing with absolutes. I point out that Behe's arguments neglect subtractive processes, and suddenly you seem to think that I said that all evolution involves subtraction. Naturally you'll go with a false dichotomy rather than address reality.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I refer to spontaneous generation or abiogenisis. It is obviously impossible.

Okay. On the other hand, since the theory of evolution doesn't require abiogenesis - it works just as well if we imagine God personally placing the first primitive critters on Earth - that's not much of a critique of evolution.

ThermodynamicsRefers to the principle of increasing chaos.

Not always and not everywhere, of course - order from disorder happens all the time. All you need is a bit of energy. Around here, we get it from the big, hot thing in the daytime sky.

Chaos is evident in the biosphere if you examine the extinction rate vs the emergence of new species.

I dunno. At the end of the day, here we are. ;)

[WildHorseCrash]

Actually, in deference to you, I adopted the word "nontheistic" as opposed to "atheistic" since the distinction is supposedly so important. I hardly use the word to define "everything in life but actual prayer," but I do use it to define the type of science that adheres to the shaping principle that God is beyond its purview.

You chose to use the word, but you have evidenced no comprehension of what is meant by it, or even of the meaning of the word "secular." And that's the reason why your opinions are so screwed up: the refusal to recognize that there are things in life that have no place within them for religious subjectivism.

If you think non-theistic science is so fine, then fund your own private schools so as to keep out the superstitious riff raff and keep your children pure from what you believe to be academically inferior teaching.

You've got it completely backwards (although I suspect you already know that.) Because the Constitution does not permit religious instruction to be masqueraded as science, if you want your children's education to be damaged in that fashion under the guise of your right as a parent to teach your religion, the onus is on you to establish your little madrassas to churn out the next generation of True Believers.

[WildHorseCrash]

It is neither immoral nor tyrannical for the society to provide its next generation of citizens with a well-rounded secular education. If one's religious views are incompatible with modern secular knowledge, then that is the problem of that individual, and not the society.

If I were a DNC operative, I think I'd push the RNC to adopt your "Government schools are a monstrosity" position; it would result in Democrat-controlled government as far as the eye could see.

[WildHorseCrash]

The decision is dated December 20. That's when the judge signed the order. Technically, however, the appeal time expires 30 days after the date the decision is entered, which is a technical term, and the date of entry may be a day or so after the decision's printed date. It depends on when it's officially filed and docketed in the court clerk's office.

True enough, which is why I checked the dockets before posting. The dockets show that the opinion was signed and docketed ("entered") on December 20, 2005.

Memorandum Opinion.Signed by Judge John E. Jones III on 12/20/05. (eo, ) (Entered: 12/20/2005)

[WildHorseCrash]

Actually, it's sad. He's not satisfied with faith. He wants proof.

That, or he wants his religious opinions and beliefs to be given the imprimatur of science without having to do the actual work required of science.

[WildHorseCrash]

It is impossible for the curriculum and policies of any government school to be neutral politically, culturally, or religiously either in content or in consequences. So....why is government in the business of promoting and establishing the worldview ( with religious consequences) of some citizens and trashing and undermining the traditions of other citizens?

Who wants them to be neutral? I sure don't. To be "neutral" is the crutch of the leftist, who wants no distinction made between the terrorist killing innocents, and Marines killing terrorists, or that there is no difference between a legitimate country like the USA having nuclear weapons and a backwater shithole like Iran having them.

I want them to give the children a high-quality secular education, free of politically correct stuff from the left or from the right, like ID or creationism.

And if it offends someone's religious "worldview," that is that person's problem. If someone's religious views can't handle or is threatened by secular knowledge, they are free to keep their kids ignorant of secular knowledge by home schooling or by sending them to a school that doesn't teach things like science.

[wintertime]

It is neither immoral nor tyrannical for the society to provide its next generation of citizens with a well-rounded secular education. ( WildHorseCrash)

WildHorsCrash,

You must think that the American people are STUPID??

Huh?....Surely, the American people understand VERY WELL that education money can follow children directly. It is completely unneccessary for the money to be going directly to government schools.

I surely do hope that the Democrats continue to think Americans are stupid. If they do, they will continue to lose elections.

It is not necessary for government to own or run government schools for there to be an educated citizenry. We do not have government run grocery stores and yet we are the fattest nation on earth.

The citizens of this nation can privately provide every child in this nation with the opportunity for an excellent education.

If one's religious views are incompatible with modern secular knowledge, then that is the problem of that individual, and not the society.

Please remember, WildHorseCrash, that any government powerful enough to use police, court, and foster care threat to force children into a secular environment that destroys their most cherished family religious traditions, is powerful enough to destroy YOUR family's most beloved traditions.

Any government powerful enough to sell a business or home at sheriff's auction to fund the destruction of some families' religious traditions, it powerful enough to auction your home to fund the worldview of someone else.

Please remember that there are real bullets in those guns on the hips of those policemen and sheriffs.

I were a DNC operative, I think I'd push the RNC to adopt your "Government schools are a monstrosity" position; it would result in Democrat-controlled government as far as the eye could see.

As posted above, you must think Americans are stupid. I hope the Democrats think so too.

The RNC operatives aren't going to call government schools a monstrosity. They know that they have hundreds ( maybe thousands) of people ( such as myself) who are dedicated to changing the language about government schools.

It is a monstrosity for government to use threats of police to FORCE children into a government school that can NEVER be entirely respectful to all the competing worldviews of the teachers, principals, and students.

It IS a monstrosity for government to threaten citizens with sheriff's auction of their homes and businesses to fund a government indoctrination agenda that WILL establish the religious beliefs of some while undermining and trashing those of others.

It IS a monstrosity to FORCE children into a government school environment where their rights ( and indirectly the right of their parents) to free speech, free press, free assembly, and free expression of religion is TRASHED. This as human abuse! And,,,since children are involved that makes it CHILD abuse!

As you drive down the freeway, please note the mini-mansions on the hill. Please observe the many beautiful and expensive cars on the road. These people are completely capable of downsizing a little and paying for their own children's education. Hand these people a tuition bill! It is a monstrosity for government to burden citizens with onerous property and business taxes ( inflating the price of everything they buy) and turning them into a nation of renters.

Government is the landlord. If you fail to pay your property tax to fund the religious worldview of some while trashing those of others, the government landlord will evict you. This is a MONSTROSITY!

[PatrickHenry]

... I checked the dockets before posting. The dockets show that the opinion was signed and docketed ("entered") on December 20, 2005.

I never should have doubted you. So if any creationist is still hoping that someone will figure out how to appeal the decision, you're outta luck.

[wintertime]

I want them to give the children a high-quality secular education, free of politically correct stuff from the left or from the right, like ID or creationism. To WildHorseCrash,

And,,,,,you are completely comfortable advocating the use of police, court, and foster care threat to force YOUR anointed educational philosophy on OTHER people's children!...and threatening other citizens with the sheriff's auction of their homes and businesses to fund it.

Geeze! How magnaminous of you!

Who wants them to be neutral? I sure don't.

The education of the young can NEVER be politically, culturally, or religiously neutral in content or consequences. That is why government must never be in the business of owning or running schools. Government schools WILL establish and uphold the political, cultural, and religious traditions of some while undermining and trashing those of others. But,,,,,,hey!,,,,That's alright with you so long as it is your political, cultural, and religious traditons that the government schools are establishing.

Hm,,,,the word "bully" does come to mind.

[Fester Chugabrew]

"Non-theistic" or "secular" simply means setting aside religious considerations. Public schools are not obligated by law to be secular. Neither is science so obligated. Public schools are paid for, and comprised of, people of all faiths and lack thereof. As such, the government is obligated to recognize the public's various religious perspectives, whether it relates to science or sports, or anything in between. You are not entitled to wholly secular schools by law. You may certainly establish your own and pay for them yourself. The federal government is prohibited from stifling religious expression in any of these areas.

[CobaltBlue]

Check again next week -- sometimes it takes a couple days for things to be posted in Federal court.

If the judgment was entered on the 20th of December, you don't count the 20th - the 30 day starts on the 21st.

[PatrickHenry]

If the judgment was entered on the 20th of December, you don't count the 20th - the 30 day starts on the 21st

Yes. I found a website with a calendar calculator: CalendarHome.com. It gives you the number of days between dates. From 20 December 2005 to 20 January 2006 (Friday) is 31 days. So even if you don't count the first day, the 30 days expired on Friday. It's all over.

[balrog666]

What? Nobody has mentioned David Brin yet?

[PatrickHenry]

400