Don't be so sure about that....
Posted on 06/07/2002 11:35:28 AM PDT by jennyp
To Seattle area residents the struggle over how evolution is taught in public high schools may seem a topic from the distant past or a distant place.
Don't bet on it. One nearby episode in the controversy has ended, but a far-reaching, Seattle-based agenda to overthrow Darwin is gaining momentum.
Roger DeHart, a high-school science teacher who was the center of an intense curriculum dispute a few years ago in Skagit County, is leaving the state. He plans to teach next year in a private Christian school in California.
The fuss over DeHart's use of "intelligent design" theory in his classes at Burlington-Edison High School was merely a tiny blip in a grand scheme by promoters of the theory.
The theory is essentially this: Life is so complex that it can only be the result of design by an intelligent being.
Who is this unnamed being? Well, God, I presume. Wouldn't you?
As unlikely as it may seem, Seattle is ground zero for the intelligent-design agenda, thanks to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and its Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).
Headed by one-time Seattle City councilman and former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, the Discovery Institute is best known locally for its savvy insights on topics ranging from regionalism, transportation, defense policy and the economy.
In the late '90s, the institute jumped into the nation's culture wars with the CRSC. It may be little known to local folks, but it has caught the attention of conservative religious organizations around the country.
It's bound to get more attention in the future. Just last month, a documentary, Icons of Evolution, premiered at Seattle Pacific University. The video is based on a book of the same name by CRSC fellow Jonathan Wells. It tells the story of DeHart, along with the standard critique of Darwinian evolution that fuels the argument for intelligent design.
The video is part of the anti-Darwin agenda. Cruise the Internet on this topic and you'll find something called the Wedge Strategy, which credits the CRSC with a five-year plan for methodically promoting intelligent design and a 20-year goal of seeing "design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."
Last week, Chapman tried to put a little distance between his institute and the "wedge" document. He said it was a fund-raising tool used four years ago. "I don't disagree with it," he told me, "but it's not our program." (I'll let the folks who gave money based on the proposed strategy ponder what that means.)
Program or not, it is clear that the CRSC is intent on bringing down what one Center fellow calls "scientific imperialism." Surely Stephen Jay Gould already is spinning in his grave. Gould, one of America's most widely respected scientists and a prolific essayist, died just two weeks ago. Among his many fine books is one I kept by my bedside for many weeks after it was published in 1999, "Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life."
In "Rock of Ages," Gould presents an elegant case for the necessary co-existence of science and religion. Rather than conflicting, as secular humanists insist, or blending, as intelligent-design proponents would have it, science and religion exist in distinct domains, what Gould called magisteria (domains of teaching authority).
The domain of science is the empirical universe; the domain of religion is the moral, ethical and spiritual meaning of life.
Gould was called America's most prominent evolutionist, yet he too, was a critic of Darwin's theory, and the object of some controversy within the scientific community. There's a lesson in that: In the domain of science there is plenty of room for disagreement and alternative theories without bringing God into the debate.
I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design. It has appeal as a way to grasp the unknowable why of our existence. But it is only a belief. When advocates push intelligent design as a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations of evolution, it is time to push back.
That's what they continue to do in Skagit County. Last week, the Burlington-Edison School Board rejected on a 4-1 vote a proposal to "encourage" the teaching of intelligent design. Bravo.
Despite proponents' claims of scientific validity, intelligent design is little more than religion-based creationism wrapped in critiques of Darwin and all dressed up in politically correct language. All for the ultimate goal — placing a Christian God in science classrooms of America's public high schools.
Apparently, you've never lived with a cat or dog. I've seen them both very happy, extremely pissed, and even disappointed, among other emotions.
There are lots of bipedal critters -- kangaroos and birds, for instance. Most great apes are semi-bipedal. What do you mean by "thinks rationally?" If you mean "capable of planning and executing those plans" then wolves and killer whales could be considered rational, as could any number of apes and monkeys. As for showing emotions, just about any higher animal out there shows emotions at one time or another. Birds get excited (at least my cockatiels do), dogs get angry or happy, etc.
What a pity, he wasn't pithy ...
[Now I've got Kansas City Kitty going through my head]
18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief.
BTW, I think your safe to read it without much danger of getting converted.
I'm not disputing that -- What you didn't mention is that the entire free market economy is a human construct and therefore can't be compared to a single organism. The fact that humans alone among all the species on the planet have the capacity to create a "free-market economy" tells me that human ingenuity is not the result of a random process.
If you can find any evidence of monkeys in Africa buying and selling bananas on a futures market, I'll gladly concede the argument. Since you probably can't even imagine something as nonsensical as that (due to the inherent, permanent place that monkeys have as a form of life lower than humans), you'd have to say I've got a point.
‘But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.’ (Luke 6:27+28)
"There is a principle that is pervasive in human life. It is the principle of reciprocity; the principle of retaliation; the principle of 'an eye for an eye.' This principle undergirds the tragic cycle of violence that holds the world in its grip."
"On this principle relations between nations are conducted. Voters demand this of their governments, even though it has brought the world to the brink of "mutually assured destruction." "Christ's command for us to love our enemies runs against the whole trend of human order and affairs. It represents an... entirely different world order---the order of the kingdom of heaven. The sign of this kingdom is the cross. Far from reciprocal violence, its method is that of suffering servant hood. This is the suffering of aggressive love."
"In the Calvary event we witness God suffering for his enemies; refusing to give blow for blow; praying for those who mistreat him; forgiving those who wrong him. There is nothing else in all of history to match the Spirit, and the wonder of the cross of Jesus. Sacrificial love was at work. And there is redemption for us in NO OTHER WAY."
I'm not disputing that -- What you didn't mention is that the entire free market economy is a human construct and therefore can't be compared to a single organism. The fact that humans alone among all the species on the planet have the capacity to create a "free-market economy" tells me that human ingenuity is not the result of a random process.
If you can find any evidence of monkeys in Africa buying and selling bananas on a futures market, I'll gladly concede the argument. Since you probably can't even imagine something as nonsensical as that (due to the inherent, permanent place that monkeys have as a form of life lower than humans), you'd have to say I've got a point.
But don't let your mind fret with ancient poetry, we have evolved so much since then haven't we ?
Don't be so sure about that....
I can see why.
I would've said that human evolution is driven by social forces for at least the last few million years, as it is currently. Our ancestors were perfectly capable of living in their environments, but as their population grew, they were forced to compete more aggressively with each other for mates, food, living space, power, cool cars, etc. This would create significant selection pressure. Our current evolution is driven by our interaction with other people, not our environment.
The creation-evolution debate helps illustrate our dependence on science, nurtured by a media controlled by others.
If we were to use other terms for the above quote from the article, we would have something like:I have no quarrel with those who believe in global warming. It has appeal as a way to control property. But it is only a belief.
Two hundred years ago, the founding fathers intended a separation of Church and State; James Madison wrote, “religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” Today, if Madison was around, he would say, Science and Government will exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
The founding fathers knew from history that religion was misused to control people, to stifle liberties. The threat of damnation was used to indulge the whims of those in power.
Today, the threat of extinction, the threat of harm, based on the misuse of science is used to accomplish what religion cannot because of the First Amendment.
Science has ceased to be enlightening; it is time to separate Science and State.
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.