Cobb Mulls Teaching Evolution Alternatives

Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 08/15/02 | Mary MacDonald

[ArGee]

Most of us agree, however: "Jesus is Lord."

Amen!

Shalom.

[ArGee]

OK, then drop that part. It doesn't change the position I suggest.

By the way, I don't believe the paragraph I suggested would allow the teaching of "creation science" I personally believe that G-d created the universe and that the seeming gaps between the scientific record and the Biblical record are due to man's inability to properly interpret one, or the other, or both. However, I don't think you can teach special creation as science. That is because you can't use hypothesis, experiment, observe, revise to clarify the details. G-d did it once upon a time and that's all we have. AFAIK, all "creation science" ever does is try to refute evolutionary origins. But what good does that do, removing one theory is not the same as advancing another unless you have categorically shown that only two possibilities exist.

Shalom.

[Iota]

>>>"Intelligent Design" is not associated with any religion or doctrine. <<<

Not overtly, no. But if you poll IDers as to who the designer was/is, I'll bet you the vast majority would pick the Judeo-Christian God. IIRC, such a poll was taken recently in Ohio -- whose school board was considering requiring ID instruction in the schools -- and something like 80 percent said they thought God was the designer. In theory, of course, it could be aliens or time travelers or what have you; but in the U.S. (and I haven't seen that ID has much of a following outside of America) most IDers are putting their money on the Almighty.

[Iota]

I wasn't sure the Supremes had addressed the point either; hence my reference to the creationism cases of "the higher courts". And maybe I'm remembering a line from the Arkansas case (i.e., a district court case rather than a higher court case), but I seem to recall that at least some courts have held that the negative side of creationism --criticism of evolution, rather than just advocacy of Biblical creationism -- can lead to Establishment Clause issues for the reasons I mentioned in my original post.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

I do not doubt that Christians and Jews would promote the "Intelligent Design" model. But that has no more to do with science than the fact that atheists and agnostics promote the "Evolution" model.

The bottom line IMHO is that "Intelligent Design" is neutral to religion and thus would not run afoul of the establishment clause.

[Iota]

>>>The bottom line IMHO is that "Intelligent Design" is neutral to religion and thus would not run afoul of the establishment clause<<<

I agree that ID is facially neutral as to religion. However, if the Cobb County School Board requires that it be taught in science class because ID happens to coincide with the religious beliefs of the Board (and certain vocal constituents) rather than because of its scientific merit alone, I believe that doing so would violate the Establishment Clause. And I believe that this is the real reason the Board is thinking about requiring the teaching of ID.

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the Board members want to mandate teaching ID because they believe it lends scientific support to the creation account in Genesis or to the notion that the JudeoChristian God created all life, do you believe that doing so would violate the Establishment Clause?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for sharing your views!

If it were the Board's stated intent to present "Intelligent Design" along with "Evolution" in order to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ, they would be in violation of the establishment clause - according to the previous Supreme Court rulings.

If they do not state an intention, we cannot read their minds and thus cannot infer the intent - and there would be no conflict with the establishment clause.

My two cents...

[Virginia-American]

Actually, they should add the language, along with credits, of course:

"evolution is only a theory, blah, blah..."

(footnote) this paragraph is added by order of public law xx-yy, adopted by the General Assembly on Aug...

Voting for: Del Able (r), Del Baker (d)....

Signed by Governor...

[ladylib]

I believe Cobb County has an ever-increasing private school enrollment. Perhaps the county is doing this to appease parents who don't believe in Darwin's theory and would prefer that it not be taught as fact.

[ladylib]

Yeah, money. Cobb County public schools don't need any more defections to private religious schools.

[highpockets]

you said

If they do not state an intention, we cannot read their minds and thus cannot infer the intent - and there would be no conflict with the establishment clause. My two cents...

Would you extend this gracious exception to others whose intents are never spoken, but whose desire is clearly evident?

An example: Homsexuality

[highpockets]

homsexuality should be homosexuality

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your post!

Would you extend this gracious exception to others whose intents are never spoken, but whose desire is clearly evident? An example: Homsexuality

I believe that is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military with regard to homosexuality. The catch is your phrase "clearly evident" which would fail on the "don't tell" test.