Evolution Challenged in Georgia School Debate

Voice of America ^ | 29 August 2004 | Kate Sweeney

[PatrickHenry]

It's a simple scientific concept, and perhaps one of the most complex issues in culturally conservative parts of the nation. And nearly eight decades after a teacher in Tennessee went on trial for talking to his class about Darwin's ideas, talk of evolution has taken center-stage in Georgia's public classrooms. Two years ago, the School Board of Cobb County, near Atlanta, voted to place a sticker in the county's science textbooks.

"The disclaimer says, 'This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered,'" says attorney Michael Manely who represents a parent group from Cobb County, which has sued the school board, demanding the disclaimer be removed. The group says the county is trying to force religion into the schools.

Cobb County education officials deny that claim, but with countless theories about everything from galaxy formation to cell communication - Mr. Manely is skeptical. "There are well over 5,000 theories that I'm familiar with. So of these 5,000 possible scientific theories: Why has the school board chosen to disclaim only evolution?"

Cobb County Schools declined to comment on the matter, but others were happy to speak out.

"Well, I think the sticker is appropriate," says Barrett Duke, the Vice-President for Public Policy of the Southern Baptist Convention. "I think it's appropriate for students to understand that evolution is a theory; It is not fact."

Mainstream scientists, however, do recognize evolution as a fact, based on fossil records and other biological evidence. They reject the concept put forward by one group of evolution opponents, known as Intelligent Design Theory. Its underlying premise is: if there's a creation, there must be a creator.

For Sarah Pallas, a science professor at Georgia State University, Intelligent Design is not so much a competing theory as a distraction. "I liken these groups, such as Discovery Institute, to schoolyard bullies that are pushing their way to the head of the line," she says. "They don't do laboratory science. They don't spend their millions in private donations on test-tubes or DNA analysis machines, they spend it on their PR machines, pushing on uneducated school board members, to get their ideas into the classroom."

The Discovery Institute, the conservative think-tank [ARRRRGHHH!] behind Intelligent Design, says it does not endorse the theory's inclusion in school curriculum, only the presentation of "scientific weaknesses" it sees in Darwinian evolution.

But there is a moral imperative for conservative groups to get involved in public education matters, according to Graham Walker, a theology professor at Mercer University. He points to what some see as a lack of moral foundation in today's public schools. "We have not provided a basis the way the old 17th and 18th century schooling systems provided it: Whereby you would discuss: 'How should I live?'"

Moreover, the upsurge in the evolution controversy comes as conservative religious groups like the Southern Baptist Convention are facing a more palpable crisis: Barrett Duke says, they're losing followers. "There's no question that many Christian young people are going out to public school and they're coming out much different than their parents had expected them to come out!"

The SBC says that by the time they are 18 years old, nearly 90-percent of the children raised in evangelical homes have left the church, never to return. The attrition problem has Southern Baptist leaders so concerned that earlier this year, prominent members of the church asked their national convention to consider a resolution that would have called on Southern Baptist parents to remove their children from the nation's public schools.

Georgia State science professor Sarah Pallas agrees that U.S. public schools are in real trouble but for exactly the opposite reason than that voiced by the Southern Baptists: not discussing scientific topics like evolution is leading to a decline in test scores and the quality of education and economic potential. "We are losing out on our dominance in this area, in science and technology, and the top scientists, the top-notch discoveries, are now not located in this country anymore, they're located overseas. This is going to be a real economic cost to the state, and to the nation," she says.

But those fears are not shared by conservative Christian leaders like Barrett Duke. "For those of us who believe that God really did create the world," he says, "it seems to me that it would be appropriate to at least give a nod in God's direction!"

Earlier this summer, the State Education Board adopted science curriculum standards based on the goals recommended by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. As classes resume in Georgia, public schools will be held to those standards, which include the teaching of evolution and its related concepts.

The case regarding the disclaimer stickers in Cobb County could go to trial as soon as October.

[xzins]

This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered..." = "sermon".

For the life of me, if that is the extent of the disclaimer, I can see how no one can disagree with it.

Evolution is a theory.

Critical thinking and careful study can't do any harm and might do a lot of good.

Sometimes, here on FR we get so involved in the ins and outs of our debates that we know exactly when one group is seeking an opening, so we set about closing it off. If a person not involved in debate were to observe what we were so furiously combatting, they would see the point at all.

That's the way it is in this case. The EV folks are so into the argument, that they've forgotten that it is "the theory of evolution."

[Dimensio]

For the life of me, if that is the extent of the disclaimer, I can see how no one can disagree with it.

The "disclaimer" implies a falsehood; that is, that evolution even addresses the origins of life. The theory of evolution does not address the origins of life, so a "disclaimer" stating that evolution is an imperfect explanation for the origins of life is meaningless and nonsensical, making me question the motives and the intellectual credibility of those proposing it.

[Dimensio]

I have been on record as saying many times evolution did not happen, is not happening and could never happen. Life is too complex and intricate to have evolved over a period millions of years.

In other words, you personally can't bring yourself to believe the evidence, therefore the conclusions must be false.

This is the logical fallacy known as "argument from incredulity".

I view scientific evidence the same way I view polls. Any group can make any conclusion come from the evidence they provide depending on what their particular mission is. In other words, evidence and polls can be manipulated to bring a desired conclusion.

Except that scientific evidence can be evaluated by anyone who wishes to take issue with it. If you really want to argue against evolution, you would have a lot more credibility if you were to base your arguments on the actual evidence rather than railing against the very concept of evidence.

I will tell you one thing I know to be fact. There is a God in Heaven.

So you say. Why should I believe you?

I know criticism of all kinds are coming my way the very minute this gets posted.

Well, of course. You appeal to a logical fallacy, criticize the very concept of evidence rather than constructing any reasoned arguments and then go into a completely non-sequitur religious speech.

Let the criticisms come, I would rather be criticized and right, than supported and wrong.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like either applies to you.

With all of that said, the disclaimer should have included ALL of the theories contained in the science book used by the Cobb County Public School System.

Including gravitational theory and atomic theory, if those topics are covered, correct?

Why not just make the fundamental definition of "scientific theory" a mandatory part of the science cirriculum. I would have no objections to that and then you wouldn't need to have any disclaimers because the students would already be informed as to the exact nature of any explanation in science termed "theory".

The disclaimer in no way, shape or form even mentioned religion; and yet, somehow, not only have you good folks leaped a huge leap to say this disclaimer pushes religion, so does the group filing the suit.

That would be based upon the actual words of those pushing for the disclaimer. By their fruits, and all that.

Man has completely ignored the existence of God, and replaced Him with evolution and all kinds of other ideas, and then have the audacity to wonder why our country is in such a shocking state of moral decay.

Drop the arrogant, pious attitude. Evolution is not a "replacement" for any gods, much less yours. Your "God" is not so special that people are seeking to cover it up with scientific theories. Evolution, like all other scientific theories, came about through direct interpretation of physical events by multiple people pooling observations and conclusions. It is not and never has been an attempt to replace any gods or any religion.

[xzins]

I think I've heard evolutionists discuss an evolutionary model for origins of life....all that protein stew, electricity, etc., etc. stuff.

I'm open to correction, but this has everything to do with my point. Those into the debate see things that others don't.

Theory, critical thinking, etc. -- not bad things to point out and certainly injurious to no one.

[Dimensio]

I think I've heard evolutionists discuss an evolutionary model for origins of life....all that protein stew, electricity, etc., etc. stuff.

Nope. The theory of evolution does not, in any way, cover the ultimate origins of life. How the first life forms came into existence is completely irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

I'm open to correction, but this has everything to do with my point. Those into the debate see things that others don't.

I see the solution as seeing the ToE properly, and making students aware of its scope, not ill-conceived and misleading disclaimers on textbooks.

[xzins]

I've probably got an old textbook lying around here with the protein stew theory in it. If I get around to finding it, I'll plop a few old quotes onto the screen and ping you. Fair enough? :>)

[Dimensio]

Sure. Just make sure that your source claims that the "protein stew" explanation is actually a part of the theory of evolution.

[xzins]

No problem. We're talking 70's/early 80's timeframe, so I'm dating myself. :>)

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The Discovery Institute, the conservative think-tank [ARRRRGHHH!] behind Intelligent Design, says it does not endorse the theory's inclusion in school curriculum, only the presentation of "scientific weaknesses" it sees in Darwinian evolution.

Time to turn in the cell phones and computers. They don't exist.

[balrog666]

The big questions are things like is there a Hell and is our soul eternal. The point isn't that all life sprang from a single instance of abiogenesis (or not), but what is God's will for us.

If you can't answer basic questions like "Are there any gods" or "Is there any such thing as a soul", how do you move on to any derivative questions?

[Tribune7]

If you can't answer basic questions like "Are there any gods" or "Is there any such thing as a soul", how do you move on to any derivative questions?

Why do you think these questions aren't answerable?

[Dimensio]

Why do you think these questions aren't answerable?

Well, thus far no one has answered them, they've just asserted knowledge.

[Tribune7]

They've just asserted knowledge.

Why is that not an answer?

[balrog666]

Why is that not an answer?

It is an answer. It's just not a useful answer.

[Tribune7]

It is an answer. It's just not a useful answer.

The questions remain & they can't be avoided. Does God exist? Does Hell exists? What does God want us to do?

Whatever you believe takes a measure of faith. What if Cthulhu is the creator & demands you kill your best friend to prove your love? I'll be in trouble in the afterlife.

Ultimately, you have to put your chips on something.

[Dimensio]

Does God exist?

This is an inadequate question. A better question is "Do any gods exist, and if so, what properties can be applied to them?"

Does Hell exists?

You need a concept of "Hell" to even ask the question. From where have you derived the concept?

What does God want us to do?

This presumes an answer to the first question. Until you've fully answered the first question (as I presented it, not as you presented it), this question has no meaning.

[Hoplite]

Well, I called the Nobel committee, just to see what the holdup was, and, much to my chagrin, it turns out that CCTS has been around for some time.

The leading edge of the field is now concerned with firing birds at aircraft with pneumatic cannons, which only proves science is evil as none of those concerned appears to have given any thought as to what happens when the inevitable pigeon/7E7 cyborg relieves itself on some poor family as they're motoring down the road in their sedan.

[Tribune7]

A better question is "Do any gods exist, and if so, what properties can be applied to them?"

OK, do any gods exist?

[PatrickHenry]

Well, I called the Nobel committee, just to see what the holdup was ...

Can't trust those Swedes. Lefties, all of them.

[Tribune7]

Can't trust those Swedes.

Never trust a Swede :-)