Evolution Challenged in Georgia School Debate

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.

"In other words, you personally can't bring yourself to believe the evidence"

For every piece of evidence provided to prove evolution, eventually, a scientist (sometimes the same scientist who provided the first piece of evidence), finds evidence that contradicts the first piece of evidence; in whole or in part. There are as many different kinds of theories for how evolution happened as there are styles of clothing in the world. EVOLUTION HAS NEVER AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY been absolutely, positively and completely to be proved to be a fact, even beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.

Scientists argue constantly with each other over evolution. They argue over circumstances, evidence or the lack there of supporting an idea about evolution. I simply do not accept as truth, what a group of people who are actively involved in trying to prove evolution can not even agree on themselves to be the truth.

I remind you one more time. Anyone can print something in a scientific journal they want to, and call it a scientific fact, but does not in any way make what is printed in a scientific journal a fact. People lie, and so do scientists.

Yes, evolution is very much an attempt to disclaim and disprove God. The majority of scientists who are working so hard to prove evolution if not all of them, are in fact atheists, and it is this fact, not scientific truth, that drives them to work so hard to prove evolution and disprove creationism.

Those scientists who are trying to push this new theory of evolution happening but under the watchful eye of an "intelligent designer" are completely misguided. As far as the crack about why you should believe me about the existence of God, I know there is a God. Nothing has made a mark on me as the day my daughter was born. I know God exists, by this fact alone. You know a mother quite literally walks through the valley of the shadow of death during child birth, when she goes to make that final push to get the head of the baby out, her stops beating for the count of 4 beats, just long enough to get the head out. No damage occurs to her or the child, at least normally does not anyway. Evolution did not create that, God did.

For every piece of evidence provided to prove evolution, eventually, a scientist (sometimes the same scientist who provided the first piece of evidence), finds evidence that contradicts the first piece of evidence; in whole or in part.

Kindly provide documentation of this.

There are as many different kinds of theories for how evolution happened as there are styles of clothing in the world.

Actually, there is only one Theory of Evolution. There are a few different ideas on the mechanisms thereof, but not of the general theory.

EVOLUTION HAS NEVER AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY been absolutely, positively and completely to be proved to be a fact

Right. Theories never are. Please refer to the scientific definition of theory. Bridges and computers operate upon theories.

Scientists argue constantly with each other over evolution.

Jeepers, by this logic, surely you aren't Christian, are you?!

Anyone can print something in a scientific journal they want to, and call it a scientific fact

Oh really. I'll pay you $100K if you can. Seriously. Have you no idea how the process works? They ain't Reader's Digest, y'know.

The majority of scientists who are working so hard to prove evolution if not all of them, are in fact atheists...

Another incredibly bold (and horribly wrong) assertion with nothing to back it up. Typical.

...that drives them to work so hard to prove evolution and disprove creationism.

As if your version of "creationism" is the only one in existence. False Dichotomy. Boy, you are covering the gamut today.

Those scientists who are trying to push this new theory of evolution happening but under the watchful eye of an "intelligent designer" are completely misguided

On that, we agree.

I'll ignore your last paragraph, as it speaks to your personal faith, and that is not something I wish to argue. Although I was not aware that a mother giving birth had heart stoppage for "4 beats." Fascinating.

EVOLUTION HAS NEVER AT ANY TIME IN HISTORY been absolutely, positively and completely to be proved to be a fact, even beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.

Neither has gravitational theory. The nature of "theory" is that it can never, ever be "proved to be a fact, even beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt".

Scientists argue constantly with each other over evolution. They argue over circumstances, evidence or the lack there of supporting an idea about evolution.Just like with any other theory. I simply do not accept as truth, what a group of people who are actively involved in trying to prove evolution can not even agree on themselves to be the truth.

I take it, then, that you reject absolutely every scientific theory out there?

I remind you one more time. Anyone can print something in a scientific journal they want to, and call it a scientific fact, but does not in any way make what is printed in a scientific journal a fact. People lie, and so do scientists.

Apparently you've never heard of this thing called "peer review". In science, lies are rather quickly exposed once they're brought to light and examined.

Yes, evolution is very much an attempt to disclaim and disprove God.

No, it isn't. Repeating this lie over and over again won't make it true.

Your comment is the height of arrogance. Evolution is not all about you or your religion. It is about the best explanation given observed evidence. It's not an attempt to disprove the "God" that you worship any more than it is an attempt to disprove Shiva, Zeus, Baal or Odin. Yes, it might not be consistent with what you want to believe is true based on your religious beliefs, but that does not make it a direct and deliberate attack on your religion. Stop being so arrogant and assuming that your religion is the de facto standard for a worldview and that anything that might contradict it is a deliberate challenge.

The majority of scientists who are working so hard to prove evolution if not all of them, are in fact atheists, and it is this fact, not scientific truth, that drives them to work so hard to prove evolution and disprove creationism.

Thank you for providing evidence to support your assertion.

Oh, wait. You didn't provide any.

Those scientists who are trying to push this new theory of evolution happening but under the watchful eye of an "intelligent designer" are completely misguided.

Yes, they are. The "Intelligent Designer" notion is, thus far, completely unscientific. I mean, they don't even bother to present a falsification criteria.

As far as the crack about why you should believe me about the existence of God, I know there is a God. Nothing has made a mark on me as the day my daughter was born. I know God exists, by this fact alone.

This isn't evidence, this is more 'proof by because-I-said-so'.

You know a mother quite literally walks through the valley of the shadow of death during child birth, when she goes to make that final push to get the head of the baby out, her stops beating for the count of 4 beats, just long enough to get the head out. No damage occurs to her or the child, at least normally does not anyway.

And?

Evolution did not create that, God did.

Argument from incredulity, and appeal to ignorance all in one.

Do you have an argument that isn't a logical fallacy?

I know the scriptures teach God formed all living creatures from "the dust of the earth".

Now, if I had no conceptual knowledge of single-celled lifeforms as they did 2500BC, I would prolly consider them "dust of the earth" and His "forming" to coincide with lifeforms' "transforming", or "evolving".

However the fact remains, there are still MANY facets to that diamond we may never view. Too many missing pieces remain undiscovered to definitively say. Some - as I - believe a Creator to be the source of all life and that by His influences, life changes.

Wouldn't we be a bored bunch if we could suddenly prove our debate or if we just quit asking questions?

What "Father" would give his child a gift and think it were appreciated if the child never expressed an interest to open it?

If there are no gods, or if any gods who exist are indifferent, then the question really isn't all that important.

You are missing the point. If there is no ultimate purpose to your existence then there is no such thing as an important quesiton.

Why get excited about teaching creationism in a public school? Well, it might create zealots who seek to impose restrictions on my pursuit of pleasure. So then the ultimate purpose of your existence is your pleasure and your comfort? Yes.

Which means the question as to whether eternal torment in Hell exists becomes pretty important.

Why get excited about teaching creationism in a public school?

I personally, do not want creationism taught in ‘public’ schools – obviously private schools can do what they wish within standardized guidelines.

That being said, my problem is teleology is no longer accepted in science and science now ‘pretends’ to answer the big questions like, ‘is there any purpose?’ Science answers with the three basic “F’s” – fleeing, fighting, and… reproducing.

Even though I find these answers lacking,… without teleology, where does ‘any’ purpose come from?

Now, I don’t come into schools and demand teleology only but science demands non-teleology must only be taught in public schools… Seriously, what does non-teleological mean? Some people have faith that science will eventually figure it all out but this is still faith and a fairly new line of thinking in regard to modern science.

Teleology and ‘naturalism’ can and should exist together as it has in the past and IMHO, this should not be an either/or situation. </soapbox mode>

Anyway, RNC will be coming on again soon and it is a great to know, that they know, and our President knows, where their purpose comes from…

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.