Posted on 01/07/2005 2:42:22 PM PST by Ed Current
The "creation" controversy has splashed down in Gull Lake, Mich. Last spring, according to the Kalamazoo Gazette, a parent complained that two middle school biology teachers were giving the concept of "intelligent design" equal treatment in the classroom with the theory of evolution. The district has told them to stop, and both are now crying foul, appealing to the community for help.
Gull Lake parents are divided.
"Intelligent design," or ID, contends that the diversity of life on Earth and the complexity of some biological systems could not have arisen by means of evolution. To correct that perceived inadequacy, ID stipulates that an "intelligent designer" authored the world’s species.
Proponents argue that intelligent design is a serious scientific theory, and that, at the very least, its existence should be taught in biology classes. Opponents dismiss it as a superficially secular attempt to inject biblical creationism into public school classrooms – a Lamb of God in sheep’s clothing.
Michigan isn’t alone. All told, roughly 40 states are now embroiled in battles over the teaching of evolution. On Tuesday, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pennsylvania parents objecting to their school board’s decision to teach ID. Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Science Education told the Gazette that "by lobbying school boards to include creationism or weaken evolution in their science curricula, (biblical) creationists are politicizing science education."
But Ms. Scott understates the problem — and mislays the blame.
Every aspect of the public school curriculum, not just science education, is inherently political. Decisions over what and how to teach are made by elected and appointed government officials. Because there is only one official state organ of education, everyone wants it to conform to their own views.
That is impossible.
In a pluralistic society, there are countless different and incompatible worldviews. Our effort to serve that diverse audience through a monolithic school system has not only failed to forge common ground; it has bred animosity and discord.
But this failure of compelled conformity is no cause for alarm; it is unnecessary to force all Americans to accept a single view on the origins of man. While there are certainly issues on which consensus is important in a free society, such as a commitment to the democratic process, respect for the rule of law and equal rights for all citizens, the origin of humanity is not among them.
Nor is it clear that centrally planned public schooling is the best means of nurturing societal agreement in those special areas where it is important. Research shows private school students to be as tolerant and civic-minded as their public school counterparts, and it also shows private schools to be, if anything, more meaningfully integrated than public schools.
Private schools, with their diverse world views, coexist as peacefully as private churches. If every family in America had the financial resources to choose the public or private school they preferred, as they would under a universal education tax credit system, we could enjoy the same harmonious relations in education that we have experienced in the field of religion. Thanks to the separation of church and state, American religious life has avoided most of the political and ideological conflicts that have beset our official state schools.
And honestly, is anyone happy with the way schools currently handle this issue?
Adherents of intelligent design presumably aren’t. They must fight to have their views heard in the public schools, and when they succeed, they immediately face legal challenges. Even if ID prevails in court (as biblical creationism did not), will science teachers present it in a way that will satisfy its advocates?
Adherents of evolution have nothing to cheer about, either. Virtually all biologists see evolution as the fundamental structuring principle of their entire discipline. By contrast, schools often teach it as a brief, isolated unit to avoid controversy. Tellingly, after generations of public school instruction in the theory of evolution, a recent Gallup poll found that 45 percent of Americans believe humanity is the comparatively recent product of divine creation, while only one-third believe that evolution is a theory well-supported by scientific evidence.
These results must dismay most scientists, and they should cause intelligent design advocates to question the wisdom of entrusting their own views to the public schools.
Back in Gull Lake, both sides are digging in their heels, and accusations of miseducation and brainwashing have started to fly. So long as we stick with a single official state school system, however, there will always be ideological winners and losers, and such antagonism will remain.
Wouldn’t we all be better off giving school choice a chance instead?
#####
Andrew J. Coulson is senior fellow for education policy for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.
Your record of being incorrect remains unbroken.
LOL - the topic at hand is your blatant hypocrisy in demanding civility from others. To that end, I offered a specific example, but that's not the sum total of it - oh, no. Not by a long shot. LOL.
Your record of being incorrect remains unbroken.
I guess with you, the laughs just never end! Welcome back, Chuckles.
I don't want to turn this into the food fight you've so graciously offered to host, so I won't pull a "shubi" and accuse you of stalking. However, see post 60 again. You made a specific claim -an untrue one I might add- that I called all evolutionists atheists and liberals. Since I don't believe that, I am absolutely certain you cannot produce the link where I said that. Your threats are not in order nor is your offer to reference other threads. Your grossly uncivil behavior began with an ad hominem and has continued thus far without referencing the topic of this thread. There are a number of directions we can go from here. Which option would you like to exercise? Here are some from which you can choose:
I see it's time to lower my expectations. My response was to this part of your post:
describe the *large* realm of which our universe is thought to be merely a tiny part.
But like I said, you guys will allow for all kinds of universes so long as God doesn't reside in them. That is just a wee bit paranoid, especially since you can avoid Him only for a few decades.
To: rhetor
Exactly right and Ichneumon knows it. Don't expect to find much intellectual honesty among the self-appointed guardians of pseudo science.
To: Safrguns; Ed Current
But if the secularists can destroy religion in the public arena, the brave new progressive world is a possibility. That's what happened in Canada.
Any assault on Judeo-Christian philosophy should be fought.
"Talking Points" is convinced that the USA cannot defeat terrorism and any other evil without a strong, traditional foundation that clearly defines right from wrong.
To: BibChr
And see post #6--- Patrick tells his drones when to participate. Isn't that just like evolutionists to tell each other what to think? They have bumper stickers that say "Think for yourself" but don't really want that. They claim to be intelligent but have to be told when to join a thread and when to avoid it. Sheep. Cowards.
To: beckett
Careful, they take this stuff seriously. You might hurt the purposeless feelings of some soulless, will-less evolutionist in his imaginary world who is particularly lonely this time of year.
To: bondserv
They might theorize who they are but these days they are heavily into denial.
To: Doctor Stochastic
Who exposed your hoaxes and how many decades "science" accepted them does not change the fact that the desperate tendency of evolutionists is to fake evidence.
To: BibChr
Dan
(c;
Of course not! (Further evidence that the evos aren't interested in the truth.)
Well, gee. I guess I'll go for option 6 - call Dataman out and expose his hypocrisy in calling for civility. Feel free to disappear now, little troll.
I understand the satisfaction of a slam dunk, but that post really makes this thread confusing!
LOL. Sorry. Anyway, expect someone to go shopping for a sympathetic mod by whining about "stalking" or some such idiocy - there's a tiny chance it'll get pulled and clear up the formatting of the thread ;)
One thing an evolutionist cannot answer is if their idea of a "big bang" theory is really an admission the universe is an Immaculate Conception...
DNA is the singularity that evolutionists rely upon by belief to support their theory. This is no different than the Big Bang - - just another Immaculate Conception...
What a lot of people forget when they promote such NONSENSE is the Aristotelian categorical model and scientific method...
I often remind the eco-fascist veggie nazis who say humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat, that inherent in their statement is the premise there is a designer or some sacred meaning to human existence. Logic often diffuses theory into a foundation of belief...
One thing an evolutionist cannot answer is if their idea of a "big bang" theory is really an admission the universe is an Immaculate Conception...
DNA is the singularity that evolutionists rely upon by belief to support their theory. This is no different than the Big Bang - - just another Immaculate Conception...
What a lot of people forget when they promote such NONSENSE is the Aristotelian categorical model and scientific method...
I often remind the eco-fascist veggie nazis who say humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat, that inherent in their statement is the premise there is a designer or some sacred meaning to human existence. Logic often diffuses theory into a foundation of belief...
One thing an evolutionist cannot answer is if their idea of a "big bang" theory is really an admission the universe is an Immaculate Conception...
DNA is the singularity that evolutionists rely upon by belief to support their theory. This is no different than the Big Bang - - just another Immaculate Conception...
What a lot of people forget when they promote such NONSENSE is the Aristotelian categorical model and scientific method...
I often remind the eco-fascist veggie nazis who say humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat, that inherent in their statement is the premise there is a designer or some sacred meaning to human existence. Logic often diffuses theory into a foundation of belief...
Evolution relies on the singularity of DNA... Without evidence that there is life without DNA, these evolution theories are all based on fallacies... Every living thing we have encountered has DNA...
I see you've discovered the "Festival of the Hypocritical Trolls".......
You have a list of the most frequent posters -- just look at PH's ping list. Now tell us which of (the majority by your count) are admitted atheists. Please show your work. Link to the posts where we proclaim ourselves to be atheists. If you cannot show the links, then you are a liar.
A nice collection, but you failed to show where I called all evolutionists atheists or liberals. Nothing is beneath you guys, is it? You just make it up as you go along.
LOL. I think I'll let the record stand for itself.
In post #43 you said "...the majority of FR's rabid evolutionists are admitted atheists ..."
This is actually a much stronger statement than asserting that they "are" atheists. One could be an atheist and deny it.
But you say we are "admitted" atheists.
Prove it.
My ping list is now 212 names long. (None to my knowledge are leftist, but that doesn't stop the creationists from claiming otherwise.) I'm aware of maybe 3 or 4 who have stated that they're atheists, but there could be a few others that I can't recall. It's a very small percentage of the list. Almost everyone else who has mentioned the subject endorses some kind of theistic approach to evolution. So does the Pope, and so do probably most (or certainly many) Protestant denominations.
I've been a Freeper 26 days longer than Dataman. I say he's the atheist. Neener, neener, neener.
You've been here a tad over a year longer than me, so ... say what you will, old timer.
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.