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.
Well, it would explain a lot, anyway.
Burning heretics has always been more fun than burning bad people.
Easier to find 'em, too.
Just look for the ones holding the matches.
One is an infinite order of magnitude greater than zero, so the trend is obvious.
On the other hand, if you have not previously made this declaration, it is irrelevant to the discussion. We are not discussing whether you are or are not an athiest, but whether you made such an open declaration prior to post #43.
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...They can, but it's not a scientific answer, because there's no way of testing it. So Fergitaboutit!
What a lot of people forget when they promote such NONSENSE is the Aristotelian categorical model and scientific method...Harry may have been a really smart chap and known everything, but understanding and knowledge moves on (tempted to say evolves) in 2000 years
I often remind the eco-fascist veggie nazis who say humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat,That is at least a scientific statement in that it can be examined and tested.
that inherent in their statement is the premise there is a designer or some sacred meaning to human existence.That is not.
1. humans weren't "designed" or "meant" to eat meat
2. humans didn't evolve to eat meat
What's the difference? We don't know. So Fergitaboutit!
Someone, even an evolutionist using the form 1. rather than 2. has no more import in "proving" a Designer than an astronomer saying "the sun rose" proving Heliocentrism.
It comes back to your initial debating trick "One thing an evolutionist cannot answer... ". Just because someone else doesn't know the answer, doesn't establish that you do.
please expand upon the part "within a church", "unless religious", and "for nonreligious reasons".
I do not understand their meaning in the context given.
Thanks
You are one of the "3 or 4" that I had in mind. I point this out just in case someone might think that the number is swelling.
"It is equally true that the underlying belief systems of the atheistic evolutionists contradict our Founders and conservatism in general."
- I generally try to shy away from people who seem to enjoy arguing and getting under someone elses skin, but the comment above made me wonder where you were coming from.
Which contradictions do you mean? The founders were influenced by many things, Benjamin Franklin was an avid scientist as was Thomas Jefferson and several of the others. I don't see how atheism is incompatible with conservatism. Conservatism does not equal evangelism - atheism does not equal liberalism or am I mistaken? (FYI so you won't jump to conclusions, I am not an atheist)
Maybe an evolutionist can't answer it because the "big bang" is a theory in cosmology and has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary science.
However, it sounds as though you may not have a good understanding of expansion theory.
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...
I think there is a metaphor in there somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can tease it out.
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...
Are you saying "eco-fascist veggie nazis" are Creationists, or that the statements of "eco-fascist veggie nazis" proves Creationism?
LOL! You are right. Dataman could drive the Pope to atheism!
1^777 or 1^666 has more magic.
He wouldn't be the first one here for that purpose.
100
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.