Posted on 02/07/2005 3:50:28 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Al Frisby has spent the better part of his life in rooms filled with rebellious teenagers, but the last years have been particularly trying for the high school biology teacher. He has met parents who want him to teach that God created Eve out of Adam's rib, and then then adjusted the chromosomes to make her a woman, and who insist that Noah invited dinosaurs aboard the ark. And it is getting more difficult to keep such talk out of the classroom.
"Somewhere along the line, the students have been told the theory of evolution is not valid," he said. "In the last few years, I've had students question my teaching about cell classification and genetics, and there have been a number of comments from students saying: 'Didn't God do that'?" In Kansas, the geographical centre of America, the heart of the American heartland, the state-approved answer might soon be Yes. In the coming weeks, state educators will decide on proposed curriculum changes for high school science put forward by subscribers to the notion of "intelligent design", a modern version of creationism. If the religious right has its way, and it is a powerful force in Kansas, high school science teachers could be teaching creationist material by next September, charting an important victory in America's modern-day revolt against evolutionary science.
Legal debate
Similar classroom confrontations between God and science are under way in 17 states, according to the National Centre for Science Education. In Missouri, state legislators are drafting a bill laying down that science texts contain a chapter on so-called alternative theories to evolution. Textbooks in Arkansas and Alabama contain disclaimers on evolution, and in a Wisconsin school district, teachers are required to instruct their students in the "scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory". Last month, a judge in Georgia ordered a school district to remove stickers on school textbooks that warned: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things."
For the conservative forces engaged in the struggle for America's soul, the true battleground is public education, the laboratory of the next generation, and an opportunity for the religious right to effect lasting change on popular culture. Officially, the teaching of creationism has been outlawed since 1987 when the supreme court ruled that the inclusion of religious material in science classes in public teaching was unconstitutional. In recent years, however, opponents of evolution have regrouped, challenging science education with the doctrine of "intelligent design" which has been carefully stripped of all references to God and religion. Unlike traditional creationism, which posits that God created the earth in six days, proponents of intelligent design assert that the workings of this planet are too complex to be ascribed to evolution. There must have been a designer working to a plan - that is, a creator.
In their campaign to persuade parents in Kansas to welcome the new version of creationism into the classroom, subscribers to intelligent design have appealed to a sense of fair play, arguing that it would be in their children's interest to be exposed to all schools of thought on the earth's origins. "We are looking for science standards that would be more informative, that would open the discussion about origins, rather than close it," said John Calvert, founder of the Intelligent Design network, the prime mover in the campaign to discredit the teaching of evolution in Kansas.
Other supporters of intelligent design go further, saying evolution is as much an article of faith as creationism. "Certainly there are clear religious implications," said William Harris, a research biochemist and co-founder of the design network in Kansas. "There are creation myths on both sides. Which one do you teach?" For Mr. Harris, an expert on fish oils and prevention of heart disease at the premier teaching hospital in Kansas City, the very premise of evolution was intolerable. He describes his conversion as a graduate student many years ago almost as an epiphany. "It hit me that if monkeys are supposed to be so close to us as relatives then what explains the incredible gap between monkeys and humans. I had a realisation that there was a vast chasm between the two types of animals, and the standard explanation just didn't fit."
Other scientists on the school board's advisory committee see no clash in values between religion and science. "Prominent conservative Christians, evangelical Christians, have found no inherent conflict between an evolutionary understanding of the history of life, and an orthodox understanding of the theology of creation," said Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University, who describes himself as a practising Christian.
But in Kansas, as in the rest of America, it would seem a slim majority continue to believe God created the heaven and the earth. During the past five years, subscribers to intelligent design have assembled a roster of influential supporters in the state, including a smattering of people with PhDs, such as Mr Harris, to lend their cause a veneer of scientific credibility. When conservative Republicans took control of the Kansas state school board last November, the creationists seized their chance, installing supporters on the committee reviewing the high school science curriculum.
The suggested changes under consideration seem innocuous at first. "A minor addition makes it clear that evolution is a theory and not a fact," says the proposed revision to the 8th grade science standard. However, Jack Krebs, a high school maths teacher on the committee drafting the new standards, argues that the campaign against evolution amounts to a stealth assault on the entire body of scientific thought. "There are two planes where they are attacking. One is evolution, and one is science itself," he said.
"They believe that the naturalistic bias of science is in fact atheistic, and that if we don't change science, we can't believe in God. And so this is really an attack on all of science. Evolution is just the weak link."
It would certainly seem so in Kansas. At the first of a series of public hearings on the new course material, the audience was equally split between the defenders of established science, and the anti-evolution rebels. The breakdown has educators worried. With the religious right now in control of the Kansas state school board, the circumstances favour the creationists.
In a crowded high school auditorium, biology teachers, mathematicians, a veterinarian, and a high school student made passionate speeches on the need for cold, scientific detachment, and the damage that would be done to the state's reputation and biotechnology industry if Kansas became known as a haven for creationists. They were countered by John James, who warned that the teaching of evolution led to nihilism, and to the gates of Auschwitz. "Are we producing little Kansas Nazis?" he asked. But the largest applause of the evening was reserved for a silver-haired gentleman in a navy blue blazer. "I have a question: if man comes from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why do you waste time teaching something in science class that is not scientific?" he thundered.
Science teachers believe that the genteel questioning of the intelligent design movements masks a larger project to discredit an entire body of rational thought. If the Kansas state school board allows science teachers to question evolution, where will it stop? Will religious teachers bring their beliefs into the classroom?
"They are trying to create a climate where anything an individual teacher wants to include in science class can be considered science," said Harry McDonald, a retired biology teacher and president of Kansas Citizens for Science Education. "They want to redefine science."
Religious right
Young Earth creationism: God created the Earth, and all the species on it, in six days, 6,000 years ago
Old Earth creationism: The Earth is 4.5bn years old, but God created each living organism on the planet, although not necessarily in six days
Intelligent design: Emerged as a theory in 1989. Maintains that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and that Earth's complexity can be explained only by the idea of an intelligent designer - or a creator
The Jews have enough really important issues to worry about... Seriously, they seem to take the Bible less literally than the Christians, partially due to the long tradition of reinterpretation that sometimes strips words of their literal meaning. There is no history of serious inter-faith splits based on a particular interpretation, so there is less fervor about this in general
The Muslims do not pay attention. Their Koran starts from Moses already
Hinduists and others have so many contradictory (or complimentary) myths of creation, that evolution is not a problem at all
Evolution happened. Therefore, if your postulates are true ... .
Let me ask you:
Why do you think you have all the answers?
I never claimed to have all the answers. That is, in my experience, the province of a subset of the extremely religious. Some even go so far as to say that since I believe in the science and facts about evolution, that they know what's going to happen to me after I die.
I wonder, have you ever asked them why they think they have all the answers?
"I believe in the science and facts about evolution"
And, briefly, what are your facts as opposed to God being the creator of the universe?
Well, there are plenty of Bush voters, probably even within the so called "religious right," who accept evolution as a valid theory, but still believe in God, and even in intelligent design.
OTOH, the black population, to a great extent, is religiously identical to the religious right, but mirrors them in voting patterns.
I think most "liberals" believe Bush lost primarily because of moral values. It played a part, but, IMO, was not the greatest factor.
They burned Giordano Bruno, those bastards... He was somewhat of an Art Bell of the day, though...
Exactly correct. The Creationists and their soul-mates, the PostModernDeconstructionists and NewAgers, have been anti-science for decades (at least.)
Well, the theory of evolution is definitely science, although perhaps not the scientific method, since it can't be verified through experiment. Same goes for creationism, though, although for some, creation is more a matter of faith than of reason.
Some creationists attempt to make evolution into a religion, which it's not, and creationism into a science, which it usually is not, but could be. I don't actually see the need for moral equivalency in the debate.
I agree with the creationists that man cannot rely on reason alone, still, no way can we ignore it either, it's on of God's greatest gifts to us.
God and science are not at odds at all. He and his believers are only painted as anti-science by those who can't accept God or his power. This article is an example of that. Notice the skewed writing, even in the title, framing believers as ignorant?
The Islamic view is identical to that of the Creationists
None. Even the evolution does not qualify.
And, briefly, what are your facts as opposed to God being the creator of the universe?
What are you talking about? I talked about evolution, and you react with talk of creating the universe. If you don't instinctively see that these are two totally different things, then what good would it do for me to lay out the scientific support for evolution? Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe.
Moreover, I never said whether I believe or disbelieve in God. Is it simply a knee-jerk reaction that led you to the conclusion that I had some "disproof" that God created the universe? Are you one of those people who think that disbelief in the literal truth of Genesis is somehow the same as atheism?
If you want to learn something about evolution, see the great Freeper PatrickHenry's about page. It says it all better and more comprehensively than I could here. I'm not, however, going to take seriously your apparent knee-jerk beliefs about evolution and atheism.
I was marreid to a woman who held such beliefs. Her and her friends wanted to "save" me because I am a scientist. I was told that ALL science was the work of Satan because science attempts to disprove the Bible. Therefore, anyone who followed science, let alone earned a living from it, was automatically condemned to Hell as if being a scientist was equivalent to carrying the Mark of the Beast. I was also told that science is spiritually corrupt because scientists are never satisfied with the way things are (i.e. the way God made them to be). We waste energy and money on questions about nature and not enough on our salvation. Making life healthier, easier and better was making people more lazy and distracting them from Jesus.
This type of thinking is what gives Christianity a bad name and is used by the left as an example of what the faithful in American desire. The bottom line is that there are Fundamentalist Christians that do want the U.S. to be a Christian Theocracy, analagous to the Taliban, but, hoepfully, without the violence. Fortunately, most Christians are not like that.
So what? Astronomy can't "be verified through experiment" either. Yet it too is science. The key to determining if an idea is scientific is whether it is, in principle, falsifiable. That is, does the "theory" lead to predictions which, either through experiment or observation would either support or contradict the theory. By that standard, which is universally accepted by the science community, evolution is most definitely a scientific theory. For example:
All present and fossilized animals found should conform to the standard evolutionary tree. And they do.
Fossilized intermediates should appear in the "correct" chronological order on the standard tree.
Many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions.
Species that are more closely related should share a greater portion of their DNA.. Excerpt:
[A]n hypothesis of evolutionary relationships is provided by the fossil record, which indicates when particular types of organisms evolved. In addition, by examining the anatomical structures of fossils and of modern species, we can infer how closely species are related to each other. When degree of genetic similarity is compared with our ideas of evolutionary relationships based on fossils, a close match is evident.Also: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
I never implied you were an atheist. I would never presume to know someone's spiritual beliefs. I, however, believe that the Bible is literal and that talk of evolution often is about adaptation, which is observable.
I doubt it. Even if it did, it wouldn't be because of the "Creationists."
You may be interested in this latest article from Science. Looks like the BIG BUCKS are in Darwinism. It *does* have the ACLU and the evolutionists on it's side, after all.
‘Darwinian’ Funding and the Demise of Physics and Chemistry,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5710, 668-669, 4 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5710.668
> Evolution says that there was NO God there.
That is entirely incorrect. Did you know you are spouting lies?
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.