Posted on 06/06/2005 2:49:58 PM PDT by CHARLITE
A new front has opened up in the debate over evolution and creationism in Utah, with a proposal to require the teaching of divine design in public schools.
State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) has agreed to take the lead in pushing new legislation on the teaching of divine design, also known as intelligent design, in conjunction with evolution in schools.
Buttars is supported by a strong conservative lobby, headed by the Eagle Forum, which has previously sought the inclusion of divine design in the public school science curriculum.
School officials argue that any laws requiring the teaching of divine design could be found in violation of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.
Supporters of the proposal contend, however, that divine design is not the same as creationism. Unlike creationism, divine design simply acknowledges that the world is so complex, its development must have been guided by some higher power. Proponents do not specify who that higher power is.
Currently, public schools in Utah are required to teach evolution, but not alternative theories. Some teachers have independently chosen to introduce the topics of creationism or divine design in their classrooms.
The issue of what to teach in schools regarding evolution has been an ongoing debate. Recent cases have gained nationwide attention.
In May, the Kansas Board of Education held hearings to decide on new science standards. A three-member committee heard arguments from proponents of intelligent design and evolution. Last week, written arguments from both sides were submitted to the Board. The Board is expected to decide on new standards by the end of the summer.
One of the most publicized cases last year concerned evolution disclaimer stickers that were placed on the cover of ninth grade science books in Atlanta, Georgia. The stickers said that “evolution is a theory, not a fact,” and warned students that “material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
Six parents filed a suit against the Cobb County School District, charging that the stickers violated the separation of church and state. The school district argued that the stickers were meant to open up discussion on the topic of evolution and alternative theories of the origin of life.
In January, a federal judge ordered the stickers to be removed. The school district began removing stickers from over 30,000 books in May, although an appeal is pending on the judge’s ruling.
The new proposal in Utah is yet another iteration of the creation-evolution debate. The issue is expected to be brought up when the next legislative session begins in January.
Comments: susan@christianpost.com
The most comprehensive test of the theory of gravity is the path of the voyager spacecraft.
So yes the theory has been tested and failed. The theory of gravity remains a theory that does not match all the observed data. It needs refinement.
I like it. Think out of the box! Don't be afraid to explore alternative theories. Stop the censorship!
I believe it was called the 'Will of God' theory (only in latin) of planetary motion. Mocking that theory is what got Galileo in trouble.
I guess he had it coming to him, huh?
And regardless of what I believe...It is a historical fact that the Bible was used in public schools (state-sponsored) for hundreds of years.
The philosophy of science, to the extent there is one, is to discover the true nature of things by examining the facts, proposing hypotheses to explain those facts, making predictions based on those hypotheses, and determining whether those predictions are true (which is some confirmation of the hypothesis) or false (which proves the hypothesis is not completely correct.) This is true of all sciences, whether they are historic or whether they are physics, or otherwise. If there is any other philosophical additives that you object to, you are going to have to specify them, because they are not apparent.
The problem with evolution is that the ones who hold to a naturalistic philosophy simply say that their philosophy and none other should be used.
But, again, you are asking science to be something it is not. Science does not purport to do anything but determine the nature of things. It can only work in the natural world, because there is nothing else to test but the natural world. If you have an objection to this because you believe it is "materialistic" or "naturalistic" or whatever, then that is your philosophical objection to science, not a fault in scientific thinking.
Your religious beliefs make you believe that there is a non-natural realm where non-corporal beings exist who control and influence the natural world, but which cannot be measured, and for which there is no proof.
You object by saying that people who hold to a naturalistic philosophy hold that none other "should be used." This begs the question what you mean by "used"; used how? If you mean used to determine scientific fact or a historical fact, then damn right no other religious or supernatural philosophy should be used. Science is limited to that which can be measured and tested, which is the natural world. If there is anything else, it is not a part of science, so why should science take anything but a naturalist approach? To ask it to do otherwise is to ask it to not be science.
Interesting historical facts. Now please, as regards my question, explain to me how you suggest the religion and sect of religious public school content would be decided. This is the third time I've offered you a podium to explain this to me, since you declined to the first two times. Surely since you believe in religious public school teaching, you have some idea of what religion it should be and why?
I guess he had it coming to him, huh?
Of course not, dumb theories deserve to be mocked. Galileos mockery was a brave act. No back to mocking the ID people.
And furthermore, it is also obvious from our country's history that the federal government was not establishing a specific Christain denomination when it referenced and operated within the Christian faith. Our history is replete with overt Christian faith throughout the federal government (Congress, Presidents, Supreme Courts, etc.) A faith that is common to all Christian denominations and understood by all Christian denominations...Our public schools would benefit again by some Christian training and the guidelines of the Ten Commandments (as they had before).
And specific to the issue of teaching evolution in public schools, one Christian denomination does not have to be exalted over the other to reference the Creator as the source of life and of the universe.
I love these debates. It makes great entertainment. I am a public school teacher and have no problem with people mentioning intelligent design, though I don't think that it should be the full curriculum. I do believe in creation. The one truth out there, though, is that NO ONE KNOWS for sure how the world was created. Besides, it what we make of our lives that counts, not how we got here.
Creationists have been proposing the imminent decline of evolution for more than a century and a half, and it hasn't happened yet. Indeed, biologists consistently ignore creationism, then go on to use evolution to discover all sorts of new things. When creationists actually start doing some real science, then maybe they'd have a dog in this hunt.
Yes, some people are for religious school teaching unless it's not from theirs (note that is one of the major reasons some has been taken out--lawsuits by those not of a majority religion). HOWEVER, I did have a teacher who was able to discuss several religions in class without having to condemn others. He was particularly complimentary towards my Christian religion which I appreciated immensely.
Creationists have been proposing the imminent decline of evolution for more than a century and a half, and it hasn't happened yet. Indeed, biologists consistently ignore creationism, then go on to use evolution to discover all sorts of new things. When creationists actually start doing some real science, then maybe they'd have a dog in this hunt.,/i> I didn't say that. I actually can use some evolution principles in my support of creationism. But that is my view. For example, I don't think the earth is only 6000 years old. But I sure DON'T know how old it is. Again NO ONE KNOWS for sure. We can explain it in our own ways, whether it be through a process or a "guiding hand," but no one can say for absolutely sure.
Creationists have been proposing the imminent decline of evolution for more than a century and a half, and it hasn't happened yet. Indeed, biologists consistently ignore creationism, then go on to use evolution to discover all sorts of new things. When creationists actually start doing some real science, then maybe they'd have a dog in this hunt.,
oops
I didn't say that. I actually can use some evolution principles in my support of creationism. But that is my view. For example, I don't think the earth is only 6000 years old. But I sure DON'T know how old it is. Again NO ONE KNOWS for sure. We can explain it in our own ways, whether it be through a process or a "guiding hand," but no one can say for absolutely sure.
Bull puckey. A dozen lines of independently-verifiable dating methods have narrowed the range down to about 4.5 billion years.
Do yourself a favor, read Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. You'd be surprised at just how much science does know.
How does bull puckey taste??? How did it evolve??? Enquiring minds want to know.
Actually, I wouldn't know for sure if they were verifiable. I wasn't alive when the original material was around. Hmmmm..... "narrowed it down..." I have narrowed down the place where I left something down to a few patches of the lawn, but I still don't know EXACTLY where it is. NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE EXACTLY.
And no, I'm not one of those who regards all science as bull pucky because it doesn't favor creationism. People forget that without science, all of our technology advances would not be possible today.
You seem to ignore science when it produces inconvenient knowledge.
Nope, I love science. I happen to be a Christian too, just not a Christian scientist.
Apparently you love digital watches and gadgets, but don't think much of the process of acquiring the knowledge that allows us to make them.
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.