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
Opps! Post #19 was meant for you.
Did God make the sun come up this morning? Or was that just a purely natural process of mass in motion and orbital mechanics?
God is all around us. Including in evolution, even though you can't imagine a God powerful enough for such a thing.
Explaining that God is all around us is not the job of science. It's the job of church.
You really don't want what you appear to want. Public schools teaching about God. You may not get to choose the particular interpretation of the Bible that gets taught. They might teach my interpretation of Genesis, that understands a God powerful enough to work 3 billion years at His creation.
The OJ Jury didn't see any evidence to convict either. But it was there.
Even your definition of evolution includes Supernatural work. That is not allowed by the definition of evolution in public school science classes. Their evolution is devoid of any work by God, which as you pointed out earlier is a philosophical assumption...And, by the way, an assumption for which there is no scientific evidence.
If I accept your premise relative to only the Church teaching about God, which I don't...(public schools taught about God for hundreds of years), then isn't the converse true...It's not the "job" of public school science classes to explain that God is not all around us?
Your interpretation of Genesis is inconsistent with the rest of God's Word therefore a fauly and unacceptable interpretation...Scripture interprets Scripture.
Mithradidit
Evolutionists dream of the day that they have evidence for vertical evolution in the quantity that the OJ jury had relative to his guilt...but for now, the evolutionists settle for assumptions like "if it does not fit, then you must acquit"!
And, again, where is the evidence for vertical evolution? You don't have any; neither in the fossil record, nor current day observation...You accept it by faith. That is reality.
Of course not! Besides ... Piltdown Man! Materialist worldview! Teach the controversy! What are you afraid of?
</Threatening-neighbors-in-the-trailer-park-with-a-chainsaw mode>
What evidence of "vertical evolution" would you accept?
Light-spot to eye; reptile to bird; dog to horse; etc. or any fossil that palaeontologists or experts in their field have confirmed as verified evidence of vertical evolution. I will let you choose today's current observeable evidence/evidences...given the theory, the evidences should be observeable in the millions.
They already do...secular humanism.
Vous: Of course not!
Nobody's a creationist anymore! They're jumping ship in droves! Even people who don't believe in common descent and think mammals may have existed as long as the Earth's been around aren't creationists these days.
I guess this means we've won the conventional war. Now we just have to deal with the insurgency.
On rare occasions, virus infections are incomplete, and happen to infect reproductive cells which then pass down the viral DNA to ancestors. This is such a very rare event, that the rate and scattering of new viral fossils demonstrates evolution very well.
It's just like OJ, except you're on the wrong side.
Here's Ichneumon's great post from 2003
Welcome to the OJ Jury, pby.
Ahura Mazda, silly.
That's interesting. If that's your work, you're just a step or two away from having the big Darwin fish with feet eat the little fish symbol.
Suppose we have Fossil A and Fossil C. The species represented by Fossil C is believed to be descended from the species represented by Fossil A. Suppose you deny this connection, citing a 'gap' in the fossil record between the two species.
Suppose further than scientists discover Fossil B which, based upon observable evidence, is declared an intermediate species between Fossil A and Fossil B.
Do you:
1. Accept this as evidence of evolution.
2. Deny this is evidence of evolution, and assert that there are now two gaps in the fossil record?
There's no proof that evolution could have produced the essential amino acids necessary for life, let alone informed them with the information content necessary for induce automatic replication through RNA (despite the laughable Miller-Urey fraud).
According to your own criteria evolution shouldn't be taught as science but as a philosophical conjecture.
I'll agree with you on that point.
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.