Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution and intelligent design Life is a cup of tea
Economist ^ | 10/6/05 | Economist

Posted on 10/07/2005 4:59:16 AM PDT by shuckmaster

How should evolution be taught in schools? This being America, judges will decide

HALF of all Americans either don't know or don't believe that living creatures evolved. And now a Pennsylvania school board is trying to keep its pupils ignorant. It is the kind of story about America that makes secular Europeans chortle smugly before turning to the horoscope page. Yet it is more complex than it appears.

In Harrisburg a trial began last week that many are comparing to the Scopes “monkey” trial of 1925, when a Tennessee teacher was prosecuted for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Now the gag is on the other mouth. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public-school science classes was an unconstitutional blurring of church and state. But those who think Darwinism unGodly have fought back.

Last year, the school board in Dover, a small rural school district near Harrisburg, mandated a brief disclaimer before pupils are taught about evolution. They are to be told that “The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.” And that if they wish to investigate the alternative theory of “intelligent design”, they should consult a book called “Of Pandas and People” in the school library.

Eleven parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, two lobby groups, are suing to have the disclaimer dropped. Intelligent design, they say, is merely a clever repackaging of creationism, and as such belongs in a sermon, not a science class.

The school board's defence is that intelligent design is science, not religion. It is a new theory, which holds that present-day organisms are too complex to have evolved by the accumulation of random mutations, and must have been shaped by some intelligent entity. Unlike old-style creationism, it does not explicitly mention God. It also accepts that the earth is billions of years old and uses more sophisticated arguments to poke holes in Darwinism.

Almost all biologists, however, think it is bunk. Kenneth Miller, the author of a popular biology textbook and the plaintiffs' first witness, said that, to his knowledge, every major American scientific organisation with a view on the subject supported the theory of evolution and dismissed the notion of intelligent design. As for “Of Pandas and People”, he pronounced that the book was “inaccurate and downright false in every section”.

The plaintiffs have carefully called expert witnesses who believe not only in the separation of church and state but also in God. Mr Miller is a practising Roman Catholic. So is John Haught, a theology professor who testified on September 30th that life is like a cup of tea.

To illustrate the difference between scientific and religious “levels of understanding”, Mr Haught asked a simple question. What causes a kettle to boil? One could answer, he said, that it is the rapid vibration of water molecules. Or that it is because one has asked one's spouse to switch on the stove. Or that it is “because I want a cup of tea.” None of these explanations conflicts with the others. In the same way, belief in evolution is compatible with religious faith: an omnipotent God could have created a universe in which life subsequently evolved.

It makes no sense, argued the professor, to confuse the study of molecular movements by bringing in the “I want tea” explanation. That, he argued, is what the proponents of intelligent design are trying to do when they seek to air their theory—which he called “appalling theology”—in science classes.

Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Intelligent designers deny that this is why they attack it, but this week the court was told by one critic that the authors of “Of Pandas and People” had culled explicitly creationist language from early drafts after the Supreme Court barred creationism from science classes.

In the Dover case, intelligent design appears to have found unusually clueless champions. If the plaintiffs' testimony is accurate, members of the school board made no effort until recently to hide their religious agenda. For years, they expressed pious horror at the idea of apes evolving into men and tried to make science teachers teach old-fashioned creationism. (The board members in question deny, or claim not to remember, having made remarks along these lines at public meetings.)

Intelligent design's more sophisticated proponents, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, are too polite to say they hate to see their ideas championed by such clods. They should not be surprised, however. America's schools are far more democratic than those in most other countries. School districts are tiny—there are 501 in Pennsylvania alone—and school boards are directly elected. In a country where 65% of people think that creationism and evolution should be taught side by side, some boards inevitably agree, and seize upon intelligent design as the closest approximation they think they can get away with. But they may not be able to get away with it for long. If the case is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, intelligent design could be labelled religious and barred from biology classes nationwide.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: creoslavery; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 821-837 next last
To: Junior

Intelligent freedom loving Britons??? I doubt it. ;)


121 posted on 10/07/2005 1:15:30 PM PDT by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

True... most with that disposition long ago moved here... ;^)>


122 posted on 10/07/2005 1:18:21 PM PDT by Junior (From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Have you noticed the incoherence level of certain posters increasing somewhat? :)) It must be hard to type through the haze of spittle.


123 posted on 10/07/2005 1:20:26 PM PDT by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite
Adding a little more "insulant" bull to the pot, why the after-thought of Eve (failure to anticipate horniness?), and why the flood and global do-over?
124 posted on 10/07/2005 1:28:12 PM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: atlaw; newsgatherer

Oh, there's so many examples of god's semi-competence in the whole design thing; it's not even worth compiling a complete list.


125 posted on 10/07/2005 1:30:17 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: SmartCitizen
It was taught in the universities.

I'm sure that you can provide historical references to support this claim, right?
126 posted on 10/07/2005 2:02:54 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
Evolution says millions and millions of years. God says six normal 24 hour days.

False dichotomy. Your personal religious beliefs regarding the timespans for divine action are not the only religious beliefs out there. Not everyone who does not hold the exact same religious beliefs as you is an atheist.

Evolution claims to base it's years upon a fossil record of dead things in mud that accumulated over millions and millions of years. God says that there was no death of anything till 6,417 years ago.

Once again, false dichotomy. You are presenting a false dilemma between your religious worldview and no religious worldview at all. The existence of other religions shows that your "reasoning" is fallacious.

Evolution says the grand canyon came about over millions and millions of years, God' word teaches that it came about via a world wide flood. and the examples go on and one and on.

In addition to again appealing to your religion as the only possible religion, you are now employing a strawman on the side of evolution. Evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the formation of the Grand Canyon.

Evolution says the grand canyon came about over millions and millions of years, God' word teaches that it came about via a world wide flood. and the examples go on and one and on.

You're just another arrogant creationist. Belive it or not, evolution is not all about you or your religion. It's not the fault of reality that observations within reality contradict your religious beliefs, and to label observations that contradict your religious beliefs as "promoting athiesm" is the height of arrogance. Believe it or not, there are non-atheists who don't believe exactly as you do.
127 posted on 10/07/2005 2:07:54 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
...why the flood and global do-over?

Apparently the purpose was to eradicate evil. Well, that really worked didn't it.

128 posted on 10/07/2005 2:08:29 PM PDT by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
insulant" bull

Rendered cattle used as cavity-wall-insulation? Now that is sick.

129 posted on 10/07/2005 2:10:30 PM PDT by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: SmartCitizen
Stalin and Hitler certainly believed it espoused atheism

Well, who could argue with two gifted biologists like those two?

And the most famous neodarwinists also believe it - Gould, Sagan, Crick, all of the Huxleys, Dawkins (blind watchmaker) and many many others.

Please. The only one of that group who argues that evolution implies a godless universe is Dawkins, and I've pointed out in the past how he talks out of his ass when trying to make that conclusion.

Since the most renowned gatekeepers of evolution espouse a godless universe and godless origins, it cannot be denied that evolutionary theory breeds such a connection.

Odd how you can't actually use the theory itself to make the logical connection, you can only point to people who accepted evolution who happened to be atheists. Well, it's not that odd. There really is no logical means of deducing "no gods exist" from the theory of evolution, so it's not surprising that you have to use a dishonest argument tactic to support your claims.
130 posted on 10/07/2005 2:12:27 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
Evolution says the grand canyon came about over millions and millions of years, God' word teaches that it came about via a world wide flood. and the examples go on and one and on.

I missed the Bible passage that says that the Grand Canyon was formed in the Flood. Perhaps you can point it out to me, or perhaps you are just made it up?

131 posted on 10/07/2005 2:14:40 PM PDT by Thatcherite (More abrasive than SeaLion or ModernMan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
So, you can observe, prove and test the theory of evolution?

Observe and test, yes. However absolutely no theory in science is ever proven.
132 posted on 10/07/2005 2:16:03 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
Now, I have had enough of your insulant bull.

If you're going to mount the high horse, learn how to spell insolent first. Then try looking it up. Insolence is the failure to show the deference due to one's superiors; if you fancy yourself in that position, the issue isn't my insolence, but your hubris.

Let’s get something straight, those of us who believe that God created all things in six days are saying He did it right the first time. You who believe in evolution say He needed millions of millions of years and that things where not right to start, as He had made them so they need to evolve.

You have the sheer hubris to believe that you know the mind of God a priori. The rest of us seek to know God by observing his creation. The powers of observation and reason are part of His creation at least as surely as that little book you so cherish.

And evolution does not imply that God got something wrong; creation was right then, and it's right now. It's just not the same now as then. If I build a clock, and it doesn't say at this moment that it's noon, there's nothing wrong with the clock. It will say it's noon when it's noon.

The problem is that your fragile little ego can't handle the possibility that God knows something you don't, so you have to reduce the ongoing miracle of creation to something you can write in crayon on the back of a Denny's place mat.

God created evolution and quasars and quantum mechanics, with no more effort than you or I would exert to make a cup of tea and a slice of toast for breakfast. You will not and cannot understand the mind of God, because the infinite cannot be contained by the finite. It's like trying to squeeze Jupiter into the trunk of a Pinto.

It is you pious, self-righteous zealots who most gravely insult the Almighty -- you delude yourself that you are His gatekeeper, that your squawkings are His will. You know nothing, least of all that you know nothing. You have neither wisdom nor humility. If you find that insolent, so be it.

133 posted on 10/07/2005 2:45:07 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: js1138
The worst blasphemy is believing that the handiwork of god is defective or tainted.

Right answer, wrong question. God's work is by definition perfect. If we consider strokes or heart attacks or childhood cancer "defects" or "taints" it is not because they are unplanned; it is because they are part of a plan we do not and cannot see.

The world is full of people who pray for the winning lottery numbers, or the next rent payment, or even the next meal. But if you truly believe that an all-seeing, wholly benevolent god is holding the reins of the universe, that his eye is on the sparrow and nothing happens but according to his plan, there is only one prayer that is appropriate:

Thy will be done.

That's it. Beginning, middle and end.

134 posted on 10/07/2005 2:55:14 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Thatcherite

It's a display of one of their std techniques. They claim anything, back it up in the most illogical way, ignore any correction, come back later, and repeat the same rubbish as if it was never said and corrected before.


135 posted on 10/07/2005 2:56:53 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
6,417 years ago the first animal died, probaly a sheep, God killed an animal or two so as to make clothes for Adam and Eve and to establish the need for blood in sacrifice for the atoning of sins.

I have radiocarbon dates on shellfish older, or much older, than 6,417 years ago.

How do you account for these?

136 posted on 10/07/2005 9:08:08 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
6,417 years ago the first animal died, probaly a sheep, God killed an animal or two so as to make clothes for Adam and Eve and to establish the need for blood in sacrifice for the atoning of sins.

I have radiocarbon dates on shellfish older, or much older, than 6,417 years ago.

How do you account for these?

137 posted on 10/07/2005 9:10:23 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Sorry for the double post. It was over a minute later!


138 posted on 10/07/2005 9:11:50 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Junior
On the crevo threads we have a couple from Great Britain and at least one from Sweden.

And at least one from Israel.

139 posted on 10/07/2005 9:14:05 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
those of us who believe that God created all things in six days are saying He did it right the first time. You who believe in evolution say He needed millions of millions of years and that things where not right to start, as He had made them so they need[ed] to evolve.

Right, you finally got it! He started the ball rolling...

140 posted on 10/07/2005 9:16:51 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 821-837 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson