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.
Evidently, the God of the Bible is not above making mistakes (c.f., the whole Noah thingy).
And even before that, the oopsie with the snake and fruit tree. The whole thing went awry within days of the very start, so He had to reshuffle the rules and try again.
Then the Noah thing, the Tower of Babel thing, the Red Sea intervention because He didn't have a road where it was needed, the scrapping of the Leviticus rules, not to mention the release of the V2.0 Testament later on, etc. etc.
Seems pretty hands-on tinkering to me.
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
And as for Peter being the Rock, well, you need to go back and read that again and take it in context, Jesus was saying, that upon Him is the church built, He is the Rock, not Peter, have yu never read the prohecy of upon whom ever this Rock falls will be crushed, but upon whoever falls upon this Rock...?
As like in the circular logic used by the evolutionist? Dating the fossils by the layer they are found in and dating the layers by the fossils they contain.
First of all, saying most scientists are evolutionists in no way proves the validity of the theory. YOu are merely engaging in the fallacy of appeal to authority. FALLACY.
Secondly, Talkorigins is just about the most biased pro-evo site known to man. I could just as easily counter than by pointing people to True Origins, which effecitvely counters much of the propaganda on talkorigins.
"Dating the fossils by the layer they are found in and dating the layers by the fossils they contain."
Do you have a source for this contention?
There is that theory stating God must be a civil engineer ... because only a civil engineer would run a couple of waste lines through a major recreation area.
Well, change over time is a fact - we see different kinds of dogs, finches, etc. However, a proto-bacteria evolving into a human being, or a chimp in the human family tree, are hardly established fact. There is no evidence to believe such nonsense. They are metaphysical leaps of faith of astounding proportions.
Bon question, monsieur. Below is the complete listing of Darwin's works on Project Gutenberg. The Barnacle book may not have been transcribed yet.
My doctor charges for physicals, proof positive he is only in it for the money> and you work for free?
I don't question 'Darwinism' for that reason. I don't accept without question that God made the world in six of OUR days. Who is to say that God didn't create life over a period of millions of years? We are truly arrogant if we think that's not the way it could have been done. Who are we to say?
I don't believe, however, that life evolved from nothingness. Something had to have been there for life to emerge, so how did that something get there? I also don't believe that random mutations created the myriad forms of life on this planet. If someone wants to call that "Intelligent Design" that's fine with me, and if folks don't want that 'theory' taught in the schools, because of its association with religious thought, that's ok too, but I do think that kids should be taught that evolution is a theory, and it is NOT accepted by everyone as the definitive statement on how life appeared on this planet.
Oh reallY? Then why do so many evobots here argue for abiogenesis? Make up your freakin minds - either it explains speciation and origins, or it just explains change to organisms that already exist. Which is it?
Are you referring to the tail bone? If you really think it is not needed, go find a doctor willing to remove yours and I will glady pay the deductable.
Nearly a century and a half ago, he was already describing the tactics of the creationuts. Eerie.
It is called free will, kind of like the whole junior thingy.
You decide who you will serve, Christ or satan, it called freewill. You have it, I have it, every man woman and child born has it.
"You are merely engaging in the fallacy of appeal to authority. FALLACY."
Dr. Smith: "Well, Mr. Johnson, we run a number of tests and I'm sorry to say that you have cancer."
Police Chief Brown: "We have specific and credible evidence that our transit system is being targeted by terrorists."
Rev. Jones: "All the answers to the mysteries of life can be found in one place, and one place only."
Question: Which authority do you believe and why?
Now I know that you get all your information from creationist sites. That is not how fossils, nor strata are dated. Geologists have used "index fossils" to roughly date strata, but fine-tuned dating usually involves one or more radiometric processes (which are used to double check one another -- go ahead and claim that decay rates were different in the past; if that were the case different isotopes would give wildly conflicting dates).
Actually, the fallacy is "appeal to improper authority." It is not fallacious to, for example, cite an astronomer when the discussion is about the formation of stars.
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.