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.
Sure, that's why Spartacus and several tens of thousands of other slaves risked (and eventually succumbed to) death to fight against their masters rather than just wait until their indenture ended.
No one is being forced to do anything, and you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that they are, regardless of what their motivations may or may not be.
That said, all desires are by definition inherently selfish, and as such, it seeks out it's own reward, however sublte and benign it might occasionally seem to be, as in your statement above.
That's right. That Chapter contains their justification for the divine right of kings. In reality though, it is nothing more than pragmatism on Paul's part. God said give to Ceasar's what is Ceasar's and to God what's God's. It's obvious to all but the tyrant, that a man's will belongs to himself and even the tyrant knows he has to take it by force, or fraud.
Be interesting to hear Thatcherite and gumlegs interpretation of this Bible verse. They think that they are so versed in Biblical interpretation we are supposed to accept their interpretation.
Wow. Those sure are some creditable links. But then again mitharis isn't creditable anyway.
No I won't be. The courts are already taking care of that.
And who do you credit with your belief in mitharis?
I feel sorry for you and all those who think the same way as you do.
You say Mithras is not credible, but you really offer nothing other than your faith in another diety as an explanation.
This is classic projection on their parts.
I'm glad the founding fathers had a more mature view of the world than you.
BTW, those links were provided to show you (and any other creationists out there) that research is a fairly simple matter in this day of the internet. Y'all don't need to keep stumbling or saying stupid things when arguing with us. You can use five minutes on Google to get your facts straight first.
I don't expect you (or anyone), to accept my interpretation. I also don't expect you (or anyone), to expect me to accept your/their interpretation.
Tell me again why the your interpretation of the Bible should control what's taught as science.
That would be a first!
=====
Be interesting to hear Thatcherite and gumlegs interpretation of this Bible verse. They think that they are so versed in Biblical interpretation we are supposed to accept their interpretation.
I'll give you my interpretation; It's wrong.
Don't lie, for if you say yes and I start to proof it to you using Scripture it will become apparant real fast wheter you are truthful or not.
I make no claims to biblical scholarship. That is your department.
Failure to point out the biblical passage that declares that the Grand Canyon was formed in the flood noted. Chalk up another lie to NewsGatherer (pending NewsGatherer managing to produce such a quote, yeah, right).
Interesting, what is a wrong reason to wonder? What would a right reason be?
Gotta give you credit. We know where you stand.
I don't want my interpretation taught in schools any more than I want evolution taught in schools.
I'm with you on the interpretation. I'm with you on the biblical interpretation of the slavery issue too. Go figure.
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.