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.
Yeah yeah yeah yeah. We know where to go to get facts. It's just that evolutionists don't like our sites.
The same goes for you. I've got to admire someone who is so happy to get all his morality from the bible that he doesn't have any problem with slavery, or Divine Right. At least you are consistent.
I didn't want to know whether you thought your interpretation of the Bible should be taught in schools, I wanted to know why it should control what's taught in science class.
If your objection to the theory of evolution isn't based on the Bible, what is it based on? Don't keep the evidence to yourself. This is the stuff that Nobels are made on. (Yes, I typed "on").
It's just that your sites are filled with misrepresentation, obfuscation and outright lies. Need we mention the infamous "quote salads" from creationist sites? That alone should tell you that your sources of information are wrong.
Now, if you cite a university, or major journal in your posts, or sources that cite other readily findable sources (Wikipedia and TalkOrigins do this) in case your opponent wants to double check your statements, then you'll find your knowledge base expanding and your ability to hold your own in these dogfights will increase exponentially.
Read The Mirage to get a better picture of what I'm talking about. Sure, it's a TalkOrigins page, but this one doesn't deal with crevo, per se, but with arguing points. It's well worth the read.
Couldnt-have-said-it-better-myself PLACEMARKER.
That is what they all say when they do it, isn't it? ;-)
How do I know God made the Grand Canyon and what Scriptuire supports it:
Start reading at Job chapter 37.
All of job would be good, but start with chpater 37 and red to the end, and see if you don't understand that God made everything, including the grandCanyon, if not try John chapter one.
What in the hell is "mitharis", and why do you hallucinate that I believe in it?
It must be true that evolutionists are thick.
Evolutionists look up and imagine how it all came to be...without God's help. Big Bang; something from nothing theories, etc.
Believers in the Lord look up and praise his name!
Evolution says the grand canyon came about over millions and millions of years, God' word teaches that it came about via a world wide floodThatcherite reasonably responded:
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?Newsgatherer waffled and dodged:
Have you ever read and/or studied the Bible? 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.Thatcherite pointed out that newsgatherer was dodging the question:
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).Newsgatherer desperately tries to move the goalposts:
OK so you don't know anything about the B ible, so i have to use Scriptuire that is simple. How do I know God made the Grand Canyon and what Scriptuire supports it: Start reading at Job chapter 37. All of job would be good, but start with chpater 37 and red to the end, and see if you don't understand that God made everything, including the grandCanyon, if not try John chapter one.OOH, sorry, thanks for playing! Don Pardo has some lovely parting gifts for you!
The astute reader will note that despite several back-and-forth discussions about whether the Bible actually says that the Grand Canyon was made BY THE FLOOD, when pinned down on his original claim, newsgatherer suddenly (and lamely) TRIES TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT from "made by THE FLOOD" to "made by God, in some unspecified manner, forget that flood thing I said the Bible talked about in relation to the Grand Canyon..."
Newsgatherer, please tell us whether a) you know you're dishonestly trying to change the subject because you know your original claim was bogus, or b) you're actually so addle-brained that you can't recall the actual context of the discussion point that YOU YOURSELF raised. YOU were the one who decided to bring the Grand Canyon into the thread, AND declare that "God' word teaches that it came about via a world wide flood".
Which is it: (a) or (b)? Or do you have some other bizarre excuse or lame dodge to offer as an alternative to (a) or (b)? We're just dying to know.
[Interesting, what is a wrong reason to wonder? What would a right reason be?]
It must be true that evolutionists are thick.
And it "must be true" that some self-righteous "Christians" are capable of giving very unChristian answers to polite, reasonable questions.
I must have missed the part in the Bible where it encourages Christ's followers to behave like a**holes. Perhaps you could point it out to me.
Evolutionists look up and imagine how it all came to be...without God's help. Big Bang; something from nothing theories, etc. Believers in the Lord look up and praise his name!
The astute reader will note that this doesn't even address the question that was asked. So who's the "thick" one in this exchange?
The astute reader will also note that the response commits a classic fallacy -- presuming that evolutionists must perforce be atheists, in in reality the *majority* of American evolutionists are themselves *Christian*.
So it's unfortunate that eleni121 would be "thick" enough to commit such a basic error of ignorance, in the same post in which he/she/it baselessly accuses someone *else* of being "thick" for daring to ask eleni121 a reasonable question.
Clue for the clueless: "Evolutionists" look at the sky and acquire the understanding to learn *how* He made the Universe, while "Believers in the Lord", by your own description, revel in their lack of knowledge and just praise labels. And you think that makes *us* the "thick" ones? Ooookay...
But as long as you're here, perhaps you could weigh in on the poll question of the day: Does the Bible support slavery? Does it say that it's wrong to have slaves? We've had several... "interesting" answers so far from the devout. Perhaps you'd care to apply your keen intellect to this matter, and to the answers of your fellow "Believers in the Lord".
I have noticed a consistent lack of spelling and grammar skills among the creationist set. Maybe their distaste at learning science extends to a general distaste of learning.
Awesome.
What is taught is schools is the same thing as being taught in science class. At least that's the way it was when I went to school.
Thanks.
Death of irony placemarker.
Get it from the same teacher who teachs englush and speling who teeches evolution.
And it "must be true" that some self-righteous "Christians" are capable of giving very unChristian answers to polite, reasonable questions.
I must have missed the part in the Bible where it encourages Christ's followers to behave like a**holes.
_____________________________________________________-
It's interesting that you need to ping the E-troops to attack me. Didn't take long for the Evolutionists to proclaim the most essential feature of their natures: calling people who disagree with them names. Out of the blue. I don't even know who you are and have not responded to you...you refer to me as an a***le---
I have no quarrel with Christian evolutionists...I do with those who demand that our kids (in public schools) be taught as fact Big Bang without even a mention that God's hand might be behind the Creation.
But wonders will not cease...you show your colors with the lunacy of the last question about slavery. I know the answer about the Bible and slavery but I'll let you try to figure it out for yourself.
Go fry an egg why don't you... pathetic.
Saved-me-a-ton-of-effort placemarker. Yo' the Man Ichie!
From my experience, that does seem to be the case. And also explains their position, because I've found that people who *do* sit down and learn the material don't *stay* anti-evolution creationists for long. It's only by maintaining a strict self-imposed ignorance (via "Morton's Demon") that they're able to cling to beliefs like "there's no evidence for evolution" and "evolution is just a crumbling atheistic conspiracy", etc.
It's similar to (and in some ways, a direct overlap with) the results of the study which found that people who were incompetent at certain tasks were *also* incompetent at recognizing how poorly they were doing at it (they thought they were performing *really* well...) It turns out to be a vicious cycle -- if you believe that you don't have any need to improve, then you don't take any steps *to* improve. Cluelessness breeds continued cluelessness. And on the flip side of the feedback loop, lack of knowledge facilitates continued incapacity to recognize how much better you *could* be doing, which reinforces the overconfidence in one's performance.
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.