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.
Just as I thought. Your basis for morals is you. That means that every single person in the world can have their own idea of what is moral. Who is to say their idea is wrong? Are you saying that your idea is superior to theirs? If so, why?
Read Post# 761.
I trust in John 3:16 (Gospel). Belief in this will get you to heaven. How does Luke 6:31 (Law)give a promise of salvation?
Read post 760: All humans have such rights, because if you apply rights to only some people and not others, then it's no longer a principle but instead just an ad-hoc, self-serving rationalization.
It's true in one sense that my basis for morals is myself. But as I said, morality is a principle - a system or framework of judging behavior. You can't have a principle without applying it consistently in all similar contexts. This means that it must apply to everyone in a similar situation.
Is it moral to kidnap someone? Well, it's clearly wrong to kidnap me, except if I was judged guilty of a crime by a legitimate court. In that case they'd have the right to put me in jail. But to kidnap me "just because", or because I owe somebody some money, would be wrong.
You see? Your problem isn't really against a self-interested basis for morality. It's against self-serving morality. But a self-serving morality (where you don't apply the moral principles consistently) is a contradiction in terms. You're really arguing against "rationalization".
No I don't. My basis for morality is the Bible. Yours, contrary to your opinion, is based on what you think.
Sort of like blowing up one pixel of an image and claiming it is the whole image.
Exactly. I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own. I need a basis for making them and that basis is the Bible.
Hmmmmm... Well, maybe you would appreciate the long-term security and certainty that comes from a guaranteed, non-rescindable, lifetime employment situation.
"No I don't. My basis for morality is the Bible."
You have no moral code, why are you pretending you do? You have said repeatedly you think that there is nothing wrong with slavery. That if the government makes something legal, it's ok. That if other cultures allow different things, who are we to say that would they do is wrong? You have said,
"Like I said, the Bible doesn't support it nor does it condemn it, so who am I to say it is immoral."
"Why is it not wrong in other countries? If there laws allow it, that is what makes it right."
This means you base your *morality* not on any rational base but whatever a government happens to say. When they come to drag you and your family away to be chattel slaves, you will have nothing to argue with then about. What will you say? You can't say it's WRONG, because you don't believe anything a government does CAN be wrong. I repeat your own statement:
"Why is it not wrong in other countries? If there laws allow it, that is what makes it right."
"I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own."
Finally, something we can all agree on! :)
NEW post 768 by taxesareforever on 13 Oct 2005. I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own.
Try following it.
John 3:16. You are right time is short. However eternity is eternity.
Aw, fame. How can this feeble mind handle it?
My, that certainly is a profound statement. How could anyone argue with that? They can't. Because everyone exists therefore everyone has an opinion and all opinions are of the same value. Who can argue otherwise? Since we all exist we all have valid opinions.
There you go assuming again. I just told you what I believe and you say I don't. I guess since you are rational you have superior knowledge of everyone.
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.