Skip to comments.Ayatollahs in the classroom [Evolution and Creationism]
Posted on 01/22/2005 7:38:12 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A movement to drag the teaching of science in the United States back into the Dark Ages continues to gain momentum. So far, it's a handful of judges -- "activist judges" in the view of their critics -- who are preventing the spread of Saudi-style religious dogma into more and more of America's public-school classrooms.
The ruling this month in Georgia by Federal District Judge Clarence Cooper ordering the Cobb County School Board to remove stickers it had inserted in biology textbooks questioning Darwin's theory of evolution is being appealed by the suburban Atlanta district. Similar legal battles pitting evolution against biblical creationism are erupting across the country. Judges are conscientiously observing the constitutionally required separation of church and state, and specifically a 1987 Supreme Court ruling forbidding the teaching of creationism, a religious belief, in public schools. But seekers of scientific truth have to be unnerved by a November 2004 CBS News poll in which nearly two-thirds of Americans favored teaching creationism, the notion that God created heaven and earth in six days, alongside evolution in schools.
If this style of "science" ever took hold in U.S. schools, it is safe to say that as a nation we could well be headed for Third World status, along with everything that dire label implies. Much of the Arab world is stuck in a miasma of imam-enforced repression and non-thought. Could it happen here? Our Constitution protects creativity and dissent, but no civilization has lasted forever, and our current national leaders seem happy with the present trends.
It is the creationists, of course, who forecast doom if U.S. schools follow a secularist path. Science, however, by its nature, relies on evidence, and all the fossil and other evidence points toward an evolved human species over millions of years on a planet tens of millions of years old [ooops!] in a universe over two billion years in existence [ooops again!].
Some creationists are promoting an idea they call "intelligent design" as an alternative to Darwinism, eliminating the randomness and survival-of-the-fittest of Darwinian thought. But, again, no evidence exists to support any theory of evolution except Charles Darwin's. Science classes can only teach the scientific method or they become meaningless.
Many creationists say that teaching Darwin is tantamount to teaching atheism, but most science teachers, believers as well as non-believers, scoff at that. The Rev. Warren Eschbach, a professor at Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, Pa., believes that "science is figuring out what God has already done" and the book of Genesis was never "meant to be a science textbook for the 21st century." Rev. Eschbach is the father of Robert Eschbach, one of the science teachers in Dover, Pa., who refused to teach a school-board-mandated statement to biology students criticizing the theory of evolution and promoting intelligent design. Last week, the school district gathered students together and the statement was read to them by an assistant superintendent.
Similar pro-creationist initiatives are underway in Texas, Wisconsin and South Carolina. And a newly elected creationist majority on the state board of education in Kansas plans to rewrite the entire state's science curriculum this spring. This means the state's public-school science teachers will have to choose between being scientists or ayatollahs -- or perhaps abandoning their students and fleeing Kansas, like academic truth-seekers in China in the 1980s or Tehran today.
Because they confuse "theory" with "hypothesis." "Theory" in science is as close to fact as one could possibly get. The scientifically illiterate (read the vast majority of Americans) however, think "theory" means "guess."
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.
Our dictionaries support this. After several "correct" definitions, #5 says "guess". This is not the fault of the dictionary, since it has to reflect popular usage of words but does give ammunition for the creationists.
Actually, the same evidence that supports Darwinism supports Intelligent Design.
Consider, for instance, if an alien society came to a dead Earth and began uncovering autombiles buried in a junkyard. The aliens would notice that the cars were progressively more advanced over time, but that year on year the cars had only minor changes from their earlier variants.
The aliens could then use that physical evidence of the cars buried in layers over more than a century to conclude either that the cars themselves evolved, or that the intelligent designers of the cars evolved.
The physical evidence, after all, would support both theories. Ditto for digging up fossils of animals and plants.
Of course, where Darwinism breaks down is not in the physical evidence or even in the Natural Selection process, but in the probability *math* required for the unaided sequencing of billions of genetic DNA instructions into their precise order (see: A Tiny Mathematical Proof Against Evolution).
In contrast, Intelligent Design holds up remarkably well to that same math. For instance, Intelligent Design precisely and accurately explains why computer programs are sequenced into their precise electronic coding order.
Probability math is still taught in our dilapadated public schools, one presumes, so applying that math to areas of known contention, where said math will show a precise scientific answer, seems like the obvious path.
Sadly, activist judges in Georgia and wild-eyed liberals in Massachusetts don't want such scholarly study to take place. Any attempt to investigate Darwinism with *math* is ruled out of bounds. Evolutionary *theory* must be accepted as fact, per those radicals, and no scientific challenges to said theory are to be permitted.
In this case, even the application of mere sticky notes that said "Evolution is a Theory" are banned by such activists.
Oh my goodness, not those "religiously dogmatic" sticky notes! How will "science" ever survive?! < /mocking! >
Like you said earlier, they misrepresent science and all the 'followers' think they have science on their side.
You evolution-religion cultists exasperate me. How can you claim to be scientific without being able to comprehend the difference between a crystal and a living cell?
No, observing a direct fact in the lab or in the wild is much, much closer than postulating a mere theory.
And if we ignored the challenges, like we did for decades, we allow for the growth of even more scientific ignorance.
What's a "troll"?
You know evolution could be true. The chances are one in
a hundred thousand million billion trillion zillion...roughly. I prefer mystery over impossiblity.
In my reference to burn/size/gravitational pull I cited a physics argument against an old earth.
You "cite" but you give no basis for your citation.
THE LARGER THE BODY THE GREATER THE GRAVITY.
I now cite "If God were a good god, he would allow innocent babies to suffer, therefore he is an evil god."
FALSE PREMISE. GOD'S NATURE DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSALITY OR OBLIGATION REGARDING HIS FREE WILL TO PERMIT CREATION TO HAVE FREE WILL. AND YOUR CITATION IS A DE FACTO SLAM ON ABORTIONISTS, BY EXTENSION.
You are ignoring the challenges. What do you make of Michael Denton's books except to call him a 'creationist'.
Until there is evidence supporting one of those points of view (and supposed evidence against evolution does not support another point of view), then why should these other points of view be taught in science class.
you should be able to provide us with at least one link to an actual science institution that even mentions this fantastic idea of yours.... I won't hold my breath.
Regarding the huge old-earth sun and its larger gravitational pull that would suck planets into it--
That is my own hypothesis, not one I've ever noted elsewhere. Newton didn't have a bunch of white papers to point his skeptics to, nor did our historical friends who denounced the flat-earthers. Can you refute--or do you just sit with your mouse eagerly seeking to take pot shots at I who dare create your cognitive dissonance by citing somebody who agrees with you?
1. FALSE PREMIS!
2)You have not supported your premis that the body was larger!
Double Trouble for you!
Just to clarify, you classify matter reaching it's equilibrium as "organizing". So throwing a deck of cards on the floor is equivalent to sorting them?
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.