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.
You claim the Bible, and thus God, justify slavery. I showed you were you were wrong. Then you came up with this empty statement that is nothing more than an arrogant bluster implying that I erred.
Slavery is a sina nd your claim is nothing more than bearing false witness against Him.
interpretation of Scripture.
Does that apply to Genesis too?
How do you know this is the case? By the number of followers? In that case you'll need to acknowledge Allah and Vishnu. And, since the Mithraics had it right two centuries before Christ, how can you be sure you're following the correct religion?
FReeper defending slavery placemarker
I imagine with the Mary Mapes thing in the news, FR will have a lot of outside attention. I wonder what the national press will make of a Biblical defense of slavery.
Not that the interpretation is incorrect.
It will probably be a quickie hit piece. Something about 'Republican religious conservatives' advocating a strict interpretation of the Bible, giving examples from a 'conservative blog'....cutting to quotes about what the Bible says about slavery....and then they'll ask Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton what they think about that.
You have shown me absolutely nothing to back up your claim. Like I said, I won't go to you for Biblical interpretation. Sorely lacking.
I always wondered how far people would go with a literal reading of the Bible and the claim of absolute moral authority. Now I know.
What's there to interpret?
Speechless in Seattle?
You inferred the Bible was open to interpretation. I asked if that applied to Genesis.
Are you implying some parts of the Bible are open to interpretation and others are not, or that no interpretation is needed in Genesis?
The Bible says so. Why do you think the Bible is always the highest book seller? Could it really be that God's Word does go out and do its work? Appears so.
So what do you think about what the Bible says about slaves?
And I received the following answer.
I think it says slaves should obey their masters among other things. And it says for slaves not to complain.
Because the promise of the Christ was made about 6,000 years (that would be about 60 centuries before Mithraics)before Christ was born. Game, set, match.
Because the promise of the Christ was made about 6,000 years (that would be about 60 centuries before Mithraics)before Christ was born. Game, set, match.
That's exactly correct, whis is why I'm astonished by people who cite the Bible as the final authority on morality.
At least most people say you are required to think about it.
I don't know if the responder noticed I asked 'what do you think', and not 'what does it (literally) say'. I got the impression it didn't matter to the responder...that they were one and the same.
Don't get me wrong. I like the Bible. I've read it cover-to-cover twice and have read individual sections (such as Genesis and Revelation) numerous times in addition. However, I cannot accept it as the inerrant word of God. Part of this has to do with the errors I've discovered therein, and part has to do with God telling me so (though I don't expect you to believe the latter -- hell, it's hard for me to accept at times).
I've come to the realization that most folks worship a book. They do not worship God. They think they are, but they aren't. Their whole existences center around a few hundred thousand words jotted down by a bronze- and iron-age civilization in the Middle East a few millennia ago. They don't seek God; they don't really want to know God. They think they already do.
The Bible was a childrens' book written when civilization was in his infancy. God, like all fathers, wants his kids to grow up and venture out on their own. However, there are some folks who cling to the things of childhood and have become the spiritual equivalent of the 30-year-old loser who refuses to move out of his parents' house because he can't face the real world. Accepting reality is no more denying God than moving out is to deny your parents.
I think he pretty well confirmed what you think.
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.