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.
Actually I am on vacation, so I am spending fewer hours on FR than when I am at work. But I know how to make it quality time!
Good post.
I don't bash Christianity, I don't hate God, and I'm not anti-Christian.
I'm just anti-bad-arguments. And I don't play favorites -- if someone's bad argument happens to be in relation to their religion, I don't see why that should be off limits. And that seems to be the policy of most of the other folks you're screeching at here.
I got one too -- I'm some sort of pedantic coxcomb. Is that cool, or what?
Hmm, "blackguard", "coxcomb"... If someone can get him to call them a "brigand", "scoundrel", and "miscreant", I think we'll have a clean sweep.
Are you guys getting the same mental image that I am?
Is that a rhetorical question?
I'm glad someone caught that...
Pardon my paranoia, but I've often wondered if some of the apparent anti-evos aren't in fact salting FR with "quotes" to misrepresent later as typical of conservatives.
"Exellent point. Why don't we let Scientists decide what is taught in Science class?"
Hmmm, does that mean we should let socialists decide what is taught in sociology cla.... ....er, never mind.
Why are you basing your ideas on what others think and believe. What they think and believe is not going to get you or me into heaven. What I believe about God is not of my choosing. The Holy Spirit worked that faith in my heart. Therefore, if you have an axe to grind go to Him, for it is because of Him that I believe the Bible. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast."
Yes, as long as the government, who God has put in power, allows it.
Because centuries before Mithras Isaiah prophecied that His name would be, "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". Mithras has never been known by any of these names.
God allows governments to be established. If the government makes it lawful to have slaves who am I to say government cannot do that. Do you obey the speed limit because you want to or because government says you must?
No new life needed here. I know where you are coming from. You believe that I am saying that blacks should be slaves. I am not saying or implying any such thing. What I am saying is if government sanctions slavery than slavery is permissible. How can you or anyone else argue against this point?
I am not in support of slavery. What I am saying is if government allows slavery than slavery is permissible. However I am not an advocate of government sanctioning slavery.
...
I am not in support of slavery. What I am saying is if government allows slavery than slavery is permissible. However I am not an advocate of government sanctioning slavery.
Does anyone else detect the sound of frantic weaseling? Yet another biblical literalist turns out to be a liar.
"Government is running amuck", is it taxesareforever, I suppose the emancipation proclamation was an example of amuck government that you detest so.
I would revolt against a government that sanctioned slavery. I understand that as you approve of slavery (which you have already clearly indicated) you wouldn't.
Divine Right in the 21st Century. Wow!
Yes, his exposition on the Constitution was remarkable.
He is also a superb logician. I know this because he told me so himself. He admits that doesn't know much about biology though, which is why he constantly lectures the group about biology.
Which particular group did you have in mind then, when you said that you don't consider it wrong to keep slaves?
And they argue against ToE on the grounds of morality....
I like to think that if any Freeper evo advocated slavery on the misguided grounds of "fitness" they would be flamed by PH's entire pinglist. The creationists are more protective of their own. No viewpoint is so wicked or stupid that it cannot be either applauded or ignored if the intent is to attack evolution.
This might get a rise on the religion forum. Those folks are continually accusing each other of being cults.
But here we seem to get two types -- those who deny the Bible sanctions slavery and those who acknowledge that it does and accept it as morally OK.
I wonder what taxes thinks about the holocaust, which was sanctioned by government, "who God has put in power."
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.
