Posted on 08/09/2005 7:24:16 PM PDT by Crackingham
For more than a century, scientists have overwhelmingly accepted the theory of evolution. As recently as the 1960s, however, teaching about the theory in schools was a crime in several states. Even after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned such laws in 1968, resistance continued. People offended or frightened by the notion of natural selection demanded the teaching of what they called "creation science," a thinly disguised version of the Bible's Genesis story with little or no grounding in science. That, too, was found to be unconstitutional, an attempt to preach one view of religion to a captive audience of many faiths in the public schools.
Now, activists in dozens of states and school districts are pushing to require the teaching of what they call "intelligent design," which ascribes creation to a vaguely undefined cosmic force that sounds a great deal like the God of Genesis but usually isn't named as such.
Kansas' Board of Education is busy this summer rewriting the state's biology curriculum standards to accommodate the demands of intelligent-design advocates. Ohio took similar action last year. School districts in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and elsewhere are requiring the teaching of what they call alternative theories of evolution, regardless of whether they have scientific validity.
With more creativity and less obstinacy, reasonable compromises might be found for school children to discuss conflicts between science and faith. But the subject is treated more as a game of capture the flag. Children and science teachers are made into political pawns of those with religious agendas.
Nearly one-third of teachers responding to a National Science Teachers Association survey this year said they felt pressured to include creationism, or its various political offspring, in their teaching about life's origins. The National Academy of Sciences says efforts to discredit evolution or push it out of the classroom are going on in at least 40 states. If those efforts succeed, many students will get a seriously distorted science education.
Evolution, associated with 19th century naturalist Charles Darwin, is the concept that the diversity among plants and animals is attributable to genetic mutation and natural selection over the generations. It is the cornerstone of modern biology. Though there are various "missing links" in the evolutionary chain, it has never been refuted on a scientific basis.
Not another thread?!? We're still working on the last five!
Oh goody - lets party!
SD or STUPID DESIGN is the better theory, instead of intelligent design.
The creator is a poor engineer for someone that supposed to be all knowing.
What a joke! That 'overwhelming' acceptance was in reality a set of competing theories full of contradictions. The only reason creationism came about was that all the people pushing their own theories saw Christianity as a threat that they had to find a way to fight. So, they agreed to put together a compromise and ignore all the contradictions and flaws to have a unified front against Christianity.
Want proof? Read all the competing theories and their authors in "The Biotic Message". This is a serious, academic/scientific examination of the whole process.
Huh???
Doesn't the lack of presence of the "missing links" disrupt the evolutionary chain theory? Isn't that scientific evidence?
Better yet, let me try reversing this. I have a theory that the author of this article is a flaming Communist. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I proclaim my theory to be fact.
Yeah, and civil unions smack of gay marriage by another name. That ploy is all the rage. Actually, there is more difference between ID and creationism than there is between a Vermont civil union and a Massachusetts gay marriage.
Now there's a well-reasoned argument! You're sure to impress a lot of people with that level of intellectual acumen.
Do your folks know you are using the computer?
As a creationist Christian, ID is a cowards way of supporting creation without giving God the glory. God did it, and to belongs all the glory.
Hey, I got that from the theory itself. I thought it was pretty cute.
Do you like this one better?
Over the past century and a half pure science has sold its birthright for a philosophy known as evolutionism. Today it would apparently extend its line of credit toward the additional purchase of creationism. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if pure science is capable of keeping its house clean.
As for evolutionism, one does not cast forth reasonable conjecture upon a mountain of circumstantial evidence and call it "science." One does not create a multiplicity of historic concatenations based upon a static record as if it had the same level of certitude as the Law of Gravity. Call it a philosophy, a history, or modern storytelling, but do not call it science in the strict sense.
As for creationism, one does not insert God into science any more than one inserts the director of a play into the play just to make a point that the play has a director. God does not need the help of science. The reverse is true, simply because science could not take place in the first place without an intelligently designed Being placing intelligent creatures in the midst of an intelligently designed creation. It is a comfortable given, not an end for science to pursue.
On the one hand, the philosophy of evolutionism dresses in scientific garb and introduces itself by stealth, not willing to recognize, let alone acknowledge that it begins with a fundamental set of givens that will never fail in finding a piece of circumstantial evidence to fit it. On the other hand, the theology of creationism dresses in a populist hankering for God to be given equal time at the microphone, failing to realize that pure science carries on well without the additional noise.
If the house of science is going to be kept clean, at least one of three things ought to happen. 1.) the adherents of the philosophy of evolution begin to extricate their dubious ramblings from under the label of science while the proponents of creationism take note and refrain from inserting them, 2.) the plenary body of public school customers receives what their tax dollars are paying for: Consideration for all reasonable points of view, or 3.) we honestly acknowledge the presence and implications of commingled thought. The debate has its place in schoolrooms, to be sure, but neither philosophy nor theology constitute pure science.
Based on the past century and a half, it would be no surprise if pure science decides to take on various philosophies inimical to its own good, while parading itself about as a caricature of what it is supposed to be, namely, the engagement of hypotheses that are testable within the realms current history and direct observation.
-------
Reposted for my convenience.
Sure, that's cute!
But some think we actually evolved from ape-toothed monkeys. But that's in the distant past.
Looks like he made an extra-special screw up in your case. Hehe. Hope you have a thick skin.
If man came from monkeys then where did monkeys come from? That is the one flaw in evoLOSEtion you won't here the Darwinists talking about.
What it boils down to is this: The Philosophy of Evolution inserted itself into the science classroom by stealth. Now the theology of creationism is demanding equal time by law. Neither belongs there, but the Evolutionists screwed it up first. Way to go, monkey boys.
So was the book by that french guy that claimed that 9/11 was a CIA conspiracy.
Those folks with the claims that we didn't go to the moon make pretty good arguments too.
They're still all wrong.
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.