Posted on 09/30/2005 7:45:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
The Campaign to Defend the Constitution, a group organized to promote the teaching of evolution, sent letters Thursday to all 50 governors, urging them to ensure that science classes teach material based on established science.
The letters were signed by more than 100 scientists and clergy of various faiths, the group said.
Although Gov. Ed Rendell had not received the letters as of Thursday afternoon, spokeswoman Kate Philips said he is committed to the idea of teaching evolution in science classes.
Rendell "believes that (intelligent design) is more than appropriate to be taught in religion classes, but has no room in science classes in public schools," Philips said. "But this is in the court's hands now, and other than his opinion, he has no influence."
But a spokeswoman for DefCon, the group's nickname for itself, said the group hopes that after governors receive the letter, they will make a public announcement opposing the teaching of intelligent design.
"It would be nice if (Rendell) took a stance and said, whether it's in the Dover district or any other Pennsylvania district, 'We need to protect the teaching of science in our science classrooms,'" Jessica Smith said.
The group named Dover its top "Island of Ignorance" in the country. It has targeted areas in the country where it says evolution is being challenged at the state level or in public school science classrooms. They include Cobb County, Ga.; Kansas; Blount County, Tenn.; Ohio; Grantsburg, Wisc.; Alabama; Utah; South Carolina; and Florida.
Advocates of intelligent design say life is so complex that it is likely the result of deliberate design by some unidentified creator, not random evolutionary mutation and adaptation.
Critics say it is essentially creationism and violates the separation of church and state when it becomes part of a public school curriculum.
"We can do better when we let science do its job, and ask religion to do its job," former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser said Thursday, "and if there's a need for conversation, please, let's not do it in the classrooms of our children."
I'm not a serious student of Darwin, but I believe that you need to add Darwin to your list. He also recognized there was a Creator, and did some great work in illuminating how the Creator worked.
Oh, sorry - I forget you are a godless atheist. Please ignore my previous question.
I believe in evolution - that is, natural selection. I just don't believe humans evolved from anything other than humans. And I don't believe one species evolved into another.
Good point. The creationists have waged a war to impose their particular interpretation of Genesis while they should have been working to get a decent judge appointed to the supreme court that will overturn Roe V. Wade because it is a constitutional joke.
Creationists have a weird sense of priorities, and they give intelligent conservatives a bad name.
...creationists...give intelligent conservatives a bad name...
Perhaps, but no doubt a better name than those bestowed upon creationists by those self same intelligent conservatives...
You've been around here long enough to have seen the links to information on the ERV virus insertions common between primates and humans. Those are the smoking guns that prove a common ancestry between primates and humans.
However you want to reconcile that with Genesis, sin, etc. is something you'll have to work out on your own. But the fact is that you carry in your body genes deposited by a virus in a single individual millions of years ago that is now the common ancestor of both you and Koko the Gorilla.
Deal with it.
Several thousand years went by without religion noticing that slavery was evil; the change in the law took place within months of the publication of Origin. Ain't science grand.
Where this issue becomes important is the threat from the left to discredit anything proposed from the conservative side because "they're a bunch of knuckle dragging, anti-science, buffoons". It makes it easy to write off anything we say, regardless of the merits.
A particular liberal in my office hates George Bush because he thinks Bush wants to impose religious teaching in schools such as creationism. Pushing ID/creationism is 1) a lost cause, because it will never be adopted by public schools without lawsuits preventing it. 2) Is a distraction away from positive changes that conservatives could be working for. And 3) as described above, is an excuse used by many liberals to reject the logic of anything "conservative".
That's why I spend time on these threads. Hoping to stem the idiocy of this argument before it really gets into the public arena firmly associated with the political philosophy of "conservatism".
"For example, you no longer here about the theory of aether, the "planetary model" of the atom is no longer taught either. Medical students no longer study the "humors", and "bleeding" patients, except rare instances, is no longer practiced."
It's interesting, though, that these things, along with alchemy, were touched on in my high school and college science calsses. Of course, they weren't taught as fact but they were "taught" for the historical value. Why should creation be exempt? Mentioning it in class for the historical value is not the same as teaching it as a viable theory. If evolution is so incontrovertible, show why creation is wrong, just like alchemy or humors. This attempt to keep it out of science classes altogether smacks of an anti-God-keep-religion-out-of-schools agenda. Saying it should be taught in philosophy or religion classes is a cop out because pretty much everyone's aware that there's no way religion is going to be taught in a public school. (Except Islam to be PC) The evolutionists come out almost looking afraid of challenging the concept of creation with their attempts to completely squash the idea.
Ping for later
I can't think of another thing that would be interpreted as "anti-God" than teaching that the Bible has been scientifically proven wrong by evolution.
The problem isn't science, the problem is a few denominations that believe that the Bible and science conflict. That's a theological problem they have with science, not a problem science has with faith.
The only viable answer is to leave religion completely out of science classes. At most, a teacher should explain that science does not seek to pose an affront to the faith of students. Only that some faiths choose to reject science.
"Up until the middle of the last century, it was impossible for members of different races to interbreed in several states in this country. "
Hardly impossible given that most Black Americans are not pure blooded. Certainly difficult and illegal in some places, but you know, hormones are hormones and pheromones are pheromones and Nature is more powerful that the rules of Man.
The most physically exciting woman I've ever known was black. Wonder if she's a Freeper??
Equivocate much?
Where? Where? (they must have photoshopped it out). ;-)
At least you can't be a young earth creationist who believes the Noah's Ark fable then (YEC insist on an incredble rate of evolutionary speciation since the flood, to avoid the notion of 20+ million species being looked after by 8 people for a year). Maybe there is hope for you yet.
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.