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.
In #597 you wrote "Point of order. Post #375 wasn't mine."
In #603 I provide the exact post, with all headers and footers, and it's clearly yours. I also challenged you to disavow your comment regarding it not being "wrong to have slaves."
Then, in #608 you wrote:
I am not disavowing my statement. I believe it whether you like it or not. What is the difference between the government passing laws allowing abortion, which I abhor, and the government passing laws to allow slavery? I hate abortion but there are many who take advantage of this detestable right. If the government passed such a law on slavery I would not own slaves but you can bet there would be those who would and it would be legal because the government allows it.We are not talking about the government passing laws, we are talking about your original post, "My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves."
I have yet to see you disavow this post or the sentiments it contains. You even write "I am not disavowing my statement. I believe it whether you like it or not."
I don't see how you can show your face on these threads after expressing such a disgusting opinion and then refusing to apologize for it or to disavow it.
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
My mistake. I was reading the copied version on Post #36.
How the moderator could consider this digusting or over the edge is beyond me. I thought FreeR was for a "free exchange" of ideas. My mistake again.
Using worn out opinions by pro-evolutionists.
Seems rather straightforward to me. Just because you don't agree with what I say won't make me disavow my statements.
5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
My, that was a data-filled rebuttal chock full of new insights and learning.
I can't believe we're going to quote-mine the Bible for out of context quotes. IMO that's not the way to approach any study.
This is why it's so difficult to have a scientific discussion with creationists. They have no background in science so our arguments don't seem to mean anything.
I'll withdraw from the field now and leave the participants to their fate.
In contrast, pro-evolutionists have no background in Intelligent Design studies so their arguments don't seem to mean anything.
In contrast, pro-evolutionists have no background in Intelligent Design studies so their arguments don't seem to mean anything.
So your knowledge is considered higher than Gods'. Like I have said, everyone has their own god/God.
It's not knowledge. It's understanding what is morally wrong.
Slavery is reprehensible. I'm concerned that your god isn't clear on that.
Just because some guy claims a document is divinely inspired does not make it so. And, barring God Himself coming down and telling you one way or another, that's all you've got -- the word of men.
Maybe you should ask JimRob for a ruling on your posts at 375 & beyond.
Ah, but taxes posted in support of slavery.
Christian or no?
All of your ranting and raving does not change the fact that you are quoting out-of-context to support a false claim. That is fundamentally dishonest, but since you don't have a fact on your side you seem content to resort to lies.
That "guy" is God (2 Peter 1:20,21)and since you disavow this you are saying that Christians have no basis for Intelligent Design arguments. And since you won't allow Scripture in this discussion it is considered over.
That's because there are no ID studies. No one has a background in ID studies.
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.