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.
1.In the U.S. it is wrong since it is against our Constitution. Why is it not wrong in other countries? If there laws allow it, that is what makes it right. 2. No one has been able to show me from the Bible where God says it is unlawful or lawful to have slaves. Therefore I can have my own opinion.
In other words, since you don't understand or believe it, no one should be quoting from it.
"If the our government sanctioned slavery I would say it was wrong because it would be against our Constitution."
Too late, you have already said you don't think slavery is wrong.
""My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves. "
And what if the Constitution was amended to include slavery? Would you have any kind of moral argument against it then?
"What is right or wrong for one country is not necessarily right or wrong for another country. Just ask the people living in other countries."
So you are a moral relativist?
Why does our constitution say it is wrong to have slaves? All the founders of the country were nominal Christians. Why was it OK then and wrong now?
You are the one twisting and spinning. I did not say slavery was moral just because the government allows it. Abortion is not moral and the government allows it. Besides, abortion has nothing to do with the majority. It is a minority who support abortion.
Sometimes, it's difficult to maintain an adult demeanor when confronted by such opportunities.
"For all I know he could be a dumb Darwinian posing as a Christian. Lots of factors involved and so little time and logic on your part."
________________________________________________________
He quoted scripture to support his position, not Darwin.
________________________________________________________
You honestly don't get it, do you? A dumb Darwinian can selectively use Biblical scripture as well. Anyone can post from the Holy Bible to undermine or support his arguments. If there's no understanding of the Bible it's all so useless and counterproductive.
This give and take with you is useless and counterproductive mainly because we have distinctly different world views.
Like I said, the Bible doesn't support it nor does it condemn it, so who am I to say it is immoral.
Are you THX1138's bio progeny?
THX1138 is someone else.
What a coincidence---1138 I mean.
Could be a mutation of some sort.
"I did not say slavery was moral just because the government allows it."
Why DO you say slavery is moral then? You have already said you didn't think it was wrong.
"Abortion is not moral and the government allows it."
Why is it immoral and slavery isn't?
"Besides, abortion has nothing to do with the majority. It is a minority who support abortion."
No it isn't; but that's a different subject.
I believe in reason and rationality
tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt
Saying it about yourself doesn't make it so as your posts sadly prove.
It's for others to say it about you. Sadly there are too many who do. Then again with time...time is important with the evos - you'll come around.
Wrong. The exact text of the pulled post is in #603. I couldn't believe it so I cut and pasted it before it got pulled.
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.