Landru, help me!
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.
the Bible doesn't support it nor does it condemn it, so who am I to say it is immoral.
The "Festival of the Troll Who Couldn't Think for Himself" continues unabated... one wonders how he might feel about changing lanes without first signalling.... I'm pretty sure that isn't covered by scripture
Let me make sure I have you right here. Slavery is wrong because we prohibit it and only because of that. We didn't prohibit it because it was wrong and it was not wrong until we prohibited it.
I read things like this and chuckle at having so often been told on these threads that agnostic materialists like myself have no moral compass.
"Comment #375 Removed by Moderator"
Another stick on stupid moment.
Are you THX1138's bio progeny?
Yes, I'm confident that you do. It's revealed by your posts.
You said "I don't consider it wrong to have slaves"
"You" and not others.
"You" and not the government.
Why do -you- not consider it wrong to have slaves?
I'm glad you acknowledge that your support of slavery is not based on your religious views.
Landru, help me!
No.
IOW since I am free to recognize that the apparent anomalies can easily fit if I do not have the hubris to assume that fallible humans have perfectly and accurately transmitted the words of the Bible and if I recognize that God was not writing a biology textbook, my understanding is quite possible greater and more accurate than yours.
How long will the silly dance go on? Is slavery only bad when some people support it? Is slavery only bad when and where it is outlawed? That's what taxesareforever is claiming now.
Where are the creationists saying that what taxesareforever is saying is wrong? Is "witnessing" that good, that you can support any old thing at all under the banner thereof?
You stated:"...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...."
What are your views on burkhas, honor killings, infidel killings, suttee, footbinding?
" Where are the creationists saying that what taxesareforever is saying is wrong?"
Crickets.... chirp! chirp!
You posted:"That meains that it is a given that Christians would oppose slavery and subjugation as indeed they have done over and over again."
Also as they have -not- done over and over again.
Many non-Christians have opposed slavery. Many Christians have supported it.
Being Christian does not seem to be a deciding factor in relation to supporting slavery.
On this thread, it is not a given and has not happened even once, unless we count the chiding of the hated evolutionists by the spurious waving about of an SJ Gould quote. When does the dance of equivocation, distraction, and denial end? Is there a creationist with backbone and integrity? Can a person with backbone and integrity BE a creationist, with the evidence picture being what it is?
Is slavery bad? If taxesareforever has no problem with it, is he being morally lax? Is his interpretation of the Bible overly literal? What do you think about this?
I suppose it may blow the brains of some folks, but Darwin was very much opposed to slavery.
I'll bet that with a little creative quote mining he can be declared to have invented it or something.
It is truly disheartening that not even one literalist has disavowed the stance taken by taxesareforever.
Another stick on stupid moment.
=========
Sorry, but you are wrong. The exact text of post #375 is below, as well as in #603, to which I referred you--apparently you did not check #603, or didn't believe it. I cut and pasted post #375 because I didn't believe anyone could say this.
I don't know why you refuse to acknowledge, or condemn, this post.
You don't actually agree with it, do you?
=========
To: Thatcherite
My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves.
375 posted on 10/08/2005 5:49:05 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I do believe there is a time lapse between the Constitution and the Civil War. However, the Civil war was fought over states rights but an end result was the end to slavery. History 101.
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.