Posted on 05/06/2005 10:47:50 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon
CHARLES DARWIN’S theory of evolution is facing a new challenge in America from Christians who argue that life shows an “intelligent design”.
The Kansas Board of Education has begun taking evidence from anti-evolution scientists in a bid to rewrite the state’s teaching standards to ensure that pupils learn alternatives to evolution that suggest a guiding hand in the origin of life.
Kansas is one of a growing number of states to consider authorising schools to teach religious alternatives to Darwin — but a four-day hearing of the Kansas board has outraged mainstream scientists, who are boycotting the meeting and holding protests outside.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science declined an invitation to testify, arguing that the hearings would confuse rather than educate the public.
“This is a showcase trial,” Jack Krebs, vice-president of Kansas Citizens for Science, said. “They have hijacked science and education.”
On the first day of testimony in Topeka, the audience heard lectures on “primordial soup”, fruit-fly mutations and whether human beings were related to worms as six anti-evolution scientists argued that the theory of evolution could not explain gaps in the fossil record, the complexity of DNA or the origin of life itself.
William Harris, a professor of medicine who specialises in omega-3 fatty acids and co-founded the Intelligent Design Network, said that Darwinism clashed with the biblical teaching that life was created by God. “Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools,” he said. “This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications.”
Other witnesses included Jonathan Wells, an embryologist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, who described himself as “an old Berkeley antiwar radical”. “The way Darwinian evolution is usually presented is that the evidence is overwhelming, and there is no controversy about it,” he said. “That’s clearly not the case.”
Dr Wells, who holds PhDs in theology from Yale University and in biology from the University of California, Berkeley, confirmed under cross-examination that he was a member of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.
Pro-Darwin scientists distributed an internet posting outside the hearing in which Dr Wells declares: “Father’s words, my studies and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.”
The anti-evolution scientists faced sharp questioning from Pedro Irigonegaray, a lawyer defending Darwin at the hearings. He said that he fantasised that he was defending John Scopes, a Tennessee biology teacher who in 1925 was found guilty of illegally teaching evolution at what became known as the “Monkey Trial”.
“The delicious fantasy of being in a courtroom-like environment, with the overhead fan slowly twisting and being able to question witnesses about all of these issues, is very appealing,” he said.
The US Supreme Court outlawed the teaching of biblical beliefs, or “creationism”, in state schools in an Arkansas case in 1987, forcing Christians to embrace “intelligent design”.
All three members of the Kansas sub-committee support a change in the standards to tell students that evolution is only a theory, not a fact, and to include alternatives. The full Kansas school board, which is controlled by a 6-4 conservative majority, is expected to rewrite the standards in June, joining Ohio, which took a similar step three years ago. Legislators in Alabama and Georgia are also considering Bills to allow teachers to challenge Darwin in class.
"New sciences", as in the plural??? Interesting usage! At any rate, please inform me of these new "sciences." I have no idea what you are referring to.
"...Most Darwinists are Christians."
Darwin's Evolutionary Theory is just that, a theory. A theory is an idea which has yet to be proven through accepted factual data. Hence, it requires the proponent to have faith that the theory is true. Faith requires belief. Belief that evolution is true. Hence, the devotees of the theory of evolution can be characterized as believers of the religion of evolution.
While I do believe that species can evolve, I would characterize it more as adapting to environmental condition. Different species were created (or relocated) on this planet and then we adapted to its ever changing environmental conditions.
Want to prove Darwinism is a religion and not fact? Ask your science teacher 'what color are humans supposed to be?'. Did we evolve into a white being and then our skin tone gradually changed to black because of the sun or were we all black and gradually our skin lightened up because of a lack of the sun? And what accounts for Asian traits? The Darwin theory dictates we evolved and then changed skin color based on conditions. So according to Darwin, one of the races is superior to the others because that race was the first and original evolution of the human species.
So Darwinism is a racist religion, not just a theory. Just what I believe. I call it the Dannyboy Theory and I think it should be taught in our schools.
You are right about that. They are militant about it.
Is than an opinion or statistic?
And you sir, are full of it. I am a Christian, and I believe what Jesus taught. He affirmed the old testament, and He is credited in the new testament as the "Creator of all things". An "informed christian" as you put it, should know that much, at a minimum. I don't know who you are talking about, but they are certainly not Christians in the sense that they are followers and believers of the Christ.
"There was a time in which the Church nearly put to death Galileo, one of the greatest intellects in history for saying the obvious, that the Earth revolved around the sun."
"Evolution is a fact".
XenuDidit
If that is true, evolutionists shouldn't fear alternative theories, since bringing them into the light will allow them to be debunked. Also, you might want to put in for a name change since it's still called the THEORY of evolution...assuming, of course, you're able to prove it since that's generally how something moves from the theoretical to the factual.
Cindie
What is that?
Adaptation is a fact - evolution is a theory.
You are thinking like a creationist. A theory is not a truth. A theory is an idea which has been or will be tested in various ways. And that is the problem with creationism. One can not devise a test for it.
A Hoax? who was responsible for the Hoax (Darwin was a devout Christian)
Why do some people have a problem with beliving that God and evolution can exist side by side with no issues?
Gravity is a theory do we start to deny it exists.
> So according to Darwin, one of the races is superior to the others because that race was the first and original evolution of the human species.
That takes the cake for just about the dumbest thing ever said about evolution. Bravo.
It's a fact.
Yes, Christ affirmed the old testament as part of our moral and spiritual heritage. I don't remember his saying that it was a history book though. It's scripture, not history. When are you people going to wake up and realize that.
There are more than a few things in the old testament that simply could not have taken place. Take the flood for example. The bible is very specific about how the ark was built, right down to the last cubit. It's a very simple calculation and I suggest that you do it for your own satisfaction. The ark only had about 100,000 square feet of floor space. If we included only the 5,000 mammal species and 10,000 bird species that are alive today and multiply the numbers by two, we get only about 3 square feet to store each animal and feed for a year. And this doesn't even include the other species, such as reptiles that can't swim.
It's obvious that all of this could not have happened as the Bible presents it and forcing one's self to believe this as historical fact just detracts from the real, deeper spiritual message in the scriptures.
Not that I scoring or anything, but I doubt it.
I would think if it was a fact you could back it up. But of course you can't back up evolution, either, so I'm not surprised.
Okay, so you've now shown that you don't know what the scientific definition of 'evolution' is, and you don't know what the scientific defintion of a 'fact' is.
Congratulations - you're unqualified to participate in a scientific debate.
Which, by the way, was the whole reason I posted what I did - to out the pseudoscientists.
Go back over my posts. I think you'll see I never described myself as a scientist, now did I? So technically in your post back to me, you were lying. You are just trying to make me look stupid to make yourself look smart. Oh, I know, you are a big shot in the space program, which is really cool. But that doesn't mean you have all the answers of the universe. God has also given us common sense, which the theory of evolution really stretches. Of course, you always accuse those who support teaching both sides of being liars. I am, however, able to read. Therefore, I try to read what both sides are saying and make up my own mind. I don't think evolution (as common ancestor, species jumps) has been proved and I don't think it's been completely disproved. What is wrong with teaching the problems with evolution? Or are you saying there aren't any?
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.