Teaching of Evolution Remains Under Attack
Guest Post by Ron Chusid
Despite the high profile victory for keeping creationism out of science classes in the Dover case, there are ongoing battles around the country to defend science. South Carolinians for Science Education reports on one victory as the State Board of Education reversed a December vote which would have led to dropping the use of a text teaching evolution. However the news isn’t as good in Florida where a former St. Petersburg City Council member and candidate for Mayor has repeated Tom DeLay’s theory linking the teaching of evolution to the Columbine shootings.
There is also controversy on a state wide level in Florida, where the word evolution is not used in science classes. One biology teacher defended the teaching of evolution explaining, “It’s very hard to teach good biological science without mentioning evolution. It’s one of the basic underpinnings of modern biological science.” He should explain this to Florida Governor Charlie Crist who, like many conservatives, confuses the scientific meaning of theory with its use in common language. Crist is quoted as saying, “I think the way it’s been handled historically in Florida is probably appropriate. It’s been introduced and discussed in terms of being a theory. I don’t know if there’s a need for a change in that. But I’ll leave the decision to the board.”
I’ve frequently seen accounts of teachers having difficulty with teaching evolution regardless of the law due to pressure from religious groups. A teacher described these problems in an op-ed in FortBendNow:
I taught sixth grade in Texas for three years 2001-2004. During that time, I was absolutely warned to not begin to say the word “evolution” or we would have every preacher in the district, as well as the media, breathing down our necks, and then there would truly be no teaching or learning. Sadly, I needed the position, so I played the “hide the issue and hide the learning” game.
Every time I tell this story, usually at a dinner party, people look at me like I am reliving some ancient past. I remind them that this policy ruled only two years ago – and in their progressive community. Like many issues that are easier to disbelieve than to address, people inevitably choose disbelief.
It is more difficult for me to choose disbelief, but over time, even I can begin to question my experience. So several weeks ago, I decided to test the continued use of this policy. I interviewed with a high school in Fort Bend and asked if I could use current events in the English classroom to explore why real evolution education is often an inoculation against racism and eugenic posturing. The interviewer quickly replied, “We do not challenge the sensitive “beliefs” of our student community.”
These problems have extended beyond the public schools as last fall I reported on a community college instructor who was fired for calling the story of Adam and Eve a “fairy tale.” Even Bill Nye, the Science Guy has come under attack by the religious right for being an “evolution huckster.”
Several organizations involved in the teaching of science in the United States and Europe have issued statements favoring the teaching of evolution and not creationism in the schools. These include the Association for Science Education, the California Academy of Sciences, the UK government (whose statement explains the scientific meaning of theory), and the Council on Europe.
We also must not forget that two Republican candidates still in the race, Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, both deny evolution. Mike Huckabee has advocated teaching intelligent design in the schools, while Ron Paul simply does not believe in public schools. A panel of scientists recently warned how we are “doomed” should Huckabee be elected.
For those interested in reading more about evolution, an updated version of Science, Education, and Creationism, a book from the National Academy of Sciences, is available for free download in pdf format here.
(Cross posted from Liberal Values)
JamesM76
says:I would like to point out that Ron Paul, while he doesn’t accept the “theory” of evolution as a Law said that both sides, as of yet, are not proven. He would allow the parents and the state to determine what the children would learn. Under the government’s control, American education has declined when compared to the education of other countries.
I would also like to show proof that the federal government legally has no say on this issue. Listed in the constitution are individual powers that each branch of our government has control off. Education is not listed and thus falls into the clause that “any powers not listed belong to the states and the people”.
This isn’t about an attack on the THEORY of Evolution, but the attack of American’s civil liberties and states rights as granted in the constitution and bill of rights. You can state what “should” be all you want, but that is only your opinion and should never be treated as law.
The Answer is Orange
says:Ah yes, the race to make this country Stoopid continues. Maybe the Flat Earthers will be encouraged and demand that schools toss out their globes and geography books. Then the arseclowns in the Holocaust denial crowd can ramp up their efforts to get the history books revised …
A cynical person might suspect the Evangelical colleges are behind all this anti-science crap so they’ll always have a pool of kids who can’t get into any other university.
RSA
says:That’s an interesting and cautionary op-ed. But this part is overstated: Too bad, … our most ill-informed students fall easy prey to eugenic manipulation, intolerance, and gangs because they do not understand real evolution.
Leaving aside the odd phrasings (“real evolution”? students being prey to “eugenic manipulation”?), it’s possible to understand evolution and still be a racist. I won’t argue that James Watson is a racist, but some of his statements certainly made him sound like one. More generally, knowledge about evolution shouldn’t be treated as a cure-all for social ills; it’s just science.
Rick at shrimp and grits
says:Can someone please send Ron Paul and his followers a copy of Stephen Jay Gould’s “Evolution as Fact and Theory”?
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
In short, theories do not “grow up” to become laws in science. Scientific theories and scientific laws answer two different kinds of questions.
locagirl
says:JAMESM76 @#1 says …This isn’t about an attack on the THEORY of Evolution, but the attack of American’s civil liberties and states rights as granted in the constitution and bill of rights…
So, I guess, what he’s trying to articulate is that everyone has the right to be IGNORANT. Of course, with all the jobs we’re losing due to factory closings and other jobs being outsourced to foreign countries like India, I dont know where his kids will find work with the level of education they have received. So, now the american way is hoping that your kids will do worse than you, but that’s okay, they won’t know any better..
SteveT
says:I was a journalism major back in college,. My fellow journalim students were appallingly, embarrassingly ignorant about science.
When evolution and “intelligent design” were discussed here a few days ago, that same lack of understanding of science showed through. So here is a gradeschool level explaination of how the scientific method works:
You start with someone observing a phenomenon, that is, something happening. For example, “The are little lights in the sky at night.”
Then they create a hypothesis, basically a guess based on little or no actual data, to explain the phenomenon they have observed. “There is a dark canopy that moves across the sky with tiny holes in it through which you can see the light of Heaven.”
Next, they attempt to obtain data, observations that remain the same no matter who measures them. ”Not all the lights move in exactly the same path across the sky.”
Using the data collected, they develop a theory that explains the phenomenon and includes all the recorded data. ”The lights are separate points of light that are moving across the sky.”
As more data is accumulated, one theory may have to be abandoned for a newer one that covers newer data. ”Some of the lights move in ways that only can be explained if they and the earth are orbiting around the sun. Other lights appear to be further away and seem to move only because the Earth is revolving.”
As measuring instruments are improved, even more the accurate data becomes available to further refine the theory. “The Earth orbits around the Sun, which is one of billions of stars that make up a galaxy. There are many other galaxies, all of which are in motion.”
Sometimes there individual, anomalous bits of data that don’t fit the established theory. So another hypothesis is proposed to compliment the theory that satisfies almost all the data. “Light seems to bend around massive bodies. Perhaps space itself is curved.”
*Note: Einstein’s theory of curved space was treated with skepticism here earlier. Basically, Einstein hypothesized that large masses cause space to curve. Picture bowling balls sitting on a trampoline and you can see a two-dimensional representation of what he suggested. That would mean that gravity is a result of a ‘downhill slope’. Einstein wasn’t able to accumulate data from off the Earth, but he did use reproducible mathmatics to elevate his idea from a hypothesis to a theory.
As technology advances, new ways of accumulating data can be used to verify old theories.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3640901.stm
*Another note: I am not claiming that this is an accurate timeline the development of our current model of the Universe. I was using it to illustrate how scientific method progresses from observing a phenomenon, to creating a hypothesis, to gathering data, to developing a theory, to confirming a theory.
What the “intelligent design” advocates want to do is treat their hypothesis as equivalent to the tested theory of Evolution. They argue that the data for the development of life on Earth is incomplete, so the theory of Evolution is invalid. They argue that scientists are being to “materialist” in rejecting their hypothesis that a “divine hand”, which almost by definition cannot be measured, has guided the development of species.
For some reason, they only do this with biology, not any other science. The theory of Plate Tectonics is at least as incomplete as Evolution. But they don’t demand that geologists teach the alternative theory that volcanoes erupt because the Fire Gods haven’t been appeased.
IN SHORT, IF IT CAN’T BE MEASURED, IT AIN’T SCIENCE!!! IF IT AIN’T SCIENCE, IT SHOULDN’T BE TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASS!!!
Period.
Nautilator
says:The interviewer quickly replied, “We do not challenge the sensitive “beliefs” of our student community.”
This is called political correctness. I think it would help if we start pointing it out as such.
He would allow the parents and the state to determine what the children would learn.
And would he support “states rights” if states insisted on teaching alchemy over chemistry?
Martin
says:Steve T’s post would be grad work for most of anti-science nutjobs out there. We need something much easier for them to work with. I propose the following be posted in the front of all science textbooks:
EVOLUTION = SCIENCE
Creationism/ID Science
Only SCIENCE taught in SCIENCE Class
Rich
says:The third rate American educational system, just like our second rate health care system, is extolled as the world’s finest by the boosters of American Exceptionalism. Science education at the public school level in this country is a travesty compared to other developed countries, and only in this benighted country is evolution, or the teaching of its principles, an issue at all.
The great minds of Europe had come to terms with evolution by 1880, after Darwin was already dead, adjusted their religious beliefs accordingly, and went on. Major portions of this country are stuck in the 1860s in ever so many ways, especially when it comes to race, given that the Civil War is still being fought in the South as if it ended yesterday.
When the discovery of radioactivity in the last decade of the 19th century provided a mechanism for dating objects, and the alleged ~6,000 year age of Earth was shown to be ridiculous, many intelligent and educated people thought the matter of evolution had been settled again. For Darwin to have been correct – that evolutionary change required long periods of time – he needed to demonstrate that sufficient time had elapsed to validate the biological mechanisms he described. Radioactive dating did precisely that. Yet today there are still powerful forces that insist on the 6,000 year age, which means that these same forces must deny the validity of the physics of radioactivity, and all that lies behind it.
Psychologists have aptly described the behavior and inability of some people to accept change based on rational and verifiable new information. At this point in time it is becoming obvious that a subset of persons is a few rungs lower on the evolutionary ladder, and thinks the rest of us should be too. But why are so many of them Americans?
How long can we remain a world power, other than militarily, when we are so weak intellectually?
Former Dan
says:“How long can we remain a world power, other than militarily, when we are so weak intellectually?”
By importing brains as has been the case since the 80s.
jen flowers
says:I think this stubborn unwillingness to accept science is our culture’s equivalent of lead pipes in Rome. It’s a poison that undermines our brains.
Billy Budd
says:Ron Paul said he “personally” rejects the theory. If you watch the interview of him talking about it, he talks about it in the first person, ie his creator, his opinion. He gives no shoulds for anything/anybody else. He also stated that it’s something that’s not that important to him in his every day life.
To state Paul does not believe in public schools is not true. He doesn’t believe the in the Federal Governments involvement in them via the Dept of ED. One size fits all government mandates brings us wonderful programs like abstinence only sex ed and no child left behind. Paul feels as many do that public school can be more effective with the control given back to the state level like it use to be not all that long ago (1980). I happen to think there are some pros and cons with either.
I personally believe the evolution and creationism doesn’t need to be totally exclusive of one another and one has to remember there’s a difference between “creation” and evolution”. Some people, like I do, accept evoletion but see see a higher power involved never the less.
I agree that creationism shouldn’d be taught in science class but it’s mention should be forbidden either. Given that 70% of the kids sitting there are taught creatonism at home, it becomes the elephant in the classroom and deserves an honorable mention.
To some of you evolution absolutionists out there, your case would be better put forth if you dropped the smug & condescending towards those who believe in something beyond the test tube. These people get painted as damaged goods and they get disqualified out of hand by those who see their intellectual position superior. It starts to reek of arrogance which is never appealing.
It’s also obvious that the some of the evolution absolutists have more of an anti-religious agenda than pro-science. It’s hard to teach humanism and moral relativism in school when you got any type of God in there to muddying up the waters. You don’t need the “scientific method” to figure that out.
Martin
says:Ok, for some reason the Not Equals sign did not take in the above post, so imagine it between “Creationsim/ID and Science
Linda
says:THE NEW DISCIPLINE!
Things will never be the same in academia after this.
There is a new discipline on the scene: physical science, the old science of cause and effect.
The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories include: degrading stars, neutron stars, water in space, black holes, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, and the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “I” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies were created.
The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view of Christians that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths – the new discipline.
The Quest for Right, a new 7-book series created for the public high schools, is better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing the unprofitable doctrine of Darwinism. Teachers and students alike will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.
The seven volumes contain a wealth of information on pertinent subjects that teachers need to know to be effective: geology, biology, geography, astronomy, chemistry, paleontology, and in-depth studies on origins. The resources contained in The Quest for Right serve as invaluable aids that will enrich both teachers and students beyond their highest expectations.
You will not want to miss the adventure of a lifetime that awaits you in Volume 1 of The Quest for Right.
I am the author, C. David Parsons. Visit the official website for additional information: http://questforright.com
A book that will change the world.” – Wayne Lin, Editor, Tate Publishing LLC
____________________________________________________
In the News: The Quest for Right is entering the creationism/evolution debate in Florida, Texas, and South Carolina. Several hundred copies of Volume 1 have been earmarked to be shipped to concerned school board superintendents and school board members later this month.
CC
says:Billy Budd said: “It’s also obvious that the some of the evolution absolutists have more of an anti-religious agenda than pro-science. It’s hard to teach humanism and moral relativism in school when you got any type of God in there to muddying up the waters. You don’t need the “scientific method” to figure that out.”
I agree. I would also add that “some” of the religious absolutists (fundamentalists) have more of a anti-science (or -progress, or -inclusion) agenda than pro-religion. Please note that this is not all people of religious faith just like it is not all scientists or science teachers that are anti-religion.
As others that have posted here have stated, science is about making testable guesses about the world that, typically, have some predictive value. Saying “God did it” doesn’t let us know when God will do it again. To use and study science, it is not necessary to be atheist, but you must have an open mind to the possibility that your guesses about how the world works may be proven wrong.
Dale
says:Martin said:
Ok, for some reason the Not Equals sign did not take in the above post, so imagine it between “Creationsim/ID and Science
Sorry. If I can’t see it I don’t believe in it. 🙂
Dale
says:States’ Rights? A lot of states used to think they should own slaves.
Tony Whitson
says:Another threat is the prospect of Texas approving a masters degree program in “Science Education,” as recommended by a committee reporting to the Texas Higher Education board. The Board needs to be put on notice that this could jeopardize recognition of its degree and teaching credentials by other states, and that it could put Texas in violation of the NCLB requirement to have a “Highly Qualified Teacher” in every classroom. See http://curricublog.org/2008/01/12/icr-nclb/
independent thinker
says:Intelligent design begins with the assumption that every word in an ancient text, written down by people who came along centuries later, translated and re-translated and re-re-translated, is the 100% undeniable truth. Keep in mind that the world view of the peoples who passed on these stories encompassed everything up to that mountain over there. Then you perform any number of mental contortions to try force science to fit the preconceived notions laid out in the text. Dress it up with enough scienctific sounding jargon and many people will believe it is actual science. Which, is the real goal. Make it sound like a scientific theory and maybe you can force biblical creation into the science classroom.
Intelligent design is farce. Unfortunately it is having a devastating effect on science education in this country. Intelligent design must be fought at every opportunity.
If Bibile literalists want their beliefs in school, I say there is a venue for them: in a comparative religions course that looks at a number of the major religions in the world from a scholarly and historic perspective. Part of the course of study would be the belief structures for, say, Hinduism, Judaism, Bhudism, Christianity, Islam, etc. Natually this would include their creation stories along.
But absolutely, positively under NO circumstances should intelligent design be allowed into a science classroom. And this whole notion of teachers having to avoid the term evolution MUST BE STOPPED.
Tony Whitson
says:In my comment above, I should have specified that the degree program in question is a “distance education” program offered by the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School.
Tom Cleaver
says:It goes on everywhere. My Ph.D. sister-in-law, a Professor of Biology at an upper-midwestern college that does not need further identification here, teaches the Biology class that all students intending to enter any form of pre-med education have to take. One would think that the medical field would be the one place that would absolutely defend the scientific theory that underlies everything they do.
She has been challenged in class by religious students, who have also complained to the school administration that their beliefes are being “belittled” by this class, since she flunks them for failing to understand what is being taught.
The school administration at this “college” has told her she is being “too hard” on the students and failed to support her.
I don’t know about you, but nowadays I ask medical practicitioners I deal with whether they believe in evolution, and in two cases I walked out of the appointment, since I am not interested in being treated by someone who thinks disease is “demonic possession.”
All of which is submitted as proof of my theory of evolution: there are two species of hairless biped on the planet – “homo sapiens” (us), and “homo sap” (them).
beep52
says:This quote in Ron’s post is critical to any discussion of science vs belief: “We do not challenge the sensitive “beliefs” of our student community.”
Questioning is built into the scientific method (as Steve T so nicely demonstrates @ 6) while faith is based on not questioning. Complicating matters further is that we strive to respect the religious beliefs of others in this country, so the moment one claims religion as the basis of their opinion, we hit a brick wall and rational discussion ends. Science and religion compete on an unlevel playing field, and it will remain that way so long as faith remains beyond questioning, which is to say, forever.
Tom Cleaver
says:After reading through here, as further proof of my theory of two separate species, I submit all the postings here by the Paulies. Definite proof of the existence of “homo sap.”
The Answer is Orange
says:[Bangs head against desk]
More and more I favour giving the Talevan their own chunk of the country and dropping them off without anything created by modern science. “Here’s the world you want, enjoy!”
Those suckers would be begging for help and microwaves from us “sinners” before you could blink twice.
To add to your advice about doctors: Check the literature in the waiting room. Things like Chick Tracts are a sign to get the fuck out.
Steve
says:One of he keys to defeating the fallacies of ID in regards to evolution can, believe it or not, actually be found in the Bible. If you apply the term “cubits” to their contemporary feet-inches counterpart, then Noah’s “Ark” would not have been large enough to carry two of every living species known to have existed at the alleged time of the flood.
Where did all the other species come from, if they never boarded the Ark?
Answer: EVOLUTION.
Also, it’s important to note that most of the species in existence today were never indigenous to Noah’s region. This being the case, where did all of the non-indigenoue species come from?
Answer: again—EVOLUTION.
Beyond the biblical support for Evolution as a viable theory, there’s also the mathematical equations surrounding the construction of the actual ark. Given the biblically-cited measurements, what we’re talking about is a wooden seagoing structure measuring roughly 516 feet in length, about 86 feet in width, and approximately 51 to 52 feet in height. Given that the vessel would have been constructed entirely of wood, without the aid of dry-dock facilities, winch carriages, and high-lift boom cranes, we’re contemplating a ship that would have to take about 120-130 years to build, when considering the amount of support beams needed to compensate for the fact that this ship had absolutely no structural iron in it.
How old was Noah when the project began? How old were his sons when he undertook this “magnum opus?” Noah and his sons combined added up to how many individuals, transporting trees from hundreds of miles away from the building site, and lifting wooden beams that would have needed to be several feet in thickness, and several dozen feet in length, just to build a vessel strong enough to hold together for six weeks at sea?
We’re not talking Thor Heyerdahl’s “Kon Tiki” here, folks—this thing was huge, similar to a 56-story office building tipped on its side, and would have required the strength of thousands just to transport the structural components—massive logs—to the centralized building site. And that’s if every last piece of wood came from one giant forest, stretching hundreds of miles in every direction, with the Ark’s “ground zero” being in the geographic center of that forest.
Such an unimaginably humongous deforestation project would have driven every last wild animal out of the region, further hampering any localized effort to bring the animals in toward the ship in the days prior to the flood. Those animals would all have had to move over a “scorched earth” zone, with no shelter, no food, no water, and untold numbers of predators (including a whole big bunch of hungry people).
Two viable theories relating to just one biblical record—the Great Flood—one requires absolute acceptance of Evolution to explain the many variables in animal sub-species today, the other identifying known obstacles to a successful implementation of the Ark legend—obstacles that would have been common knowledge to boat-builders and mariners at the time when the Ark was built.
Two viable theories; two “biblical” theories—and they both disprove the validity of IE as pure, unadulterated bunk….
idlemind
says:For those of you curious to see a discussion of A Quest For Right by one of the net’s premiere Evil-utionists, P.Z. Myers. (Well, I found it amusing…)
Hannah
says:#25: I can see where you’re going with this – trying to convince Biblical literalists that evolution is real. As a person who views the Ark story metaphorically, well, no need.
#24: Agree. It’s pretty amazing that those who don’t trust science will nevertheless trust their doctor to prescribe the right treatment. Yet most people have no idea that doctors use the work of science researchers. How silly and short-sighted. It also reminds me of the argument that those in favor of stem cell research use to those who are in opposition: if you’re against stem cell research, then you have no right to accept any treatment that was derived from it. Ever.
#22: Faith is based on not questioning? Maybe for those who don’t think for themselves. Mother Teresa and Martin Luther were two giants of the Christian faith who did plenty of questioning and had doubts. Which made their faith stronger.
#21: Ridiculous. Students should be expected to learn the course material or suffer the consequences. Science has nothing to do with faith or religion.
#19: Right. People who take the creation stories literally fail to take into account who the stories were written for, and the time when they lived.
#6 Steve: Good job breaking that down. I get so frustrated by those who say, well, science can’t explain xyz, so God must be the answer. Hello, there’s a TON more to be discovered.
And Billy Budd, as a person of faith (and a person who has studied science at the college level) I do understand your point of view. But we cannot teach creationism in science class. That is best left to religious studies.
President Lindsay
says:…these same forces must deny the validity of the physics of radioactivity, and all that lies behind it.
If only the physics of radioactivity were all that these people are denying. Throw in chemistry, biology, cosmology, astronomy and astrophysics and you’ll still be missing some of what these people are contradicting with their creationist beliefs. It is staggeringly stupid, revealing an extraordinary and entirely willful ignorance of all science. These people are a national embarrassment.
Hannah
says:Sorry, two more things… something I mentioned in a thread the other day.
1) It astounds me how many people will refuse to accept something as fact because they personally don’t understand it. So it can’t possibly be true.
And
2) Science education in this country overall is going down the tank. Shameful.
SteveT
says:independent thinker said:
Intelligent design begins with the assumption that every word in an ancient text, written down by people who came along centuries later, translated and re-translated and re-re-translated, is the 100% undeniable truth.
It’s important to distinguish between the supporters of “intelligent design” and the “creationists”. Intelligent design advocates argue that some variation of a divine hand should be included as a valid cause for a phenomenon in scientific discussions. Creationists argue that the world was created on October 23, 4004 B.C., and are willing to ignore accepted scientific evidence and make up their own “evidence” like putting saddles on dinosaurs.
http://www.creationmuseum.org/
The latter group could fairly be called ‘anti-intellectual, while the former group is guilty of sloppy thinking more than anything else.
Billy Budd said:
I personally believe the evolution and creationism doesn’t need to be totally exclusive of one another and one has to remember there’s a difference between “creation” and evolution”. Some people, like I do, accept evoletion but see see a higher power involved never the less.
(snip)
It’s also obvious that the some of the evolution absolutists have more of an anti-religious agenda than pro-science. It’s hard to teach humanism and moral relativism in school when you got any type of God in there to muddying up the waters. You don’t need the “scientific method” to figure that out.
I agree that we should all be respectful of each other, no matter how silly we might think their beliefs are. But that doesn’t mean we should respect any effort to equate those beliefs with scientific theory. Nor should we be at all nice when someone tries to impose their religious beliefs on those who don’t share them.
At the risk of souding like a ten year old on a playground saying “I know you are but what am I?”, it’s the religious conservatives who are trying to impose their beliefs on me. They don’t just want a diety accepted in science classes, they want the Protestant Christian God accepted. They don’t want prayer in public school, they want prayer to the Protestant Christian God and only to the Protestant Christian God, in public school.
I think it is wishful thinking to imagine an honest discussion about religion in public schools. The conservative Christians will not allow an unbiased discussion of comparative religions. They would never accept a class where the Christian faith treated the same as the “false” religions. They don’t want an open discussion about values, they want a discussion that affirms the supremacy of the conservative Protestant Christian values.
neil wilson
says:I know I am late to the argument and not many people will read this but the Templeton Foundation tried to give a lot of money away to people to study Intelligent Design.
They basically gave up because no one could come up with a way to test Intelligent Design.
As far as I can figure out the way you test Intelligent Design is to find faults with evolution. Unfortunately, that leave IDers with two possibilities.
1) Evolution fills in more of the cracks and show ID (meaning God) is less likely or
2) something else takes evolutions place and science has come up with a more robust answer than evolution currently is (meaning God is pushed even further into the recesses)
However, I have a fantastic proof of ID that should satisfy everyone that God is the creative force and evolution is garbage.
You all know the rule I before E except after C….
Well what name contradicts that rule? NEIL
What word contradicts that rule WEIRD
What more proof could you ask for????
chrenson
says:The entire problem with this issue is that it’s an argument between two almost completely unconnected viewpoints. Like bringing a cello to play baseball with. One is based on empirical scientific evidence and the other is based on a book of very popular fables. It’s as if you come home from work to find your living room has been painted pink, you see your 10 year old covered with pink paint, holding a paint can and brush. You conclude that your kid has been painting the house. And then your child says, “But there was this cat in a hat, see…”
It is astounding that some people will accept the Genesis version of creation without the slightest hint of physical evidence other than “I’m a-standing right here so it must be true” while there is evidence of evolution occurring around us every single day. When you think about the origins of life, which idea is more preposterous? Our world developing slowly over billions of years? Or some guy we’ve never seen putting in a six-day work week? [Keep in mind too that evolution does not pretend to explain how everything started, only how life progressed once it did begin.] At one point many people believed the sun was a flaming chariot that crossed the sky daily. And that stars were holes in the fabric of the night sky. A little bit of science proved that it ain’t necessarily so.
Arguing faith against science is absolutely ridiculous and makes the US a laughing stock, like we’re populated by people in loin cloths. And it’s this kind of head-in-the-sand ignorance that is costing us valuable time in the battle against climate change. Plus, I don’t have the legs for a loin cloth.
Ted Herrlich
says:What does the State of Florida call ‘Slavery’ in history class? Is there some other name used to protect foolish sensibilities? When you have to avoid a certain word or phrase you are actually diluting the subject material itself. I can see a new Freshman from Florida attending an out of state school. There they are on her first day of class and has to raise their hand, “I’m sorry Professor. You keep using a word I’m not familiar with. What is “Evolution” and what does it have to do with Biology?”
Curriculum shouldn’t be there to protect sensibilities, but there to bring things out in the open. Florida does teach Evolution and has for a while, so not using the word ‘evolution’ is ridiculous to the point of extreme! On Feb 19 the State School Board will be voting to change this practice and use the term. I hope everyone has been talking to their representatives. You can take heart that in many states, at many local and state school boards, they have stood up and fixed issues like this. When they refused, many board members have been voted out of office. Florida, you aren’t alone!
Dave Title
says:OK let me make this simple:
If you already know the answer YOU ARE NOT DOING SCIENCE,
Yes evolution may not be true, we might never know if it is or it isn’t, which is why we keep looking for evidence, and it is why evolution is science.
ID, hah! No need for any science, we know the answer already! It’s a Designer! (read GOD here)
That is why ID/Creationism should NEVER see the inside of a science classroom,
IT AIN’T SCIENCE WHEN YOU ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER!
Let me end with this thought: ID is not a science, and their backers could not care less. The only agenda here is to get God back in the classroom. THAT’S IT! May God help us! “Creation Science” was a sheep’s clothing wrapped around the wolf of Christian religious doctrine. They tried to sneak this monster into our science classes. The courts saw this news as it was and threw the wolf out. BEWARE! The wolf has dropped the sheep’s clothing for a brand-spanking new slick, shiny polyester suit called ID. It’s still the same wolf! It’s still God this and God that and keep God the HELL out of my science classroom.
verolynne
says:I must say, it’s kind of sad to see the fundamentalists go after evolution like this. Why aren’t they going after such scientific nonsense as the heliocentric world view and gravity since if these were true the story of Joshua halting the sun in the sky to make the day longer couldn’t have happened. It’s so sad when you realize that not all bible stories are created equal.
…
[headdesk]
please note: Not actually my view point. Putting it out there as a joke to make a point. Don’t take it seriously.