Teaching about Evolution
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Teaching about Evolution
Intelligent Design
Is this a violation of the Constitutional separation of church and state?
Amazing how only some people have rights ... gotta love the ACLU.
Honestly, from a liberal and non-religous point of view, let them teach it. I think children are intelligent enough to process both theories, and make up their own minds. People automatically assume it is creationism in the Christian sense, when in reality it is simply creationism as an alternative to evolution. No one mentioned the Christian God in there, just the idea which most religions are based upon, something bigger than us created us. Take it or leave it, it is an option, therefore should be taught.
Crystal, "Intelligent design" is "creationism" in a "God" sense, and is promoted by the same people who wanted the label that evolution is "only a theory" on science books.
The ACLU and others who want to prevent state institutions (i.e., tax dollar supported) from promoting religious beliefs see it as a back door attempt to get the biblical story of creation into schools.
Saying evolution is a "theory" is by any means accurate, if by that one means a theory that has not been explored, investigated, and has not stood the test of time in the scientific community. There is plenty of proof for evolution in the fossil evidence of the development of various species, including humankind. The "evolution is a theory" label uses the word "theory" in the sense that it hasn't been explored or investigated - sort as if "theory" means the same as "idea".
Teaching creationism or "intelligent design" alongside evolution would, to most children (who have not usually developed the ability to do critical thinking) imply that both have the same scientific weight, and they don't. Most biologists and anthropolgists deplore the idea of teaching creationism in elementary and high schools, for just that reason.
As for the "scientific controversy" mentioned by the Dover school board as a justification for teaching "intelligent design", there is no scientific controversy as such. There is a very, very small number of people with degrees in various sciences who are promoting intelligent design, and using quotes from Einstein out of context, among others, as support,and the larger scientific community which says "are you kidding?".
This is just another back door effort to teach religious beliefs in public schools - which is what the First Amendment specifically forbids. One federal court has already told the school district that was using the "evolution is a theory" label on its textbooks to remove them as a violation of the First Amendment. I suppose it will wind up in the Supreme Court, as so many of these cases do, and I would be totally astonished if the Supreme Court doesn't shoot down the Dover school board's notions.
Of course "intelligent design" and "creationism" are options for belief - as is the Thai theory that the world sits on the back of a giant turtle. That's no reason for teaching those options with tax dollars. If people want their children to have different ideas about the creation of the world, moral behavior, or any other issue, they should send them to church and teach their values/beliefs at home if they can't home school or afford private school tuition.
Perhaps nothing should be taught about it at all. If we can't prove it, why teach it?? Along with that, let's throw out all mythology and folk tales from all cultures. After all, these are or were religious stories! The only difference between mythology and religion is the dominant belief system.
We teach alternate theories by using literature (Why the Sun and Moon Sit in the Sky), (Pandora).
Intelligent Design does not infringe on anyone's rights or tax dollars. It offers an aternative view, which is what school is all about - being exposed to all different ideas.
Multiculturalism in the schools and an inclusive curriculum are big forces in education. Unfortunately, if something has a monotheistic connotation, then, it's labled Christian, religious and therefore against the Constitution.
Teach everything. They're not listening anyway ...
Ame
It's fine to talk about multiculturalism, myths, etc. But what this school system wants, and what is being sought by the promoters of "intelligent design" is that it be taught as a scientific theory equal to the theory of evolution. Not the same thing.
I am all for teaching about what other people believe or believed, the myths, stories, folk tales, and, yes, what different faiths preach and what members of different faiths believe. But not in a science class with a science label.
Here is my beef. WE can't teach Christian views, so at Christmas we don't talk about Christ, etc. Okay, I can respect that. But then how come we do talk about Hanuaka, kwanza, ramadan, etc. Why is it we discuss everything but Christianity? Can't we include it too? This is how I feel about evolution. It is a theory. It hasn't held the test of time in my book. Things evolve, they change. But NO WHERE have we ever seen something come from nothing, or something come from a non intelligent being to us. Yes mankind has changed over years and years, but there is still that missing link, that may not be there at all. There is a lot about the science we teach that doesn't make a lot of sense with Biblical teachings, that is fine with me, because honestly I just don't know. But darwinism at its best is only a theory that we think this has happened, this is what we do know, but there are huge chunks missing. So why not teach about those missing chunks, and what we don't know. Intelligent design doens't have to mean God,it could mean aliens in out of space, it is not religious. It is funny to me that I live near Nasa and as a whole there is a very very high percentage of astrronauts that are Christians, not just but name, but practicing believing, fundamental Christians. When asked, there answer is simple, "when you get to see the earth from the other side it so clear that it didn't all just happen, it is TOO perfect."
I may be splitting hairs here, Ginny, but the Theory of Evolution is just that, a theory, no matter how many times it's been explored or investigated. I have no problem with it being taught as the scientifically accepted theory.
I was prompted to post this becuase my 16 yr old son brought it up to me. He had watched a portion of the news when they talked about this case and he asked me what the problem was with mentioning the theory of Intelligent Design in the classroom. Now, as I understand it, the teachers are not required to teach this theory, only mention that it exists and there is reading material available if the students want to learn more. If that is the case, then I have no problem with it. I don't see it as teaching religion in the public schools. As long as it isn't part of the curriculum and taught as a widely accepted theory, but instead is presented as another idea, I have no problem with it. I would rather all students learn about the different ideas and come to their own decisions about it. All ideas or theories should be mentioned, including Intelligent Design, which I'm inferring the Dover school district wants to do. On the other hand, if it was taught in depth as a widely accepted theory, I might have to rethink my position.
I asked my son what they taught him in his biology class, and he told me that Darwin's theory was emphasized, but all the theories (and ideas) were mentioned and touched on. His teacher also told them that none had been established as fact and it was up to them to decide for themselves what they believed. Sounded good to me.
The Theory of Evolution is like the Theory of Relativity. Renowned scientists, for decades, have found huge amounts of evidence that both are correct but we can't actually prove it. We can't "prove" evolution because we don't know how or what triggers the DNA/genes to make it work, but fossil evidence proves that it does. We can't prove relativity because we can't get go enough faster than light speed to be able to document it, but every physicist will tell you it can be proven mathematically.
I have no objection to anyone teaching about creationism or intelligent design in a class that is NOT a science class, teaching about what significant groups of people believe. I do have a serious problem in having it taught in a Science class by a science teacher as actual science.
We can, by the way, teach ABOUT Christian views, just as we can teach about Islamic, Buddhist, Jewish or Zorastrian views. What we can't do is TEACH Christian views, that is, teach them as something that children should believe and follow - at least not in public schools. That would be using tax dollars to support one faith/religion over against others, a violation of the First Amendment rules about no establishment of religion. If you are interested, I have several links that clearly define what public schools and public school teachers can and cannot do with respect to religion, and no where do the courts hold that schools and teachers cannot teach ABOUT Christianity. To hold so would be stupid and foolish, as much of the history of the Western world, our country, and our culture is bound up with Christianity.
I have said elsewhere and will repeat - God is a theory. I say that respectfully. I believe in God and my faith in God is very important to me. But if God were a proven fact, something I could reach out and touch and prove as one could prove the Law of Gravity, what would be the point of faith. I don't have "faith" in gravity - it is, and I can prove it at any time. I do have faith in God, and can't prove God - which is why we call it faith instead of law.
As for the role I believe God had in the creation and development of our universe/world - I don't know. I think at heart I am a creationist. But I still don't want creationism taught in public schools.
Look, we have a wonderful system here. In this country religous organizations are not supported by tax dollars, and thrive. In most Western countries where there is a state/tax supported religion, it does not thrive. There are hundreds, probably thousands of Church of England parishes in England where they are lucky to get 20 people at a worship service on Sunday, and the priest serves three or four parishes each Sunday because no one of them can support a full time priest and the Church pays the salaries. I happen to believe that it is this having to evangelize, reach out, and convince people that there is value in belonging to and supporting a particular religious institution(with money, time and energy) that accounts for the health and vibrancy of religion in our country today, because the religious organizations have to work at it and can't just sit back and rely on government dollars to keep the doors open.
Personally, I think trying to find some way to make prayer in schools (for example) acceptable within the First Amendment results in watering down prayer and faith. I would much rather do my praying in church and at home and whereever I am when I want to pray, than have a watered down set of rote phrases that doesn't mean much to anyone.
Oh, and Ame, I believe the ACLU has, for example, defended the rights of anti-abortion protestors several times, protecting their First Amendment rights. They have also defended other groups whom I personally condemn, also for First Amendment rights. The ACLU doesn't pick and choose on the basis of whether the individual chapter or lawyer "approves" of a group, but rather whether constitutinal rights are being threatened, and they are pretty much non-discriminatory when it comes to whose constitutional rights they try to protect.
What they do not protect is those "rights" that some people believe we have because the Declaration of Independence or the Preamble to the Constitution mention God, or because some (and by no means all) of our founding fathers were known to be persons of faith. The rights the ACLU is concerned about are those set forth specifically in the Constitution and its amendments, beginning with the Bill of Rights, not "historical" or "founding father" rights.
If your child wants to start an after school club which focuses on Bible reading and prayer and the school board denies your child's request while allowing chess clubs and scout groups to use the school buildings after school, I urge you to contact the ACLU, and they will quickly let the school board know that it is out of line.
Being a biology teacher/tutor in 5 different states, it sure brings up a lot of issues. (Mostly when I taught in Alabama.)
When I taught evolution, especially being a Christian myself (I tell them this), I had to make sure that I didn't get fired for not teaching the curriculum yet I had to make sure I didn't offend any of the parents.
My belief, and yes I did share this with them, is that I don't take the creationism too literally. They can co-exist. Did God create heaven and earth in 1 day? What "1 day" is to us, could be a billion years to God? A lot of theories say that we came from a combination of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen...from the earth...then evolved. Who's not to agree that when Adam and Eve were created, they too came "from the Earth".
I did explain that it was a dominant theory and that evolution DOES exist...it exists in the form of Natural Selection. (The Galapagos Islands are a true example of this.)
If it exists for other animals, why can't it exist for humans? Are we really that selfish and self-centered to believe that we are "above" changing over time? It's totally evident within a 100 years of human life, why wouldn't evolution and natural selection exist before our time?
I wouldn't welcome Intelligent design in my kids' biology classes(if they went to school). It is a theory (not in the scientific sense) that assumes the existence of a Christian God and that alone, to me , takes it out of the realm of any science class. Never mind that I feel it's a real chipping away at what faith means to me to keep coming up with these theories that mean to make religion true by making it literally true. I don't think intelligent design threatens the idea of evolution, instead it threatens (for me) the truth and power of myths and stories that religions are built on. Maybe what is needed is some sort of religious issues class so it can be looked at there.
And Ginny, you're absolutely bang on in regards to theory. A lot of the kerfuffle surrounding evolution seems to spring from a general misunderstanding of what 'theory' means and some groups willingness to exploit that misunderstanding.
Creationism is not a Christian theory. It is accepted by almost all religions that the universe and that were in it were created by a higher power. I am a believer in the Christian Bible and my view points will differ from a lot of people, but simply ask someone who is hindu, buddist, islamic, etc they all beleive were were created and not evolved. I think that in a science class if they are discussing the geoligical table and what not it should be presented as "we don't know how it all began", there are different ideas and theorys. The most scientfic of this is evolution. When I was in classin the last 8-'s I know we were tuaght without a doubt that darwinism is the only explanation, period. Even then we questioned it, we had a long discussion with our teacher on how that worked out. When pushed (and we pushed very hard) she did say, well hmmm the don't know but it makes sense. Yeah it makes sense, just like taking apart a watch putting it in a can and shaking it, using explosvies to get a big bang and somehow overtime you will be able to open the can and get a watch.
Dawn, Intelligent Design does not name the higher being, nor refer to him/her as God - let alone a Christian God. It simply states that there is a theory that the universe is too perfect and complex to have created itself. ReligiousTolerance.org has a great explanation of it.
And Ginny, the ACLU gets more press about the anti-conservative causes they take on. Perhaps they do try and serve everyone, but you really don't hear about it.
By the way, I like Intelligent Design. It goes along with the Clock Maker theory. The supreme being is like a watchmaker who creates and then sets it in motion for it to run it's course. I wish I remembered the name of the Enlightenment philosopher who espoused this. Locke, maybe? I have to look it up.
My beliefs are along the same lines as Heidi's. I don't see a huge difference between creationism and evolution. Once created, the world evolved. The sticking point is how did we get here in the first place?
Ame
I have just a few comments on the meaning (by scientists) of the word "theory". A theory is the pinnacle of empirical science, not the base. That is, if something reaches the status of "theory", this is as good as it gets. Someone mentioned relativity as an example. The theory of relativity is one of the two most rigorously tested scientific theories on the planet, if one measures rigor by the precision with which its predictions have been verified (the other being the theory of quantum mechanics), but it is still "just a theory". It cannot, even in principle, be "proven" (mathematically or otherwise) for the simple reason that all of empirical science (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) leans upon experiment/observation for verification. If tomorrow we observed a particle moving faster than the speed of light, Einstein's relativity theories would collapse (and, presumably, be replaced by a more general theory). To say it another way, a theory can be disproven, but never proven.
The same is, of course, true of the theory of evolution. While it is easy to show, for example, that the fossil record shows "generally increasing" complexity as one gets closer to the present, and the DNA record shows common genes across a variety of organisms, with more commonality with mankind, say, amongst species that appear more closely related to us, this cannot "prove" the theory. It simply is consistent with it. Some of the unsolved problems of the theory of evolution are (all theories have unsolved problems. Einstein's general theory of relativity, for example, is known to be inconsistent with quantum mechanics):
1) How did life begin. All (peer-reviewed) published calculations of the probabilty of life spontaneously emerging in the universe indicate that it is essentially impossible. Of course, there may be something wrong with the calculations, but (curiously) this does not appear in K-12 textbooks.
2) How can one formulate the theory in a way that has substantive predictive power? To paraphrase the orginal theory, for example, goes someting like "survival of the fittest". How is "fittest" defined? "Fittest" = "those that survive". This lacks a certain degree of predictive power. Of course the theory has grown more sophisticated, but the essential difficulties of formulating a predictive theory that is free of tautologies remains.
OK, I've said too much and I know it, so I'll shut up.
I believe Intelligent Design should be taught in school. I do not believe in evolution and here are some documents from Apologetics Press explaining why.
Introductory:
Creation vs. Evolution Part I
http://www.apologeticspress.com/pdf/courses_pdf/hsc0105.pdf
Creation vs. Evolution Part II
http://www.apologeticspress.com/pdf/courses_pdf/hsc0106.pdf
Intermediate:
Creation vs. Evolution Part I
http://www.apologeticspress.com/pdf/courses_pdf/hsc0209.pdf
Creation vs. Evolution Part II
http://www.apologeticspress.com/pdf/courses_pdf/hsc0210.pdf
Why should it be forced on my children to learn, memorize, be tested, and basically, be forced to accept the theory of evolution?
All I ask is that my children not be made to accept this as fact. They should be told point blank that this is one idea, read *theory*, on creation. They should absolutely not be told that this is a proven fact and basically that their beliefs on creation are fiction.
I am raising my children in a Christian home with Christian beliefs. Why should the school system be able to put doubts into my children's minds. Our children are taught that they are learning the truth and facts in school, and that they shouldn't doubt it. This is unfair to my Christian children when they are getting contradicting knowledge, but are unallowed to question it.
I'm personally tired of everyone in this Christian based country having rights except for Christians.
Adena, I've kinda stayed away from the conversation since my original post, because it's hard to explain how I feel. I honestly believe the theory of evolution, because my logical mind tells me it makes sense. I was never told in school that this was a "fact", as a matter of fact I remember hearing very little about it period. However, if you want your children to learn a religous-based curriculum, they should be in Christian school. It's unfair to teach God's creation of the earth to children in public school, when they may be Buddhist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Pagan, or whatever else they practice. Not everyone's faith is Creationism, and this country was "Christian based" because it's founders were Christians, but I guarantee you the reason we all have rights is because my forefathers did not want anyone to be persecuted for their beliefs like they were in England. Those Christians wrote the Bill of Rights, including separation of Church and State for a reason. I'm getting really sick of people saying this country was formed on Christianity, when really it was formed on FREEDOM of religion, and all other freedoms. I do not mean this as a personal attack on you, I certainly respect your opinions, but that statement is a pet peeve.
personally I have not read all the posts but I believe it is the parents job to tell their children what they believe in. If schools want to teach evolution then they should be allowed, that will only give my children more of a knowledge of what other people believe, and that is a good social skill. I do not want my children to be ignorant to the fact that there are other beliefs out there. If they want to teach about God then I am fine with that also. I do not remember learning anything about evolution in High School, what would make me think that it would make that big of an impact on my children's life? I guess I just do not see the big deal about this, since they are supposed to learn their "religion" (whatever it may be) from the home.
Candis, I totally agree with you, I have been racking my brain to remember learning Darwin's theory, but it was never a major thing.
If you re-read my post, I never said I am against teaching evolution. I just don't want it to be taught as the ONLY theory. I, too, don't believe religion should be forced on anyone in school, but I also don't think that it should be forced on any child not to believe in the theory of Creationism.
Around my area, it hit the news around two or three years ago, because teachers were belittling the beliefs of students when they didn't accept the evolution theory handsdown. The students were being told that they had to learn and accept evolution, and that creation had no place in school or science, etc.
And about the comment about my children belonging in a Christian school. My children should have the right to attend a public school and still carry their beliefs without having other beliefs forced on them. I didn't say that Christian views should be taught. I merely said that it should be acceptable for children to HAVE Christian views.
I do believe in freedom of religion in this country, but it is becoming about freedom of any OTHER religion in this country. And as far as being persecuted for having other religions, it seems the only people in this country who have to watch what they say or do about their religious beliefs are the Christians. It seems to not be politically correct sometimes to believe in Christianity.
And don't worry, Crystal, I understand that it wasn't a personal attack. We all have our opinions, and just because we don't necessarily agree, doesn't mean we're attacking each other.
I don't teach K-12, but I do teach physics at a university. While (biological) evolution does not come up in these classes, the physical origins, evolution and age of the universe is part of these classes. What I expect from the students is that they understand the experimental basis and theoretical reasoning behind these theories of the universe. I don't expect or require that they (say that they) believe them. Why? Because education is not indoctrination.
I don't see why the biological theory of evolution could not be taught in a similar fashion. Clearly the bulk of the scientific community is convinced that evolutionary theory is "correct". Education, however, is about understanding the "facts" and reasoning that lead one to this theory. It is not about forcing "belief" upon anyone, or belittling anyone who chooses to not believe it.
Wells: Exactly!!! ;)
Some quotes from, and a link to, an editorial in today's New York Times:
Critics of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution become more wily with each passing year. Creationists who believe that God made the world and everything in it pretty much as described in the Bible were frustrated when their efforts to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools or inject the teaching of creationism were judged unconstitutional by the courts. But over the past decade or more a new generation of critics has emerged with a softer, more roundabout approach that they hope can pass constitutional muster.
...
The Cobb County [Georgia] fight centers on a sticker that the board inserted into a new biology textbook to placate opponents of evolution. The school board, to its credit, was trying to strengthen the teaching of evolution after years in which it banned study of human origins in the elementary and middle schools and sidelined the topic as an elective in high school, in apparent violation of state curriculum standards. When the new course of study raised hackles among parents and citizens (more than 2,300 signed a petition), the board sought to quiet the controversy by placing a three-sentence sticker in the textbooks:
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."
Although the board clearly thought this was a reasonable compromise, and many readers might think it unexceptional, it is actually an insidious effort to undermine the science curriculum. The first sentence sounds like a warning to parents that the film they are about to watch with their children contains pornography. Evolution is so awful that the reader must be warned that it is discussed inside the textbook. The second sentence makes it sound as though evolution is little more than a hunch, the popular understanding of the word "theory," whereas theories in science are carefully constructed frameworks for understanding a vast array of facts. The National Academy of Sciences, the nation's most prestigious scientific organization, has declared evolution "one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have" and says it is supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus.
The third sentence, urging that evolution be studied carefully and critically, seems like a fine idea. The only problem is, it singles out evolution as the only subject so shaky it needs critical judgment. Every subject in the curriculum should be studied carefully and critically. Indeed, the interpretations taught in history, economics, sociology, political science, literature and other fields of study are far less grounded in fact and professional consensus than is evolutionary biology.
A more honest sticker would describe evolution as the dominant theory in the field and an extremely fruitful scientific tool. The sad fact is, the school board, in its zeal to be accommodating, swallowed the language of the anti-evolution crowd. Although the sticker makes no mention of religion and the school board as a whole was not trying to advance religion, a federal judge in Georgia ruled that the sticker amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because it was rooted in long-running religious challenges to evolution. In particular, the sticker's assertion that "evolution is a theory, not a fact" adopted the latest tactical language used by anti-evolutionists to dilute Darwinism, thereby putting the school board on the side of religious critics of evolution. That court decision is being appealed. Supporters of sound science education can only hope that the courts, and school districts, find a way to repel this latest assault on the most well-grounded theory in modern biology.
...
In the Pennsylvania case, the school board went further and became the first in the nation to require, albeit somewhat circuitously, that attention be paid in school to "intelligent design." This is the notion that some things in nature, such as the workings of the cell and intricate organs like the eye, are so complex that they could not have developed gradually through the force of Darwinian natural selection acting on genetic variations. Instead, it is argued, they must have been designed by some sort of higher intelligence. Leading expositors of intelligent design accept that the theory of evolution can explain what they consider small changes in a species over time, but they infer a designer's hand at work in what they consider big evolutionary jumps.
The Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania became the first in the country to place intelligent design before its students, albeit mostly one step removed from the classroom. Last week school administrators read a brief statement to ninth-grade biology classes (the teachers refused to do it) asserting that evolution was a theory, not a fact, that it had gaps for which there was no evidence, that intelligent design was a differing explanation of the origin of life, and that a book on intelligent design was available for interested students, who were, of course, encouraged to keep an open mind. That policy, which is being challenged in the courts, suffers from some of the same defects found in the Georgia sticker. It denigrates evolution as a theory, not a fact, and adds weight to that message by having administrators deliver it aloud.
...
Districts around the country are pondering whether to inject intelligent design into science classes, and the constitutional problems are underscored by practical issues. There is little enough time to discuss mainstream evolution in most schools; the Dover students get two 90-minute classes devoted to the subject. Before installing intelligent design in the already jam-packed science curriculum, school boards and citizens need to be aware that it is not a recognized field of science. There is no body of research to support its claims nor even a real plan to conduct such research. In 2002, more than a decade after the movement began, a pioneer of intelligent design lamented that the movement had many sympathizers but few research workers, no biology texts and no sustained curriculum to offer educators. Another leading expositor told a Christian magazine last year that the field had no theory of biological design to guide research, just "a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions." If evolution is derided as "only a theory," intelligent design needs to be recognized as "not even a theory" or "not yet a theory." It should not be taught or even described as a scientific alternative to one of the crowning theories of modern science.
That said, in districts where evolution is a burning issue, there ought to be some place in school where the religious and cultural criticisms of evolution can be discussed, perhaps in a comparative religion class or a history or current events course. But school boards need to recognize that neither creationism nor intelligent design is an alternative to Darwinism as a scientific explanation of the evolution of life.
(Ginny says: My appreciation to the NY Times for having a writer who can express more succinctly than I what is "wrong" with teaching "intelligent design" as part of the science curriculum.) Here is the link to the full editorial (most of which is above): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/23/opinion/23sun1.html?pagewanted=1&oref=login
(I am registered at the NY Times web page but the Times may not show the full editorial to those who are not registered. I have found that no newspaper where I have registered has ever abused that registration by using my email address or distributing it for advertising, but you are the best judge of whether you want to register.)
This was big news a couple of months ago. Actually a huge leap forward in creationism circles as Flew is a highly respected philosopher. I definitely believe that we as a species evolve, but we don't evolve from one species into another (i.e., monkeys to humans). For example, our appendix may at one time have served a useful function, whereas now we have no need of it. Perhaps years from now humans will not even be born with an appendix. I do fully also believe that God created the heavens, the earth, and all things within it. I don't care if anyone else believes it and I really don't think it is a crucial piece of Christianity (i.e., you CAN still be a Christian without believing in creationism). However, I do think it should also be taught as a major theory if evolution is. I totally agree with Wells comment, "Education, however, is about understanding the "facts" and reasoning that lead one to this theory. It is not about forcing "belief" upon anyone, or belittling anyone who chooses to not believe it." In my doctoral work I am constantly learning about new theories that I may not agree with, but being exposed to them and thinking them through is a key ingredient to the education process and important for helping me refine and understand what I do believe.
It's nice for Flew (a highly respected philosopher) that he now is a deist rather than an atheist. But while the article says he refers to "scientific evidence", there appears to be no scientific evidence other than a deepseated belief that the universe and life are too complex to have happened "by accident".
From everything I have read about creationism and "intelligent design", it boils down to that belief, and that there are gaps in the links that one would expect from evolution. Nonetheless, the Theory of Evolution is backed up by several decades of scientific research and is accepted by most scientists as the best known explanation. Neither intelligent design nor creationism is backed up by any significant research.
I have no objection to either intelligent design or creationism being taught in a class about beliefs, religion, cultural history, or whatever, as long as neither is taught as a science in a science class. As the NY Times editorial says, the problem with having people in authority put forth a belief is that doing so gives the belief authority - which is what the First Amendment strictly bans. No matter how one rationalizes "it is not about forcing 'belief' upon anyone", presenting belief as a possible other "fact" is not teaching reasoning, it is teaching belief.
...presenting belief as a possible other "fact" is not teaching reasoning, it is teaching belief.
And how do we define fact? If we are talking about the dominant theory of how life came to be here, then we are not talking about a fact. We are talking about a possible explanation based on observations, but not a fact. A fact is: if I drop this, it will fall. A fact is provable and backed with direct evidence.
Currently, the theory of evolution, just like the big bang, and a meteor impact causing the extinction of the dinosaurs, is a dominant belief in the scientific community. It is not a fact. Therefore, according to your argument, it should not be taught in a science class.
I am all for presenting different views, especially in a science class. A science class is where you want critical thinking and lots of questioning going on. You don't want kids to think that all the answers have been found. If they have, then what's the purpose of continuing with scientific inquiry?
Ame
ID
Here's a link to religious tolerance that gives a very balanced view of the whole controversy.
Amecmom - thanks for the link! I've bookmarked it as it looks like a great resource!
'A fact is: if I drop this, it will fall. A fact is provable and backed with direct evidence.'
Sort of funny you mention this though. That's gravity at work, right? But gravity is 'just' a theory, in the same order as evolution. There's a mountain of evidence for it, it can even be demonstrated (as can evolution, else there would be no antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria) but there's no way to ever conclusively prove it's a fact.
And no, the theory of evolution is not like the idea of a meteor killing of the dinosaurs. That's more of a hypothesis, an idea formed before collecting all the evidence. Theory is what comes along to interpret the evidence. The theory of evolution came about because there was, already in the 19th century, a lot of evidence that had to be explained. Fossils and diversity to start.
Now there's more. We have a fossil record, we have methods of dating fossils and such, we have genetics, we've watched evolution in bacteria. Evolution has been proved as much as it ever can be, the same as gravity. If people choose not to believe in evolution that's fine, but it can't be dismissed by lack of evidence and a misunderstanding of what theory means.
Intelligent design may be a compromise some are willing to make to reconcile evolution and religion but it still has no place in science. It's a religious or philosophical matter or private matter.
I'm not sure where I stand most of the time. I believe in God but I also can't ignore what science has shown. I don't think I have to have the two issues sharing the same territory though.
Gravity is not a theory. The existence of this force has been proven. Time after time, experiments, mathematical calculations, and our own experience of being in space - or in a fast spinning tunnel and not being able to move when the floor drops - all allow us to experience the force of gravity. Therefore, it is not a theory, or hypothesis, but a law.
Actually, a meteor strike and the ensuing natural calamities (dust blocking the sun, tidal waves, extreme heat etc.) has come from looking at the evidence (geological as well as the fossil record). This theory came about to interpret the evidence. It's plausible, possible, but not completely provable, because we were not there to record it. We can teach it as a good possibility, but with a reasonable doubt. Perhaps a strain of bacteria killed off the dinosaurs  .
As for genetics, the fossil record, strains of bacteria resistant to antibiotics - this is natural selection and adaptation at work.
Intelligent Design does not dispute natural selection or that beings adapt and change over time. It is not in conflict with evolution in that regard.
Intelligent Design comes in where the theory of evolution is weak and unproven: at the moment of creation. Evolution has no evidence of life spontaneously coming into existence. We can't go to the fossil record and say, "Ah, here's where the first bacteria created itself". Here's where the first bacteria evolved into a protozoa, here's the first fish, here's the first fish to become an amphibian, here's where the fish came out of the water, etc.
Evolution is a good theory. The science behind it that is proven should be taught - if not, a disservice is being done to our students.
However, we are doing then just as big a disservice if we teach that evolution is the only theory, especially when evolution cannot explain conclusively how life began.
Why is it unscientific to entertain the theory that some higher being (even and intelligent being from another place, not necessarily God) had a hand in creating this complex world of our?
Why is it unscientific to tell students, evolution and natural selection can explain only so much, some things are still unexplained? This, Intelligent Design, is one theory that fills in the gaps left by evolution.
I don't see it as simply a religious or philosophical matter, not when we are teaching in a science class that life spontaneously created itself in the sea. We cannot prove this, it is not supported by the fossil record or by observation.
We need to give students the truth. The truth is that evolution - as far as it is proven - is good, but it does not explain everything.
I enjoyed responding to your thoughts, Dawn. It's tough to have an intellectual debate with a three year old (my son). I miss adult conversation - can ya' tell from the length of this response?.
Amecmom - I'm enjoying this too. I know I'm a little slow on replying but I'm trying to do some reading to bolster my claims and arguments 'cause I'm pretty darn sure Gravity is still considered a scientific theory...as is nuclear physics. After all, nobody has ever seen a proton so there's no direct proof they exist but we can still blow up stuff real good with nuclear bombs.
I'll be back soon when I've done a little research!
I think atomic microscopes and mass spectrometers have enabled us to see, measure and otherwise play with atomic particles.
By the way, what I mean by gravity is the force of gravity - can be measured, made stronger, experienced - or not experienced, as in space. We can prove gravity exists, we can't prove why and we don't completely understand how it works. This too should be brought up to students - might be fun exploring how Special Relativity and Newtonian Physics differ.
But, we don't have a problem with this because it is not a "religiously charged" issue. If people would do their research and not be led by the very liberal media into believing every issue that involves ID also involves the separation of church and state, then there would be no controversy.
Don't teach religion is science class - absolutely! Do teach the truth - and the truth is we just don't have the answer - so here are some well vetted theories.
The essense of a science class is to teach the Scientific Method, the cornerstone underlying all scientific progress over the last 500+ years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Two of the fundamental tenets of any Scientific Hypothesis (emphasis added) is that:
(A) It makes predictions about both what will be and will not be found in the real world
(B) Those predictions can be tested.
Here is a list of some of the predictions of evolution and how they have come out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Therefore, a theory that does not have testable predictions of reality is not a Scientific Theory.
One focus of science is always to gather more and more real world measurements, samples and observations in an attempt to find evidence AGAINST(called falsification) as well as FOR(called confirmation) an existing hypothesis.
Again, I think that some of these groups are missing the point:
The purpose of a science class is to teach kids how to do science.
IMHO, anything not fitting that description doesn't belong in that classroom (though it may be fine in a philosophy classroom).
Here is a scientist who backs evolution but also has a strong belief in God:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/l_081_01.html
To Luvn29:
I agree with you! I too am a Christian and feel the Christian community is getting alot of flack for voicing our views. Its OK for every one else BUT us to do so. I am not involving myself in the school debate since I plan to homeschool. (Katie will learn of the "Theory" of Evolution just to make her aware of it). Wearing a cross is offending some in workplaces now..but yet, the other religions who wear special garb and whatnot are accepted. It is said that Christianity will be looked down upon and we will have a harder time of things as the world goes on...thats what will seperate us on Judgement Day though...
I guess this post is more of a vent of how being a Christian is becoming more like being an outcast and everything else is accepted...
I am not arguing or debating with anyone here about anything and respect all opinions, I just feel it is a sad state of affairs how the world in general is going down the tubes from a Christian perpesctive.
"...Miller's theory points to a deity that created a self-sufficient world, which functions virtually independently from God's influences. In this view, God used science and physics to create a complex world and then allowed it to evolve on its own." Quote from link above.
Exactly!!! This is the cornerstone of ID Theory.
And it's the same idea that was put forth in the Enlightenment.
This is what I've been saying all along.
Thanks for the link and the article, John.
Ame
Katiesmommy: Thanks very much for taking the time to let me know you understand what I am saying.
I fully agree what you mean in your post, and definitely feel like we are just fulfilling the Bible.
E-mail me sometime, if you would like. It's in my profile. I'm a Virginia mommy, too.
What many people don't realize is that the Theory of Evolution doesn't say anything about how life first started.
It describes what happened to life once it was here.
The fundamental difference between ID and Evolution IMHO:
Evolution states that more complex forms of life (including new species) are the result of natural processes (survival of the fittest) acting upon a community of simpler life. It classifes life according to a derived order of decendency from earlier forms.
It also makes verifiable predictions of the biological and biochemical structure of even as yet undiscovered forms of life
Some examples(and there are dozens of others):
(1)No one will ever find a bird (or a fossil of a bird) with fur or mammary glands.
(2)No one will ever find a mammal(or a fossil of a mammal) with feathers.
(3)No one will ever find a sea mammal(or a fossil of a mammal) with gills.
(4)We will never find fossils of mammals or birds anywhere on the earth in sedimentary layers of rocks older than 250 million years.
Discovery of just one of these contradictory pieces of evidence would shatter the theory of common descent (one of the cornerstones of Evolution).
ID states that more complex forms of life(including new species and man) could not result without the intervention of a supernatural influence. It makes no predictions of any lifeform's structure or any future discovered lifeform's structure and therefore cannot be tested, proved or disproved.
|
Members
