The old evolution vs. creation (intelligent design?) debate

[acco40 95]

My old stomping grounds, Missouri, has joined such other esteemed areas such as Kansas, Georgia, Ohio and others in dictating what teachers should teach. Of course, conservatives will fight this bill, believing that the government should stay out of our lives and liberals will support this bill believing that the government should legislate certain things for the good of society. Yeah, right. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

 

A handful of Missouri legislators have signed on to a proposal that would change how teachers introduce students to information about the origin of life. Public school teachers who teach evolution also would have to teach intelligent design under the proposal pending in the Missouri House of Representatives. New textbooks would have to label evolution as a theory that cannot be proved. A teacher, principal or superintendent could be fired for deliberately ignoring these requirements. With the proposal, Missouri joins states such as Kansas, Georgia and Ohio, where fierce debates have erupted over how to teach science in public school classrooms. "This is so sad to see this in this day and age," said Charles Granger, curators' distinguished teaching professor at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and a member of the board of the Academy of Science of St. Louis. "I hope we don't make fools of ourselves like Kansas." A decision by the Kansas Board of Education in 1999 to remove evolution from science standards brought a storm of protest. A year later, a new board revised the standards to include the subject. State Rep. Robert Wayne Cooper, R-Camdenton, said he introduced the bill at the request of a group from the St. Charles area called Missourians for Excellence in Science Education. Cooper said he seeks to improve science education by changing textbooks, by making sure fact and theory are not commingled and to allow discussion of intelligent design as a model for the origin of life. The bill could have a huge impact on the teaching of science, said Tom Cradick, a biology teacher at Parkway North High who has taught for 28 years and was 2001 Missouri Outstanding Biology Teacher. For instance, after science standards were changed in Kansas, a physics teacher was not allowed to teach the big-bang theory. A chemistry teacher could not teach the periodic table. Cradick noted that the provisions of the bill would apply to physics, chemistry, biology, health, physiology, genetics, astronomy, cosmology, geology, paleontology, anthropology, ecology, climatology or other science topics. He worries that the legislation will distract from the effort to make students competitive in science with students abroad. The National Science Teachers Association has said "so-called theories of intelligent design and creationism have no scientific credibility and will lead to many misconceptions about scientific concepts and the nature of science." Teachers should not be pressured to promote nonscientific views, said Cindy Workosky, a spokeswoman for the association based in Arlington, Va. Supporters of intelligent design are trying to bring creationism and religion into schools, said Rebecca Litherland, science coordinator for the Columbia public schools and a past president of the Science Teachers of Missouri. There is no such intent, said Joe White, president of the citizens group that worked several years to prepare for the legislation that Cooper introduced. "We are not defining who intelligence is," said White, a Boeing engineer who lives in St. Charles. "If you are Christian, you may say God. If you are an atheist, you may say it was an extraterrestrial intelligent cosmic being." People who support intelligent design reject the theory of evolution, White said. "Life is too complex to happen by an evolutionary mechanism." Evolution is impossible to explain in a few sentences, teachers say. But the basic concept holds that over millions of years and with environmental pressure, various traits are selected that can lead to different species. Intelligent design is explained as "irreducible complexity" in a living organism that could not have happened by chance. State Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O'Fallon, said she decided to co-sponsor the bill as a way to make sure children are given "intellectual freedom." Davis said she has received more e-mail on this bill than any other she has sponsored. Many creationists and evolutionists embrace tenets of both to various extents, said Andrew Shaw, a teacher at Westminster Christian Academy in west St. Louis County. "A good teacher does not need the state telling her or him what position to hold on a curricular issue or what percentage of time to devote to each side of an issue," Shaw said. If Missouri legislators approve the bill, White expects a court challenge. "We are looking forward to that," he said. "We plan to kick their tails to the Supreme Court and back on this one."

 

 

[le Voyageur 72]

 

I tend to think that the solution to this problem is simple, and could serve as a bit of middle ground....that is,expand this issue out even more by requiring science to be taught in churches.

 

This way, the schools would provide for religious instucions, and the churches would meet the educational needs....

[Adrianvs 10]

Yes yes,

 

We all know that public schools are supposed to teach only those subjects which can't be learned anywhere else. Since churches teach religious truths, our students should be completely unaware of any and all perspectives relating to them. I think that we need to stick with the basics of education. As long as history is seen as black-and-white and logic seen as shades of grey, our students will be just fine. Remember that ignorance is bliss and ignorance of religion is requisite for a perfect society. Who's to determine what is religious and what is objective fact? Why the state departments of curriculum, of course. That is a distinction much too important to be left to the students themselves.

[packsaddle 753]

acco40, Do you have a web site for this? I am interested in why you feel 'conservatives' would be opposed to this and 'liberals' not. It seems counterintuitive to me.

[acco40 95]

The Conservatives & Liberals part of the post were mine, written with tongue firmly in cheek. I very much dislike the polarization, politically, that our nation has become. Not sure if "talk radio" is a result or cause (one of many) for this. It seem political discourse has become more entertainment than true debate.

 

Political labels are meaningless. Don't you agree that generally speaking, conservatives want "less government?" Therefore, such government intrusions such as outlawing abortion or mandating teaching should be despised by conservatives. In reality, all seem to favor government intrusion if it furthers or legitimizes their beliefs. I don't like the current trend to "edit" scientific research because it doesn't fit someone's politics. Both parties have been guilty. This administration seems to have taken it to a new height.

[packsaddle 753]

Whew, you had me worried. I agree regarding labels. I also agree regarding your opinion on science. However, I support 1st amendment rights to try to 'persuade' science to be something it isn't. Pure science is strong enough to resist this even if popular opinion disagrees. I think education is the key to resolving these differences and reducing conflicts.

[acco40 95]

I agree. I had a calculus teacher in high school that "preached" the first five minutes or so of almost every class. He would put down psychologists and talk about his values.

 

Now, I believe that teachers should have some leeway in teaching what they want. We do need to be careful in a public school setting because the teachers have a captive audience but I don't like the idea of government dictating specifics of what should be taught. I remember to this day my freshmen biology text. When the issue of creation vs. evolution was covered in the text the book simply stated that individuals believed both, but that it would concentrate on the THEORY of evolution. It did point out that not all believed in evolution.

 

On a different note, I remember a chapter in my digital circuits text, "The Engineer as a Dope Pusher." It was an attempt to teach ethics. I talked about how engineers developed a riding lawn mower so that man could save on effort in cutting the lawn. Engineers then developed a nice canopy to shade the mower from the sun. Engineers then developed treadmills so that those who rode the mowers could get exercise. They then developed tanning booths so that the shaded mower riders could get a nice tan. How ironic.

 

Yes, I went to college in the mid-70's so the text books were written in the late 60's or early 70's so you can guess the thinking. Oh yea, I forgot, in all of my text, the great gas crisis of '73 influenced my engineering texts a great deal too. That is why we have totally run out of fossil fuel by 2004 and are running 70% of our power plants on nucluear energy and the rest by solar, geothermal, hydroelectric and wind energy. Yes, Virginia, even scientist can be wrong sometimes.

[KA6BSA 10]

I have been following this topic and would like to know if any of this relates to Scouting? I mean, has BSA stated a position on it or done anything to indicate involvement in the issue?

[packsaddle 753]

KA6BSA, I guess the only connection I could conjure up would be to fundamentalist religion. Since BSA evidently identifies itself as a religious organization, therein lies (however weakly) the relevance. But if you tour the archives of topics past in this forum, you'll see that periodically someone raises this topic so we can all have some more fun arguing. Bon apetite.

[packsaddle 753]

Acco40, I agree that scientists are often wrong. It's probably a blessing to our forests that the wrong stuff doesn't often make it to print. Scientists are only human and have the same failings of any other human being. That, however, doesn't affect the qualities and potential of science.

[Sturgen 10]

My bio teacher back in high school had a very simply way to handle this issue. We spent one day on creationist theories, primarily those related to the Old Testament. This included reading some scripture, as a scientific text, not as a piece of spiritual enlightenment. We followed this with a scientific study of evolutionism for a week or so, after all this was a biology class and not a theology class. On a more personal note I treat the bible as being more figurative than an actually historical record, and using such a view it is simple for creationism and evolutionism to coexist harmoniously.

[evmori 11]

Shouldn't the ACLU be rearing it's ugly head about this? After all, ya can't teach religion in public schools!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

Evolution is a theory supported by many known pieces of evidence. It is generally believed that it is not a fact. The underlying goal is to search for truth using a method of science.

 

Creationist state that their idea is a fact based upon evidence and supported by Biblical truth. They would not posit it as a theory for obvious reasons. I believe it to be a non-search for truth, moreover, a proof for the existence of God.

 

Fear of God not existing has pushed many to create ideas that have nothing to do with God's existence. It is a type of phobia. It could be called Theodemisephobia.

 

Theodemisephobia makes people look at nonbeliever's (i.e., anyone with a different opinion than their own) with a discerning eye of doubt and suspicion. They continually question if this idea or that thought somehow leads a person to not believe in God. They rush to defend God's existence at every statement or curse. It becomes their duty to defend God. I believe their acts are truly heroic and are well meaning and without guile.

 

But, the statement, God exists should be adequate. He exists in his own right and does not need a scientific proof to make him real. He is all powerful, all knowing, and is a Spirit of ultimate magnitude. The Creationism fact is a frail argument in comparison.

 

When science fails in their search for truth, they may kill or heal people along the way. If they are truly searching for truth, they might one day even find God.

 

When Creationist search for evidence to support their facts, they only strengthen their own fears and will find that they will not reduce people's disbelief in the existence of God.

 

My truth:

A person cannot be argued into believing in God.

 

FB

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

I guess that I'm pretty simple minded because I figured the whole thing out about 40 years ago when I was in the second grade. God created the world and gave everything a push and let nature take over. If you mix two chemicals together to make plastic, your actions stop when you combine A with B but much goes on after that initial action but we still say that you made the plastic.

 

We are a grand experiement and God watches, sometimes laughing and othertimes crying.

 

 

[Adrianvs 10]

I don't think that creationism should be taught in science class. But I do think that various theologies of creation should be taught in humanities classes. Perhaps this is due to my relative unfamiliarity with the various forms of "creationism." I'm not really certain what the term refers to specifically. I suppose if the science teacher was familiar enough with the specifics of creationism, he or she could integrate them into the curriculum. That wouldn't bother me. It seems that a lot of people without formal post-secondary scientific training feel qualified to expound upon the necessary truths of evolution. Why couldn't science teachers (who may or may not have creationist training) teach the subject?

 

 

This makes me think of the larger issue of teaching religious material in public schools. I support a more comprehensive and detailed teaching of religious matters. I'm not saying that the students should be taught any particular religion, of course, but that they should acquire a familiarity with the doctrines and practices of many common religous groups. Too many people leave our education system with a relatively simple and ignorant perception of the religious beliefs of others. To them, it seems that the religions themselves are as simple and distorted as their own understanding of them. I think that this type of religious understanding is as essential to living as a member of our society as understanding our form of government. In fact, I think it much more important than an intricate understanding of the theory and forms of evolution.