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

[Proud Eagle 13]

Evolution on the micro scale can be proven quite easily. However, on the macro scale it has not, and likely can not be proven. So while we can prove that there are changes within a species from one generation to another, we can not prove that humans evolved from some single celled thing in the primordial ooze.

 

Teaching creationism is also not necessarily illegal. Teaching it as absolute fact quite likely would be illegal. Also, teaching it as the leading scientific theory would perhaps be illegal. It would certainly be illegal to teach it as the only acceptable religous view on the origin of the universe and/or the origins of life. However creationism can very easily be taught in the form of, "and then there are some people that believe that this is how life originated" followed by a lengthy teaching about what those people believe, why they believe it, and what evidence there is to back up the belief. That might not be a very good way to teach science, but it wouldn't be illegal.

[firstpusk 10]

"Evolution on the micro scale can be proven quite easily. However, on the macro scale it has not, and likely can not be proven."

 

Science is tentative. Theories are never proven. They are either accepted, rejected or revised. The macro/micro thing is a long standing creationist ploy. They can't deny that populations change over time in response to their environment. The examples are too numerous and too strong. Instead, they try to say that adaptation is true, but the fruit fly that changed so drastically in the lab is still a fruit fly. They claim that there is some limitation on the changes that won't allow for macroevolution.

 

Check out this link that documents 29 evidences for macroevolution.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

"So while we can prove that there are changes within a species from one generation to another, we can not prove that humans evolved from some single celled thing in the primordial ooze."

 

There are multiple cases of observed speciation as noted in these two articles.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

The theory of evolution does not claim that humans evolved from a single celled thing out of the primordial ooze. The initial start of life on earth happened billions of years ago and the geological record leaves scant clues. Primordial ooze is a separate issue, that of abiogenesis or the origin of life. Evolution is the change of life over time. We did evolve but not out of the ooze or from single celled organism, but from a hominid that looked alot like us.

 

"Teaching creationism is also not necessarily illegal. Teaching it as absolute fact quite likely would be illegal. Also, teaching it as the leading scientific theory would perhaps be illegal. It would certainly be illegal to teach it as the only acceptable religous view on the origin of the universe and/or the origins of life. However creationism can very easily be taught in the form of, "and then there are some people that believe that this is how life originated" followed by a lengthy teaching about what those people believe, why they believe it, and what evidence there is to back up the belief. That might not be a very good way to teach science, but it wouldn't be illegal."

 

The teacher is acting as an agent of the government. As such, they are not to promote religion or to teach a specific religion. Creationism of any stripe is based on the religious beliefs of specific kinds of evangelical Christianity. The courts have been quite consistent about indicating that teaching creationism is teaching religion. The teachers I have come across trying to promote it have changed there tune pronto when informed of the legal implications. Teaching creationism is illegal in the public school science classrooms of the United States.

[Proud Eagle 13]

It doesn't really matter if it is a science class or a comparitive cultures class. The teachers are still agents of the government. They are both limited by the exact same constitutional provisions. Therefore if it is legal for one to do it is legal for the other to do. (Though state and local law on curriculum requirments might change that from place to place. I am focusing on the federal constitutional argument.)

 

There is nothing false about teaching that some people believe that something happened according to such and such theory. If teaching what some groups of people believe was illegal comparitive religions classes would be illegal. Most philosophy, culture, and history classes would also be illegal. There is nothing in the federal constitution that prevents a math teacher from spending class time on geography. Similarly there is nothing that prevents the science teacher from talking about creationist views within the proper context of being what some people believe. Teaching it in place of evolution might be illegal. Teaching it as being backed by the same scientific evidence as evolution might be illegal. Teaching it as an alternitive quasi-scientific belief held by certain people would be perfectly legal. Now if the science teacher were to teach that all faithful Christians or Jews or Muslims believe creationism that would be a illegal.

 

There is very carefully made distinction between teaching some belief, theory, or viewpoint as truth and teaching it as one alternative within a comparitive context. The fact that creationism is so commonly held in place of evolution would perhaps be a good reason to compare and contrast the arguments for each. Otherwise those students not exposed to the debate could easily be convinced later that they were taught lies when they are presented with evidence for some alternative view. In fact I have known a couple of people that have in fact been convinced that the entire goverment is trying to destroy religion because of the way evolution and the big bang are sometimes taught. I personally think that is a bit of a stretch, but then again I don't really have complete faith in the goverment either (though not for those reasons).

 

If you can make a reasonable argument that teaching creationism in the form of an alternative belief that some people hold I will listen. However, I think you will have a hard time doing so. Certainly there are a wealth of court cases on the issue, but most are relating to cases where creationism was taught as truth, as the leading scientific theory, as simply what the Bible says about creation, or given equal time without regard to the volume of evidence for each. I suspect a case cannot be found where creationism was ruled illegal when it was taught within what I would define as an appropriate context. (That context, I think, may be found by examing the various posts on this subject that I have made.) However, even if a court case is found on the issue that does not prove that creation is illegal. It would certainly lend strength and support to the argument, but it is not proof.

[firstpusk 10]

Those that are seeking to teach creationism or intelligent design do not want it taught in some kind of comparative cultures class. They want to give it equal footing as a scientific explanation for the development of the diversity of life. This position is not a scientific explanation. It is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word, it is a religious belief.

 

I have spent nearly twenty-five years studying this issue. My brother in law brought it to my attention soon after his conversion to a fundamentalist sect. I have been polite with him and other creationists. I have never refused to consider an argument or read an article, pamphlet or book they have brought me. My study has led me to the conclusion that there is not a single tenable scientific argument in favor of creationism.

 

This issue has been to the US Supreme court. They have rule that teaching creationism in science classrooms violates the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment because it fails the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-613 (1971) which states:

 

"First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion ...; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." [ Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. at 40.]"

McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education

Judge Wm. R. Overton

 

People still believe that the earth is flat, the Holocaust didn't happen and that the KKK is an organization of good Christian men. Any public school teacher that gave credence to any of these views would be abusing there authority as an agent of the government. So to with science teachers arguing that creationism has some validity. By the way, as much as I would like it if biology teachers savaged position creationist in class, they to would be violating the Establishment Clause because they would be inhibitting religion.

(This message has been edited by firstpusk)

[Achilleez 10]

Creationism and Evolution cannot be taught side by side, or on any plane of equalness. They are not just two different "theories" as to the cause of the creation of the universe, they are in essence two different ways of looking at life.

 

Creationism relies on faith while evolution relies on factual evidence. You cannot teach them equally, presenting the evidence behind both and let students decide for themselves based on evidence.

 

Why? Because if material evidence were your guideline than evolution would win out every single time. If the book of Genesis is accurate, then the Earth is no more than thirty to forty thousand years old. But we have rocks on this planet thirty to forty million years old. Therefore, you cannot try to teach creationism with evidence, simply because creationism evidence is dwarfed by evolution evidence. Creationism is about faith, beleiving in a higher power that cannot be factually proven to exist, but beleiving in it anyway.

[packsaddle 753]

Georgia is going to try to eliminate the word 'evolution' from their science curriculum. At the same time they will leave the concept in the curriculum. Jimmie Carter's response, "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith." Gotta love him.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/

 

 

[firstpusk 10]

"It doesn't really matter if it is a science class or a comparitive cultures class. The teachers are still agents of the government. They are both limited by the exact same constitutional provisions. Therefore if it is legal for one to do it is legal for the other to do. (Though state and local law on curriculum requirments might change that from place to place. I am focusing on the federal constitutional argument.)"

 

I agree let's just focus on the federal arguments. The quote on the lemon test I gave you was from a federal court decision striking down the "balanced treatment" law in the state of Arkansas.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html

 

"There is nothing false about teaching that some people believe that something happened according to such and such theory."

 

Implying that creationism was a scientific theory is problematic. There are also folks that believe that the world is flat, but we don't teach that as science.

 

"If teaching what some groups of people believe was illegal comparitive religions classes would be illegal. Most philosophy, culture, and history classes would also be illegal. There is nothing in the federal constitution that prevents a math teacher from spending class time on geography. Similarly there is nothing that prevents the science teacher from talking about creationist views within the proper context of being what some people believe. Teaching it in place of evolution might be illegal. Teaching it as being backed by the same scientific evidence as evolution might be illegal. Teaching it as an alternitive quasi-scientific belief held by certain people would be perfectly legal. Now if the science teacher were to teach that all faithful Christians or Jews or Muslims believe creationism that would be a illegal."

 

When the science teacher introduce "ideas that some people believe", he implies that there is some scientific standing for these ideas.

 

"There is very carefully made distinction between teaching some belief, theory, or viewpoint as truth and teaching it as one alternative within a comparitive context. The fact that creationism is so commonly held in place of evolution would perhaps be a good reason to compare and contrast the arguments for each. Otherwise those students not exposed to the debate could easily be convinced later that they were taught lies when they are presented with evidence for some alternative view. In fact I have known a couple of people that have in fact been convinced that the entire goverment is trying to destroy religion because of the way evolution and the big bang are sometimes taught. I personally think that is a bit of a stretch, but then again I don't really have complete faith in the goverment either (though not for those reasons)."

 

It is not "a bit of a stretch. That view is wholly irrational and baseless.

 

"If you can make a reasonable argument that teaching creationism in the form of an alternative belief that some people hold I will listen. However, I think you will have a hard time doing so. Certainly there are a wealth of court cases on the issue, but most are relating to cases where creationism was taught as truth, as the leading scientific theory, as simply what the Bible says about creation, or given equal time without regard to the volume of evidence for each. I suspect a case cannot be found where creationism was ruled illegal when it was taught within what I would define as an appropriate context. (That context, I think, may be found by examing the various posts on this subject that I have made.) However, even if a court case is found on the issue that does not prove that creation is illegal. It would certainly lend strength and support to the argument, but it is not proof."

 

The situation in Missourri and Georgia are both efforts to teach creationism as science. Clearly that has been found a violation of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. I am not sure how someone would justify teaching a non-scientific, religious "theory" of the diversity of life without claiming a factual or truth basis. As I said earlier, the fact that someone, somewhere believes the world is flat does not mean that we should teach that in either geography, earth science or astronomy.

[Proud Eagle 13]

There could certainly be a secular purpose in a brief teaching on creationism in science class (though that does not mean it would be tought as true science, though there are at least a few real scientists that support creationism, most are not widely accepted). For one thing all research and teaching on science was for many years based on creationist principals. Creationism was accepted as truth. It is only in the last 200 years that alternative theories supported by evidence have begun to emerge. Therefore creationism could be taught as a belief upon which some early science was based. Now avoiding an entanglement with religion would be difficult. However, I think it is possible to teach what creationsism is while neither supporting nor discreditting the religous beliefs of others.

 

You mentioned teaching that the world is flat. I would certainly think that any major geography book would be incomplete if it did not at some point (such as in an introduction) mention that people once believed the earth was flat. I know that was certainly taught as part of the history of geography in the science or social studies classes that I had. They even had sections on the old beliefs of sailors about falling off the edge of the world and things like that. Now these things weren't taught as being the current concept of geography, but they were certainly appropriate to teach in a geography class.

 

In the same way, teaching creationism as the best scientific explanation may be illegal according to your test, but teaching that creationism is part of the history of science, or that some people do not accept evolution because of creationism, would be appropriate. It is by no means something that should be given equal time, or even have all of the arguments for it presented. (Though not even evolution gets all the arguments for it presented. In fact I don't think any public school class is that thorough on any subject.) However, something like this would do quite nicely in my opinion:

 

In centuries past it was accepted that some higher power(S) had created all things, including the universe and life. This is known as creationism or intelligent design. The study and teaching of science assumed this to be true. Eventually the study of science led to the proposal of new theories on the origins of the universe, and life. Evidence was then found that made these theories more robust and credible. The body of scientific evidence now supports the theory of evolution [or Darwanism, or whatever the best term is] in regards to the origins of life in its current form. Many people still believe in some form of intelligent design, mostly for religous reasons. However, some people reject evolution based on belief in certain forms of creationism. Current scientific evidence neither supports nor refutes belief in intelligent design.

 

Ok, that probably would need some work, but to me there is nothing in that which any reasonable person should find objectionable. I may perhaps have made less than perfect word choice, but I think that captures the character of what could be a advantageous and legal teaching on creationism.

 

Someone else could probably write a far better piece, but here are the elements it should probably contain:

what creationism is

 

an explantion that is was once a commonly held as true by early scientists

 

that some people still believe in intelligent design

 

that some people believe in creationism to the exclusion of evolution

 

that science does not seek to, and that current accepted scientific evidence does not disprove or prove intelligent design

 

As you can see I am not suggesting that a lengthy lesson is in order. Rather I am suggesting just briefly touching on the subject. I have tried to think about this from the purely scientific standpoint and the religous one, and I think this should pass muster.

[firstpusk 10]

Teaching that people believed the world was flat is in no way necessary to teach geography. The ancients proved the earth was round. The educated understood that the world was not flat.

 

The same is true for creationism. I do agree with you that there are children that refuse to accept the theory of evolution. I think it has a lot more to do with the willingness of creationist to promote any lie, regardless how vile if they think it will help their case. The conspiracy theory you mentioned is just such a lie that is wildly asserted by many creationists, even many of the more respectable intelligent design variety.

 

These children are told that you can not believe in God and accept evolution. They are given simplistic mantras to repeat when confronted with evidence for evolution like, "Were you there?" These lies cause many young people a crisis in faith when they realize that their parents, pastors and youth ministers have all lied to them. I have seen this in some of my scouts.

 

Yes, a teacher can introduce creationist ideas into public school science classes. It happens every school day in this country. But is it science? No, it is religious indoctrination and has nothing of value to add to the class. Beyond that, such "harmless" background material is exactly the kind of cover I have seen unethical teachers use to promote creationism. You may feel that my opposition is unreasonable. You may be right. However, I do not want tax dollars to support religious ideas of a specific faith as science, especially when there is no evidence to support the position.