Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy

[Achilles]

Link

Intro:

DALLAS — Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became “intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.

 

Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even “creator.”

 

The words are “strengths and weaknesses.”

Wow, I'm actually torn about how to feel on this one. I think if it were anyone other than the Discovery Institute pushing this, I would probably be inclined to agree. However, because it's the Discovery Institute any pretense of being an unbiased effort to improve the quality of science education in America flies right out the window.

 

I hope the creationists realize that all their doing is giving work to the same ACLU that their conservative hearts seem hate so much.

 

Here's my favorite part:

Dr. McLeroy [the chairman of the education board] believes that Earth’s appearance is a recent geologic event — thousands of years old, not 4.5 billion. “I believe a lot of incredible things,” he said, “The most incredible thing I believe is the Christmas story. That little baby born in the manger was the god that created the universe.”

 

But Dr. McLeroy says his rejection of evolution — “I just don’t think it’s true or it’s ever happened” — is not based on religious grounds. Courts have clearly ruled that teachings of faith are not allowed in a science classroom, but when he considers the case for evolution, Dr. McLeroy said, “it’s just not there.”

 

“My personal religious beliefs are going to make no difference in how well our students are going to learn science,” he said.

How reassuring.

 

EDIT: Sadly, this was the same type of thing I heard during the Kansas hearings:

Views like these not only make biology teachers nervous, they also alarm those who have a stake in the state’s reputation for scientific exploration. “Serious students will not come to study in our universities if Texas is labeled scientifically backward,” said Dr. Dan Foster, former chairman of the department of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas.

[jonathan7]

Link

<snip>

 

Sigh...

 

Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770

 

The sign someone is not in possession of the truth is when they try to ban those who think differently from them. Regardless of if Evolution is true or not, it is such an important theory that it must be taught in schools. And if his decision is free of science, and is not decided on a religion I'm Napoleon.

 

“The fundamental difference between the liberal and illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or less measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed to be heard. What is curious about this position is the belief that if impartial investigation were permitted it would lead men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance, therefore, the only safeguard against error. This point of view is one which cannot be accepted by any man who wishes reason rather than prejudice to govern human action.”

 

I do however A, not share your total dislike of the discovery institute

[Achilles]

Please explain which part of creationism is scientific and therefore deserving of a place in the science curriculum.

[jonathan7]

Please explain which part of creationism is scientific and therefore deserving of a place in the science curriculum.

 

Please explain how that is relevant to my above post

 

Furthermore please could you define creationism for me? As currently it could mean a range of things, so I couldn't answer until you have defined it, as you mean above.

[Achilles]

Please explain how that is relevant to my above post

Your use of quotes seems to suggest that you think science in unfairly censoring creationism. This argument only hold weight if creationism should be allowed to be taught in science class but isn't. Therefore, I'd like to know which part of creationism you feel is scientific.

 

If that is not what you meant to convey via those quotes, could you please clarify what it is that you did intend say?

 

Furthermore please could you define creationism for me? As currently it could mean a range of things, so I couldn't answer until you have defined it, as you mean above.

Sure:

Main Entry: cre·a·tion·ism

Pronunciation: \-shə-ˌni-zəm\

Function: noun

Date: 1880

 

: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis — compare evolution 4b

[jonathan7]

Your use of quotes seems to suggest that you think science in unfairly censoring creationism. This argument only hold weight if creationism should be allowed to be taught in science class but isn't. Therefore, I'd like to know which part of creationism you feel is scientific.

 

If that is not what you meant to convey via those quotes, could you please clarify what it is that you did intend say?

 

I was actually addressing those who were trying to stop evolution being taught in school, I apologise if that wasn't clear in my first post.

 

Let me re-state; Evolution should not be banned in schools, simply as the vast majority of scientists believe the theory to be correct. The sign someone is not in possession of the truth is when they try to ban those who think differently from them. Regardless of if Evolution is true or not, it is such an important theory that it must be taught in schools. And if his decision is totally scientific, and is not decided on a religion I'm Napoleon.

 

I would however say Creationism is a theory, if it is correct or not is a clear matter of conjecture, and what science is or is not there, I would think it at least needs mentioning in science class.

 

I swing both ways on this; I happen to concur that Evolution is most likely correct however, I do think creationism should be allowed in the science class room, because if it is a wrongly wide held belief, it cannot be dealt with unless people are allowed to discuss it. I would also refer back to the Russell quote on that. My 2 cents

[Darth InSidious]

In the interests of fairness, there is clearly some considerable research going into the disproving of the theory of evolution. I wouldn't like to speculate on the quality or indeed the worth of this research, however.

 

I will say that there is evidence of humanoid life in Egypt as early as 100,000 BC. I'd like to ask the "creationists" (what an ugly misnomer!) at which point does the evidence cease being a big joke on the part of God, and start being a real civilisation?

[Achilles]

I was actually addressing those who were trying to stop evolution being taught in school, I apologise if that wasn't clear in my first post.

Ah. Okay then

 

Let me re-state; Evolution should not be banned in schools, simply as the vast majority of scientists believe the theory to be correct.

I agree with the conclusion but not necessarily the arguments leading up to it. Truth isn't a democracy, so I don't know how much I agree with the idea that it should be taught simply because most scientists agree (that they do certainly doesn't hurt though ). Science class should be for learning science and if multiple scientific hypothesis are all competing, I don't think it's a bad thing if they are all discussed (which is why I am not opposed to "strengths and weaknesses" in priniciple).

 

The sign someone is not in possession of the truth is when they try to ban those who think differently from them.

I'm not sure how much of our drama spills over to you guys, but the reason why I interpretted your earlier post the way I did is that this is the exact argument that creationsist are screaming at the top of their lungs to get "intelligent design" into the science curriculum.

 

Regardless of if Evolution is true or not, it is such an important theory that it must be taught in schools.

I would say that if it wasn't based on evidence (e.g. "false") then it wouldn't be science and wouldn't deserve a place in the classroom.

 

I would however say Creationism is a theory,

In the layman's sense of the word, yes. In the scientific sense of the word, not even close.

 

...if it is correct or not is a clear matter of conjecture, and what science is or is not there, I would think it at least needs mentioning in science class.

Science class is for science. Creationism is not science.

 

I swing both ways on this; I happen to concur that Evolution is most likely correct however, I do think creationism should be allowed in the science class room, because if it is a wrongly wide held belief, it cannot be dealt with unless people are allowed to discuss it. I would also refer back to the Russell quote on that. My 2 cents

Nothing wrong with discussing it, however it should be discussed beforehand, not in the classroom. That discussion has already taken place and creationism has been banned from the science classroom (as it is not science). Organizations like the discovery institute think that they can change the name and then try again and no one will notice. Unfortunately, I suspect they'll need several "Dovers" before they get it.

[Prime]

In the interests of fairness, there is clearly some considerable research going into the disproving of the theory of evolution.

Yes, scientists try and do this every day, via the Scientific Method.

[mimartin]

Science class is for science. Creationism is not science.

QFT

 

I have no problem with Creationism being taught in school, but not in a science class, perhaps a Philosophy class or political science class would be more appropriate.

[Darth InSidious]

Yes, scientists try and do this every day, via the Scientific Method.

 

Well, yes - what I meant, though was that there is considerable research specifically aimed at disproving the theory, rather than testing it.

[Arcesious]

Creationism is nto true science. I was taught creationism at my old Lutheran Elementary school, and let me tell you, lookign back at is now being Agnostic, I have found numerous logical fallacies in the textbooks in which it was taught. It was very biased, using numerous logical fallacies. It's less of a theory than evolution is. Want more on this dispute? I'll link this, which shoudl address numerous conflicts between the two: http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dBoard.cgi

 

We don't need another debate over Evolution and Creationism though. Simply put, Evolution has way more back up than creationism. To beleive that God created the universe- it takes faith, no matter what. having a 'strengths and weaknesses' debate in court over the two will likely coem down to an in depth debate over the validity of both sides, citing many sources for each, turning into a mess.

[Achilles]

I have no problem with Creationism being taught in school, but not in a science class, perhaps a Philosophy class or political science class would be more appropriate.

I agree. However I believe it would have be one of many perspectives presented in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause (not sure).

 

We don't need another debate over Evolution and Creationism though.

Okay. However I do think that people need to be aware that this is happening, if for no other reason than this:

What happens in Texas does not stay in Texas: the state is one of the country’s biggest buyers of textbooks, and publishers are loath to produce different versions of the same material. The ideas that work their way into education here will surface in classrooms throughout the country.

This isn't just a "Texas problem".

[jonathan7]

Ah. Okay then

 

 

I agree with the conclusion but not necessarily the arguments leading up to it. Truth isn't a democracy, so I don't know how much I agree with the idea that it should be taught simply because most scientists agree (that they do certainly doesn't hurt though ). Science class should be for learning science and if multiple scientific hypothesis are all competing, I don't think it's a bad thing if they are all discussed (which is why I am not opposed to "strengths and weaknesses" in priniciple).

 

Truth isn't a democracy, but I think any widely held belief, especially if it is quite likely not true needs to be studied so it can be shown to be false. My 2 cents on that...

 

I'm not sure how much of our drama spills over to you guys, but the reason why I interpretted your earlier post the way I did is that this is the exact argument that creationsist are screaming at the top of their lungs to get "intelligent design" into the science curriculum.

 

Not too much here, Britain is a lot more secular than you are (well, all minority religions the PC brigade roll over for, but Christianity is fair game).

 

That said as with you guys the brand of Christianity in the ascendancy is Conservative Evangelicals, who have an ability to be very loud (and often obnoxious) I 'clash' with them regularly, although ironically my church of the last 3 years was Conservative Evangelical.

 

My tangent aside, while we have the occasional drama, because there are far fewer Christians here the debate is a lot less frequent.

 

Off Topic; But may be of interest; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4023999.ece

 

I would say that if it wasn't based on evidence (e.g. "false") then it wouldn't be science and wouldn't deserve a place in the classroom.

 

I would possibly argue however that if something is a pseudo-science and is masquerading as science, then should it not be confronted in the science classroom?

 

In the layman's sense of the word, yes. In the scientific sense of the word, not even close.

 

Science class is for science. Creationism is not science.

 

See above

 

Nothing wrong with discussing it, however it should be discussed beforehand, not in the classroom. That discussion has already taken place and creationism has been banned from the science classroom (as it is not science). Organizations like the discovery institute think that they can change the name and then try again and no one will notice. Unfortunately, I suspect they'll need several "Dovers" before they get it.

 

I'm uncomfortable with banning, simply because I wouldn't want to place a restriction on questions pupils can ask.

 

Thanks for reading

[Achilles]

Truth isn't a democracy, but I think any widely held belief, especially if it is quite likely not true needs to be studied so it can be shown to be false. My 2 cents on that...

Of course it should be studied. However the government shouldn't pay to have something presented in the classroom unless it is actually a benefit to the student. If that means debate about creationism in a philosophy class then I'm all for it. However if it means teaching something other than science in a science class, then I am not.

 

I would possibly argue however that if something is a pseudo-science and is masquerading as science, then should it not be confronted in the science classroom?

If science were to "confront" creationism in the classroom, then I don't see how science teachers would be any better than these creationists. The purpose of science is to increase knowledge and understanding, not push an agenda.

 

I'm uncomfortable with banning, simply because I wouldn't want to place a restriction on questions pupils can ask.

*shrugs*

I imagine that students can ask whatever question they want, however that doesn't mean the instructor can (or even should) answer it.

[Prime]

Well, yes - what I meant, though was that there is considerable research specifically aimed at disproving the theory, rather than testing it.

I know that is what you meant. I was just using your point to help make my point, and the comment wasn't directed at you per se.

[Darth InSidious]

Sorry.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

[The Source]

When it comes to this sort of stuff, I think people are afraid of scientific answers in general. I am talking about the fundamental religious believers. Fundamentalists put God in a restricted box, which prohibits other interpretations of biblical texts. God cannot add, alter, or bring more insight to his work. I call this the great flaw in religious sects, which will limit God's capabilities and intentions. As a result of not being open to the science behind God's work, they will cease to learn and grow from the logic behind evolution and other sciences. While the rest of us see God's wisdom and complexity through science and religion, fundamentalists will never - ever understand the true nature and lessons behind God's word. Science should be taught as a seperate subject, for it can be tested by scientific methods. Religion should be taught as a seperate subject, for it can only be studied through religious methods. When it comes to where they interconnect, that responsibility should be that of the individual.

 

Existentialism is the key to both religion and science. Only through the individual themselves shall they both fuse, and the endless possibilities to God's work will be revealed.

[Arcesious]

I take back what I previously said in my first post in this thread, after being convinced by Darth Insidious otherwise.

 

The purpose of science is to increase knowledge and understanding, not push an agenda.

 

I may quote that a few times in debates sometime...

[Jae Onasi]

Furthermore please could you define creationism for me? As currently it could mean a range of things, so I couldn't answer until you have defined it, as you mean above.

Which version, too? Theistic evolution? Progressive (old-earth) creationism? Young earth creationism? Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.? There's a broad spectrum of theories that get lumped under the term 'creationism', perhaps not always appropriately.

[Achilles]

Which version, too? Theistic evolution?

Theistic evolutionist don't deny evolution. They simply believe that is the tool of their deity (god created everything including evolution). Therefore it doesn't make sense that they would push this.

 

Progressive (old-earth) creationism?

OECs tend to accept evolution as well, so same argument as above.

 

Young earth creationism?

You mean like the guy that was quoted in the article/first post? Like the folks at Discovery Institute? Yeah, I'm guessing the odds are least pretty good that this is the mind set that we're dealing with.

 

Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc.?

Yes, all three of these belief systems include creation myths therefore any strict adherents would be considered creationists.

 

There's a broad spectrum of theories that get lumped under the term 'creationism', perhaps not always appropriately.

Really? Why? Every group you listed fits under the creationist umbrella. Is someone's belief that god create people somehow negated or "excused" if they also believe that evolution is his tool?

 

If a religious person believes that god created the universe and all of it's inhabitants and wants that taught in the science classroom, why does what color hair they have or what kind of car they drive matter in the slightest? You seem to think that denomination or schism affiliation is somehow significant but I can't understand why.

[Web Rider]

Yes, all three of these belief systems include creation myths therefore any strict adherents would be considered creationists

 

I think there's a bit of a misnomer here by calling them creationists. All the religious groups in previous quotes of yours are "creationists", they do believe that their god created everything. Even Native Americans have creation stories, but they do not fall into the same category of "creationism" as the people who want to force their ideas into schools.

 

Hindu on Evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_creationism

Islamic Creationism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_creationism

[Achilles]

I think there's a bit of a misnomer here by calling them creationists. All the religious groups in previous quotes of yours are "creationists", they do believe that their god created everything. Even Native Americans have creation stories, but they do not fall into the same category of "creationism" as the people who want to force their ideas into schools.

"Creationism" is what they call their belief. "Creationists" is what they call themselves. I am not sure what it is that you think I should be calling them.

 

In other words, don't you think you should be taking this up with them? Maybe these other groups could make an effort to "take back" creationism and these guys can find something else to call themselves.

[Web Rider]

"Creationism" is what they call their belief. "Creationists" is what they call themselves. I am not sure what it is that you think I should be calling them.

 

In other words, don't you think you should be taking this up with them?

 

I was simply commenting on how it's a misnomer as it lumps fanatics who want the world to share their views in the same category with people who simply believe what their religious books told them. I think we should make an effort not to say that people who believe their god created them as they are, are the same as the young-earth Genesists that believe God made the earth in 6 real-time days and the earth is only 10000 or less years old and evolution isn't happening/never did, that the great flood made the layers we find in dirt ect...

 

Personally, emphasis on that this is my opinion, it just clouds the issue and makes it more confusing as to what we're actually trying to address. The pushy people in fundamentalist Christianity, or anyone who doesn't believe in evolution(which is their right to do so).

[Achilles]

I was simply commenting on how it's a misnomer as it lumps fanatics who want the world to share their views in the same category with people who simply believe what their religious books told them.

*shrugs* I really don't know what to tell you. As I pointed out I'm simply using the term as they have assigned it to themselves. I absolutely agree with the semantics of your argument, but I think the whole things is a big loony mess, and therefore can't bring myself to get too worked up about it.

 

I think we should make an effort not to say that people who believe their god created them as they are, are the same as the young-earth Genesists that believe God made the earth in 6 real-time days and the earth is only 10000 or less years old and evolution isn't happening/never did, that the great flood made the layers we find in dirt ect...

Again, you should take this up with them. They've claimed the term as their own. I think most people tend to know (at least in the U.S., I would think) what "Creationist" means. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable to use this label when discussing the group it is intended to represent.

 

Personally, emphasis on that this is my opinion, it just clouds the issue and makes it more confusing as to what we're actually trying to address. The pushy people in fundamentalist Christianity, or anyone who doesn't believe in evolution(which is their right to do so).

That may be. However, as I've said before, I think most people know who we're talking about. If they don't they can check the dictionary definition that I've provided or the wiki. If they don't agree with that group laying claim to the word, then they need to take that up with them, not me