This Kind of Thing Drives Me Nuts
Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 18:22Those of you uninterested in the ideological battle around evolution can skip this article.
OK, if you're still here, the NY Times recently ran "Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy", which discusses how folks who couldn't get "intelligent design" into science curricula are now pushing for the inclusion of the "strengths and weaknesses" of Darwin's theory in state curriculum standards. Read the full article if you like, but here's the money quote, courtesy of the chairman of the Texas Board of Education:
In Texas, evolution foes do not have to win over the entire Legislature, only a majority of the education board; they are one vote away.Dr. McLeroy, the board chairman, sees the debate as being between “two systems of science.”
“You’ve got a creationist system and a naturalist system,” he said.
Dr. McLeroy 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.
A young-earth creationist says that his rejection of evolution is NOT based on his religious beliefs, and no one calls him on it?
He actually creates a paradox--a "creationist system of science"--and no one calls his bluff? By definition, creationism cannot be science. It's really that simple, yet this Texas dentist could wind up as the swing vote that poisons both faith and science for a generation of students.
State over here and Church over there - how hard does this have to be?
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (10)
I don't for a microsecond buy any of the 6000-year-old-earth nonsense, and I'm a rather complete heathen. But teaching the theory of evolution the way some atheists want to do is every bit as dogmatic.
How about teaching kids the broad picture, discussing everything? Show them the science, present theory as theory, try to show the many different interpretations and possibilities, explain the various ways that different religious doctrines view the subject.
Oh, right... I forgot... any discussion of religion, a mention, even a whisper, dispassionately, objectively, without any indoctrination, will traumatize and warp our kids' minds permanently.
In no particular order:
* Darwin's theory says nothing about the origin of life; it merely speaks to how organisms adapt to their environment over time. Any science teacher who says otherwise is simply wrong.
* You suggest that we should have teachers "explain the various ways that different religious doctrines view the subject." That isn't the job for a science teacher, because IT ISN'T SCIENCE. Now, I'd have no problem with a simple statement that "various religions view this differently, ask your parents or clergy if you're interested in that," but that's about it. We'd be up in arms if teachers went outside their fields in other areas, wouldn't we?
* There is room for discussion of religion in the public schools. That's why there are Religious Studies classes, and that's why there are discussions of religion in World History and World Civilization classes. Heck, my small-town Kentucky school even offered "The Bible as Literature" and "The Bible as History" classes back in the 1970s and 1980s. All of these are entirely reasonable as part of the public school curriculum.
* You know as well as I that, despite your reference to "different religions," these same folks would be beside themselves if any religious perspective other than the Judeo-Christian were to be presented in such a discussion.
* You say that teaching the theory of evolution can be "dogmatic," but it is the dominant theory in that area, and there are no serious scientific studies that contradict it. People like to attach the word "theory" to creationism, but it simply doesn't apply in the rigorous sense with which science uses the term.
I believe in creation, but I don't presume to know how God accomplished His work. The Bible itself is contradictory on how He went about it. We're going to take this and teach it as science? I can't see it.
"There is room for discussion of religion in the public schools..."
Not for long. The angry atheists will not stop until every vestige of anything even tangentially related to religion is blotted out.
Out of curiosity, does your school still offer "The Bible as Literature" and "The Bible as History" classes?
I don't know, but I doubt it. That isn't because of controversy, though; given funding cuts and the emphasis being placed on 'accountability' areas (read: NCLB/testing), many schools in Kentucky have been carving away elective courses.
However, I will say that we don't seem to have these "godly/godless" problems in our schools to the extent seen in other states. (We in KY had a court tussle over a Gay-Straight Alliance club some years ago, but that's been about it.) Our local middle school and high school both recognize FCA (Fellowship of Christian Athletes) as a student organization, and FCA uses school facilities outside school hours like any other student organization.
Oh, and it isn't the "angry atheists" who are on the move. Check this out...talk about overreaction.
Ok, Wes...I just can't resist:
"Darwin's theory says nothing about the origin of life...
Isn't the title of the book "The Origin of the Species"? LOL
I'm not saying I disagree with you, mind you; I just thought it was too damn funny to pass up.
My apologies. Any snarkiness was completely unintended.
Actually, the original full title of Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." It was shortened in a later edition.
I blame the Neanderthals for all this trouble. If they had been more careful 30,000 years ago, and not foolishly died off, the debate today would be a bit different.
What's this, RB - you're giving a nod to "survival of the fittest"? How very...Darwinian of you!
(OK, I owe you a beer for that one...it was just too good to pass up.)
Yeah, HNC...as Machiavelli pointed out in his followup, Darwin was primarily concerned with the divergence/origin of species, not abiogenesis (the actual origin of life). He made a few comments on the latter subject in various private letters to other scientists of his day, but (to my knowledge) he neither formulated nor published formal theories on the subject.
Abiogenesis is a wide-open field of science, with theories ranging from "primordial soup" to "life seeded from other planets." Darwin was wise to avoid that particular limelight, especially since the prevailing theories of the day suggested that (for instance) vermin such as fleas and maggots "just sprang" from rotted meat. (laugh)
I've never had a bone to pick with Darwin.