ID banned from schools

[SakmonKi]

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051220105809990024&ncid=NWS00010000000001

 

"Earlier this month, a federal appeals court in Georgia heard arguments over whether a suburban Atlanta school district had the right to put stickers on biology textbooks describing evolution as a theory, not fact. A federal judge last January ordered the stickers removed."

 

I, as a member of the "mob", had never heard that evolution is not an explaination for the origins of life before I came to this website. All through my school years and discussions throughout my life with people whom I thought "knew better", I was presented the contention that Darwinian evolution explains macro-biology as well as micro. In school it is said to be proven fact.

 

In light of this, has the general public not fully understood Darwinian evolution, or has the general public been deceived into believing it to be the explaination of the origin of life?

 

Has the scientific community ever done anything to counteract this misunderstanding?

[Bio-Hazard]

There is a reason there is SUNDAY SCHOOL!

 

For what I remember about darwinism is that somehow species evolve over time due to environment change. Now I may understand it wrong, but I do know one thing. Evolution takes a long freaking time.

 

I consider a mutation a step in evolution. Mutation that leads to procreation with the trait in the offspring making it over a period of time called evolution.

[Pyrotex]

hI...had never heard that evolution is not an explaination for the origins of life before I came to this website. ...I was presented the contention that Darwinian evolution explains macro-biology as well as micro. In school it is said to be proven fact. In light of this, has the general public not fully understood Darwinian evolution..? Has the scientific community ever done anything to counteract this misunderstanding?

You did not go to public schools in the United States of America, did you? :eek: Lucky you. When I was in the 9th and 11th grades here in the USA, two different science teachers tried to mention Charles Darwin and explain why he was considered a great scientist. That was all. Both were fired.

 

In the USA, there is a lot of science, and even more of history, that is "missing" in the classroom, because it would be disagreeable to one religious sect or another. Up until the 1960's, many (if not most) small town high schools in the South had a local preacher on the school board, or serving as principal.

 

Up until recently, the scientific community had hoped that if they ignored the problem it would go away. And besides, they were teaching REAL science (including evolution) in the colleges and universities, and assumed that the churches had no power there. Things have changed. :eek2:

[TRoutMac]

I had never heard that evolution is not an explaination for the origins of life before I came to this website. All through my school years and discussions throughout my life with people whom I thought "knew better", I was presented the contention that Darwinian evolution explains macro-biology as well as micro. In school it is said to be proven fact.

 

Evolutionists are quite conflicted about this question, in my experience. I have heard people defend evolution by saying that it doesn't purport to explain origins. But you generally only get that response once you've backed an evolutionist into a corner by asking them to explain where, for example, genetic information originated from in evolutionary terms. At this point they are confronted with the stark inadequacy of evolutionary theory and so they capitulate and say that "Oh, well, evolution doesn't claim to explain the origin of life."

 

However, you are correct to notice that our school system presents evolution, in general, as a fact, and indeed as an explanation of the origin of life. And the media does as well. And with the recent dust-up in Kansas where the decision was made to "allow" the scientific weaknesses of evolution to be taught alongside of the scientific strengths, and the amount of controversy that generated, is proof positive that evolutionists are very protective of their precious little theory and don't generally appreciate having to admit that evolution even has weaknesses.

 

In light of this, has the general public not fully understood Darwinian evolution, or has the general public been deceived into believing it to be the explaination of the origin of life?

 

Yes, and yes.

 

Has the scientific community ever done anything to counteract this misunderstanding?

 

No, not really. They don't want the scrutiny. They don't want the shoddy science of macro-evolution to be uncovered. So, the less we understand, the better.

 

Up until recently, the scientific community had hoped that if they ignored the problem it would go away.

 

I wonder, Pyrotex -- about the State of Kansas decision I mentioned above, where scientific weaknesses of evolution will now be taught alongside the strengths (I will assume for the moment that you oppose that decision, my apologies, and disregard the following if you do not) -- on what grounds would you oppose it? Do you believe there are no scientific weaknesses in evolutionary theory? Or, do you acknowledge that there are scientific weaknesses but think we should actually hide those weaknesses from our children?

[C1ay]

But you generally only get that response once you've backed an evolutionist into a corner by asking them to explain where, for example, genetic information originated from in evolutionary terms.

That sounds kind of biased to me. I think it would be more accurate to say that the question of where genetic information originated should back all claimants into a corner. There is no evidence to conclude any theory that attempts to explain the origins of genetic information is the one and only answer. When any scientist, evolutionist or otherwise, is asked "how did life begin" the only true answer is "we don't know".

[Boerseun]

That sounds kind of biased to me. I think it would be more accurate to say that the question of where genetic information originated should back all claimants into a corner. There is no evidence to conclude any theory that attempts to explain the origins of genetic information is the one and only answer. When any scientist, evolutionist or otherwise, is asked "how did life begin" the only true answer is "we don't know".

Absolutely.

 

And the only people who pertain to 'know for a fact' how life came to be, is the Intelligent Design troupe. And they claim Life to be intentionally designed by some unnamed, untestable, imaginary 'intelligence', without any evidence whatsoever. And that is not science. Simple.

 

Therefore, it's a good thing that 'ID' is chucked out of Science class. You don't have to throw it out of school, however. Relegate it to Philosophy or metaphysics. That's where it belongs. I just wish they could see this and understand it, once and for all.

[cwes99_03]

I think everyone needs to read the Wikipedia entry on the scopes trial. While I hold the wikipedia isn't necessarily the best source for all of ones information, this article seems to be well written.

The key point being that the Butler Act did not require that creation be taught, but that evolution not be taught because of it's teaching that man ascended from primates.

Seems to me that the same is being done only in reverse. ID is being banned not because it is scientifically unfounded, but because it comes to close to the religious teaching of creationism.

 

Maybe both should be banned from school, as they are both lacking in proof, and if either one is being taught then religion is at issue. I say this with the thought that my freedom to pursue my own religion should mean that I not be force fed something that goes completely against my religious beliefs, such as the stance that man could not have been created but evolved from a single celled organism.

[Erasmus00]

I say this with the thought that my freedom to pursue my own religion should mean that I not be force fed something that goes completely against my religious beliefs, such as the stance that man could not have been created but evolved from a single celled organism.

 

But it seems to me that the public education system has a duty to educate students in the best manner possible.

 

Modern biological science (wether you "believe" in it or not) can really only be understood in the context of evolution, so should biology not be taught? It used to be considered religious truth that the Earth was at the center of the universe, should we not teach Newtonian physics, as it seems to indicate that the Earth moves?

-Will

[TRoutMac]

But it seems to me that the public education system has a duty to educate students in the best manner possible.

 

I agree completely. Ditch evolution.

 

Modern biological science (wether you "believe" in it or not) can really only be understood in the context of evolution

 

This is merely your opinion, Erasmus.

[cwes99_03]

But it seems to me that the public education system has a duty to educate students in the best manner possible.

 

Modern biological science (wether you "believe" in it or not) can really only be understood in the context of evolution, so should biology not be taught? It used to be considered religious truth that the Earth was at the center of the universe, should we not teach Newtonian physics, as it seems to indicate that the Earth moves?

-Will

The idea that the Earth was at the center of the universe, as has been pointed out numerous times on this forum, had and continues to have no basis in the Bible. Above and beyond this, it is a proven fact that it is not.

Biology does not require evolution. I can learn a whole lot about the physiology of men, without being taught that man originated from primates, and that primates originated from dolphins, and that dolphins originated from single-celled organisms, which began in a primordial soup of acids created by a lightning strike in an atmosphere of methane and oxygen.

If one insists on teaching the theory of evolution, then why can one not teach the theory of creation. Simply put, one does not require there to be a God, and the other does. So the government says that for everyone to be able to formulate their own opinions freely on whether there is or is not a God, or which God suits them best, they say it can't be taught. I am simply contending that by teaching evolution, the government is instead saying that the idea that there is a creator is preposterous, thereby making it difficult for kids to formulate their own opinions on whether there is or is not a God because they have to say that evolution is the explanation on some test. Of course those of us who refused to say so, were given a big black mark saying that we were wrong (enforced atheism.)

[Erasmus00]

The idea that the Earth was at the center of the universe, as has been pointed out numerous times on this forum, had and continues to have no basis in the Bible. Above and beyond this, it is a proven fact that it is not.

 

Regardless of whether or not it is biblical, it was once widely believed religious truth. And there are indeed people out there still who believe that geocentrism is biblical, and scientific fact. So why shouldn't we teach geocentrism in schools? The faults of the copernican world view?

 

Biology does not require evolution. I can learn a whole lot about the physiology of men, without being taught that man originated from primates, and that primates originated from dolphins, and that dolphins originated from single-celled organisms, which began in a primordial soup of acids created by a lightning strike in an atmosphere of methane and oxygen.

 

The overarching theory of modern biology, underlying molecular and cell biologiy, genetics, and biochemistry is evolution. If you don't believe me, pick up a textbook.

 

If one insists on teaching the theory of evolution, then why can one not teach the theory of creation. Simply put, one does not require there to be a God, and the other does.

 

I would think that having studied science you would understand a little better the way science works. The reason creationism isn't to be taught in science classes is quite simply that it isn't science. If everytime science got stuck on a problem, scientists turned to "God did it" no forward progress would be made.

 

So the government says that for everyone to be able to formulate their own opinions freely on whether there is or is not a God, or which God suits them best, they say it can't be taught. I am simply contending that by teaching evolution, the government is instead saying that the idea that there is a creator is preposterous, thereby making it difficult for kids to formulate their own opinions on whether there is or is not a God because they have to say that evolution is the explanation on some test. Of course those of us who refused to say so, were given a big black mark saying that we were wrong (enforced atheism.)

 

If evolution shakes your faith in God you have a weak faith indeed. The existance of evolution doesn't in ANY way mean there cannot be a creator, it just suggests something of the way he might have acted. Why do people get so hung up on taking a book literally instead of looking at the underlying message?

-Will

[cwes99_03]

The overarching theory of modern biology, underlying molecular and cell biologiy, genetics, and biochemistry is evolution. If you don't believe me, pick up a textbook.

I would think that having studied science you would understand a little better the way science works. The reason creationism isn't to be taught in science classes is quite simply that it isn't science. If everytime science got stuck on a problem, scientists turned to "God did it" no forward progress would be made.

If evolution shakes your faith in God you have a weak faith indeed. The existance of evolution doesn't in ANY way mean there cannot be a creator, it just suggests something of the way he might have acted. Why do people get so hung up on taking a book literally instead of looking at the underlying message?

-Will

I have studied biology. Beyond the two weeks spent on evolution, it was never again brought up. It was not necessary. Mutation may be covered, but evolution need not be mentioned to discuss mutation. Various philae and whatnot may be studied, and the similarities between species noted, but again evolution is not necessary. Knowledge of where life originated is not necessary to more than let's say 90% of modern biology. It only become pertinent when one begins to talk about genesis type projects, or teraforming new planets.

You also miss the idea of creationism. That is to tie in what the Bible says with modern scientific thought. To see how the description of how everything was created might fit with the current data. One can study these things, but it takes an understanding of the entire Bible and it's use of language and metaphor to understand what was written. Put the linguistics, with the history, with the physics and biology, and you have quite a complex concept of the creation of everything and how things were made, and how it all agrees with the Bible. So, you see it is a science. Creationists don't just reach a problem and say oh well God did it and no further understanding needs to be found. No instead they devote countless hours to understanding it all and seeing how modern data may or may not fit it.

The real problem it seems to me is with those "scientists" who refuse to look deeper into the mist and try to make a real effort to understand the Bible.

Your last comment on evolution shaking my faith is funny. Why is it that athesists fight tooth and nail to keep any reference of religion out of education? They are afraid their child may grow up to believe in a God. If creationism shakes their belief that there is no God, then apparently their beliefs are very stron either.

Oh and the idea that evolution fits neatly with the Bible means to me that you've never actually studied the Bible, but that your knowledge of it stems only from what you have been told by some people. Will, you have to look into it more, your eyes will undoubtedly be opened to a new world.

Additionally, would you want a book you write on say astrophysics to be taken literally, or would you want someone to just skim it and say well I guess the underlying idea is that there are some big hot things out there and we'll never reach them.

[Boerseun]

Oh and the idea that evolution fits neatly with the Bible means to me that you've never actually studied the Bible, but that your knowledge of it stems only from what you have been told by some people. Will, you have to look into it more, your eyes will undoubtedly be opened to a new world.

Additionally, would you want a book you write on say astrophysics to be taken literally, or would you want someone to just skim it and say well I guess the underlying idea is that there are some big hot things out there and we'll never reach them.

Being an Atheist doesn't mean you have a constant problem with Christianity and the validity of the Bible. What it means, is that the Bible (and Christianity) is filed under 'Not True', subsection 'Mass Delusions', sub-subsection 'Myths and Legends' - together with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Shintoism, and the Tooth Fairy.

 

Promoting the Bible and Christianity to be the Ultimate Truth, is a bit presumptious, seen in the light of all the competing religions out there. And the Creation Myth as explained in the Christian Bible, is only one of plenty competing mythical explanations of our origins. For instance, the Australian Aborigines refer to the 'Dream Time', when the world was created. The San people of the Kalahari will tell you a lot about the god(s) that created the world out of clay. The Torah explains how God partially created the universe, and then created Man and invited Man to help him finish his grand creation.

The Christian Bible tells a different story. One of theft and deception, and the eventual barring from paradise. Also, the gaining of knowledge that was wrong in the eyes of the deity.

 

Evolution is absolutely incompatible with any of these. Because why should a theory (that is theologically neutral) be compatible with only one of these creation myths? For a theory to be molded around any one religion, implies the scientific world's conversion to that specific religion - and that's not science. And, frankly, scientists don't care about it. Scientists follow the leads of truth to where it takes them. The admission fees are high, though - you might understand that the likelyhood of your specific religion being true is pretty small. You don't have to pay the fees, though - just follow the leads to where it takes you. Remember to be objective, though... :shrug:

 

PS - Scientists didn't willingly go around inventing evolution as a tool with the specific aim of destroying religion. If the theory of evolution discredits your god, well, sorry. It wasn't the intent. It happened along the way.

[Erasmus00]

The real problem it seems to me is with those "scientists" who refuse to look deeper into the mist and try to make a real effort to understand the Bible.

 

First, why shouldn't scientists look deeper into the Koran, or vedic scriptures for that matter? You act as if the bible has some monopoly on truth, which I'm sure you believe but must admit is not at all factually motivated. You also didn't address my point, there are religious fundamentalists out there who have outlined flaws with the Copernican world view and wish a return to the "proper" idea of geocentrism. Should geocentrism be taught in schools as a competing theory to Newton?

 

Your last comment on evolution shaking my faith is funny. Why is it that athesists fight tooth and nail to keep any reference of religion out of education? They are afraid their child may grow up to believe in a God. If creationism shakes their belief that there is no God, then apparently their beliefs are very stron either.

 

I'm both religious and a student of science. I don't care if you mention God in school, but I do have the strictest of standards when it comes to what goes into a science class.

 

Oh and the idea that evolution fits neatly with the Bible means to me that you've never actually studied the Bible, but that your knowledge of it stems only from what you have been told by some people. Will, you have to look into it more, your eyes will undoubtedly be opened to a new world.

 

I've read the Hebrew scriptures in Hebrew and the NRSV english version of the "New Testament." I've also read the Bhagavad Gita and the Koran in English. I've also read the Tao Te Ching. Not everyone who reads the bible walks away a believer.

 

There is nothing in the bible that leads me to believe that Genesis is anything other then metaphor (and appears to be a fairly standard creation myth).

 

Additionally, would you want a book you write on say astrophysics to be taken literally, or would you want someone to just skim it and say well I guess the underlying idea is that there are some big hot things out there and we'll never reach them.

 

The purpose of an astrophysics text is to demonstrate the beauty underlying the universe as well as to pass on analytical methods. As long as a reader walks away with some idea of how to think quantitatively and a respect for the elegance of nature, I've done most of my job.

 

The purpose of the bible is to inform the reader how to live a rich moral and spiritual life. It is not a science textbook. As long as the idea that God created everything is understood, what does the method matter?

-Will

[cwes99_03]

Isn't it interesting that you say you've read all of those books. Personally I've not read all of them. I'd say I've read the entire Bible, though I will say that I didn't just one day sit down and try to read it all the way through. No my studies have taken about the last 15 years. Have you dedicated that much time or even let's say 5 years to any one of those books?

Among those books, do any of them claim to be divinely inspired other than the Bible? How many of those books have provided acurate prophecy of historical events?

There are many reasons I believe the Bible is actual fact. These are also the same reasons why I can say that what I've read about Islam, Hinduism, and Budhism (of which I've given a topical study, without having read the books, though maybe I should to greater understand them, but I do know that none of them appears to be anything more than philosophical musings of men). These religions either stem from reinterpretations of the original Hebrew with additions by men around 500 years after the last prophet of that God was supposed to have lived, or they contain stories about deities causing every phenomena under and above the sun.

Now I don't deny the Bible says that God can and has caused these same things, but it also says that they occur naturally by law that he set forth.

As for Taoism, Confuscianism, etc. these are not religions but human philosophies that have acquired a large following as far as I know. See my thread religion vs. philosphy. Additionally, all of these are mentioned in good world history classes. The only difference is that they are simply studied historically, and each is given equal measure as far as they have affected our history.

 

I did answer your question on geocentrism. I said that it is a false theory that has no basis in the scriptures. Creationism does have complete foundation in the scriptures, and as of yet has not been refuted by any scientific theory.

 

Also, I found an interesting thought that has been brought up that if we don't understand something then some of us just say, "oh well, God created it and that is the answer." While, that is not my approach, but rather I say how does this fit with what the Bible says, and is it credible information. Anyway, a very good point was made by a character on Stargate, you know the TV show. That is that Daniel Jackson's character says something to the effect of, isn't it interesting that scientists believe in dark energy/matter. They say that there is no way to see it, or measure it, but insist that it is there. I snickered when I heard this today, and thought about this forum. I know they are endeavoring to prove it is there, but in the meantime, it is being taught as science fact. Sounds like that is what IDers want to do to me. I know it is what evolutionists have been doing for the last 150 years.

[Pyrotex]

...I wonder, Pyrotex -- about the State of Kansas decision I mentioned above, where scientific weaknesses of evolution will now be taught alongside the strengths ... -- on what grounds would you oppose it? Do you believe there are no scientific weaknesses in evolutionary theory? Or, do you acknowledge that there are scientific weaknesses but think we should actually hide those weaknesses from our children?

Tricky questions. Actually "trick" questions, though you may not see that as obvious. You are ignoring ALL other scientific and even religious "theories" as if Evolution was the "only one" in some way. You assume the "weaknesses" of Evolution are not taught, or hidden, like it was a dirty fact that scientist are keeping secret. Not true. So let me ask YOU some questions.

 

Do you think the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Osmosis needs similar disclaimers? Why has this never been brought up? How about the Evolution of Mathematical Proof? Why bring it up only with Biological Evolution?

 

Do you think the Theory of the Evolution of Languages, or the Evolution of Writing (Symbols and Technologies), or the Evolution of Human Cultures, or the Evolution of Biblical Interpretation and Exegesis need similar explicit warnings? Why not?

 

How many times have you heard your favorite preacher end his/her sermon with the statement, "Everything I just said about Jesus is just a THEORY, in fact, MY personal theory, and there are some theological weaknesses to my theory."

 

How many times has your church or synagogue posting public warnings in all classrooms that the Origin of the Bible was just a "THEORY" and the existence of Jesus as a real historical person was just a "THEORY" -- theories with weaknesses that not yet been resolved to the satisfaction of many learned people?

 

The biggest question: why is that you and others of your kind specifically take umbrage against just ONE of the tens of thousands of theories that mankind has concocted about science, math, religion, politics, morals, culture and life in general -- and conveniently ignore all the rest?

[Pyrotex]

I have studied biology. Beyond the two weeks spent on evolution, it was never again brought up. It was not necessary. ...

You can teach aeronautical engineering without physics, too. You can even claim physics is not necessary. Sure, just teach aero.eng. as a bunch of mechanical "facts": the wing spars are shaped like this, the force on the control stick is related to flap area and speed by the following formula, thrust to lift ratio must fall within these limit values, etc. etc. etc. Easy. Piece of cake.

 

But if you want to UNDERSTAND why wing spars are shaped like that, or why wings have flaps instead of twisting (like birds do) or how planes came to be designed the way they are, then you MUST know and understand physics. Physics is where aero.eng. came from. It underscores, supports and explains not merely the 'facts' of aero.eng. but the 'whys'.

 

Biology without evolution is just a long list of 'facts'. Any true understanding of why biological systems appear and work the way they do requires an understanding of the principles of evolution. There is a whole lot of "design" in biological systems--we can't get around that. Evolution shows how "design" can come about naturally, that life is in a very real sense, a self-organizing system.

 

This "theory" of life being self organizing has found incredibly large amounts of evidence over the last hundred years, the biggest being the discovery of the structure and the nature of DNA itself, genetics. The "theory" of an invisible magician pulling the universe out of his... hat... has found no evidence at all to support it over the last hundred years.