http://www.sedaliademocrat.com/news/0px-18740-span-font.html I don't want to go too far with this, as I know that those Christians who openly oppose evolution being taught or even casually referenced in schools actually represent a tiny minority of Christians as a whole. But the above story does seem to illustrate quite well where attempting a reasonable compromise over these things is going to get us. Give them an inch, and they want a mile; give them a compromise that allows evolution to be taught as an equal theory to creationism, and they want any depiction of evolution AT ALL to be erased from their visual field because (check out the comments) apparently the constitution guarantees the right of Christians to be offended by things and to take out their offense on everyone else. I know that, in this situation, it really is the school's fault for folding under negligible pressure. But no civilised country should exist in a climate where a situation like this can arise. It's batshit fucking insane and, just like the whole state healthcare thing, makes it very hard for anyone outside America to seriously respect them as a nation that should be able to run the world. OPINIONS4U.
Oh, man, those comments... I can't believe someone can actually claim that Christian oppression is getting out of hand in America. That's America. Not China, not even Europe, but fucking America. Apparently being oppressed is exactly the same as not having complete control over everything and the power to fuck with people's lives on a whim.
Consider it the price of democracy. In places like where I live, where "the people" are empowered and ignorant, stuff like this happens all the time. The school, typically, is caving in to group pressure, regardless of what the Constitution says. The misguided principal seems to think that the law requires the school to avoid any endorsement of controversial views that the majority or a vocal minority find offensive to their religion. But if you surf these forums, you'll soon be aware of lots of folks here who have the same views on evolution as the townspeople in the article. I just got through replying to a person who confidently procalimed that the idea that Darwin's theory is scienfically valid is a myth--and the discussion will proceed as another "he said"-"she said" exchange, where the most persistent and seemingly confident party will win, regardless of logic or evidence.
I think people need to debate the pros and cons of evolution Pro: It has logical cohesion that many people recognise Con: It leaves people feeling less important Pro: It explains our imperfections in a non judgemental way Con: It portays god as someone who cares more about the society than the individual Pro: It can predict past causes and future events because limits are created and mechanisms identified to work within. See path integrals Con: It is open to manipulation as to what the past/future hold. Misrepresentation of facts can easily be guised. This is evident in classification of fossils. Pro: It functions on laws that we already agree upon in some respect Con: it asserts that a piece of information, our dna.something that you can write down (in a manner) will perfectly describe us and it is only this information that we share with our off blood relatives. Pro: It shows how close we are to nature Con: ditto Pro: It gives people understanding about origin rather than traditional relgious ideas. Con: It removes the meaning from our genesis, it robs us of a special significance and a certain appreciation of our place in the world Pro: It challanges peoples concepts, it is abstract and requires deep thought Con: It is inpractical knowledge
Knowledge is Power as they say. Although assuming the end goal really has anything to do with either religion or evolution, is in itself an assumption. The irony is, some of the computing processes that relay this thread, the article to you work in part on evolutionary algoritms that were inspired from ideas brought to us by Darwin in the first place. And the wheels of the bus go round and round.......
The most amazing thing to me is that someone is trying to argue (and has succeeded!) that the shirts should be banned because RELIGION shouldn't be allowed in school. It just feels like, you give people an inch, and they take a mile. Say you'll tolerate their faith (and all faiths equally), and there's a certain vocal minority who'll subconsciously from then on be looking for ways in which their faith is being persecuted. But yes, I think you're right. Faith makes people more confident and resolute, and religion gives people the weight of numbers to scare people into doing what they want. That's what bugs me. If a Christian wants to impose their will, they can cite the billion or so Christians worldwide as if they could only ever agree with them (being Christians and what all). As a sort-of-maybe-atheist, I couldn't do that even if it wasn't totally beneath me to do so.
How important do people need to feel? I'm not sure that evolution portrays God as anything. But I would hope that God recognises that society is made up of individuals, and doesn't contribute to a "me vs the world" mentality in his followers. Humans are fallible. Neither evolution nor religion disputes that. I don't know if the theory of evolution is ever going to be able to predict the path of evolution, but we're certainly a long way from that now. How is that a con? People have written about man's similarity to animal for centuries, even if they haven't attempted to prove it scientifically. The theory of evolution provided in its day an explanation for something that Enlightenment thinkers were really struggling to ignore. If the theory of evolution turns out to be true, it won't have robbed us or removed from us anything that was rightfully ours. But I do think that people are capable of having an identity and a purpose without having to be able to trace that identity and purpose back to the origin of the species or of the universe. The individual can look at where he came from, rather than just where everyone came from. Totally with you there. As much as I like to debate this stuff, I wish more people could say that they don't really care, that they don't really need these questions about the universe answering by God or by science in order to do about their lives. I know some like to frame it as the most important issue of our lives, but it only seems to be so because we've decided to be divided over it.
Intelligent Design a fallacy. Intelligent Design guided by the Noodly Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is fact. Honestly though, we have separation of church and state for a reason. There are mountains of evidence for evolution and NONE for ID. Why we consider teaching ID in school is beyond me. If you want your kid to learn ID, either a) teach it to them or b) send them to a private school.
To be honest, the validity of the teachings is irrelevant in this case: it's the idea that simply by depicting evolution (in a crude, old-fashioned and symbolic way that is only really "useful" now in the sense that it is familiar to people), one is promoting it, let alone persecuting anyone who doesn't believe it. If I see a crucifix, I don't feel threatened by God. Maybe I should.
t asserts that a piece of information, our dna.something that you can write down (in a manner) will perfectly describe us and it is only this information that we share with our off blood relatives. How is that a con? To some people it might degrade the sanctity of individuality, reduce us to code and such. A lot of the cons are based in fear, particularly of letting go of old beliefs fear and religion aye...theres something to be said about fear within any school of thought. An older school 'may' have learnt the lessons that fear mongering doesn't succeed and can still presume itself better than a modern school with the belief that a modern school will travel the same path of mistreating its followers
I'm sorry, saw evolution and just spouted off my usual bullshit. After reading what this thread is about... I actually have an opinion on it. I hate how people have come to look at the theory of evolution as the religion of evolution. Since when did people come to have such a gross misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means? People are too uppity sometimes. Making too big of a deal of something small.
I guess I have some kind of Sisyphus complex, destined forever to try to solve unsovable questions, which is why I find questions about the origins of life and humans so intriguing. Although I think agnosticism is probably the most rational position, it seems so unchallenging. To me, discussing this stuff is what life is all about. Where the theory of evolution is concerned, I (a Christian) have no problem believing in Darwin because the Anthropic Principle, the origins of life, and human consciousness provide me with a sufficient basis for believing in a Higher Power. My acceptance of Darwin is largely a result of my respect for two Christian scientists--Catholic evolutionary biologist, Dr. Kenneth Miller, star witness against ID in the Dover, Pa., textbook trial; and evangelical Christian, Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the human genome project. Both make a convincing case for natural selection, as well as the fine tuning of the universe that loads the dice in favor of intelligent life. Nevertheless, I think the subject of evolution is highly politicized, in the same way as global warming is politicized, and only naive thinkers regard it as strictly a matter of science and logic. There are high stakes in this game. For non-believers, Darwin provided a plausible explanation for a problem that otherwise was awkward: how did all this come about without a Designer? Skeptics like Hume might be content to say "We just don't know", but most people found that unsatisfying. On the other hand, believers understandably felt challenged by a scientific explanation based on random mutations and naturalistic processes that left out God. Until rather recently, the evolutionists seemed to be winning the argument, but the Creationists and ID crowd have launched a counterattack that has been rather effective in winning the hearts and minds of intelligent people. The development of the Judeo-Christian counter-reformation against Darwin is itself an example of evolution, from primitive fire-breathing bible thumpers spouting scripture to sophisticated information theorists spouting mathematics. First came Henry Morris, with a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering, a New Earth Creationist and the "father of creation science", who used his education to develop an elaborate "scientific" defense of Genesis called "flood geology". He explained the fossil record as species left behind during the great flood. He was joined by biochemist Dr. Duane Gish, Vice President of the Creation Research Institute, famous for his nimble footwork and streetfighter prowess in debates with evolutionists, and his argument that macro-evolution is a myth. The New Earth Creationists were viewed with concern by traditional fundamentalists, who objected to the conspicuous avoidance of scripture for tactical reasons in trying to persuade the courts that creationism was science instead of religion. They also found a challenger in the Old Earth Creationism of Dr. Hugh Ross, astronomer and astrophysicist, who was able to gain more credibility with a scientifically inclined by conceding an earth billions of years old while denying the possibility of abiogenesis because of the cosmic radiation in the early stages of earth's development. The defeat of the Scientific Creationists in the 1987 Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguillard, holding that creationism is religious and cannot be taught in public schools, opened the way for a new species of scientific anti-evolutionism: Intelligent Design. To some evolutionists, ID seemed like Creationism in new clothing, but for believers it was a controversial step closer to Darwin in accepting evolution but arguing that it couldn't be explained without an Intelligent Designer. The father of ID was Philip E. Johnson, Co-founder of the Discovery Institute, who had no science degree but was a retired Berkeley law professor and lawyer, as well as a born again Christian. He brought his advocacy skills to the movement to discredit evolution, using trial lawyer tactics to cast reasonable doubt and characterizing evolution as a "theory in crisis" and an atheist conspiracy. Yet ID's superstar, biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, is quite close to the Darwinists in some respects, even accepting common ancestry of humans and chimps. But he argued that natural selection alone couldn't account for the "irreducible complexity" of living organisms. This argument suffered a setback at the Dover textbook trial, when evolutionary biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller, himself a devout Catholic like Behe, produced evidence refuting Behe's key examples. The latest assault by ID comes from number crunching information theorists and statisticians, like William Dembski, Werner Gitt and Lee Spetner. In characteristic fashion, they describe Neo-Darwinist theory as "shattered", but have made less headway in developing a theory of their own sophisticated enough to be taught in public schools as a secular alternative. Spetner actually acknowledges that evolution occurred, but contends that it happened as a result of non-random mutations, as cellular pre-programming is triggered by environmental cues. A devout Jew, he claims that his theory is derivable from the Talmud. As for the Darwinists, they themselves offer some formidable polemicists, notably Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. As is the case with Scientific Creationism and ID, they have impressive credentials as scientists, but their main occupation and style is Apologetics. Ironically, whichever side prevails in this fight will illustrate Darwin's theory in action. The "winning" argument will not necessarily be the truth but the meme that has the greatest survival value in its environment. Neo-Darwinism holds an advantage in controlling the academies and the peer reviewed journals of the scientific establishment. No science article advocating ID is likely to see the light of day in a refereed jornal, nor is it easy for an anti-evolutionist professor to get tenure or for a graduate student to gain acceptance for a thesis attacking evolution accepted. On the other hand, the ID folks are well-funded and have a talent for blogs and websites, and their message seems to resonate with the lay public, especially, of course, the religious right which is the Republican base. Most of them publish in journals of the ID community, or in religious outlets. For example, Spetner bypassed the usual channels of the peer reviewed journals to publish a book in Judaica Press, a religious publisher. Of course, it is also possible that both perspectives will survive and thrive in a symbiotic relationship, drawing energy from each other for mutual benefit, like the endosymbiosis of eukaryotic organelles identified by evolutionist Lynn Margoulis. Philip Johnson was inspired by Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker to found the ID movement to challenge the book. I that sense, Richard Dawkins might be considered the unwitting inspiration for ID. In sum, caveat emptor.
