Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
A topic that probably causes among the most heated discussions on this blog is the attempt to either displace evolution from Public School Curriculum, or to at least give “intelligent design” equal footing to evolution. My own opinion is that “intelligent design”, or “Creationism” as some call it, has no place in our public school system. Those who would force it on our schools would be destroying the Constitutional separation of Church and State. We saw a blog post by Professor Turley a week ago discussing some crazy State Legislator in Missouri introducing a bill to teach “Creationism” as a scientific theory and to teach “Evolution” as a philosophy, almost all who commented were not only outraged, but some disparaged Missouri as a backward state. A few of the comments belittled religion in general. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/02/15/missouri-legislator-introduces-bill-to-teach-creationism-as-a-scientific-theory-and-to-teach-evolution-as-a-philosophy/ . Another blog post by Professor Turley in October 2012, about Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin brought a firestorm of angry comments, also disparaging Missouri. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/15/akin-disproves-evolution/#comments Interestingly this Conservative State voted for Todd Akin’s opponent when Election Day came around.
Earlier on April 1st, 2012 David Drumm (Nal) did a guest blog titled “The Evolutionary Gorilla in the Room” http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/01/the-evolutionary-gorilla-in-the-room/ and received almost 240 comments. Now in truth this was an excellent guest blog and certainly drew a lot of discussion. But as I perused the comments, all 238 of them, I noticed something that I think is worth discussing. More than half of the comments were between Gene Howington and Dredd as a continuance of their ongoing argument about Dredd’s microbial theories. I must admit that when it comes to the scientific aspects of biology, I tune out as quickly as Lawrence Rafferty does when Calculus is raised. Another long time regular Bron did have more than a few comments as he tried to insinuate Ayn Rand into the discussion as usual. J Now here is the interesting part, on all three of those blogs there was nary a voice raised in defending “intelligent design.” While here at the blog many of the usual suspects are hostile to organized religion, we do have more than a few “religious” people who drop by and comment. Given the tradition of contentious, yet “civil” discussion here how can that be? I think I have a possible answer to that coming from a study done at MIT, by a renowned Physicist and I must admit I found his answer surprising.
In a Huffington Post article dated 2/12/13 (Darwin’s birthday), Mark Tegmark, MIT Physicist, wrote this to begin his article titled: “Celebrating Darwin: Religion and Science Are closer Than You Think”:
“He looked really uneasy. I’d just finished giving my first lecture of 8.282, MIT’s freshman astronomy course, but this one student stayed behind in my classroom. He nervously explained that although he liked the subject, he worried that my teaching conflicted with his religion. I asked him what his religion was, and when I told him that it had officially declared there to be no conflict with Big Bang cosmology, something amazing happened: his anxiety just melted away right in front of my eyes! Poof!
This gave me the idea to start the MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins, which we’re officially publishing today in honor of Charles Darwin’s 204th birthday. We found that only 11 percent of Americans belong to religions openly rejecting evolution or our Big Bang. So if someone you know has the same stressful predicament as my student, chances are that they can relax as well. To find out for sure, check out the infographic below.”
I frankly don’t know how I could present the “infographic” chart from the article because the technology is beyond me so I suggest you follow this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/religion-and-science-distance-between-not-as-far-as-you-think_b_2664657.html and see it for yourself because I think it is of great interest to those, who like myself are nonplussed by the resurgence of religious Fundamentalism, The “infographic” is done as a circular chart that lists all the religions practiced in this country, their percentage of the population and each religious belief’s official view of Evolution. Only about 11% percent of the religious population of this country belong to faiths that are opposed to Evolution, For instance:
Catholics are 23.9% of the population and their official teachings see no conflict with Doctrine.
Methodists represent 6.1% of the population and feel evolution is “not inconsistent with religious doctrine.
Lutherans represent 4.6% of the population and of them only 1.4% (The Missouri Synod) are opposed to the theory of Evolution.
People with no Church affiliation represent 16.4% of the population and see no conflict.
Jews represent merely 1.7% of the population and 1.3% see no conflict with Evolution, while the other .4% have no official position on it.
There are conflicts between the various Baptist and Presbyterian Denominations, with some accepting Evolution and some rejecting it. Again please look at the chart at the link because I guarantee you will find it as absorbing as I did.
What are we to make of this data which demonstrates that of the various religious beliefs that make up our country, 89% seemingly have no religious conflict with Evolution? Yet Evolution has become a major issue. Professor Tegmark comments:
“So why is this small fundamentalist minority so influential? How can some politicians and school-board members get reelected even after claiming that our 14 billion-year-old universe might be only about 6,000 years old? “That’s like claiming that my 90-year-old aunt is only 20 minutes old. It’s tantamount to claiming that if you watch this video of a supernova explosion in the Centaurus A Galaxy about 10 million light-years away, you’re seeing something that never happened, because light from the explosion needs 10 million years to reach Earth. Why isn’t making such claims political suicide?
Part of the explanation may be a striking gap between Americans’ personal beliefs and the official views of the faiths to which they belong. Whereas only 11 percent belong to religions openly rejecting evolution, Gallup reports that 46 percent believe that God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. Why is this “belief gap” so large? Interestingly, this isn’t the only belief gap surrounding a science-religion controversy: whereas 0 percent of Americans belong to religions arguing that the Sun revolves around Earth, Gallup reports that as many as 18 percent nonetheless believe in this theory that used to be popular during the Middle Ages. This suggests that the belief gaps may have less to do with intellectual disputes and more to do with an epic failure of science education.”
Professor Tegmark’s is of the opinion that scientific education in America has been a failure and thus we have the gap between religious belief and science. I think his explanation is a rather middle of the road one and to that extent I disagree with him. The science education I received in elementary and high school was excellent, even if I was too lazy a student to study much. How much I do know scientifically and how much those peers of my age know is quite adequate. There has been a two pronged attack on our educational system that began in the late 60’s. A conscious effort to “dumb down” the people of America has been in effect since then to make them more pliable and easier to fool. The first part has been cutting funding and the second part has been attacking the curriculum. If you add to it the evolving of the Internet and the changes that has wrought, we see that it is not that the scientific education has failed, but the political support for it.
Most of us assume when we are told by someone that they are deeply religious and know their “bible” front to back, that they are truthful. I believe that in their hearts most feel they are being truthful, but their truth falls far short of reality. Many people don’t read their entire holy documents, but instead rely on their religious leaders to guide them as to what is “true” and what is important. We know that some religious leaders focus on what THEY think is important like The Book of Revelations and they don’t “preach” the Jesus who gave The Sermon on the Mount” I think there are many, like Professor Tegmark’s first year student who didn’t know just what his denomination believed about the Cosmos. This is not just true for Christians, but I believe it is true for Jews, Muslims, Hindu’s and Buddhists.
Another problem is our mainstream media plays a role in religious ignorance. I addressed this in July 2011. I was writing about the many TV documentaries being produced on networks like The History Channel and even ABC’s Primetime-Nightline which ran a series titled “Battle With the Devil”, a show that “investigates the belief in satanic will or possession by a demon”. Because the Religious Right in this country is so well funded, they speak with a loud voice. Our media, corporate controlled, fears anything that might hurt the bottom line, so they cater to those with the loud voices and the money behind them. http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/23/fundamentalist-religion-and-tv-documentaries-a-problem/ What we see then is that a population if 11% in our country, that is working to force their silly, medieval beliefs onto all of us.
Two days ago Professor Tegmark followed up with a second Huffington Post article relating his experiences after he posted his first article. Here are some snippets from it:
“I’d been warned. A friend cautioned me that if we went ahead and posted our MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins, I’d get inundated with hate-mail from religious fundamentalists who believe our universe to be less than 10,000 years old. We posted it anyway, and the vitriolic responses poured in as predicted. But to my amazement, most of them didn’t come from religious people, but from angry atheists! I found this particularly remarkable since I’m not religious myself. I have three criticisms of these angry atheists:
1)They help religious fundamentalists:
A key point I wanted to make with our survey is that there are two interesting science-religion controversies: a) Between religion & atheism b) Between religious groups who do & don’t attack science
2)They could use more modesty:
If I’ve learned anything as a physicist, it’s how little we know with certainty. In terms of the ultimate nature of reality, we scientists are ontologically ignorant. For example, many respected physicists believe in the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, according to which a fundamentally random process called “wavefunction collapse” occurs whenever you observe something. This interpretation has been criticized both for being anthropocentric (quantum godfather Niels Bohr famously argued that there’s no reality without observation) and for being vague (there’s no equation specifying when the purported collapse is supposed to happen, and there’s arguably no experimental evidence for it).
3)They should practice what they preach:
Most atheists advocate for replacing fundamentalism, superstition and intolerance by careful and thoughtful scientific discourse. Yet after we posted our survey report, ad hominem attacks abounded, and most of the caustic comments I got (including one from a fellow physics professor) revealed that their authors hadn’t even bothered reading the report they were criticizing. Just as it would be unfair to blame all religious people for what some fundamentalists do, I’m obviously not implying that all anti-religious people are mean-spirited or intolerant. However, I can’t help being struck by how some people on both the religious and anti-religious extremes of the spectrum share disturbing similarities in debating style.
Having watched the religious debates that go on here continually, I do think that Professor Tegmark has a valid point. Although I am a Deist, I have no affection for either organized religion, or for the “holy books” that make up their various canons. However, I have in my life experienced what I would call the ineffable, so I personally won’t preclude the fact that there is a “Creative Force” of some kind that drives this Universe. Please understand me in this, because as Tegmark saw even his peers criticized him far too quickly: Because I don’t preclude doesn’t mean I think there is one, I just won’t rule it out. From what I know of modern physics in its current fashion there is the belief that the Universe is a lot “weirder” than science at the beginning of the 20th Century imagined it to be.
While I understand that most of us are angry and fed up with those 11% who believe in something like Genesis, perhaps we should aim our fire directly at that group of benighted fools and accept that others might be more approachable. What do you think? As I finish this I have a vision in my head of having to duck, where do you think that comes from?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
`
Atheism is just as much of a “religion” as religion is.
Hubert: “What is a “fact” of evolution? I have yet for anyone to give me even one example that makes evolution a “fact”. The only FACT we have about evolutionism is it lacks proof.”
***
Not so fast there my salad-y fingered friend.
One fact is all I have patience for but here it is and it’s going on daily in your walls, garden, basement and where ever those pesky little pests reside. Also inside of you, specifically regarding the antibiotic resistance of Dredd’s various little microbes, bless their little microbial souls. (I say that with all due respect Dredd; I’m a big fan of our microbes.)
“…We have simply caused pest populations to evolve, unintentionally applying artificial selection in the form of pesticides. Individuals with a higher tolerance for our poisons survive and breed, and soon resistant individuals outnumber the ones we can control.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/10/1/l_101_02.html
Hubert Cumberdale sez: “Furthermore, it is impossible for anyone to live without faith in one form or another.”
*********************************************
Hubert, that is a slippery logical slope. People have “faith” in all kinds of things. When I got up and turned on the shower this morning, I had faith the water would come on and it would get hot. Flipped the light switch and behold, there was light!
I have almost total faith in the fact that way too many people are too stupid and/or greedy for their own good…..or mine.
As for the existence of a Prime Being, the jury is still out on that one, since you have to be dead to find out. I am not quite ready to make that leap of faith just yet. I certainly am not on the same page as the Puritan preachers who thought life was something to be endured while waiting to go to Heaven.
I have faith, but maybe we are talking about different things.
Dredd, I want to tell you about the Day Felix Caught A Bird. Felix is a black cat in the care of a neighbor who recently caught himself a sparrow. I was alerted to this fact by the screech of birds, but not from the unlucky sparrow, which was still alive, and being held by Felix on my front lawn.
As I watched, Alfred Hitchcock descended. More and more birds came, each hollering a most intense dislike for this murderous cat. Birds of many, many species, large and small. They were in the trees and on rooftops.. They were flopping around on the sidewalk and lawn. The power lines were crowded musical scores, each bird a note in this growing Wagnerian epic. Hundreds and hundreds of birds.
Some wheeled at Felix, coming in circles. A few hit my windows as they passed. Whatever was happening, it was affecting all the birds that could hear, smell, and taste. Neighbors began coming out of the house to see what all the racket was.
It ended when Felix finally killed the sparrow. The birds all fled immediately.
The amount of chemical-to-electric and back again translation which had to have occurred synchronized across many bird species at once is just mind-boggling. Distress, it turns out, is distress. One suspects higher-order messaging going on between the cells which predate the birds by many tens if not hundreds of millions of years: bacteria.
As you say, ignoring them is like trying to ignore the sky. Add this: science also fails when it does not consider the observer as part of the package.
I stand admiring quietly and mute. The wise speak.
Hubert Cumberdale:
There is no such thing as “evolutionism.’ That is a back-door way to put evolution on an equal footing with creationism, which is not possible. Evolution is not complicated, is not only provable but has been proved, and is ongoing. As I write this, scientists in labs all over the world are studying organisms with short life cycles such a fruit flies. By introducing a constant stressor in the study sample group, they watch to see how the creature evolves to deal with the stressor. For example, if they are placed in complete darkness for a number of generations, they lose the ability of sight and become blind, but senses of hearing, smell and touch improve dramatically. We see the same thing when infectious bacteria evolve to adapt to antibiotics, becoming resistant or immune to the antibiotic.
So in summary, there is no such thing as “evolutionism.” There is simply evolution. Your proposition is not only grammatically incorrect, but factually and scientifically incorrect.
“To my beloved reggies here, including our host, I humbly request less h’rumphing over brandy and more activism. There are power people here. Now is your time.”……….James in LA.
Hear, hear!
Anyone believing in “intelligent design” must be the failed prototype for “intelligent design.”
Nuf sed.
Dredd,
I hope you get the fact that when I referred to it as “your microbe theory” I was kidding and also viewing the ongoing debate between you and Gene with both amusement and affection. Had I been factually descriptive of the debate I would have wound up way off track and it would have been a different blog. I recognized that this would be a difficult subject and so tried to handle it as lightly as possible. Please again note my last sentence:
“As I finish this I have a vision in my head of having to duck, where do you think that comes from?”
Also to everyone, so I then can get out of the way, when I wrote:
“While I understand that most of us are angry and fed up with those 11% who believe in something like Genesis, perhaps we should aim our fire directly at that group of benighted fools and accept that others might be more approachable”
I worried over the use of the term “benighted fools” as being too harsh. I used it, however, because I do think that to believe literally in Genesis is to accept an obvious and internally inconsistent metaphor as the true history of the Creation of the World and that to me is foolish.
“you made the following comment: “Intelligent design or creationism has no place in our public school system.”
· It has been there since the beginning of America. It wasn’t until the late 19th century that America decided not to teach Creationism in the classroom (although it seems like there are some states bringing it back…i.e. Missouri). My question to the federal and state governments: Why can’t we give the students and their parents a choice: Do you want to learn about Creationism, Evolution, or both in K-12?”
RWL,
I don’t deny that it was there at the beginning of the Republic, so was slavery but we somewhat evolved. You may recall that the Pilgrims who founded a section of this country left Europe because they weren’t free to express their religious beliefs there. Then when they came to these shores, they were in turn religiously intolerant. Must I go into the history of organized religions everywhere in history to show that there have always been certain elements within them who seek to use good teachings for power. The naked truth is that Darwin was the excuse that intelligent people of the enlightenment needed to throw off the intellectual chains caused in Christian Nations by the literal interpretation of Genesis. Our ancient ancestors dealt in metaphor. Genesis was understood in its time to be metaphor, not history.
In truth if you view Genesis as metaphor, that is when the insights can be detected. For instance the story of Abraham and the almost sacrifice of Isaac, was a metaphor against human sacrifice, a practice which was then common in the ancient world. The problem with metaphors being viewed as history is that those “unholy” people who seek power through religion can bamboozle the the less well-read masses into believing those elements which
tend to bolster their power. As I pointed out this is true today of the Preachers who concentrate mostly on Revelations and the more horrific elements of the Torah (Christian’s Old Testament) in order to use fear to control their congregations.
“You also made the comment: “Those who would force it on our schools would be destroying the Constitutional Separation of Church and State.”
· This wall of separation between Church and State, i.e. Thomas Jefferson, is so fictional. Don’t you know that your tax dollars are going towards ‘faith based initiatives or programs’?”
Yes that is true but that is because a minority of “Religious” people have used it to override the beliefs of the “Founding Fathers” most of whom as members of the “Enlightenment” were more sophisticated in their religious beliefs. They well knew the problems of having religion intertwined with the State, but in a Country as divided as ours was both before and after the Revolution, they had to look away about certain things lest it was all brought down by demagogues.
This is true today as well. The fact that many religious institutions serve as gatherers of wealth, rather than true spiritual teachers provide examples of the problem. It’s not so much that our “political class” is religious, as that it must pay lip service and obeisence to religion to get elected.
“Whether you like it or not, you-along with every other non-Christian-are following Biblical principles in the form of US laws and customs”
I’m sorry you put it into “non-Christian” terms because as you know I’m Jewish. However, I would turn it around by reminding you that what you call “Biblical Principles” are predominantly Jewish principles from the Torah, which Christianity has appropriated, but used selectively. 🙂
“We do have more than a few ‘religious’ people who drop by and comment. Given the tradition of contentious, yet ‘civil’ discussion here, how can that be?”
· Whenever you (or anyone) attack someone’s culture, political beliefs, religious views, stereotypes, etc, then, of course, you will receive either the silent treatment or someone condemning you to the opposite side of heaven. On the other hand, many believe that they don’t need to defend their beliefs or culture to people who are not trying to understand why they believe the way they do.”
Well in a sense that’s why I wrote this piece, even though I was aware that it would “stick in the craws” of people on both sides of this issue. I am not happy by what I see as sniping on both sides of the religious divide, I come from a large, very religious family. I have close friends that are quite devout in their beliefs. I respect their beliefs and I certainly don’t make fun of their beliefs. I’ve stayed as a guest in homes that were religous to the Nth degree and while under my hosts roof, I’ve followed their practices. I can understand and respect people who are truly pious from all faiths. I’ve known deeply religious people of all faiths who were in my opinion “saintly”
human beings. Yet as I view some of those people most religiously prominent in American life today, I honestly don’t see piety, I see greedy con-men. This is true of not only Christians, but Jews, Muslims and all other faiths. Their “Sin” as I see it is that they prey upon peoples innermosts fears and doubts to control them. Jerry Falwell telling people that Jesus would vote Republican is an example.
The problem is that these sociopaths disguised as “holy men” do not represent more than 11% of the religiously affiliated people in this Country, yet they impose their will upon the rest of us through the deception of a literal interpretation of “The Bible”. We see the same theme played out in Muslim countries. As a Jew I see this also played out between the various sects of my own community. I see certain “Ulta-Orthodox” Jews intimidating
religious Jews. When I was young and living in a “Kosher” home, there was one definition of the laws of “Kashruth”. Food producers and markets required certification of adhering to those laws and had to pay for it. Competition arose under the “certifiers” (“Mashgiachs”) and suddenly in my 20’s I saw what to me was a new term “Glatt” (meaning truly) Kosher.
I see this “fast buck” religion played out in all faiths and I decry it. However,
I also dislike the way non-believers” patronize many fervent believers. I don’t believe it is helpful. When I used to read Christopher Hitchens, for instance I would seethe. Not because he was an atheist, but because in truth he use the same tactic used by the Religious con-men” He picked and chose selectively from the Bible to make a worst case scenario, without ever admitting to some of the wisdom contained there. I think that those like myself who believe strongly in the separation of Church and State, must be cognizant of the fact that not all religious people are “stupid, superstitious, morons” and that many are good people. When we stereotype we weaken our case.
“My question is as follows: Is this an anti-religious, anti-Christian, Hindu, Islamic, etc blog or a legal blog? Is this a religion bashing blog? There are so many health issues (linking of pancreatic cancer to sodas), business and technological issues (why hasn’t the SEC looked into the Apple stock that went from $375 a share, to a little over $700 a share, then dropped to $460 a share in less than a year, and not one investor screaming), government issues (FDA is allowing companies like Monsanto to put genetically modified organism-gmo-in our food with out telling us what has been done to these gmos) that are more important than the way you worded your opinions on this issue.”
In my opinion the success of this legal/civil liberties/free speech blog is due to the wide range of topics discussed here, in a mostly civil manner. Professor Turley, when he invited us to “Guest Blog” knew us from our communting here for a long time and I think felt that we could present our divergent ideas in a cogent manner. He has never told us what to write, nor does he ask first approval of what we write. Paraphrasing the old broadcasting phrase: The opinions of the Guest Bloggers are their own and do not neccessarily reflect the opinions of this blog’s proprietor.
I’m sorry that I went on in such detail with this answer to you RWL, but your well-written detailed comment deserved no less.
Trebuchet,
You are a treasure.
Scrolling by after Dredd:
“Why should I wash my hands. I’ve been dissecting corpses and delivering babies for years.”
And then there are the supposedly unfriendly ones. Why supposedly? Because the chief of ???? here does not get flu shots. She prefers to get the stimulus to her immune system that flu gives.
As for artificial defenses against flu, the latest is that flu viri are evolving and soon the current vaccine development method won’t be efficacious anymore.
A “radícal” new technique will be ready in maybe five years.
Five years, and viri have been with us how long? Idiocy.
Simple, live and let live. Welcome the virii. (Viri=plural of virus?)
Me? I get the shot. A firm believer in crackpot medical science.
How about you, Dredd?
Hubert Cumberdale:
Whether there is definitive “proof” of evolution, or not, does not determine the truth of evolution. If one considers evolution to be based on faith, that faith is justified based on evidence. That evidence is in the form of fossils, taxonomy, and DNA. All indicate that common descent is true. Not a single piece of evidence has falsified evolution.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism North Texas School district Prosper promotes the “rapture”. There was a poll done by the University of Texas a few years ago that showed a majority of Texans don’t believe in evolution.
I find Mike’s observation that no one has stepped up to defend intelligent design most fascinating despite many slow hanging pitches right over the plate.
My only objection to magic-thinking, a long-cherished freedom, is when its users drag it into our shared public square and demand to be taken seriously Or Else. This is how politics works today. Most elected pols still hail from the halcyon days of church bulletins printed by mimeograph. There exists next to no relevance between govt and the governed.
The next iteration of social media will include direct participation in politics. Expect to see live updating caveman graphics which tell you in an instant what year your average pol thinks it is. This is going to cause screech and holler that makes tea people seem like potted plants as they are rooted out of government.
Because people my age and younger are not going to put up with it, and they are developing the tools to see that it stops. They got Pinochet ‘ere the end, and Milosevic died in prison. The story of the lawbreakers that brought about our politics by rabid dog has yet to be finished.
To my beloved reggies here, including our host, I humbly request less h’rumphing over brandy and more activism. There are power people here. Now is your time.
BarkinDog “As an Athiest [sic] it is difficult to embrace the Faith based theology that says that we earthlings are only six thousand years on the planet. On the other hand,”
Realize that evolutionism is faith based. Being that there isn’t anything that definitively proves evolutionism happened in the past, one is forced – atheist or not, to accept evolutionism based on faith.
Furthermore, it is impossible for anyone to live without faith in one form or another.
Oldest son went to pre-med at a small college, but it has very high academic standards. The pre-med program has a widespread reputation as being a “doctor factory.” 100% of the students who manage to survive pre-med are accepted into a medical school somewhere.
On his first day of class as a freshman, he attended a biology class. The professor began his first lecture by announcing they would be teaching evolution as science. As in factual. He added, “Theory is a construct in science, and does not mean what most people think it means.”
He added that creationism would NOT be taught, and would not be tolerated in class discussion, because it was religion and not science. Prof added that if the students wanted to discuss creationism, then by all means attend the church of their choice.
BTW, that college is owned and operated by the Methodist Church. My son said several students got up and walked out; heading for the Dean’s office to change their majors.
P Smith… “Claiming there is a “controversy” about the fact of evolution is like claiming there is a “controversy” about whether the KKK murdered blacks or a “controversy” about whether the holocaust happened. There is no “controversy”, only the educated and the ignorant, only the facts and historical revisionism.”
Apples vs. ferrets comparison. Yes there is indeed a controversy. Evolutionism is not as cut and dry as you think. There are considerable problems to the theory of evolution, contradicting information, so many twists and turns to the theory that it’s basically a huge knot. In fact, there are more unanswered questions regarding evolution than information. What is a “fact” of evolution? I have yet for anyone to give me even one example that makes evolution a “fact”. The only FACT we have about evolutionism is it lacks proof.
Also it comes across as very elitist when you say everybody else is stupid because they don’t believe in evolutionism. To the contrary. I believe someone is extremely stupid for believing that a pineapple and a porcupine share a common ancestor. Such “science” should have been dismissed and laughed out of the country a long time ago. The fact that such a stupid theory as evolutionism has lasted so long without anything substantive as proof is a huge problem for science and has in effect, shipwrecked the cause of science since so much time and effort has gone into entertaining such a hokey theory.
I would direct the question to you that I asked earlier – if evolutionism is so well established and as you put it, a “fact”, then why would you be so terrified if students were allowed to examine the contradictions of evolutionism or heaven forbid – see the evidence for Creation and alternative theories?
If something can’t take scrutiny, and must be sheltered from it, you have to realize how weak evolutionism appears to those with exposure to ALL of the information.
“to either displace evolution from Public School Curriculum, or to at least give “intelligent design” equal footing to evolution.”
The theory of evolution has a sheltered life in the school system. It is quite evident that any evidence, other theories, or anything contrary to evolutionism is not allowed. Students therefore must be forced to learn this theory and either ignore or pretend alternative theories and contradicting evidence does not exist.
I can see the point where someone would say that if other theories can’t be taught, then evolutionism needs to be removed.
“My own opinion is that “intelligent design”, or “Creationism” as some call it, has no place in our public school system. Those who would force it on our schools…”
Seems like we have a double standard here. One belief system is allowed while others are not. Since to date there still hasn’t been anything substantive or definitive that proves evolutionism to be true, if qualifies as a belief with equal status as a belief that life was deposited on earth by aliens. Why would you require the evolutionism belief to be sheltered from scrutiny by other theories?
“…would be destroying the Constitutional separation of Church and State.”
Technically, evolutionism shouldn’t be forced on the students because of “separation of church and state”.
It appears you have the meaning for “separation of church and state” inverted as do many others. The original intent of the letter that first contains the phrase “separation of church and state” was to ensure that a wall of separation protects the church from government intervention.
So evolutionism being taught solely as if there are no other theories or contradictions to the theory is a violation of separation of church and state. If the state wants the students to be exposed to all of the data regarding evolutionism then the state has a right to allow students access to the contradictions of evolutionism as well as other theories.
“…’Evolution’ as a philosophy, almost all who commented were not only outraged, but some disparaged Missouri as a backward state. A few of the comments belittled religion in general.”
All those who object to evolution being taught as a philosophy should pay careful attention to the wording of textbooks in its discussion of evolutionism. Almost every phrase is “Scientists BELIEVE in …” or “it is BELIEVED to be true that …”. That doesn’t sound like science. That sounds like philosophy. Science textbooks should contain solid statements such as “it is known that…” or “the evidence proves …”. You do not ever encounter statements such as those regarding evolutionism. Stop a staunch evolutionist on the street and if you ask them what evidence can you offer for evolutionism, you’ll get one of those belief statements as their “proof”. Well, I have a belief too, we were created. We didn’t evolve. The proof is intelligent design.
What is embarrassing and peculiar, is that those who are so entrenched behind the adult fairytale known as evolutionism believe that everyone else is backwards because they don’t believe in such nonsense. Missouri should be applauded for allowing a breath of fresh air and the observation of other theories and evidence that happens to contradict the evolutionary theory.
Think about it this way, if students are exposed to ALL of the data, then they can make an educated choice as to what is true and what is false. What are those who peddle evolutionism afraid of that it must have a monopoly and be sheltered from scrutiny? The more that evolutionism is protected and sheltered from questioning, the more it appears weak and someone with common sense should see huge red flags, or at least some baloney detectors should go off.
Very interesting! Also, “Revelation,” not “Revelations.” Priggier-than-thou Bible readers (like me) get on you about that sort of thing.