Post by u***@bondegezou.demon.co.ukPost by A.M. RushPost by Quintillionth QuaffYou could always ask to be excused from science class when the 90 second ID
statement is read if your so afraid to here an alternate veiwpoint.
Except there's that pesky separation-of-church-and-state thingy.
You want your kids to learn about creationism, put 'em in a private
religious school or take 'em to church. Sheesh.
The UK doesn't have a constitutional separation of church and state. In
fact, we have an established church, a constituitional association of
church and state! However, schools here don't teach Creationism or ID.
You know why not? Because they're errant nonsense that have nothing to
do with science and are rejected by the vast majority of Christians
over here too.
You don't need constitutional reasons to reject Creationism: the basic
principle that we should teach our kids what's true should be more than
enough reason! If you want your kids to learn about Creationism, you're
a fool.
--
Henry
Dont' argue with me when you haven't got a clue as to what the issue is.
'Intelligent design' plaintiffs are over-reacting
In pondering the federal trial involving 11 parents, the ACLU, and Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State vs. the Dover Area School
Board, I have to wonder where the plaintiffs were when I was studying
introductory biology at my state-sponsored community college just over a
decade ago. Chapter I of our general biology textbook introduced us to the
concept of ''intelligent design'' and a few other possible theories even as
we embarked on the study of Darwin's theory of evolution.
There were no protests, no lawsuits, and no federal trials, though ours was
a community college supported by state and federal tax dollars and funds
from sponsoring Lehigh Valley school districts. To tell the truth, among all
the controversy and hype over the developing battle between evolutionists
and the encroaching intelligent design miscreants, the course itself was a
bit anticlimactic. Studying Darwin's theory of evolution back then, preceded
by the advice of the text's authors and our professor on the theory of
intelligent design, was uncontroversial, which makes Dover's present
controversy seem like ''much ado about nothing.''
Personally, I'm firmly in the intelligent design camp, and was so before
attending that freshman biology class. Thus, it fascinated me to confirm,
through scientific study, that there was no dilemma whatsoever balancing my
reasoned consideration of intelligent design and studying traditional
evolution theory. I could see quite plainly that there are Grand
Canyon-sized gaps in the theory of evolution that require leaps of faith to
accept its inferences.
Despite all the advances in scientific understanding and technology in a
century and a half since ''Origin of the Species,'' Darwin's theory remains
plausible, yet short of being proved. Rather than discourage my leanings
toward intelligent design, studying the theory of evolution and the
scientific complexities evident in the natural world did nothing but
crystallize the inferences I observed, supporting the prospect of
intelligent design evident in nature.
When some in the scientific community object to even mouthing the words
''intelligent design'' anywhere near a science classroom, I've got to shrug
my shoulders and ask, ''Where's the beef?'' According to press reports,
Eugenie Scott, executive director of the Center for Science Education, a
supporter of the Dover lawsuit, states the goal of the plaintiffs is to show
that the schools' decision to include an intelligent design statement in the
science curriculum is a violation of the U.S. Constitution. To me, that goal
is an unreachable stretch.
Dover's statement does several things in its effort to acknowledge the
prospect of intelligent design. First, it states that in reference to
Darwinian evolution, ''Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no
evidence.'' It also states, ''Intelligent design is an explanation of the
origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.'' Both of these elements
match my experiences in BIO 110 at my local community college. Then, Dover's
statement refers students to ''Of Pandas and People,'' a supplementary text
''available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding
of what intelligent design actually involves.''
I have not never read ''Of Pandas and People,'' so I have no basis to
comment on either its scientific validity or proselytizing potential.
However, it seems that if Dover's intelligent design statement violates the
U.S. Constitution through inferences to the existence of an intelligent
designer, then official acknowledgments of our nation's Declaration of
Independence, preambled by references to the ''Laws of Nature and of
Nature's God'' and to people being ''endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights,'' should be a constitutional outrage by comparison.
In my view, the plaintiffs in the Dover case look a whole lot like the
prosecutors in the ''monkey'' trial of Tennessee v. Scopes back in 1925.
Dover's plaintiffs, like the Scopes prosecutors, represent a
traditionalistic community gripped with irrational fears in realizing the
unquestioned reign of their valued beliefs is threatened by an invasion of
questioning intellect. In both cases, traditionalistic educators, both then
and now, show an obsession with teaching their students what to think, while
spurning a duty to teach them how to think. In either case, it's a
disservice.
Donald Hoffman is a freelance columnist living in Fountain Hill. His e-mail
address is ***@enter.net