I've seen several postings about this, and I have to throw in my $0.02.
I personally think "Intelligent Design" is just a more palatable way for Bush to push his evangelical agenda on the country. Sure, it works for all those "people of faith" - but what about those who aren't sure? What about those who are athiests? What about those impressionable children who have yet to develop their own views and are having their ability to think rationally attacked in the very institutions where their critical thinking skills are supposed to be developed?
The Constitution was worded the way it was worded (sans mention of God or particular religion) not only to protect religion from government interference, but also to protect government from religious interference. We all know what lovely results we get when religion and politics meet. The Constitution was also created to protect the minority populations from having the majority beliefs shoved down their throats.
I have a new curriculum requirement for the Nation's schools: A mandatory viewing and intelligent discussion of Inherit the Wind. I know kids don't watch old movies, so maybe we can re-make this classic with Vin Diesel.
Why does everyone think that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive systems of belief?
Now, granted, if you take the Bible literally then I can see the problem. But then if you take the Bible literally you also believe that Jonah lived inside a giant whale. I love how "literal" believers take the parts they want, and discard the rest. The Bible "literally" says you shouldn't cut your hair or your beard (Lev 19:27) and to treat immigrants or "strangers to your land" as neighbors (Lev 19:34). We certainly know where some conservative evangelical Christians stand on the issue of immigration... Yes, yes, I know that's the Old Testament. There's plenty in the New Testament that is fodder for this analysis, but I am just too pissed off to go searching for them.
Then of course, there's the issue of translation. Which version do we take literally? They surely do differ.
Not to knock on faith, because I respect everyone's right to believe what they want. But I don't ask that MY faith and opinions be legislated and forced on everyone and I only ask the same respect in return.
Those who take a less literal interpretation have less problems with evolution. 6 days could be metaphor. God could have put into motion the process. Endless possibilities emerge for those who take the Bible as a guideline and a story and take home the messages and lessons rather than the rhetoric.
I'm fucking sick and tired of all this bickering about evolution & creationism in school.
And STOP calling creationism a theory. A theory is a scientific term used for an idea that can be empirically tested and that is always at risk for being proven false. Scientists don't draw a conclusion (God created earth) and then collect all the facts that support their view and ignore the rest of the evidence. That's what Bush does when he's planning a war.
A theory is always open to re-interpretation and re-evaluation. Creationism does not fit that description. And it does not belong in a publicly funded school.
03 August 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
They should teach this too...
http://www.venganza.org/
I was touched by the holy noodly appendage.
Oh that made me laugh. I needed that.
Let's not forget that Scientologists believe the human race was started by aliens that look like John Travolta in nasty dreds...
This is going to be long and
probably cocky, so I apologize in advance.
"I personally think `Intelligent Design'is just a more palatable way for Bush to push his evangelical agenda on the country. Sure, it works for all those "people of faith" - but what about those who aren't sure? What about those who are athiests? What about those impressionable children who have yet to develop their own views and are having their ability to think rationally attacked in the very institutions where their critical thinking skills are supposed to be developed?"
Can't they handle it?
For years Christian kids have had to handle being taught solely the theory of evolution -
a theory they do not accept. For years, undecided kids have been taught that theories
that have not been proven true are fact. Impressionable children are "attacked"
in the institutions you mention every single day. If those of us who are Christians
can handle being introduced to the theory of evolution in schools, why are those
who don't so threatened by the mere suggestion of another theory? Children's minds
are not so weak. They can handle being presented with more than one theory and
they ought to be given the chance.
"The Constitution was worded the way it was worded (sans mention of God or particular religion) not only to protect religion from government interference, but also to protect government from religious interference. We all know what lovely results we get when religion and politics meet. The Constitution was also created to protect the minority populations from having the majority beliefs shoved down their throats."
Here is the wording of congress:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This does not limit the states, individuals or schools. It prohibits congress
from establishing a national religion as England had done. It does not prohibit presidents
from having religious views or from voicing them. Nor was it intended to. Some of the
very men who helped create the constitution took office and made speeches so full of
religion that they make Bush look like an atheist. In fact, every single president to take
office has mixed religion into his speech. Even Democrat heroes Kennedy and Clinton.
Do you condemn them all?
"Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people."
-Washington
"Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
-Kennedy
"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."
-Jefferson
Why does everyone think that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive systems of belief?
Not everyone does. In fact, I would say that most people don't. The problem for Christians
isn't accepting evolution. Things change over time. That much is certain. What we object to
is speciation being taught as fact and christianity being denounced as a fallacy, rather than
both being presented as theories. Those who believe in "science" have a habit of thinking
that they cannot be wrong because their theories have "scientific" backing. Rarely do they
admit that evolutionary models have had to be changed countless times because of bad
guesses or errors. Nor will those who love "science" admit that the scientific community
is largely responsible for holding back the theories of some of the greatest scientific
minds in history. Isaac Newton, for instance (a devout Christian).
To sum things up, I have no wish to silence you or to force religion down your throat.
But for years I have had your theories forced down mine and those who believe
what I do have been silenced. So for those on your side to now pretend that they
are vicitims is a little ludicrous.
My position is to teach both as fairly as possible and to let kids think about the questions
on their own, rather than forcing them to agree with one theory or another. That is fair
and, I think, more helpful than harmful.
The word theory has several definitions other than the one you choose to use.
1.Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
2.A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment:
3. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
To insist that everyone use the "scientific" definition is rather snobby. What if I insisted that
you use the "religious" definition?
When I say theory, I mean the second definition.
"Scientists don't draw a conclusion (God created earth) and then collect all the facts that support their view and ignore the rest of the evidence." Yes, actually, they do. Consider the attitude of
the scientific community to Gallileo's findings. Consider also the current debate over embryonic
stem-cell research. We do not know that using the stem-cells from embryos will create a cure
for Alzheimers. In fact, we don't even know that Alzheimer's can be cured. But we go ahead with
the research anyway.
Or cloning. We don't know that it's possible to create clones that won't die. The experiments
we've done on animals have had pretty sad results most of the time, yet some want to go on
to clone humans anyway and they ignore the data that tells them that maybe cloning isn't
such a good idea yet.
Plenty of scientists draw conclusions and throw out facts that don't support their views.
Some even admit it.
Meanwhile, the president's war has very little to do with religion, so using what you
perceive to be his war strategy as evidence against religious people is a little
unfair. Use the arguments of a theologian, not just a man who happens to be
part of a religion.
Creationism is open to re-interpretation and re-evaluation and it constantly goes
through it. to deny that is to throw out a fact that doesn't support your view.
Furthermore, religion should not have to meet "scientific" requirements to be
kept in school any more than science should have to meet religious requirements
to be left in. The fact that Hitler came to power in Germany in August of 1944 is not
really open to re-interpretation or re-evaluation. Yet we do not allow scientists
to ban kids from learning about it in school just because it isn't a scientific theory.
History has its place. Science has its. Religion and ethics have their places
as well. So champion tolerance and let it in.
Out of curiousity, why are you so bothered by religion? Do you fight against
Santa Clause and every make-believe thing in such a manner?
Do you fight against those who want kids to be able to read the Communist
Mannifesto in schools as hard? Or is it just religion? And if so, why?
What harm do you think it will do for kids to hear about it?
I just wanted to say "noodly appendage" again. Bye!
well that was a mouthful:
Actually the first amendment does apply to the States, according to the 1925 Supreme Court ruling in Gitlow vs. New York, overthrowing New York’s ban on distribution of certain materials (in this case socialist literature) as unconstitutional.
And no, it does not prohibit elected officials from voicing their opinions. But it does prohibit them from dictating their opinions as legislation. Kennedy and Clinton did not consider Jesus their chief political advisor and hold prayer at cabinet meetings. That is, in a sense, legitimating a certain religion as “official” in my opinion. Americans would be up in arms if the President forced his cabinet to perform Buddhist chants before meetings - that would infringe on their rights as Christians - but since it's prayer, and conforms with the majority, nobody seems to give a shit except those of us who see our views pushed even further to the margins and delegitimized.
Faith can guide your actions, but basing policy like abstinence only education, in the face of empirical evidence that it doesn’t work is not good policy.
Again, I’m not dogging on all religion here. I’m criticizing those views that hold their own as “truth”. Washington & Jefferson were men of faith – but they never professed their belief in Jesus as their personal savior – therefore you cannot assume they were Christians. They were Deists and freethinkers. They did not profess to have the one TRUE faith and legislate based on it.
”Why does everyone think that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive systems of belief?”
My use of the word “everyone” was my bad – I don’t mean everyone, or even every Christian or every religions person. I mean, again, people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed to name a few.
Actually, I know people who have been threatened with the removal of their children from their home because of their religious beliefs. They are not “pretending they are victims”. That is what I see more of in the future if we blur the line between Church and state and make it acceptable for people to say “this is a Christian country [technically wrong] if you don’t like it leave”.
I am also fearful of the recent trend (a flashback to the 50s) of religiosity being equated with patriotism and morality. THere are just as many amoral religious people as there are moral nonreligious people.
You and I just disagree about what a theory means. I don’t consider any religious mythology as fact. Anything that requires that much of a substantial leap of faith, I don’t consider a “theory” no matter how many millions of people believe it. If someone believes, for example, that the flying spaghetti monster created the earth, should that be given equal consideration for teaching? No. Why? Because not enough people believe it? Why do we teach the creation myths of the Greeks in literature classes and not in Biology class? Because they’re myths – same as Genesis.
And yes, religion has it’s place in schools – in history classes, social studies, and maybe even literature, but not in biology.
I’m not bothered by religion, I bothered by religious zealots. I’m bothered by the intolerance bred by certain types of religion. I’m bothered by people who use their positions of authority given to them by ALL their constituents, not just the Christian or religious consitituents, to then promote their own narrow social agenda. Gay rights, abortion, stem cells. If people were just rational about these issues, rather than pushing their view of “right” and “wrong” on everyone, we’d be in a much more civil society.
“Do you fight against those who want kids to be able to read the Communist Mannifesto in schools as hard?” Actually I would fight for them, in history or social studies class. But in Biology class, not so much.
Peace.
laura, you are so much more patient than me.... i was just gonna say "geez, what a giant slab of barn carpeting", and leave it at that. "You're a better person than I, Gunga Din"
p.s. having repeated it to myself a couple of times, I really like saying "noodly appendage" too!
all i have to say is that there is no science in intelligent design, so it does not belong in science classes. it would be like teaching us history in math class.
Noodly appendange. It is rather funny.
Laura, cillic, GWB, I agree with you all wholeheartedly. The point where creationists and believers in intelligent design get off course is in equating a scientific theory with a theory about something non-scientific. Here's a post I had on another blog that I believe is relevant here:
"Part of the confusion comes from "theory" having different definitions when used in a general context and when used in a scientific context. Here's the defintion from biology-online.org. Hope it helps to clear it up a little:
"In science, an explanation for some phenomenon which is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning. In popular use, a theory is often assumed to imply mere speculation, but in science, something is not called a theory until it has been confirmed over the course of many independent experiments. Theories are more certain than hypotheses, but less certain than laws." "
The second problem arises in that by giving two separate ideas/opinions equal time, many people believe that you are, to coin a phrase, "fair and balanced". That is not the case. Instead, you are being unjust because you are giving too much credit to one and shortchanging the other. The media is expert at that. They'll give a Democrat "scandal" and a Republican scandal equal footing so that they'll appear impartial. But the magnitude of the offenses will be entirely different.
"Creationism does not fit that description. And it does not belong in a publicly funded school."
Note that you did not say that it should simply be moved to another category. You wanted it removed completely and then you call religious people "zealots" and you call them intolerant.
Creationism is a myth. That does not make it false. Nor does it make your theory true. Until your theory is proved, I would caution you from throwing out all others in favor of it.
You spoke of the intent of the establishment clause. To figure out what the founding fathers intended, one must look at what the founding fathers said. The Supreme Court has often had trouble doing what it was created to do and often makes bad rulings.
Dred Scott, for instance.
"Faith can guide your actions, but basing policy like abstinence only education, in the face of empirical evidence that it doesn’t work is not good policy."
I see. And what of the empirical evidence that candy and condoms distribution haven't worked either? Do you object to that method of control?
And what of the fact that when liberal sex-ed was taught to younger and younger children, younger children started commiting sexual assault on one another?
And if you feel free to tell others what is true and what is not, how can you object to the same thing in others?
Lack of religion does not make a person automatically tolerant. If you tolerate what you agree with and nothing more, you do no more than anyone else.
Note that you did not say that it should simply be moved to another category. You wanted it removed completely and then you call religious people "zealots" and you call them intolerant.
What is it with people like yourself always assuming I am referring to YOU personally when I say things like zealots. Did I not say - "’m not bothered by religion, I bothered by religious zealots. I’m bothered by the intolerance bred by certain types of religion. I’m bothered by people who use their positions of authority.." and "I don’t mean everyone, or even every Christian or every religions person. I mean, again, people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed to name a few." Does this describe you? If so - then I mean you. If not - then stop picking what I say out of context.
Later I said religion does have a place in schools - but not in science. Or did you not get to that part before you started your little diatribe?
Creationism is a myth. That does not make it false.
Actually: Myth:
1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
Nothing about biology or science here.
A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
Cultural ideals - so social studies, etc. Ok.
A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
Hm... Nope, sorry. Nothing about myths not necessarily being false, at least in the way I'm talking through observable evidence. You can't prove to someone that god exists anymore than someone can prove to you it does not - therefore it can't be the realm of science.
To figure out what the founding fathers intended, one must look at what the founding fathers said.
Actually, being bright people, the founding fathers constructed the constitution to be open to interpretation. That's why they created the independent court - who's job it is to interpret the constitution.
And I love how you pick Dred Scott, as opposed to Thomas Jefferson or Franklin or Paine or any of the other founders with Enlightenment principles. They may have been men of faith, some not, but they all wanted to protect government from religious intrusion and vice versa. Period. You can't say you don't believe that. If you do, you need to take American History again.
I see. And what of the empirical evidence that candy and condoms distribution haven't worked either? Do you object to that method of control?
Show me a valid study that proper sex education doesn't work. Show me that teaching a kid about how their own body works is a bad thing?
And what of the fact that when liberal sex-ed was taught to younger and younger children, younger children started commiting sexual assault on one another?
Citation please? Show me where it says this? Other than the Weekly Standard.
And if you feel free to tell others what is true and what is not, how can you object to the same thing in others?
I'm not telling people what is true and what is not. In fact, I don't believe in "truth" it's an unattainable myth. What I'm against is the legitimation of one form of worship over all others, leaving those of us who are different out in the fringes. You have your churches to teach kids about your "theories" why must you have our schools too?
This majority victim crap really makes me laugh. Those who are the dominant group can rarely imagine themselves as anything else - and whenever anyone wants to even things out, they take it as an offense. Same with the backlash against Affirmative Action.
Lack of religion does not make a person automatically tolerant. If you tolerate what you agree with and nothing more, you do no more than anyone else.
I tolerate people with different beliefs - if I didn't, your comments would have been deleted and I would go live in a bubble. And I agree with you about religion and tolerance. As I said previously. I'm tolerating your beliefs - I'm forced to every day. If I go to court, I have to tolerate putting my hand on your Bible. But being forced isn't the point. I'm open to discussions with people - in the proper forum. Indoctrinating children in science classes about the boogeyman does not fit that description.
And I see you didn't attempt to comment on religious intolerance of friends having their children taken away? That too much for you? Or maybe it didn't make a good sound bite? What do you think of that? I'm curious to know. What do you think of a court, dominated by Christian ideals threatening to take away someone's child because they are pagan? What do you think about a teenage girl being thrown in a mental institution because her Christian parents don't like that she believes in a goddess instead of a god?
THAT IS THE TYPE OF INTOLERANCE I AM AFRAID OF. AND IT IS HAPPENING. IT'S NOT IN THE MAINSTREAM, BUT IT IS RELATED TO THAT "SLIPPERY SLOPE" OF LEGITIMATING ONE IDEOLOGY OVER ALL OTHERS. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDERS OF AMERICA DIDN'T WANT.
Personally - when I think "Intelligent Design", Apple Computers and smart refrigerators come to mind.
Maybe Steve Jobs (who is really the only one who could fill the role of God in MY religion) touched Bush with his noodly appendage. I am sure that Karl Rove has more than touched the prez with his noodly appendage.
Evolution/Puncutated Equilibrium = Scientific Theory based on observed and measurable physical evidence. A similar theory is the theory of relativity--based on observations of the physical world.
Intelligent Design = unscientific theory based on reading a book (in this case, the bible). A similar theory would be to say that Voldemort is willing to kill all muggles--based on a series of books.
From the Center for American Progress this morning - how appropriate:
As President Bush's science advisor, John H. Marburger III, acknowledges, "intelligent design is not a scientific concept." Although its proponents often point to supposed empirically based "gaps" in the science of evolution, intelligent design theory also necessarily involves positing extra-natural (if not religious) occurrences. "Outside the precincts of the religious right, though, the scientific consensus about evolution is very close to unanimous."
oh, and
Evolution is, to again quote Bush science advisor John Marburger, "the cornerstone of modern biology."
A couple of my buds are fighting here, but I'll weigh in...
Creationism, as far as I know, has no basis in scientific study. From what I can tell it's believed to be a literal interpretation of scripture. If you're of the belief that this interpretation is immutable, you'll accept nothing else and always deride "theory" as something unproven. Which could be applied to gravity and other physical concepts, I guess. So why even bother arguing?
"I'm fucking sick and tired of all this bickering about evolution & creationism in school."
Here's the thing Laura, and I hope this comes across exactly how I want it to.
Evolution, when I was in school, was taught as fact. Now, if there are kids out there who's parents tell them that evolution is not fact, then we have a conflict of interest even if religion is never brought into it.
It's the same thing as teachers having a political affiliation. If Mr. Smith is Republican and presents his Governement class with a Republican spin on the "facts", what does that say about the kids who are raised in democratic homes? Should those kids be taught "facts" or should they be allowed to debate and or question those "facts".
I agree that the talk of religion and politics should be left out of the classroom. There is enough nuetral material out there for kids to chew on without bringing personal agendas to school.
However, if MY kids are told to read a book that preaches and atheistic approach to the world, then by God, they have a right to voice an opposing opinion. I'm not raising doormats here. An example would be this book series that is being introduced into the suggested reading material for junior high. It's a fiction trilogy where the protagonist eventually is fighting a battle against the enemy--God.
If my kids are told to read this trilogy, they will. People should understand that there will be a huge difference of opinion, though. What say you?
Jason: I wouldn't call it a "fight" I like discusions like this, and I don't take personally comments made in debates such as these.
Sadie: I totally agree that differences of opinion should be discussed. All I'm saying is that the appropriate forum for ID or creationism or whatever you want to call it, is not in science class. I'm all for discussions of religious ideals in history, social sciences, philosophy, etc, they're very important. Just not biology, and not as 'scientific'.
Agreed.
Just don't get me started on The Grand Canyon.
*wink*
If the Judeo-Chirstian myth of creation can be referred to as "intellegent design", then may I have the myth of the African god Atum mentioned too? I think Atum's way of creating the world sounds very intellegent to me. ;)
I personally liked the giant sea turtle model of the universe until I heard about noodly appendages... Now I'm questioning my earlier faith.
Here are some of my thoughts on religion in public schools:
Prayer should be allowed in schools. It's a personal thing and if kids want to get together and pray, fine, whatever...just keep it out of the classes.
Prayer should not be required in schools. Period. I had a coach who insisted on saying a quick prayer before games...I should have slapped him, instead I did what he told me.
Religious beliefs such as the biblical story of creation have no place in science class. If you have religious beliefs that don't agree with what is currently accepted by the scientific community, then teach those beliefs to your kids at home. I would be more concerned that teachers are forced to use out of date books (because we're too cheap to improve our schools) and watered down lesson plans (because teachers are asked to teach to the lowest common denominator in class.)
Sex education is not a religious issue...and certainly not a Christian issue. Kids bump and grind because of raging hormones, not because they heard how a baby is made. They've were doing before Christ and they'll likely keep doing it. Schools should be allowed to teach how the apparatus works. It's not the schools' responsibility to tell kids not too use the equipment they have, that's the parents' job.
And religion in government:
I used to get a bit tired of hearing that this country was based on religious freedom. Now that I seem to constantly hear that it was based on our common Christian beliefs, I long for the days when I heard the religious freedom line.
This country, like most countries, was based on economics. Religion may have factored in, but it was not the driving force despite the tripe about the Pilgrims, the Mayflower and Plymouth Rock.
The majority of the people who came to the Colonies did so for economic reasons. Most came because they were willing to gamble that they could do better carving out some property and a life here than they could back at home.
Only the colonies from the Boston area and up had the hard core protestant religious overtones.
That's got to be about enough of my opinions for now I guess... While the debate rages, I'm going follow my songline and just hope the world doesn't fall apart.
Post a Comment