Net Roots Movement

Lets Make Change.

Creationism vs. Evolution, Round 2

The church is tormenting science. As usual.

Recently, lawsuits have flared up against the board of education in various states, including Kansas, Georgia, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. They all focus around the “controversy” of Darwin’s theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. The argument is that it’s not definite fact (and doesn’t make sense) and that, therefore, it shouldn’t be the sole theory students learn about; that students should be introduced to the theory of Creationism, or “intelligent design”. But if they think evolution doesn’t make sense, how on earth do they think Creationism does?!

Creationism is the idea that during six (or seven, according to whose interpretation you go by) 24-hour periods, God created all that exists, with man being made on the sixth day. It also says that the world is only 10,000 years old, but molecular analysis of rocks and fossils shows that the world is more likely to be millions, if not billions, of years old. Churches that preach Creationism, realizing that evolution would completely smash their “theory”, are fighting to have their ideas put alongside evolution in classrooms of public schools.

The fact that people in the past believed in Creationism and disapproved of Evolution is understandable. But in current times, when there is so much more evidence supporting the theory, how is it that people could possibly still think that we just popped outta no where? In addition to evidence from the fossil record, scientists have found plenty of molecular evidence to support evolutionary theory. Not to mention, it just makes sense!

The goals of the lawsuits are to pass state-wide laws that force textbooks to emphasize the evidence against Darwin’s origin of life as well as information on “alternative theories”. It’s ridiculous, to be honest. Most of the people advocating this new curriculum haven’t even learned about evolution. They’ve been taught, by their churches, to shun it. Sure, no one can verify it’s correct, but it’s the most sensical theory we have!

They cannot be allowed to promote and support their beliefs through public education! That would be to go against all that the founding fathers intended–all that our government stands for! Something has to be done. Imagine if they are successful in their lawsuits! You might as well turn their schools–as well as those of their neighboring states–into religious schools.

Source: http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/10768962.htm?1c
Related:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CE4DC163BF935A15752C0A9639C8B63

Advertisements

February 4, 2005 - Posted by | The Progressive Movement

7 Comments »

  1. There are many different versions of the creationist story, even within the bible itself. Genesis [Chapter] 1 teaches that God created the Earth and its inhabitants in 7 days (clearly not 24 hour periods – the human design, as humans were not created until the sixth day [if you believe this form]). Genesis 2 shows God, more primitively, forming creations by hand with man at his side naming them as they are created.

    There is also a branch of creationism that accepts the theory of evolution as a creation of God, in order to form a species [humans] to his desired status through evolution.

    Lastly, those who do not believe in Creationism tend to accept the Big Bang theory – a process of “popp[ing] outta no where,” as you said it (although I am not trying to put associations of you with this, if these ideas do not line up with yours).

    The concept of a separation of church state, as you alluded to in your closing paragraph only exists, excluding Judicial Precedent, in the sense that the Government cannot create a theocracy – a rule by a church/religous-order; it does not restrict the teaching of religious ideology in public school in any respect. Judicial Precedent has changed this perception and acceptance to a much greater extent, to which you were alluding, but that has little-to-nothing to do with the involvement of the Founding Fathers as you claimed.

    Comment by Justin M. | February 4, 2005 | Reply

  2. I was aware that there were creationists who *do* believe in the theory of evolution, but that is not the issue at stake. They aren’t the ones trying to force their religion into public schools.

    The people I have a problem with are those who feel that God created man and man stayed the same, that there was no evolution, and that students should be taught this “alternative theory” in school. Their beliefs are based on blind faith, and they don’t understand why everyone else aren’t as blind as they are. They want their theory, with the little (if any) evidence it has supporting it, to be taught right alongside the theory of evolution. Clearly, the two theories are not on the same level, and it really annoys me that these creationists are trying to cover that up by asking for teachers to emphasize the evidence against evolution, so that it doesn’t seem quite as plausible.

    Now, the Big Bang Theory, “a cosmological theory holding that the universe originated approximately 20 billion years ago from the violent explosion of a very small agglomeration [mass] of matter of extremely high density and temperature” (courtesy Gurunet), is not a theory of “popping out of nowhere”. It may be a theory based on random chance, but that’s not the same as spontaneous creation. Not to mention, it doesn’t have nearly as much acceptance or supporting evidence as the Origin of Life!

    Finally, it was my understanding that it is against our laws for the government to impose a mandate requiring teachers to preach religious beliefs. Am I incorrect?

    Comment by Stephen DK | February 5, 2005 | Reply

  3. One of the problems with the teaching of evolution as the only way, is that it excludes the chance that any other process could be correct. There is nothing in science that says “religious creationism” can not be true. IMO, Evolution, creation, intelligent design, and any other ideas of our beginnings should be taught, after all, schools are supposed to be opening minds, not closing them, and if you only teach one side of any scientific viewpoint, you surely are not getting the full picture. The problem is that at the college level, so many professors are teaching their opinions as facts, that they have forgotten that there are teachers that can teach all sides of an issues, without putting their personal views into it, after all, each of these are still “theories”, and unlike the earth being round, we really do not have the final answer on this subject. One thing I would add is, if you are going to teach the “Christian” view of the beginnings of humanity, you also need to include the views from other religions as well, so it is not just 2 or 3 opposing views, but a collection of the views from all the cultures around the world, and the leading views on each. After all, if you are trying to teach someone how to think for themselves, what better way than to give them all the known views, and let them determine their personal viewpoint.

    Comment by ÐÇRøçk§ | February 7, 2005 | Reply

  4. “There is nothing in science that says “religious creationism” can not be true.” I HIGHLY recommend you actually read the sources I provided. Quite simply put, the Laws of Nature state that it cannot be true! One of the first rules taught in high-school level science classes is that matter cannot be *created* or destroyed.

    “each of these are still “theories”” Sorry, but you’re just wrong. I think you may be thinking of a “hypothesis”. A theory is:

    The-o-ry n.
    In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been *confirmed* by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

    (courtesy Gurunet, *s are my own)

    EVOLUTION is a theory. CREATIONISM is a belief.

    Finally, “you also need to include the views from other religions as well”. Who’s to decide what views are taught and which ones aren’t? What if I create a new religion and demand that they teach my views on evolution? Why stop at religions? Why not just teach Average Joe’s Thoughts on the Origin of Life?

    I think you get my point.

    Comment by Stephen DK | February 7, 2005 | Reply

  5. In response to the question posed to me. Yes, you are wrong. You argued that it was the Founding Fathers’ desire that their not be teaching of religious ideology in schools, then tried to refute with the emphasis on laws, abandoning your concluding statement. I repeat: yes, in the context of the argument at hand, you are wrong.

    Secondly, it was a “theory,” by your own definition, that the universe was, at one point in time, geocentric. A theory is nothing more than the widely accepted belief as truth as “proven” by modern scientific technologies, within a range of accepted ERROR.

    Third, by directing ÐÇRøçk§ to the sources that you have provided, you are allowing a flow of information that is only prescribed by you: the exact thing that you are attempting, supposedly, to avoid happening in the schools. If you want to find truth, you have accept the fallacies of your own models and biases. Until someone can truly bound above their own mind, there will be no Truths known to man.

    “I think you get my point.”

    Comment by Justin M. | February 7, 2005 | Reply

  6. Okay, let’s get this nice and clear and then put it aside. What I actually said was: “They cannot be allowed to promote and support their beliefs through public education! That would be to go against all that the founding fathers intended–all that our government stands for! Something has to be done…” I was merely using the symbol of the founding fathers to represent our government! Hence the next half of the same sentence, “all that our government stands for”. Thank you, I realize that the founding fathers didn’t petition against the teaching of creationism on a par with the theory of evolution. ^)^

    …Alright, I’ll say it again:

    The-o-ry n.
    In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been *confirmed* by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis.

    Creationism has NOT been “confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations.” That’s because it’s not a theory. It’s a belief!

    DC seemed to be arguing against something he didn’t fully understand. By writing “I HIGHLY recommend you actually read the sources I provided”, I was refuting his argument that “There is nothing in science that says “religious creationism” can not be true.” I was merely pointing him to articles that do what I would have done; provide reasons for why what he said was incorrect.

    I think you’re missing what I would really like to see happen. I don’t want private, religious beliefs to be preached as theories on a par with evolutionary theory in public science classrooms unless they are ACTUAL theories, not just unsupported possibilities.

    Comment by Stephen DK | February 7, 2005 | Reply

  7. I don’t want private, religious beliefs to be preached as theories on a par with evolutionary theory in public science classrooms unless they are ACTUAL theories, not just unsupported possibilities.

    That is the same as saying you never want them taught. Until a time machince is invented, the Religious Cultural Belief of the origion of Life can not be proven to be “ACTUAL”.

    Comment by ÐÇRøçk§ | February 18, 2005 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: