Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

If your feelings are correct then evolution, as a scientific principle, is losing out to the Evangelical CHristian dogma of Creationism/neID (which is, by the way, free from any evidence or data at all, despite what several folks herein seem to shout).

No, like physics pr history, certain principles arent up for "debate" they need to be learnt first. Several folks wish to teach "critical thinking" before any knowledge passes their brains. Critical thinking without a knowledge base, is merely superstition with a lab coat.

In the US , our Constitution is the document that lists and enumerates our freedoms and limitations by law. One of those is that Congress shall enact no law establishing a state religion. Creationism and ID are parts of an EVANGELICAL Christian dogma (These beliefes dont even speak for the bulk of Christians). SO, how should we allow teachers to "duke it out" between an established scientific principle and a belief in fairyland. If this would be the case then, like whats happening in Texas now, we will see the rewriting of history to be more Fundamentalist Friendly. SCience may as well start teaching Phlogiston, Vis Plastica, flat earthism, geocentrism, and faith healing. Im glad that the Constitution has taken the time to detail these little technicalities

ID and Creationism are not theories at all.

But you are making a value judgement here as to what constitutes science and what doesn't. Now I completely agree that creationism is not science, but there are people who actually advocate 'creation science'. So how is a democracy going to handle this? Will they be prevented from speaking? Will the state declare them incorrect?

If people want to teach that the world was created 6,000 years ago, and parents are willing to let their children believe it, then should the state declare this illegal?

Curious irony how, in the US, there is a multi-billion dollar pornography industry, which is protected under 'freedom of speech'. So it is OK that the sex industry is protected, but the views of what amount to religious dissidents must be curtailed. I think it is a slippery slope.

I think if the whole debate was conducted on its merits, science would win hands down. But this ain't about science any more, it is about politics, history, religion and consitutional freedom. So the approach I would take is to flood the whole stage with as much information as possible. Debate the ID and creationist lobbies without vilifying them as idiots. Half the problem is that the scientific ideologues are almost as fanatical in their views as the flat-earthers. The scientific presentation should maximise the circulation of the facts, and de-emphasize the value judgements about the facts.

If ideologues like P Z Meyers, Dawkins, and Dennett continue to present evolutionary theory as 'an antidote to religious delusion' then the issue will go nowhere. They have nothing to do with science. They are the ones presenting science as a religion, and that is more than half of the problem in my view.

U.S. democracy is NOT denying free speech to creationists. Creationists are NOT prevented from speaking. It is NOT illegal for parents to teach their children that the world was created 6,000 years ago.

Specifically, creationism can not be taught as science in government-operated elementary and secondary schools. It is also illegal to distribute pornography in elementary and secondary schools.

Outside of government-operated elementary and secondary schools, creationists enjoy the same free speech that pornographers do.

yes I see your point. Stupid argument on my part. I retract it.

Not at all. The US Supreme Court in its wisdom, has declared on several occasions that "Creationism" and "Creation SCience" are actually religion. Earlier in this thread , and in an accompanying thread entitled "Intelligent Design, Science or Religion" are several USSC decisions .Most recent USSC decison is the Edwards v Aguillard case of 1987 , in which the USSC struck down Louisianas law that required the teaching of Creation SCience . AFter that case, the Creationists retooled and switched from the Institute for Scientific Creationism to the Discovery Institutes Center for the Renewal of SCience and Culture (An Evangelical Christian beachehad despite what several on this thread wish to assert). The concept of Intelligent Design, a very old concept that underlies Creationism had been recast as a scientific discipline free from Gods hands , according to Philip Johnston , in his book "Darwin on Trial".
Then Intelligent Design was taken on in a case in Pennsylvania and was struck down by a Federal District Judge who basically said the same thingabout Intelligent Design as the USSC said about Creationsim 20 years before.

Now we are waiting for the next shoe to dreop in the "Culture wars". The ID crowd is running out of options to convince us that ID is actually science and not a spin on Evangelical Preaching.
Weve seen that the MS in "Creation SCience " has been stripped of all cxredibility when the accreditation policy in the region that confers same agreed that this was, again, religion in a lab coat. The district court agreed.
The case law for teaching evolution "by default" has been remarkeably one sided since the end of the Scopes case (actually, the law which underpinned the entire SCopes case was overturned in the 1960's).
So its not a simple basis for a "Smackdown of religion v science" . Its the actual basis by which the belief and teaching of Creationism has been derived. Its not a matter of using the scientific method to arrive at Creationism or Intelligent Design. EVolution, on the other hand is based that way.

However,I would say that a majority of people still use belief rather than evidence to arrive at some worldview. Until the worldviews dont consider science an "enemy " then Im afraid that we will have to use the courts to gain relief of these little attempts to get Fundamental Christianity into the science class.

Im afraid that I agree with you about Dawkins, not Dennet though, nor WRight, Gould, Coyne, Susskind,Smolin or Pinker. These others make their cases from mounds of evidence and not from hate for religion. I dont dismiss Dawkins as a scxientist, his own scholarly work on evolutionary science is good stuff, he just got off the track by conflating that evidence based science with "anti religious punditry". Hes been a kind of stain on the scene because the Creationists have always liked to cherry pick from his quotes and make cases for things he really didnt want to be accused of.In that case Hes more like GEn McChrystal who had his subordinates repeat some crap that the general spewed at an unfortunate lapse time. DAwkins has slipped back into real science. MAybe thats cause hes getting up in years .

NOTE to Jeeprs. I was writing this and failed to see Wandels briefer and more to the point response. ALL these cases I mentioned wre for the teaching of Creationism and ID IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

thanks farmerman. I find the whole argument a really difficult one and am flailing around somewhat. I accept the scientic accounts of evolution, and believe it is the factual account of what transpired. But it shades into very profound questions about the nature and meaning of human life. I understand why it is such a vexed question. I have no sympathy for fundamentalism of any stripe, but it exists on both sides of the debate.

Evolution is not meant to address the nature and meaning of life. Similarly, geometry is not meant to provide insight into the causes of the American Civil War.

You may have a real interest in knowing about the Civil War, but because geometry doesn't provide you with those answers, it's not because geometry lacks anything. It's instead an incorrect association with the two. Evolution is meant to provide an answer to how diverse life came to be on Earth, and how lifeforms are adapted to their environment.

A
R
T

lifeforms are adapting to their environment.

A
R
T

A correct edit Pepijin. "Adapting" is correct as all life is still evolving.

Adapting
R
T

But the comparison is specious. If indeed evolution was taught solely as a biological theory, as it should be, then it wouldn't have a bearing on the nature and meaning of life. But as it is, it is being advanced by many people as a kind of 'scientific ideology' or as a substitute religious creed. If it were not advanced this way, many (not all) of the arguments about it would subside.

The evolutionary view of human nature is invariably reductionist. What does this mean, exactly? Because of the argument that whatever attributes we have must be understandable with reference to the principles of Darwinian theory - mainly, that they must have contributed to the task of survival. Hence 'evolutionary psychology' and all the other forms of Darwinian rationalism.

But it IS solely taught at biological theory. How is it taught any other way? Just because it refute's religious accounts of history, doesn't make it a religion itself. Evolution is not a social theory, it's a biological one.

A
R
This charge is false.

In the classrooms evolution is taught strictly without ideological spin. Outside of the classroom, as with any other subject, the personal conclusions can be all over the map. More free speech.

Obviously jeepsie you are unaware of what might be taught if your principle was followed. I have to restrain myself on here quite often and I'm addressing grown men.



How do you arrive at such a conclusion? Do you not know that Aristotle rationalized rationality into absurdity? As have many others since. One cannot deal with the education of the next generations by following reason and logic just as far as you are comfortable with although I do accept that such ridiculous ideas play well to those at the same level you are at.

And the history of the last 2,000 years of Christianity, really just the last 1,000 years, completely contradicts your statement besides having provided you with the facilities to make it. Is North Korea a possible for supplanting us?

It wasn't a stupid argument jeeps. wande's rebuttal is a mere technicality and rests on the assumption that state schools are the only source of education and that is a very long way from the wonderful " facts".

They are trying to impose a national curriculum with a liberal Marxist agenda over the heads of the voters and set children against their parents. There is no consensus for teaching evolution in many areas and if evolution is thought through rather than thought of as an abstract and harmless generalization, as wande and fm think of it, it would soon be made illegal.

It's a very complex issue as is proved by the debate going on for so long and being conducted so vigorously and you would do well to avoid being taken in by the simplicities promoted by anti-IDers.

Nobody is stopping ID or creationism from being taught in a theology course.

A
R
T

That's a non sequitur. You are talking about third parties who are not here to defend themselves. I am not trying to convince anybody that ID is science. Any silly sod can argue against absent parties.

The consequences of ID can certainly be thought of scientifically as can the consequences of atheism, nihilism and existentialism. So also the consequences of sun and moon gods and goddesses and the 30,000 gods of Paganism.

You have a sentimental attachment to the decisions of Federal District Judges when you approve of them. As I understand it a Federal Judge has recently struck down a Government policy decision which Mr Obama is going to challenge.



And maybe it's because he's read Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus which I don't recommend you read yourself on account of it being a long winded demo of what shite you spout on here and no doubt everywhere else.

It may not be meant to but it does do. That is the reason why Darwin agonized and delayed publication for so long and only did so when others showed signs of stealing his thunder. In the debate on here the anti-IDers do mean to use evolution to address the nature and meaning of life.

BP's drilling was not meant to pollute the Gulf but it has done.

A short extract from Tristram Shandy--