Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Creationism vs. Evolution: Kansas in Spotlight Again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Creationism vs. Evolution: Kansas in Spotlight Again

    Everyone:

    I found this article while perusing the news wires. I'm sure it's bound to generate a fair amount of discussion and maybe, just maybe, a bit of ridicule for, you guessed it, Kansas.

    With no further ado:

    By Carey Gillam
    TOPEKA, Kan (Reuters) — Evolution is going on trial in Kansas.

    Eighty years after a famed courtroom battle in Tennessee pitted religious beliefs about the origins of life against the theories of British scientist Charles Darwin, Kansas is holding its own hearings on what school children should be taught about how life on Earth began.

    The Kansas Board of Education has scheduled six days of courtroom-style hearings to begin on Thursday in the capitol Topeka. More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution.

    Many prominent U.S. scientific groups have denounced the debate as founded on fallacy and have promised to boycott the hearings, which opponents say are part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over government.

    "I feel like I'm in a time warp here," said Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray who has agreed to defend evolution as valid science. "To debate evolution is similar to debating whether the Earth is round. It is an absurd proposition."

    WIDESPREAD DEBATE

    Irigonegaray's opponent will be attorney John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, a Kansas organization that argues the Earth was created through intentional design rather than random organism evolution.

    The group is one of many that have been formed over the last several years to challenge the validity of evolutionary concepts and seek to open the schoolroom door to ideas that humans and other living creatures are too intricately designed to have come about randomly.

    While many call themselves creationists, who believe that God was the ultimate designer of all life, they are stopping short of saying creationism should be taught in schools.

    "We're not against evolution," said Calvert. "But there is a lot of evidence that suggests that life is the product of intelligence. I think it is inappropriate for the state to prejudge the question whether we are the product of design or just an occurrence."

    Debates over evolution are currently being waged in more than a dozen states, including Texas where one bill would allowing for creationism to be taught alongside evolution.

    Kansas has been grappling with the issue for years, garnering worldwide attention in 1999 when the state school board voted to downplay evolution in science classes.

    Subsequent elections altered the membership of the school board and led to renewed backing for evolution instruction in 2001. But elections last year gave religious conservatives a 6-4 majority and the board is now finalizing new science standards, which will guide teachers about how and what to teach students.

    The current proposal pushed by conservatives would not eliminate evolution entirely from instruction, nor would it require creationism be taught, but it would encourage teachers to discuss various viewpoints and eliminate core evolution claims as required curriculum.

    School board member Sue Gamble, who describes herself as a moderate, said she will not attend the hearings, which she calls "a farce." She said the argument over evolution is part of a larger agenda by Christian conservatives to gradually alter the legal and social landscape in the United States.

    "I think it is a desire by a minority ... to establish a theocracy, both within Kansas and growing to a national level," Gamble said.

    OLD TESTAMENT TEACHINGS

    Some evolution detractors say that the belief that humans, animals and organisms evolved over long spans of time is inconsistent with Biblical teachings that life was created by God. The Bible's Old Testament says that God created life on Earth including the first humans, Adam and Eve, in six days.

    Detractors also argue that evolution is invalid science because it cannot be tested or verified and say it is inappropriately being indoctrinated into education and discouraging consideration of alternatives.

    But defenders say that evolution is not totally inconsistent with Biblical beliefs, and it provides a foundational concept for understanding many areas of science, including genetics and molecular biology.

    The theory of evolution came to prominence in 1859 when Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," and it was the subject of a 1925 trial in Tennessee in which teacher John Thomas Scopes was accused of violating a ban against teaching evolution.

    Kansas School Board chairman Steve Abrams said the hearings are less about religion than they are about seeking the best possible education for the state's children.

    "If students ... do not understand the weaknesses of evolutionary theory as well as the strengths, a grave injustice is being done to them," Abrams said.
    Hmpfh. I have faith that the religious nutcases will be defeated, because if they aren't, there's going to (literally) be hell to pay for Earth. Lest my true feelings aren't yet obvious, the following quote sums things up nicely:

    "I think it is a desire by a minority ... to establish a theocracy, both within Kansas and growing to a national level," Sue Gamble said.
    Woo-hoo, boys and girls! We're living in the End Times! Once these so-called Christians get done putting their damnable theocracy in place, all that's left is to somehow get the Anti-Christ to power in a Middle Eastern nation, have him conquer Israel and then the "God-fearing" Christians in America and elsewhere can form their crusade and "liberate" the Holy Lands from the unholy conqueror.

    And, hey, my Jewish acquaintances, there's something in it for you, too! Convert or die! After all, isn't that what Revelations is all about?!

    **sigh**

    Y'know, there's days when I just want to say, "F*ck you, humanity. You deserve whatever you get. I only pray you wipe yourselves out before you spread your sickness beyond Earth."

    I'll be frank: I consider myself a man of faith. Traditional? No. But faith shouldn't require having to kowtow to customs just because "that's the way we've always done it" or because "might makes right." I believe in my heart that science *and* faith are seeking the same thing in the end — namely, what does it all mean? And that is one of the most admirable qualities the human soul possesses, that desire to seek new experiences and to gain knowledge and wisdom.

    But, damnit, why the hell are some folks so hellbent on *controlling* others in the process? You want to learn about God in the traditional sense? Fine! Great! Really. That's what Sunday school, going to church and any other number of religion-linked activities are for. You want to learn about science and evolution and how it came about? Great! Fine! Really. That's what labs and classrooms are for. Both seek the same answer, IMO, but one right now — the religious nutcases — seem to have control issues. How would they like it if secularists and folks of "non-traditional" faith rammed through laws that forced "traditional" religion to teach evolution in Sunday school, or to force the pastor to bring up "equal time" for concepts s/he may find offensive in the context of his/her religion? They wouldn't, and rightly so! So why in God's name are they doing to others what they themselves would scream, hiss and bawl about (and, perhaps, kill) if it were done to them?!

    Live and let live. Pick and choose your battles. The "little sayings" go on and on, but they're there for a reason. They come from lessons that were learned the hard way by our predecessors, lessons a frightening number of people — religious nutcases being predominant among them — seem to have no problem forgetting.

    That is, until someone gets maimed or killed. And sometimes not just someone, but entire tribes, nations, ethnicities and minorities (be they political, social or faith).

    Humanity has so much potential. It really does. I believe that with all my heart and, as such, it breaks it everytime extremists do their thing.

    Gatekeeper
    "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it." — Voltaire

    "Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." — Confucius

  • #2
    Lets nuke Kansas.

    Comment


    • #3
      @ Kansas and the US

      "But there is a lot of evidence that suggests that life is the product of intelligence.


      Like what?
      Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing?
      Then why call him God? - Epicurus

      Comment


      • #4
        I am sick of the BS arguments by the Intellegent Design people. Just because we don't know how an organism evolved a structure (the bacterial flagellum is an example they always give), doesn't mean that structure could of never been created by natural selection, it just means we don't know enough to make a reasonable hypothesis.

        Oh, and I loved this statement:

        Detractors also argue that evolution is invalid science because it cannot be tested or verified and say it is inappropriately being indoctrinated into education and discouraging consideration of alternatives.

        Comment


        • #5
          I believe in evolutoin, but what is the problem with having a debate over it?
          "I'm moving to the Left" - Lancer

          "I imagine the neighbors on your right are estatic." - Slowwhand

          Comment


          • #6
            Because the "debate" was over a hundred years ago, and the proper forum for the debate was most certainly not a room filled with people who have neither the knowledge nor the training to come to an informed decision.

            The scientific community has accepted evolution as the most (or, in fact, only) tenable hyptohesis presented thus far.

            Why not just tell me that you believe in the law of Universal Gravitation, but want to have a debate over it?

            It's idiotic, and the fact that the opposition to the teaching of evolution is religious in nature tells me everything I need to know.
            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
            Stadtluft Macht Frei
            Killing it is the new killing it
            Ultima Ratio Regum

            Comment


            • #7
              I find it somewhat annoying that people say they "believe" in evolution, because it makes it sound that accepting evolution is like belief in religion. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that is a cold, hard, fact; just as gravity is a fact. The people who say Evolution is "just a theory" do not know the technical meaning of the word "theory", most people use the word "theory" when they really mean "hypothesis", hense the confusion between scientists and the lay person. A theory is an hypothesis that is backed up by data. A theory is a fact if there are no rival theories. Evolution is a fact AND a theory, just as gravity, a heliocentric solar system, or a round Earth is.

              Comment


              • #8
                More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution.


                Subsequent elections altered the membership of the school board and led to renewed backing for evolution instruction in 2001. But elections last year gave religious conservatives a 6-4 majority and the board is now finalizing new science standards, which will guide teachers about how and what to teach students.

                The current proposal pushed by conservatives would not eliminate evolution entirely from instruction, nor would it require creationism be taught, but it would encourage teachers to discuss various viewpoints and eliminate core evolution claims as required curriculum.


                A debate is fine. But having a bunch of fundies without any scientific training using a stacked "debate" as a pulpit to justify their own idiotic changes in school curricula is not so fine.
                "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                -Bokonon

                Comment


                • #9
                  There's nothing wrong with having a real, intelligent debate about evolution. But these people, the creationists, don't really want a debate. They're not after the truth. They feel that evolution threathens their religious beliefs and the very fabric of society. So the teaching of evolution has to be stopped at any cost. That's why they use all the dirty tricks in the book.
                  Let us be lazy in everything, except in loving and drinking, except in being lazy – Lessing

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You want to know what to teach in physics you ask a physicist. You want to know what to teach in the life sciences you ask a biologist.

                    You don't ask a room filled with people with little or no relevant scientific background and an axe to grind.

                    Gatekeeper, how do you stand it?
                    12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                    Stadtluft Macht Frei
                    Killing it is the new killing it
                    Ultima Ratio Regum

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I am also find it disturbing that some people are trying to impose relativism on science. Science cannot be relativist by definition, because there is only one true objective universe. If a hypothesis is not supported by the evidence it does not belong in the curriculum, "fairness" be damned.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Odin
                        I am also find it disturbing that some people are trying to impose relativism on science. Science cannot be relativist by definition, because there is only one true objective universe.
                        And science is a human view of this universe, that is dependent on method, and that is dependent on the feeble human mind.

                        There is no reason to believe that the universal reality can be covered by science, just like there is no reason to believe that the universal reality can be covered by religions (what religions claim). Science is a simplification of reality. It is not THE reality.

                        Many scientists should know better than to put as much faith in science as the religionists put in their god.
                        "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                        "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                        "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          So... since it's 'intelligent design', they'll presumably be covering Norse, Babylonian, Raelian and Scientologist design 'theories'.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            ID won't cover any specific design 'theory'. They'll just point out questions which evolution hasn't answered, and let the general laziness of the human mind fill in the gaps with its own particular religious dogma.
                            Concrete, Abstract, or Squoingy?
                            "I don't believe in giving scripting languages because the only additional power they give users is the power to create bugs." - Mike Breitkreutz, Firaxis

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              BTW, over here, a hypothesis is an expected causality ("if A then B" or "if A then probability of B"). A theory is a set of hypotheses. These words are not dependent on whether they have been backed by evidence or not.

                              I'm not saying that evolution is false (I'd trust scientists over fundies any day of the week, and my little personal knowledge on the matter reinforces it), but when the creationists play rhetorical games with the word "theory", they aren't completely wrong: a "theory" is not necessarily a proven thing, and the common usage of the word even implies that it is unproven (hence the reason why they insist to label it as "just a theory" )
                              "I have been reading up on the universe and have come to the conclusion that the universe is a good thing." -- Dissident
                              "I never had the need to have a boner." -- Dissident
                              "I have never cut off my penis when I was upset over a girl." -- Dis

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X