The recently restarted debate over evolution and "intelligent design" is completely and utterly stupid. This whole issue is one that has been fabricated solely for the purpose of pitting the religious (read right-wing) against the non-religious (read left-wing). Even more ridiculous is that the people involved probably know and care a lot more about the evolution of this debate than the evolution of life on earth. These are politicians, not scientists. Most of them probably don't have a clue about the science behind either side, and most of them probably don't care to find out. So why are they in the center of this debate? The answer is simple, as I've stated above -- it's because the debate has nothing to do with the issue and everything to do with politics.
If evolution shakes your faith in God then I'd say you don't have much faith at all. On the other hand, if your world view would change if evolution were officially debunked then perhaps you should rethink your rationale. How life started seems, to me, inconsequential to just about anything today. If evolution is proved true then the religious will claim that God used evolution. If evolution is proved false then the non-religious will claim some other theory. Evolution itself is a non-issue.
And teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom sounds like one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard. So that would be, what, a two minute lesson? "And kids, some people believe that there is an intelligent force behind the creation of the universe and life." Great. I'm sure that's really going to open a lot of young eyes. Or are they proposing they teach the largely incomprehensible, and probably wrong, astrophysics and astronomy that the ID people use as rationale? To middle or high school students who are probably failing their math classes? Just so that the religious people can feel like they are in control? Great.
According to this article, "most Americans believe that God created human beings or guided the process of evolution, according to a CBS poll last November. Two-thirds said they wanted creationism taught alongside evolution in schools." I've got an idea for that two thirds of Americans: when your kids are at home -- which is more time than they're in the classroom -- teach them creationism. And while you're at it you should teach them about your religion, because I'm pretty sure that they're not going to teach that in public schools either. The right wing is supposed to be against schools teaching opinions or anything but facts about their subjects. They claim that parents should be responsible for teaching their kids things about religion or political opinions. SO START TEACHING YOUR OWN FREAKING KIDS! Its so hypocritical that the right says evolution shouldn't be taught because there is not enough proof for it and they don't want their kids being indoctrinated by anyone's opinions but their own. So their solution is to try to force schools to teach an inane theory with even less scientific proof than evolution. I am speechless to respond to the stupidity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Most people on the right agree with you. I do like the evolution of names: Creationism, Creation Science, Intelligent Design -- stuff libs do
Either most people on the right don't agree with me or CBS sucks at polling -- or, more likely, both. The CBS poll said that 2/3 of Americans wanted creationism taught in schools. The country is split about 50/50 right/left. So that mean at least 34% of the right thinks so, and thats if everyone on the left does too. In reality most people on the left don't, so that makes it more likely that close to 100% of the people from the right think so and close to 34% on the left (it has to be at least that much, surprisingly).
However, I'm happy to know that there are others on the right, such as yourself, donsurber, who are not crazy. I know that there are plenty, actually. But I can't help but think that we are a small minority given that the 67% of Americans who are being crazy are mostly from the right.
Never trust statistics. That's the problem. The appropriate wording should have been "2/3 of people who responded to the poll." You can't always generalize to "americans" from people who responded. Only people who watch CBS, go to CBS online, and care enough about the issue to waste their time and money responding actually answered the poll. So, it's probably garbage and shouldn't be trusted. With that said, I liked your post and feel the same way about parents wanting schools to do everything for them. Ridiculous.
Thats true, I'm sure the poll was not representative of all Americans. But the poll did claim that 2/3 of Americans felt that way, or at least the article implied that the poll claimed that... so now I'm 3 degrees away from any justification.
Anyway, there's no way its true because that would mean that 100% of the right and 34% of the left want creationism taught in school, and that's just way too high to be true. If it were true then we probably wouldn't have a controversy like this because so many people would be behind the idea.
Most kids are actually at school longer then they are at home...unless you count sleeping...which is just dumb. Not that that really has anything to do with this...I am just bored...so...take that. Do you like how many times I "..."?
I am aware that many kids are at school longer than they are at home, but I specifically said "in the classroom" I assume that most kids spend less than 8 hours a day in the classroom. I also assume that they spend at least a few hours awake at home everyday, and then theres weekends. And the summer. So, total time they are home more than in class. But, as you said, that is beside the point completely.
Ok, completely without reading the other peoples comments, (so as I'm not influenced or get ideas from them) this is my own oppinion.
No matter what you do, it will never be perfect.
1. We shouldn't teach Evolution as a fact due to one reason, it is an unprovable theory. We can't duplicate evolution. We only see indirect evidence for it. So shame on the school systems for teaching it as fact. Teach it as a theory (because it is called the Theory of Evolution).
2. If we start the Christians way of creation (which almost certainly the backbone of this big push) then every single cult, occult, world view, religion, faith and or scientific theory will call foul. They will all want equal voice. And then we end up nowhere.
3. Although I don't agree with the Theory of Evolution to its fullest extent, I do believe that it is a backbone to modern science and having no backbone is worse than having a faulty backbone. It is the major foundation of modern science, and it's better to have a crumbly foundation rather than have nothing to stand on at all.
Here is my final thought. Evolution is a theory and will be one until an expirement can be done to directly show that it is truth. That will take time because Evolution takes time. But we are in the now. And we should treat it as a theory until it can be prooven otherwise. Now, what about all the other theories? Where does the line stop? If we allow creationism in our schools, what's to say that we won't allow the Church of Satan to teach their own theories? How do we choose what are credible theories, and just plain old world views? Some would say that creationism is just that. Where do we draw the line? Do we just not teach how everything was made and just focus on how it's working right now? Leave that up to the child to discover on it's own? Where do we draw the line people? That's my question to you all.
What are your thoughts on my thoughts Greg?
Well, I'm going to have to give the standard line that in science theory is about as certain as you get. Just because something is called a theory doesn't mean you shouldn't teach it as fact. We have the theory of Relativity, for instance. While it's true that quantum is starting to break down some of that theory, it's also breaking down some other 'laws' of physics. So nothing is certain in science and theories are all we can get.
However, from a scientific standpoint I don't find the current theories of evolution compelling. There are just way too many random events that have to happen at the exact right time for it to seem viable. I guess thats the argument of the ID people. Except I don't see how that constitutes another theory, it just casts doubt on evolution.
Therefore my recommendation is that we don't teach anything about the origin of life in most biology classes. It is not necessary to understand the origin of life to study biology. In fact, I'd say that often times it hurts us because its led to many bad assuptions. For example, DNA testing is showing that many species are closely related to evolutionary distant species and more distantly related to evolutionary close species. Assuming that the current theories of evolution are correct seems to lead us away from the truth more often than closer to it. And I'd say that most of the time its irrelevant. So, why don't we just skip that part altogether for now? Until something more viable is discovered why don't we simply teach "there are many theories of the origin of life but none provides a satisfactory answer for the scientific data we have today" and be done with it. Maybe evolution is pretty close to right, but for now its missing some pretty important explainations that make it sound more far fetched than any creation account, in my opinion.
I'm getting to this good discussion a bit late, so I hope people will still check this out. standingout, fantastic post. You made all sorts of great points, including reminding everyone that evolution and faith in God have (in this context) nothing to do with each other. If and when evidence for evolution becomes stronger, it will simply be absorbed into our culture the way that everything else was. The heliocentric universe used to be a threat to faith; now it's not. For me, there's no incompatibility between teaching that evolution occurred and that God is the author and sustainer of the universe, and that one of those teachings belongs in schools and the other belongs in churches.
"We shouldn't teach Evolution as a fact due to one reason, it is an unprovable theory."
david, if this were the criterion for accepting theories we'd be utterly lost, but standingout already responded to that. You also said, rightly, that...
"Evolution is a theory and will be one until an expirement (sp) can be done to directly show that it is truth."
Fortunately we've done some of these experiments. In one, scientists simulated an early-earth atmosphere and ran an electric current through it in an attempt to create organic molecules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey
Or google it. It has its problems, of course, but for me it supports an evolutionary account of life.
I believe that if you could go back 4 billion years and videotape everything, you would see precursors to RNA created. I also believe that God's hand was active in this. One is a biological truth that should be taught in schools; the other is a religious truth that should be taught in churches.
standingout, you wrote:
"Assuming that the current theories of evolution are correct seems to lead us away from the truth more often than closer to it."
Also a good point. I would encourage everyone to check out the biology textbooks that high schools and colleges are using; I find them moderate and fair. Some even make explicit that their account of evolution is neither final (that is, certain and unlikely to change), nor absolute (that is, other explanations for the origin of life are welcome in other spheres.) The textbook I used in college, Campbell and Reece's "Biology," did both of these things and was very sensitive.
It appears to me (engineer, not biologist) that parts of evolution are just about self-evidently true, while others are guesswork. Survival (and greater reproduction!) of the fittest explains how bloodlines and species die out, leaving those that are better suited. But where do the new traits come from? Blah blah mutation blah blah etc. There's nothing real to go on, since there really aren't that many mutations, and most mutations are not helpful to the creatures that have them. The origin of life on earth, and of new species, is still shrouded in mystery, and 'God did it' is just as good an answer as 'this week's best guess is that...'
That is not at all an argument that the first chapter of Genesis is literally true. No humans were there to watch Genesis happen, and the bible (if I remember correctly) doesn't point out when God told Adam all about that creation stuff. I'm OK with Genesis ch 1 being wrong, if all those who preach the faith of evolutionism will please accept that their faith has mysteries too, and stick to the science they claim to support.
We should teach what we know is true of evolution, and let the rest of it be clearly labeled as guesswork. The decision that there is or is not a God driving it all is unprovable in a scientific sense (so far!), so science doesn't tell us there's no God.
Probably this discussion is over, but I have another point to make.
weasel, you wrote:
"I'm OK with Genesis ch 1 being wrong."
This might be a huge leap, but for many of us Genesis 1 was never meant to be read as "wrong" or "right," just as, to take another biblical example, Christ's parables weren't. The ancient Jewish authors of the first 11 chapters of Genesis were not writing a history: they were compiling a cosmology passed down through thousands of years of oral history. The gospel writers, on the other hand, were writing history.
I agree with Charles, but I take it even further. The Bible is meant to be a book of theology, not a text book or even a history book. When we get caught up in exactly how historically accurate a story is we miss the point. THere is nothing in the Bible by accident -- every story is meant to convey some theological truth. We should concentrate on finding that lesson in each story rather than studying the Bible like a text book. Its a lot harder, but a lot more rewarding when you learn something.
Post a Comment