TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Oh no not another Creationist thread...
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Oh no not another Creationist thread...

Battle on Teaching Evolution Sharpens
By Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer, 3/14/2005

WICHITA � Propelled by a polished strategy crafted by activists on America's political right, a battle is intensifying across the nation over how students are taught about the origins of life. Policymakers in 19 states are weighing proposals that question the science of evolution.

The proposals typically stop short of overturning evolution or introducing biblical accounts. Instead, they are calculated pleas to teach what advocates consider gaps in long-accepted Darwinian theory, with many relying on the idea of intelligent design, which posits the central role of a creator.

The growing trend has alarmed scientists and educators who consider it a masked effort to replace science with theology. But 80 years after the Scopes "monkey" trial -- in which a Tennessee man was prosecuted for violating state law by teaching evolution -- it is the anti-evolutionary scientists and Christian activists who say they are the ones being persecuted, by a liberal establishment.

They are acting now because they feel emboldened by the country's conservative currents and by President Bush, who angered many scientists and teachers by declaring that the jury is still out on evolution. Sharing strong convictions, deep pockets and impressive political credentials -- if not always the same goals -- the activists are building a sizable network.

In Seattle, the nonprofit Discovery Institute spends more than $1 million a year for research, polls and media pieces supporting intelligent design. In Fort Lauderdale, Christian evangelist James Kennedy established a Creation Studies Institute. In Virginia, Liberty University is sponsoring the Creation Mega Conference with a Kentucky group called Answers in Genesis, which raised $9 million in 2003.

At the state and local level, from South Carolina to California, these advocates are using lawsuits and school board debates to counter evolutionary theory. Alabama and Georgia legislators recently introduced bills to allow teachers to challenge evolutionary theory in the classroom. Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico and Ohio have approved new rules allowing that. And a school board member in a Tennessee county wants stickers pasted on textbooks that say evolution remains unproven.

A prominent effort is underway in Kansas, where the state Board of Education intends to revise teaching standards. That would be progress, Southern Baptist minister Terry Fox said, because "most people in Kansas don't think we came from monkeys."

The movement is "steadily growing," said Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which defends the teaching of evolution. "The energy level is new. The religious right has had an effect nationally. Now, by golly, they want to call in the chits."
Not Science, Politics

Polls show that a large majority of Americans believe God alone created man or had a guiding hand. Advocates invoke the First Amendment and say the current campaigns are partly about respect for those beliefs.

"It's an academic freedom proposal. What we would like to foment is a civil discussion about science. That falls right down the middle of the fairway of American pluralism," said the Discovery Institute's Stephen C. Meyer, who believes evolution alone cannot explain life's unfurling. "We are interested in seeing that spread state by state across the country."

Some evolution opponents are trying to use Bush's No Child Left Behind law, saying it creates an opening for states to set new teaching standards. Sen. Rick Santorum (news, bio, voting record) (R-Pa.), a Christian who draws on Discovery Institute material, drafted language accompanying the law that said students should be exposed to "the full range of scientific views that exist."

"Anyone who expresses anything other than the dominant worldview is shunned and booted from the academy," Santorum said in an interview. "My reading of the science is there's a legitimate debate. My feeling is let the debate be had."

Although the new strategy speaks of "teaching the controversy" over evolution, opponents insist the controversy is not scientific, but political. They paint the approach as a disarming subterfuge designed to undermine solid evidence that all living things share a common ancestry.

"The movement is a veneer over a certain theological message. Every one of these groups is now actively engaged in trying to undercut sound science education by criticizing evolution," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It is all based on their religious ideology. Even the people who don't specifically mention religion are hard-pressed with a straight face to say who the intelligent designer is if it's not God."

Although many backers of intelligent design oppose the biblical account that God created the world in six days, the Christian right is increasingly mobilized, Baylor University scholar Barry G. Hankins said. He noted the recent hiring by the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary of Discovery Institute scholar and prominent intelligent design proponent William A. Dembski.

The seminary said the move, along with the creation of a Center for Science and Theology, was central to developing a "comprehensive Christian worldview."

"As the Christian right has success on a variety of issues, it emboldens them to expand their agenda," Hankins said. "When they have losses . . . it gives them fuel for their fire."
Deferring the Debate

The efforts are not limited to schools. From offices overlooking Puget Sound, Meyer is waging a careful campaign to change the way Americans think about the natural world. The Discovery Institute devotes about 85 percent of its budget to funding scientists, with other money going to public action campaigns.

Discovery Institute raised money for "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," a DVD produced by Illustra Media and shown on PBS stations in major markets. The institute has sponsored opinion polls and underwrites research for books sold in secular and Christian bookstores. Its newest project is to establish a science laboratory.

Meyer said the institute accepts money from such wealthy conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is "the total integration of biblical law into our lives," and the Maclellan Foundation, which commits itself to "the infallibility of the Scripture."

"We'll take money from anyone who wants to give it to us," Meyer said. "Everyone has motives. Let's acknowledge that and get on with the interesting part."

Meyer said he and Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman devised the compromise strategy in March 2002 when they realized a dispute over intelligent design was complicating efforts to challenge evolution in the classroom. They settled on the current approach that stresses open debate and evolution's ostensible weakness, but does not require students to study design.

The idea was to sow doubt about Darwin and buy time for the 40-plus scientists affiliated with the institute to perfect the theory, Meyer said. Also, by deferring a debate about whether God was the intelligent designer, the strategy avoids the defeats suffered by creationists who tried to oust evolution from the classroom and ran afoul of the Constitution.

"Our goal is to not remove evolution. Good lord, it's incredible how much this is misunderstood," said William Harris, a professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City medical school. "Kids need to understand it, but they need to know the strengths and weaknesses of the data, how much of it is a guess, how much of it is extrapolation."

Harris does not favor teaching intelligent design, although he believes there is more to the story than evolution.

"To say God did not play a role is arrogant," Harris said. "It's far beyond the data."

Harris teamed up with John H. Calvert, a retired corporate lawyer who calls the debate over the origins of life "the most fundamental issue facing the culture." They formed Intelligent Design Network Inc., which draws interested legislators and activists to an annual Darwin, Design and Democracy conference.

The 2001 conference presented its Wedge of Truth award to members of the 1999 Kansas Board of Education that played down evolution and allowed local boards to decide what students would learn. A board elected in 2001 overturned that decision, but a fresh batch of conservatives won office in November, when Bush swamped his Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record) (D-Mass.), here by 62 to 37 percent.

"The thing that excites me is we really are in a revolution of scientific thought," Calvert said. He described offering advice in such places as Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio and Cobb County, Ga., where a federal court recently halted an attempt to affix a sticker to science textbooks saying evolution is theory, not fact.
'Liberalism Will Die'

Despite some disagreement, Calvert, Harris and the Discovery Institute collectively favor efforts to change state teaching standards. Bypassing the work of a 26-member science standards committee that rejected revisions, the Kansas board's conservative majority recently announced a series of "scientific hearings" to discuss evolution and its critics.

The board's chairman, Steve Abrams, said he is seeking space for students to "critically analyze" the evidence.

That approach appeals to Cindy Duckett, a Wichita mother who believes public school leaves many religious children feeling shut out. Teaching doubts about evolution, she said, is "more inclusive. I think the more options, the better."

"If students only have one thing to consider, one option, that's really more brainwashing," said Duckett, who sent her children to Christian schools because of her frustration. Students should be exposed to the Big Bang, evolution, intelligent design "and, beyond that, any other belief that a kid in class has. It should all be okay."

Fox -- pastor of the largest Southern Baptist church in the Midwest, drawing 6,000 worshipers a week to his Wichita church -- said the compromise is an important tactic. "The strategy this time is not to go for the whole enchilada. We're trying to be a little more subtle," he said.

To fundamentalist Christians, Fox said, the fight to teach God's role in creation is becoming the essential front in America's culture war. The issue is on the agenda at every meeting of pastors he attends. If evolution's boosters can be forced to back down, he said, the Christian right's agenda will advance.

"If you believe God created that baby, it makes it a whole lot harder to get rid of that baby," Fox said. "If you can cause enough doubt on evolution, liberalism will die."

Like Meyer, Fox is glad to make common cause with people who do not entirely agree.

"Creationism's going to be our big battle. We're hoping that Kansas will be the model, and we're in it for the long haul," Fox said. He added that it does not matter "who gets the credit, as long as we win."

Special correspondent Kari Lydersen in Chicago contributed to this report.

I still do not feel that ID should be taught in schools. I do not feel that there is enough/any scientific evidence to support this theory for it to be taught in a science classroom.

I gotta tell ya, it�s really thrilling to have my State back as the laughing stock of the country and scientific community, once again!

Not only that, but the mention of my old hometown of Wichita to boot! YEEEEEHAAAAA!!!

Not much to say that hasn�t already been said, really. As for here in Kansas, it�s unfortunately turning into a real 3-ring circus, which is much to the delight of the IDers who just want publicity.

So first the BOE got handed back to the fundie wingnut Conservatives with a 6-4 majority. They call in the Kansas Intelligent Design Network to make revisions to the current science standards. The whackos do it to include the supernatural:

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork...i_standards.htm

And then the proposals get swiftly rejected by the Kansas BOE�s own appointed science standards committee. Not only that, the proposals were further rejected by 12 independent appointed scientists who reviewed the proposed revisions. Have a look at the rejections if you wish:

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestdreview.html

Well this didn�t sit well with the fundie fucktards on the BOE � so now they�re calling in scientists and IDers around the country to essentially have a �Scopes Monkey Trial Round 2� type event where 6 days of �hearings� would be held to hear both sides, all expenses paid. The problem, of course, is the jury is rigged from the start, again much to the delight of the IDers and board fundies:

http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimat...ic;f=1;t=000022
http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimat...ic;f=1;t=000024
http://www.kcfs.org/standards05/KCFS.resolution.html


The �minority report�, BTW, was the Kansas ID Network revisions that got soundly rejected by the scientists. So as a consequence, a boycott is being called by KCFS (I�m a member, BTW) for scientists.

To be honest I�m not sure how exactly to feel about this. Unfortunately Faux News and the associated fundie Conservatives are going to latch onto this and state that the �scientists are running scared from debate!,� which truly isn�t the case. What is the case, however, is the Kansas BOE already have their minds set in stone from the getgo � these fucks who embarrassed us nationally back in 1999 are still around, and have every intention to put a non-science into the science classroom. They didn�t like what the ENTIRE scientific appointed board had to say, so they�re seeking other methods to get what they want. I�m not sure if a boycott is the most appropriate method, but considering the likely standards and boundaries that are going to take place in this Kangaroo Court proceeding, quite frankly I don�t blame them for doing so. And I can certainly understand their frustration.

I think much of the problem is that the creationist IDers really do a swell job at attacking the media and the public, whereas scientists stick to the science and have a propensity to do a poor job at public and media access. One poster on another forum had a pretty good idea what scientists SHOULD do �

quote:

Basically, go around the Board. They say they want to educate the public. So let's educate the public. Their 8 questions were bogus, but the public wants answers to something like them. Let's have a speakers' tour of scientists and philosophers of science go around Kansas and speak in libraries and town halls. Take questions, give short (I emphasize short) talks about evolution. Get biotech folks in to talk about what they want in biology classes. Have an event in every county in the month of April. At the end, the public will understand the science, and the battle will be over.

The problem, I think, is that you�ll find very few scientists who think this is really appealing. Truth be told � most scientists suck as public speakers and do a pretty darn piss poor job at influential speeches and lectures. It�s not their shtick. However I do this this approach deserves some merit, because it is essentially EXACTLY what the IDers are doing in both open halls AND churches.

The only real approach to the whole mess is to vote these fucks out and keep them out. Kansas wised up to the embarrassment once before � hopefully they�ll wise up and do it again.

And BTW, the guy Meyer listed above is a fucking hack of immense proportions. He had a paper criticizing evolution sneak its way through an actual scientific journal. Well we soon later find out how it got there � the managing editor circumvented the normal editing procedures and snuck the paper through the back door.

The paper has gotten ripped up all around, and rightfully so. And the managing editor who thought it necessary to sneak the paper through � well take a wild guess as to what he believes in? Yep, he�s an IDer in his own right. Well he got the boot for circumventing the process and essentially embarrassing the fuck out of the journal. This is essentially their only way of getting into the science journals, I guess.

Anyway, here�s a summary of events happening here in Kansas, in case someone�s interested:

http://www.ncseweb.org/pressroom.asp?state=KS

And needless to say, I�m not fucking happy to be paying for these IDer fucknuts� traveling expenses. That�s fucking ridiculous, if not perhaps even unconstitutional. We�ll see what results.

I wondered where these ppl who are devote ID/Creationists, who come to this board, get "their" ideas from. After reading about the money, effort, and the organizations behind these anti-evolutionists I now understand. Even our president is unconvinced by evolution. I understand your take that scientists should promote their ideas but, its not their job to battle these religious nut jobs. How are they supposed to convince the Kansas public who are being misinformed on regular bases by the fundies? It's daunting task beating back human stupidity.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow I wondered where these ppl who are devote ID/Creationists, who come to this board, get "their" ideas from. After reading about the money, effort, and the organizations behind these anti-evolutionists I now understand. Even our president is unconvinced by evolution. I understand your take that scientists should promote their ideas but, its not their job to battle these religious nut jobs. How are they supposed to convince the Kansas public who are being misinformed on regular bases by the fundies? It's daunting task beating back human stupidity.

Nailed the issue right on the head.

What many scientists are starting to do now is get some funds raised in order to do exactly just that - promote their work and increase public understanding. The trouble is it's hard as hell to find the $ for it, and whatever they happen to raise dwarfs in comparison to the fundies donors, some which have completely different viewpoints on beliefs (true young earth creationists vs. old earth creationists and/or IDers).

As one of my professors here at KU who's involved with KCFS has stated - the result is that a number of scientists are having to increase public awareness for free without supporting funds. This drives them away from both their work and families, all at the cost of reducing research that inevitably benefits everyone. The unfortunate result is science and research ultimately suffers.

i think now we need to call for a seperation between church and school. crazy fundies.

oh and this is totally random. i thought it was hillarious.
http://newyork.craigslist.org/about...c/47785163.html

funny unrelated link

It�s down right sinister to knowingly spread disinformation to promote your agenda (especially in the name of god). It�s hard to separate the conservative republicans (Rush and his followers) from these guys. They both will do anything to win, even if it means intentionally misleading people.

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow funny unrelated link It�s down right sinister to knowingly spread disinformation to promote your agenda (especially in the name of god). It�s hard to separate the conservative republicans (Rush and his followers) from these guys. They both will do anything to win, even if it means intentionally misleading people.

Intentionally misleading ppl. I hate to break it ot you but the Govt and the right never had a problem with that.

It's possible to believe in evolution and be a Christian.

I am.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z i think now we need to call for a seperation between church and school. crazy fundies. oh and this is totally random. i thought it was hillarious. http://newyork.craigslist.org/about...c/47785163.html

the secular humanist and atheistic scientists are just as "crazy fundie" as the christians.

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ It's possible to believe in evolution and be a Christian. I am.

not consistant. christian doctrine is an absolute doctrine based on christian biblical texts and therefore is not relative to what you want to believe and not believe. the bible certainly does not support evolution. it is possible as you say to believe both, but that belief certainly contradicts what evangelical christian theology teaches. ill throw out passages since u claim to be christian.

quote:

Matthew 6:24 �No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. Genesis 1 The Beginning 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Job 40:16-18 (Dinosaur) 16 What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! 17 His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. 18 His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.

Ah but who created God? Maybe he evolved from some green slime somewhere in the universe?

Re: Oh no not another Creationist thread...

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow A prominent effort is underway in Kansas, where the state Board of Education intends to revise teaching standards. That would be progress, Southern Baptist minister Terry Fox said, because "most people in Kansas don't think we came from monkeys."

NEITHER DO 100% OF EVOLUTIONISTS, DICKHEAD. Jesus, how can these people claim to have identified legitimate flaws in the evolutionary theory when they don't even fucking understand it?

Anyway, do you know what my solution to this whole fiasco would be? Instead of teaching evolution while pointing out its imagined "flaws" along the way, they should teach creation "science" with exactly the same approach. Can you imagine how hilarious it would be watching the teachers trying to justify:

- Hydraulic sorting ("No really, flowering plants were smarter and faster than most dinosaurs and wooly mammoths were exponentially more adept at seeking out high ground than pterodactyls and most species of bird. How does that not make sense?")

- Rapid sedimentation ("Seriously, several kilometers of neatly packed and sorted sedimentary layers can form in the space of 40 days! Evidence? Well just look at how many sedimentary layers have formed in the past 2,000 years at the bottom of large expanses of water.... oh, wait.")

- The existence of distant galaxies ("How can we see galaxies that are 10 billion light years away when the universe is only 6,000 years old? Um, light was probably quicker back then or something. I guess.")

- Speciation ("Yeah, all the genetic diversity present amongst all flora and fauna can be traced back to just two organisms of the same biological family. Where did all this new genetic information come from? How was it that animals were able to evolve...oh, sorry - microevolve so rapidly into such diverse species? How were they able to spread so quickly across the globe, even over large expanses of ocean? Um, well, you see, there is, um.... SHUT UP. IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS CONCERNING GENETICS OPEN YOUR BIBLES TO GENESIS CHAPTER 1, VERSE 1. IT'S ALL THERE.")

See what I mean? Just beat them at their own game. Their only aim, afterall, in all this is to obfuscate the reality of evolutionary theory just enough to put doubt in the minds of students who, they then believe, will be more receptive to creationism (because if evolution is untrue then creationism must be true, right?). All the scientists have to do is point out what a circus organised creationism is and it doesn't matter how much they try to attack evolution, they've already been discredited. It might be worth going back 150 years for the opportunity to finally make some progress.

I like your idea Renegade. Yes it's twisted and radical, but that's what we need.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Intentionally misleading ppl. I hate to break it ot you but the Govt and the right never had a problem with that.

OK, but don't you dare pretend that the left is innocent of the same bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ah but who created God? Maybe he evolved from some green slime somewhere in the universe?

I thought God created God.....

quote:

Originally posted by zig I thought God created God.....

I thought the fact that it was essentially an unanswerable question (i.e. something that must be accepted on faith alone) was one of the main drivers of the entire argument?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I thought the fact that it was essentially an unanswerable question (i.e. something that must be accepted on faith alone) was one of the main drivers of the entire argument?

It is....but it pretty well sums it up how entrenched attitudes are.

in context with the christian god, he was not created, otherwise he would not be the ultimate reality.

quote:

Revelation 1:8 �I am the Alpha and the Omega,� says the Lord God, �who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.� Revelation 21:6 He said to me: �It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

god created god then god created evolution then evolution created man then man created god then evolution uncreated god then creationists recreated god

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I thought the fact that it was essentially an unanswerable question (i.e. something that must be accepted on faith alone) was one of the main drivers of the entire argument?

How easy must it be to get a science degree from a religious uni?!

Basically, religion boils down to pure laziness...

When humans didn't understand things, they merely credited it to God (or gods) They couldn't be arsed to look into the real reasons. Then science came along, disproved everything in the Bible etc and that really should have been the end of it. But the lazy religious people sneaked thru into this 2005th century of our Lord Saviour, and still cant be arsed to find the real reasons why things happen even tho humans have proved it and its right there in front of their faces!!

People who teach creationism as fact are very dangerous to our society and I can only suggest taking up arms against them or they will continue to survive and spout their evil lies like they have been doing since the days of the enlightenment...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley People who teach creationism as fact are very dangerous to our society and I can only suggest taking up arms against them or they will continue to survive and spout their evil lies like they have been doing since the days of the enlightenment...

I'm sorry, but this last statement is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. They are the "dangerous" ones, yet you are advocating taking up arms against them? Unless of course I am taking you too seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm sorry, but this last statement is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. They are the "dangerous" ones, yet you are advocating taking up arms against them? Unless of course I am taking you too seriously.

Look! He's one of them!!! Let's get him!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm sorry, but this last statement is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black. They are the "dangerous" ones, yet you are advocating taking up arms against them? Unless of course I am taking you too seriously.

Possibly you could be taking me too seriously...

I dont really think we should take up arms against them altho they should probably be stripped of all political rights just to be on the safe side?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Possibly you could be taking me too seriously... I dont really think we should take up arms against them altho they should probably be stripped of all political rights just to be on the safe side?

Hey, I like that "taking up arms" idea. premptive strike if you will. bush gave me that idea

some people are pissed because they dont want the childrens parents to choose what are taught to the child...


[sip]

sipape

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.