Danny Carlton blogged The Dover, Pennsylvania school board adopted a policy in October of 2004 that requires teachers to read a statement to ninth-grade science students before they begin the study of origins. The statement reads...“The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is part.
So if you want to pass the test you may have to parrot back something your don't believe“Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is not evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
“Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available in the library along with other resources for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
“With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origin of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.”There is nothing in that statement that is false (although many argue that Evolution fails to even meet the standard for a legitimate theory), yet the zealots of the religion of Evolution had conniption fits about it. Nothing, absolutely nothing, must be allowed to stand in the way of indoctrinating young school children into the religion of Evolution. No facts, no science—nothing, they insist.
That is true. There is a lot in Darwin's theory which is good science: the ability of a species to adapt to its environment. The problem comes in when the Secular Humanists say the same procedure accounts for the creation of new species, something for which there is no proof at all.From the Baptist Press...
The trial began Sept. 26, almost a year after 11 people whose children attend or plan to attend Dover, Pa., schools, filed a federal lawsuit claiming that the Dover Area School Board’s decision to tell students about the existence of Intelligent Design was a backdoor attempt to bring religion into the classroom, violating what they see as the constitutional separation of church and state.And the ACLU raises its ugly head once more.
The case of Kitzmiller v. Dover is the first time a court has considered the validity of Intelligent Design and whether it can be part of a public school science curriculum. The case represents the first court review of evolution in nearly 20 years....
The plaintiffs are represented, pro bono, by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Separation of Church and State and the Philadelphia law firm of Pepper Hamilton. The school district is represented, for no charge, by attorneys from the Thomas More law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich.
3 comments:
If we were to take an Hegellian approach and consider the theory of evolution, the thesis, and the intelligent design theory, the antithesis, then perhaps we need to seek a synthesis of the two. If we turn to physics, we find that the atom, indeed, any atom, is almost a perfect vacuum, closer to perfect than outer space. All objects in our physical universe are made up from molecules, which are in turn consist of atoms. As atoms are vacuums, then molecules would be vacuums, then so too is the substance of our universe. So our physical universe is almost a perfect vacuum, an absence of matter. There is next to nothing there. Of course, I am not suggesting that the physical universe is an illusion, but rather that our perception of it is illusionary. The universe is one big Disneyland! And it is simply the coarseness of our senses, that makes us believe that the physical universe is substantial.
Our eyes respond to visible light, which is electro-magnetic radiation with wavelengths very much larger than the diameter of an atom and at the same time the frequency of these radiations is very much lower than the frequency of electron orbits forming the shell of the atom. This means that visible light will bounce off an atom rather than pass through it. Sound and touch involve much much larger wavelengths than visible light, so they too would tend to find a physical object impenetrable. On the otherhand, cosmic rays have a wavelength much smaller than the diameter of an atom, and scientists going down into deep mines have found that cosmic rays can penetrate thousands of metres into the Earth.
It is one's mind which interprets his senses and passes it on to him, the inner self, the conscious, intelligent part of us. Oh dear! It would seem I'm making a case for intelligent design. Oops!
I am not sure that the Hegellian thesis/snthesis approach applies, but basically I have no problem with the part of Evolution which can be proven, i.e. the adaptation of a species to its environment.
The unproven part, that the same mechanism explains the creation of new species, is the part under debate. Secular Humanism is a religion, just as Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam.
If you are just going to teach the first part, the adaptation of a species to its environment, then no introduction of any religious ideas are required. But if educators are going to teach the second part from a Secular Humanism point of view, then you should give equal time to the ID position, which is consistent with Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam.
Try and interpret what that message says to a 14 year old, when it's read to them. It's the misinformation like this that inevitably will lead to the Dover case being decided in favor of the plaintiffs.
What misinformation do you percieve, and why do you think a 14 year old cannot understand the statement. After all, it is being read to them, so we dont have to concern ourselves with whether or not they have been taught to read (except if they are going to be referred to material in the library I wold hoe they have been taught to read.)
If you feel they cannot understand two points of view, then limit the discussion of evolution to the adaptation of a species to its environment, and dont teach either the Secular Humanist or the Intelligent Design position on the creation of new species.
Post a Comment