I'm ambivilant about this. I like that these anti-science groups have recognized the importance of local politics, and concerted their efforts in those areas. Of course the best way to impact public policy is by dictating the curriculim. School Boards were the focus of their attacks on religious freedom. It was a very smart ploy, and one I wish other groups would take note of.
And I'm glad they have taken power in some limited capacity. For now we can see just what they want to do. They have accomplished their mission, which was to capitalize on the unending ignorance of most people towards science to further their own objectives. Foremost among those objectives is to create a Christian government. And little by little they have made huge inroads.
The specifics of this particular case as they impact the lives of children is minimal. Telling kids that Evolution is a theory, not fact, is fine with me. Just make sure to put the same disclaimer on Gravity, and I'll be ok with it.
Of course, most kids that get worse than an A in their science classes could not explain the difference between a theory and a fact. I'm certain few of the people pushing for that disclaimer understood the distinction. Nevermind the utter silliness of making sure people thought of the Theory of Evolution was "just a theory". Kinda rendundant.
And until we have 150 years and millions of man hours devoted to testing and retesting whatever testable hypotheses are manifest in Creationism, I submit to you that it does NOT belong in a science class. It would be just as silly for me talk about it in my Math class. It is NOT science. Even allowing that it's true, it is still NOT science!
Now, I better go find out just who the hell MY school board is.
Posted by danisaacs at September 27, 2002 09:20 AMYour senseless ramblings are going to confuse somebody so you better get your facts straight. Evolution is not a fully proven theory. Gravity is, my friend. As an athiest who feels there is too much religion in our government already, your writings are giving our beliefs and our cause a bad name. Please learn about both sides of Creation and Evolution before attempting to write about them. It's "kinda" annoying.
Posted by: Joe on October 3, 2002 11:53 AMIt's the "Law" of Gravity, not the "Theory" of Gravity. Why? Because gravity is observed experimentally.
Evolution? Well, that term is self-describing, because it evolves at its proponents wish. Let's refer to "macro-evolution" that is, as an example, some pre-historic mamillian ancestor had descendents that range from a shrew to a blue whale.
Any observations? No. Any fossil evidence? No. (Why do you think Gould came up w/ punctuated equilibrium?) Any proof of any kind? Uh, well some (more) theories and computer models.
Big difference. Anyone truly interested in science would want their kids to know that.
Me? Just a PhD in physical chemistry. Of course in my field we have to provide evidence of our conclusions...
Posted by: Chris on October 3, 2002 03:32 PMGranted. And they will. But making those points is quite different from teaching the Bible's explanation alongside it.
Posted by: Dan Isaacs on October 3, 2002 04:26 PMIf evolution is a "Law" of science, as is gravity. Then why does irreducible complexity completely prove it wrong. Even on a cellular level, it is known that the cell could not function without all of the extremely intricate components important to its usage. Charles Darwin himself admitted that without transitional forms of life, his entire theory falls apart. Yet no one has found an example of a transitional form. Sure, they have been constructed from a pig's tooth or created by some other ridiculus means, but no true transitional form has been found that would bridge the gap between two species. If a person looks at a watch and believes that it just arose from a series of time and chance, then maybe that person could view the amazing world and say it arose from time and chance. But spontaneous generation was proven wrong in the 1800's, and that is a LAW! How then, could our world, much less life, just appear? Yes, even if it was around for billions or even trillions of years that does not account for its beginning. How did the matter that made up the "Big Bang" come into being? Spontaneous generation is the only possible explanation. It is a LAW that matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, and it is also a LAW that all things are headed towards greater entropy; both of these LAWS fly in the face of the theory of evolution. When a scientist does not dodge these questions but answers them, possibly evolution could have more credibility.
Posted by: Andrew Bramlett on October 14, 2004 03:29 PM