An "Evolutionary" Step Backwards?

Remove all ads!

This makes me sad. I saw a news report this morning that Maryland has decided to re-introduce Creationism into its public school ciriculum. I can't say I'm completely surprised that it happened, but the reasons for doing so. Here's a few examples:

1. Creationism isn't a breach of separation of church and state. It merely provides an alternative to evolution.

Really? What happens if you aren't Christian, or do not subscribe to a Christian fewpoint of creation? It seems to me to be very much a religious viewpoint, and to me, should be taught at church, not public schools.

2. Evolutionary theory should still be taught, but I think that teachers should focus on the operative word, which is THEORY.

I hate it when non-scientists use scientific terminology. It only proves how little they understand about that terminology. In this example, the person obviously believes that since evolution is a theory, it lacks substance, and is merely a general idea. Allow me to introduce at this point two other "theories". Specifically the "Atomic Theory" and the ever-nebulous "Theory of Gravity". Evidently we really only have a rough idea about the existence of atoms, and we're all still a little fuzzy on this whole "gravity" issue.

Is America the only place that goes through stuff like this? Do people have to deal with this BS in Europe? How about some of the northeasterners of the US? I bet Boston schools don't teach creationism.

 

I don't think Creationism is a big deal. As long as its not forced upon people then what harm can this do?

Of course Science classes teach things one way (Evolution) and and Religious Education another way, that way you have a choice.

In N.Ireland (probably the same as the Republic or the rest of the UK) you do not have to attend assembly for morning prayers, Religious Education classes etc if you don't want to. I must also point out that no-one thinks higher/lesser of you for making that choice.

 

In our school, Religious Education was compulsory for the first four years. However, it was not simply teachings about one religion, it attempted to teach about as many as it could, and I have to say, the teachers in that department were some of the best in the school, surpassed only by the history and maths department, to my mind.

 

It was compulsory in Scotland?

Yes RE was the same here, we learned many religions and it was probably my favourit class along with history.

Still, Creationism is nothing to get angry about, unless it is presented as 'the only way'.

 

The only aspect of Evolution that is still a theory is whether we came from monkeys or not. Everything else... In 1996, Pope John Paul II stated that the conclusions reached by scientific disciplines cannot be in contradiction with divine Revelation, then proceeded to accept the scientific conclusion that evolution is a well-established theory. the evolution of organisms is beyond reasonable doubt, so that the theory of evolution is accepted in this respect with the same certainty that we attribute to Copernicus's heliocentric theory or the molecular composition of matter. Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/faith/index.html
I really dislike people like that. They claim to be trying to teach students to be open minded, but they can't even accept the above facts. Furthermore, how many of them do you think mean Allah or Vishnu or aliens when they say "Intelligent Design." They mean the Christian God, and they are hypocritical ... grrrr.

 

RE was compulsory here, from first to fourth year, though ours was also combined with morality and philosophy. My RE teacher from second to fourth year must have been filled with sadness with the release of the second and third Matrix films, however, as we were constantly being given the first to watch as it was supposed to be philosophical. We also played a game whereby we had an island, and had to decide what to build on it. I am unsure as to what it had to do with the subjects at hand, but it was fun.

 

@Cesard - I don't have a problem with the principle per se, but it is being taught in SCIENCE class, side-by-side with evolution. If you are going to a private school, especially some type of parochial school, I think it is entirely acceptable, and possibly even appropriate to teach creationism. However, I don't think creationism has any place in a science class.

Also, the way you had it seems OK too - because it was in a RE class, not science.

 

Are they having to actually teach it? I heard they were merely asking teachers to read a statement out about it, something to the tune of: We might have got here some other way, you know! Still, a few people resigned at having to do that.

The main issue here is religious insecurity in the face of the scientific method, which answers so much so clearly, whereas religion makes few testable assertions, and pretty vaguely. It's just sad that people equate belief in Darwinism (not even more atheistic Neo-Darwinism) with a lack of faith; I had a philosophy teacher who genuinely believed that evolution was in favour of God. I never understood how that worked, mind.

If religion relies upon saying "well, science doesn't know everything" it's doomed. Not because I think science will know everything (I don't), but because "God of the Gaps" is no God at all. Religion should pick and choose its battles more carefully; pseudoscientific methodology like this is just going to alienate people who understand the science, driving the two camps farther apart. Religion needs to concentrate on spiritual matters. Side issues like this only make them seem out of touch.

Churches need to get used to no longer dictating truth to a God-fearing public; those days are long gone. People still need some spiritual or moral guidance, but they don't need to be told what to think about matters like this. I expect more people in Britain read Horoscopes than go to church. And it's no surprise if the Anglican church is continually sidetracked into debates like this one and the ordination of gay priests. It makes them look like a relic, badly out of touch with modern society.

They need to get together, get a grip, and say: "Ok, this book is, like, 3,000 years old. There's some crap in it (who worries about being "spiritually clean" nowadays?). But there is good stuff too. Let's take a balanced look at it, and see what is relevant in society today" Leave the scientists to test hypotheses with empirical evidence, and concentrate upon coming up with a message that people want to hear from them, not bashing science, because it's science's fault no one listens any more.

Grrr.

 

This is truly sad, religious myths belong in religion class and scientific theories belong in science class. Simple as that. Let peopl learn about how Odin shaped the world from a dead giant or any other creation myth in religion class, or do they teach that in science class as well?

 

The other majorly disturbing thing is that most religious people railing against evolution are actually arguing against the wrong thing. Evolution is that things change over time. Chemogenesis, that life originated from chemicals, is actually what they have a problem with.

 

@Teufelchen - I think the other thing that many people have a misperception of is exactly how the process of evolution works. Look, no one ever said a monkey immediately became a human, but some people seem to believe this. They feel that monkeys spontaneously started becoming humans or something like that. It's at least mildly infuriating.

 

Possibly. There's no way that Creationism would ever be taught in a school in New Zealand (well, except maybe in the religious schools).

The process of genetic change is not really a theory. Everybody can see that children inherit characteristics of their parents. Everybody can see that dogs have altered enormously from when they were first domesticated. In only a few thousand years you have dogs as varied as a great dane and chihuahua. Clearly, huge change is therefore possible over millions of years. The only 'theoretical' part of the the theory is what happened billions of years ago to get life started in the first place, and how some of the bigger structural changes happened (like the evolution of the eye).

 

@Ravynn...for a better description on the Church's teachings on evolution...and specifically what Pope John Paul 2 said in 1996, you should go direct to the source...but for a good summary you can check out this short piece .

Evolution is a theory. Darwinism is dead, replaced by neo-Darwinism or punctuated equilibrium. It is not a fact, thus it should not be taught as such...merely the leading answer to our origins in a universe devoid of a Creator. Various iterations of this theory have been presented as fact, only to fail in the face of fossil record...even at this moment evolutionary science is in a quandry due to the discovery of fossilized mammals far older than they should be.

We do our children a dis-service if we don't make that clear, and the easiest way to do so is to present other theories toward the origin and variation of life. I'm not denying that evolution could be a natural force in our world, and that it affects living organisms...it's just a far cry from being satisfactory to explain the genesis, variety and complexity of life.

 

I mostly disagree. Especially concerning the variety and complexity. Although I will admit that it doesn't explain (although it never was asserted that it did) the origin of life.

 

@Hacken Slash. Perhaps I spoke too quickly. My intent was not to insult Catholics or anything like that, and if I did, I apologize. I was doing an assignment for my Anthropology class when I came across a link (see my first posting) that talked about whether religion and science were mutually exclusive. I don't like people that force their idea of the "truth" on my person, I am a (relatively) intelligent person who is able to make up my own mind about things like this, and I don't appreciate people trying to shove Creationism down my throat. If you're going to teach religion in a public school, make it optional and teach all religions. Grrrrr...

 

Ah well, Aldeth, this whole issue is another example of the attitudes which are inherent in a Puritan-based society.

For many commenting on the subject, I don't think the Catholics in the area are pushing this particular educational curriculum change. I believe after the comments by John Paul II (one of the greatest men of this past century, and I'm not even Catholic) a third theory really took off here in America -- "assisted" evolution, where a supreme power directly influenced evolution to bring the world to its current state. This has actually gained a lot of support amoung religious American scientists.

Most of these creationist pushes are in the "Bible Belt" (and Utah).

 

I'm not sure that Evolution and Creationism are mutually exclusive. Creation gives us a start point while evolution gives insight into the differences between the individual. But remember that Evolution and teh Big Bang are theories, and should not be taught as the Be all End all on the subject.

 

Well yes, Aldeth. Your point is well made. If we wish to take evolution to task, then why replace it with Christian Creationism? It seems automatic, except to those who are not Christian. I am a Christian, and one, if I may speak quite frankly and boldly, who believes that there is a supreme being who created our known universe. But this is a very personal view.

I don't know how God created the universe, and I'm far from being alone in this (despite what a lot of know-it-alls would have us believe). Yet, if I begin to speculate, or begin to mouth what certain strains of evangelsim would have us believe, then I am crafting, or buying into the mythology of which Joacqin speaks.

This whole issue reminds me of the idiot judge who wanted the Ten Commandments in the lobby of the courthouse in Alabama. If we include the "Ten" should we not include the Five Pillars of Faith also? How would a non-Christian feel about the proclaimed objectivity of justice walking past them and into the courtroom? This is exactly why separation of church and state is so vital to the equality and fairness issue. It seems to apply to what is taught in public schools as well.

 

Valid point, Chandos. There is a segment of the "Creationist" movement who want to hit all non-believers on the head with as large a Bible as they can lift...but they are only a small part.

Althought the majority of Creationists are Christian, they also welcome the world views of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, New Agers...there are many who object to this forced 'religion' of neo-Darwinism.

The most apparent and outspoken are usually Christian...but in reality, all people of 'faith' find objection in mankinds feeble attempts to explain his world in a state devoid of creative power objectionable when presented as "fact".

There are some remarkable Creationism sources out there that are not indelibly 'Christian'...merely 'Faithfully skeptical'.

 

Point is still that creationism is a result of the ultimately non-scientific thinking deriving from adherence to scripture, that is deduction - whereas science uses induction deriving from observation of nature and concluding from it.

Both schools of thought are fundamentally opposed.

I'm against teaching people unsuitable methods for the trade in science. Because creationism isn't science that's just a waste of time, ideologically motivated.

I say: Let's teach creationism in RE, or in sunday school, or in katechism as it was with me, and leave it at that. No use in forcing an unproductive (for science) way of thinking into science education.

Like: Leave the emperor what's the emperor's and give god what's god's.