The School Of Creationism

Godless

Objectivist Mind
Registered Senior Member
Well folkes;

It seems America is heading for the dark ages, that's what the ingnorant Christians want and that's why they elected the idiot that's in office.

Article:

The School Of Creationism
By Andrew Buncombe in Dover
The Independent - UK
12-19-4


Was the landscape around the small town of Dover in Pennsylvania created in just six days? Were the gently curving hills perfected, the streams formed and finished, the wide, empty skies fixed in place beneath the firmament and the narrow wooded valleys completed? Was it all really done in less than a week?

It was, at least according to the creationist beliefs of much of the town's population of 1,800, who have little time for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. And their fundamental beliefs are set to gain further currency.

As of next month, in a hugely controversial move, the town's high school will become the first in the US for several generations to teach a form of creationism as part of its curriculum.

But the controversy that has split the town of Dover, an hour's drive north of Baltimore, is not simply some local squabble. Rather it is a debate that is taking place in communities across the US.

Classrooms, courtrooms, public places, even the very pledges that officials swear when taking office have become the focus of a bitterly contested and growing dispute about whether Christianity should be officially incorporated into civic life or if there should be a real and meaningful separation of church and state.

It is a row that has pitched Christian against Christian, scientist against scientist.

It has led to accusations of lies and deliberate misrepresentation and even claims that America is turning its back on its traditions. And now that President George Bush, a bornagain evangelical, has won a second term in office with the assistance of a large turnout by evangelicals at the polls, the dispute is likely to get even more heated.

At the eye of this storm is Dover, where a legal battle that could end up costing local taxpayers very dear has been launched.

"I was very surprised. I would not have thought it [would come to this]," said Steven Sough, one of 11 parents who last week filed a lawsuit with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to try to prevent the change to the curriculum, arguing it would breach the US Constitution. "I have a daughter, Ashley, who will be 14 in two-weeks time. This is a personal issue. I want her learning science at school. I want her learning religion at home with me or at church."

The dispute in Dover blew up in October when the elected members of the district school board voted 6-3 that the biology course for 15-year-olds should be amended to include a theory about the origins of life known as intelligent design or ID.

The proponents of ID claim life is so complex that its origins must in some way have been directed by a supernatural actor. The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, a leading proponent of ID theory, says "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

In addition to ordering that pupils be taught about ID and "made aware in the gaps or problems in Darwin's theory", the board arranged for the donation to the school of 60 copies of a controversial biology book, Of Pandas and People. Copies of the text, which is critical of Darwin's "natural selection", were placed in the classrooms for pupils to browse.

After a meeting of the board on 18 October, two members, Carol and Jeff Brown, resigned in protest. The Browns, both Christians, said they believed religion had no place in science. "This country was founded on the belief of freedom of religion and freedom from religion," said Mrs Brown, sitting at her kitchen table, knitting with a ball of electric-blue wool.

Her husband said he also had practical concerns. "It is going to get shot-down in court. We cannot afford it."

The lawsuit filed last week by the ACLU, accuses the school board of breaching the First Amendment of the US Constitution which prohibits the establishment of an official religion.

In its lawsuit it argued: "ID is a non-scientific argument or assertion, made in opposition to the scientific theory of evolution that an intelligent, supernatural actor has intervened in the history of life and that life 'owes its origin to a master intellect'." It also noted that in 1987 the US Supreme Court ruled that creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught alongside evolution.

The school board has insisted it is not trying to force religion into the classroom. Vice-president Heather Geesey said its aim was simply to make information about ID available. "All I want to do is have anything the kids [could] learn, there for them to learn. That is our job, to teach children everything we can. "I think [the row] has been [ the result of] a misconception. Most of the people I know are in favour of it, or else are once I explain it."

But what of intelligent design? Is it, as critics claim, simply creationsim-lite? Glenn Branch, vice-president of the National Centre for Science Education, which promotes Darwinism, said: "There is nothing wrong with the idea of a creator but teaching it as [a part of science] leads to detriment of both religion and science. There is a blurring of the two and it involves a lot of misrepresentation of science."

The Discovery Institute's Centre for Science and Culture counters that labelling creationism and ID together is simply an attempt by Darwinists to limit scientific debate. Rob Crowther, a spokesman for the group, said: "We advocate that schools teach more about evolution, not less. We think that the scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution should be discussed in the classroom, but that is much different from teaching any alternative theory."

And what about Of Pandas and People? Now more than 15 years old, the book is considered one of the seminal texts of ID. One of its co-authors, Dean Kenyon, a controversial academic, is a fellow of the right-leaning Discovery Institute.

But Professor Kenneth Miller of Brown University's biology department, who wrote a stinging critique of the text during an earlier creationism row in Kansas, said: "It's an awful book. It's filled with scientific mistakes and misrepresentations. It is also out of date."

It is clear from even a day in the quiet town of Dover that behind the rather academic argument about the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism and about its alleged gaps, the debate that is taking place here, as elsewhere across the US, is really about two fundamentally different views of the world. One says that America has for too long been in retreat from its Christian traditions while the other argues that America's very traditions include a separation of church and state.

In Dover, for instance, while the proponents of ID insist they do not wish to put religion in the classroom, they readily admit their own fundamentalist beliefs. The move to change the curriculum was initiated by a school board member, William Buckingham, who at one public meeting declared: "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"

Mr Buckingham has declined to speak to reporters but his wife, Charlotte, who works at one of the town's evangelical churches, told The Independent: "All ID is saying is that the origin of life is so complex that it had to be created by a higher power. That is all it says. It gives the students a chance of going to think about that."

Asked whether she believed schools ought to be allowed to teach religion, she said: "There are many people who homeschool their children because they cannot get what want they want elsewhere, the truth about what we believe about our creator."

Rumours suggest that the 60 copies of Pandas were donated to the school by Irene and Don Bonsell, whose son is a board member. Mrs Bonsell, who described herself as a creationist, refused to confirm or deny whether they had donated the books. She said she approved of the books being available to the students even though she also denied religion was being placed in the classroom. "I think it's a good idea that students should learn this theory," she said. "I'm a creationist. I don't understand what the problem is [with ID]. It's another theory. Darwinism has never been proved, it's just a theory. They are trying to take God out of everything, out of the pledge, off our money."

Pandas also has evangelical links. The book is published by the Texas-based Foundation for Truth and Ethics, a small conservative think-tank which has published two other books, one promoting abstinence before marriage and another which disputes that America's founding principles came from Greek, Roman and Enlightenment traditions but rather from Christianity.

The foundation's president, John Buell, who formerly worked to promote Christianity on university campuses, said Pandas was not a religious book even though he conceded that ID implied a "supernatural power".

In Dover, the school board will meet lawyers this week to discuss its options and decide whether to go ahead with the changes to the curriculum and fight the lawsuit. The members' decision will be carefully scrutinised not just by the townsfolk of Dover but by school boards across the US which are considering similar measures.

In Grantsburg, Wisconsin, for instance, a school board has revised its curriculum to teach "various scientific models of theories of origin" though it has since argued that it will only be teaching students "about the controversy surrounding evolution" and not ID.

In Charles County, Maryland, the school board is considering a proposal to eliminate textbooks "biased toward evolution" from classrooms. Similar proposals have been considered this year in Missouri, Mississippi and Oklahoma. In Cobb County, Georgia, school textbooks have for the last two years contained a sticker which informs students: "Evolution is a theory, not a fact."

Indeed, if recent polls are accurate, the Dover school board members may not be lacking in support. A poll last month by Gallup suggested that 45 per cent of Americans believe that humans were created by God in their current form within the past 10,000 years.

It is less clear what the students in Dover think about the proposed changes. On a freezing afternoon last week, Melissa Owen, 16, and 18-year-old Alex Jones, were waiting for a lift home. They both believed that the teaching of ID should be allowed in classes that were elective rather than mandatory.

Melissa confirmed that all the students were talking about the controversy. "It was freezing today, there was no heat," she said. "People were joking that the school was saving money to pay for the lawsuit."

© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=594808

Godless.
 
I think this ID(Of Pandas and People) should be allowed, for children to browse, as long as it's put in the fantasy section with Lord of the Rings etc..
 
Indeed, if recent polls are accurate, the Dover school board members may not be lacking in support. A poll last month by Gallup suggested that 45 per cent of Americans believe that humans were created by God in their current form within the past 10,000 years.
I cant believe that statistic, do people not visit museums anymore? Perhaps a visit to a decent museum would be more educational than these books.
 
Perhaps we should get the natural history museum in london to donate a few fossils to places in america, after all they do have just a few of those several million year old fossils just lying around.
 
The problem is more complex than that. With minimal preparation I think I could take an untrained, but not uneducated individual around the Natural History Museum and 'prove' to them evolution was nonsense. If evolution through natural selection were that obvious Aristotle would have come up with it. It requires the evidence, help in understanding that evidence, and an open mind. Museums can supply much of the first, some of the second, but the third is not in their remit to issue to visitors upon entry.
 
Perhaps i have a simplistic way of putting things, i see it simply as the evidence is there to be seen and to me is obvious, however of course some people arent open minded at all, and need some help with this, even if they still draw the same conclusions.
 
When you say some people are not open minded, what you really seem to be saying is they are not disposed to believe as you do. If everyone were truely open minded, they would look at all the evidence, including ID evidence, and come to their own conclusions. True open mindedness would mean teaching both to students - along with challenges to each - and letting the students decide for themselves.
 
I have no objection to ID being taught to students, but not under the guise of science. The implicit essence of my post to Lemming was as follows: we are able to interpret the evidence because we have been taught how to interpret the evidence. It required much insight and study and wrong turnings by science to make those interpretations valid.
I believe I do have an open mind; (well, who do you know claims to have a closed one?) I have examined the evidence, including weaknesses I have recognised independently, and have reached a conclusion. Like all good scientific conclusions it is provisional. I accept evolution because I have studied it carefully and diligently with an open mind.

Edit: I realise I have left out an important point. Although ID employs the language of science, it is not science. Science does not set out with its conclusion already established, hence my use of the phrase "not under the guise of science".
 
Last edited:
When you say some people are not open minded, what you really seem to be saying is they are not disposed to believe as you do
Nonsense, i felt it was pretty clear what i was saying, especially with that last line but apparently not, open minded is to consider all possibilities, even if you proceed to dismiss them and stand your ground, if to be open minded you had to agree with me, i'd be the only open minded person around since nobody shares all my views. Closed minded is sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and repeating 'lalala im right your wrong lalala' when confronted with anything that goes against your predetermined views.
If everyone were truely open minded, they would look at all the evidence, including ID evidence, and come to their own conclusions.
I think a lot of people do, and thats the right way to go about things.
True open mindedness would mean teaching both to students - along with challenges to each - and letting the students decide for themselves.
Yes both viewpoints are required, but there is a place for each, evolution is taught in schools as fact, creationism as fact at home or in religious places(depending on religion of course).
 
ID (Intelligent Design) did not start with this conclusion - it was not even called ID. This is simply the compilation of hundreds/thousands of scientific observations which are at variance with conventional wisdom. For instance, there are whole galaxies (about 90% of all known galaxies) in which it would not be possible for life, as we know it, to exist at all, and even our own galaxy is totally hostile to life, except for a very narrow band toward the outer rim (far enough away to escape lethal radiation but not so far out so not to have the heavy metals necessary for an Earthlike planet). The Copernican Principle turns out not to be true. We do occupy a special place in the universe - all places in the universe are not equally valid for life. Whether our place is unique is not provable, but it now seems to be likely. The complexity and the statistically unlikely series of events and fortuitous circumstances are simply too much to attribute to mere chance. Thus, the CONCLUSION that things must have been Intelligently Designed.
 
Lemming3k said:
Yes both viewpoints are required, but there is a place for each, evolution is taught in schools as fact, creationism as fact at home or in religious places(depending on religion of course).
Why is this so? Evolution is not FACT (careful - showing your lack of open mindedness). If you want to teach that organisms adapt to their environment, that is FACT and has been known for thousands of years. To extend that adaptability to Evolution is mere speculation, not FACT.
 
ID (Intelligent Design) did not start with this conclusion - it was not even called ID. This is simply the compilation of hundreds/thousands of scientific observations which are at variance with conventional wisdom. For instance, there are whole galaxies (about 90% of all known galaxies) in which it would not be possible for life, as we know it, to exist at all,
Link please.
and even our own galaxy is totally hostile to life, except for a very narrow band toward the outer rim (far enough away to escape lethal radiation but not so far out so not to have the heavy metals necessary for an Earthlike planet). The Copernican Principle turns out not to be true. We do occupy a special place in the universe - all places in the universe are not equally valid for life. Whether our place is unique is not provable, but it now seems to be likely.
Well first off i think your confusing galaxy with solar system, secondly, the debate about life on other planets has many angles, one being that we only know of one type of base for a life form, carbon, and one type of planet to sustain life, since its the only one we have encountered, and as far as i know there is an earthlike planet not to far away(speaking of course in scale with our galaxy), orbiting around a fairly close star, i'll see if i can find you the link. Thirdly there is the probability debate, we can all pull figures out our arses to support whatever we want, i could say 1 in 9 planets we know of support life so therefore 11% of planets contain life, or perhaps i could say that since we only have explored completely 1 planet, its 100%, seriously theres a million ways this can go, the 1 i prefer is that we havnt explored enough to decide if we are unique or not, and in no way can we accurately state what probability of other life there is since we are only aware of such a tiny area. My opinion is the sheer scale of our galaxy alone and then the universe would mean other life, and probably quite common.
The complexity and the statistically unlikely series of events and fortuitous circumstances are simply too much to attribute to mere chance.
Thus, the CONCLUSION that things must have been Intelligently Designed.
If earth represented our galaxy, we havnt even explored a grain of sand, so what exactly is statistically unlikely?

Why is this so? Evolution is not FACT (careful - showing your lack of open mindedness). If you want to teach that organisms adapt to their environment, that is FACT and has been known for thousands of years. To extend that adaptability to Evolution is mere speculation, not FACT.
Nice example of you not reading what i write again and proceeding to insult me, though perhaps your schooling was different to mine and i can let it slip, evolution is widely accepted as fact, as is the earth being older than 10,000 years, in schools its taught as such, also theres no lack of open mindedness to believe evolution as fact, or am i supposed to merely sit on the fence with every issue? :rolleyes:
 
Define open mindedness for us David. Please. Otherwise we could be talking at cross purposes.

I'll return to Goldilocks zones later.

The odds are against 26 coming up at roulette, but I've seen it happen. Ah, but the house wins in the long run, you say. Why? Because its designed that way. (That's my Christmas gift to you - a neat intelligent design analogy.)
 
Lemming3k: I cant believe that statistic, do people not visit museums anymore? Perhaps a visit to a decent museum would be more educational than these books.
*************
M*W: I am a museum addict. I've been to museums all over the world. It's interesting how they label things. Sometimes I believe descriptions on certain relics have been mis-labeled by misogynists! I'm not bragging, it's just that I've done a lot of reading. This can happen in art galleries as well. Some wall labels are incorrect, especially when the painting depicts christian themes. One of my favorite museum mistakes is from about 30,000 years ago. It's a 10-12 inch piece of ivory shaped like a one inch tube with 10 notches on it (kinda like a cowboy would put notches on his gun). The museum label indicates that this piece is an ancient calculator so cavemen could keep track of their kills, but it's actually a menstrual lunar calendar with notches so the women could keep track of their menses and also their pregnancy due dates!
 
Let's start this off with an excerpt from an article written by good ol' Stephen J. Gould:
"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D., from his recent (1978) book Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."

Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your last sentence, what then is "scientific" creationism?

And probably his best argument against teaching "intelligent design" in the classroom summed up in one simple sentence:
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Teaching our next generation that by some sort of magic, the world was created - it's bullshit, plain and simple. And if it catches on, it will probably start the decline of the american intellectual. It's really sad - America has produced some of the brightest and most innovative minds in recent history, and it could all be swept away by a sect of religoius fundamentalists.

In the past 150 years, man has unraveled enormous amounts of information about his immeadiate universe. Some theories have help up so far, some have not. Regardless, many of these facts we have gleened from sciientific observation are extremely complicated. This confuses the intellectually challeneged. I may not understand relativity, or quantum mechanics, or even evolution, but I acknowledge there are those who have come before me that have studied it, have observed it, and have formulated theories around it which have held up to the extreme scrutiny and skepticism of the scientific comunity. I realize it is my responsibility to learn from their writings and observations and critiques if I want to understand it. It may not be easy, but none the less, it is my responsibility. A "theory" like "intelligent design" provides an extremely simple answer in an increasingly complex world. Those who do not read scientific periodicals or go to museums or even have a rudimentary understanding of the scientific method and the scrutiny a theory must be held up to still want to think they know everything about their universe. The "intelligent design" "theory" offers them this. I could make up the same argument, only this time using aliens as the replacement for God, and somehow, I think that it would not hold the same appeal to a believer of the religious right. Aliens creating this planet and the life on it doesn't fit into their narrow world view, although it is essentially the same argument.

I cant believe that statistic, do people not visit museums anymore? Perhaps a visit to a decent museum would be more educational than these books.
Don't you know? Museums are controlled by the liberal elite who want to bring atheism to every aspect of our lives. Fossils are just a hoax. Or created by the great flood. Noah couldn't fit the dinosaurs on the ark.

I think I'm heading over to christianforums.com (my old stomping grounds) to stir up a little trouble...
 
Don't you know? Museums are controlled by the liberal elite who want to bring atheism to every aspect of our lives. Fossils are just a hoax. Or created by the great flood. Noah couldn't fit the dinosaurs on the ark.
Im sure religions have a science behind these reasonings, or maybe they just dont have a local museum? Its one huge conspiracy against religion im sure..... ;)
 
lalala... I do not intend to read all this, just commenting on the initial post. Do they teach that the universe was created by a god or do they teach that the earth was created by god in six days, complete with animals, humans, plants, the continents and all that stuff?

I could understand the first option, and truth to tell, we cannot exclude that a being outside of our universe has created us, alas, this being needed to come into existance the same way our universe might have started to exist.
If it is the second... then it is really a sad incident that hopefully does not spread. When even the Vatican acknowledges that the big bang occured, can this theory really be tought as valid? (No, I do not want to say that the Vatican is all powerful, but I think they looked very closely at the facts and drew their conclusion)

Anyway, somewhere I saw something about soandso percent of the planets without life and whatnot... So? You are aware that we cannot even see those planets that we assume to be lifeless? There existence is just calculated by the mass of a distant star around which they supposedly draw their circles. And in such a big universe, at some point chance must have created life, looks like we are blessed by chance.
Sometimes I wonder if there are other intelligent lifeforms that think they are the center of creation...
 
I'm an atheist, but I think that if a school wants to include "creationism" in it curriculum, that's fine with me. I've encountered prof's in history, economics, business, and other fields with equally untenable positions who would rather preach than teach.

Let the student decide. After all, the mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be lit. But if the student's mind happens to be a vessel, there are plenty of janitorial jobs to be had.
 
marv said:
I'm an atheist, but I think that if a school wants to include "creationism" in it curriculum, that's fine with me. I've encountered prof's in history, economics, business, and other fields with equally untenable positions who would rather preach than teach.

Let the student decide. After all, the mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be lit. But if the student's mind happens to be a vessel, there are plenty of janitorial jobs to be had.
Yea, but if you fill it with garbage, it's going to rot.

If we teach that a completely unfounded claim based in superstition holds equal weight with an observable scientific theory, it isn't teaching our youth very much, is it?

Now, if creationism is taught with evolution comparing the two on basis and which one is more valid and why, that would be fine. However, that is not what these classes are doing. What they are doing is indoctrinating, not teaching.
 
Back
Top