[meteorite-list] Kansas: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design

From: Francis Graham <francisgraham_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat May 14 12:47:47 2005
Message-ID: <20050514164746.68855.qmail_at_web54710.mail.yahoo.com>

--- MARK BOSTICK <thebigcollector_at_msn.com> wrote:
>
> A public school should not indorse a religion, as
> being proper and good,
> which also notes other kids (of different or no
> religion) as being different
> and wrong. There are 1000's of private schools for
> that.
  True!
  The introduction of "intelligent design theory" into
a public school science curriculum doesn't jibe with
the other proported aims of its proponents, in this
way:
  One could conceive of evolution , the central theory
of modern biology, being centrally and rigorously
taught in science classes in schools. The evidence for
it is demonstrated and the connections to genetics and
disease are discussed. This, science teachers can say,
is what real biologists and planetary scientists
around the world hold to be almost certainly true and
this is why.
  Then, it is the job of the families, and/or churches
to step in and interpret this as each family sees fit.
A family or church that believes it is all hogwash and
the world is less than 10,000 years old can teach
their children so if they wish. "What you heard in
science class is all a Satanic lie," they could say. A
family or church that thinks evolution is guided by
some intelligence can say that. A family or church
that believes in a God who just let things happen by
themselves for a while can say so too. And a family
without a church that believes in no god can say that
also. Each group can "comment" on the religious
implications of the science as it sees fit. If we
truly support freedom, then by definition we support
the widest possible family perogatives, in this
fashion.
  Seems to me that is what America is about.
  But we do not have that scenario in the advocacy of
intelligent design .
  Instead, we have some religious groups trying to
force a particular religious interpretation on to the
science. That is not promoting the widest possible
perogatives of religious choice on Americans. That is
indeed something like state support of a particular
religious interpretation. And, by mislabeling
intelligent design "science" it is almost a case of
what R. Schadewald called "lying for Jesus".
  Many of these groups also advocate that families
have more choices in many things, for example, in the
choice of the manner of education of their adolescents
in sexual hygiene. Fine. Yet, almost hypocritically,
to leave the religious interpretation of a scientific
theory to family choices is NOT part of their agenda.
They want Intelligent Design taught in the schools in
place of, or along side, the real scientific theory,
and they want it labeled as science too.
  I think that the scenario which allows for families
and churches to provide any religious interpretation
to the science while keeping clear of the science
curriculum is the best choice a society can make, with
public schools teaching the current and most accepted
science as science. This course of action promotes
individual perogative and by definition, enhances
freedom. It avoids nasty religious infighting down the
road which have plagued all societies with state
supported religions or with state supported areas of
religious views.
   Further, ridding the public schools of "intelligent
design theory" and making it the proper provenance of
individual family choices makes America better
economicly too. Right now there is a big concern among
many business groups about science education in
America and the need to educate our young people
better in science. America has more of the resources
to do this than many other countries, even though
science literacy and science interest is higher in
many other countries. But these business groups that
form to promote science education are quickly
flummoxed by an inability to teach evolution--the
central theory of biology, genetics
and--increasingly--biotechnology and medicine--and the
Big Bang theory which ties together astronomy and
physics. Resistance from young earthers also crashes
down hard on even basic geology and planetary science.
  So these business groups quickly go nowhere in their
promotion of science education in the USA, although
they have substantial resources to help.
Of course, in their own interest, they are trying to
develop a labor pool of scientifically talented people
close to home. But that's a win-win-win situation for
them, the people they hire (well, usually) and for the
USA in general. But the paralysis of the present
controversy mitigates its effectiveness. And hurts the
US sector of the "global" economy.
  Well, this is all something to think about. Why not
let schools teach the accepted science gung ho and
leave the religious interpretation to individual
family choice and churches? Seems logical to me.
When I have asked this question, the answer I usually
get is: "But some families won't give their children
any religious experience (or God, Jesus, etc.)." Or
"some churches don't really teach the Bible" as if
there is one church that is not held by some other
church to be in error. But that is precisely the
choice that families should have in a society with
religious freedom.
  So is this what is being advocated?
  And to those who are on the religious side of
things: you've come marvelously this far using a
church network. Why would you want to start using
public schools for religious interpretations? Would it
not be wiser to strengthen your church network? Yet,
around me, I see many churches abandoning or
underfunding youth ministries, towns with no after
school activities sponsored by churches or otherwise.
Do you think you can make public schools more
effective than churches in religious witness?
It's not faith: it's madness.

Francis Graham

  




                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
Received on Sat 14 May 2005 12:47:46 PM PDT