How Fundamentalist Collectivism Empowers Hardliners Against the Wishes of Most Americans
From the article:
-------------------------
This is one reason that, no matter how often the courts try to kill it off, creationism ends up being presented again and again in classrooms as if it’s a scientific theory. The majority of Americans agree that evolution is how humans came to be. Despite this, as Slate recently reported, Texas students in charter schools are not only being incorrectly taught that evolution is a scientific “controversy” (it’s actually not controversial among scientists at all), but are being given religious instruction in the classroom. It’s not subtle, either, with one popular science workbook opening with a Bible quote, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”
Only about 21 percent of Americans reject the label of Christian, which means that the majority of people who accept evolution is a fact are actually Christians. So, if there’s so much Christian support for the theory of evolution, why is this such a struggle? The problem is that the Christian right has successfully framed the issue as a matter of atheists and secular humanists against Christians. While some pro-science groups like the National Center for Science Education, try really hard to avoid talking at all about religion – except to say it should not be taught in science class – the truth of the matter is the pro-evolution side is strongly associated with atheism and secular humanism.
A lot of Christians actually believe that creationism is not true and should definitely not be taught in the classroom, but coming out and saying so can feel like you’re siding with the atheist team instead of the Christian one. Unsurprisingly, then, the notion that pro-evolution forces are atheist and secularist becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nearly all the most prominent voices on the pro-science side of this issue are atheists or agnostics, because they, for obvious reasons, aren’t particularly worried about being perceived as not Christian. Once again, identity works to scare Christians into toeing the party line even if they privately disagree with what the leadership wants.
-------------------------
This is one reason that, no matter how often the courts try to kill it off, creationism ends up being presented again and again in classrooms as if it’s a scientific theory. The majority of Americans agree that evolution is how humans came to be. Despite this, as Slate recently reported, Texas students in charter schools are not only being incorrectly taught that evolution is a scientific “controversy” (it’s actually not controversial among scientists at all), but are being given religious instruction in the classroom. It’s not subtle, either, with one popular science workbook opening with a Bible quote, “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.”
Only about 21 percent of Americans reject the label of Christian, which means that the majority of people who accept evolution is a fact are actually Christians. So, if there’s so much Christian support for the theory of evolution, why is this such a struggle? The problem is that the Christian right has successfully framed the issue as a matter of atheists and secular humanists against Christians. While some pro-science groups like the National Center for Science Education, try really hard to avoid talking at all about religion – except to say it should not be taught in science class – the truth of the matter is the pro-evolution side is strongly associated with atheism and secular humanism.
A lot of Christians actually believe that creationism is not true and should definitely not be taught in the classroom, but coming out and saying so can feel like you’re siding with the atheist team instead of the Christian one. Unsurprisingly, then, the notion that pro-evolution forces are atheist and secularist becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nearly all the most prominent voices on the pro-science side of this issue are atheists or agnostics, because they, for obvious reasons, aren’t particularly worried about being perceived as not Christian. Once again, identity works to scare Christians into toeing the party line even if they privately disagree with what the leadership wants.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
So science dismisses quantum mechanics, string theory, and Einsteinian physics. Cool.
There are scientific theories, entertained by scientists, which involve multiple universes, interwoven universes, varying numbers of dimensions, some physical, some temporal.
Science is indeed concerned with the supernatural.
A simple question: what caused the Big Bang?
Have you ever heard of a Catholic monk named Gregor Mendel?
Newtonian physics was wrong.
No they don't. In fact, Molecular dating tests often show results that are contradictory from one another. The "gold standard" in evidence is still the fossil record — which predominantly shows gaps between the phyla ("stasis"), not a plethora of incrementally transitional forms, as Darwinism predicts.
Really? So Jews and Moslems dismiss the Garden of Eden, Adam and Even, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses and all that?
Yes, the arrogance of fundamentalist Christianity is what built this country and made it the pinnacle of human civilization. It wasn't Moslems or even Jews who created it, nurtured it and made it great. And it SURE as hell wasn't atheists.
I note with amusement that you left out Buddhists, Scientologists, Hindus, Greens and Satanists. There are example of the last two being forced into the classroom...
We don't even know if Neanderthals were a subspecies of Homo sap, other humanoid species have been discovered contemporaneous with both Neanderthals and homo saps, and it's even possible that both came from a now-extinct species. We're not even clear whether Neanderthal and homo sap interbred.
If a self-proclaimed "scientist" believes that a dog is a cat, he apparently *does* have the right to force his belief into the science classroom.
Generally speaking, science deals with the natural, while religion deals with the supernatural. Occasionally, a religion may cross over into the realm of the natural, in which case its theories can be be empirically and scientifically tested. For example, in the Quran (the holy book of the Muslims), it states that the sex of a child is determined by a man's sperm at the time of conception, which is completely true, and can be tested and proven scientifically. Yet the Quran also states that the universe was created by Allah, but we don't allow that to be taught in science classes because it cannot be tested or proven using scientific means.
If the theory deals with natural events, and can be tested using physical means, then its origin is irrelevant. It is only the supernatural and the unprovable which must remain isolated from government and its institutions.
The First Amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and I think they meant it.
Thank you. And in turn, let me repeat my recommendation of Stephen Meyer's "Signature in the Cell" and "Darwin's Doubt."
>One is that the scientific basis of evolution has been tested over and over in thousands of ways
Tested and failed. Name one test Darwinism has passed.
>Second is that opposition to evolution is all but entirely outside the scientific community
Indeed? See:
"Dissent from Darwin"
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.p...
and,
"A Dissent from Darwinism"
downloadable PDF of scientists who agreed to become signatories to the following:
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
"This was last publicly updated July 2013. Scientists listed by doctoral degree or current position."
Enjoy!
There is no proof that Archae swallowed Bacteria and formed an endosymbiotic relationship. Words like probably are not proof.
Load more comments...