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 8.
"The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[14] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. speciation) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[15] In creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new genus or higher rank in taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution.[16] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community."
I will say I don't like that last sentence. I can just imagine if I went to wiki on global warming that same sentence is used.
geneticists embrace this theory
Has it been tested?
Design is testable, too.
>Scientific theory is not about consensus
No, but institutionalized religions are. Darwinism is institutionalized religion.
>Understanding evolution theory is a significant foundation for other areas of science.
For example?
>Building blocks should not be ignored because there is a competing theory.
You think Darwinism is a necessary "building block" for understanding science? I can't think of a single case where that would be true, nor can I think of any scientific discovery requiring Darwinism, or that occurred because the researchers cleverly applied Darwinian ideas.
To take just one notable example, the discovery of the helical structure of DNA by Watson and Crick, as well as the indisputable fact that it's not just a molecule but a chemical hard-drive — an information-storage device —storing and transmitting information about the organism in the form of a discrete digital code (A, C, T, G) required zero knowledge or assumptions of Darwinism.
Darwinists, of course, later retro-fitted the discoveries of Watson and Crick into their hypothesis, but that came later; they applied knowledge of biochemistry to Darwinism; Watson and Crick did not apply Darwinism to their research on DNA.
Evolution is scientific theory. It is testable. Scientific theory is not about consensus just as global warming should not be about consensus. Understanding evolution theory is a significant foundation for other areas of science. Building blocks should not be ignored because there is a competing theory.
I doubt that. In fact, recent published polls show that the majority of people in the US do not believe in Darwin's account of evolution, even though they tolerate it — or are forced to tolerate it — in their public schools.
>This was the primary point behind the article.
The article is clearly just lefty hysterics. I especially loved the lie that Christian fundamentalists are "chipping away" at a woman's "access" to birth control.
Hello???? Even the poorest woman can save her spare change, scrape together a dollar or two, and buy condoms at any local drug store. The idea that unless something is state-subsidized and "free" it is "inaccessible" is a typical lefty economic myth.
>The wackos who oppose evolution are a tiny minority.
The "wackos" include many scientists working in biochemistry, molecular biology, embryology, physics, computer science, etc. They don't "oppose" evolution. They oppose teaching it as scientific fact when it is, at best, just a hypothesis. Personally, I think it's the materialist version of a creation myth: creation without a creator.
How does that prove Darwinian evolution?
>Still, evolution being taught as an origin of the species has holes in it you can drive a semi truck thru. It is a solution by default. It lacks way too many things to be teachable as fact.
True. It lacks empirical evidence, and it lacks mathematical plausibility. Two good reasons not to call it science.
>creation, is clearly incredible."
Clearly wrong. A supernatural deity might be incredible, but the idea that living organisms display obvious signs of having been designed by an intelligence — that living organisms are not the natural result of matter and energy interacting by themselves over long periods of time, because over long periods of time things break down, moving from less probable physical configurations to more probable physical configurations — and are, in fact, a kind of technology, is very credible.
That would be true of other religions, too, such as Darwinian evolution.
The difference is that Christianity is presented as religion, while Darwinian evolution is presented as science. It isn't.
Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion. Being exposed to an idea is NOT the same thing as being forced to agree with that idea.
But you think the State and federal government has the authority to force, not mere tolerance, but acceptance of views contrary to their religious views... and I'm not talking evolution here.
People are now persecuted for saying "homosexuality is perverted", and any teacher who said that would be punished. But, with your endorsement, teachers are *encouraged* to say "Homosexuality is normal and healthy".
So before you whine about ideas with no basis in reality being forced on people, using the label "religion", revisit your premises.
Don't forget we all hold certain things dear and here you are trampling on one of mine. It would take no great effort to post volumes of webpages that exhibit the least desirable elements of your own special interest.
We know yours and choose to not rub your nose in things that are smelly. We don't need to post those things to build up our own persona.
Show us the same courtesy we show you. It's called being a gentleman.
My problem lies where I have trouble believing that a Christian who understands what their faith is based on can be a leftist dem. But I've met many who claim the same religious precepts as I, but insist that there is no inconsistency in voting for a "leader" who is vocally opposed to everything we are to follow. Who makes a stand that the most basic of all religious, moral, human right can be violated, not by a court or leader, but by the guidance of some min wage plus "counselor" in "planned parenthood".
It's not surprising to find many inconsistencies in their lives as time goes on. One moral surrendering ALWAYS leads to more.
Still, evolution being taught as an origin of the species has holes in it you can drive a semi truck thru. It is a solution by default. It lacks way too many things to be teachable as fact.
1. The fossil record is incomplete with almost all of the transitional forms between the different species missing completely from the record. You have the first animal and then the second. In evolution, a slow process taking thousands or millions or years the transitional forms would be more numerous than the first or second animal. Instead they are missing totally.
2. How did life develop from non-life in the first place?
3. How are we, master of the Earth via the powers of our mind, capable of rendering creations of intelligent design while ourselves being products of random evolution. If the theory of evolution is correct our creations exceeded us when we created our first hut.
The zoologist Professor D.M.S. Watson said it best when he said “Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
The gov't should not establish a religion, not only b/c of the Constitution, but b/c of the benefits of a religiously pluralistic society.
Honestly, it seems to me like advocates of states' rights don't mind if people's rights get violated at all as long as it's the state government that does it and not the federal government.
So no, I do not think schools should be afraid of teaching proven scientific facts just because a few fringe nutjobs insist on denying reality. If those fools had their way, they'd insist that schools teach this:
http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large...
You are correct, in my opinion, that creationism is religion, not science and should not be taught as science in schools. It may however be discussed as a competing theory to evolution and shown to be scientifically invalid on any number of points. My tradition says the world is only slightly more than 5,00 years old. This is a demonstrabily inaccurate claim and as such should not be presented as fact. I may however be presented as tradition of an old culture.
There are many ways to skin a cat so too speak. I prefer one that doesn't let the government interfere more than absolutely necessary.
Keep your religion where it belongs
It would be a lot simpler to avoid the creationism vs evolution fight in schools all together. There are plenty of other scientific areas for schools to focus on.
Load more comments...