How Fundamentalist Collectivism Empowers Hardliners Against the Wishes of Most Americans

Posted by Maphesdus 11 years, 3 months ago to Politics
209 comments | Share | Flag

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.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 7.
  • Posted by $ WillH 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not at all. I am quite willing to discuss and/or debate the issue, just not with him.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The viewpoints of secular humanists are presented as fact in schools every day. Just how soon are you going to stand up to be counted as opposing the teaching of that religion? Or are you going to tell me that your religion is OK to teach, but teaching any of mine is verboten just because it disagrees with yours?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Are you falling into exactly what she's talking about: Once you're in a tribe with a certain position on something like how schools are funded, you have to have certain positions on all areas of life, even spiritual beliefs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    " 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."
    Scientific people do not follow Darwin's account. For one thing, he thought one reason species change Lamarckina evolution, in which giraffes' offspring grew longer necks due to their parents physical stretching. That turned out to be false. Scientists do not follow a great man or sacred text. Everything's open to new experiments that change our understand or in some cases usher in a new paradigm.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok, then. It's an hypothesis. I'm not going to quibble with the term. Reality is that evolution as an explanation for humankind (again, there is a "missing link" and no explanation for human sentience) is not established "Law." Thus, it is inherent that any institution of learning should present the alternatives and what still needs to be understood to validate/invalidate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Agendas radical or reactionary- Should they be discussed in school science and given equal time?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, there is a progression from hunch, hypothesis, theory, law. In science the word theory does not mean the same as when used by a detective in a TV serial but it means an idea backed up by incontrovertible evidence and analysis tho' not easy to test/validate/falsify under lab conditions. There may be other definitions around which may be presented. The word 'belief' does not enter any proper definition.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The theory of creationism has nothing to do with merely denying another theory. This is propaganda spewed by atheists looking to denounce anything that might have a religious origin.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Beliefs in science are called theories and they must be subject to intense scrutiny. Until facts are uncovered that definitively prove true or false then all competing theories deserve, neigh are required to be discussed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Parents seldom accept that their children are cleverer than they are, few children accept their parents are cleverer than them.
    I wonder what is the purpose of the Watson quote. Is it 'universally accepted', or 'special creation is clearly incredible'?
    Yes, when you disagree strongly it is tempting to be rude. I suppose knowing your material can help, but 'manners maketh man'.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Um, Muslims and Jews also believe in creationism. That's not just a Christian maxim. So, yes, it would seem that they do, by your rationale, as well.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes, but that is not the issue being presented. It is one of what should be taught in a classroom.
    That said, the comment is made about a bible phrase being used in a textbook. Since we don't have the full context of how it is used, we cannot make a reasoned evaluation of whether or not it really is religious indoctrination. Here's a possible scenario in which it would not be religious indoctrination: "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Can science provide evidence to support or refute that proposition?"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    See- 'punctuated evolution', every small step would not be equally as successful in survival as its close ancestors and descendants so you would not find equal representation, a smooth progression, in the fossil record.
    As well, consider the gap between the fossils of two creatures. Then an intermediary is found. The creationists then require an intermediary between the two smaller gaps. and so on. If a million small steps are found then they say it only 'micro-evolution'. (A concept invented to confuse). Conclusion- no evidence and no argument can be used on those with set minds.
    Carbon causes warming, printing money creates jobs. Same same.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Acknowledging that evolution is still scientific theory as it relates to humankind (missing link and our development of sentience), not scientific fact, then there is a requirement to identify viable alternative theories. It is also inherent in the curriculum to identify what still needs to be learned to turn theory into fact.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 11 years, 3 months ago
    Sorry but as soon as you bring up schools it doesn't matter what else the article says. Government shouldn't be involved in schools. Problem solved.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This should be addressed like other theories in science. Present both theories, explain support and shortcomings for both. Identify what needs to be learned to settle the theory and make it scientific fact.
    Creationism does not have to be taught that there was a particular source, rather that there was some unknown force that caused the original creation. That is not establishment of a religion, it is a scientific explanation of the as yet unexplainable.
    So many people get wrapped up in "religion" and preventing that at all costs that they blind their thinking to rational viewpoints.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ Hiraghm 11 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "radical" has become a club to marginalize a point of view. Long forgotten is the principle that liberals are "radical" and conservatives are "reactionary".

    Sections of Christianity are not pushing certain agendas, they're trying to preserve traditional views. And what about Moslems? You think "radical" Moslems are going to disagree with creationism? How about fundamentalist Jews?

    And what about those who believe the world rides on the backs of 4 elephants, who in turn ride the back of an enormous turtle swimming the cosmic sea?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo