Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I am a reformed evolutionist, an avowed believer in the fact that our existence is owed to God Almighty.

Although I went to Catholic School, I still could not swallow the creation story, it left out too many animals I knew to exist. I dug trilobite fossils out of rock behind that very school for crying out loud. There were no trilobites in Genesis.

At a later age I came back to faith, it doesn't matter to the masses how. It doesn't matter the difference in my bible and the fossil record to me now. Here's why.

My past belief was in scientific method and findings. My current belief is one of faith.

I personally support the side that says scientific method and evolution needs to be taught in school. NOT because of the supposed imposition of religion if ID is taught. Evolution is currently the best theory of where we come from.
Science should be taught in science class. DUH!!

Creation or ID needs to be taught in Sunday School or church and at home if that is what mom and dad want little Johnnie or Janey to learn. Creation is a religious belief and as such needs to be kept at church or at home.

Why oh why we could not all agree to disagree on this is so stupid to me. Sometimes I really do think the anti-ID people have a broader agenda. The total dissolution of any mention of religious belief in our country. However let me say, there is much wrong on both sides of this.

It shames me to see it sometimes.

Posted by Steve at February 20, 2006 03:11 PM

> Science should be taught in science class. DUH!!

> Creation is a religious belief and as such needs to be kept at church
> or at home.

Not everything taught in school is science. In many school systmes, it is possible to get a high school diploma with only a single semester-hour of science.

Many schools offer classes in psychology, which is arguably more religion than science. Then there's philsophy, comparative religion (often taught in social studies), etc. No one insists that these "need to be kept in church or at home."

It's incorrect to say that fundamentalists are trying to introduce religion into schools. In many ways, religion is already there. The argument is over whether certain specific ideas should be introduced in schools, and who makes the decision.

> Why oh why we could not all agree to disagree on this is so
> stupid to me.

Perhaps because Jimmy Carter tried to use the IRS to shut down private schools. Although, really, it goes back much farther than that. The public school system as we know it today was founded by the Harvard Unitarians such as Horace Mann, who wished to replace the locally determined curricula of the existing "common" schools with their own. They were largely successful.

If you remove the assumption that schools should be government institutions, this entire controversy largely goes away. A private school is free to teach or not creationism, as long as the market (parents) approve. Is there harm in allowing that? Perhaps, but there is also harm in much of the nonsense that is taught in social studies and other classes today. On balance, I don't think the results could be worse than the current system.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 20, 2006 06:15 PM

If the battle was between ID and Evolution, it would not be a battle. Unfortunately, the press feels the need to pit the Darwinists against ID, and they are as religous in their beliefs ad the ID folk. ID and "pure" Darwinism are both religions. Evolutionists are scientists. In the public mind, there is no difference between Darwinism and Evolution, and THAT is the heart of the problem.

Posted by Brad at February 20, 2006 07:27 PM

ID should not be taught, period, because it defines a knowing creator of all things, GOD is NECESSARY in the teaching of ID, and I promise you that in Sunday Schools it isn't ID being taught, it is the knowing and deliberate creation of all things from chaos by a knowing and engaging god. I, however, do not believe it is wrong to Mention, Creation in a science class, because it can be mentioned, and left floating without having to argue theological points. There are a lot of creation "myths" floating around, most of them are thought excercises like the existential thing, or there is the concept of indefinable eternity which are just philosophical discussions. There are also insinuations of other creation "myths" in science classes, after all there is panspermia (a little out there in my mind, cuz all it does is pass the buck of true creation down the line) and then, there is the "Big Bang" there is math and science that point to the big bang, but there is no way to actually prove it. Just like there is no way to prove general creation.

Creation, in school, trying to cope with theological influences can spend several days talking about the science of the "Big Bang" and then satiate the need for a godly influence by offhanding "creation" in a 10 minute explanation that while "The Big Bang is a theory, there are some who think that it is only that, and believe that creation was a spontaneous event by some external source, however, there is no math, satallite images or any other such thing that we can review in this class, now, back to the Big Bang"

You can treat things equal as OPINIONS! without comprimising scientific truth.

It's just an opinion of mine.

Posted by Wickedpinto at February 20, 2006 09:02 PM

As a Catholic I have no problem with Evolution, the catholic church has no problem with saying science and religion are two different things.

And I enjoy the essays of Steven J. Gould. But every time he mentions religion he does so in a negative way.

Actually that's not quite right, if he is directly talking about science vs. religion, he takes care to point out that the dispute is not real, and that real religion has no need to dispute with science (ie. the Catholic church position) but when SJG mentions religion casually, his distain shows through.

Posted by Patrick at February 20, 2006 11:24 PM

Edwaard W,
Please allow me to sound off on your post.

Anything I wanted my kids taught that I felt was lacking in their daily lessons we taught them at home.

Anything we felt needed to be disputed, we taught them our personal socio-political beliefs.

At an age where they became adults they had been given enough information to make their own choices, hopefully. We taught them the difference in what was school work of a "science" or better academic nature, i.e. reading, writing, social studies, geography etc. and in our belief in God.

School was where we sent them for academics, church is where we took them to teach them our "faith". That is what I meant by keeping Science at school, religion at home or church.

I just cannot see why, reasonably educated, or seemingly educated people have to continue to argue this topic year after year after year. It takes away time and money and energy that would be better spent ON THE KIDS. If we spend time arguing about whats best for our kids, we spend time away from them and that's a loss for them.

I truly think for both sides it has become more about winning or being right than it is about the kids.

If you disagree with the curriculum in the school, teach them what you believe and show them why you disagree. People who send their kids to private school should do this too! Teach them to be analytical. Teach them to be smart and teach them to become smarter than you are.

Teach your kids at home, how to live the lives you want them to have.

That responsibility should not be abdicated to the local school systems public or private. It should not be abdicated to the NEA, the CIA, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the NRA or any other group. Stand up to the responsibility.

Having read my original post, and in retrospect I didn't make my point well before. I used alot of words but that was all it was to a great extent.

Posted by Steve at February 21, 2006 07:31 AM

I've been saying that if anyone should be against ID it should be the biblical literalists, because it threatens to isolate them while non-literalists find in ID a reconciliation between belief in God and belief in science. And yet Wickedpinto seems to be the only such (or near-such) who is critical of the idea -- all the rest are those whom you would expect to be against fundamentalism.

I gotta say, the way people react to ID is one of the more amusing spectacles of the present day.

Posted by McGehee at February 21, 2006 07:38 AM

> Anything I wanted my kids taught that I felt was lacking in their daily
> lessons we taught them at home.

> Anything we felt needed to be disputed, we taught them our personal
> socio-political beliefs.

That's fine, but many people don't have the time to do that. What about the doctor who works 70 hours a week or the soldier serving in Iraq? Do you really expect them to monitor everything their children are learning for 8 hours a day? Isn't that what they elect school boards for?

> We taught them the difference in what was school work of a "science" or
> better academic nature, i.e. reading, writing, social studies, geography etc.
> and in our belief in God.

"Social studies" is not science. It's not even history (the subject it replaced). It's a little bit of history mixed in with sociology, political science, psychology, and other fluff subjects, and it often includes beliefs about God (usually of the non-Western variety).

There's as much scientific evidence for angels and demons as there is for ids, egos, and superegos (i.e., none whatsoever). Yet, the Freudian faith is commonly taught in public schools, not as religion but fact, and there's no media outcry about that.

> I just cannot see why, reasonably educated, or seemingly educated people have
> to continue to argue this topic year after year after year.

Because that's what reasonably educated people do with political issues.

You accept that schools should be run by the government, but you want them to be free of politics. That's not possible, because politics is the lifeblood of government.

If you want to avoid political arguments about school curricula, you should support private or home schooling. Then, curriculum content will become a market decision or a personal decision. As long as education is public, however, there will always be arguments between various groups of voters. Telling one group they should shut up and go away is no solution.

> It takes away time and money and energy that would be better spent ON
> THE KIDS. If we spend time arguing about whats best for our kids, we
> spend time away from them and that's a loss for them.

Many of the people you're criticizing have taken their kids out of the public school system and are now home schooling. So, it's a bit unfair to criticize them for not spending enough time with their kids.

> If you disagree with the curriculum in the school, teach them what you
> believe and show them why you disagree. People who send their kids to private
> school should do this too!

Again, not everyone has time to review everything their children are learning at school, and not everyone can afford to send their children to private schools. If parents can afford private school tuition, it's only with the money they have left over *after* they pay the taxes that support public schools. This "pay twice" system puts private schools out of reach of many parents.

> Teach them to be analytical. Teach them to be smart and teach them to become
> smarter than you are.

> Teach your kids at home, how to live the lives you want them to have.

That's a fine argument for home schooling, but you aren't arguing for that. If you believe schools should be run by the government, then you have to accept that there will be politics involved, including "the NEA, the CIA, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance, the Republican Party, the Democrat Party, the NRA or any other group."

You can separate church and state, but you cannot separate politics from politics.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 21, 2006 01:07 PM

Edward,
I bow to your advanced ideas and intelligence.

You dissect my posts as a surgeon with a scalpel warmed up in hell, slicing me to the intelectual quick, turning every word around to see where I need to be corrected. Thank you, Thank you!!

I stand down and will not post on this item again.

You win, I will kill my children asap. And their children too. They obviously need to leave this mortal existence because of my failures as a man, a husband, a father, a grandfather and ultimately as a human being! All done I assure you to make room for you and your superior progeny.

Good-bye world and Thank You Edward for showing me the errors of my ways.

You argumentative verbose twit!!

Posted by Steve at February 21, 2006 07:52 PM

> They obviously need to leave this mortal existence because of my failures as a man, a husband, a father,
> a grandfather and ultimately as a human being!

Steve, please calm down.

I never said you were a failure as a man, a husband, a father, etc.

I didn't even disagree with your statements about religion and science.

I simply point out that it's unrealistic to think that, in a political system like public schools, you won't have disagreement.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 21, 2006 10:26 PM

Steve,
We're all so grateful that you finally understand.

Posted by Jon Jackson at February 21, 2006 11:17 PM

JJ,
I didn't realize he was "one of those" when I answered his rebuttal to my original post.

Some days you get the bear, some days you hope the bear gets the argumentative verbose twits amongst us.

Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Mt 7:16

Posted by Steve at February 22, 2006 04:39 AM

Post a comment