Darwin on trial: Evolution hearings open in Kansas

[-Cp]

TOPEKA, Kan. (Reuters) - A six-day courtroom-style debate opened on Thursday in Kansas over what children should be taught in schools about the origin of life -- was it natural evolution or did God create the world?

The hearings, complete with opposing attorneys and a long list of witnesses, were arranged amid efforts by some Christian groups in Kansas and nationally to reverse the domination of evolutionary theory in the nation's schools.

William Harris, a medical researcher and co-founder of a Kansas group called the Intelligent Design Network, posed the core question about life's beginnings before mapping out why he and other Christians want changes in school curriculum.

School science classes are teaching children that life evolved naturally and randomly, Harris said, arguing that this was in conflict with Biblical teachings that God created life.

"They are offering an answer that may be in conflict with religious views," Harris said in opening the debate. "Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools. This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications."

Read the rest at:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8402347&src=rss/topNews

 

[Nienna]

The Scopes Trial in reverse! Hopefully it will get through. Have you looked at a high school science book lately? FULL of outdated or just plain false information.

 

[-Cp]

Same story, different source - reads a bit different than Reuters:

http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=10596

 

[Nienna]

If evolution is so imperviously true, what are they afraid of?

 

[5stringJeff]

If evolution is so imperviously true, what are they afraid of?

Great question!!!

 

[MissileMan]

And people wonder why the rest of the world is kicking our ass in science and math...next thing ya know, there'll be a push to get away from SAE and metric and start measuring everything in cubits.

 

[IControlThePast]

So it's not possible for God to create Earth and have Evolution

I have no problem with Intelligent Design, just keep it in Philosophy and out of Biology

 

[MissileMan]

So it's not possible for God to create Earth and have Evolution

It might be, but science is about what you can prove, within reason. Religion is about what you believe. They want to teach religion as science.

I have no problem with Intelligent Design, just keep it in Philosophy and out of Biology

Bingo!

 

[William Joyce]

What I think is funny is the strange bedfellows created on this issue. Relgious conservative fundamentalists don't want to consider evolution because it interferes with their Bible-based belief that God created the world in 7 literal days. Liberals don't want the creation theory taught because it assumes a deity, which they hope doesn't exist, because otherwise, they're all going to Hell.

But on the racial issue, it's evolution that shows how we got the different races --- and why some races are smarter than others. Liberals all of a sudden don't want to have anything to do with it! Probably most conservatives, too...

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0965683613/002-9960016-9839265?v=glance[/ame]

Sorry, folks --- race is real, races are different, and that matters.

 

[5stringJeff]

It might be, but science is about what you can prove, within reason. Religion is about what you believe. They want to teach religion as science.

ID is science. It uses the scientific method to advance its theory that the universe, and specifically life, was designed. It does not attempt to advance the Biblical creation account as the only acceptable way to think about creation.

 

[5stringJeff]

I have no problem with Intelligent Design, just keep it in Philosophy and out of Biology

If Intelligent Design can explain biological principles, then why keep it out of the science classroom?

 

[archangel]

If Intelligent Design can explain biological principles, then why keep it out of the science classroom?

This is exactly what Einstein said..also he said "The more I learn...the more I believe in a devine creator!"

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you have to teach either of the theories in schools? the fact is no one alive on earth knows how the world was created unless God has revealed the process to some select individuals that I dont know about, which is possible, but as they aren't saying anything I am going to assume that no one knows. So why should we teach that it was any theory. I mean if its a class on the origin of life than all theories should be discussed as a possibility, course even though any theory can be supported by Science doesn't make it a science class. Any class involving the origin of life should probably be a philosophy class because thats all its based off of at this point.

Also, i honestly dont know what the big deal is between evolution and the scriptures. I honestly dont see that big a conflict between the two.

 

[MissileMan]

ID is science. It uses the scientific method to advance its theory that the universe, and specifically life, was designed. It does not attempt to advance the Biblical creation account as the only acceptable way to think about creation.

ID isn't science...it's wishful thinking. In a nutshell, ID is the belief that if you find something complicated in nature that it's proof that it must have been invented by a higher intelligence or deity. It's part of a religious agenda to get the bible into schools through the backdoor.

 

[MissileMan]

Why do you have to teach either of the theories in schools? the fact is no one alive on earth knows how the world was created unless God has revealed the process to some select individuals that I dont know about, which is possible, but as they aren't saying anything I am going to assume that no one knows. So why should we teach that it was any theory. I mean if its a class on the origin of life than all theories should be discussed as a possibility, course even though any theory can be supported by Science doesn't make it a science class. Any class involving the origin of life should probably be a philosophy class because thats all its based off of at this point.

Also, i honestly dont know what the big deal is between evolution and the scriptures. I honestly dont see that big a conflict between the two.

How about the OBVIOUS conflict that man evolved from apes?

 

[Annie]

ID isn't science...it's wishful thinking. In a nutshell, ID is the belief that if you find something complicated in nature that it's proof that it must have been invented by a higher intelligence or deity. It's part of a religious agenda to get the bible into schools through the backdoor.

Funny, I missed that connection. That is the link for me. I do not want religion taught in public schools, I wouldn't entrust another to teach my children or grandchildren what I believe. I could never accept the idea of 'literal creation of man' though I certainly do believe God is the Lifeforce. Within this context theories of the origins/evolvement abound. Could be 'Big Bang', evolution, or something else.

 

[BR-549]

for one of my teeth and that fat red-suited fellow just never did come down the chimney..

But seriously, if many folks really knew just how scant the archaeological record actually is, and not just Man but the animal record as well, evolution would not hold the sanctified position as a theory that it does. It appears certain from evidence that higher forms evolved from lower forms, however, direct connections, say from one species to it's supposed next higher form are rare and nil. Not only that but as the late Dr. Stephen Jay Gould showed in his study of the Burmudian land snail,, speciation of animals often occurs seemingly overnight. This "puncuated equilibria" flies in the face of the accepted Darwinism of gradual change. Hence we could be seeing in evolution the Creator's hand in sudden changes within organisms or similar species.

I used to be a strict evolutionist with the caveat that Man was different. But the huge diversity of life on this planet, filling every nook and cranny and existing with almost symphonic harmony, along with our complete, insofar, inability to find life elsewhere in the universe, has led me to believe more in the evolution by the hand of the Creator theory. A sort of God's changing forms to fit his function rather than forms changing of themselves, but hey I could be dead wrong..

At any rate God won't let us stuff him inside a test tube just yet so if we are to teach science in school then teach the science we are able to ascertain, and so far evolution is the only game in town.. Want your kids to learn about Creationism? There's an education system for that, it's called Sunday School.

 

[Nienna]

The question of how the earth/universe began is a valid scientific question. It deserves time in the science curriculum, and I don't think most people would argue this. Creation science has at least as much scientific evidence as the theory of evolution. Therefore it should be taught in the science classroom, along with the theory of evolution and any other theories which might arise.

 

[Annie]

The question of how the earth/universe began is a valid scientific question. It deserves time in the science curriculum, and I don't think most people would argue this. Creation science has as at least as much scientific evidence as the theory of evolution. Therefore it should be taught in the science classroom, along with the theory of evolution and any other theories which might arise.

Mom4, I've seen lots of the problems with evolution, but very little to scientifically back up creationism. Please explain how it fits into the scientific.

 

[Nienna]

Mom4, I've seen lots of the problems with evolution, but very little to scientifically back up creationism. Please explain how it fits into the scientific.

I will explain as much as I can. Again, I am not a scientist.

This is a very broad question. I guess the place to start would be... at the very beginning. Origin science is a different thing from operational/ mechanical science. One cannot go back in time and observe the beginning of the universe or do repeated tests on the development of history. One must make a priori assumptions. For the sake of brevity, I'll only mention two: 1)The universe is the product of random chance with no supernatural forces to create and guide. This is the foundation of evolution.
2) The universe is the special creation of a Supernatural Being who revealed His processes to a writer. This writer recorded these processes in the book of Genesis. I realize there are many "shades of gray" between these two poles.

Now, in order to decide what probably happened, we observe the world around us, study rock formations, measure the chemical make-up of items, put slides under the microscope, etc. This is the scientific data, and it is the same for evolutionists and creationists. The difference is the interpretation of the evidence, based on one's a priori assumptions and beliefs. This is the reason creation science deserves to be taught in the classroom. Students can then look at hard scientific data and decide objectively which origins model best explains what is in front of their eyes.