[meteorite-list] Kansas: Creation, Evolution and Intelligent Design

Sat May 14 19:35:57 EDT 2005

In the beginning there was Dirk.

Now at the end I finally show up. Well here goes my non-affiliated talk on all this:

GOD IS GOOD
GOD IS LIKE A CHICKEN
LET US THANK HIM FOR OUR EGGS               (and meteorites too)
AAAAMEN

-------------- Original message from Francis Graham <francisgraham at rocketmail.com>: -------------- 

> 
> --- MARK BOSTICK wrote: 
> > 
> > A public school should not indorse a religion, as 
> > being proper and good, 
> > which also notes other kids (of different or no 
> > religion) as being different 
> > and wrong. There are 1000's of private schools for 
> > that. 
> True! 
> The introduction of "intelligent design theory" into 
> a public school science curriculum doesn't jibe with 
> the other proported aims of its proponents, in this 
> way: 
> One could conceive of evolution , the central theory 
> of modern biology, being centrally and rigorously 
> taught in science classes in schools. The evidence for 
> it is demonstrated and the connections to genetics and 
> disease are discussed. This, science teachers can say, 
> is what real biologists and planetary scientists 
> around the world hold to be almost certainly true and 
> this is why. 
> Then, it is the job of the families, and/or churches 
> to step in and interpret this as each family sees fit. 
> A family or church that believes it is all hogwash and 
> the world is less than 10,000 years old can teach 
> their children so if they wish. "What you heard in 
> science class is all a Satanic lie," they could say. A 
> family or church that thinks evolution is guided by 
> some intelligence can say that. A family or church 
> that believes in a God who just let things happen by 
> themselves for a while can say so too. And a family 
> without a church that believes in no god can say that 
> also. Each group can "comment" on the religious 
> implications of the science as it sees fit. If we 
> truly support freedom, then by definition we support 
> the widest possible family perogatives, in this 
> fashion. 
> Seems to me that is what America is about. 
> But we do not have that scenario in the advocacy of 
> intelligent design . 
> Instead, we have some religious groups trying to 
> force a particular religious interpretation on to the 
> science. That is not promoting the widest possible 
> perogatives of religious choice on Americans. That is 
> indeed something like state support of a particular 
> religious interpretation. And, by mislabeling 
> intelligent design "science" it is almost a case of 
> what R. Schadewald called "lying for Jesus". 
> Many of these groups also advocate that families 
> have more choices in many things, for example, in the 
> choice of the manner of education of their adolescents 
> in sexual hygiene. Fine. Yet, almost hypocritically, 
> to leave the religious interpretation of a scientific 
> theory to family choices is NOT part of their agenda. 
> They want Intelligent Design taught in the schools in 
> place of, or along side, the real scientific theory, 
> and they want it labeled as science too. 
> I think that the scenario which allows for families 
> and churches to provide any religious interpretation 
> to the science while keeping clear of the science 
> curriculum is the best choice a society can make, with 
> public schools teaching the current and most accepted 
> science as science. This course of action promotes 
> individual perogative and by definition, enhances 
> freedom. It avoids nasty religious infighting down the 
> road which have plagued all societies with state 
> supported religions or with state supported areas of 
> religious views. 
> Further, ridding the public schools of "intelligent 
> design theory" and making it the proper provenance of 
> individual family choices makes America better 
> economicly too. Right now there is a big concern among 
> many business groups about science education in 
> America and the need to educate our young people 
> better in science. America has more of the resources 
> to do this than many other countries, even though 
> science literacy and science interest is higher in 
> many other countries. But these business groups that 
> form to promote science education are quickly 
> flummoxed by an inability to teach evolution--the 
> central theory of biology, genetics 
> and--increasingly--biotechnology and medicine--and the 
> Big Bang theory which ties together astronomy and 
> physics. Resistance from young earthers also crashes 
> down hard on even basic geology and planetary science. 
> So these business groups quickly go nowhere in their 
> promotion of science education in the USA, although 
> they have substantial resources to help. 
> Of course, in their own interest, they are trying to 
> develop a labor pool of scientifically talented people 
> close to home. But that's a win-win-win situation for 
> them, the people they hire (well, usually) and for the 
> USA in general. But the paralysis of the present 
> controversy mitigates its effectiveness. And hurts the 
> US sector of the "global" economy. 
> Well, this is all something to think about. Why not 
> let schools teach the accepted science gung ho and 
> leave the religious interpretation to individual 
> family choice and churches? Seems logical to me. 
> When I have asked this question, the answer I usually 
> get is: "But some families won't give their children 
> any religious experience (or God, Jesus, etc.)." Or 
> "some churches don't really teach the Bible" as if 
> there is one church that is not held by some other 
> church to be in error. But that is precisely the 
> choice that families should have in a society with 
> religious freedom. 
> So is this what is being advocated? 
> And to those who are on the religious side of 
> things: you've come marvelously this far using a 
> church network. Why would you want to start using 
> public schools for religious interpretations? Would it 
> not be wiser to strengthen your church network? Yet, 
> around me, I see many churches abandoning or 
> underfunding youth ministries, towns with no after 
> school activities sponsored by churches or otherwise. 
> Do you think you can make public schools more 
> effective than churches in religious witness? 
> It's not faith: it's madness. 
> 
> Francis Graham 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________ 
> Do you Yahoo!? 
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! 
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 
> ______________________________________________ 
> Meteorite-list mailing list 
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com 
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list 