we may as well declare evolution theory as a law
Just to be upfront with you, I am a creationist according to the literal account in the book of Genesis, yet insist that the recent debate of critical analysis is not about teaching creationism or evolution but allowing an open debate of all theories in the classroom.
The liberal bias in our education establishment has prevailed again in last week’s consideration of inserting critical analysis into our science curiculum. Science is based on critical analysis, skeptismsm, testing and retesting. This is how ideas become theories and theories become become laws. What I cannot understand is that we are barred from the critical analysis of theories of evolution. In other words you can question any other scientific fact, law, or theory, but woe is you if you question the theory of evolution. Whether you consider yourself a creationist or evolutionist or somewhere in betweeen, why should we show any topic favorable treatment and bar examination? Critical analysis is to science what sweet is to taste. These concepts are inseparable.
Ask the question, “Should Darwinism be given special protection from inquiry?” Anyone answering “yes” is indicating a fear of the facts. The SC State Board of Education discussed the issue and here is the results. Conservatives mounted a valiant effort, and the numbers reflect improvement from past boards, but the closed minded liberal side prevailed. The motion was to reject critical anlysis and passed 11-6. Those in oposition are to be commended.
Below is the roll call vote from the SC State Board of Education:
Those voting to oppose the rejection of critical analysis
1. Kristin Maguire, 2. Charles McKinney, 3.Jessie Curtis, 4. Terrye Seckinger, 5. Phillip Shoopman, 6. Ron Wilson
Those voting to accept the rejection of critical analysis
1. John Tindal, 2. Rebecca Burch, 3. Trip DuBard, 4. Ben Mitchell, 5. Diane Sumpter, 6. Virginia Wilson, 7. Kristi Woodall, 8. Al Simpson, 9. Patsy Pye, 10. Mike Forrester, 11. Joe Issac
March 18th, 2006 at 5:34 am
In recent years, Creationism vs. Evolution has come into public discussion in a manner befitting the 1920s and the Scopes Monkey Trial. I know how you feel on the matter, and you know how I feel, Kevin. That, however, is not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is whether the Theory of Evolution should be taught in public schools. Many feel that if evolution is taught as a plausible idea, so should the concept of Creationism or Intelligent Design. Two major ideas come into play here.
First, we run into the question of whether the Theory of Evolution is truly plausible. Remember that science is in a constant state of flux, ever changing and open to modification. Hypotheses and theories are based on the best available empirical evidence. Creationism and Intelligent Design, however, are largely based on faith. While I respect that, I am not convinced that it should be our sole basis for judgement. For centuries, we believed that the sun revolves around the earth. But based on the best empirical evidence, we teach that the earth revolves around the sun. Science never stops striving to learn more.
The second issue that the debate comes to light is (yes, you guessed it) the separation of Church and State. For years now, religious groups have declared this part of the First Amendment as a safe haven. And while it grants the freedom of religious choice and prevents government regulation of religious groups, it works both ways. Keep in mind the world that the Founding Fathers came from. While governments founded state religions and punished those who did not conform, religious groups also had a history of prying into government affairs. For several centuries, English kings could not be coronated without the consent of the Pope. The Spanish Inquisition, banning all non-Catholics from Spain, lasted well into the 17th century. In the Massuchusetts Bay Colony, non-Puritans were heavily taxed with the proceeds going to the Puritan Church. So in the end, we are left with the freedom of religion, and the right to have a government free of religious intervention. Furthermore, if we are to teach the concepts of Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design side by side, we should also teach that Vishnu may indeed be the creator of the universe as according to Hindu doctrine. We are a much more diverse, dynamic people than the Founding Fathers envisioned, and if we are to embrace one group’s dogma, we should embrace all.
In short, science is fallible, and scientists freely admit it. Also, one religion should not be taught as the standard in our fair state’s public schools when there are many present than have sharply different ideas. Why split hairs when there are much more pressing matters at hand?
March 18th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
In recent years, Creationism vs. Evolution has come into public discussion in a manner befitting the 1920s and the Scopes Monkey Trial. I know how you feel on the matter, and you know how I feel, Kevin. That, however, is not the issue at hand.
The issue at hand is whether the Theory of Evolution should be taught in public schools. Many feel that if evolution is taught as a plausible idea, so should the concept of Creationism or Intelligent Design. Two major ideas come into play here.
First, we run into the question of whether the Theory of Evolution is truly plausible. Remember that science is in a constant state of flux, ever changing and open to modification. Hypotheses and theories are based on the best available empirical evidence. Creationism and Intelligent Design, however, are largely based on faith. While I respect that, I am not convinced that it should be our sole basis for judgement. For centuries, we believed that the sun revolves around the earth. But based on the best empirical evidence, we teach that the earth revolves around the sun. Science never stops striving to learn more.
The second issue that the debate comes to light is (yes, you guessed it) the separation of Church and State. For years now, religious groups have declared this part of the First Amendment as a safe haven. And while it grants the freedom of religious choice and prevents government regulation of religious groups, it works both ways. Keep in mind the world that the Founding Fathers came from. While governments founded state religions and punished those who did not conform, religious groups also had a history of prying into government affairs. For several centuries, English kings could not be coronated without the consent of the Pope. The Spanish Inquisition, banning all non-Catholics from Spain, lasted well into the 17th century. In the Massuchusetts Bay Colony, non-Puritans were heavily taxed with the proceeds going to the Puritan Church. So in the end, we are left with the freedom of religion, and the right to have a government free of religious intervention. Furthermore, if we are to teach the concepts of Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design side by side, we should also teach that Vishnu may indeed be the creator of the universe as according to Hindu doctrine. We are a much more diverse, dynamic people than the Founding Fathers envisioned, and if we are to embrace one group’s dogma, we should embrace all.
In short, science is fallible, and scientists freely admit it. Also, one religion should not be taught as the standard in our fair state’s public schools when there are many present than have sharply different ideas. Why split hairs when there are much more pressing matters at hand?
March 18th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Great thoughts! I would like to remind readers that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the US Constitution.
March 18th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Great thoughts! I would like to remind readers that the phrase “separation of church and state” is not in the US Constitution.
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Ms Woolum’s argument actually illustrates the inherent disingenuousness in the opposition to the injection of critical anlysis into the science classroom; forgetting for a moment that, as Ms Woolum admits, science purports to be, by definition, critical analysis.
She begins with a jarring non-sequitur. If the first question is whether or not evolution is plausible, of what relevance then is the basis in faith of creationism or intelligent design? These two things have nothing to do with each other.
What she attmpts is the classic red-herring approach of diverting attention from one thing by introducing another designed to draw the audience’s attention away from the first thing. In this case, she diverts attention from the plausibility of evolution by raising the specter of faith in the science classroom. This should alert the reader that Ms. Woolum holds no answer for her own question. The reader would be correct.
Ms. Woolum offers no answer for the plausibility question, which is all the more curious because there is an answer. The answer is that evolution is indeed plausible. Myriad evidence exists for micro-evolution, or evolution from lower species to higher species. The fact remains, however, that macro-evolution from non-humans to humans remains merely a theory. That’s why they call it the missing link.
So, the plausibility of evolution is not really in question. Nonetheless, Ms. Woolum obviously wants to discuss something else, e.g. the propriety of faith in a science classroom. This is the meat of the herring (red as we all remember). Ms. Woolum hopes to jerk everyone’s attention to the word faith and elicit a reponse of something like, “science and religion don’t mix.”
She intends that the audience, sufficiently diverted from the fact that the proposal made no mention of creationism or faith or any other religious premise, will label the proposal itself bad because of her false presentation that it would lead to religious instruction in the science classroom.
That emotional response falsely attained, Ms. Woolum achieves the fait accompli. Everyone now agrees that because critical anlysis equals faith instruction it is therefore bad and, as gravy, evoluiton itself must be the only sound theory because the suggestion of any critical anlysis of it comes from religious zealots who, as we all now know, aren’t very bright anyway or they wouldn’t be questioning evolution in the first place.
All that in only the first half of Ms. Woolum’s post. But there’s more.
Ms. Woolum takes our argument from the logical to the constitutional. She expounds upon the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, she is very ill-informed here.
For instance, an English monarch never needed the blessing of the pope for coronation; really, never. True, they desperately wanted it. However, the Catholic Church itself proclaimed church and state independent of each other as early as the 5th Century. Now the sovereign, as an individual, need fear for his Christian soul as he ruled from the throne, but he or she never needed papal dispensation to run the affairs of state.
It is true that non-Puritans were heavily taxed on behalf of the church in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but so were Puritans. That was the deal going in, and they all knew it, and they were free not to live there if they didn’t like it.
As for the Inquisition, I find this analogy the most ironic. The Inquisition served to stifle any free thought on any matter, civic or religious, in the name of state doctrine. Sounds a bit like a public school to me.
But that’s not really the point. The point is that Ms. Woolum continues her attempt at diversion from the question, that of critical analysis, by projecting images designed to shock the the average reader into rejection of the supposed enemy, creationism.
All of this leads us far-afield from the original point of Senator Bryant’s post–the rejection of the critical analysis of a scientific theory. By now, thanks to Ms. Woolum, we’re no longer talking about critical analysis, we’re talking about burning science teachers at the stake.
Ms. Woolum’s excellent adventure would be humorous if it weren’t so serious. I’m no scientist (as I’m sure scientists echoed in throng as they read the first part of this), but I am pretty confident that any scientist that rejects critical analysis of something because they already know what it will lead to will be subject to review by the Scientific Method Review Board (I assume they have one of these to investigate folks like that Korean guy that claimed he was cloning people).
At the end of the day (which I’m sure you, dear reader, are glad to see after my incessant bloviation), I remain amazed that this argument came from a purported advocate of science and its inquiring mind.
Why split hairs indeed? Why not just ask whether there’s any science left in evolution theory, or if it has become what it fears–religion. Or, as Montaigne put it, “nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.”
March 23rd, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Ms Woolum’s argument actually illustrates the inherent disingenuousness in the opposition to the injection of critical anlysis into the science classroom; forgetting for a moment that, as Ms Woolum admits, science purports to be, by definition, critical analysis.
She begins with a jarring non-sequitur. If the first question is whether or not evolution is plausible, of what relevance then is the basis in faith of creationism or intelligent design? These two things have nothing to do with each other.
What she attmpts is the classic red-herring approach of diverting attention from one thing by introducing another designed to draw the audience’s attention away from the first thing. In this case, she diverts attention from the plausibility of evolution by raising the specter of faith in the science classroom. This should alert the reader that Ms. Woolum holds no answer for her own question. The reader would be correct.
Ms. Woolum offers no answer for the plausibility question, which is all the more curious because there is an answer. The answer is that evolution is indeed plausible. Myriad evidence exists for micro-evolution, or evolution from lower species to higher species. The fact remains, however, that macro-evolution from non-humans to humans remains merely a theory. That’s why they call it the missing link.
So, the plausibility of evolution is not really in question. Nonetheless, Ms. Woolum obviously wants to discuss something else, e.g. the propriety of faith in a science classroom. This is the meat of the herring (red as we all remember). Ms. Woolum hopes to jerk everyone’s attention to the word faith and elicit a reponse of something like, “science and religion don’t mix.”
She intends that the audience, sufficiently diverted from the fact that the proposal made no mention of creationism or faith or any other religious premise, will label the proposal itself bad because of her false presentation that it would lead to religious instruction in the science classroom.
That emotional response falsely attained, Ms. Woolum achieves the fait accompli. Everyone now agrees that because critical anlysis equals faith instruction it is therefore bad and, as gravy, evoluiton itself must be the only sound theory because the suggestion of any critical anlysis of it comes from religious zealots who, as we all now know, aren’t very bright anyway or they wouldn’t be questioning evolution in the first place.
All that in only the first half of Ms. Woolum’s post. But there’s more.
Ms. Woolum takes our argument from the logical to the constitutional. She expounds upon the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, she is very ill-informed here.
For instance, an English monarch never needed the blessing of the pope for coronation; really, never. True, they desperately wanted it. However, the Catholic Church itself proclaimed church and state independent of each other as early as the 5th Century. Now the sovereign, as an individual, need fear for his Christian soul as he ruled from the throne, but he or she never needed papal dispensation to run the affairs of state.
It is true that non-Puritans were heavily taxed on behalf of the church in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but so were Puritans. That was the deal going in, and they all knew it, and they were free not to live there if they didn’t like it.
As for the Inquisition, I find this analogy the most ironic. The Inquisition served to stifle any free thought on any matter, civic or religious, in the name of state doctrine. Sounds a bit like a public school to me.
But that’s not really the point. The point is that Ms. Woolum continues her attempt at diversion from the question, that of critical analysis, by projecting images designed to shock the the average reader into rejection of the supposed enemy, creationism.
All of this leads us far-afield from the original point of Senator Bryant’s post–the rejection of the critical analysis of a scientific theory. By now, thanks to Ms. Woolum, we’re no longer talking about critical analysis, we’re talking about burning science teachers at the stake.
Ms. Woolum’s excellent adventure would be humorous if it weren’t so serious. I’m no scientist (as I’m sure scientists echoed in throng as they read the first part of this), but I am pretty confident that any scientist that rejects critical analysis of something because they already know what it will lead to will be subject to review by the Scientific Method Review Board (I assume they have one of these to investigate folks like that Korean guy that claimed he was cloning people).
At the end of the day (which I’m sure you, dear reader, are glad to see after my incessant bloviation), I remain amazed that this argument came from a purported advocate of science and its inquiring mind.
Why split hairs indeed? Why not just ask whether there’s any science left in evolution theory, or if it has become what it fears–religion. Or, as Montaigne put it, “nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.”