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

From: j.divelbiss_at_att.net <j.divelbiss_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat May 14 19:35:07 2005
Message-ID: <051420052335.22434.42868B5B0008CF11000057A221603760219C9C070D040A90070BD206_at_att.net>

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
Received on Sat 14 May 2005 07:35:57 PM PDT