register |  login
› CASTLE ROCK
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
RECENT STORIES

Darwinists go ape over new education bill
Contributed by: Johnathan Osborn on 7/21/2008

The Louisiana Science Education Act, a new bill introduced to legally protect critical evaluation of evolutionary theory in classrooms, was recently passed by state legislators almost without opposition. Under the shelter of this new law, teachers can present scientific evidence against evolutionary theory to their students without fear of reprisal.

However, this new freedom has already come under verbal assaultfrommany leading Darwinists, such asBarbarra Forrest,professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University, who criticizes the bill as," A creationist bill written in creationist language."

The local chapter of the ACLU has threatened lawsuits against school boards that take advantage of their new-found freedoms, and the New York Times decried it as "an assault on Darwin."

Interestingly enough though, the "Creationist language" contained in the bill seems to be nonexistent, especially in the sections guaranteeing the teacher's rights to, "create and foster an enviroment withing public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

What part of this language so alarms Darwinists?Are they afraid of children learning "critical thinking and logical analysis"? Are they afraid of their oh-so-precious theory being subjected to "open and objective discussion"?

Although opponents of the bill are probably abjectly terrified of all the above, the only objection they can actually vocalize without looking absurd and bigoted is that this bill is an attempt toget the theory of Intelligent Design into schools.Intelligent Design examines much of the same evidence that the theory of evolution does,but reaches a vastly different conclusion: That an intelligent creator is responsible for the universe as we see it.

Darwinists object to allowing this theory into schools because they believe it is simply religion repackaged.

According to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, Religion is, "Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience."
I have met Darwisnists who "believe in and follow devotedly" their theory, as a matter of fact, I am related to one such "true believer" in evolution, and I can attest that he defends his beliefs with more vigor than many religious people I know.

According to the definition of "religion", then, he, and millions of Darwinists/atheists like him, are as deeply religious as the most devote Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Jew ever could be, and they are imposing their religion, in the garb of scientific credibility, upon the millions of children in our public schools.

There should be an open discussion about the origins and nature of the universe we inhabit. All perspectives should be heard, discussed, and evaluated in light of scientific and historical evidence. No one viewpoint or theory should be allowed to dominate any one area to the exclusion of all other viewpoints, and no theory or religion, however strongly entrenched, should be immune from critical evaluation.

Bills like the Loiusiana Science Education Act should be passed in every state, to ensure that true science is taught in our schools, and that students are taught in a tolerant enviroment that encourages dialogue and critical thinking. But in the meantime, let's all play nice.


For some good reading about the challenges facing evolutionary theory, try "Darwin's Black Box." by Michael Behe or "Icons of Evolution" By Jonathan Wells Story information derived from World magazine


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above story



Current Rating
Based on 8 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

< BACK | NEXT >
Showing 1-10 of 62 comments
Submitted By: Johnathan Osborn
posted on 8/14/2008 @ 2:55:56 PM
(Not Rated)
To my Dear Darwinian Commentators (DDC) Thank you for so eloquently proving the point which my article attempts to make, namely that advocates of Darwinian theory are largely intolerant of any other viewpoint. Argue all you want, but you have proved my point. Thank you for doing it so eloquently and profusel. Special thanks to Al Cibiades for his exemplary rants. (and that cute little bit of Latin he manages to throw in) I may have to frame some of his comments, as they are so typical.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: David Sorrenson
posted on 7/31/2008 @ 9:33:25 AM
Rated Story
Tucker, I will not agree to disagree. I will only agree that you're wrong. :) I will be happy to site my source. Regarding less than 2/10ths of 1 percent of scientists question evolution, that can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html . As for there is no alternative theory, the onus is on you to show there IS an alternative theory. You must prove a positive, not me a negative.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Al CIBIADES
posted on 7/30/2008 @ 9:31:42 PM
(Not Rated)
As to your questions,this article may be of interest. http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/teach-controversy.html Looking at the list provided by a leading creationist web site there are only a handful mentioned, and most of the references are invalid. (They included Newton who lived way before Darwin.. as an example). As to lack of an alternative, your role as an educator surely taught you that proving the absence of something is illogical. Provide a single example of an alternate scientific theory one and we may have a discussion. If there were an alternate, it would, no doubt be well known.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Monte D Tucker
posted on 7/30/2008 @ 6:10:44 PM
Rated Story
Bravo. To both. Your rebuttals have taken on a modicum of civility. That is all I asked from the get-go. Keep on track in manner these last postings convey except as noted below: (1) Please cite your sources if you claim a fact, e.g "2/10ths of 1 percent of scientists" or (2) that of "there is no alternative theory". I may desire to review them. Thanks guys. Incidentally, understanding the question differs because we have different questions, equally valid to ask. The only dumb question is the one never asked. At this point, I'd think we can agree to disagree as to what an "educator" should or should not comprehend. Thanks for the exchange.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Al CIBIADES
posted on 7/29/2008 @ 9:24:07 PM
(Not Rated)
One more point. If there were a scientific controversy regarding evolution there would be an alternative scientific theory. There isn't. Neither Creationism nor ID propose a theory i.e. a model of how something works based on fact. At its very best, giving benefit of the doubt to assertions, creationism and ID only argue negatively, that Evolution doesn't explain something. That's not fact or theory. Its just desperate denial. Of course, real scientists DO question and argue over points. The fundamentals, however, are by now established. Those who claim to be scientists, even if scientifically trained, who do not abide by the fundamental notion of science are not, for those purposes, scientists.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Al CIBIADES
posted on 7/29/2008 @ 9:18:59 PM
(Not Rated)
Here's a definition of science:"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural phenomena under controlled conditions. Knowledge in science is gained through research." There are many others which essentially converge on the notion that science is study with the aim of acquiring the most accurate possible knowledge of facts and deriving the best possible understanding of how the world we observe works based on those facts. Creationism is based on NO facts and ID is creationism coyly declining to name the creator. They are the antithesis of science.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Al CIBIADES
posted on 7/29/2008 @ 9:05:29 PM
(Not Rated)
Mr. Tucker, you once again confuse taking a statement to task with name calling. Moreover, as Mr. Sorrenson has pointed out, the controversy refer to exists only among non-scientists. What you apparently refuse to do, problematic for someone purporting to be an educator, is to get a firm understanding of the question. The nature of science and scientific inquiry is not a mystery and easily understood. Statements indicate a lack of understanding of the discipline are appropriately deprecated.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: David Sorrenson
posted on 7/29/2008 @ 12:10:43 PM
Rated Story
Third, regarding this article you claim to have seen, if a teacher is advocating that evolution is an unproven theory, then that teacher is not teaching science. It’s as if that teacher stated that the heliocentric solar system is still an unproven theory. Misuse of such a basic scientific term identifies the individual as undeserving of the title of scientist and is certainly ill equipped to teach it.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: David Sorrenson
posted on 7/29/2008 @ 12:10:34 PM
Rated Story
Monte Tucker, first let me point out the number of "dissenting" scientists is less than .2% in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized nation. To imply there is a controversy amongst scientists as to wether evolution is correct is not only inaccurate, it is erroneous. Scientists... REAL scientists, do not doubt the validity of evolution. Second, theories are never proven in science. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun is a scientific theory, and it is unproven. The theory of gravity is also unproven. To say that a scientific theory, ANY scientific theory, is unproven, only illustrates ignorance.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Monte D Tucker
posted on 7/29/2008 @ 11:26:43 AM
Rated Story
To all - I'm neither scientist nor expert in the subject field of evolution theory. The problem we in education have is with such a highly controversial topic as evolution theory, and with so-many apparently qualified scientists at odds with one another over this theory, education professionals are left with implementing what one School Board mandates versus another. This mandate in policy, whether E.T. or ID in scope, is the source from which disciplinary measures are invoked. Thus, many, if not most teaching professionals are legitimately and in good faith attempting to be un-biased in the class-room. They need our help to be so. Both polarized sides of this issue claim fraud(s) and deceit by the other. The relevant teacher, if the child is to develop critical thinking skills, must present both and the reasons why each side believes as they do as well as the fraud(s) or alleged fraud committed by both to skew one over the other.
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-10 of 62 comments
< BACK | NEXT >
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Johnathan Osborn

Larkspur , CO

Johnathan Osborn has posted 5 stories and 12 comments since joining on 4/11/2008. Johnathan Osborn 's average story rating is 4.29.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS STORY
STORY RSS FEEDS
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is register, then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyone what events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos