Posted under Academia & Culture & Education & Religion & Science
I had planned to post on this issue, but Patroon beat me to it. The issue is a clause in the Texas standards that requires the teaching of the “strengths and weaknesses” of a scientific theory. The nerve of them! How dare someone suggest that the gospel according to Darwin has weakness?
On the surface, the debate centers on a passage in the state’s curriculum that requires students to critique all scientific theories, exploring “the strengths and weaknesses” of each. Texas has stuck to that same standard for 20 years, having originally passed it to please religious conservatives. In practice, teachers rarely pay attention to it.
This year, however, a panel of teachers assigned to revise the curriculum proposed dropping those words, urging students instead to “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations using empirical evidence.”
Scientists and advocates for religious freedom say the battle over the curriculum is the tip of a spear. Social conservatives, the critics argue, have tried to use the “strengths and weaknesses” standard to justify exposing students to religious objections in the guise of scientific discourse.
I have no sympathy for the Darwinian fundamentalists here. They have done this to themselves. Instead of simply using Darwin’s theory to explain speciation and adaptation, which very few would object to, they are the ones who insist on dogmatic naturalism, materialism and scientism and suggest that Darwin’s theory eliminates the need to invoke a Creator. And then they get their panties in a wad when Christians object. Go figure.
Cross posted at the New Media Alliance blog.
Ceecee on 24 Jan 2009 at 7:39 am #
If there weren’t any weaknesses in Darwinian evolution, they would be eager to have the theory subjected to the strength and weaknesses test. It’s because such scrutiny calls evolution into question that it threatens the evolutionary dogma.
If exploring the strengths and weaknesses of evolution “exposes students to religious objections,” what does that prove? It might prove something that the secular educators desperately hope isn’t true. If it is true, they hope we will all put our heads in the sand and pretend that it’s not. They certainly don’t want students to pick up on it.
But why would hiding the truth from students qualify as good education? Maybe we should explore the strengths and weaknesses in evolution, and let the chips fall where they may. If it leads kids to religious ideas, so be it. If totally secular science was as completely true as the secularists claim, then they wouldn’t have to worry that exploring evolution’s strengths and weaknesses would lead them there. The kids would explore it, and the Biblical ideas would be revealed as untrue.
It’s because they secretly know the Bible to be true that they don’t want the strengths and weaknesses to be explored.
roho on 24 Jan 2009 at 2:56 pm #
I support the “Complete” concept of “States Rights”. If for example California wishes to worship “Trees”, I support their right to go to hell!……Or their right to move. But, the Feds should stay out of ALL STATES business.
Kris L. on 24 Jan 2009 at 3:07 pm #
I do not have enough faith to fully believe in evolution but why not subject your holy Bible to the same scientific standards ?
Did snakes actually walk upright ? How ?
Did they talk ? How ?
Did people plan to build a tower up to Heaven and dethrone God ?
Did they wake up one day speaking a different language and not remember their own language they had been speaking their whole life ?
You can repeat this process with all the miracles in the Bible. These ancient Jewish stories are fables, and myths. None of them are true. They are all lies started by the Bernie Madoffs,and Barney Franks of their day. Jews are not known for their honesty. They never have been,going back to even the first one.
I doubt evolution because I don’t see chimps changing into humans today so it has not been proven to me. Likewise, I don’t see people rising from the dead after three days or flying through the heavens so I doubt that too !
I do not believe in imaginary,invisible superheros. No one can prove their existence because the whole cult of religion is false.
Kris
Bill Lussenheide on 25 Jan 2009 at 5:40 pm #
Evolutionists as a movement are not open to any other paradigm, or and frankly this goes far against “true science”.
It is not just a hatred towards God and religion, it is also an attempt to squelch non-religious ideas like the exploration of “Intelligent Design”.
With science itself demonstrating through quantum mechanics that there are indeed the potential for other “universes” and other dimensional existence, then why does the idea of a creative intelligence that lives in a different space/time universe bother them so much?
Bill Lussenheide on 25 Jan 2009 at 5:55 pm #
God vs. Science
“Let me explain the problem science has with religion.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. “You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”
“Yes sir,” the student says.
“So you believe in God?”
“Absolutely.”
“Is God good?”
“Sure! God’s good.”
“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”
“Yes.”
“Are you good or evil?”
“The Bible says I’m evil.”
The professor grins knowingly. “Aha! The Bible!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”
“Yes sir, I would.”
“So you’re good…!”
“I wouldn’t say that.”
“But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could.. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.”
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”
The student remains silent.
“No, you can’t, can you?” the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
“Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”
“Er..yes,” the student says.
“Is Satan good?”
The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. “No.”
“Then where does Satan come from?”
The student falters. “From God.”
“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it” And God did make everything correct?
“Yes.”
“So who created evil?” The professor continued, “If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.”
Again, the student has no answer.
“Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”
The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”
“So who created them?”
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. “Who created them?”
There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues onto another student.
“Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”
The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor, I do.”
The old man stops pacing. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?”
“No sir. I’ve never seen Him.’
“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”
“No, sir, I have not.”
“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelled your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?”
“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”
“Yet you still believe in him?”
“Yes.”
“According to the rul es of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?”
“Nothing,” the student replies. “I only have my faith.”
“Yes, faith,” the professor repeats. “And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.”
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. “Professor, is there such thing as heat?”
“Yes.”
“And is there such a thing as cold?”
“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”
“No sir, there isn’t.”
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested.
The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain, “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees. Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just t he absence of it.”
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
“What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?”
“Yes,” the professor replies without hesitation. “What is night if it isn’t darkness?”
“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?”
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. “So what point are you making, young man?”
“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.”
The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. “Flawed? Can you explain how?”
“You are working on the premise of duality,” the student explains. “You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is t o be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.
“Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”
“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”
“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
“Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
“To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.” The stude nt looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?”
The class breaks out into laughter.
“Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelled the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?”
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. “I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.”
“Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,” the student continues. “Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?”
Now uncertain, the professor responds, “Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”
To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”
The professor sat down.
Sean Scallon on 25 Jan 2009 at 6:16 pm #
It’s not a question about the science. Bryan himself during the Scopes trial said he didn’t know the science and wasn’t arguing it. The question is one of freedom, will Texas be allowed to established its own academic standards or will they be forced to conform to a certain standard because the D.C. nationalists don’t like it?
Texas has every right to sort the issue out themselves and let the chips fall where they may. And take the consequences. That’s what freedom is about.
roho on 26 Jan 2009 at 12:00 am #
Bill………..I enjoyed your comment between the student and professor.
Bede on 26 Jan 2009 at 8:10 pm #
It is unfortunate that liberal Darwinists can be so dogmatic.
It is especially unfortunate because the general lessons of evolution are conservative. Evolution demonstrates:
(1) the limits of man
(2) the fragility of human institutions
(3) kin selection and the preference of one’s own kind
I think that conservatives should co-opt evolution, making it their own.
I’d recommend Thomas Fleming’s The Politics of Human Nature, which lays out a conservative understanding of human nature via evolutionary theory.
Dostoevsky on 01 Feb 2009 at 10:11 pm #
“They have done this to themselves. Instead of simply using Darwin’s theory to explain speciation and adaptation, which very few would object to, they are the ones who insist on dogmatic naturalism, materialism and scientism and suggest that Darwin’s theory eliminates the need to invoke a Creator.”
Great point, Red. This had never occured to me before. Their own desire to use a scientific theory to push a political/philosophical thesis has backfired, and now they’ve broken out their crying towels.
Sean is right that it’s a question not of science v. religion but of who has the authority to say what children are taught — our technocratic elite, or the childrens’ parents?
Bede also makes a good point. Genetic heredity is a biological reflection of the metaphysical significance of tradition.