Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools / Evangelicals see flaws in Darwinism
Ah... Pennsylvania! A great place to grow children, and they've started teaching Intelligent Design.
Now, as a bit toward the left, you might assume I was totally against this. You would be wrong, though. I don't necessarily agree with the idea that the universe magically sprang into being and what's here now is the result of mathematical models. Strict deconstructionism is not necessarilythe answer.
Some form of consciousness is driving the show, somehow.
I'm fine letting them teach God in the schools, if they want to. Inquisitive kids will seek out their own truth. The others might as well have something that makes sense.
Comments?
Now, as a bit toward the left, you might assume I was totally against this. You would be wrong, though. I don't necessarily agree with the idea that the universe magically sprang into being and what's here now is the result of mathematical models. Strict deconstructionism is not necessarilythe answer.
Some form of consciousness is driving the show, somehow.
I'm fine letting them teach God in the schools, if they want to. Inquisitive kids will seek out their own truth. The others might as well have something that makes sense.
Comments?
2 Comments:
OK--I have to respond to this one.
There is a difference between science (based on the analysis of physical evidence accumulated over 100's of years) and religious belief. The theory of evolution is a theory only in the strictest scientific definition of the term. But evidence of its existence is virtually indisputable within the scientific community.
Whether or not you feel that there is some higher power behind that design is completely irrelevant to science. Those beliefs fall solidly within the realm of spiritual belief, and therefore have absolutely no role within the public school system. The separation of church and state ensures that discussion of faith, religion and spirituality are personal matters best left to the individual and his/her family. This is the only way to guarantee the freedom of religious practice, as our country seems to be fast forgetting.
Finally, let us not forget that atheism is a religious belief system, one that is deeply offended by the inclusion of any reference to a higher power within public schools. I would venture to guess that it is not the only religious system which "Intelligent Design" offends in some matter, as "ID" is based on the theory of Creationism, a Christian doctrine. Its inclusion within the public school curriculum will only serve to cast doubt upon evolution, a theory so accepted by scientists that it forms the basis of all the biological sciences.
But perhaps this post was nothing more than bait designed to reel someone like me in...
Not at all. I see your points, but personally, I spent years approaching 'science' from a Western point of view, only to realize that what's taken 'science' hundreds of years was verbalized by philosophers like Lao Tzu long ago, poetically even. Concepts like the uncertainty priniciple, quantum mechanics, even the duality of light, are ancient ideas that had to be 'proved' before most westerners would accept them. Books like the Dancing Wu Li Masters and the Tao of Physics show how limited western thinking has been.
Does this belong in the public school system? Is "The Way of Life" a matter of faith? Even though nothing in it can be 'proved'? Maybe not - probably not under the name "Science". But if it is covered in a class on the Philosophy of Science, I think you have to let that fly.
As for athiests, and their "deep offense at the inclusion of any reference to a higher power" - does that mean that any content that deeply offends some group should be stricken from the public education system?
I agree with you in principle, and I know the Devil needs no advocate.
Post a Comment
<< Home