The state of Utah and the debate over evolution

or; science in the time of the "inquisition"

Published on February 2, 2006 By SanChonino In Religion

I don't know how many of you are familiar with the state of Utah, but if there's one thing Utah has going for it, it's lots of Mormons. They make up over half the population of the state, after all. Now, that's not a bad thing, don't get me wrong - I do happen to be one myself, so I can't go hating on the population of which I am a part - but it does lend itself to a lot of closed-mindedness. Currently up on "the Hill", where the State Capitol building is, there is a bill that a Sen. Buttars is trying to push that would remove most of the teaching of evolution in the classroom in biology classes, and also discuss "alternative ideas", a.k.a. "intelligent design", a.k.a. "I'm going to shove Creationism down your throat even in school".
Now, I understand that this man has some serious religious beliefs; there's nothing wrong with that. But - to teach intelligent design in the classroom? I was always under the impression that that was more of a sabbath school topic, not one to be discussed in the high school. But there is an awful lot of support for this bill. People are rallying around it, making it a call to arms in the name of "true religion", and simply embarrasing the heck out of me. As I said, I do happen to patronize the Mormon church. But does that mean that I can't also believe in evolution? Who's to say that that isn't what God used to "intelligently design" everything anyway? Needless to say, I'm bothered by it. Evolution - yeah, there's some pretty serious circumstantial evidence supporting it. God? Sorry, that evidence is in my heart. It's all mine. I can't prove the existence of God to anyone - so why confuse the poor high school kids with all these alternate ideas? I say, keep evolution in the classroom, and creationism in the Sunday school.

Comments (Page 1)

Leauki

on Feb 02, 2006

Evolution - yeah, there's some pretty serious circumstantial evidence supporting it. God? Sorry, that evidence is in my heart. It's all mine. I can't prove the existence of God to anyone - so why confuse the poor high school kids with all these alternate ideas? I say, keep evolution in the classroom, and creationism in the Sunday school.

Exactly my sentiments. Very good!

BlueDev

on Feb 02, 2006

Excellent article.

I happen to agree completely. There is simply too much evidence to not teach evolution in school. We know it happens. Period.

ParaTed2k

on Feb 02, 2006

I'll agree and disagree with you. ;~D

I have no problem with evolution being taught in school, after all it is the prevailing thought in the science community today, so why not? The thing is, I don't understand why so many people are so threatened by the idea that Intelligent Design is also taught in school. How long after science decided that the Brontosaurus never existed before schools quit talking about them? No scientist today can explain what elements sub-atomic particles are made of, but that doesn't stop them from teaching that all matter is made of elements. Science doesn't understand much about what goes on in the depths of the oceans, but they still teach oceanography as if the answers are all there, in the textbook full of "facts".

So science has to admit that they can't answer every question that comes around, so what. I thought school was to get a well rounded education, not to be spoon fed only one theory, where many exist.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 02, 2006

Question:

In one school system, intelligent design was planned for discussion in an ELECTIVE, PHILOSOPHY class. Should the government have ANY right to place restriction on the teaching of ID in your opinion if 1) the class is elective;
2)is is a humanities, not a science class?

In my opinion, it should not. Discussing ID in an elective philosophy class is on the same plane as discussing the Bible as literature. It can expand students' thinking and improve their critical analysis. And not a few students, if exposed to ID in such a setting, might make the conclusion that evolution provides, for them at least, a better answer.

But enough on MY opinion. What do YOU think?

SanChonino

on Feb 02, 2006

I agree that it can and should be discussed in a humanities situation. When I was in high school, I took a world religions class, and we talked about most major religions and their beliefs regarding the beginning of the world, the Genesis account included. And that is exactly where it should be. But in Utah, you have to take Biology to graduate - it's the only of the four sciences that they offer that is a for-sure thing. So there is no elective possibilites, and that's why it should stay the way it is. Theories need backing evidence - is that not the point of the scientific method? As of yet, the only evidence there is to the existence of God is what each and every one of us interpret as our communications, our relationships with him. Once there is evidence, I will consent to it being taught. Now remember, I believe in God! Don't think this is some atheist dogma attacking Christian beliefs, because I share them. I just believe it should be kept out of the public school classroom.

Demosthenes Locke

on Feb 02, 2006

Don't think this is some atheist dogma attacking Christian beliefs, because I share them.

You make a rational, reasoned argument, so technically, this should be irrelevant, emphasis on should.

Furry Canary

on Feb 03, 2006

'How long after science decided that the Brontosaurus never existed before schools quit talking about them? No scientist today can explain what elements sub-atomic particles are made of, but that doesn't stop them from teaching that all matter is made of elements. Science doesn't understand much about what goes on in the depths of the oceans, but they still teach oceanography as if the answers are all there, in the textbook full of "facts".

The difference is that science accommodates acknowledgement of what it doesn't know, and adapts to encompass new findings as and when they arise. 'Intelligent Design' attempts to impose a religious belief as it it were scientific evidence, but is not open to being challenged or tested in any rational sense.

Excellent article, San Chonino. Thank you.

Leauki

on Feb 03, 2006

The thing is, I don't understand why so many people are so threatened by the idea that Intelligent Design is also taught in school.

We are not threatened, we are worried. If schools start teaching complete nonsense as "science", we will lose a few hundred years of important developments.

ID is not a scientific theory and is therefore not fit to be taught in science class.

As for teaching it outside science: what for?

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 03, 2006

As for teaching it outside science: what for?

Leauki,

It's called a "well rounded" education. I find it interesting that many liberals I know preach the concept of "open mindedness", while being INCREDIBLY intolerant of others' ideas.

I agree with the idea of excluding ID from SCIENCE classes (or for that matter, ANY required courses) in a government funded high school. But as a homeschool parent, I teach my children evolution because I know they will live in a world where the majority of individuals believe in evolution exclusively and entirely absent outside interference, and I would be doing them a disservice by not preparing them to live in that world.

One problem I have with you and those who would ATTACK intelligent design is that you act as though evolution has provided you with all the answers. It hasn't; the fact is, you've filled in the many "missing links" and contradictions in evolution as exclusive means of the origin of species with FAITH, rather than facts, while condemning Christians for doing the same.

The thing is, actually, intelligent design and evolution are NOT parallel theories, as evolution never PRETENDS to discuss the origin of the universe, only of species. While I agree with you about the agenda of those who propose teaching intelligent design in public school science courses, I feel you are being dishonest in not acknowledging an equally compelling agenda from those who strongly oppose intelligent design.

Furry Canary

on Feb 03, 2006

'It's called a "well rounded" education. I find it interesting that many liberals I know preach the concept of "open mindedness", while being INCREDIBLY intolerant of others' ideas.'

But Gideon, where do you draw the line between a 'well-rounded' education and one that includes every unsubstantiated claim going? Should schools teach children about good dental care, but also about the tooth fairy? Should they educate children to enable them to make moral choices, or explain that they have no free will because of which sign of the zodiac they happened to be born under? Open the door to one academically uncontestable assertion, and you've got to let them all in.

Schools should teach scientific theories such as evolution, together with any other scientific theories that conflict with them. THAT is a well-rounded education. Any faith-based claims, such as ID - which are by definition not open to critical analysis, but boil down to 'we believe this because it is what our church teaches us' - are the antithesis of open-mindedness. Teach such beliefs by all means - but within your churches, not within our schools.

SanChonino

on Feb 05, 2006

"where do you draw the line between a 'well-rounded' education and one that includes every unsubstantiated claim going? Should schools teach children about good dental care, but also about the tooth fairy? Should they educate children to enable them to make moral choices, or explain that they have no free will because of which sign of the zodiac they happened to be born under? Open the door to one academically uncontestable assertion, and you've got to let them all in."

Thanks for that comment, Furry Canary. While I do think that it's appropriate to teach ID in philosophy classes and the like, I was discussing this situation with a friend last night, and it another problem with the teaching of ID in science classes arose - if we teach the (predominately) Christian version of the creation of life on this earth, then we need to mention what the Hindus believe, or what the Taoists believe, or what the Scientologists believe. And if we're supposed to discuss all of these, where will we have time to discuss ACTUAL science?

I'm reminded of Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which Arthur Dent and his fellow travelers arive on a planet that was originally inhabited by these little blue creatures who believed that the galaxy had been sneezed out by a great green god; that we were just a booger, and that the day of the coming of the great white handkerchief is coming. Should we then teach that in school, just because there may be somebody, somewhere, that believes it?

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 05, 2006

But Gideon, where do you draw the line between a 'well-rounded' education and one that includes every unsubstantiated claim going?

If we're going to require absolute proof, furry, we need to throw out much of what is taught in SCIENCE courses as well. The fact is, much of science is theory and there is a LOT that many hardened evolutionists do not know about evolution.

By equating god in the generic sense with the tooth fairy, you underscore every reason why there is such anymousity between the two camps; frankly it is that very anymousity that was at the core of my disenchantment with the left, and anecdotal evidence suggests i'm hardly alone in that. We shouldn't teach every unsubstantiated theory, furry, and, in fact, as I stated before, we shouldn't even teach ID in a public school science class (elective humanities courses are different). But whether you or anyone else likes it or not, the theory of intelligent design of some sort (although not necessarily absent the evolutionary process) is a theory held by the majority of Americans, and it is a theory that is worth discussing, rather than dismissing with snide comparisons to known fictional characters.

Gideon MacLeish

on Feb 05, 2006

Should we then teach that in school, just because there may be somebody, somewhere, that believes it?

When and if the concept of a creator becomes a theory held by the minority of Americans, I will allow you to compare it to a fictional faith from a work of satire. Until then, you're only deepening the divide.

BlueDev

on Feb 05, 2006

I agree that ID can have a place (not necessarily should). But it doesn't belong in a biology class.

Scientific theories and the evidence to support them belong in science classes, at least public schools. In the private setting I am all for teaching whatever they want. And I do believe that different spiritual beliefs of the creation can have a place in religion of liberal arts classes.

But ID is not a scientific theory. It is a religious belief. There is simply no place for it in a science course.

Furry Canary

on Feb 06, 2006

'If we're going to require absolute proof, furry, we need to throw out much of what is taught in SCIENCE courses as well. The fact is, much of science is theory and there is a LOT that many hardened evolutionists do not know about evolution.'
I never mentioned 'absolute proof', Gideon. (Actually, ALL of science is theory, in that while any argument has a degree of evidence to support it, it is really only one unexpected test result away from being refuted.) Rather, I talked about 'unsubstantiated claims' - i.e. theories for which there is NO supporting evidence.

'By equating god in the generic sense with the tooth fairy'
I didn't equate anything. I asked what the criteria are for what we should be teaching. Please don't try to fan the flames of an outrage that isn't there.

'We shouldn't teach every unsubstantiated theory, furry ...'
Indeed, I would suggest that we shouldn't teach ANY - at least, not as science: I agree broadly with you and San Chonino that there are Humanities subjects where a study of ID may well be appropriate, but that's not what we're talking about here. Let's face it, ID is simply Creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothing in an attempt to give it credence in scientific / educational circles; credence that it doesn't warrant, but - far more importantly - credence that, as an aspect of religious faith, it fundamentally doesn't NEED in the first place.

'it is a theory that is worth discussing, rather than dismissing with snide comparisons to known fictional characters.'
Again, I wasn't comparing the ideas themselves, but the justification for teaching them.

'When and if the concept of a creator becomes a theory held by the minority of Americans, I will allow you to compare it to a fictional faith from a work of satire.'
Are you really sure you want to impose democratic right to veto what people can and can't compare? I'm surprised at you, Gideon, a Libertarian and all ...

Seriously, to accuse San Chonino of 'deepening the divide', when s/he obviously straddles the divide beween faith and science with no little aplomb, I find unworthy of you. As far as I'm concerned, SC, you can draw parallels with the glorious Douglas Adams as often as you like.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!