Sharon Hughes
Teachers debate teaching creationism
Science community resists Intelligent Design Theory
By Sharon Hughes
Richard Dawkins, a devotee of Charles Darwin said that everyone believed in evolution except "the ignorant, stupid or wicked." If you check out MSNBC's online emphasis on the future of evolution you may be surpised to see what's going on today regarding Darwin's 'worldview.' For one thing, teachers at the recent NEA (National Education Association) convention debated on how to teach creationism 'without stifling creative thinking.'
As reported by Ben Feller for MSNBC, teachers want their students to be creative thinkers, like Lisa Marroquin, a biology teacher at Downey High School in a Southern California, who says she tells her students that 'they must learn it (evolution) even if they don't like it, because 'they've got to live in the real world.' In California the real world includes evolution as a key part of California science standards.
There is a growing challenge today regarding teaching evolution-only in schools, due in great part to the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. But, this challenge is not without reaction from those who fear that teaching creationism will erode 'real' science. Intelligent Design is called religious vs. scientific, 'supernatural' vs. natural, while Darwinism is called theory. This is the very reason evolution is being challenged by a growing number of ID advocates in the scientic community.
Biologist, Professor Dean Kenyon of S.F. State, challenged this issue 10 years ago, teaching Intelligent Design while rejecting the term creationism, "because immediately people stereotype me as a biblical fundamentalist." (San Jose Mercury News, 2/6/94) Rather, he would teach that an 'Intelligent Designer' created the first life on earth. This brought some complaints by students and great enmity by his colleagues in the science community. However, at SF State, on what is certainly one of the most liberal campuses in the country, he found support among his fellow professors. U.C. Berkeley Law Professor, Phillip E. Johnson, the unofficial spokesman for the ID movement, is one of those who are carrying the baton in this decade.
Then there are those who believe in 'intelligent design' but not by a Creator. They believe an alien life force is a possible option for explaining creation, and they're serious. Many may be surprised to know that Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and one of the discoverers of the DNA, believes that life forms were sent to earth in a space ship by a dying civilization. As a matter of fact, both discoverers of the DNA, Watson and Crick, are outspoken atheists.
Could this 'atheistic worldview' be the cause of the battle over allowing creationism to be taught in schools?
Objective scientists in the Intelligent Design movement are investigating whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on earth was designed by an Intelligent Designer. However, despite ID sometimes being called a theory, the scientific community does not recognize it as such. I have a question for them: Why would you, the scientific community, not welcome the search for evidence in regards to the possibility of Intelligent Design when it is the very purported nature of science to explore all possibilities? Or is this no longer true?
The Intelligent Design community is throwing out the question: Is science broad enough to allow for theories of human origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent Designer? And is the teaching of the theory of ID appropriate in public education, using scientific evidence, the same that is claimed to be used in teaching Darwinism?
In my previous article on evolution, I covered the racist roots of Darwin's theory of evolution. What is worthy of note here is that he also believed that there is no ultimate foundation for ethics; that there is no ultimate meaning in life; and that free-will is a human myth. Scientific materialism which is quietly ruling in schools is not based so much on sound science as on a worldview that leaves God out. Let's not forget that Darwin was an atheist.
The theory of evolution has only existed since the 19th century. Christianity has existed for over 2,000 and Judaism, longer still, and all religions acknowledge a Creator/God. So, is the debate over teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools a sound scientific battle... or a worldview/religious battle? I think the answer is obvious.
Related:
Teachers debate how to handle evolution
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8487329/
The future of evolution
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7093738/
Designed by Aliens?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/aliens.asp
The Center for Science & Culture, Discovery Institute
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
International Society for Complexity, Information and Design
http://www.iscid.org/
Origins
http://www.origins.org/index.html
The Racist Roots of Evolution
http://www.changingworldviews.com/GuestCommentaries/sharonhughesart28.htm
© Sharon Hughes
Richard Dawkins, a devotee of Charles Darwin said that everyone believed in evolution except "the ignorant, stupid or wicked." If you check out MSNBC's online emphasis on the future of evolution you may be surpised to see what's going on today regarding Darwin's 'worldview.' For one thing, teachers at the recent NEA (National Education Association) convention debated on how to teach creationism 'without stifling creative thinking.'
As reported by Ben Feller for MSNBC, teachers want their students to be creative thinkers, like Lisa Marroquin, a biology teacher at Downey High School in a Southern California, who says she tells her students that 'they must learn it (evolution) even if they don't like it, because 'they've got to live in the real world.' In California the real world includes evolution as a key part of California science standards.
There is a growing challenge today regarding teaching evolution-only in schools, due in great part to the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. But, this challenge is not without reaction from those who fear that teaching creationism will erode 'real' science. Intelligent Design is called religious vs. scientific, 'supernatural' vs. natural, while Darwinism is called theory. This is the very reason evolution is being challenged by a growing number of ID advocates in the scientic community.
Biologist, Professor Dean Kenyon of S.F. State, challenged this issue 10 years ago, teaching Intelligent Design while rejecting the term creationism, "because immediately people stereotype me as a biblical fundamentalist." (San Jose Mercury News, 2/6/94) Rather, he would teach that an 'Intelligent Designer' created the first life on earth. This brought some complaints by students and great enmity by his colleagues in the science community. However, at SF State, on what is certainly one of the most liberal campuses in the country, he found support among his fellow professors. U.C. Berkeley Law Professor, Phillip E. Johnson, the unofficial spokesman for the ID movement, is one of those who are carrying the baton in this decade.
Then there are those who believe in 'intelligent design' but not by a Creator. They believe an alien life force is a possible option for explaining creation, and they're serious. Many may be surprised to know that Francis Crick, Nobel Prize winner and one of the discoverers of the DNA, believes that life forms were sent to earth in a space ship by a dying civilization. As a matter of fact, both discoverers of the DNA, Watson and Crick, are outspoken atheists.
Could this 'atheistic worldview' be the cause of the battle over allowing creationism to be taught in schools?
Objective scientists in the Intelligent Design movement are investigating whether or not there is empirical evidence that life on earth was designed by an Intelligent Designer. However, despite ID sometimes being called a theory, the scientific community does not recognize it as such. I have a question for them: Why would you, the scientific community, not welcome the search for evidence in regards to the possibility of Intelligent Design when it is the very purported nature of science to explore all possibilities? Or is this no longer true?
The Intelligent Design community is throwing out the question: Is science broad enough to allow for theories of human origins which incorporate the acts of an intelligent Designer? And is the teaching of the theory of ID appropriate in public education, using scientific evidence, the same that is claimed to be used in teaching Darwinism?
In my previous article on evolution, I covered the racist roots of Darwin's theory of evolution. What is worthy of note here is that he also believed that there is no ultimate foundation for ethics; that there is no ultimate meaning in life; and that free-will is a human myth. Scientific materialism which is quietly ruling in schools is not based so much on sound science as on a worldview that leaves God out. Let's not forget that Darwin was an atheist.
The theory of evolution has only existed since the 19th century. Christianity has existed for over 2,000 and Judaism, longer still, and all religions acknowledge a Creator/God. So, is the debate over teaching creationism alongside evolution in schools a sound scientific battle... or a worldview/religious battle? I think the answer is obvious.
Related:
Teachers debate how to handle evolution
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8487329/
The future of evolution
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7093738/
Designed by Aliens?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/aliens.asp
The Center for Science & Culture, Discovery Institute
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
International Society for Complexity, Information and Design
http://www.iscid.org/
Origins
http://www.origins.org/index.html
The Racist Roots of Evolution
http://www.changingworldviews.com/
© Sharon Hughes
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
