Homocon

I'm tired of the intelligent design debate. Personally, I don't give a rat's patoot if ID is taught in school, but I do care if theory is preached as fact. Charles Darwin's ideas of the origins of life in the universe are now, have always been, and will always be, mere theory and nothing more. There is not eureka moment when the "truth" of evolution is undeniable, nor is there any eureka moment where it can be proven 100% false. The problem is that over the years, "scientists" have convinced themselves, for whatever reason, that this theory is the way that everything happened. Then, ignoring the Scientific Method, they set out to prove themselves correct by ignoring anything contradictory, utilizing circular reasoning (i.e. A is assumed as true, proving B correct, which proves A correct), and sometimes even manufacturing evidence (like the infamous "Lucy" fossil). As the old axiom goes, if you set out to prove yourself correct, you'll usually succeed.

Over the years, the "scientific community" has quietly stopped saying things like "...the dinosaurs may have existed millions of years ago..." and substituted with "...dinosaurs evolved millions of years before mankind..." This has happened in plain sight in textbooks, museums, and on television without so much as a peep from a majority of the world. The problem that everybody should have with this is that scientists can not prove statements like this correct. You see, in order for something to be irrefutable (otherwise known as Scientific Law), it must not be possible to prove it incorrect. Things like the Law of Gravity are Scientific Law because they can not be proven wrong, and are easily recreated in the lab. Any scientist worth his salt has to admit that it is at least possible to prove evolution wrong, and that it is impossible to recreate it in the lab.

In this particular case, I'm very, very confused. The judge ruled that the Dover school district was creating an official state religion by the statement which was to be read to the 9th grade Biology class. Remember, they were not teaching Intelligent Design, nor did they ignore evolution, but instead read a statement indicating, among other things, that evolution is a theory, it's being taught as fact because that's how the standardized tests assume it to be, and there are indeed other theories out there. They even had the audacity to provide a book (in the library, and students would have to read it on their own time) explaining Intelligent Design. Yes, sir. Sounds like a religion to me. Next thing you know they'll be asking students to have ideas and think for themselves.

In the end, the school's job is to educate, not indoctrinate. If the science textbooks, and scientists as a whole, would give up on insisting that evolution is fact, most of this controversy would disappear. Funny, for people like scientists who claim to abhor religious zealotry, they are certainly acting like zealots themselves.

God bless you Phillip. I don't understand the absolute panic that the ID theory creates in the Darwinian community... oh, wait. I DO understand it. The goal is secular humanism replacing religion.... and by the way, there are LOTS of holes in Darwin's theory, and lots of FABRICATED evidence to support it. You're right: the evolutionists are the real zealots.

If we didn't have public schools, there would be no controversy and people could think and believe whatever they wanted.
Government does not belong in the education business.
It's really that freaking simple! Christians are not too lazy to educate their children at home or in parochial schools. Too bad the same cannot be said for atheist state-worshippers!

I find myself chagrined that my tolerance of Christianity on this site has led to the above commentary.

Evolution is far more than just some hackneyed theory. The wealth of scientific data behind evolution overpowers the layman's ability to dismiss it offhand. Don't make yourself look foolish by doing just that. Read the Five Major Misconceptions About Evolution as a primer.

"What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better."

And that's just scratching the surface.

Christians are not the only people who home-school their children, and public education wasn't established as the result of laziness on the part of atheists, but rather a desire on the part of society to bring all its members up to a certain standard of cultural understanding and competency. So it's not really "that freaking simple", as the government has a vested interest in making sure that its citizens meet certain skills and competency levels (beyond bowing to the state, of course . . . *snort*). The failure of public education in specific instances should not be mistaken for a condemnation of the system as a whole, just as the failures of Jim and Tammy Fay Baker should not be mistaken for a failure of Christianity in general.

I.D. creates no more "a panic" in Darwinian circles than Natural Selection creates in Christian circles. Both have their zealots, but I would describe the reaction of Darwinists to I.D. as more along the lines of irritation than panic.

While we're talking 'bout an evolution, I liked Darwin's Radio by Greg Bear. Plausible, but more than a little boring in the middle.

____________
Homocon sez:

Well, I checked on iTunes, and while Darwin's Radio wasn't available, they did have Bear's Darwin's Children . . . I downloaded it immediately.

Intelligent design in itself cedes the field to science. If you have a faith-based world-view, why do you need a science-based argument for the mystery of creation?

_______________
Homocon sez:

That's what I can't figure out. If you believe that God created the universe, then fine, but it's a waste of everyone's time to try and build a telescope that can see into Heaven.

Of course public education is designed to bring the citizenry up to a certain competency level...That's why the more taxpayer's money that gets poured down the NEA tinhorn, the better PE gets. How could I have been so wrong. I guess socialism is only really wrong if the left pushes it, and we should turn a blind eye when massive amounts of it are demanded and voted in by supposedly small-government-advocating "Conservatives".
As long as the union-labor, public indoctrination machine exists, look for more junk science and "outcome-based" non-education in the classroom, because its goal is ignorant, more easily controlable proletariat.

________________
Homocon sez:

The establishment of public education is not socialism, as public education came about from the need of a capitalistic society for a general working population that could read, write and function at basic competency levels, especially if the nation is a first-world nation that desires to remain at the forefront of economic development. Public Education was the self-serving result of a chugging economic engine that needed skilled workers rather than your hyperbolic claim of the goal for an "ignorant, more easily controllable proletariat."

Public Education is not altruism by the state, nor was it ever meant to be.

Real socialism, on the other hand, is the denial of alternative educational options for those who can afford better than what's offered at the basic level. The main objection to socialized medicine, for example, is not that a standard of basic health-care for all is a bad idea, but rather that the socialized system seeks to push its one basic system on everyone, taking away better options for those who can afford them while taxing them egregiously for the privilege.

Public Education still remains in the country's best interest. That the system is faltering in many areas is not reason enough to toss the whole thing out. Charter schools and private schools exist in competition to the public model, and are better able to adapt to changing educational requirements because of their smaller size. People should be free to choose a different system if they can afford to do so, and this, above everything else, will force the public model to adapt or die. Right now, we're watching the public model resist the necessary change.

Nathan is absolutely right. There is more to Christianity than simply what exists on the noisy Religious Right.

A great many of us (probably the majority) do not believe in the literal, Scripture-as-science-textbook reading of Genesis. So we have no problem with the theory of evolution -- it does not threaten our faith in the slightest.

The secular media does not understand religion or people or faith. It presents a distorted picture of Christians, because most of the time it speaks of us as if we were all fundamentalist zealots. As far as they're concerned, a lesbian Lutheran like me cannot possibly exist.

It is in blogs like this one that the truth must be told about the realities of American society. We should be thankful that Homocon, and others like it, exist.

_______________
Homocon sez:

We are here!

The whole brouhaha over "Intelligent Design" is just the Religious Right testing its power. These people want to destroy the Constitution in order to force a theocratic tyranny on us all.

If the State rules in favor of one religious view against another, period, it has violated the First Amendmant clause against establishment of a religion. Why aren't people more concerned about this?

_________________
Homocon sez:

I think the lack of concern you cite is because most people understand that the Religious Right has no intention, or capability, of destroying the constitution in order to force a theocratic tyranny on us all.

Besides, the First Amendment clause only deals with Congress and its ability to regulate religious faith or to establish and promote a national religion -- it doesn't ban religion, religious thought or religious themes from the public square. In fact, the clause to which you refer explicitly states that Congress is prohibited from obstructing the free expression of religion, thereby protecting the church from the state, but not the state from the church.

You are right Homocon, Scientists need to quite insisting on indoctrinating young minds by insisting that the Theory of Evolution be taught as fact. For that matter, they shouldn’t teach any theory as fact that includes the Theory of Gravity. I am glad it is your uneducated opinion, and it counts for nothing. Before blogging on something, research it a little instead of just listening to the media. You would sound more logical.

________________
Homocon sez:

Are you under the misconception that I'm against the teaching of evolution as science? Where in the world would you get that idea?

I swear -- the people who argue about I.D. in comments sections on blogs are the most incoherent bunch of yahoos on the net. I'm sorry I even brought up the topic.