This is happening in America right now, as only such things can. 
In a Pennsylvania township called Dover, the district school board there just decided that Charles Darwin's theory on evolution is ultimately flawed and that it contained gaps as huge as the water we see in the ocean. And so, they decided to teach the students enrolled in their school system the idea that man existed due to no other causes but by the intelligent hands of God, and that existence on earth is so complex that there could only be a God behind it. This alternative theory to evolution is termed as "intelligent-design" concept and known some other times as "creationism", a philosophy on man's existence that is well-attuned to the story of creation as told in the Bible.
Now, the parents of 11 students from Dover School District have starkly protested this compulsory inculcation of the "intelligent-design" concept of man's existence and insisted that the usual scientific philosophy of evolution as theorized by Charles Darwin should remain in the curriculum of the said school and not any concept that is so devoid of scientific and empirical evidence. The parents also complained that teaching the "intelligent-design" concept would merely undermine the notion that science should be trusted completely, and should be believed as it should be. They say that bringing down science will only be bad for the kids.
It would be quite interesting to find out how this U.S. landmark trial will turn out in the end. Is man created by God or did it existed through millions of years of evolution? This is not the primary question that the U.S. Supreme Court will haveto decide upon but for certain, it would be so swell to see how the American justices will comment on it.
...
In a Pennsylvania township called Dover, the district school board there just decided that Charles Darwin's theory on evolution is ultimately flawed and that it contained gaps as huge as the water we see in the ocean. And so, they decided to teach the students enrolled in their school system the idea that man existed due to no other causes but by the intelligent hands of God, and that existence on earth is so complex that there could only be a God behind it. This alternative theory to evolution is termed as "intelligent-design" concept and known some other times as "creationism", a philosophy on man's existence that is well-attuned to the story of creation as told in the Bible.Now, the parents of 11 students from Dover School District have starkly protested this compulsory inculcation of the "intelligent-design" concept of man's existence and insisted that the usual scientific philosophy of evolution as theorized by Charles Darwin should remain in the curriculum of the said school and not any concept that is so devoid of scientific and empirical evidence. The parents also complained that teaching the "intelligent-design" concept would merely undermine the notion that science should be trusted completely, and should be believed as it should be. They say that bringing down science will only be bad for the kids.
It would be quite interesting to find out how this U.S. landmark trial will turn out in the end. Is man created by God or did it existed through millions of years of evolution? This is not the primary question that the U.S. Supreme Court will haveto decide upon but for certain, it would be so swell to see how the American justices will comment on it.
...
4 Comments
This is a classic case of the clash between religion and science. In a TV talk show I watched too long ago, U.S. congressmen, representatives from science and various religions were debating on the issue. One U.S. congressman openly declared that he believes in the biblical creation according to Genesis 1. In an instant, John McArthur, a Christian preacher and evangelist stepped in an said.. “ not only that. I you go to Genesis 3 , which talks about the fall of man”….whereupon the congressman abruptly interrupted and emphatically retorted, “ you see that is the problem with people like you. I said I believe in Genesis 1. Don’t ask me to believe in Genesis 3. “
ReplyDeleteIn retrospect, the gap is indeed wide. True, there is a clash between science and religion, but there also seems to be that eternal clash of misunderstanding between people of the same religion!
BW | Homepage | 09.29.05 - 12:14 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Tom, history really repeats itself. The Dover School District’s case revisits the very controversial 1925 trial of Tennessee teacher John Scopes who charged with illegal teaching the theory of evolution, which was prohibited that time in his state. Scopes was found guilty and was fined $100. The jury refused to set the fine forcing the judge to set it himself. The case was appealed and eventually reversed on technicality. The fine should have been set by the jury, not the judge.
My position on this case may sound progressive. I’m a devout Catholic, raised by conservative Catholic parents and educated in a Catholic university. Personally, I don’t see any problem teaching my kids both intelligent design and evolution. The greater challenge is on how to prove to my kids that Darwin was darn wrong. We don’t have to inculcate intelligent design in schools being a matter of faith. If you believe in God, you MUST accept the story of creation by heart and not by the dictates of other people. I don’t think it makes me less of a Christian to learn Darwin’s theory. It’s only a theory after all.
John Clark | Homepage | 09.29.05 - 9:45 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with science - and by extension the theory of evolution - is that it's STILL dogma. Science may be the new religion, but it's still in large part based on faith: that's why there's such a thing as the Heisenberg indeterminacy principle and chaos theory, because so much about science is inexplicable even to the scientists themselves.
Both sides (religion and science) are guilty of trying to silence the other.
jorge | Homepage | 09.29.05 - 5:37 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wow... my kids will surely react listening to people with evolution beliefs. they are open-minded kids but they won't accept Darwin's theory.
for me, science is just part of God's creation...
bing | Homepage | 10.01.05 - 12:34 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science is trying to grasp empiricism. It's dogma for most since we believe in something that supercedes SCIENCE. Even with creationism and evolutionism, one will never side the latter because of their belief on an entity.
For me, I really can't conclude such. Knowledge is expandable, and it can even break down "immutable" things, like our beliefs.
trickyboy | Homepage | 10.01.05 - 11:04 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My two cents worth, whatever they call it, "intelligent-design", "creationism", etc...it is still metaphysical idealism. Meaning the buck stops at the "absolute idea" so there's no need to go further. This kind of outlook blinds rather than give light to learning. It prevents rather than spur man's craving for knowledge.
Sam | Homepage | 10.01.05 - 10:14 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To BW:That was funny BW, about the congressman not liking genesis 3. Indeed, what is more troubling is the misunderstanding among different faith and maybe the world gives it more attention.
To John Clark: I have read also about the Scope case John and it was similarly surreal. I guess, we all just need to know and accept that Darwinism is just but a theory where even science could not claim absolute truth. Like you, I also have no problem if my kids learn the theory of Mr. Darwin, I guess faith is a lot more than just the question of from where did man comes from.
Major Tom | Homepage | 10.03.05 - 2:43 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To jorge: Chaos theory is sometimes so compelling but as you said, even science could not be absolute in itself. I guess, the mysteries of the world tells us something,...it depends on how we see it all. To me, the unknownness of many things we see in life and on earth, makes me feel that we are not alone in this universe, and that there is beingness in another realm of existence...
To Bing: The kids sometimes have more adept understanding about these things coz they are more adventurous and zestful in learning new things...I bet they all deserve their opinions.
To trickyboy: True, many experts beleive that what man knows now is only 5% of what is to be known in the entirety of being. Its fantastic but it may be true.
To Sam: It may be so Sam, sometimes this kind of debate (on the root of man) just jumble the many things that we ought to know...
Major Tom | Homepage | 10.03.05 - 2:51 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why do they have to complicate this? in plain language, it only means that evolution is hard to explain through science and it's maybe the case that a supreme being did all the creation which can be presented as another theory, matter-of-fact. so, where's the religion there?
abaniko | Homepage | 10.04.05 - 2:26 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Abaniko: The question of who created man is truly confusing Abaniko. Maybe, one day there'd be a time when finally we will know the answer to this question.
Major Tom | Homepage | 10.04.05 - 3:08 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are people who find solace in attempting to incorporate science into religion rather than canceling science altogether. In the case of biblical creation of man, some people say that the mythical presentation of Adam and Eve was reasonable at the time Moses wrote Genesis because it was the only language people could understand. “From dust are thou created and to dust thou shall return” can be reflective of the big bang effect . The theory is the all the chemical elements ( oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, etc..) we find on earth , the building block of matter, were spewed into the firmament after the massive explosion and reached planet earth at some point in time. The combination and permutation of these chemical elements created all life forms on earth. Science keeps on discovering new elements every now and then. Way back there were only 32 elements and today there are 116. Where are they coming from ? It is said that planet earth is always exposed to radiation from effects of incessant explosion from stars, some 400 billion in our galaxy alone. It is not surprising that radiated "dust" particles can reach planet earth after millions of light years of inter-stellar journey and we keep on discovering “new” elements every now and then. The effect of these radiated particles can be both harmful or useful to earthlings. As the late astro-physicist Carl Sagan said, ‘” we are from the stars”.
BW | Homepage | 10.06.05 - 1:07 am | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In science, you call something as theory if it's only speculative. A law, on the other hand, is something which is scientifically proven. Now, Evolution is just a theory which contradicts the Law Of Thermodynamics which says that ALL things deteriorate. Universal law of decay. Leave an object by itself and it will degenerate by itself over time and not turn into a complex organism which Evolution espouses. This is why I don't buy the idea that complex human beings evolve from gases, rocks and mud. It's too fantastic a story.
abaniko | Homepage | 10.06.05 - 2:37 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi BW: Your thoughts on this particular issue(the question on the root of man) is quite enlightening and in fact has given me infos that I haven't had before. It might be true as you said that in the early times, words were not enough to describe such thing as the big bang moment, and there is logic if for example, the writers or interpreters of Genesis had used mostly symbollism and metaphor to describe the creation of man. For me, it won't really matter much how man got created for whatever is the truth, there is just no way for us now to grasp it. From clay or from big bag explosion, all what matters is I believe in God.
Major Tom | Homepage | 10.06.05 - 3:19 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Abaniko: That may be so Abaniko, but as I said, the very truth on this matter clearly escapes the able grasp of the present man, even of the most intelligent scientists alive today. What remains of my thought is that my faith is still intact despite the things that man could not know.
Major Tom | Homepage | 10.06.05 - 3:23 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice site!
ReplyDelete[url=http://idclktct.com/uaae/ewly.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://ahfeqkdw.com/rbou/fnzb.html]Cool site[/url]
Well done!
ReplyDeleteMy homepage | Please visit
Thank you!
ReplyDeletehttp://idclktct.com/uaae/ewly.html | http://imyqebil.com/ghpe/bdxt.html