While I respect Drew's arguments, and question The New York Times' and Time's motives and characterizations, the fundamental point remains clear: questioning the teaching of the Theory of Evolution in schools is backdooring the teaching of Creationism. Because, after all, when one theory evaporates, something generally takes its place. What's the only other option, besides Intelligent Design, that explains it all? Mmmhmmm. You guessed it: creationism.
Darwin's Origin of Species while optimistically titled, has been presented over the years as a theory. It also happens to be a theory that cannot ever be proved until someone provides us mere human beings with an accurate timeline of just what occurred on this planet, how it happened and when it happened. I'm not saying that there aren't problems with Darwin's work: there are. However, we simply do not have an acceptable theory to replace it. It just happens to be the one that makes the most sense, hence its wide acceptance in the scientific community.
The problem occurs when creationists try to make hay with the "theory" business, knowing that no one can ever prove them wrong. This is their silver bullet that cuts right through the bullshit. And, to my mind, it's a logical fallacy that has no end. They conveniently ignore that "Creationism" is a theory as well.
This debate is about which unprovable theory should be taught in public schools.
I present, for your consideration, the game of "Which Scenario Is More Likely":
That God created everything in six days, took the seventh to kick back and slurp some brewskies. He then created man, and so he wouldn't be lonely, took one of man's ribs and created woman around it. Then he told man and woman never to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge because it was off-limits. The Devil---conveniently in the form of a serpent---tempts woman into eating the fruit. Subsequently, she lures man into eating it as well. God boots them from the Garden of Eden and sends them off into the wilderness, considerably bewildered as to why these ungrateful wretches had countermanded his order.
Or...
The Earth is one big puddle of primordial, carbon-based goo. The essential elements for life are there. Nothing happens for a long, long time. We don't know what, but something eventually sparks life. One celled creatures appear and everything evolves over millions of years. Features on everything and everyone that are useful are propagated into the next generation by means of choosy reproduction.
Now to judge which scenario is more likely, I give you Occam's Razor as your yardstick. Using Occam's Razor, which dictates that the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one, which scenario seems more likely to you? Knowing that both options seem fantastic and beggar belief?
I choose evolution.
While I don't buy it exactly as Darwin presented it, it does make sense. Technically speaking, you could probably lump me in with the Intelligent Design people. I think God was the spark to the goo.
And I'm Catholic. I am a direct beneficiary of this "give them a choice" business that creationists are trying to install as the standard, because it was what I was taught in the Catholic schools I attended. Darwinism was a "theory." We were supposed to believe in creationism, but just to make sure we had all the options, Darwinism was presented in the course materials. It was confusing, to say the least. What earns you brownie points with the priest does not earn you the same number of points with your science teacher. I can tell you from experience that we all pretty much leaned toward Evolution at the end of those science classes and you would have had to have been a nitwit to think otherwise. We just kept our mouths shut in religion class when the subject was raised.
If you want your kids to learn about creationism, fine. Great. That's wonderful. Just don't insist they learn it in the public schools. It's disingenuous in the extreme to think that Darwinism is so easily discounted simply because it's a "theory." You're simply going to have to do more work than that to disprove it. The genie's out of the bottle: just try and shove that beast back in. It won't work.
This move is intellectually dishonest in that it claims to be honest. It claims to offer "choice" for students. Until someone comes up with something better, well, there shouldn't be any choice on this one because one version of our origins relies upon God and the other relies upon empirical evidence and more than a bit of educated guessing. God---anyone's God---does not belong in a public school that is paid for by everyone, even people who don't believe in God, or people who believe in a different God. Church and State are separated in this country for a friggin' reason and this is the way it should remain. If you really want your children to learn creationism in school, well, might I suggest that you enroll your child in a parochial school? I would recommend the same thing if you want your child to pray in school.
There is simply no room to maneuver on anything religious based in the public school system, because if you start letting religion in, where does it stop? Where is that line drawn? We Americans have this lovely habit of assuming everyone is a Christian. While Jews share the same story of creationism with Christians, what about the Hindus? What about the Muslims? What about the Bhuddists? And so on and so forth. If a strictly Christian version of creationism was eventually put into place, well, whose version of the Bible would be used to teach this theory? The Evangelicals? Or the Catholics?
This country was founded by Christians who had been persecuted for their religious beliefs by other Christians. Once you bring religion into it, it's darned hard to get it out again.
UPDATE Drew comments further in the comments section and over at his blog. Go Read. I comment further as well, in the nifty comments section right below!
Posted by Kathy at January 24, 2005 03:38 PMYour experience in Catholic school differs from mine. I went to a Jesuit high school. I remember clearly when we were studying evolution in my freshman bilogy class that a fundamentalist student asked the teacher about conflicts with the biblical creation story. The teacher's response: "This is a science class. Ask your theology teacher about that."
ID is just a creationist wolf in pseudo-scientific sheep's clothing. Only Christians (of a particular stripe) are really pushing it.
Actually, Kathy, I remain happily neutral on the whole Creation v. Evolution debate. In fact, I don't even like bringing it up because it's one topic that causes otherwise normal people to lose all ability to engage in reasonable debate.
Are my knickers in a twist? Pretty much. But not because I object to the theory of evolution being presented in the classroom. It's because I object to the way Time, The New York Times, and the Washington Post are having a little freak-out about those darned fundies and their backward beliefs.
You can see it clearly in the articles linked. They fall all over themselves to insist that "no one could possibly object to discussing the gaps in Darwin's theory" and then they proceed to object to it because (gasp!) those darned fundies are behind this stealth campaign to . . . what? To remind people that the theory of evolution is a theory? Well it is.
The sticker had nothing to do with religion. It was an attempt at compromise. And yet to this federal judge the sticker is proof of creeping fundamentalism. In fact, any challenge to the Holy Writ of Evolution -- even a secular one -- suddenly becomes an argument for Creationism, even in situations were Creationism never enters the picture.
I agree that outside of evolution, there just aren't many other options for life's origins. But prior to Darwin, there weren't any options other than creationism. To shut the door on the subject and say that we only have two choices -- Evolution or Creationism -- and that to question one is to automatically support the other -- that kind of thinking is simplistic.
As I said, I remain happily neutral on the subject. If evolution was proven tomorrow without a doubt, it would not affect my faith one bit. I can accept that the Genesis account may be figurative.
So my problem with the articles I linked to is not because I'm a creationist. My problem is that they are yet another "warning" by the MSM that "The Fundies are Coming! The Fundies are Coming!"
Is this the new McCarthyism? Do you now or have you ever believed in Jesus?
I do understand what you're saying, Drew. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough. You've definitely got a point about the NYTimes and Time and the WaPo's attitudes leaning toward blue state hysteria. But, and I'm sorry to say this, you miss the overall point in your effort to highlight this hysteria, which is that if creationists weren't trying to backdoor this "choice of theory" business, we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place. As much as I hate to admit it: the blue staters have a point. While their hysteria is completely unwarranted, the truth is that this debate isn't about being able to pick and choose theories of evolution: this debate is about religion in schools and to pretend otherwise is to miss the main event at the three ring circus.
While I understand, and agree with you, there are issues with Darwin's theory---it is a theory---it's still the only one we've got that's not based in religion. Given that the Constitution calls for a separation of Church and State, that judge in Georgia made the absolute right call, in my opinion. We can go back and forth for days, no doubt, about whether his judgment was based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution and local laws, but I have to think that the argument for him was clear: anything that even vaguely approaches religion being taught in a state-funded school is against the law. Evolution, I don't need to remind you, has a contentious legal history, and it is one that cannot be ignored. Given that the only other choices that explain our origins after Evolution are intelligent design and creationism, well, it's kind of hard to say that the judge could have given the thumbs up to the stickers simply because Darwinism is, after all, only a theory. It would have been akin to talking around the big pink elephant that's plopped its fat ass down in the middle of your living room.
What's really sad about all of this is that there are always exceptions to the rule and that's a lesson in itself. Darwin's theory of evolution is the only surviving exception to the scientific method: he made his hypothesis, he presented his evidence, but the jury's still out as to whether he's correct. We don't know. There's value in knowing how much you don't know. Instead of focusing on how much we don't know and perhaps learning more, we're still stuck in defensive mode over whether God created the universe or if Darwin was right.
Posted by: Kathy at January 24, 2005 10:53 PMPoints taken. But I still can't figure out how Judge Cooper looked at a statement that said evolution should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered" and saw a violation of the establishment clause. But then I'm a staunch opponent of deconstruction, and I think Judge Cooper needs to remove his sub rosa-colored glasses.
Posted by: Drew at January 24, 2005 11:17 PMDrew, The NY Times et. al. can go hang. But the point is that the judge shouldn't have had to be ruling on this in the first place. If creationism is a theory, and evolution is a theory, then why the need for the sticker in the first place?
This wouldn't be an issue except for the stickers. You are accepting the stickers as status quo - when in fact they were the result of a deliberate campaign by a specific group of people. If you're trying to claim that this specific group of people did not have a religious agenda, then I think you should explore who's nose the rose colored glasses are resting on.
Posted by: MRN aka "The Husband" at January 25, 2005 08:05 AM