Re: teaching evolution & creation science in public schools...

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:16:50 -0500 "Mike Tharp" <mtharp@exammaster.com>
writes:
> Hello Stephanie,
>
> I see no reason why BOTH evolution and creation science/creationism
> shouldn't be taught in American public schools. Any creation
> science
> arguments against evolution could be discussed and, if found faulty,
> could
> be refuted. In fact, this could be an excellent exercise to
> stimulate young
> minds.
>
> Not everyone views evolution as "being in direct opposition to the
> origins
> of life as outlined by the Bible." In fact, it seems to me that
> the
> majority of ASA members embrace both evolution and the Bible. I,
> personally, am not one of those, but I respect their views,
> especially
> considering the fact that they are probably much more knowledgeable
> than me
> regarding the subject.
>
> I would say it is NOT a violation of the First Amendment to teach
> creationism in governmentally funded public schools. Separation of
> church
> and state does not mean separation of religion and state or even
> Christianity and state. It simply intends that government should
> not favor
> or promote one church (Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist, etc.) over
> any
> other. At least, this is what I have always believed. I have faith
> that
> someone will correct me if I'm wrong on this point.
>
> In Christ,
> Mike
>
Mike may not see a problem, but I think the courts will. I note the
recent decision that a disclaimer with the language that "evolution is
only a theory" could not be allowed in the biology text. I was in the
audience in Santa Barbara when Gish was asked what evidence could change
his mind. (I recall another "creationist" was asked the question more
recently, reported by one of the correspondents on this list. a while
back). He replied, "There is none!" This means that his creationism is
NOT scientific, for all scientific theories (proper sense) are subject to
correction and refutation. Consider phlogiston, caloric, cold fusion,
N-rays as notions that were abandoned; and Newton's physics which became
equivalent to the limiting condition under relativity. Dicke thought
Einstein's theory should be revised. Einstein said that his insertion of
lambda was his biggest mistake, but a similar factor is now being
considered because of recent observations of cosmic expansion.

Michael has previously commented on misquotations and misinterpretations
in YEC literature, and their silly claim that any question raised about
the mechanism of evolution is evidence that the theory is moribund. It is
sometimes worse. Years ago I was part of a group of ASAers in Los
Angeles. Jerry Albert told us that he had been in a group that had met
with a creationist speaker before a lecture. To the group, the speaker
admitted that the second law did not make evolution impossible. But, in
front of the audience, he claimed that it did. While some YEC may spout
that line in ignorance, the unnamed speaker was obviously lying. Can one
lie to the glory of God? Who, according to our Lord, is a "liar and the
father of lies"? Stephanie, do not become a partner in their sin.
Dave
Received on Wed Mar 16 22:17:31 2005