Very interesting article. One thing that strikes me about early 20th century anti-evolutionism is how the opinion on natural selection and common descent were essentially reversed. Common descent, although still rejected by anti-evolutionists, seemed less morally repulsive than natural selection. Today, the opposite is the case where most young earth creationists and progressive creationists largely accept natural selection, though not macroevolution, but reject common descent.
1 Like
Wow! Great information so far…will finish later. Quite lengthy, but interesting!
That would be where I am. In terms of logic, if you are building, you develop what you have, The basic design for a cell or life will not change so there will naturally be a connection throughout creation. Whereas, Natural seletion is morally against the common view of a loving God who cares for all, especially the less fortunate or vulnerable. Survival of the Fittest means that the strong, or the better organised (dominant and bullying) win over the weak and helpless. Especially as the balance between predator and prey, now, shows no such bias.(You can’t just choose to be more prolific or faster breeders)
Richard
I’m not from the USA either, but I’ve been familiar with the Scopes trial for a long time, partly from reading Gould’s essay’s, partly from doing a course on evolution, partly from other books on evolution, and partly from forums like this one.
I would expect anyone who has done any research into evolution and/or science education to be familiar with it, whether they’re from the USA or not.
I would argue that Darwin himself was very much against both Conflict Theology and strict materialistic reductionism (i.e. scientism). From my limited reading, Darwin didn’t think evolution should shock anyone’s religious sensibilities. Perhaps Darwin was being naive, but I do think he truly held this sentiment. This is also echoed in one of his proteges, George Romanes. Romanes left the faith because he couldn’t square his religious beliefs and the findings of science, but he wasn’t happy about it. Romanes seemed to straddle the border between religious belief and science in much the same way that Darwin did. I have probably quoted the following passage too many times, but I still think Romanes essay from 1883 echoes a lot of the sentiments I hear from modern Evolutionary Creationists.
I think Romanes had a healthy understanding of the boundaries of both science and theology, even if he struggled with the theology in his personal life.
4 Likes
Natural selection says that the fitter organisms tend to have more offspring. That’s what we observe throughout nature. In fact, we can even accurately predict how an allele will spread through a population based on its fitness.
Then the opposers should gather their data, write up the science, and present it at scientific conferences and in scientific journals. Those are the arenas where evolutionary theory is challenged.
Also, parts of evolutionary theory are challenged all of the time within the scientific community. As long as those challenges are backed by data and scientific reasoning no one takes it as an insult. The only insults I see scientists complaining about is when their religious beliefs are questioned because of the scientific theories they accept.
2 Likes
Your answer to everything. Just shut your eyes and it will all go away.
No one is going to do what you want. It just isn’t that important!
Richard
You sure made it sound important earlier:
“It seems that what we have now is precisely what the opposers to Evolution feared whereby the teaching of Evolution goes unchecked and unopposed.”–RichardG
It’s up to those who think evolutionary theory should be opposed to actually oppose it. That means getting their data together, writing it up, and presenting it to the scientific community. That’s how scientific theories are challenged.
3 Likes
It is the difference between spending the odd few minutes on a computer and dedicating your life’s work to it. The amount of time and investment needed to just to get scientifically recognised is beyond someone my age, in fact it would need someone to make it their career.
Jusgt not worth it.
It is not life changing. There are much more important and significant things for Christians to do than science.
Richard
Edit.
That should probably be Evolutionary Science
The diversity of opinions is so great that letting the parents to decide what gets taught to their own children is a recipe of chaos. Think what happens when one family wants to have teaching from the ‘flat earth’ perspective, another from the viewpoint of scientism, another from the viewpoint of YEC, one from the viewpoint of magical animism, etc. That simply cannot work well. Some children would get teaching that makes them well equipped to success in the modern society, others would be given a handicap that may put them to a poor position.
There needs to be a minimum set of basic knowledge that is taught to every children. What the basic knowledge is should not be left to the hands of politicians or (merely) to the hands of the parents. If the political groups can decide the curriculum, we may get such teachings where the correct and false - accepted vs. rejected history, science and culture - is dictated by who is currently ruling. It is typical in countries lead by dictators and one dominant party but it could happen as well in countries that have practically a two-party system where either one of the parties gets so dominant position that it can set the rules alone.
Even more important than what details are taught in the classes is to teach the children to be critical readers that use their own brains. Even if the curriculum would include misunderstandings and false beliefs, that may not be too bad if the children learn to take all claims with healthy criticism. Teaching that attitude in schools may be challenging but it can produce citizens that do not believe all propaganda and false claims that circle in the social media.
I live in a country where that is one of the goals of the curricula of schools. It is also considered to be an important part of encompassing national defence as one of our neighbours is specialized in spreading false information (‘maskirovka’).
8 Likes
I sometimes see scientists complaining after they are told they are ignorant of their own field by some-one unaware of basic concepts from that field (e.g. nested hierarchies, Natural Selection or the Scopes trial)
1 Like
Their are two immediate problems with this.
First, it’s not just the parents’ tax dollars (if they even pay taxes), but everyone’s tax dollars.
Second, the children have a stake in this too. They may want to learn about topics the parents don’t want them to learn about. They may not want to spend time on topics the parents want taught. Especially if those topics include coprolitic inanity.
6 Likes
Good point!
If they’re sending their kids to public schools, they almost certainly do! At least in the form of heavy sales taxes if not income taxes. Those wealthy enough to avoid income taxes entirely are probably carting their kids off to select private schools.
Absolutely! And some realize it. There are a lot of Amish where we are traveling right now, and a friend here who is a public school teacher informs us that while most Amish only go to school up through the 8th grade, there are some who (sometimes with, and sometimes without the blessing of their parents) elect to go on - either due to athletic motivation, or to pursue other sorts of career opportunities they have aptitude for. But in many cases, it’s an uphill battle for them to swim against their community traditions in this. And while it may be easy to villainize those traditions as holding their kids back, it isn’t that their education stopped once they left the public school. They get apprenticed towards farm work and trade skills that do many of them just fine in life (and maybe even better in many cases than their English counterparts.) But it certainly is the case that for some - they would have loved to go on with their schooling and would likely have done well, but their own community of origins discourages it. They are usually among the better students while they are in school simply because their work (homework) ethic is much more consistently in their favor while the English kids are often lagging in that. I know that’s an extreme example, but still brings these sorts of controversies even more to the surface. One of the objections so many Amish have against higher education is that they simply don’t want their kids learning some of the stuff taught in high school (probably including evolution, sexuality, and such.) They want to keep control of that to within their own community.
But how much should one family’s or community’s preferences dictate then what others’ tax dollars are spent on (or not?!). That is the big question. If we say that everybody should at least have a right to “all the basic stuff” at least, then the controversy becomes: what all should be included in those “very basic” essentials? I have all sorts of biases and strong opinions about that as a teacher, but I know my answers would not be embraced by everyone. It is nice when parents have enough humility to trust well-trained teachers to just do their jobs and do it well, and also if teachers retain enough humility to know they don’t always know best for every context either, professional training notwithstanding. Learning to listen, and basic “read-the-room / know your students” skills are the stock and trade of good education and most teachers know and live by this.
5 Likes
Not everyone lives in the US.
1 Like
I think I’ve heard more laughter than complaints, like the time a professor with a PhD in volcanology was getting lectured by a guy who it turned out had managed to complete just the freshman geology sequence at a community college. The professor himself didn’t laugh – he nodded and just told the guy there was more he should learn and recommended a course at the nearby university! – but others did.
2 Likes
This is just an encouraging word to scientists in the face of those who belittle scientific careers, I think a career in science is a high calling for the Christian, and indeed for anyone interested in wisdom and truth. I especially include in this Biologists, whose scientific work upholds Jesus’ directive to “heal the sick”, and enables humanity’s calling to honour God’s Creation, and many other good purposes. Thank you.
3 Likes
Sorry, Ted, but I could not disagree more. Individual parents don’t have the right to determine what their child should or shouldn’t be taught in public school. That’s a recipe for chaos. The fact that they pay taxes for a free public service that they choose not to take advantage of makes no difference. I have no children in school and pay taxes for it. I pay taxes for roads I never use and services I never need.
School curricula are determined at the state level by elected state boards of education. The YEC parent has just as much say as any other taxpayer in voting for what is taught in public schools in their states. If they don’t like the majority decision, they can either “deprogram” their kids from science when they get home, or they can opt out of public education. That’s their choice.
Then, there’s the fact that taxpayer-funded education is provided by local, state and federal governments, and there’s that pesky constitutional concept called “separation of church and state” to deal with. YEC has no more place in public education than Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or Zoroastrianism. Followers of all those faiths are also taxpayers. Should public schools offer “special education” sections on science for those taxpayers and YEC? Along with Christianity, they should all be taught at home, not in public schools.
Everything you’ve said so far is just an apology for taxpayer-funded vouchers for private and religious schools. (Ask Arizona how that’s working out.) It’s just another excuse to defund public schools at a time when the current White House is trying to destroy the Department of Education.
Monopolistic public education? Take a look at the demographics of any urban school district. Where have all the white kids gone?
True, but students at private religious colleges and universities can receive federally funded grants and loans just like students at local community colleges. At least, as long as FAFSA is still operational pending the shutdown of the Dept. of Education.
3 Likes
One big reason I didn’t get certified as a teacher: any more students than twelve overwhelmed me and the personal aspect was gone.
And some who dwell in the U.S. don’t really live there, they just survive.