The New Creationism
Religious nuts have abandoned their theories of creationism for an atempt at brainwashing school children. This new tactic is called "Intelligent Design" and is being heard in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The theory says that science can't prove parts of Darwin's evolutionary theory and that there must be a higher power that is responsible for the parts that scientists can't explain. Opponents of I.D. claim that it is not a scientifically testable theory and should not be allowed in our school system.
I have to say I'm a fan of science. The theories are based on testable ideas and rooted in evidence found on Earth. Since you can neither prove or disprove an existence of a higher being, intelligent design that roots itself such cannot be classified as science. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught in public science classes. Other laws, like one in Kansas, requires that a sticker be placed in the front of textbooks that teach evolution. That sticker notes that there are falacies in the evolution theory. Even scientists claim there are unexplainable parts of Darwin's theory.
If we are to put stickers in the front of textbooks because some people disagree with parts of a cirriculum, shall we start putting stickers in the front of English books that say Emily Dickenson actually wrote Alice in Wonderland because I think so? I know I don't have evidence for my theory, but I actually believe Dickenson tripped on acid to write "Wonderland." Because I, a small pretentious minority, believe in it, everyone should be forced to hear my theory as solid as jello.
posted by Rich Vos at 2:11 PM
4 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Paralax View - I don't appreciate how people bash theocracies. You are looking at the way the country is run from an outside democratic/republic view. It may be the best for their society. Take the Vatican for example. The country runs only on Catholic doctrine and rule. I don't see them falling to pieces or attacking other countries. A theocracy isn't for us, but before you criticize the type of government, make sure you make note of the exceptions to your rule.
Edie says:
Why should we believe anyone who wrote anything over a peroid of 150 years, as opposed to someone over a peroid of 3000 years? The people of 3000 years ago were as different from each other as thoes of only 150 years ago. It is assumed that people of 150 yrs.ago are more honest, or smarter than thoes of 3000 yrs. ago. Each person , whenever they lived, put on paper what they believed to be the truth. Who are we to discredit any of them? Besides, the Bible was never intended to be a science text, just a text to live by. It is easy to dismiss what others have said, esp. if we don't believe what they had to say. In the end, all that will remain is truth.
Edie, I agree with your comment about the Bible not being meant for scientific text. That being said, it should not be taught in science classes.
I tend to believe a theory from a guy within the last 150 years because it has more reliability. We as humans tend to get smarter over time. It is a theory that can be tested, unlike yours taken in complete faith. Remember that we at one time, took faith in the notion that the world was flat until science proved that theory wrong.
Once proponents of ID or Creationism can provide some solid evidence to back up their theory, I may grant them their desire to teach it to our children. Until then, science is science and religion is nonsense.
Post a Comment
<< Home