Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton

Made with NoteTab

July 19, 2005

Evolution indoctrination debated

From the Christian Post:

Last year, the Dover Area School District passed a policy requiring ninth-grade biology teachers to read a statement about intelligent design before teaching evolution lessons. The school district also added the textbook “Of Pandas and People” to the school library.

Eight families filed a federal lawsuit charging the school with violation of the separation of church and state. They claim that intelligent design, the idea that the world is so complex, there must be an unspecified divine being behind its creation, is just another version of creationism.

In the pretrial hearings on Thursday, lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union representing the eight families began their attacks on intelligent design. They also charged that the book “Of Pandas and People” is religiously-motivated and not suitable as a science textbook.

According to the courts, creationism cannot be taught in public schools because it is a religion. The current lawsuit must determine whether the school district’s policy was motivated by the intent to teach about creationism and religion.

Creationism is consider “religion” because people of varying faith believe it to be true. Evolution is considered “science” in spite of the fact that people from varying religions believe it to be true. Stupid, isn't it?

 In Utah:

State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) has agreed to take the lead in pushing new legislation on the teaching of divine design, also known as intelligent design, in conjunction with evolution in schools.

Buttars is supported by a strong conservative lobby, headed by the Eagle Forum, which has previously sought the inclusion of divine design in the public school science curriculum.

School officials argue that any laws requiring the teaching of divine design could be found in violation of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.

Supporters of the proposal contend, however, that divine design is not the same as creationism. Unlike creationism, divine design simply acknowledges that the world is so complex, its development must have been guided by some higher power. Proponents do not specify who that higher power is.

Unless the designer is named Time&Chance, Evolutionist zealots will demand the curriculum be censored. Time&Chance is the only deity allowed to be worshipped in government schools.

Religion of Evolution Coverage: Stones Cry Out

Posted by Danny Carlton at July 19, 2005 09:34 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


I have two questions someone might be able to answer. Is the ACLU's charge against "Of Pandas and People" strictly what's written here, that it's religiously motivated? (Do they have a further complaint against it?)

Second question: is religion actually present in the book, other than some kind of general challenge to materialist assumptions?

What this smells like is something that would be thrown out in any philosophical context as a fallacy, the appeal to motive.

I have another question that you'd probably have to be in Dover to answer. Are there any other books in the school library that make any positive mention of any religion? (There are in my kids' schools.) Is the ACLU recommending that every one of them be tossed out?

Posted by: Tom Gilson at July 19, 2005 09:52 AM

Tonight is Webster's night. I couldn't resist, so I looked up "religion" in Webster's and it says "4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". And "ardor" is defined as "1b : extreme vigor or energy :" and is synonymous with "passion".

I just can't help myself on this one, but how close does 'the relentless effort to maintain separation of church and state', along with 'the "faith" that we owe our existence to evolution' parallel with the definition of "religion"? With that said, is it within the realm of possibilities to truly achieve a pure separation of church and state?

I think not. Religion is too inter-twined within humanity and how we perceive our world.

Posted by: Toxic Avenger at July 19, 2005 11:08 PM

You asked: Stupid, isn't it?

My answer: YES.

These people need to be chained to a chair and forced to watch all 17 hours of Kent Hovind's Creation Seminars so they can see REALISTICALLY that their answer is not the only answer. I have heard the evolution claims (and been successfully brainwashed with them for my entire school career), and I have heard the Creationist claims. I now know that it takes more FAITH and BELIEF to believe that we all came from NOTHING and ROCKS than it does to believe we were designed by a creator. You just can't add enough BILLIONS of years into the equasion for me to believe that slime can produce the millions of creatures on this planet.

As C.S. Lewis says "If evolution were true, cats would know how to use can openers by now."

I wholeheartedly agree. If we came from apes, why are there still apes?

Posted by: Heather at July 20, 2005 09:24 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.