More evolution only tripe

Well its Friday. Unfortunately I ran across something that has me irritated so I'm going to repeat some things from a recent post. This article Creation story worth telling; but not in our biology books from another local paper reaches the same conclusion as the one I criticized recently in my post Evolution only in public schools?

Much of my earlier criticism still holds but there is an additional twist, or more accurately, error. Whether or not it is just sloppy thinking or intentional misleading, I will leave up to you.

From the article:

While the Rev. Alan Harre may preach a sermon on a Sunday morning that recognizes the glory of God’s creation, he knows his biology students study the evolutionary process every day.

“In so many ways, the Darwinian hypothesis has been very fruitful,” said Harre, the president of Valparaiso University.

That’s why Valpo students study both, in ways faithful to their disciplines.

“It’s not the responsibility of scientists to teach philosophy and theology, and it’s not the role of philosophers and theologians to teach science,” says Harre, a minister of the Lutheran faith.

The pastor does not realize or doesn't care that evolution as taught in schools very much carries with it a philosophy on origins. With the serious matter of this particular philosophy being taught as fact. But he helps the author reach the desired conclusion so it is not surprising that he is quoted. Why not also quote scientists, pastors, philosophers or theologians who would offer a different view? Perhaps I am expecting to much from our local media.

If a Christian university can make such distinctions, it’s even more critical for a public school to do the same.

And here is the problem. The public school is not going to make the same distinction. This is very conveniently passed over in the article. Or, are we to believe that a public school is now going to also have classes in religion so that students can "study both". You know, make the same distinction, "do the same" as VU?

I seriously doubt something like that will be allowed.

The article unsurprisingly concludes:

After all, one kid’s book of Genesis may be another’s book of Veda.

Holding up Pan Ku’s egg side-by-side with Darwin may make a few Chinese people happy. But neither it — nor any other faith-based story of creation — belongs in American biology books today.

This muddled conclusion (it's only about the books now?) is derived from the same errors as the other article only with its additional little twist and my conclusion about all of that still holds.

What is so wrong with children being exposed to and discussing other views on the origin of the universe and life? A good argument can be made for also teaching Intelligent Design in a science class. But if it is to painful for the naysayers to have that in a biology class then perhaps an introduction to philosophy is in order where such things as the Cosmological, Teleological and Intelligent design and other arguments can be presented. After all, they are already being instilled with a particular philosophy on origins in science class anyway. To keep denying children exposure to the larger world of thought is to force feed a faith in materialism that goes beyond science while falsely claming to only be teaching scientific fact. Our children deserve much better.

Trackback URI                                                 View blog reactions