TruthBook Religious News Blog

By Robert Roy Britt, Editorial Director
02 February 2009 04:14 pm ET

In a new survey, a quarter of Britons say they believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "definitely true," with another quarter saying it is "probably true." That left half of the 2,060 people surveyed stating they were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it. That's how the survey was presented in The Guardian, with a headline claiming "half of Britons do not believe in evolution."

To those who know evolution to be a solid scientific theory, this poll might seem a glum assessment of public opinion. But let's break that latter half down, as the Guardian subsequently did:

About 10 percent of the survey respondents said they favor creationism, the idea that God created us and everything in seven days sometime roughly 6,000 years ago. Another 12 percent put their stock in intelligent design, an idea (not a theory) stating that life is too complex to not imagine something — presumably God — having a hand in it. "The remainder were unsure, often mixing evolution, intelligent design and creationism together," the Guardian article states.

By my calculation, that means only 22 percent reject evolution outright. That's significantly different than the newspaper's headline. It's also quite different from frequently cited surveys in the United States that apparently have found more than half the population doesn't believe in evolution. Those surveys are typically flawed, too, however, or their results are discussed way out of context. Here's why:

The confluence of evolution and religion is a very tricky topic for pollsters to get at, because many people hold multiple views. Among them:

* Some people agree that evolution is at work in the animal kingdom but don't see it having a role in humans.
* Others are comfortable with the notion that humans have evolved but figure God either set it all in motion or actually keeps a hand in the process all along, with the assumption (by some in this group) that scientists are pretty darn clueless.
* Still others see the theory of evolution as a scientific concept, whereas God is a spiritual concept, and the two have nothing to do with each other.
* At either end of the spectrum, of course, are those who reject evolution and those who reject God.

There's another huge problem that suggests surveys of this nature typically don't delve deeply enough into what people really think: Some people simply know very little about what evolution theory is, and in fact very little about the scientific concepts that underpin the theory, including modern genetics. Their answers to out-of-the-blue questions from a telephone pollster may come with little thought, perhaps rooted in emotion or, in some cases, even wishful thinking. And if they do think, many people may not really know what they think about all this because unlike scientists, educators, activists and LiveScience readers, they don't sit around pondering all this too much.

As an illustration of how little Americans know about basic science, The FASEB study also analyzed the results from a 10-country survey in which adults were tested with 10 true or false statements about basic concepts from genetics. One of the statements was "All plants and animals have DNA." (The correct answer is "yes.") Americans had a median score of 4.

Imagine framing a poll question this way: "When over a few generations a virus mutates to resist the effects of an antibiotic, thereby becoming deadly to humans, that's an example of evolution. Do you believe in evolution?"

All this matters because the theory of evolution is one of the most well-supported theories of science, and scientists and most science teachers think it should be taught in science class without religious ideas such as creationism and intelligent design. (Intelligent design purports to simply offer an alternative way of looking at the theory of evolution, but in reality it is a sneaky means by its promoters to bring creationism into science classrooms, critics say.)

Footnote: You're going to be hearing a lot about Charles Darwin this year, because the father of the theory of evolution would be 200 years old. There will be worthwhile discoveries regarding evolution that happen to coincide with the hoopla, and then there will be feature stories written to sell newspapers and drive web traffic, many of them rooted in well-meaning efforts by scientific organizations and institutions aiming to battle those who would tear evolution down. Thought you ought to know.

Labels: Britain, creationism, evolution, intelligent design, Robert Roy Britt, surveys

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Half of Britons do not believe in evolution, survey finds

More than one-fifth prefer creationism or intelligent design, while many others are confused about Darwin's theory

Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.

The poll found that 25% of Britons believe Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is "definitely true", with another quarter saying it is "probably true". Half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory or confused about it.

The Rescuing Darwin survey, published to coincide with the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species, found that around 10% of people chose young Earth creationism – the belief that God created the world some time in the last 10,000 years – over evolution.

About 12% preferred intelligent design, the idea that evolution alone is not enough to explain the structures of living organisms. The remainder were unsure, often mixing evolution, intelligent design and creationism together. The survey was conducted by the polling agency ComRes on behalf of the Theos thinktank.

James Williams, a lecturer at Sussex University, said: "Creationists ask if people believe in evolution. Evolution is a theory and a fact. You accept it because of the evidence. What the creationists have done is put a cloak of pseudo-science to wrap up their religious belief."

Later this month scientists and academics from across Europe will meet in Dortmund, Germany, to discuss evolution and creationism. It will be the first European conference of its kind to deal with different aspects of attitudes and knowledge related to evolution. They will discuss specific difficulties regarding the acceptance of evolution theory in their home countries.

Williams, who will give a paper presenting a British perspective on evolution and creationism in school science, said: "Evolution is very badly taught in schools so the results of the survey don't surprise me. On the other hand, creationism has traditionally been an issue in North America and there is a big problem in Australia and Turkey. It matters if people don't understand how science works."

Labels: Britain, Charles Darwin, creationism, evolution, intelligent design, Rescuing Darwin

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, November 14, 2008

Poll finds support among teachers for creationism

Nearly one-third (29 per cent) of teachers in the UK believe creationism and intelligent design should be taught in science lessons, a new survey has found.

Teachers TV surveyed 10,600 education professions and received 1,210 responses, reports The Guardian.

According to the poll, almost 50 per cent of respondents think that excluding alternatives to evolution would be counter-productive.

Andrew Bethell, Chief Executive of Teachers TV, said: 'This poll data confirms that the debate on whether there is a place for the teaching of creationism in the classroom is still fierce.'

The issue is already a hot topic in parts of the US where religious faith plays a greater role in peoples' everyday lives.

Labels: creationism, intelligent design, public school, science, United Kingdom

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, August 04, 2008

Why We Must Teach Evolution in the Science Classroom

Saturday, 2 August 2008, 03:00 CDT

By Laura Lorentzen

OUR COUNTRY HAS LAWS THAT SEPARATE church and state. Public institutions like schools must be neutral on the subject of religion, as required by the Constitution's First Amendment. Our courts have mandated that creationism is not an appropriate addition to the science curriculum in public schools; yet supporters of intelligent design press to have antievolutionary discussions enter the science classroom. Creationists even advocate that, when leaching evolution, educators should add the disclaimer that it is "just a theory."

Let's consider why all of us as educated persons, scientists and nonseientists alike, should take note of what science is taught - and not taught - in our public schools. In common language, a theory is a guess of sorts. However, in scientific language, a theory is "a set of universal statements that explain some aspect of the natural world... formulated and tested on the basis of evidence, internal consistency, and their explanatory power."1 The theory of evolution meets all of these criteria.

On the opposite side of the argument, "intelligent design fails on hold basic tenets of a scientific theory; design cannot be observed, and it cannot be tested," writes Mary Crowley in the New York Academy of Sciences Update magazine.2

The National Science Teachers Association (NTSA) argues the importance of teaching evolution in one of its own, most fundamental, writings - its position statement: "If evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need." The NSTA recognizes that evolution is a major unifying concept across multiple disciplines of science, and the National Science Education Standards, updated in 1996, recommend evolution as a means to "unify science disciplines and provide students with powerful ideas to help them understand the natural world,"1 Indeed, the evolutionary perspective is vitally important in modern molecular and cellular hiology, not to mention biomedicine - for example, the nature of disease and targeted treatments - and other scientific disciplines.

As we discuss fundamentals of science education for students, let's also discuss how we prepare our teachers for their role in the science classroom and broader educational system. Are we sufficiently preparing them to teach evolution? Are we equipping them with the knowledge and resources to withstand an onslaught of antievolutionary pressure from the public? Some support, such as various published materials available from the National Academy of Sciences, exists. However, much more is needed in terms of information and public education. For example, Nehm and Schonfeld's 2007 study of more than 40 pre-certified secondary biology teachers in New York City showed that, even after a semester-long graduate evolution course, the majority of science teachers "still preferred that antievolutionary ideas be taught in school."4 As our "science teachers are an important 'missing link' between scientists' understanding of evolution and the general public's ignorance of, or resistance to, the idea,"5 we must do more.

The curriculum taught in our science classrooms should be that which is based on measurable, quantifiable fact. Nonscientific content has its place as well, such as philosophy or religion classes. Let's just be certain that evolutionary theory is a standard feature of our science classroom lesson plans so that we ensure our students' literacy, competitiveness, and futures in the global world of scientific study.

1 National Science Teachers Association [NSTA] position statement on the teaching of evolution, http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/ evolution.aspx.

2 "Teaching evolution and the nature of science" Sept/Oct 2006, p.7.

3 National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu/ openbook.php?record_id=4962&page=104.

4 Journal of Science Teacher Education 18:699.

5 Brooks 2001, Newport 2006, as cited in Nehm and Schonfeld 2007.

LAURA LORENTZEN, PhD, is associate professor & chairperson, New Jersey Center for Science, Technology & Mathematics Education at Kean University, Union, New Jersey. While her doctorate is in the biomedical sciences, her master's degree research was determining the molecular evolutionary relationship among lower metazoan animals.

Labels: creationism, evolution, intelligent design, Laura Lorentzen, National Science Teachers Association, religion, science

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, April 14, 2008

Evolution vs. intelligent design?

Screening of controversial movie sparks debate

April 13, 2008
BY ANDRE SALLES

There's a war going on in our schools and universities, our laboratories and lecture halls.

The scientific community is so enraptured with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution that they are working as one to stamp out anything that may contradict it, especially the notion of intelligent design. Scientists with impeccable records are being ostracized from that community -- losing their jobs, their tenure, their professional credibility -- for even giving voice to the notion that life may have been the work of an intelligent creator.

At least that's the premise of the new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The documentary, produced by Premise Media and starring speech writer, actor and game show host Ben Stein, is set to open on Friday, but it has already ignited controversy.

It remains one of the most talked-about (and blogged-about) topics on the Internet, and producers are so concerned about pirated copies of the film showing up online that they've instituted strict security measures for preview screenings. Photo IDs are checked, bags are searched, and all cell phones and other electronic devices must be left in cars.

On Thursday night, the Total Living Network held one of those screenings in Aurora. TLN is a Christian television studio and broadcasting network based on Aurora's far West Side, which creates its own faith-based programming and beams it out via satellite to stations across the globe.

TLN's CEO and president, Jerry Rose, prides himself on using his network to spark open debate about important issues.

Expelled will certainly start a few of those. The film starts off with Stein, perhaps best known as the droning teacher repeating the title character's name in Ferris Bueller's Day Off, interviewing biologists who believe they've been censured for giving credence to the idea of intelligent design. Stein also interviews biologists who vehemently disagree with intelligent design, particularly Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion.

Later, the film attempts to draw connections between Darwinist theory and Nazism, and compares the perceived debate in the scientific community to the erecting of the Berlin Wall.

Science, religion co-exist

The main criticism of intelligent design from evolutionary biologists is that it isn't really science. Darwin's theory of evolution states that species adapt and grow over time to suit their environmental and biological needs, and that one can trace that evolution down the chain. Biologists will tell you there is more than 100 years of observable, verifiable data to support evolutionary theory.

But evolution does not provide an answer to the big question -- where did we all come from? That's a hole the intelligent design theory attempts to fill by saying complex structures in nature can only be the work of an intelligent creator. The theory has been criticized as an attempt to bring religion into the classroom, but proponents are quick to point out the theoretical creator isn't necessarily the Christian God.

Labels: Andre Salles, Ben Stein, evolution, Expelled No Intelligence Allowed, intelligent design

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, April 07, 2008

Scientist: Belittling evolution has dubious origins

BY BRIAN WILLIAMS
Monday, April 07, 2008

VALPARAISO | The Darwinian theory of evolution, because it has not been disproved by rigorous testing over time, has become accepted knowledge, and disbelieving it is not an option.

That was the conclusion of Murray Peshkin, a physicist with Argonne National Laboratory, in a recent talk on science and religion at Valparaiso University.

Opponents of teaching Darwinian evolution have lost the court fight to keep it out of the public schools, Peshkin said, so they have changed the battle to push for equal billing for creationism, or intelligent design.

"What's wrong is teaching those as part of science -- they are not. They belong to religion because their assumptions and their logic belong to religion," he said.

Dismissing science with "it's only a theory," Peshkin said, is "intellectually appalling" and a material threat to the country. Science in the 21st century offers chances to conquer diseases and achieve other advances, opportunities that could be lost if students aren't taught the best science and if parents aren't taught respect for science, he said.

Scientists have failed to explain the limits of science, Peshkin said. Science deals in what can be observed and measured through experimentation. Assertions or beliefs are not part of it. A theory, he said, is a hunch about how the world works that is then subjected to experimental observation.

Religion, on the other hand, accepts revealed knowledge. The two, therefore, take different approaches to reality, Peshkin said.

But each is valid and the conflict between the two is unnecessary, he said.

Peshkin said experimentation can only disprove a theory, but never finally prove it.

With proof always impossible, then, scientists rely on the repeated successful testing of a theory to make conclusions about the physical world, he said. Newton's laws of mechanics are accepted because they have accurately described observable phenomena consistently over centuries. They have been found to apply not only to planets, as Newton started with, but also to baseballs and jet engines. An airplane designed to fly under a different theory of motion would not get any riders, Peshkin said.

Disbelieving well-tested theories is not an option intellectually or practically, he said.

Since the 1900s, Darwin's prediction of primates' descent from a common ancestor through natural selection has been confirmed by repeated observation. The theory of evolution has been subjected to numerous and varied tests and has not yet encountered limitations, he said.

Labels: Brian Williams, Center for the Study of Law and Religion, creationism, evolution, faith, intelligent design, Murray Peshkin, revelation, science

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Saturday, February 23, 2008

New film questions bias against Intelligent Design

STEPHEN ROESLER
Staff Writer

Former Pepperdine Professor Ben Stein’s controversial film, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” scheduled for release in early April, explores the complex topic of Intelligent Design (ID) and the role it plays in academia. Stein, who wrote and stars in the film, finds numerous examples of professors who are being denied tenure and publishing rights for subscribing to, or merely considering, the idea of Intelligent Design. Ironically, most Pepperdine biology professors disagree with Stein’s conclusion.

Intelligent Design, at its most basic form, suggests that an unseen force, namely a creator, developed humanity. In short, ID claims that life is far too complex to explain without including a creator.

Dr. Stephen Davis, a distinguished professor of Biology and this year’s winner of the Robert Foster Cherry Award for Great Teaching, maintains that the effort to include ID in the class was simply a legal maneuver to incorporate religion in the classroom. He therefore considered the idea flawed and claims “it’s unethical, it’s dishonest, it was flawed from the very beginning.”

The legal maneuvering, Davis said, was an attempt to advocate for religion in Pennsylvania schools. United States District Judge John E. Jones ruled ID unconstitutional in schools by explaining it violated the separation of church and state while attempting to proselytize.

While Davis and Honeycutt fervently oppose ID in the classroom, Professor of Law Ed Larson maintains that discussion of ID could potentially complement other topics and further the process of education.

“The idea of design in nature is a perfectly respectable concept that can very profitably be discussed in philosophy and different social sciences,” said Larson, a Pulitzer Prize winner for his novel, “Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate over Science and Religion.”

Although Larson admits that ID does not exactly fit the definition of science, he holds that if discussion on the topic of ID intends for a pedagogical purpose, it maintains no legal problems.

“That doesn’t mean that there may not be supernatural explanations for physical phenomenon — it’s just not science,” Larson said. “As long as that distinction is made, I personally see no reason why you can’t discuss it as long as you don’t proselytize.”

While most consider ID disassociated with science, Dr. Jeffery Jasperse, an associate professor of sports medicine, argues that at a Christian school, students should understand the basis of ID and its connection to the Christian faith.

Jasperse, also a physiology and anatomy professor, spends roughly four hours per semester devoted to discussing ID while allowing students to direct conversation and inquiry on the touchy topic, he said. He understands that science tends to explain processes on microscopic levels, while ignoring the bigger picture. In his opinion, this should remain the core of the class.

Christopher Doran, professor of Religion, spends his class devoted to the big picture. His class, “Conversations at the Intersection of Theology and Science,” explores the interaction between science and theology, wherein he identifies its weakness, specifically in a theological setting. He considers the theological and scientific aspect flawed.

“ID is bad science and even prominent ID folks recognize if it was a scientific program it has significant shortcomings,” he said.

Doran also explains the inconsistencies between the claims of ID and the Christian God. Finding problems throughout, Doran still sees the importance of devoting much of his class to the trying subject because the fundamentals assume a higher power. Furthermore, some critics of evolution ask how a person of faith could denounce ID. More specifically, how could Davis or Honeycutt, in their Christian faith, deem ID flawed, inaccurate or not scientific?

“I believe in creation,” Davis said.

He said he also believes in a form of Intelligent Design, but does not want that belief associated with legal attempts to railroading religion into education.

Davis said the baggage associated with Intelligent Design is unfortunate.

“It confuses and it inserts wedges that are not justified,” he said. “It inserts a wedge that separates science from religion and right now we don’t need that, in fact, we need it less now than maybe ever before.”

Central to the theory of ID remains the idea of what scientists refer to as “irreducible complexity.” The idea assumes that the cell, comprised of many complex, working parts, cannot function if one of those parts is removed. In short, irreducible complexity demonstrates that biological systems did not evolve naturally.

Irreducible complexity, which has since been critiqued and unaccepted by many scientists, functions as the crux of creationism. The idea, in one sense, allows people to prove “God” or “faith” — it qualifies as a “God of the Gaps” theory.

“What if you really believe that the flagellum, being irreducible, is the foundation of your Christian faith, and what if someone reduces it?” Honeycutt asked. “Are you willing to test your faith on the flagellum being irreducible?”

Across the board, the topic of ID remains inherently connected to some kind of faith, saturating the subject with emotion and confusion for the general public. As Honeycutt understands, ID causes people to overstep their bounds. For example, he said he believes people of the Christian community attempt to make ID a “science” to prove their beliefs. “Christians are overstepping their area, they have no scientific basis,” he said.

But, Stein maintains a different point of view in his upcoming documentary.

“We’re not, by any means, certain that Intelligent Design is the answer,” Stein said. “We just want free speech.”

Labels: Ben Stein, Christianity, free speech, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, Stephan Roesler

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, January 04, 2008

U.S. science academy stresses evolution's importance

Thu Jan 3, 2008
By Will Dunham

(NOTE: This is page one of two. Please click on "external link" to view entire article.)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. National Academy of Science on Thursday issued a spirited defense of evolution as the bedrock principle of modern biology, arguing that it, not creationism, must be taught in public school science classes.

The academy, which operates under a mandate from Congress to advise the government on science and technology matters, issued the report at a time when the theory of evolution, first offered in the 19th century, faces renewed attack by some religious conservatives.

Creationism, based on the explanation offered in the Bible, and the related idea of "intelligent design" are not science and, as such, should not be taught in public school science classrooms, according to the report.

"We seem to have continuing challenges to the teaching of evolution in schools. That's something that doesn't seem to go away," Barbara Schaal, an evolutionary biologist at Washington University in St. Louis and vice president of National Academy of Sciences, said in a telephone interview.

"We need a citizenry that's trained in real science."

Evolution is a theory explaining change in living organisms over the eons due to genetic mutations. For example, it holds that humans evolved from earlier forms of apes.

The report stated that the idea of evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. "Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future," said the report.

But teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not, according to the report's authors. Continued...

Labels: creationism, evolution, intelligent design, National Academy of Science, public school, religion, science, Will Dunham

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, November 16, 2007

Judgment Day in the news

Commentaries regarding the recently aired NOVA documentray: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Judge John E. Jones III, the federal judge who presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover, appeared on The NewsHour on November 13, 2007, to discuss Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, the documentary that recently aired on PBS stations nationwide. Following a clip from the program, Jones discussed his background knowledge of "intelligent design" and evolution, the Establishment Clause and its applicability in the Kitzmiller case, the role of the independent judiciary, and the influence of his seminal decision. Jones commented, "It's not precedential outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania, but I thought that if other school boards and other boards of education could read it, they would possibly be more enlightened about what the dispute was all about."

Judgment Day aired on PBS stations nationwide on November 13, 2007. It will be available to watch on-line as of November 16, 2007, and it is likely to air again in various places -- schedules for local affiliates can be checked on-line via the PBS website. Be sure also to visit the generous website, featuring interviews with Kenneth R. Miller on evolution, Phillip Johnson on "intelligent design," and Paula Apsell on NOVA's decision to produce the documentary; audio clips of Judge John E. Jones III reading passages from his decision in the case, and of various experts (including NCSE's Eugenie C. Scott) discussing the nature of science; resources about the evidence for evolution and about the background to the Kitzmiller case; material especially for teachers, including a briefing packet (PDF) for educators; and even a preview of the documentary.

Meanwhile, Judgment Day is continuing to receive high praise from reviewers, both in Pennsylvania, where the historic trial took place, or across the country. The York Dispatch, one of the two daily papers serving Dover, Pennsylvania, editorially offered (November 11, 2007), "Thumbs Up to PBS for bringing tribulations of the Dover Area School District to national attention in the two-hour Nova special 'Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial' ... The blatant attempt to introduce religion-based 'creationism' into the public school classroom is detailed along with a recreation of the ensuing battle in a federal courtroom in Harrisburg that resulted in a humiliating defeat for the intelligent design proponents. A reminder that fiddling with public education to impose an individual religious viewpoint is a non-starter, 'Judgment Day' should be required watching."

Reviewing Judgment Day for the Philadelphia Inquirer (November 13, 2007), Jonathan Storm praised not only the scientific content of Judgment Day but also its objective approach: "Nova, the science show, stoutly defends science against the attack of the surprisingly hard-to-pin-down intelligent-design brain trust. It does use such loaded words as 'claim' and 'so-called' to describe tenets of the supposed theory, but it is surprisingly clear of a 'nyah-nyah, we won' tone. That makes this significant program more accessible to all." He also quoted Judge Jones as saying, "If you glibly embrace intelligent design, or if you're in that 48 or 50 percent who believe creationism ought to be taught in school, I hope [you] will watch this."

It was as a legal drama that Judgment Day struck Rob Owen, writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (November 12, 2007). Describing the program as "a fascinating and gripping look at the trial and both sides of the issue," Owen wrote, "I didn't know much about so-called 'intelligent design' theory beyond its name and a sense that it's synonymous with creationism. So I went into the film willing to be persuaded that maybe there's some validity to intelligent design. If there is, those in favor of ID failed to prove it. And failed miserably. That's what makes 'Intelligent Design on Trial' such a thriller. As a legal exercise, the pro-evolution team presents a slam-dunk case; in the end, even a defense attorney says his losing side received a fair trial."

In The New York Times (November 11, 2007), Cornelia Dean admired the scientific content of Judgment Day, commenting, "the program as a whole recognizes that there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And it shows how witnesses attacked two of the central premises of intelligent design -- that there are no 'intermediate' fossils to show one creature morphing into another (there are) and that some body parts are too complex to have formed from the modification of other body parts (not true)." She added, "But viewers also learn a more important lesson: that all science is provisional, standing only until it is overturned by better information. Intelligent design, relying as it does on an untestable supernatural entity, does not fall into that category."

Elsewhere, the Cincinnati Post's reviewer (November 13, 2007) wrote, "Leave it to the respected PBS science show "Nova" to put some common sense back into the often hysterical debate over whether intelligent design is science or religion -- and remind us that Darwin's theory of evolution is a solid one that should be taught in science classes." The Deseret News's reviewer (November 13, 2007) described the progam as "captivating," and quoted Judge Jones as saying, "I think there's a lesson here for communities and how they elect their school board members." And the Oregonian's reviewer (November 13, 2007) wrote, "'Judgment Day' offers an admirably compact and methodical presentation of the sides in the debate. It should be highly useful in years to come."

Finally, writing in Salon (November 13, 2007), Gordy Slack, the author of The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA, looks forward from the trial, explaining that although "intelligent design" aspired to be a big tent under which creationists of all stripes were welcome to shelter, "Judge Jones'[s] decision was like a lightning strike on the big top, sending many of the constituents running home through the rain." He ends by quoting NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott's warning: "Evolution remains under attack ... If creationists have their way, teachers will eventually just stop teaching evolution. It'll just be too much trouble. And generations of students will continue to grow up ignorant of basic scientific realities."

November 15, 2007

Labels: creationism, education, evolution, intelligent design, Judge John E. Jones, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, Nova, PBS

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, May 31, 2007

The State of Schools in American Perception: From Dissatisfaction to Religious Necessity

Daniel Downs
May 26, 2007

When it comes to education, over 82% of Americans still send their kids to public school. So why are Americans not happy with public education? As will be shown, secularism, an offshoot of American socialism and humanism, is the problem.

According to the most recent Gallup Polls, 52% say they are very dissatisfied with America’s education, and only 37% are only somewhat satisfied. The educational reform No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is not the reason for the negativity about public schooling. If most Americans really understood NCLB, they would probably feel something is finally being done about our educational problems. The dissatisfaction is not about school safety either. For only about a third voiced any concern about school security. More emphasis on academics does not appear to be a major problem. Only between 30% and 40% of Americans believe there is not enough emphasis on the 3Rs, History, Science, Health, Arts, and Foreign Languages. Although a significant number of people think better teachers are needed.

So why then are so many Americans dissatisfied with American schools? The answer may surprise you, but the real problem with America’s public schools is the lack of religion. Sixty percent (60%) said they believed America has too little religion in its public schools. The survey does not give us any clear idea of what Americans mean by it. However, over 92% think prayer should be allowed and over 76% would support a constitutional amendment allowing voluntary prayer in state-run schools. It gets even better. Most Americans think creationism and intelligent design should be taught along with evolution in science class. Fifty-four percent (54%) were for creationism, 22% were opposed, and 23% were unsure. Concerning intelligent design, 43% favored it, 21% were opposed, and 35% were uncertain. The relative large number of people who were uncertain indicates insufficient knowledge about the issue.

It is encouraging to see that most Americans hold to at least some of the core views and values held by our predecessors at our nation’s founding. Early Americans debated not about whether religion should be taught but rather who should be responsible for teaching it to America’s school children. The issue was not a conflict of church versus state. It was one between federal and state governments, which also extended to state versus local jurisdiction. The outcome of the debate was defined by Congress in the Northwest Ordinance. This legislation regulated the creation of territories, states and local communities. The Ordinance specified land to be set aside for community schools in which religion would be taught among other subjects. Notice, the same Congress that established our nation and constitutional form of governments also authorized public schools--not Sunday Schools--to teach religion. Why? Because a free self-governing people require the moral understanding and discipline only religion adequately provides.

What kind of religion did early Americans propose? Most believed biblical religion was the best of all possible religions. When early Americans spoke of religions they usually meant Christian denominations such as Congregationalist, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Catholics, and the like. However, they often included in their discussions discussed the religions of Buddhists, Mohammedans or Muslims and Jews. Complementing a pluralist view, many early American leaders held to a type of religious universalism. They believed all world religions taught the same basic morality. The only real difference was the extent each religion comprehended the moral laws of human nature. Most, if not all, early Americans thought Christianity had obtained the fullest understanding both by revelation and by reason of the divinely created moral law in human nature and human society. (For more on early American views concerning education and religion read Thoughts upon the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic written in 1786 by Benjamin Rush.)

Why do modern Americans think more religion is needed in public education and what kind of religion do they propose? Again, a clear answer is not found in the Gallup Polls. It is reasonable to assume most Americans still agree with the founders and their views. For example, nearly 70% say America is a Christian nation, according to a Pew survey. Most Americans (59%) see religion is losing its influence in society. They regard it as a bad trend. Only 34% of Americans think the public influence of religion is increasing, and the majority (62%) says it is a good thing.

The importance of religion’s public influence goes back to the historical necessity of moral discipline. It is a prerequisite to living in a free self-governing society. While 71% of Americans want more religion in the public square, 51% want more religious influence in political or law-making affairs. When we consider the fact that early America was dominated by Puritan ideals and that Puritans were called evangelicals, it should be less difficult to understand why 60% of evangelicals still believe the Bible should be the most important influence in shaping laws. The same is generally true for most Protestants but oddly enough not for Catholics and certainly not for liberal Protestants. Put in perspective, the majority of Americans (63%) say the ‘will of the people’ (law of consensus) should be the most important influence in law, while only 32% say it should be biblical precepts and biblical law.

Now, we have a paradox. Americans say they want more religious freedom. They want more religious influence in schools and in society including government, but Americans also say they do not want social law to be shaped by that influence. If by religious influence Americans mean its affects on people in schools and government some of whom make legal decisions, they still hold to the founding ideals. However, early American law reflected biblical precedents. Why? Because they applied the moral ideals and laws derived from the Bible to laws governing human behavior in society. It is likely, therefore, that what most Americans mean when they say they want more religion in society, government, and education is more of religion’s moral influence in all aspect of life. (For more on biblical precedents of American law read Biblical Law in America by John W. Welch.)

If so, the hope for America’s future is much brighter than imagined, one in which life, liberty, equity, equality, prosperity, and happiness may remain supreme. The one obstruction to fully realizing this hope is like minded leaders. If Americans will only insist on having moral leaders of this kind, leaders who genuinely support religion and morality will arise to the demand, but Americans will also have vote them into office at local, state, and national levels of government. When America do, restoring religion to public education will then be possible.

Labels: Christianity, education, intelligent design, morality, Northwest Ordinance, prayer, public school, religion, religious freedom

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

Spirituality ‘Hot Topic’ On Campus

Monday, April 30, 2007
Amanda Wilcosky / Staff Writer / aw283105@ohiou.edu

Spirituality on campus might be overlooked at times, but in a recent Campus Crusade for Christ survey of nearly 2,000 Ohio University students, 75 percent said they believed there is an intelligent designer behind the universe.

The survey was conducted during the Veritas Forum, which occurred April 10 to April 12. The purpose of the survey was to stir up interest and to give students a voice on spiritual topics, said Brian McCollister, OU director of Campus Crusade and Athletes in Action.

Based on the outcome of the survey, spirituality seems to be an important part of college students’ lives, whether they are finding faith, losing faith or are still searching.

A question leads to Christ

For some students, the transition into college provides an opportunity for spiritual growth, which is true for OU senior Ryan Neises, a sports management major. He said his exploration of faith began his sophomore year when someone in his fraternity asked him one of life’s most difficult questions: What happens to us after death?

Considering his inquiry, Neises said he looked to the Bible and eventually became interested in learning more about Jesus Christ. He joined the Greek Life Bible study, a Campus Crusade program that he said furthered his spiritual identity.

"When I first joined Bible study, it was exploring my faith," Neises said. "Since I’ve come to faith, it allows me to supplement it and help me grow."

Now a leader of the group — held every Tuesday at 9 p.m. — Neises urges other Greek students to explore their faiths in an open environment. He said that finding faith has truly influenced his life, changing his previous discontent to constant hope and joy.

"Since I’ve been more spiritual, I’ve had more of an impact on people because it has allowed me to be more of an open person," he said.

Growing apart from faith

Anna Simis, a sophomore theater performance major, has had a much different experience with religion. Instead of gaining spirituality during college, her faith has dwindled. Born and raised Catholic, Simis said she stopped going to church because she began to disagree with several of the church’s doctrines.

The daughter of divorced parents and niece of a gay aunt and gay uncle, Simis said she is unable to negotiate being part of a religion that condemns homosexuality and disallows divorcees from receiving Holy Communion. Simis said she began struggling with her faith in high school and that college has helped to lessen her guilt.

"College reaffirmed my beliefs and gave me the sense that I didn’t have to feel bad about questioning my faith," she said.

While still searching, Simis said that she believes in "a higher sense of purpose" and the good that can come out of religion. She added that she has found other things in life, such as community service, that can be "more rewarding than sitting in mass for an hour."

Science above spirituality

Sophomore Kristin Stover, who has never gone to church and has had no experience with religion, represents the 25 percent of students that expressed disbelief in or uncertainty of intelligent design. A biological science major, she said she was raised in a family that valued scientific pursuits.

"I grew up questioning everything," Stover said. "I think science is about disproving things, but you can’t disprove religion — that’s the line where it gets kind of fuzzy."

When she was younger, Stover said she felt pressured by friends to become religious, a feeling that continued into her freshman year of college. She said she now feels content with where she is in life and finds it comforting that there are others at OU who share her outlook.

Despite not being religious, Stover said she does not consider herself an Atheist because she has not been fully exposed to any faith. Instead of relying on religion, being close with family and friends helps her to find meaning in life.

"The sense of community that people get from church is still there," she said. "It’s all about connecting to people."

Labels: Amanda Wilcosky, Campus Crusade for Christ, community, faith, intelligent design, Jesus, spirituality