Utah Votes 'No' to Darwin's Critics 792
NewbieV writes "An article in Tuesday's New York Times notes that proposed legislation which would have 'stress[ed] that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, is correct;' has failed by a 46-28 vote in a Republican-controlled state House of Representatives."
Evolution/IEducation (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether teaching Evolution, "Intellegent Design", or this Utah "4 out of 5 Dentists agree" crap, the problem is not the teaching of these theories. The key problem is teaching children to question conventional wisdom. Kids need to be taught to always question what they know. Kids need to know what your teacher teaches you is what everyone "thinks" to be right at the moment, but who knows what the future will bring. If you're going to lobby gangbusters to teach the kids of today something, teach them to evaluate what they are taught themselves. The world is many shades of grey, not black and white.
P.S. - I always slept through English class
saints preserve us (Score:5, Interesting)
Professor Duane Jeffery, a professor of biology at Brigham Young University, estimates that "probably 90 percent of people who are LDS think the church is against evolution. But they don't get upset about it being taught in public schools." The reason, he says, is the church seminary system, which provides junior high and high school students with a class period of religious instruction during school hours. "Most parents feel their religion is being take care of in seminary," Jeffery says. Conservative gadfly Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, sees it this way: "Utah's children, for the most part are taught by their parents that evolution is not correct science. The parents feel more control because they know they're teaching their children the truth at home." That truth, she says, is that "you are a child of God," a phrase that Mormons learn from the time they can talk, she says. "It's a year or two of learning about evolution vs. a lifetime of hearing that you are a child of God. Evolution just doesn't win out."
It looks like Utah doesn't feel threatened by teaching evolution because they have faith in what they believe (and what they learn in the seminary). I'd say that's a step in the right direction for seperation of church and state... that is assuming that these semenary classes aren't mandated.I'm not really surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
So the idea of making up a law saying "here's how it is, suckers! Believe this way!" is against the typical belief of "separation of church and state". (Granted, Utah is not a shining example of this all the time - see the liquer laws they have, but like I said, I don't live there).
Even if we believe that God had a hand in it, there's a lot of individual belief in how it happens. Was "Garden of Eden" a fable of sorts for early Isrealites since they wouldn't get "Well, God started the universe from the vacuum using a 20 dimensional algorithm that would solidify into 3 stable dimensions of space, 1 of time, and gravity with values X" - or was there a "snap of the fingers"? Some church authorities have given their opinions on it, but I've never seen an official "it was this and no other".
I'm more of a "what does it really matter in the grand scheme of things" anyway. i don't think God's going to ask me what I thought about "intelligent design" or "evolution" when I die - he's going to ask me about how I treated my wife, my children, my friends, my enemies, my coworkers, and others. So I believe in evolution - yes, the Darwin version - until a voice on high says something different. And even then, I'll check to make sure somebody didn't slip me some really interesting mushrooms - just in case.
Most of us like science - and yes, I even appreciate the ones that show my religion, like most others, is probably full of it. I just use the "South Park Mormon episode thought" about the whole thing.
Then, there's b) getting voted out of office. Remember the Dover school officials who decided to bring Intelligent Design to their schools - and the next election got voted out? Even in a Mormon state, all an opponent has to do is start up "You're trying to mix church and state? What are you doing?", and there are enough non-Mormons in the state to resonate with that, and enough Mormons who think about Illinois and how the state not doing their job in protecting *all* religions that their dander gets up.
Anyway - good move by the congress, by the majority whip who brought in an amendment that all but killed the bill, and to the folks who voted it down. As the article says - if a super conservative religious state like Utah won't approve it, there's probably hope for the rest of the country.
This is all just my opinion. I could be wrong. And I'm hardly a good example of Mormonism anyway - I tend to say "fuck" too much in company
Religious Rotgut (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically the whole 'intelligent design' movement is yet another attack on secularism. For those who embrace this theory, it's not enough for the state to acknowledge the right of people to worship as they see fit and go about teaching science, the state must be forced to operate according to the Evangelicals' interpretation of Biblical law. Whether or not Evangelicals admit it, the vaunted "Christian Nation" they're trying to forge would make second-class citizens of everyone who doesn't subscribe to their interpretation of their religion. This is fine, because according to my observation they want to create a sort of environment where non-Evangelicals are barely tolerated and subjected to a torrent of Bible-thumping and state-sponsored oppression until they convert. I think the Mormons recognize this, and since they're not in the religio-political mainstream insofar as the Religious Right is concerned, they're likely nervous about getting into bed with their main competition.
In short, this gives me hope that some religious, right-wing people recognize the fact that religion and public governance should be kept separate-- even if their motives are based on a level playing field for competition over converts.
Next Up, the Disenfranchised Fundamentalists! (Score:2, Interesting)
I've discussed evolution versus intelligent design before. I do believe that they do not really have to be enemies. I've said before that evolution does not deny God, or any creator. My complaint has to do with the teaching of intelligent design as a science when it is nothing of the sort. It's religion through and through.
I've also claimed that even many religious organizations don't disbelieve evolution. After all, any microbiology textbook is absolutely stuffed with evidence. The problems come when one tries to reconcile the timeline of the bible with the timeline of nature. A few thousand years, or three billion... they don't quite agree.
I'm absolutely thrilled to say that a large body of clergy has now come out on the side of evolution, and against intelligent design. Warren Eschbach of the Church of the Brethren, a retired pastor and professor at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, helped sponsor a letter that has been signed by over 10,000 clergy members. I quote from CNN, who quoted the letter:
"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests."
The following quote, also sourced from the CNN article, was made by Vatican Observatory Director George Coyne:
"The intelligent design movement belittles God. It makes God a designer, an engineer. The God of religious faith is a god of love. He did not design me."
I can't tell you how pleased I am to see so many people of faith acknowledge that science and religion do not have to be enemies. To ignore what mankind is learning is foolhardy, and I believe that a religious body that refuses to acknowledge what science uncovers is doomed.
The existence of evolution does not diminish God. And the existence of God does not diminish evolution.
I sent a link to the CNN article to a friend of mine, and he replied with, "And the sheep lay down with the lions." Interesting. If the religious are the sheep, by laying down with the lions of science are they doomed to never wake up? Or does it simply mean that two traditional enemies are laying down their swords?
I'd like to think the latter is the case. Spirituality is important, whether based in divinity or in something less etheric, and if it can exist side by side with practical knowledge, I think it bodes very well for the future of our species.
Disclaimer - I am NOT religious.
Everyone has religeon.... even atheists (Score:2, Interesting)
That being said, has anyone noticed that those who try to eradicate all traces of religeon from public life are zealots, in almost a religeous way? Except that the state is their God and provider instead of an unseen, all-powerful being.
Rambling a little bit more, it's been put thusly: "The bible tells us what God did, and science tells us how."
Re:saints preserve us (Score:2, Interesting)
Outside of Utah local Mormon congregations will often have the same classes in the mornings before school.
Re:That's a heckuva thing to vote over. (Score:4, Interesting)
Idiot - you have no idea what Darwinism is, or what modern evolutionary theory is for that matter.
Read The Origin of the Species and then come back and post. I have and therefore have a right to comment on Darwinism.
Get a clue.
Re:Religious Rotgut (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't believe this bill dying has anything to do with Evangelicals either, given the fact that Mormons and Evangelicals have a very different undertanding of how things came into existance. It *does* have a lot to do with separation of church and state and not just because of uncomfortable folks who aren't of the LDS (Mormon) faith either. Most LDS people who are involved with politics are very concerned about this and would be just as uncomfortable about a bill pushing some Mormon commandment as a law (unless such a commandment happens to also be a "natural" law, such as murder) as any secular humanist or what have you.
As a Mormon (who also lives in Utah), I would have to say that the overriding principle that is most significant to the LDS faith is the idea of individual freedom to choose how to act and believe, and taking responsibility for such things. I think teaching the scientific method and how to be analytical, and then being taught the current scientific ideas and trends is important to be taught in school. After that you can believe what you want.
Re:Evolution/IEducation (Score:2, Interesting)
On Radio West... (Score:1, Interesting)
Gotta love bigotry.
Oh, and why do so many people not grasp the basic concept of why evolution is taught in science class, but not intelligent design? If the scientific method supported the concept of creationism, then creationism would be taught in science class. Simple as that.
Science is not just 'facts' so much as it is a tool to find out what makes things work and why. I.E. science in practice is completely opposite of faith based religion.
Faith, however valid it may be to anybody's belief system, does not belong in science class.