Former TV teen idol Kirk Cameron has been on a crusade for years to discredit the theory of evolution. As a born-again Christian, Cameron's beliefs compel him to speak out against the theory of how specie gradually evolved through genetic mutations over millions of years, resulting in the diverse population of animals and plant life we see today.
In recent years, Cameron's mission has had several setbacks: several school boards and state departments of instruction have rejected the teaching of Creationism and/or "intelligent design" alongside evolution in schools across the nation. Intelligent design believes that, "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
However, intelligent design lacks one basic element: scientific backing. While evolution isn't perfect -- there are several "holes" in the theory, critics would contend -- it does utilize the scientific method and a preponderance of data to back up its claims. And while evolution can't provide a definite road map of how humans evolved from the first single-celled organism, we do understand, to some extent, how such a process might have worked through natural selection. Intelligent design, on the other hand, provides no proof for a Creator playing any role in the process whatsoever. It's a theory that is totally dependent on faith; and while it COULD be true, there's no way to tell for sure without proving the existence of said Creator.
--
Within the education system, a greater problem exists. Certainly, people are free to believe whatever they want, from Creationism to evolution, and everything in between (or even outside). But when it comes to scientific studies, what should we do? What should we teach? And should we teach theories that have no scientific backing to them?
The answer seems obvious to many: we should only teach theories that utilize the scientific method, and therefore should only teach evolution in science classes. It should not be taught as fact, but as the best understanding we have available to us of how we as a species came to be.
Students that disagree should be able to do so -- and if they wish to opt out of that part of science class, they should be allowed that option as well. As far as teaching religious beliefs goes, a curriculum that relies upon such beliefs doesn't belong in a science class -- it belongs in a philosophy or religious studies class, or outside of school altogether if those options aren't available.
---
Cameron's crusade has evolved as well: rather than try to fight the theory head-on, Cameron and his supporters are handing out Darwin's book, The Origin of Species, during the sesquicentennial of its first publishing date. There is a slight twist, however: their version of the book includes a fifty page introduction that aims to discredit Darwin's work. People can read both Darwin's Origins and the group's introduction and come to their own conclusions, argues Cameron.
The introduction, however, includes criticisms of Darwin's character, including accusations that Darwin despised women, promoted racism, and inspired some of Adolph Hitler's beliefs during his rise to power in Nazi Germany.
Associations like these do little for the debate: indeed, the same can be done of the Christian faith. Christians have for centuries treated women as second- (and sometimes third-) class citizens; Christians have had members within their ranks who have used the Bible to justify slavery and racism; and Hitler's speeches and beliefs were inspired in part by his Christian faith.
Does this mean that Christianity is evil? OF COURSE NOT! What it means is that SOME within the Christian movement have been misguided, as have some within the evolution movement. Focus needs to be paid to the subjects themselves (Christianity or evolution), and not the purveyors of those subjects. The misdeeds of those in the past who have promoted either Christianity or evolution don't necessarily reflect the dogma of either.
We have a pretty clear understanding that evolution is close to being fact, at least in scientific terms. It would be wrong of us, then, to teach in a classroom an idea like intelligent design that is unscientific in nature. Evolutionary science is based out of what the name implies -- science. Everything else is just belief.
A short disclaimer: I feel it imperative to explain my own beliefs on this subject. I believe that evolution was shaped by God's hands -- that is, I personally believe in intelligent design. What should be taught in schools, however, and what my personal beliefs are should not be similar. I recognize my beliefs as just that: beliefs. I have no authority to push them onto students in a classroom environment, nor to suggest that they are fact. As such, I am compelled to support the teaching of science in a science classroom and the teaching of my beliefs elsewhere.
Photo courtesy of WIkipedia Commons
Comments
Way to not do your homework. ID does not say anything about faith but says that an intelligent designer may be the cause for the way we see things today. It may not even be a deity of any kind. It's obvious to see bad spelling and agendas in this article.
Bravo, at last a rational argument by a person of faith. I am a devout athiest and could not agree more. I have no problem with religious theory being taught in our schools as long as it is in a class designated as such.
"In the beginning, God..."
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." - James Madison, American president and political theorist (1751-1836)
Good comments, almost all, Chris. But I have to take issue with a single one of your comments, where you advocate "opting out" of science class when the science that is taught happens to conflict with your religious beliefs. Of course, scientific ignorance is exactly one of the fundamental problems, and it is exactly learning about science that science education is for. Your proposed solution only feeds the fires of ignorance. I deal with creationists (i.e., anti-evolutionists) in discussions all the time, and in general their lack of knowledge and/or comprehension of basic concepts of biological evolution is appalling. If due to the religious doctrines of your particular religious sect you happen to disagree with the science, the fact of the matter is that the teacher is not going to be expecting you to "believe" it or not and then flunk you if you don't believe it. But you need to *learn about the scientific concepts*, you need to do the homework, and you need to pass the tests.
We evolved from apes ... they are animals...genus phylum order class hey we might be animals stop denying our own destructive development. We are destined to destry all we have created, there is no stopping it.and we are still apes with a pseudo cause...sucks to be you...I went and got me a university edumacation...and still I learned me some common sense...good luck to you my special needs friend as you wander through the terrors of reality.
is a fabrication created to control and tell the people who don't have money how useless they are. It has been that way for hundreds of years and still you people deny that your religion is biased and hypocritical... like every organized religion, terrorist scheme and qebecois politically dissatisfied moron.
God is a word. An excuse and lie.
Self reponsibility...now there's a concept.
God is the biggest roadblock to peace...allah, god...lies to control...jesus may have lived but the guy never walked on water or0turned water into wine.Astreet corner magician has more class and clever tricks...
\
"I believe that evolution was shaped by God's hands -- that is, I personally believe in intelligent design."
There is a distinction between Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution. From your brief comment I cannot distinguish your actual view.
Your description of Comfort's version of Origin of Species is incomplete. Not only does it have a despicable introduction which with the intent of character assassination, but four chapters were omitted.
www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/10/30/how-creationist-origin-distorts-darwin.html
ncse.com/creationism/general/creationevolution-continuum
"the Creation/Evolution Continuum"
Includes brief descriptions of various forms of Creationism, including Intelligent Design, along with Theistic Evolution, and others.
"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. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children."
Part of statement signed by over 12,000 Christian CLERGY - people unafraid to accept the facts of evolution. Full text, and a list of all the signers is found if you google "Butler College Clergy Letter".
Besides, if the universe was so intelligently designed for life, why is 99.9999999999999999% of our Solar System lethal to life as we know it? That's just the Solar System - expressing how much of the universe is violently anti-life requires a lot more 9s.
if you id and creationists could put aside your childhood brainwashing and just looked at the science without trying to prove you god did it in 4004 BC and looked at the evidence then you would be convinced of the fact of evolution. it is easier to be a creationist. magic pixie dust from the sky. evolution actual science education to really understand the process. creationists take it to easy.
We must also remember that the Kirk Camerons of the world do not actually represent Christianity. Many Christians are quite able to differentiate science and the role of mythology in culture. Please try to remember when confronted with this level of fear driven idiocy that there are also Christians out there who are shaking their heads in disbelief with you.
Hitler had no Christian faith. As reported by Alber Speer, Hitler was Christian in public and anti-Christian in private. Following is information recorede by Hitler's secretary Martin Borman:
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul
I keep hearing "science" thrown around with the contention that somehow the idea that we are related to a goldfish falls within that field.
It does not.
Although Evolution is a proven fact (living things DO change over time), there is zero evidence that a squirrel is related to the acorn he is eating. Common Descent does not even qualify as a scientific theory; it is mere speculation.
Come and discuss origins issues in a CIVIL manner at Talk About Origins:
www.tao.invisionzone.com
"However, intelligent design lacks one basic element: scientific backing."
************************
Actually it lacks a bit more. It lacks a mechanism for it's hypothesis. No one yet (to my knowledge) has answered the basic questions, "how does Intelligent Design work?". Who was the creator, why did he / she create us, what mechanism(s) did he / she use to create us, etc. Even Behe during the Kitzmiller trial admitted that there was no proposed mechanism yet for ID. Really? It's been out there for 20+ years, and no one present a mechanism for it's actions that we can test and verify? Hmmm.
Bud said about ID: "It's been out there for 20+ years"
Actually, Bud, it's been out there since William Paley or before. "Intelligent Design" arguments have been presented longer than Darwinian evolution. So ID has been failing not for 20 years, but for 200.
Chris Walker said, "we should only teach theories that utilize the scientific method..."
Chris: Besides "Intelligent Design", what other theories should be disallowed?
The Many Worlds Interpretation of the universe would not be an allowable subject under the rule that you propose.
Your proposal would leave a lot of leading scientists without jobs for even considering the idea that the Multiverse might exist.
Physicist Leonard Susskind said in a 2006 Nature Magazine article on the Multiverse hypothesis: “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science.”
(Geoff Brumfiel, “Outrageous Fortune,” Nature, Vol 439:10-12 January 5, 2006)
Personal I think Kirk Cameron's obsession with Darwin is pretty dumb and definitely unhelpful in supporting the profound assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected
"Although Evolution is a proven fact (living things DO change over time), there is zero evidence that a squirrel is related to the acorn he is eating"......Uhhh....Terry??? you might want to check your facts......Better stated, I have never heard ANYONE of average intelligence tout squirrel/acorn relations..... perhaps because he would then be forced to argue the lineage between a man and his condom.....
what's so terrifying about the possibility of our existence relying purely on a ancient line of random, yet beneficial, genetic mutations.....Honestly, I find apples, snakes, fig leaves, parting seas, stonings, and the occasional burning bush far more terrifying.......
good luck Kirk....honestly....but please don't be crushed if you "lofty flyer" edition of C.D.'s classic doesn't receive quite the same fanfare as Sara Palin's current "history check" masterpiece...."Going Rogue".......
You make brief mention of "holes" in evolution theory and later describe the theory as being as close to being "fact". Here you are stating your "belief" based on your personal analysis of the data. Another reasonable person could say the size of the holes means the theory is far from proven fact. Beliefs do not become facts because a majority decides to believe in it.
The real truth is that no one knows for sure how we got here as a species, and a fair teaching of evolution (and other non-evolution explanations) would require explaining in detail the "holes" , and why unless those holes are filled, the theory is not proven, but just the best theory that fits the data if one assumes that there is not a creator. And while non-designed evolution could be true, it can't be proven true without proving that there is no creator. To date, I do not believe anyone has proven the non-existence of a creator any more than anyone has proven the existence of a creator.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!