by C.T. Ogden ~
The argument concerning the teaching of evolution and creationist ideologies in schools is one that has long swept the floors of our school boards and state legislatures. It is so teeming with personal convictions of educators and legislators that one may find it quite difficult to wade through the ridiculous and come up with a viable decision on the matter. According to the article that I have selected,"On eve of Darwin’s birthday, states take steps to limit evolution" by Kimberly Winston (Washington Post), the schools of certain states are attempting once again to remove theory repeatedly proven by exact and methodical scientific testing, and replace it with fantasy.
I find my atheism very apparent from that last statement, but I will attempt to remain as non-biased as possible concerning the subject matter; which I assure you is very biased even so. Whatever side of the spectrum you find yourself on, it is very difficult and almost certainly naive to deny the validity of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. There are very few laws in science, and even fewer in the field of biology, Darwin's theory not included; but rest assured that Darwin's theory is hardly arguable subject matter. Which brings me to my next point.
With all of this overwhelming evidence supporting something that is the basis for our existence, why would one consider combating this theory with something so preposterous as the idea that we are the absent minded side project of an ever present being within the expanse of our unimaginable universe? Now lets be clear here, I'm not arguing the existence of God, I'm arguing the teaching of Creationism. As these lawmakers would have it, the earth is 6000 years old, carbon dating is always wrong, and Jesus rode a velociraptor. If that is what you want to believe, please be my guest, but keep it out of our public schools. The idea of Separation of Church and State works both ways, not only to protect the minds and freedoms of those who do not subscribe to faith, but also to protect those of faith from very "unreasonable" men like myself. By instituting faith-based logic on our public school children, you send an open invitation for doomed souls to break down your "logic". (Please be away that by stating "you", I am not implying "You" the reader, only those applicable concerning the article.")
I find it so difficult to accept the fact that they wish to outlaw the atheists, to paint them as evil men and women of no moral value. The idea of atheism is so deeply in tune with the moral views of man, that it would even seem that our counterparts are threatened. They are threatened by the idea that we, of no faith, can be humans of great value. They find it so difficult to believe the someone could walk within the bounds of righteousness with no means of support, that they lash out at the very idea of one without faith. The atheist needs no guiding light, he finds that light within himself, and will stand as a light for those around him.
One quote from the article especially caught my attention. “I want the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the ideas to be presented,” Bergevin told the Concord Monitor. “It’s a worldview and it’s godless. Atheism has been tried in various societies, and they’ve been pretty criminal domestically and internationally. The Soviet Union, Cuba, the Nazis, China today: They don’t respect human rights.” They almost make it too easy for anybody with sense to see through the fallacy. If we are to explore the extent of Atheism, which we do in History every day, then we must also explore the extent of Christianity. And I assure you, it is a history riddled with inconsistencies as well as atrocities. So I find it almost amusing that this man would attempt to put his faith on the chopping block, when I know with the upmost certainty that it will not withstand the flood of logic and reason that we of little or no faith find so handy within ourselves. We breath logic with every breath, and with each passing day we find new reasons to see light beyond the darkness that religion has cast. So if this man wishes to stack his faith up against the truth of this world, he can rest assured that am I but the lowliest of the great minds that I stand with. It will take more than that simple invitation to silence the free thinkers.
But what about intelligent design? We don't need to teach the kids about Adam and Eve, but certainly that the Universe is the framework of something set in place by a very impressive being. To most, this being would be considered God, and to many; God would be exactly who they are implying. Though I can't argue with the idea that children should be left to make up their own minds concerning creation, I can argue that this cloak of Creationist deception is completely unnecessary in their upbringing. We don't need to waste taxpayer's money concerning our kids with the even more confusing idea that, "There is a God, but we can't tell you anything about him".
So what do we do, teach them nothing? If we can't find common ground on the creation of man, should we just ignore it completely? The ludicrousness of it all can be answered simply; teach them fact. Teach them proven ideas, and allow them to make own decisions based on their upbringing and their life ahead. If we aren't teaching them fact, then we aren't telling them the truth. If we aren't telling them the truth, then why are we teaching them at all?
I find my atheism very apparent from that last statement, but I will attempt to remain as non-biased as possible concerning the subject matter; which I assure you is very biased even so. Whatever side of the spectrum you find yourself on, it is very difficult and almost certainly naive to deny the validity of Darwin's Theory of Evolution. There are very few laws in science, and even fewer in the field of biology, Darwin's theory not included; but rest assured that Darwin's theory is hardly arguable subject matter. Which brings me to my next point.
With all of this overwhelming evidence supporting something that is the basis for our existence, why would one consider combating this theory with something so preposterous as the idea that we are the absent minded side project of an ever present being within the expanse of our unimaginable universe? Now lets be clear here, I'm not arguing the existence of God, I'm arguing the teaching of Creationism. As these lawmakers would have it, the earth is 6000 years old, carbon dating is always wrong, and Jesus rode a velociraptor. If that is what you want to believe, please be my guest, but keep it out of our public schools. The idea of Separation of Church and State works both ways, not only to protect the minds and freedoms of those who do not subscribe to faith, but also to protect those of faith from very "unreasonable" men like myself. By instituting faith-based logic on our public school children, you send an open invitation for doomed souls to break down your "logic". (Please be away that by stating "you", I am not implying "You" the reader, only those applicable concerning the article.")
I find it so difficult to accept the fact that they wish to outlaw the atheists, to paint them as evil men and women of no moral value. The idea of atheism is so deeply in tune with the moral views of man, that it would even seem that our counterparts are threatened. They are threatened by the idea that we, of no faith, can be humans of great value. They find it so difficult to believe the someone could walk within the bounds of righteousness with no means of support, that they lash out at the very idea of one without faith. The atheist needs no guiding light, he finds that light within himself, and will stand as a light for those around him.
One quote from the article especially caught my attention. “I want the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the ideas to be presented,” Bergevin told the Concord Monitor. “It’s a worldview and it’s godless. Atheism has been tried in various societies, and they’ve been pretty criminal domestically and internationally. The Soviet Union, Cuba, the Nazis, China today: They don’t respect human rights.” They almost make it too easy for anybody with sense to see through the fallacy. If we are to explore the extent of Atheism, which we do in History every day, then we must also explore the extent of Christianity. And I assure you, it is a history riddled with inconsistencies as well as atrocities. So I find it almost amusing that this man would attempt to put his faith on the chopping block, when I know with the upmost certainty that it will not withstand the flood of logic and reason that we of little or no faith find so handy within ourselves. We breath logic with every breath, and with each passing day we find new reasons to see light beyond the darkness that religion has cast. So if this man wishes to stack his faith up against the truth of this world, he can rest assured that am I but the lowliest of the great minds that I stand with. It will take more than that simple invitation to silence the free thinkers.
But what about intelligent design? We don't need to teach the kids about Adam and Eve, but certainly that the Universe is the framework of something set in place by a very impressive being. To most, this being would be considered God, and to many; God would be exactly who they are implying. Though I can't argue with the idea that children should be left to make up their own minds concerning creation, I can argue that this cloak of Creationist deception is completely unnecessary in their upbringing. We don't need to waste taxpayer's money concerning our kids with the even more confusing idea that, "There is a God, but we can't tell you anything about him".
So what do we do, teach them nothing? If we can't find common ground on the creation of man, should we just ignore it completely? The ludicrousness of it all can be answered simply; teach them fact. Teach them proven ideas, and allow them to make own decisions based on their upbringing and their life ahead. If we aren't teaching them fact, then we aren't telling them the truth. If we aren't telling them the truth, then why are we teaching them at all?
Comments
Post a Comment