- Radically conservative Christians are attempting to shove
a "Wedge" down the collective throats of Kansans, but some of
us are not opening up and saying "Ahhhh". As a parent of a sixth
grader at a Kansas public school, I assert that the six conservative members
of the Kansas State School Board are abysmal failures at ensuring the intellectual
growth of our children and have grossly violated a sacred parental right.
-
- In opening the door to introducing "Intelligent
Design" into Kansas classrooms, the Kansas Board has advanced the
"Wedge Strategy" of the Discovery Institute, which originated
"Intelligent Design". "Intelligent Design" is a "theory"
which rests solely on the observation that the complexity of the world
"proves" the existence of a Creator.
-
- Per Discovery's own internal document called The Wedge
Strategy:
-
- Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance
of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant
with Christian and theistic convictions.
-
- Based on the Wedge Document (which can be found by Googling),
it does not take much analysis to discern Discovery's agenda. And just
think. The Bush administration and the mainstream media would have us believe
that the Islamic world has a monopoly on religious fanaticism!
-
- Sneaking Christian teachings (in the guise of "science")
into a secular public school system is incredibly deceitful. Rewriting
the definition of science (which the Kansas Board has also done) is the
height of hubris and ignorance. Calling Evolution (a legitimate scientific
theory which has endured for over 100 years and which is supported by mountains
of evidence and an army of scientists), a "dogma" AND suggesting
a re-packaged version of the Creation Myth is a legitimate rival "theory",
are beyond absurd.
-
- Once reason prevails and the six demagogues are voted
off of the Kansas Board, perhaps our public schools in Kansas can get on
with their true purpose of developing the intellect of our children. Parents
have the sole right and responsibility of nurturing the spirituality of
their offspring. The government needs to stay out of this very private
matter.
-
- Jason Miller is a 38 year old activist writer with a
degree in liberal arts. He works as a loan counselor in the transportation
industry, and is a husband with three sons. His affiliations include
Amnesty International and the ACLU. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com
or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner, at http://civillibertarian.blogspot.com/.
-
-
- Regards,
- Jason
-
-
- Comment
Alton Raines
12-2-5
-
- The "Wedge" may indeed be a dastardly approach,
but secular humanism has forced the hand of these people to make such a
move. The hypocrisy of modern scientism demands it.
-
- When you state....
-
- "Intelligent Design" is a "theory"
which rests solely on the observation that the complexity of the world
"proves" the existence of a Creator."
-
- Well, evolution is a "theory" which rests solely
on the observation that the complexity of the world "proves"
that everything came about by random chance.
-
- Intelligent Design, despite the politics involved, is
absolutely necessary in the face of corrupt status quo scientism which
refuses to play by its own rules. It wants to be able to generate "naturalistic
myths" in the science classroom, but disallows non-naturalistic myths.
So in the end, what is the difference? The evidence and explanations for
evolution are just as unscientific as they are for Intelligent Design --
both resort to filling in enormous gaps of knowledge with radical unprovables.
Myths. So long as that is the reality of man's comprehension of his existence,
why not allow non-naturalistic explanations into the science classroom?
It takes just as much 'faith' to believe in evolution as it does Intelligent
design!
-
- The Wedge Strategy may indeed by a calculated attack
on materialism, secular humanism and evolution, but what's wrong with that?
If evolution can't stand up to the light of scrutiny, it doesn't deserve
to be in the classroom either. I recently saw a series of debates on CSPAN
between several evolutionists and creationists, and one of the creationists
asked the evolutionist, "Would you allow your high school students
to read Darwins origin of species in class?" He said "No."
-
- WHY? Because Darwin mentions God 122 times and because
Darwin makes incredibly racist conclusions, in fact, the true title to
what everyone today commonly calls Dawin's "Origin of Species"
was originally titled and printed as "The Origin of Species By Means
of Natural Selection Or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle
for Life." It is a horrendously racist document.
-
- These debates were very revealing regarding both sides;
both showed themselves to be politically motivated, not scientifically
grounded. The evolutionist was putting blinders on the audience in order
to make his examples of evolutionary "proof" work (ie, omitting
important data which would cause further questions to arise -- this is
the crux of the evolutionary conundrum; it does not want to be questioned
regarding its validity! It is, in and of itself, a 'dogma' and the science
textbooks are its pathetic catechism), and likewise, the proponent of Intelligent
Design made no bones about it: The purpose of Intelligent Design in the
classroom was to challenge the theory of evolution and limit the broad
based effects of an entirely materialistic/naturalistic worldview. Its
goal is to make questioning the dogma of evolution acceptable. As it should
be. We want our kids to be educated, not indoctrinated. If given choices
and opinions and options, they will learn to THINK. If strapped down to
Orwellian pragmatics approved by secular humanism alone, they will intellectually
perish!
-
- The "WEDGE" will force evolutionists to answer
some hard questions they presently don't want raised in the classroom,
which will show that evolution is a fantasy concocted of odds and ends
of the natural world, but having little or no apprehendable cohesion whatsoever.
The end result of this battle will not be a dissolution of the separation
of church and state, but a better educational system which is already so
freaking dumbed down by excessive liberal social engineering controls that
Johnny can't breathe, much less read.
-
-
- Comment
Daniel
12-2-5
-
- Intelligent Design is not a theory. Other than the idea
that life is too complex to have arisen spontaneously, what concepts or
evidence do it's supporters offer? Are there any testable hypothoses? Has
there ever been an experiment designed which could test the so-called theory?
At least evolution puts forth the proposition that organisms change due
to mutations, and that some mutations are more favorable than others. These
mutations are evident in the fossil record. In the 1950's Stanley Miller
proved that amino acids could form under conditions that simulated the
early earth's environment. This may not be proof, but it is at least strong
evidence in favor of evolution. Evolution does not rest soley on the observation
that the complexity of the world "proves" that everything came
about by random chance as stated by Mr Raines. The scientific method is
to observe something, then formulate a hypothesis to explain it, then test
the hypothesis, then compare the results to the original observation, then
either discard, accept, or refine the hypothesis. Scientists from many
disciplines have been working at this process since the time of Darwin.
Have any of the supporters of intelligent design actually done any science?
-
- Of course none of this answers the real questions of
our beginnings. If there is a Designer, couldn't he/she/it have designed
evolution? If there is a Designer, how did he/she/it come into existence?
Are these questions for a science class? No! These are questions for a
Philosophy class. In the mean time, the students are going to be ill prepared
for college science classes which will assume that they know about evolution.
Maybe the teaching of evolution should include the holes in the theory.
Maybe that would inspire students to look for answers.
-
- If you want your kids to get a religious education, send
them to a religious school. Don't force religion into public education.
|
