News of interest to former Christians


AddThis Social Bookmark Button
FRANKFORT, Ky. - The concept of "intelligent design" is not a question of religion and Kentucky's public school districts should consider teaching it along with other ideas of how the world began, Gov. Ernie Fletcher said Tuesday.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Fletcher said he encouraged schools to teach the concept because it's "the foundational principal of our nation."

"Our inalienable rights are based on the self-evident truth of those endowed inalienable rights. And all I was saying is that from my perspective that's not a matter of faith and it's not a matter of religion," Fletcher said. "It's a matter of something called self-evident truth."

It was during the governor's State of the Commonwealth speech Monday night when Fletcher threw in a quick mention asking rhetorically, "What is wrong with teaching 'intelligent design' in our schools?" Fletcher said it was a matter of "self-evident truth."

Intelligent design attributes the existence of complex organisms to an unidentified intelligent cause. Meanwhile, the theory of evolution maintains that life evolved over time through natural selection.

"I think clearly there are some changes that have occurred over a period of time," Fletcher said. "Personally, I think that we were designed to improve based on our environment. It seems like we do have the capacity for adaptation."

The issue has led to lawsuits in other states, including Pennsylvania where last week a school district rescinded a policy requiring that intelligent design get equal billing with evolution in the classroom. A judge ruled the policy unconstitutional in December, saying the local school board's real purpose was "to promote religion in the public school classroom."

Fletcher said he wants school districts in Kentucky to approach the issue from a historical prospective, not a religious one. He said that's why he briefly mentioned intelligent design in his Monday night speech.

"What we have from our founding fathers is there was a creator and the assumption there and from self-evident truth was that that creator was an intelligent creator and that he endowed us with certain inalienable rights," Fletcher said, loosely quoting from the Declaration of Independece. "If you take away the fact of this basic understanding of our nation, what basis do you have inalienable rights placed on, which was the foundation of our nation? That's all I'm raising."

Lisa Gross, a spokeswoman for the Kentucky Department of Education, said state law specifically allows public schools to teach creationism, a concept similar to the intelligent design theory.

"But having said that, the decisions on what to teach in the classroom are made at the local level," Gross said. "Really, there are no limitations on the state level on what teachers teach."

State law says teachers dealing with evolution in the classroom may include instruction on Biblical creation, and may read passages from the Bible related to the belief of creation.

The law prohibits teachers from stressing any particular denominational religious belief.

Gross said the courses dealing with intelligent design aren't necessarily limited to science classes. Sometimes, she said, it is included in comparative religion courses.

"The folks who support intelligent design say it is not biblically based, that it does not relate specifically to the Christian faith," Gross said.

Brad Hughes, spokesman for the Kentucky School Boards Association, said arguments could be made that the terms creationism and intelligent design are interchangeable.

"It depends entirely on the definition used by the teacher," Hughes said. "It could mean the same thing.

Hughes said it appears few school districts are taking advantage of the law, which was first adopted in 1976 and readopted in 1990 under the Kentucky Education Reform Act. The state law has never been tested in the courts, he said.

A recent e-mail survey turned up no school districts where intelligent design was a routine part of the curriculum.

"If it's going on, it's very limited," Hughes said. "We've gotten no phone calls in our legal section on this issue. I feel like if it was going on much at all, we would have had inquiries."

Jerry Gels, a science teacher at Lloyd Memorial High School in Erlanger, said he deals with the issue of intelligent design and creationism with his students in a sophomore biology class. But he said he doesn't know of other teachers who do the same.

"Because it is a sensitive issue, teachers want to avoid it," he said.

Gels said it's only natural that he discuss intelligent design with his students when he begins teaching the theory of evolution. That, he said, is because they are predominantly Christian and often have strong beliefs about the genesis of life. Last year, he said, one of his students was a 13-year-old ordained minister.

"They've got a lot of questions, and if you can answer those questions and have open discussions about those things, then you can really move forward," Gels said.

Gels said many of the students in his classes have been taught at home and at church that evolution is a false theory.

"It's imperative that my students understand the concept of evolution," he said. "If they don't understand evolution, they're not going to be very successful in the realm of science. If they're ignorant of evolution, they're not going to be ready for college."

link
 
Anonymous Thomas said...
"Our inalienable rights are based on the self-evident truth of those endowed inalienable rights.

Inalienable rights??? for who? Where where the Inalienable Rights for the people that claimed this land first?

The AMERICAN INDIANS, oh yeah, the one's we forgot to mention, the ones that the founding fathers killed and ravished, maimed, tortured and killed, how quickly we forget!!! The founding fathers killed innocent Indian women and babies and the senile, in horrendous ways, bludgeoned and burned alive, shot point blank and ran them off their own lands.

Lets us not forget our inalienable rights that the unwanted pilgrims stole away from the American Indians. We gave them reservations and casinos. Oh how Christian..thank you Jesus for looking out for the American Indians and killing most of them in your precious name, they had no christian religion, they had no jesus, so they were called heathren savages and carried no human value.

Just something to think about folks, when you give thanks to Jesus for your inalienable rights.


Anonymous Don said...
That was a powewful statement Thomas, and I think you're right, although the Indians scalped and killed a many pilgrims, but it was they that violated the Indians own civil rights, they were just trying to defend what was rightfully theirs in the first place. The christians committed almost total genocide and they scolf at Hitler...hmmmf. Although, had the pilgrims not come over here, it is doubtful that you or I would be living here, and we would not be living in such luxury as we do today, such as having electricity, cars, automobiles, stereos, TV's, planes, etc. In the end I had would have rather not been born over or if at all and let the Indians have kept their land and their way of life, if the only reason the pilgrims came over here was to escape religious persecution, and what was this religious persecution? They were made fun of for believing in their savior on a stick, their jesus fable make believe lie. I wonder how many people have suffered their deaths because of the mythical figure jesus the corndog on a stick. who ever invented the fable of jesus never would have guessed that so many would have gave their lives and sanity for such an idiotic tale, and when I read about a 13 year old ordained minister, I think to myself, what a brainwashed fundy fool jackass, it would not matter even if he(notice he) had been 95 yrs old. By the way, I'm an ordained minister myself, you can get ordained free of charge all day long on the internet, just google it in, it's not worth the paper it's printed on, nor is anything written in the bible worth the paper it's printed on.


Anonymous Jim Lee said...
("What is wrong with teaching 'intelligent design' in our schools?" Fletcher said it was a matter of "self-evident truth.")
If Intelligent Design is self evident truth then I must have a few fairies and goblins in my backyard.


Anonymous Dave8 said...
If the gov. wants to teach the "self-evident" truths, then, why not do it in a civics or history course.

Self-evident truths, were what this nation was founded upon, as required to establish law. However, science isn't in the business of discerning ethics and morality and the structure of gov'ts.

The Declaration of Independence 1776, states;

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html

Its apparent that the declaration of independence was written to dissolve political bands between the new world and the old. The foundation for the dissolution, was based on the unanimous belief in "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from the thirteen colonies. The declaration, literally states, the "separate and equal" station, that all mankind is entitled, be it based on Natural Law, and Nature's god...

This document is establishing the "rights" of its citizens, and uses both Nature and Theism as instruments of persuasion. These two instruments were used, as they portrayed the origin by which the citizens drew their 'expectations'. Not all people believed in Nature's god, but, in order to establish Unity of Purpose, a declaration was made to Incorporate the "reasons" for declaring Independence from "all" parties. Based upon, those who accepted Nature's Law, and those who accepted Nature's god...

The Declaration of Independence, was a "unified" declaration sent to the old world, to establish a new world autonomy for a diverse group of people - to include diverse religious beliefs... The Declaration of Independence, was NOT... A Declaration of Religious Belief... True, the declaration had to be founded on principle; and the ones that could be agreed upon were, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If the gov. was elected based on their knowledge of the historical foundations of the U.S., they need to be fired.

The Declaration of Independence, is evidence of a diverse group, uniting to declare independence. If the good gov. wants to examine that diversity; then a social studies, history, and civics/gov't would be courses that would make the most sense.

Science, isn't concerned with "diversity" of belief. Its concerned with experimentation, in an effort to derive cause-effect relationships, on a consistent basis. A hypothesis that can't be falsified in a lab, produces no cause-effect relationship, and therefore, renders no scientific use.

Some Texas public schools, have video tapes on the cosmological argument, which state that some people believe gods' created the universe. And, of course, the big bang theory is discussed as well.

I don't agree with the curriculum, facts should be presented, and the children "made", to align "their" personal findings with "any" theory they choose.

If a child aligns gravitational pull to a "deity theory", or "ID" theory, then the child should be required to "prove" the connection between deity and gravitational pull. If the child can not "prove" the connection, the child should be required to state that there is "no" 'known' connection, between their "finding" and their "chosen" theory.

If the child states that there aren't enough facts to connect "everything" together, then the child should be asked to accept that they are building a "working" theory, form the "findings" they have. However, one must start with "one" connection to start a working theory, I dare say, a "god" connection will never render that first connection.


Anonymous Ted said...
Yeah great going, a 13 year old fundy conmman.


Anonymous BoyGod666 said...
I think we should encourage teaching all of the creation "theories" in the schools. Especially in science classes. Hell, let's have a grand old time of it. It is against the law to favor one religion over another in some of these assinine laws so let's teach them all. I even think we should teach "alternative gravity theory" (the earth sucks.)Being a student can be so boring, let's make science fun for them.


Anonymous Dano said...
If God is good and can do anything she want's, what is the problem with stopping some of the suffering in the world? I have to assume that it doesn't care about our suffering, or is unable to do anything about it.
Surely he could have put out the fires that were consuming all of the innocent people being burned at the stake by the church, simply because someone accused them of heresy.

Wouldn't that have been an INTELLIGENT thing to do?
Dano


Anonymous madamehel said...
With the power of my magnificent brain I have solved the conflict between evolution and creationism. God made Adam and Eve and they had children. Therefore we are of god. Cain was thrown out of eden for killing Abel. Because there were no other people, Cain mated with monkeys. Therefore we are of monkeys (evolution). Thank you, thank you very much.


Anonymous south2003 said...
"Cain mated with monkeys. Therefore we are of monkeys (evolution)."

Dam, you are such a genius :-)


Anonymous Madbuni said...
How did Ernie become Governor of Kentucky? Certainly not because of his intellect. (just kidding)

He had to have been a fundy hell fire and brimstone preacher before he took office, his apologetics reek of it.

Thanks once again Dave8, for the clairty of the purpose of the Declaration. You my friend should be Governor of Kentucky, not Ernie, however, you are way too smart for that kind of job!!! LOL

Btw, I agree with South, madamehel, that was genius.


Anonymous Dave8 said...
Hey MadBuni, yep, I don't think I want any part of pandering to the masses, I get that at work with a limited number of folks, and don't like playing mediator :-)

If this gov wants to establish "self-evident" truths, as was accomplished with the DOI, then perhaps, just like the creation of the DOI, a vote should be taken to ensure "everyone" agrees with the principles. Sad thing is, "all" 13 colonies agreed to the DOI. I am sure that if a vote were taken on ID based on self-evident principles, it would not be unanimous.

If ID uses just the facts obtained through discovery, then we have individual facts. When piecing these facts together one will find evolution and change. To make a claim on the "purpose", of the evolution and change goes beyond mere physcial/organic science.

And, just as the biology teacher stated, those who hold onto myth as "fact", are not going to fare well in college. Colleges tend to be more objective, nationally. The universities that are less objective are the ones who focus on the liberal arts, not saying that the liberal art fields are any less meaningful, but, this is where all of the major bible colleges establish their academic departments. At the bible university I attended, the ratio between science and liberal art professors were skewed. The liberal art professors far outnumbered the science professors.

One would see the same skew if they were looking at M.I.T., I suppose, favoring the science professors. If children are to be prepared to enter colleges without knowing exactly "which" major they are going to pursue. Then they need to be provided the standards expected by the majority of top universities. Where the science classes are more "objective", and the more "impressionistic" classes are taught with more "subjectivity".

If that gov or any gov wants to really make a difference in education, then they need to focus on aligning children early on with potential college majors. Of course, this isn't simple, as many people are never going to go to college. Still, if a child is cognitively mapped to think analytically, then they should be placed into a curriculum geared towards their manner of thinking. If the child doesn't choose to go to college, they at least were able to enjoy their learning experience. This system of course would place a strain on hiring teachers, as each year you would have a different number of students in each curriculum, but, I'm sure a smart gov could figure out how to outsource or accomodate this type effort.

I hated sitting in a classroom, where the teacher was required to teach to the lowest level student. I am logical-analytical, I didn't need to be subjected in biology class with some other child making a boohoo scene on how god didn't agree with evolution, and how the biology teachers rhetoric was too "narrow".

The philosophy for many years, well, as long as I have known the school system to fall under federal jurisdiction, has been to create a "well-rounded" student, exposed to many subjects. Typically, in an effort to allow the child to decide which coursework they wanted to pursue. I think "understanding" diversity is paramount in education, but I believe that we can in a notional sense be grouped according to cognitive mapping.

I can see a parent saying, "yes, I know my kid is 87.5% left brained (me)", but I want him enrolled in subjects that expose him to the more subjective courses". Actually, my parents wouldn't have cared, they weren't that involved in my education. However, I am sure that many parents would have to choose between placing their children in coursework that they will excel in, or place them in coursework that "if" they can just barely make it (albeit unhappy), they will make good money. Perhaps, creating a core curriculum for each student and adding electives in the "not so natural" courses would be a good compromise.

There will always be the job market to worry about, as many rural communities don't have high demand for engineers, scientists, etc, and so, children will either have to start becoming more open to moving away from home, or get through their school work, and apply for what's available, potentially not using their strengths. Personally, I moved on, but if I ever have the desire to work in the food industry, or some community service work, I can always go back home :-) The gov't is the highest employer of science related fields. Well, I hope these gov's figure it all out, but, they are going to do what is best for their career, not what's best for society, country, and international community as a whole, that would be too risky :-) Take Care...


Anonymous Dano(Rationalist) said...
20-20 Had a piece on last night about our schools. Practically every country in the world has better schools now than we do. They demonstrated how throwing money at the school system is not the answer.

The way to make schools better is to make them compete with each other for students. This cannot happen now because students are obligated to go to only the school in their district, no matter how bad it is, and teachers cannot be fired, because of the teachers unions, resulting in teachers that are not qualified to teach and schools that have no incentive to educate.

Our school system is a joke, and we as a nation are getting dumber and dumber. Fewer and fewer smart people are supporting more and more dumb people. ( Isn't that the theme of Ayne Rands book "Atlas Shrugged?)
Dano


Blogger freeman said...
This is a better fight than id vs Evolution.

Did Jesus exist? Italian court to decide.

Copy and paste the link.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20060104/1235482036.htm&ewp=ewp_news_0106jesus_debate

If this guy did it right, he could have the archives of the vatican opened to the public. That would be the most radical movement since Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika!


Anonymous lkelly said...
Fletcher is a complete moron. He is clearly oblivious to the Enlightenment and John Locke...which is what created the Declaration of Independence. Absolutism, the divine right of kings...this is what the Declaration is reacting to. If he is ignorant of its context, he can't comprehend the document and has no business referencing it. Apparently he is hell bent on seeing Kentucky children receive the same pathetically inadequate education he received. What a moron.


Post a Comment | Create a Link | Post in the Forums | Permalink



The first 200 comments appear here under the article. If over 200 comments are posted, click on the "newer" and "newest" links on the Post a Comment page to continue reading the latest comments.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

  Subscribe to this post's Comments (Atom).
Subscribe to every post's Comments (RSS).
Quickly catch up on all recent comments posted on ExChristian.Net on the Recent Comments page.

<< Home