Mr. Peterson wrote, "So long as candidates don’t insist on teaching their religious views as science, no problem. I mean, imagine if a religiously committed School Board member, maybe one who worshipped the old Scandinavian gods, insisted we teach science students that lightning is caused by Thor swinging his hammer. Thor is not a scientific hypothesis and this fact, along with the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, explains why fundamentalist Christian beliefs (in the form of creationism and its slicker but equally unscientific little brother, “intelligent design”) have repeatedly been removed from public schools by the federal courts."
Based on a simple, for-or-against answer to a question, he tried to put me down along with other candidates, "Maybe Marquardt, Rakowski or Weigand won’t try to impose their religious views on the science curriculum, but let’stake them at their word: they think religious doctrines should be taught in a science class — even though pursuing thisagenda would land West Bend in federal court."
This was the question, as asked in the Eagle Forum questionnaire: "What is your position relative to teaching alternate theories of origins such as Intelligent Design and Creationism as an alternative, or in addition, to the theory of evolution to students in science classrooms? I am in favor or I am against."
The following is my explanation and response:
Once again, Mr. Peterson’s anti-religion bias shines forth in a column. I do agree with him that a candidate’s religious views should be of no interest in a school board race. Unfortunately, he does not see the fact that his own views on science are also clouded by religion…simply a version that chooses to view things from a humanist and god-less alternative perspective.
I did not intend to get into a theological discussion when I entered this race. Eagle Forum posed the question of teaching “alternate theories of origins…as an alternative, or in addition, to the theory of evolution.” I focused on the word “origins” because there are vast differences of scientific opinion as to the beginning of our world and the one that Mr. Peterson chooses to believe is no more factual or provable than the next, including creationism. While the scientific process of evolution is proven fact, extending it backwards to attempt to explain the origin of life requires equally as much faith as any other theory. Therefore, I do not support teaching one origin theory as fact over the next, and neither do I believe in censuring any of them. Intelligent Design simply allows that religious beliefs are not necessarily incompatible with known science. What we are supposed to be doing is opening young minds to all possibilities, especially where facts are not clearly defined.
As for the idea of common sense, maybe Mr. Peterson needs to come down from his ivory tower once in a while – to talk with regular folks rather than just mocking them. Belief in God and his creation is rather normal down here, as is upholding moral principles, free enterprise and personal responsibility…all virtues that he, and the intellectual class in general, has been trying to erode in the name of “progress”.
Mr. Marquardt,
ReplyDeleteYou just don't get it , do you? It is very easy to object to Biblical theories of creation as science, because science relies upon observations of known fact and religion requires belief in things that cannot be seen.
But that is a no-brainer. Where I disagree with your ideas and find them to be completely in opposition to my faith beliefs is that I, like most Christians don't read the Bible the way that you do. The Bible has some historical names and facts in it-- but that doesn't make it a history book. It has explanations as to how the world was formed-- but that doesn't make it a science book. To reduce the sacred word of God to such mundane and earthly attributes demeans its importance as a book of faith. The Bible is full of stories, descriptions of events, poetry, song, prayer, moral instruction, religious guidance, parables, healing, miracles. The story that is most important to Christians is the life of Jesus as set out in the four Gospels. I believe that Jesus existed here on earth, at a point in time, and was both divine and human. But, when Jesus tells us parables like that of the Good Samaritan, do we have to believe there actually was a real person who was that Samaritan? Of course not. The parables are teaching tools to explain wider themes of caring, and sharing, and faith in God.
I am a good and strong Christian. I am active in my faith life and in my religious life in the Church. But my God is a God of awe and wonder. I believe that science is God's way of slowly revealing the greatness and complexity of Creation. We have telescopes and tools to look deep into the Universe many thousands of light years away. Scientific principles that were seemingly set in stone-- have proven to be deficient. Isaac Newton appeared to have explained all the laws of motion in the universe -- and then along came Einstein. Cosmologists and astronomers have made millions of calculations describing the motions of the stars and planets and have come up with the Big Bang theory. I think it's cool because they have no clue as to what started it, who started, and where did all that matter in the Universe come from. The God who created the Big Bang and still watches over us and guides the progress of all things is an awesome God. He is not a static or simplistic God who gave us one story about creation -- and then shut our minds to other observations and conclusions. I am saddened by your puny view of God. The Bible needs us to believe that God created the Universe -- and so he gave a story that the people of that time could understand. Science teaches us humility. Yes, theories change. Maybe one day, we'll find that evolution really didn't happen that way. But that doesn't mean that is a flawed theory or that it doesn't do an incredible job of matching our observations with our ideas. Not until the late 60's did we theorize that the earths continents have been sliding around on the Earth's surface for billions of years. God has let us risk our lives on science every day. How can a true Creationist get into an airplane or ride in a car or believe that man went to the moon when those things don't appear in the Bible? The Bible is the word of God, but not the only word. He speaks to us through the wonders and beauties; tragedies and disasters of nature. He speaks to us through the words, actions, and interactions of our fellow men.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure where we disagree, except that you seem to classify my views in the narrowest definition of "Creationist". I believe, as you do, in a "God of awe and wonder". I also agree that science is the path to observing and discovering His great and complex Creation. I am not one who believes in the strict +/-6,000-year age of the world - I accept that "with the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." I believe many scientific discoveries that are touted as disproving the biblical version may very well be a simple human misinterpretation of the "six-day" time frame.
With that said, why should we limit teaching to a theory that, in your words, "may change" - and has in fact, over the 150 years since it was voiced, been altered and in many ways disproven? I think you said it well, "Science teaches us humility" - which would be fine if scientists acted humbly. Instead, they often choose to be godlike, pronounce their conclusions as fact, and attempt to change everyone else's behavior based on their views.
I simply answered the question in regard to creation being an "alternative" or "in addition to" evolution. I view it as another way to expand children's minds to include the incomprehensible and not just accept what a teacher is presenting. Many things in education are simply factual...this debate does not happen to be one of them - on either side of the issue.