Despite various court rulings against creationism and intelligent design, about 1 in 8 public schools devote 1 to 3 hours worth of time teaching half the lesson which contain positive aspects of intelligent design or creationism. The other half of the lesson teaches skepticism on both. It’s unknown if the survey which was conducted last May 2008, included the same approach towards evolution, teaching one half as fact and the other as invalid. I would guess, most likely not.
Contrary to special interest groups and militant atheists in general, teaching an alternative to secular evolution doesn’t mean the total elimination of the hypothesis being taught in public schools. I quite frequently read such accusations. However, these accusations are false with no evidence to support their claim. Because the vast majority of creationists and intelligent design advocates do not endorse what evolutionary advocates are doing now with their hypothesis which is no alternatives allowed!
What is the most misleading statements in this particular battle is that Creationism or ID is not a science therefore it cannot be taught in the public schools. I believe it’s just more of an attack upon Christianity than anything else. The reason being is because even if Creationism or ID was believed to be a science among the skeptics, they would still argue it cannot be taught in the classroom because of the church/state clause ruled back in 1947 by the US Supreme Court.
Another misleading argument in the battle for teaching creationism or intelligent design in the classroom. “We would all go back to the stone age” as one blogger pointed out to me. When discussing this subject, there was an interesting quote that came to mind in a review of a book called; “The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life” published in Nature which stated the following…
“To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.”
Going back to the so-called; “stone age” comment, if intelligent design is taught in the public schools, is a claim that unfounded with no merit whatsoever. So is Jerry Coyne a liar saying that evolution has no real value when it comes to the causes of the progress of man? Jerry Coyne by the way, is a staunch evolutionist and anti-creationist who believes science cannot contribute to religion but only destroy it. The answer to the question is a resounding “no”. His observation is not a lie, even though he’s wrong about believing in the evolution hypothesis, he is however right about how useful evolution really is in the progress of man. He concludes, “In the end, the true value of evolutionary biology is not practical but explanatory”
People like Jerry Coyne need the Lord, he is obviously deceived and he believes in a secular belief which is not even practical to him, but explanatory which he praises as quite an accomplishment. The battle for teaching science will wage on and Christians must be aware of what is happening with this particular battle (as well as other battles) and defend the precious truths of the Bible.