Home > Opinion > John A. Farrell > Creationism and Intelligent Design Should Be Kept Out of the Classroom

Creationism and Intelligent Design Should Be Kept Out of the Classroom

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Comment on Ferrell's statement below :
"The Force is ever with us. When you add all that mythology to the pervasive influence of Sunday church services, religious schooling, and Christian rock radio, it's a wonder that science can carve out any space in our culture at all."
BOO HOO! Oh those poor, poor, atheists and evolutionists - they can't get anyone to listen to them ! NOOOO, NOT AT ALL !
After all they have only hijacked every primary science classroom in the country along with the textbooks they use, only every museum and zoo is like a temple to the god of evolution, only countless shows on cable like the discovery channel, pbs, ect.. , and thank goodness for Mr. Ferrell because you know there really is no other commentators on this subject out there !
Give me a break, what a self-centered view of the world you and yours must have to feel SOOO MISTREATED by society !!!
BOOOOOO!

Jeff of NJ of NJ 7:15PM January 30, 2010

"Evolution is descent with modification, which just means if Mom and/or Dad had it and passed it to me, now I've got it, and if I and my siblings who also have it are busy enough and successfully pass it around, eventually a good chunk or all of the population will have it. Then the population will have evolved.
So, you know what? Any inherited change that spreads through THE POPULATION, however small, is in fact evolution, and while the change may be neutral rather than beneficial or harmful, the concept is far from meaningless. In fact, it is fundamental. I don't believe there is a lot of confusion among evolutionary biologists about this. On the other hand, perhaps it is you who are confused..."
No, sadly I think it is you GalapagosPete of CA this is confused.
What you described is VARIATION NOT EVOLUTION.
The concept of variation is not disputed.
Evolution takes variation one step further to try and explain how a totally new species could be created by the accumulation of all of these random mutations. It ultimately contrives a very complex (lets hope so) process by which the "original species" is cutoff from the "new" species by both physical barriers so that eventually the "new" species has mutated to the point that is no longer able to breed with the "original" species. A key part of the Natural Selection process is the rate of procreation - which is really the most important feature since this is how a mutation in a single organism would eventually "spread" thru the population - the organisms with the mutation simple procreate at a faster rate than the general population.
Perhaps you need to review Biology 101 again yourself

Jeff of NJ of NJ 3:18PM January 30, 2010

I agree that the class room should not be used to "prove creation".
Why anything exists at all is an existential matter - not a scientific one.
Having said that, it seems that people are more fixated with the religious beliefs of a scientist rather than his critique of data or theory.
Regardless of how or why one develops his/her hypothesis, that is not the question - the question is what is the OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE that supports this hypothesis.
If the evidence supports the hypothesis, then the debate begins as to who's hypothesis is has the strongest evidence and which should be given preference.
Many of the accepted "facts" we have today are actually based on a lot of ASSUMPTIONS. It is kind of like backing into a mathmatical equation where the "answer" is known and you have some of the variables. It then because a matter of simply solving for the unknown variables (ie, "assumptions").
There is only one thing scarier than religious intolerance, that's "Scientific Intolerance"

Jeff of NJ of NJ 2:13PM January 30, 2010

research sea ars countries read controls allowing adaptation

dracahumme of CO 12:43AM November 04, 2009

Mr. Farrel,
As other commentators have pointed out, though there is much scientific support for micro evolution and natural selection, macro evolution is a theory, not a proven fact. Scientific fact is based on proof, not consensus.
What is wrong with the way I was taught in the late 70's? I was taught that evolution is a theory, to which many scientists subscribe. We were asked to study evolution as a theory, not to replace any beliefs we might have in the Divine, but to understand the scientific theory itself and Charles Darwin's place in history. We were not allowed to debate it's validity. The goal was to simply understand it.
Is it really necessary to engage in such a heated debate? For many of us, the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Evolution could be a mechanism of intelligent design. As my son explained to me when he was nine, "I think when God created man, he created man to be what he wanted him to be today, and evolution and time have been God's tools."

Laura of MI 11:27AM February 13, 2009

Once again, no matter what you provide as proof, it's not enough for the opposition.
I admit my analogy isn't perfect, but it's illustrating a point - there is a certain level of proof you simply cannot provide, ever. You may have plenty of historical and photographic evidence that your GGgrandparents existed. But, strictly speaking, you have never firsthand observed them, so you could conceivably be accused of not having a sufficient level of proof.
Similarly, you cannot directly observe evolution as a long-term process becasue we just flat-out don't live long enough, so no one can provide that exact level of proof. But as a theory, it best explains the evidence that we've pulled across disciplines. Yes, there are morphological holes in some transitional species - not everything fossilized, after all - but that, combined with what we know of genetics, and biochemistry, and so forth, suggest that evolution by natural selection is the best naturalistic explanation for the observations.
That's what theories do - they take the evidence we have, and figure out how to explain it. Contrary to popular opinion, science doesn't try and make the evidence fit the theory.

Eric of WI 4:45PM February 09, 2009

Lisa A. Shiel claims that "Evolution cannot be falsified..."
A rabbit fossil from the Precambrian would falsify evolution nicely. Scientific evidence of the Earth being only a few thousand years old would also do.
"...observed, tested, or repeated."
Evolution is occurring right now, so I think that qualifies as observing it, because otherwise how would we know it's going on? It is constantly being studied, and the results of that research are constantly being tested and reviewed; and as for repeating, I'm not sure what you think should be "repeated", or by whom. If it's being observed, it's repeating.
"If any change—however small—represents evolution, then the term becomes meaningless. Even among scientists the term evolution remains a nebulous one, which is precisely the problem. If you can't define the terms, then you can't "prove" anything."
Evolution is descent with modification, which just means if Mom and/or Dad had it and passed it to me, now I've got it, and if I and my siblings who also have it are busy enough and successfully pass it around, eventually a good chunk or all of the population will have it. Then the population will have evolved.
So, you know what? Any inherited change that spreads through THE POPULATION, however small, is in fact evolution, and while the change may be neutral rather than beneficial or harmful, the concept is far from meaningless. In fact, it is fundamental. I don't believe there is a lot of confusion among evolutionary biologists about this. On the other hand, perhaps it is you who are confused...
Like people NOT coming from monkeys, this is Biology 101, and I gotta ask: if you, like Chad, don't know even the definition of evolution, what makes you think you're competent to criticize evolutionary theory?

GalapagosPete of CA 2:20AM February 09, 2009

David C. says, "To call it a myth is to be illiterate."
Technically true, I suppose; it is actually a mythology, a collection of myths about the Jewish and Christian beliefs.
And even if there is actual history in there, and I assume there must be, so what? There are historical facts in comic books, but that doesn't mean that Superman and Spider-Man are real people.
Chad observes, "Science has changed for centuries as "new" theories arise through new technology and human thinking. Point is both require faith or a belief."
Yep; this is called "learning." How is learning new facts and applying them the same thing as "faith or belief"?
Chad then asks, "Are you going to believe something as abstract as you come from monkey's [sic] or written accounts for four thousand years that have historical support."
What makes you think anyone other than creationists believe that the theory of evolution says anyone came from monkeys? If you don't understand it, how can you criticize it?
As for historical support, see my second sentence above. There is no historical support for your supernatural claims.
And by the way, what "faith or a belief" does science "require?" I've seen that claim before, and I don't understand it. Who has to have faith in what or in whom?

GalapagosPete of CA 1:45AM February 09, 2009

Eric says, "You've never observed the existence of your great-great-great grandparents, but the evidence is strongly in favor of them having existed." This is comparing apples (evolution) to oranges (family lineage). With my family lineage, I can trace back through documentary and photographic evidence a direct line of ancestry with no gaps, leading to my great-great-great-grandparents. With evolution, the species pointed to as transitional are often separated by tens—if not hundreds—of millions of years with no evidence linking them other than morphology (their anatomy). This one looks a bit like that one, therefore they are related. If I used this logic to construct a family tree, I could claim to be related to George Washington—which I am not—simply because I look slightly like him.
Eric also says, "There've been a number of experiemnts in the lab that have forced remarkably quick changes on populations of fast-breeding animals (bacteria, fruit flies) to the point where you could classify them as separate species." Since nobody can define a species, no one can know whether these experiments have created new species. Besides, these experiments demonstrate adaptations created by scientists who control every aspect of, for instance, E. coli bacteria's lives. This is a good example of how a godlike being could influence life-forms, but not an example of natural evolution.
If any change—however small—represents evolution, then the term becomes meaningless. Even among scientists the term evolution remains a nebulous one, which is precisely the problem. If you can't define the terms, then you can't "prove" anything.
Lisa A. Shiel
author, The Evolution Conspiracy

Lisa A. Shiel of MI 4:05PM February 08, 2009

I ask you Mr. Farrell, what facts do you hold true that tell you creationism should not be taught in schools, but evolution should. The Bible has more consistant truths than science. Science has changed for centuries as "new" theories arise through new technology and human thinking. Point is both require faith or a belief. Are you going to believe something as abstract as you come from monkey's or written accounts for four thousand years that have historical support. Its been 2000 years since Jesus died for your sins and no one man has changed the course of history more than He. Should our children know His name and why some many people follow his teaching?
Thank you,

Chad Pevey of GA 9:56AM February 08, 2009