Evolution interferring with religion?

[bumab]

Back to the topic... I've heard that prior to the 70's or so, evolution was not perceived as a "threat" by most religious folk, this reactionary attitude is more of a recent phenomenon. On the Scopes thread, that observation was made by someone else as well. I looked for some data, but couldn't find any. Does anybody know of some actual evidence that is true? i.e. polls, public opinion stuff, etc.

[Fishteacher73]

Here is a fantastic study about the evolutionist/creationist conflict thoughout the US. It breaks down the specific events (Such as the first pro-creation agreement by a schoolboard, 1969 California Board of Education) and someof the resoning used behind the creationist argument.

Well worth the look.

http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

[bumab]

Very interesting... so the 1920's seem to be the beginnings. Far to much attention is payed to those militant folk who think evolution is the ultimate evil, and not enough (if attention must be payed) to those who find no conflict, like this author, apparently.

It would be an interesting social study on the rise of the anti-evolution movement. I assume it was caused by a general dissatisfaction with the world science seemed to be proposing, resulting in an extreme knee-jerk reaction in the other way. It's sad people can't see how amazing evolution is, what a marvelous system is in place and working on it's own- might remove some of those barriers people have towards understanding the theory.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

Here is a fantastic study about the evolutionist/creationist conflict thoughout the US. It breaks down the specific events (Such as the first pro-creation agreement by a schoolboard, 1969 California Board of Education) and someof the resoning used behind the creationist argument.

Well worth the look.

http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

Nice paper. I only noticed one particular point that I do not necessarily agree with, that also does not mean that I wholly disagree. Near the end it states in conclusion,

"Personally, I do not feel that teaching the evolution theory leads to evil, communism, and violence. I do, however, believe that excluding the teaching of religious views in schools may be the cause. There is such a big hype over the separation of church and state and discussion of religion in public schools. Isn't almost all of religion part of history, sociology, and anthropology? Why is it so wrong to teach about religion in schools? These questions may need their own papers for discussion."

I very much agree with the point that teaching evolution does not lead to evil in and of itself. I also feel that religious teachings have helped herd many away from evil beliefs towards moral lives. I do not necessarily agree with teaching religious beliefs in schools. This leads to the slippery slopes of which beliefs will be taught and which left out and the larger argument of who is right and who is wrong. I would not want any State making this decision for me, it should be up to me as a parent to decide what religious beliefs I want my children exposed to.

OTOH, I am not necessarily opposed to a discussion of religion in a class on Philosophy. It is a part of sociology so it is in the interest of the children to learn that they do have different beliefs and that they must cope with this in society. I think that much of the faith that is taught in the home is done so from the view point that 'my belief is the correct one'. This is how hatred is born between those of different beliefs. Look at the results of the little suicide vests some parents make for their children in some parts of the world These children learn to hate based on the parents beliefs. In this respect it can be argued that religion teaches evil and violence to at least some unlike the teaching of evolution.

I am very opposed to any such discussion in science class. IMO, religion is not science, it is philosophy. Even though it may be claimed for instance that creation is a theory just like evolution it does not meet the same tests of scientific method that we teach as criteria for science. Why teach it in science class as an exception to the rule when it could be discussed in philosophy just as effectively.

As for the teaching of evolution in science class I think it is a fair request from the faithful that Darwin's Theory of Evolution be taught as the theory of evolution. I don't see the extra need to go out of the way to point out that it isn't fact as long as it's taught as a theory. Theories and hypothesis' are some of the basics of science that are taught and we should not have to use additional language on every theory to point out that it is a theory and not fact. This is redundant and borders on obsessive.

[lindagarrette]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

Here is a fantastic study about the evolutionist/creationist conflict thoughout the US. It breaks down the specific events (Such as the first pro-creation agreement by a schoolboard, 1969 California Board of Education) and someof the resoning used behind the creationist argument.

Well worth the look.

http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/CASP/Hokaj_T.html

I don't notice any reasoning at all in this study, much less creationist reasoning, which is an oxymoron.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by C1ay

As for the teaching of evolution in science class I think it is a fair request from the faithful that Darwin's Theory of Evolution be taught as the theory of evolution. I don't see the extra need to go out of the way to point out that it isn't fact as long as it's taught as a theory. Theories and hypothesis' are some of the basics of science that are taught and we should not have to use additional language on every theory to point out that it is a theory and not fact. This is redundant and borders on obsessive.

Don't you contradict yourself in this paragraph? Why bother with the extra term Theory of Evolution when everything is a theory anyway?

Because I agree with your conclusion. Otherwise this would necessitate that chemistry be taught as "experiments based on the theory of atomic interaction", mathematics as "a set of theories and axioms based on the assumption that numbers have any practical use in the real world", and physical education as "theories on physiology and excercise".

IMHO different varieties of evolution are taught today and it's been a long time since Darwin formulateed his theories, which of course were built on earlier theories. just lke theories of electromagnetism and nuclear forces have changed over the past century, the theories of evolution have also changed. We have a lot more knowledge and insight into how the evolutionary process works now than Darwin could ever have.

[Tormod]

I forgot to add: whether evolution is taught as a theory or not does not mean it is not a fact of nature. Evolutionists have enough evidence to consider evolution a fact. This is of course not the same as to say it is a "truth". Evolution may be different than what we think. There are always things in any theory that will turn out to be wrong. But the theory of evolution as a whole has a very strong track record.

So the anti-evolutionism that is being discussed here is very interesting from a historical perspective. But don't forget that Darwin's ideas were controversial from the very beginning and were difficult to swallow for the church, and also for a lot of scientists at the time, because it went against a lot of current thought.

[Fishteacher73]

One issue seems to be the ideas of evolution and creationism are two differnt concepts focusing on different aspects. While there is some overlap, evolution deals with how organisms have changed over the aeons. There is hard evidence illustrating this concept. Evolution hints at possible origins of life, but itself is not a theory of biogenisis. Creationism seems to be hinged on the what the name of the theory describes, creation. There is hard fact to support common ancestry that contradicts creationist theory and the idea that "Poof" there was man and aardvark and bacteria and dinosaur fossils suddenly. The two theories are focused as I said on different points, but the acceptence of one has implications in the realm of the other theory.

Darwin titled his work Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

The two theories are focused as I said on different points, but the acceptence of one has implications in the realm of the other theory.

Sure-

Evolution says Genisis is not a literal account. It could still be alligorical.
Genisis says creation has a purpose. <- Far more debatable.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Tormod

Don't you contradict yourself in this paragraph? Why bother with the extra term Theory of Evolution when everything is a theory anyway?

Yeah, but...

We just had an issue here locally where the school board wanted to put stickers in all of the biology books that simply said, "Evolution is a theory, not a fact". It didn't matter that the text books already referred to it as a theory, they wanted this additional clarification. I was only pointing out that this is silly and pointless because there are schools that will go to this extreme.