I think the biggest concern of people believing in ID/Creationism is not the science of evolution being taught, because the science of evolution is fairly well established. The concern is that the philosophy behind evolution will be taught.
As an example, I am a creationist, which means I believe that God created the universe and life. However, I believe that when God created it, he did not create the same genetic diversity we see on earth today. This idea is based in the meaning of the Hebrew word found in Genesis where it says "Each according to its kind." This word "kind" does not imply species, but has a broader meaning and implication. Additionally, based upon the dimensions given for the ark, it would have been nearly impossible for Noah to fit two of every species of animal on-board, suggesting that there were fewer species, but these species evolved to supply the diversity we see today.
I have no problem accepting that genetic mutations can create variations within species and even new species. I do, however, have a problem with the humanist philosophy behind evolution, which is built on the idea that everything is progressing forward, towards progress, towards utopia. That was the philosophy which was prevalent when evolution was first conceived, but I don't see how that philosophy is viable (unless more divorce, more poverty, more wars, more violence, and more illegal drugs is utopia). But that is the philosophy that comes pre-packaged with evolution in the teaching styles of many of its greatest defenders. Now, as to how to teach evolution without that philosophy... I have no good suggestions, So in lieu of that, the science needs to be taught, which means evolution in the classroom.
On a related note, if there were a way to teach evolution without any attached philosophical baggage, perhaps it would be possible to teach ID the same way (although that would be a lot harder because many of the presuppositions inherent in ID are intrinsically philosophical. If you could do that, then I think it would be beneficial to lay the facts for both out, side by side, and see which one is a more viable alternative. That has been the foundation of scientific advancement for centuries, no reason it wouldn't work here.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry! The submit button ate my paragraph breaks!
I think the biggest concern of people believing in ID/Creationism is not the science of evolution being taught, because the science of evolution is fairly well established. The concern is that the philosophy behind evolution will be taught. As an example, I am a creationist, which means I believe that God created the universe and life. However, I believe that when God created it, he did not create the same genetic diversity we see on earth today. This idea is based in the meaning of the Hebrew word found in Genesis where it says "Each according to its kind." This word "kind" does not imply species, but has a broader meaning and implication. Additionally, based upon the dimensions given for the ark, it would have been nearly impossible for Noah to fit two of every species of animal on-board, suggesting that there were fewer species, but these species evolved to supply the diversity we see today. I have no problem accepting that genetic mutations can create variations within species and even new species. I do, however, have a problem with the humanist philosophy behind evolution, which is built on the idea that everything is progressing forward, towards progress, towards utopia. That was the philosophy which was prevalent when evolution was first conceived, but I don't see how that philosophy is viable (unless more divorce, more poverty, more wars, more violence, and more illegal drugs is utopia). But that is the philosophy that comes pre-packaged with evolution in the teaching styles of many of its greatest defenders. Now, as to how to teach evolution without that philosophy... I have no good suggestions, So in lieu of that, the science needs to be taught, which means evolution in the classroom. On a related note, if there were a way to teach evolution without any attached philosophical baggage, perhaps it would be possible to teach ID the same way (although that would be a lot harder because many of the presuppositions inherent in ID are intrinsically philosophical. If you could do that, then I think it would be beneficial to lay the facts for both out, side by side, and see which one is a more viable alternative. That has been the foundation of scientific advancement for centuries, no reason it wouldn't work here.