FT.com / World / US – Bush wants alternatives to Darwinism taught in school
President George W. Bush stirred the debate on the teaching of evolution in schools when he said this week that he supported the teaching of alternative viewpoints – such as the theory of Intelligent Design – to help students “understand what the debate is about”.
“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Mr Bush said in comments to five Texas newspapers on Monday. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”
I think these guys need to go all the way with this and at least think about teaching flat earth theory. After all, it is an alternative viewpoint and supported by the Bible.
Start with this website linked here.
When I first became interested in the flat-earthers in the early 1970s, I was surprised to learn that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible. I have since assembled and read an extensive collection of flat-earth literature. The Biblical arguments for flat-earthism that follow come mainly from my reading of flat-earth literature, augmented by my own reading of the Bible.
Except among Biblical inerrantists, it is generally agreed that the Bible describes an immovable earth. At the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, geocentrist James N. Hanson told me there are hundreds of scriptures that suggest the earth is immovable. I suspect some must be a bit vague, but here are a few obvious texts:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”
Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”
Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”
I wonder how the Biblical absolutists deal with these “truths?”
related links:
Darwin pics
Why stop at creationism? Why not have alternatives for all theories. E.g., things fall not because of gravity, but because God makes them fall. Don’t teach for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. Teach, God makes things happens when other things happen.
And why stop at the hard sciences?! Don’t teach that there is poverty because of various social and economic factors. Teach that there is poverty because it’s all a part of God’s plan.
I figure it’d save us a ton of money too, as we wouldn’t need 12 years of school any longer. How long would it take to teach kids the following: For every question, God is the answer. I’d guess that kids could learn that message in kindergarten. The rest of their lives could be spent playing video games.
Ignorance ain’t bliss. It’s ignorance. Corrupt, reactionary, and, ultimately, functions to the detriment of the whole society.
This is it. The END of America. Mark my word!
What is wrong with teaching more then one viewpoint? I mean I would agree with the Darwin point of view, but why should I (or you, or anyone else) decide who is right?
And this is nothing like saying the Earth is flat in school, since we clearly know it’s not (and not even perfectly round for that matter).
Dvorak, I’ve been reading your jaded columns since the early ’80s, but this is the first time I’ve seen you take a swipe at biblical exegesis. What’s next?
Your assertion that flat earth “has been and always is based on the Bible” is a kickback to the shrill cries of Madeline Murray O’Hare and her hystrionic biblephobia. Is it not possible the superstitious and magical worldview of that era played the primary role for “flat-earth”? Otherwise, wouldn’t Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christians everywhere still hold such views? (Crazies don’t count!)
You conveniently lifted the quotes out of their context – they are not 10th C BC lessons in astronomy or geology as you maintain, but these are poetic passages (FYI: “Psalms” means “Songs”, and to be consistent why not see what you can do with Boy George lyrics?)
Inexplicably, you substituted the word “fixed” with “flat” to make your case. What’s up with that? You momentarily abandonded your journalistic integrity to sidestep the facts.
When you stop to think about it, isn’t it a bit ludicrous to impose the writing style of a 20th Century journalist on a 10th Century BC poet? Then again, people living in California are likely not impressed by an “immovable earth” like the rest of us living outside of earthquake zones, but I for one get the point made by the poetry.
I think I’m standing on solid ground (but fixed, not flat) to say that your fledgling career as biblical exegete will be immeasurably aided by making allowance for idiomatic speech – and there is an abundance it in the Bible…or do you think Jesus Christ truly is a door as he claims?
Since you’ve got the research time to develop your “Flat Earth” scholarship, take a break and study some respectable scientists like Behe, et.al., who pose respectable and intellectually defensible delimmas to the unassailable religion of Darwinianism – conundrums which deserve a more rational answer than provided by your shabby exegesis!!
-Your long-time and forever-loyal fan.
Great. I can see the curriculum at Bush HS now: SOC 101: Slavery as a Valid Socioeconomic Model; ECON 101 Sweatshop Labor Economics; HLTH 101: Stem Cell Research Kills People; GENETICS 101: Ethnic Cleansing as a Way to Better Living; HEALTH 102: Condoms Don’t Prevent Pregnancy or STD Transmission.
Gotta expose those young people to different ideas. After all, that’s what the neocon movement is all about, seeking the truth. RIght?
I just can’t wait for the Chinese to technologically surpass and rub it on the USA so that creationism will get sent back to the hole it came from.
Remember the same thing happened when the Sputnik was sent to space and ppl in the USA realised that rockets built on Bible technology will not work.
Keith, What in the blazes are YOU talking about? I can only assume from your post that you have no idea how a blog works or how to read them. I said none of what you cite. That was a quote from an article (CLICK AND SEE) that was clearly marked. I put it there as a gag to make a point. Give me a break.
PLEASE READ THIS :
How to Read a Blog (CLICK HERE)
Actually, the Bible says the earth is round in Isaiah 40:22
“It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”
This is just ridiculous. Miguel’s right. This is the end of America. I’m this close to moving to Germany.
C’mon Dvorak, you posted it, endorsed it, loved it…you own it! It’s not so easy to dissociate from it now when the shabby logic got skewered on the horns of a delimma. See my counter-blog permalinkif you want more. The “you don’t know much about blogging” retort was…feeble.
(PS: I did enjoy the typically sardonic Dvorak humor – but as I’ve read you for about 23+ years, your readers take you too seriously).
It was 1992 before the Catholic Church forgave Galileo for simply agreeing w/ copernicus that the earth revolves around the sun; 300 plus some odd years.
Evolution is based on less evidence for the sole reason that it is hard to find, so I’m thinking another 500 years or so before the church gives in to science.
Digital…where exactly does it say in that passage you cited ..Isaiah 40:20 that the earth is ROUND? How do you get a GLOBE out of ‘circle of the earth’…which is an old Native American concept, as well as many other earth-bound, earth worshiping cultures, simply put…..that the circle that is life, is also the earth, as the earth is alive. Circles were pretty heady stuff…globes are not just fancy circles, my friend.
It said CIRCLE not GLOBE….try playing marbles with a nickle.
Oh boy… how many of you have read the book or seen the movie “The Name of the Rose”?
Of course, you can teach ID as a subject in philosophy, but it doesn’t make sense to teach it as if it was the cornerstone of our modern biology… It simply isn’t what science thinks.
So what is happening is that this is actually raising the controversy between scientific reasoning and non scientific believing. Darwinism isn’t a belief. Yes, it isn’t by itself a fact, but a theory… such as every other thing in science. All we have in science is theories that can change when proven wrong. Non scientific thinking is based in belief and as such is easily used to manipulate people… just tune their beliefs to what is the leaders’ best interests and they’ll act as puppets.
Going this way, sooner or later, America will be no better than the fundamentalist part of the Islamic world. The exact same America which is proud of being the land of the free. What a shame!!
Why do people take things literally? Islam says a lot about helping one’s fellowmen. But most vocal practitioners of the religion are seem to be interested in the lengths of beards of men and veils for women. As people living in a modern age, we should treat religion as part of our culture but keep it a largely private affair.
They should teach the Pizza Theory: both round anf flat.
Steady on! Taking a swipe at the Bible simply because of association with Bush is very unfair. Also you failed to mention two points:
1) Science has taught us the from the smallest quark to the expanse of the universe there is an intricate design that it’s very hard to deny. This is the scientific basis for believing that there is more to the world around us that Darwin’s theory can explain.
2) You failed to mention the Bible texts which quite clearly state views which were way ahead of their time. For instance in the book of Job the Earth is described as a ‘Circle’ or a ‘Sphere’. Also the Earth is described as hanging upon nothing.
It’s very easy to take the scripture out of context. I would challenge anyone who claims that the Bible, although not a science book, is not scientific. That simply is not true.
However if Bush and co. applied even 10% of what is found in the Bible then the world would be in a much better state. That’s the matter you ought to be highlighting. His belief is rather hypocritical.
>>Actually, the Bible says the earth is round in Isaiah 40:22
>>“It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
A circle is flat, in a three-dimensional sense. Flat-earthers don’t deny that the earth is a 2-D circle; you can see that just by spinning 360 degrees in place. What they deny is that it’s SPHERE-SHAPED.
Or are you implying God does not know geometry?
All you bible quoters/bashers have missed the point being made by Dvorak in equating the teaching of alternatives to evolution, to the teaching of flat earth theory. The mainstream American media, in an effort to maintain an illusion of being fair, balanced and bias free, has repackaged peer-reviewed widely accepted truth as just one of many equally valid competing opinions, with disastrous consequences (e.g., global warming “debate”, WMDs, etc.). Now the Bush administration wants to extend the “fair and balanced” doctrine to the education system. However, Dvorak is not the first to use the flat earth theory to show how ludicrous this doctrine really is, as this mirrors Paul Krugman’s criticism of mainstream media’s fear of being accused of bias:
One can plainly see “fair and balanced” is not the same as being objective.
Let’s not forget about space aliens helping with the pyramids. That certainly has as much credibility as Intelligent Design.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
“Class dismissed”
Anthony, you asked, “What is wrong with teaching more then one viewpoint?”
I answered your question in the first post. Why stop with creation? Why don’t Christians demand a counter-point with EVERY question? Once you start giving “God” as they answer to every question, you’re no longer learning. You’re just wasting time.
Digital Dave, actually the Bible contradicts itself. In many other chapters it claims there are “four corners” to the earth, leading one to believe it’s square. E.g., Ezekiel 7:2 and Isaiah 11:12.
The flat earth phenomenon is exaggerated. The ancient Greeks knew the falsity of this thousands of years before Columbus, even calculating the circumference within a few hundred miles.
Just so you folks will not remain stupid, let the Bible enlighten you:
The earth is round: Isaiah 40 : 22: It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth
The earth floats: Job 26 : 7: He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
The verses mentioned about earth as an unmovable object is God’s challenge to all unbelievers:
Job 38: 6: Where are the foundations of the earth fastened? Who can shake it?
10-11: What stops the sea from encroaching all land. Who can stop the waves from obliterating your domains?
Understand that the Bible uses symbolism and poetry to represent truths that people before the age of science could not grasp. Any fool with a concordance can say aha! to the symbolisms and take these literally. But may the Holy Spirit give you wisdom and open your heart to the truth: God created you.
Knowing that you were brought forth intentionally, by an intelligent creator is a treasure beyond your puny excuses for wisdom. It will give you perspective about the future and stop you from misspending your lives.
There is a higher science that defies our puny material sciences. Its effects are called “miracles” and “supernatural”. There is an intelligence that makes all our PHDs combined seem like foolishness. You see these things but deny it because you cannot prove it or put it in a box. But the Lord has shown mercy on you and is continually working to make this seed of faith grow in your life. God bless you!
> What is wrong with teaching more then one viewpoint? I mean
> I would agree with the Darwin point of view, but why should
> I (or you, or anyone else) decide who is right?
Science does not work on “viewpoints.” It works on the provable. Thus, to say that alternative viewpoints regardless of their scientific merit are valid in a science class is to say that we can teach that a rabbit collects colored eggs every spring or that an overweight Scandinavian flies about every winter distributing presents.
Creationism has no scientific merit and thus should not be taught as science.
> And this is nothing like saying the Earth is flat in
> school, since we clearly know it’s not (and not even
> perfectly round for that matter).
We also know clearly that the Earth is billions of years old however there are people in the ID/Creationism camp that want to teach that it is only six thousand years old.
> Since you’ve got the research time to develop your “Flat
> Earth” scholarship, take a break and study some respectable
> scientists like Behe, et.al.,
Behe’s *theories* are not considered scientifically respectable. You cannot disprove a theory purely through mathematically probability.
> Actually, the Bible says the earth is round in Isaiah 40:22
>
> “It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and
> the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that
> stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them
> out as a tent to dwell in:”
That is not the meaning of that passage. You are discounting the numerous meanings of the Hebrew word eretz which does not always refer to the earth as a globe per se. It can mean land, piece of ground, county, soil, region etc. What you have done here is what is called an etymological fallacy or attributing the root meaning to a word as opposed to allowing the context to define what the word means.
Here’s a passage from Genesis 1:9-10
“And God said let the waters under heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let dry land (eretz) appear; and it was so. And called the dry land (eretz) Earth (eretz); and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas and God saw that it was good.” Genesis 1:9-10 KJV
Hence, it is far more likely that the author of your quote is referring to the earth’s physical elements. The Bible from Genesis to Revelation is authored by people that believed in a flat-earth. Instead, we can thank the Greeks for first discovering that the Earth was spherical.
Keith..I disagree with this. And I also think that MOST of my readers do “get” me. We’re all in it together to watch and see the reaction of those who don’t. Those are the serious folks — the baffled.
You gotta love these ID/creationist folks. Just because we don’t understand all that’s happening around us near and far, why don’t we just define it as “Intelligent Design” (i.e. over our heads) and be done with it? DNA molecule too complex? Nah, just designed this way, we shouldn’t even try to understand it.
Come on people, just grow up and admit you don’t understand something because it’s complex and we need to work more to understand it. Anyone who slept during science class can now come out and teach us what the physical world is really about, right?
I can only hope that the Dems win again in 2008 (or the Communists or anyone but these whack jobs).
Why or why couldn’t that 4th plane have hit the capital? If it had, at least those passengers on the plane wouldn’t have died in vain.
Mike T
Well if you think teaching alternate ideas not based in fact is a good idea, why don’t we teach about the origins of religion in general? You know cave men originally beieved in spirits and gods to explain anything that wasn’t explainable. Lightning? It is god, of course, angry about our actions, so we must repent! Earthquakes? The mother earth is upset with us for some reason- we must repent!
That sort of nonsense. So, even though Darwinianism has it’s flaws I tend to think it is easier to swallow than some other being sitting in heaven or somewhere looking down at earth and laughing at our stupidity or crying about our betrayals. I just don’t think this is the case. It is easier for me, personally, to believe that we will one day evolve to another life form- after death we have to go soemwhere, whose to say we dont become something higher than humans?
Anyway just because a bible exists doesnt mean everything it has in its pages is true you know. I could write a bible too, one that was completely different than the one we have today, but that doesn’t mean god made me do it. How do we know if the bible isn’t just a collection of stories? We don’t, but if we are looking at other points of view, why not point this out i religion class? That everything you have based your entire belief structure on, in fact, could be nothing but a compilation of stories, much like Aesop’s fables. Ignorant religion people.