Comprehensive coverage

A county superintendent of education in Kentucky agrees to teach evolution

"I don't believe in macro evolution" writes a superintendent of 6 schools in Hart County. The commissioner of education in the country: evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism does not

 

Hart County, Connecticut's superintendent of schools agrees with the emphasis on evolution on a state biology graduation test. According to the Lexington website Herald-Leader (December 13, 2011).

On November 21, Hart County Board of Education Chairman Ricky Lane sent a letter to Kentucky State Superintendent of Education Terry Holliday expressing "deep concern about the prominence of the field of evolution in the end-of-course test requirements." Evolution, not the theory of evolution but its being a fact, while we omit the story of creation by a God greater than us. I don't believe in macroevolution. I believe in creation in the hands of God." Lane oversees six schools with 2,200 students.

 

Towards the end of his letter Lane raises the question to the Commissioner of Education and the Board of Education: 1. Do you accept macroevolution as a fact or a theory? 2. Do you believe that macroevolution contradicts the Bible and God's part in creation? 3. Would you personally like to promote macroevolution as what students should learn as a fact? 4. Do you believe that it is the role of the state to oblige the teaching of macroevolution and the bringing out of theories or beliefs? added

"If you don't believe in macroevolution, then rethink what we require our teachers to instill in students. Stop demanding that our teachers teach, as a fact, the evolution that will convince the children that they evolved from inferior life forms and therefore they will have a reason to underestimate the value of the Tanakh and the belief that stems from it. This is not a system improvement in our public education system."

 

In response to Lane's letter, Holidi explained the difference between popular and scientific use of the term theory, and emphasized that "science is not a belief system and that 'creation science' is not considered suitable for science for classroom study. He also commented that the theory of evolution is one of the basic elements of modern biology" and reviewed the attitude to evolution in the science standards in the state of Kentucky, which received the grade D in a review from 2009 in which the attitude to evolution in the state standards was examined).

 

Lane was not satisfied and told the Herald-Leader: "My argument is do we want to teach our children as fact? I personally don't," he added. "I don't think life began with a single-celled organism. I don't think we all come from a co-father. I don't think the big bang theory describes the origin of the universe."

Holliday told the newspaper that he did not add any further comment to the line. "I believe that what was not clear to Ricky is that we have not been teaching evolution as a fact but as a scientific theory for several years." Controversies about teaching evolution at Kentucky are not new. The option is still found in the textbooks To teach the doctrine of creation as it is presented in your book and read the passages in your Bible that teach the Torah of creation (for which the state received a low grade). Although the Louisville Courier newspaper reported that in a survey conducted in November 2005 among 176 school districts in the country, none of them taught or discussed the "intelligent design" theory.
The anti-evolutionary proposal proposed last year in Kentucky, Act 169 was buried in committee in March 2011.

For information on the website of the National Center for Science Education (USA)

12 תגובות

  1. Evolution is a scientific theory. But the intelligent design is a fact. The creation of the human body, for example, cannot be explained without intention. Anyone who thinks so is nothing but a daydreamer at best. Just as it is not possible that by injecting ink onto paper billions of times an enlightened sky will be created. As long as it's not a cell.

  2. Yigal, from a scientific point of view, given the laws of physics that basically define the dynamics of the system and given certain starting conditions, there is no randomness.

  3. .
    Where does the claim "that from a scientific point of view, it is in no way possible to claim that the mutations are random"? What are they if not random?

  4. xianghua
    Degenerate organs that once functioned also came from somewhere. Evolution teaches us that:
    1. Organs do not suddenly appear and then gradually degenerate
    2. A car can indeed become an airplane, as happened to a branch of animals that became poultry.

    Maybe you don't agree with the idea that all the animals suddenly appeared one day as perfect and there is no connection between them, but that's what it is.

  5. It is important to understand that, from a scientific point of view, it is by no means possible to claim that the mutations are random. Except for this argument that it is scientifically and philosophically incorrect, everything is accurate.

  6. Father, degenerate organs have nothing to do with the claim of common descent. Atrophy can result from genetic drift or a degenerative mutation. In other words, the organs in the past were definitely functional, and degenerated over time in a natural process. This has nothing to do with poor planning. Even a car deteriorates over time (weather, cold and heat, the color fades, the wheels rub and more), but everyone knows that the car had a designer.

    Moreover, many times what is considered "degenerate" turns out to be functional-

    https://www.hayadan.org.il/apendix-have-a-role-1310079/

  7. If macroevolution is wrong, how will you explain the fact that there are degenerate organs? Every organ consumes energy, so why didn't God create man without an appendix for example?

  8. Macroevolution is indeed a theory, and a rather weak one.

    There is a profound difference between changing an existing system and creating a new system. For example, if a car were to replicate and change, it could become a bigger, more powerful car with thicker wheels. But could a self-replicating car gradually transform into a plane? Apparently this is impossible. This is the whole difference between macro and micro.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.