Subj : The universe            1
To   : BOB EYER
From : DAVE OLDRIDGE
Date : Thu Jan 11 2001 12:58 pm

BE> BE:
BE> -The only religionists who are going to attack
BE> -science on the subject of evolution and cosmology are those who
BE> -think the accounts in their religious texts, notably Genesis
BE> -Chapters 1 and 2, are literally true

BE> >>I thought more than 60 years ago that these people were a dying
BE> >>lot, that this would soon no longer be true...
BE> >>
BE> >>One of the rare youthful thoughts I remember that has, sadly,
BE> >>proven not to be true.

BE> -Yeah, well they're still around, especially in the United States;
BE> -but they no longer have the power to hound scientists from their
BE> -academic chairs on investigations for heresy, as they once did.
BE> -They just make a lot of noise, and so no longer have a deleterious
BE> -impact on scientific practice or education.

BE> >This is just not so--sadly.  Their activities and noises are one
BE> >of the main reasons why evolutionary biology (and there really is
BE> >no other kind, as biology becomes simply organic chemistry and
BE> >taxonomy without evolution) is so poorly taught in many
BE> >jurisdictions in the USA and Canada.  And they have been
BE> >influential in this regard as long as I can remember.

BE> Maybe so; but have there been any cases of biology teachers being
BE> terminated, sued or prosecuted for teaching the theory of
BE> evolution since 1968, let alone 1925?

I don't know about biology teachers, but I know of one anthropology
teacher who claims she was hounded out of a state university in Texas.
And it's not dead. They want their stuff inserted in the science
curriculum as SCIENCE, they say.

BE> I know of no post-War analogue of the John Scopes Trial in 1925.

BE> In that year, the Tennessee Legislature passed a law which made it
BE> a criminal offence to teach the theory of evolution in public
BE> schools.  As soon as that law was passed, Scopes announced that he
BE> would violate it, and invited the Sheriff etc to come into his
BE> classroom and arrest him for teaching evolution.  The Sheriff
BE> complied, Scopes was hauled before a local trial court, and, after
BE> some vociferous argumentation between Clarence Darrow and William
BE> Jennings Bryan, the court convicted Scopes of violating that law.
BE> Because the Judge in that matter wanted to be re-elected (state
BE> court judges were subject to election), he imposed on Scopes a
BE> fine of only $100.  Incidentally, Scopes lost his job as a
BE> teacher.

BE> Now, Tennessee, and most of the other States (except Arkansas)
BE> which had these anti-evolution laws on their books, repealed them
BE> by 1968, when the case of Epperson v Arkansas (393 U.S.  97) was
BE> decided by the Supreme Court.  These States thus recovered some of
BE> their reputation before the high court had a chance to embarrass
BE> them over the issue.  They could see what the issue was and they
BE> knew their position was wrong, right from the start.  Repealing
BE> those laws was for them no sweat.

Yes, but there have been repeated attempts to inveigle creationism
into the science curriculum (often invoking "fairness" as the excuse)
in many states and, if you look at the actual TEACHING of biology in
many (altogether TOO many) parts of North America, you will find that
evolution is so downplayed (at least in high school) as to be
virtually nonexistent. This is like teaching astronomy but not
bothering to mention gravity.

BE> The Epperson decision was merely declarative relief to the
BE> appellant who was not, in fact, threatened by Arkansas with loss
BE> of her position as a biology teacher.  Arkansas had an
BE> anti-evolution law on its books, but had taken no specific action
BE> to dismiss Epperson or have her charged for teaching the theory of
BE> evolution.  (It goes without saying that she DID TEACH the theory
BE> of evolution.) She simply took the case right up to the USSC for
BE> her own peace of mind, so she wouldn't have to be WORRIED about
BE> being dismissed in future.  The Court gave Epperson her
BE> declarative relief, striking down the Arkansas law as a violation
BE> of the 1st and 14th Amendments.

BE> Thus, the issue in the original monkey trial, which was never
BE> definitively settled by Scopes' litigation at the appeals level,
BE> was ultimately settled in the Epperson decision.

But it keeps coming back to haunt us.

BE> >A lot of them crawled out from under their rocks when the USA
BE> >improved its science education in response to the perceived threat
BE> >from the Soviet missile and space programs.

BE> True, but my point is that they have been losing, losing, losing.

In the courts...and to date. But they are pushing on the political
front and the party they favor most has shown no reluctance to stack
the Supreme Court if they don't like the constitution.

ú  [ Continued In Next Message... ]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v3.0pr3
 * Origin: FONiX Info Systems * Berkshire UK * +44 1344 641625 (2:252/171)

.