dari milis sebelah...
>Apakah Anda percaya bahwa manusia berasal dari monyet, seperti yang >dipercayai para Darwinism, atau Anda percaya bahwa manusia memang asalnya >ya dari manusia (kalau di Indonesia termasuk penganut Harun Yahya)? Di >manapun posisi Anda perbedaan tersebut tidak akan berimbas pada pengajaran >biologi kita di kelas karena 'scientifically' kita masih menganut Darwinism. > >Tapi di Amrik hal ini telah menjadi pertentangan yang sengit. Pertarungan >antara penganut Teori Evolusinya Darwin (liberals) dan penentangnya >Creationist (conservatives) saat ini semakin menajam dan meluas di Amrik, >bahkan diperkirakan meluas ke 50 negara bagian. Sangat seru, tentunya. > >Saya jadi pingin tahu pendapat dan komentar Kang Muroni yang sangat >'Mbarat' tersebut mengenai hal ini dan kemungkinan implikasinya di Indonesia. > >SD > > > >Darwin's theory evolves into culture war >Kansas curriculum is focal point of wider struggle across nation > >By Lisa Anderson >Tribune national correspondent >Published May 22, 2005 > >TOPEKA, Kan. -- Eighty years after the Scopes "Monkey Trial," the battle >between those who support the validity of biological evolution and those >who oppose it rages on in Kansas--and in more than a dozen other states >around the country. > >The controversy may appear to be simply about the teaching of science in >the classroom. But it represents a far more complex, widespread clash of >politics, religion, science and culture that transcends the borders of >conservative, so-called red states and their more liberal blue counterparts. > >"This controversy is going to happen everywhere. It's going to happen in >all 50 states. This controversy is not going away," said Jeff Tamblyn, 52, >an owner of Merriam, Kan.-based Origin Films, which is making a feature >film about the current fight over whether to introduce a more critical >approach to evolution in Kansas' school science standards. > >So far in 2005, the issue of evolution has sparked at least 21 instances >of controversy on the local and/or state level in at least 18 states, >according to the National Center for Science Education, an Oakland-based >non-profit organization that defends the teaching of evolution in public >schools. Although such controversies have occurred regularly over the >years, some attribute the recent wave to the success of conservatives in >2004 elections. > >At the national level, one attempt to diminish the prominence of evolution >in public school curricula and introduce alternative views came in the >form of a proposed amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act. Sponsored by >Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the amendment suggested that evolution is in >question among scientists and recommended that a "full range of scientific >views" be taught. But it was cut from the bill. > >Seeking to explain the passion that the issue often ignites, Tamblyn said: >"Partly, it's the mixture of religion and politics. If that doesn't get >you going, what does?" > >Indeed, the theory of evolution, which some opponents say is consonant >with atheism because it provides no role for the divine, has been >provoking controversy since 1859, when Charles Darwin published "On the >Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection." > >And if the contentious nature of the Kansas State Board of Education's >recent public hearings here on evolution is any indication, the issue >remains as explosive today as it was in Tennessee 80 years ago. > >Root of the controversy > >In the summer of 1925, Clarence Darrow entered a Dayton, Tenn., courtroom >to defend biology teacher John Scopes against charges of teaching Darwin's >theory of evolution after it had been banned by the state. The highly >publicized trial was the basis of the 1955 Broadway play "Inherit the >Wind" and the 1960 film of the same title. > >Then as now, the controversy over evolution revolved around two Darwinian >theories that contradict the biblical version of creation: Darwin's >assertion that all life, including humans and monkeys, descended from >common ancestors and that it is all the result of natural selection and >random mutation. While fundamentalists may recoil from those concepts, >many religious authorities, including those in the Roman Catholic Church, >hold that belief in God and evolution do not conflict. > >As there was in 1999, when Kansas de-emphasized evolution in its school >science standards--a move reversed by a more moderate board in 2001-- >there has been snickering by critics over the state's "backwardness" and >head-shaking over the idea that the validity of evolution, one of the >foundations of modern science, is in question. > >That has prompted many references to the famous question posed in an 1896 >editorial by William Allen White, editor of Kansas' Emporia Gazette. >Listing examples of what he deplored as the backwardness of the state, he >wrote: "What's the matter with Kansas?" > >But if Kansas is "backward," it's not alone. > >Year to date, at least 13 states have entertained legislation requiring a >more critical approach to evolution in the classroom and/or allowing >discussion of alternative explanations of the origins of humans, including >the supernatural. > >The most recent addition is New York, a true "blue" state, where an >Assembly bill was introduced May 3 requiring schools to teach both >evolution and intelligent design. > >Intelligent design, which some critics consider an attempt to get around >the Supreme Court's ban on teaching overtly religious creationism, credits >an unnamed intelligence or designer for aspects of nature's complexity >still unexplained by science. > >Whether any of this proposed legislation concerning evolution passes, it >is evident that many Americans share the thinking behind it, according to >poll after poll, including a recent Tribune/WGN-TV poll. > >Partly in response to concerns expressed by such conservative Christian >groups as the Illinois Family Institute, the Illinois State Board of >Education eliminated the term "evolution" from its science standards in >1997 and substituted the phrase "change over time." However, the word >"evolution" does appear in the board's Science Performance Descriptors, a >list of grade-specific material over which students must demonstrate mastery. > >The Tribune/WGN-TV poll of 1,200 Illinois registered voters, conducted May >5-10, found that 58 percent favor teaching Darwin's theory but 57 percent >also are open to teaching views opposed to it. In fact, 57 percent said >they believe that both evolution and creationism should be included in >school curricula. The poll by Mt. Prospect, Ill.-based Market Shares Corp. >has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. > >And 58 percent of Illinois voters polled said they believe teaching >creationism does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state. > >Supreme Court prohibition > >But in 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to the contrary in Edwards vs. >Aguillard. The court held that to teach creationism, or so-called creation >science, in public schools implies a state endorsement of a religious view >and thus violates the 1st Amendment's prohibition on government >establishment of religion. > >Nonetheless, the views on evolution expressed by Illinois voters mirror >those of Americans overall, according to earlier polls by Gallup and others. > >According to a November national Gallup poll, "only about a third of >Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a >scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just >as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been >supported by the evidence." The rest said they didn't know. > >A CBS News poll taken the same month found that two-thirds of Americans >want creationism taught with evolution. It also indicated that 55 percent >of Americans believe God created humans in their present form and only 13 >percent think that humans evolved without divine guidance. > >Kansans will learn this summer whether schoolchildren will study evolution >alone or in conjunction with criticism of Darwin's theory. Schools are not >bound to teach by standards set by the state board. However, teachers, >already sometimes nervous about teaching evolution, know that >board-recommended material may appear on state science assessment tests, >said Steven Case, assistant director of the Center for Science Education >at the University of Kansas and chairman of the state's Science Standards >Writing Committee. > >The majority of the 26-member committee recommended retaining current >standards regarding evolution, while eight members disagreed and presented >their own minority report, advocating not only a curriculum more critical >of evolution but a redefinition of science that goes beyond explanations >rooted in nature. > >Should the board approve the more critical approach, as is considered >likely given its conservative majority, it would open the door to >alternative explanations for life on Earth that go beyond natural causes, >including intelligent design. > >That infuriates many scientists, the majority of whom solidly support >Darwin's theory and deny there is any scientific controversy surrounding >it. They point out that in science, a "theory" is not merely a guess but a >tested concept based on long-term observation and evidence. The National >Academy of Sciences, along with the rest of the national scientific >community, refused to send witnesses to the Kansas hearings, claiming that >the event was rigged against mainstream science and that its participation >would confer the kind of scientific credibility that intelligent design seeks. > >However, the reasoning behind its position may have seemed confusing, and >even condescending, to some Kansans. Past arguments over evolution often >have been cast as a culture clash between the Darwinist scientific elite >and ordinary, less-educated citizens. > >This conflict was neatly summed up by the headline at the top of a news >release issued by the Discovery Institute at the close of the hearings: >"Darwinists Snub Kansas, Refuse to Answer Questions about Scientific >Problems with Evolutionary Theory." The Seattle-based Discovery Institute >advocates criticism of Darwin's theory and supports scholarship on >intelligent design. > >To represent mainstream science at the hearings, the state recruited >Topeka attorney Pedro Irigonegaray, a supporter of Darwin's theory, who >cross-examined the nearly two dozen witnesses appearing on behalf of those >advocating the revisions. His counterpart was John Calvert, an attorney >and managing director of the Kansas-based Intelligent Design Network, a >non-profit organization promoting intelligent design. > >In September, what promises to be a test case on intelligent design will >come to trial in Pennsylvania, where Dover-area schools last fall decided >to require that students be made aware of intelligent design and of >criticism of Darwin's theory. Parents have filed suit against the school >board, arguing that intelligent design is not science but creationism in >disguise. > >Evolution critics cite science > >Proponents of intelligent design assert that there is a scientific >rationale to their criticism of evolution. One who testified at the Kansas >hearings is Jonathan Wells. A molecular biologist, Wells also is a senior >fellow at the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. > >"We can infer from evidence that some features of the natural world are >best explained by an intelligent cause rather than unguided natural >processes," Wells said in a phone interview. "Among the latter would be >random mutation and natural selection. They're factors, but not sufficient >to give a full account. > >"I think Darwinism is pseudoscience," he said. > >Supporters of the theory of evolution say the same thing about intelligent >design. > >"Despite how they want to redefine it, science itself appeals only to >natural explanations. It doesn't say there are no other explanations," >said Harry McDonald, a retired biology teacher and president of Kansas >Citizens for Science, a pro-evolution group formed during the fight over >standards in 1999. > >The Kansas Board of Education will take a preliminary vote in June and a >final vote later this summer on revisions to the science standards. But >given the 6-4 advantage of conservatives on the board, few believe the >outcome is in doubt--although any revisions can be reversed if the >composition of the board changes, as happened in 2001. > >"I fear that there will be a lack of logic, that emotion is going to rule >and, as a result, our science standards will be severely compromised," >said Irigonegaray, slumping into a seat in Topeka's Memorial Hall after >delivering a 108-minute argument on behalf of mainstream science on May >12, the last day of public hearings. > >He paused, then added, "I warn America to be on the lookout for this >problem because it's a national phenomenon, not just a Kansas problem." > >- - - > >Alternative theories to evolution > >Since Charles Darwin published the theory of biological evolution in 1859, >his assertions that humans share common ancestry with all life on the >planet and that they evolved to their present form through natural >selection and mutation have clashed with the beliefs of those who adhere >to the Bible's story that God created the world and created Adam and Eve >in his image. > >Opponents of evolution have their own vocabulary list. Among the key terms >are: > >CREATIONISM--Advanced by religious conservatives in response to Darwin's >theory, creationism holds that God alone created the world and all life in >it as it is today. "Young Earth" creationists take the Bible's Book of >Genesis literally and believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. >"Old Earth" creationists do not take Genesis literally but dispute >evolution. "Creation science" claims scientific evidence for the biblical >version of creation. > >INTELLIGENT DESIGN--Considered a successor to creationism, intelligent >design became popular in the early 1990s after the U.S. Supreme Court >banned the teaching of creationism in public schools in 1987. Framed in >scientific language but devoid of biblical or theistic references, >intelligent design posits that there are weaknesses in Darwin's theory and >suggests that an unnamed intelligence must have designed complex aspects >of nature still unexplained by science. > >-- Lisa Anderson > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers. At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/HO7EnA/3MnJAA/E2hLAA/BRUplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> *************************************************************************** Berdikusi dg Santun & Elegan, dg Semangat Persahabatan. Menuju Indonesia yg Lebih Baik, in Commonality & Shared Destiny. www.ppi-india.org *************************************************************************** __________________________________________________________________________ Mohon Perhatian: 1. Harap tdk. memposting/reply yg menyinggung SARA (kecuali sbg otokritik) 2. Pesan yg akan direply harap dihapus, kecuali yg akan dikomentari. 3. Lihat arsip sebelumnya, www.ppi-india.da.ru; 4. Satu email perhari: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. No-email/web only: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6. kembali menerima email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ppiindia/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
