[__ Science __ ] Evolution & the Supreme Court

[AIG.com]

These Supreme Court decisions have documented the harm that Darwinism has caused in society by rejecting the Genesis teaching that all people groups are part of the same race, the human race.

Continue reading...

 

[Barbarian]

These Supreme Court decisions have documented the harm that Darwinism has caused in society by rejecting the Genesis teaching that all people groups are part of the same race, the human race.

AiG has it backwards, again. Evolutionary theory has shown that there is more variation within any human "race" you might define, than there is between races. Francis Collins, (a Christian who accepts the fact of evolution) has shown, from the Human Genome Project, that we are all of a single race.

Creationists have not always accepted this fact. Polygenicist creationists, such as the anti-Darwinian scientist Agassiz, denied that Africans were descended from Adam.

Modern polygenists do not accept either theological or scientific monogenism. They believe that the variation among human racial types cannot be accounted for by monogenism or by evolutionary processes occurring since the proposed recent African origin of modern humans.

Polygenism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is nothing at all in evolutionary theory that says we all could not have descended from a single pair of humans. I thought AiG had abandoned that foolishness. Are you sure that you have current information?

Most of the court cases cited were argued by creationists. Even most supporters of eugenics saw it as Biblically ordained. From an anti-Darwinian website, Uncommon Descent:

But I have to offer cautions if one wants to play the eugenics or genocide card because if you’re a Jew or Christian, if you play these cards, it can be thrown right back at you because of the abundant and zealous genocide practiced by God’s people in the Old Testament. In that sense, Old Testament “creationists” were also advocates of genocide and eugenics.

Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.
...
Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves” , producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population” [8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution:

Creationist support of eugenics and genocide in the past – Uncommon Descent

 

[Truthfrees]

These Supreme Court decisions have documented the harm that Darwinism has caused in society by rejecting the Genesis teaching that all people groups are part of the same race, the human race.

Continue reading...

interesting - thanks

 

[Barbarian]

What has been legally established in the United States:
In 2005:

In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent design” in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ruling was a major setback to the intelligent design movement, which is also waging battles in Georgia and Kansas. Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher force.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’

A federal judge rules that "intelligent design" is "a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory" and cannot be taught in biology classes in a public school district.

www.nbcnews.com

The defense was badly hurt when ID advocate and Discovery Institute Fellow Michael Behe admitted under oath that regarding "intelligent design" was the same as regarding astrology as science. Other damaging testimony was documented statements by members of the Dover school board, who admitted they were trying to use public schools to advocate religion.