University in Ohio to have Campus-wide, Year Long Celebration of Charles Darwin during 2008-2009: A University's "Darwin Year"

Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, is marking the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniverary of the publication of his book, On the Origins of Species, with a "campus-wide celebration that will run from fall 2008 to summer 2009.

Students will be assigned to read a book by David Quammen: The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: an Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution, as part of the university’s 2008 Common Reading selection:

studentaffairs.case.edu/orientation/reading/

David Quammen’s book “will be distributed to all new undergraduates this summer.”

(The word in Quammen’s book “Reluctant” refers to the fact that Charles Darwin was uneasy about publishing his theory due to the backlash he feared from the public.)

Fall Convocation, the “first formal university-wide gathering of the new academic year, will kick off the Darwin Bicentennial with featured speaker David Quammen.”

“Faculty are encouraged to consider the reading–and the entire Darwin Bicentennial–when designing course curricula for the coming academic year.”

(Source: Case Western Reserve Univerity: The Magazine of Case Western Reserve University, spring / summer 2008, vol. 20:2; p.4)

For more, scroll down:

case.edu/alumni/news/alumnews.html

Plain Dealer (Cleveland’s Daily) News article about Case Western Reserve University’s “Darwin Year”:

blog.cleveland.com/metro/2007/08/cwru_to_celebrate_honor_darwin.html

I just can’t believe in a conservative state like Ohio, this university has the audacity to promote something like this.

Look, I think Charles Darwin is important and needs to be discussed, I agree on that.

However, from reading the Plain Dealer interview with the lead academic in charge of this university’s Darwin Celebration on the blog site, his motivation for holding these events is to specifically counter the Intelligent Design movement and Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled.”

I looked at their list of invited speakers, and they include the Federal Judge from Pennsylvania who ruled against the Intelligent Designers, and Biologist E.O. Wilson from Harvard University.

I don’t see any speakers on this list who disagree with Darwin’s Theory or from the Intelligent Design movement, or from Pope Benedict XVI’s writings or statements:

case.edu/darwin/events/

I know there are folks at this forum who disagree that I.D. is science, and one can argue about that.

But that doesn’t mean that you have to study science in a vacuum.

The science behind the Atomic Bomb is going to tell you whether using it on a city is morally justified or not.

To me, it just sounds like a lot of non-Christians are in positions of power at this university, and they want to brainwash the young men and women from Ohio and elsewhere that attend their school.

It all just seems so one-sided; I especially find telling that this book by David Quammen “will be distributed to all new undergraduates this summer.”

Well, I bet if someone who had the means called Case Western Reserve University, said they wanted to donate and give each new undergraduate a Bible (King James Version at that!), the answer from the university’s administration would be:

“No thanks.”

Tuition for Case Western Reserve University’s Freshmen for academic year 2008-2009 is $34,450 for the first year.

Doesn’t include room and board:

case.edu/finadmin/controller/bursar/tuition.htm

Apparently, some other schools are having similar “celebrations”:

darwin-online.org.uk/2009.html

I am very impressed by your well-researched post. However, I don’t share your outrage about this news.

I’m not sure what causes you to classify Ohio as a conservative state, but regardless Case is a private school and can do what it wants, just as John Carroll University can require students to read say Aquinas in the curriculum.

[quote=Dwyer]However, from reading the Plain Dealer interview with the lead academic in charge of this university’s Darwin Celebration on the blog site, his motivation for holding these events is to specifically counter the Intelligent Design movement and Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled.”
[/quote]

I would be very surprised if any university designed its curriculum or scheduled a yearlong series of events specifically to counter a Ben Stein movie.

[quote=Dwyer]I don’t see any speakers on this list who disagree with Darwin’s Theory or from the Intelligent Design movement, or from Pope Benedict XVI’s writings or statements:
[/quote]

I’m sure if they had a yearlong focus on Newton, they likewise wouldn’t have speakers challenging the theories of gravity, inertia, etc. Although there would be discussion of the limitations of the theories as Newton laid them out, just as there are limitations to Darwin’s theories that will doubtless be discussed.

As for Benedict, he’s not a leading scientist or Darwin expert, so it doesn’t come as a great surprise he won’t be speaking. I’m sure the local Newman Center would be honored to have him drop by.

spent 30 years in Ohio, and it is hardly a conservative state. In any case, CWRU is a private institution, not a state school, and not a denominational school. It also has historically stressed the sciences so the topic is not surprising. What exactly is your problem with the whole event?

Just to make the point; “conservative” is not a synonym for “stupid.”

There are many conservative Darwinians. I took my first course in evolution from such a person.

“The debate about what to teach in high school so overshadowed the actual science and the depth and breadth of evolution that I thought it was most unfortunate,” said Dr. Neil Greenspan, a pathology professor at the Case Western Reserve University medical school.

Greenspan and more than a dozen Case colleagues are doing something about that. They’re planning a universitywide celebration of Darwin and evolution in 2008 and 2009, to coincide with anniversaries of the scientist’s birth and publication of his landmark “On the Origin of Species.”

With a series of lectures by prominent researchers and other events intended for the Case community and the public, the planners hope to make clear the enduring soundness and profound impact of Darwin’s concept.

Sound like a good idea. There are so many people with such a poor idea of what Darwin’s theory is, any effort to clear up the many misconceptions has to be applauded by any and all.

Except, of course for those with an interest in keeping people ignorant, or in maintaining their own ignorance.

Regrettably, there are some of those.

I’m sure if they had a yearlong focus on Newton, they likewise wouldn’t have speakers challenging the theories of gravity, inertia, etc.

Well, the theory of evolution is more controversial than Newton’s theory of gravity.

Also, evolution has important meaning as to how people view themselves and the lives of other human beings, and how they live their owns lives.

Now, I think a university should discuss Darwin.

However, I don’t think a university should only exclusively invite Pro-Evolution Scientists when having such a public campus-wide discussion of Evolution.

I looked at the list. They got the “Missing Link” Tetrapod Guy, E.O. Wilson, the Harvard Guy, and others who are going to discuss the raw science, etc.

But in the end it is the larger context that is more important for the human condition and the meaning of human life…

Look, it is an unfortunate fact that a lot of people who lose religious faith do so because of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Perhaps, the more important question that isn’t being discussed in this university’s Darwin Celebration is what does the Theory of Evolution mean for my life as a human being??

Does it mean that religion is a myth and God did not create the universe? Does this scientific theory destroy all theistic based religion??

Or, can theistic religion and evolution co-exist??

Does one necessarily blot out the other??

The Catholic Answer will not be discussed at Case Western’s Darwin Celebration:

However, even if the theory of evolution could be scientifically proved, even if a “missing link” should be discovered, the theory would not be opposed to Catholic doctrine, which merely requires belief in the immediate creation of Adam’s soul, in the image of God.

Any “evolution” was surely begun by an Intelligent Cause: God.

And I doubt they will mention the following:

Of the distinguished modern scientists who deny that evolution is an established fact, we might mention: Fabre, the outstanding naturalist of modern times; Millikan, the great (Nobel Prize Winning University of Chicago) physicist; John Burroughs, the naturalist; Professors Richet (Paris), and Henderson (Harvard); Dr. Dwight, the anatomist; Alexis Carrel and Sir Betram Windle.

Bishop Louis Laravoire Morrow, Doctor of Systematic Theology, My Catholic Faith, (pub. by My Mission House), 1958, p. 47.

Young people ask questions.

Some people attend universities to try and find answers to questions that they ask about their own lives and the lives of others.

Of course, the larger, more important religious and philosophical questions won’t be asked at this university’s Darwin Celebration.

Darwin’s theory at Case Western Reserve University will be discussed only in a scientific vacuum.

The undergraduates will be forced to read David Quammen’s book.

Their young minds are very impressionable at that age. That’s why education is wasted on the young by the powers that control the educational establishment in the United States.

Christians and other religious people on campus will feel like second class intellectuals.

Possibly some students on campus will lose their faith and may become atheists.

There are no clergy being invited to speak at Case’s Darwin Celebration to talk about the broader implications of Darwin’s theory, and no philosophic or opposing scientific viewpoint will be offered.

Although there would be discussion of the limitations of the theories as Newton laid them out, just as there are limitations to Darwin’s theories that will doubtless be discussed.

I sincerely doubt this.

At a lot of these sort of “Discussions”, (and I’ve attended a number of them) just like this one, the members of the audience are allowed to ask a single question and then sit down, but not make a statement or get in an argument with the speaker.

Or, they write their question on a piece of paper, and the question is then read to the Guest Speaker who then addresses the question (they don’t get to all the questions that are submitted).

Usually there is a Master of Ceremonies, like the university’s President, or a Dean, or a tenured professor, and they make sure to cut people off and often treat them with disrespectfully.

They typically do not allow for any debate.

You might be able to speak with the speaker personally afterwards for a few minutes, but then no one is then listening.

Greenspan and more than a dozen Case colleagues are doing something about that. They’re planning a universitywide celebration of Darwin and evolution in 2008 and 2009, to coincide with anniversaries of the scientist’s birth and publication of his landmark “On the Origin of Species.”

With a series of lectures by prominent researchers and other events intended for the Case community and the public, the planners hope to make clear the enduring soundness and profound impact of Darwin’s concept.

This Doctor and his Case colleagues are “planning to do something about that” and “make clear” the “enduring soundness” of Darwin’s concept.

I don’t know the history of this school too well, but I doubt they have had a year long celebration of anything except for this Darwin thing.

Obviously, Darwin’s theory is very important to the people who run this university.

They wouldn’t be spending all this time on it (the Focus of an entire Academic Year!!) and money paying thousands of dollars to each Guest Speaker for their time if it wasn’t important for their educational agenda.

That’s why they want their students and future leaders of America shelling out nearly $35,000 (tuition only, not including room and board) to read A book about it, and get it crammed down their throats through the university’s intellectual environment and in the lecture hall.

I think you might be reassured if you read “Finding Darwin’s God” by Kenneth Miller. Miller is both an accomplished scientist and a devout Roman Catholic.

Science is not what you’ve been told it is.

Read it and then take another look.

not within scientific circles.

Also, evolution has important meaning as to how people view themselves and the lives of other human beings, and how they live their owns lives.

Now, I think a university should discuss Darwin.

However, I don’t think a university should only exclusively invite Pro-Evolution Scientists when having such a public campus-wide discussion of Evolution.

the problem with this wish is that the scientific community does not regard “anti-evolution” scientists as legitimate scientists.

i think you’re assuming that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is inherently atheistic. I’m fairly certain (after reading John Paul II’s “Fides et Ratio”) that one can accept the theory or some aspects of it without embracing atheism.

It sounds very interesting to me.

:harp: :heaven:

Well, the theory of evolution is more controversial than Newton’s theory of gravity.

not within scientific circles.

Correct. Both Newton’s and Darwin’s theories are robust theories, that have been repeatedly confirmed by new evidence.

However, evolutionary theory can explain why evolution work. We still don’t know for sure why gravity works. Evolutionary theory is a bit more robust than Newton’s theory.

Man, your idea of conservatism and my idea of conservatism are not the same. I consider myself to be quite conservative and I think this is a great idea. Why would this be anti-conservative? Does conservatism equal denial of science to you?

Look, it is an unfortunate fact that a lot of people who lose religious faith do so because of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

That is because those people are taught that the story of creation in Genesis must be literally true or else their faith is wrong. Once they see that science does have explanations for how we got to where we are today, their training comes into play and they assume that their faith is wrong.

Or, can theistic religion and evolution co-exist??

Yes, of course it can. I have no problem with both.

It does seem that there are people on both sides of the argument that are so caught up in their faiths (athiests on one side, Christian (mostly) fundamentalists on the other) that are doing their best to keep it from happening.

Peace

Tim

Back in the Stone Age when I was in high school, my sociology class was taught by a wonderful priest who told us even then and Darwinism and Creationism were not mutually exclusive. One can believe in Darwin’s theory and still believe that God created man in his own image and likeness. No one ever said, to my knowledge, how God accomplished this.

Thanks, Barbarian, for the book recommendation.

I actually own a book by Kenneth Miller, though not the particular one you’re referring to; I’ll see if I can find a copy somewhere.

I personally accept a theistic version of evolution.

The purpose of this post though is to draw attention to the fact that this university will only discuss Darwin from a secular humanistic perspective, and will not discuss the implications of Darwin’s Evolutionary theory on personal religious belief.

No, there’s no doubt in my mind that what this university is doing is pure and simple “Physical Evolution as the Only True Reality” brainwashing of these 18-23 year old students, without any discussion of the implications of Darwin’s scientific theory on religious belief.

I should know, because I attended Case Western Reserve University as a student.

The faculty that I encountered in my classes were all liberal and mainly Non-Christian, except for two professors, and maybe one of them was a Christian social conservative (the fact I don’t even know this for certain tells you he didn’t advertise it).

God wasn’t even mentioned once in any of the classes I took.

Back in the Stone Age when I was in high school, my sociology class was taught by a wonderful priest who told us even then and Darwinism and Creationism were not mutually exclusive. One can believe in Darwin’s theory and still believe that God created man in his own image and likeness. No one ever said, to my knowledge, how God accomplished this.

Well, that’s how it should be taught, except Evolution isn’t taught that way in the American public school system.

I didn’t study Biology in public high school here in the U.S. because the teacher who taught it in my opinion was incompetent; but I remember in an English class a Non-Christian teacher saying something to the extent that by the end of the
19th / Early 20th centuries, Darwin, Freud, and Karl Marx had destroyed Humanity’s faith in God, the Soul, and Society.

Then we read Matthew Arnold’s atheistic poem “Dover Beach”.

Which just goes to show, in American public schools the non-science classes do not limit their classroom material to “English” only, or “History” only; they include ideas from other other areas of human knowledge and discuss them.

I mention this because there are people in America’s public school system who advocate that Science classes should study just raw science only, and no other material be it of a philosophical or religious nature, be allowed.

Well, that may be a recent tradition in the teaching of science that developed many years after the Scopes trial, but it wasn’t always that way in the history of education.

And, from my example, you can see the public schools do not follow a similar policy in the other courses they offer.

Which reminds me, in public school, often a teacher, who obviously was bored and just wanted to waste some time, would discuss matters completely extraneous to education, including films and TV programs that they had seen and enjoyed watching, celebrities, news stories (for pure entertainment reasons, they were not related to the coursework and the stories didn’t involve any educational purpose).

So, maybe that type of time wasting nonsense ought to be excluded from the classroom too.

Even this university doesn’t believe that course work must be restricted only to the subject matter of the class:

I consider myself to be quite conservative and I think this is a great idea. Why would this be anti-conservative? Does conservatism equal denial of science to you?

Well, I should have qualified that with the label “social conservative”.

Most social conservative values or beliefs, such as the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, has its roots, at least among the general population, on some sort of Judeo-Christian religious morality, although many Conservative policy makers and legislators may just use secular arguments in their arguments to maintain the status quo.

But there certainly are a lot of fiscal conservatives who are secularists and are not social conservatives (I’m just talking in general, and I’m not referring to you).

Man, your idea of conservatism and my idea of conservatism are not the same. I consider myself to be quite conservative and I think this is a great idea.

Well, yeah, but Case Western’s “you must read David Quammen’s (note, a single book about this Evolution) book on Charles Darwin before you matriculate” approach, and a entire year-long primary focus of the university’s intellectual focus, dialogue, and environment on Darwinism is way overdoing it.

I mean, what about Shakespeare?? Or, John Locke?? Or, Plato??

Or John Milton (the 400th anniversary of John Milton’s publishing of his English epic poem Paradise Lost falls this year, too)??

They were Great Thinkers, too, and deserve and are worthy of some consideration.

When I was attending school at Case Western Reserve University, that was the time of the 500th Anniversary of Columbus’ Discovery of the New World, and they had absolutely nothing about that critical historical event: no guest speakers, no public commemoration, no documentaries, etc., even though there is a large Italian-American community just south of the main campus about a half-mile away.

And when I attended, Case Western didn’t have any series of events similar to this Charles Darwin Celebration celebrating a great thinker or great writer the entire time I was a student there.

And Case Western isn’t just a school for scientists; it is true it is more of an Engineering school, but they have Liberal Arts program and students who major in Music, English language and literature, Economics, History, even Dance, etc.

Since I graduated, I really haven’t kept up with this university, but to me it looks like it has really declined as a place to learn (and it was really bad then, but it has obviously gotten a lot worse) with this pagan Celebration and glorification of Charles Darwin.

Just read about this Essay Contest the school is having for its 2008 Freshmen Class, and you’ll see how this entire Discussion on Darwin is skewed towards the secular humanistic point of view:

2008 Essay Contest for First-Year Students

First-year students may select either of the following prompts:

  1. David Quammen remarks that when Charles Darwin returned home from his voyage on the Beagle in 1836, he “didn’t yet recognize the awful scope of the idea that was growing inside him.” By spring 1838, however, Darwin’s notebooks indicate that he had grasped the full implications of his emerging theory:

Once you grant that species ‘may pass into one another,’ then the ‘whole fabric totters and falls.’ The fabric was natural theology. For him it had fallen. Behind where that drapery had hung, Darwin saw the reality of evolution. It wasn’t just a matter of mockingbirds, rabbits, and skinks. It was the whole natural world (37).

In your essay, discuss an idea that, at one time or another, grew inside you and led to a major change in your outlook or your belief system. Trace the development of that idea, and describe its impact on your life, as precisely as you can.

If you win, you get $300.00 gift certificate for the university’s owned bookstore and a chance to meet David Quammen.

That might buy four or five semester text books.

And that’s a nice way of keeping the $300.00 in Case Western’s coffers.:slight_smile:

Read more about Case Western’s Essay Contest:

studentaffairs.case.edu/orientation/reading/essaycontest.html

Sounds like they’re trying out something new. :shrug:

[quote=Dwyer]to me it looks like it has really declined as a place to learn with this pagan Celebration and glorification of Charles Darwin.
[/quote]

Maybe next year they’ll have a pagan celebration and glorification of Copernicus, or William Harvey, or Einstein, or Gregor Mendel.

[quote=Dwyer]Just read about this Essay Contest the school is having for its 2008 Freshmen Class, and you’ll see how this entire Discussion on Darwin is skewed towards the secular humanistic point of view:

In your essay, discuss an idea that, at one time or another, grew inside you and led to a major change in your outlook or your belief system. Trace the development of that idea, and describe its impact on your life, as precisely as you can.

[/quote]

So you could easily discuss how your sister’s teen pregnancy led you to the belief that every life is sacred, and how you’ve been a committed abortion foe ever since.

Well, that’s how it should be taught, except Evolution isn’t taught that way in the American public school system.

It’s that darned Bill of Rights, again. Religious freedom means you can’t preach in public schools.

I didn’t study Biology in public high school here in the U.S. because the teacher who taught it in my opinion was incompetent; but I remember in an English class a Non-Christian teacher saying something to the extent that by the end of the
19th / Early 20th centuries, Darwin, Freud, and Karl Marx had destroyed Humanity’s faith in God, the Soul, and Society.

Both Marx and Freud tried to latch onto Darwin to legitimize their ideas. Pretty much the way ID tries to latch onto science.

Then we read Matthew Arnold’s atheistic poem “Dover Beach”.

In science? That is incompetent.

Which just goes to show, in American public schools the non-science classes do not limit their classroom material to “English” only, or “History” only; they include ideas from other other areas of human knowledge and discuss them.

Because science is always growing, science teachers barely have time to get the basics of science down. If the English department can’t get it on their own, science isn’t going to help them.

I mention this because there are people in America’s public school system who advocate that Science classes should study just raw science only, and no other material be it of a philosophical or religious nature, be allowed.

It’s the nature of science. It’s not a philosophy; it’s a process and a method. You might as well criticize plumbing for not including philosophy.

I mean, what about Shakespeare?? Or, John Locke?? Or, Plato??

Plato actually had some ideas of relevance to science. The others, not much.

Or John Milton (the 400th anniversary of John Milton’s publishing of his English epic poem Paradise Lost falls this year, too)??

Sounds good. Maybe the English Lit. department should be doing what the Science department did.

They were Great Thinkers, too, and deserve and are worthy of some consideration.

But in a class where their ideas apply.

Actually, these were in response to my post, not The Barbarian’s post.

I consider myself a social conservative in accordance with your definition. That doesn’t require me to junk the evidence supporting evolution nor does it require me to insist on “equal time” for some other opinion.

Well, yeah, but Case Western’s “you must read David Quammen’s (note, a single book about this Evolution) book on Charles Darwin before you matriculate” approach, and a entire year-long primary focus of the university’s intellectual focus, dialogue, and environment on Darwinism is way overdoing it.

I mean, what about Shakespeare?? Or, John Locke?? Or, Plato??

Or John Milton (the 400th anniversary of John Milton’s publishing of his English epic poem Paradise Lost falls this year, too)??

They were Great Thinkers, too, and deserve and are worthy of some consideration.

What about them? Have Shakespear, Locke, Plato or Milton been banned from the university? Are they not required reading in literature classes?

If they were required reading, would you insist that opposing viewpoints to their theses be presented along side of their works?

Peace

Tim

It’s that darned Bill of Rights, again. Religious freedom means you can’t preach in public schools.

Well, that’s the way the Bill of Rights has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

But James Madison originally wrote the Bill of Rights to **protect the states **from the power of the Federal Government.

And then the Justices, I think starting in the 1930s / 40s (especially under Earl Warren in the 1950s), then later in the 1960s and 1970s began to interpret the 14th Amendment (which was written soon after the American Civil War) as “incorporating” the Bill of Rights **against the states themselves **and curtailing state power.

So, the 4th Amendment, the one that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, became applied against all the states.

So did the amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and then the First Amendment with its “Establishment Clause” was interpreted as being “incorporated” **against the states **in the 14th Amendment.

Basically, the Supreme Court said the words “due process” found in the 14th Amendment’s text includes and incorporates the Bill of Rights.

Now, that’s just some men’s personal interpretations of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Another group of men and women appointed to the Supreme Court could have interpreted the 14th Amendment very differently.

That is is a rather very broad interpretation, if you study it.

And that interpretation does not necessarily mean it is a correct interpretation.

Also, a lot of these U.S. Supreme Court Justices were Freemasons; sounds like they are imposing their Freemasonry on every American citizen in the United States: Justices Hugo Black, Stanley F. Reed, William O. Douglas, James F. Byrnes, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B. Rutledge, Harold H. Burton, Frederick M. Vinson, Thomas C. Clark, Sherman Minton, Earl Warren, John M. Harlan, Thurgood Marshall, John M. Harlan, and Potter Stewart were all Freemasons.

That’s 15 / 20 of the U.S. Justices appointed between 1932-1962 (I think that is about the right number).

Talk about Equal Justice Under Law; sounds like a Lodge meeting to me.

Source: H. Paul Jeffers: Freemasons: Inside The World’s Oldest Secret Society, Citadel Press: Kensington Publishing Corp, New York, 2005 (pp. 213-221).

And public schools, at least in theory, were supposed to be controlled on a local basis and the Federal Government was not supposed to get involved (even today, the Federal Government minimally funds public education; they are state run and local School Board run institutions).

Because science is always growing, science teachers barely have time to get the basics of science down. If the English department can’t get it on their own, science isn’t going to help them.

Well, I sincerely doubt that is the case.

The man who taught my Physics course in high school also coached the school’s baseball team, so it seemed like he had plenty of time to take something else up (my understanding is these coaching jobs are basically an part-time job for public school teachers who want to earn some extra money to supplement their salary as a teacher).

And the Physics textbook we had was about 15-20 years old.

I don’t remember seeing this man reading science books, magazines, or journals, or having them on his desk.

If you’ve ever watched Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” or Jacob Bronowski’s “Ascent of Man” BBC series (from the 1970s), you’ll see that real, professional scientists are interested are interested in all areas of human knowledge, including history, Bible, art, music, drama, poetry, anthropology, archeology, and so on.

A science teacher even showed one of the final episode’s of Sagan’s “Cosmos” in a public school science class: the one where he is flying on a spaceship through space, listening to Elvis music, and seeking things to include in a hypothetical “Encyclopedia Galactica”, a proposed encyclopedia containing all aspects of human knowledge, recorded for posterity.

I know it is an educational TV show (for PBS) and not a classroom, but on these shows these professional scientists commented on all areas of human knowledge, even the Bible and the Catholic Church, too.

And “Cosmos” was shown in public schools (if anyone went to school in the 1970s or 1980s, did your science teacher show episodes of “Cosmos” on video to you in your class??).

My teacher only showed that last episode.

But Sagan does talk about Evolution in one episode, and he looks right into the camera and says “Evolution really happened; it is a fact,” and he skips any discussion of religion’s responses to evolution; though in a different episode on the rotation of the planets, he satirizes the Bible saying some “unerring stenographer” wrote it down while God dictated it to him; and he talks a lot about the Catholic Church, and Catholic doctrine while discussing Gallileo, as does Jacob Brownowski in his series “The Ascent of Man.”

So, the Professor of Astronomy Sagan (Carl Sagan was a Professor of Astronomy at Cornell University) and professional Physicist Bronowski do discuss religion into their scientific TV episodes, but in order to promote disbelief, these scientists skip the response of religion to Darwin, while they are more than pleased to discuss Catholic theology in their talks on Galileo and Copernicus.

Maybe next year they’ll have a pagan celebration and glorification of Copernicus, or William Harvey, or Einstein, or Gregor Mendel.

No, I doubt it. I admit I haven’t paid too much attention to this school since I graduated, but they had nothing like this during the years when I went to school there.

They skipped the 500th anniversary of Columbus discovering the New World.

No, these guys just like Darwin. And I bet they never have another university-wide focus on a great thinker ever again.

No “Shakespeare Year” forseeable in the future.

Also, this is not just one department of this university sponsoring these discussions.

This is the primary intellectual focus of this entire university for the 2008-2009 academic school year: their “Darwin Year.”

Hmmm, I also like how Case Western encourages that all faculty teaching courses should try and include discussions of Darwin in courses they are teaching; this includes non-science courses.

This seems to contradict the thinking that states science classes should only focus on science, since this university wants its non-sience classes to discuss science, evolution, and Darwin.:rotfl:

The Reluctant Mr. Darwin (the book that the freshmen undergraduates are required to read) will be distributed to new undergraduate students during the summer.

Faculty will be encouraged to consider the reading, when appropriate, in designing course curricula.

Anyway, Catholic Answers had an article about this subject of religion and Darwinism at their homepage somewhere, and I’ll try and post it later when I get a chance.

It contained a lot of interesting information I had never heard about, including some statements that Pope John Paul II made on the subject; and I know Pope Benedict XVI has made some statements about evolution, too.

It also said that Pope Pius XII wrote a Papal Encyclical and commented on evolution in the 1950s.

Honestly, that is really the first time I’ve heard about that; I don’t think this particular Papal Encyclical has been mentioned that much on places like EWTN, or even Catholic Answers (though, it has been a while since I’ve listened regularly).

That’s a pity, because it should be.

Barbarian observes:
It’s that darned Bill of Rights, again. Religious freedom means you can’t preach in public schools.

Well, that’s the way the Bill of Rights has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

And the Founders of our nation. Madison, for example, makes his position clear in “Against Religious Assessments.” And he was the primary author of the Bill of Rights. Thomas Jefferson, whose Virginia Statutes were admitted by Madison to be the model for the first Amendment, asserted the necessity of a wall of separation between church and state.

But James Madison originally wrote the Bill of Rights to protect the states from the power of the Federal Government.

No. It rarely mentions the states, but specifically provides protection to individuals. The Fourteenth Amendment, BTW, extended the protection of the Bill of Rights to include the states.

Basically, the Supreme Court said the words “due process” found in the 14th Amendment’s text includes and incorporates the Bill of Rights.

You mean that they were asserting that the Constitution is law? :eek: Those wacky justices.

And public schools, at least in theory, were supposed to be controlled on a local basis and the Federal Government was not supposed to get involved

The Northwest Ordinances show that the founders thought it should. These federal laws include requirements to set aside public land in each township to establish public schools.

The man who taught my Physics course in high school also coached the school’s baseball team, so it seemed like he had plenty of time to take something else up (my understanding is these coaching jobs are basically an part-time job for public school teachers who want to earn some extra money to supplement their salary as a teacher).

And the Physics textbook we had was about 15-20 years old.

I don’t remember seeing this man reading science books, magazines, or journals, or having them on his desk.

Regrettably, in some public schools, athletics are the main idea, and coaches teach as a suppliment to their coaching, not the other way around.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.