new trial on evolution vs creationism in schools

[Dr Rock]

Eleven parents of students at a Pennsylvania high school are suing over the school district's decision to include "intelligent design" -- an alternative to evolution that involves a God-like creator -- in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology classes.

The Dover school board says it does not teach intelligent design but simply makes students aware of its existence as an alternative to evolution. It denies intelligent design is "religion in disguise" and says it is a scientific theory.

A CBS poll last November found 65 percent of Americans favor teaching creationism as well as evolution while 37 percent want creationism taught instead of evolution.

Fifty-five percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, the poll found.

and if that isn't sanity-blastingly retarded enough for you, THERE'S MORE:

Museum lecturers and docents say they are being frequently confronted by small groups of creationists eager to vocally challenge evolution, The New York Times reported Tuesday, September 20th.
As a result, an increasing number of museums are training their staff in methods of dealing with people who reject long-settled precepts of science on religious grounds.

The National Science Foundation, sponsoring evolution-themed exhibits at six museums of natural history across the nation, includes training for docents and staff members in how to respond to creationists.

my recommendation: issue and train all museum staff with MP-5 submachine guns

 

[hippyscum]

The parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) say the policy of the Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania violates the constitutional separation of church and state

I find this bit interesting, especially considering how flagrantly ignored it's been in America's institutions.

Maybe we can also teach museum staff kung fu; just for something a little different to watch when ye go to learn about natural history.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Most of us would agree than Pope John Paul II was a conservative Christian if there ever was one. He proclaimed publicly that evolution was not a mere theory, but a fact.

 

[madame_zora]

Yes, Pope John Paul certainly can't be blamed for America's stupidity, that's our baby.
We are the ones voluntaritly adopting myth over science, such as it is. Creationism is an opinion and a silly one that ignores scientific fact. Teaching it in schools is demeaning to anyone of intelligence.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Sep 25 2005, 05:30 PM
Yes, Pope John Paul certainly can't be blamed for America's stupidity, that's our baby.
We are the ones voluntaritly adopting myth over science, such as it is. Creationism is an opinion and a silly one that ignores scientific fact. Teaching it in schools is demeaning to anyone of intelligence.

[post=346481]Quoted post[/post]​

Creationism has no place in the science curriculum. In the natural sciences, we should observe and record the historical record and we can make theories from that. We have observed enough to know that we have factual information that evolution does indeed take place. There are theories of the origin of life and man within the scope of evolution. We know for instance that the average man in WWII was two inches taller than soldiers in WWI. There is no way escaping that all life forms are changing. The definition of change is evolution.

It is in the social sciences where we study both present and past cultures and cilivizations. In that context we study what people believed and what they didn't believe. And the origin of the world and humans is part of that. Of course when we do that we will find there are numerous beliefs in the past by peoples on the origin of the universe, life, and particularly the origins of humans. Some of these beliefs are contradictory. Some of those beliefs are held by people of today and some are not. Those are also facts of history. And they should be taught as factual information of what different peoples believed in the past and today. That includes agnostic and atheistic beliefs. Thet in no way endorses any ancient culture or civilization or its belief system. Nor should the social sciences be taught in a way to deliberately favor a particular religion. The facts of cultures and cililizations both in the past and today should speak for themselves.

In private and church schools, a separate course of that particular school's religion could be taught if the school is so inclined to do so. Most church schools do just that; provide a separate course of study on their religion.

Even if a particulrly belief system is true, it is not by definition science, it is religion. Or in the case of Dr. Rock and many others, the lack of belief in religion.

 

[Pye]

I knew I liked you people in here :loveya:

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@Sep 25 2005, 08:47 AM
A CBS poll last November found 65 percent of Americans favor teaching creationism as well as evolution while 37 percent want creationism taught instead of evolution.

[post=346435]Quoted post[/post]​

The ID people must've gotten in the math classes too.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

I don't care if it's taught, but it shouldn't be required.

 

[jay_too]

Originally posted by TexAssgirl@Sep 26 2005, 11:12 PM
I don't care if it's taught, but it shouldn't be required.

[post=346759]Quoted post[/post]​

I care if it taught. Why? It is just another example of the dumbing down of America.

Science does not hold all the answers, but it may provide solutions to well-defined problems such as nuerological conditions, the way the brain processes information, cures for some diseases, greater energy efficiencies, etc. Evolution is an example of one approach to science. It relies upon established principles to explain and predict outcomes. Science should be taught as science; quasi-science should find its home in the toilet.

If creationism/intelligent design must be a part of the curriculum, let it be part of a semester course surveying astrology, numerology, the reading of chicken entrails....in otherwords, give it its due in a proper setting.

jay

 

[Pye]

Originally posted by jay_too+Sep 26 2005, 11:26 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jay_too &#064; Sep 26 2005, 11:26 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-TexAssgirl@Sep 26 2005, 11:12 PM
I don&#39;t care if it&#39;s taught, but it shouldn&#39;t be required.

[post=346759]Quoted post[/post]​

I care if it taught. Why? It is just another example of the dumbing down of America.

Science does not hold all the answers, but it may provide solutions to well-defined problems such as nuerological conditions, the way the brain processes information, cures for some diseases, greater energy efficiencies, etc. Evolution is an example of one approach to science. It relies upon established principles to explain and predict outcomes. Science should be taught as science; quasi-science should find its home in the toilet.

If creationism/intelligent design must be a part of the curriculum, let it be part of a semester course surveying astrology, numerology, the reading of chicken entrails....in otherwords, give it its due in a proper setting.

jay

[post=346812]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

How DARE you give Creationism as MUCH credence as Numerology and Astrology next thing you know you&#39;ll be telling me that my tea leaves mean NOTHING

 

[madame_zora]

This stuff just has no place at all in schools. If (as Freddie said) it was taught in a SMALL segment in social studies as one of the many things that peoples of the world believe, that would be fine, but that&#39;s hardly the case. It is being taught as a viable option to scientifically accepted truth, and that is complete absurdity. I don&#39;t care HOW many Merkins think WHAT. Part of the reason so many people are willing to accept mythology as reality is because of the early programming we&#39;ve allowed to take place in our schools. It&#39;s bullshit. No, the world wasn&#39;t created by waving a magic wand, people weren&#39;t formed from actual clay (durr&#33 woman wasn&#39;t created from a rib from a man. Geez, anyone with half a brain is supposed to recognise allegory, what the fuck&#33; Even a moron should recognise the creation story as an early people&#39;s attempt to explain natural phenomena, just like EVERY other mythology about the same shit.

I find it bizarre that people can call the Greek&#39;s beliefs mythology but believe in nonsense aspects of their own religion as fact. Sorry, no sale. It doesn&#39;t mean there is or is not a GOD, it just means that man&#39;s attempts to define God have always fallen way short. Most people&#39;s attempts to understand the Bible are ludicrous at best. Why would I want these morons teaching MY child what to believe?

 

[wonderland]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Sep 27 2005, 11:45 AM
I find it bizarre that people can call the Greek&#39;s beliefs mythology but believe in nonsense aspects of their own religion as fact. Sorry, no sale. It doesn&#39;t mean there is or is not a GOD, it just means that man&#39;s attempts to define God have always fallen way short. Most people&#39;s attempts to understand the Bible are ludicrous at best. Why would I want these morons teaching MY child what to believe?

[post=346856]Quoted post[/post]​

You are so right, as usual. I don&#39;t put down anyone&#39;s religion but I do not want it taught in schools. It is so increibly arrogant of some people are to think that only their way is correct. Religion has no place with science, especially in public schools.

 

[jay_too]

Originally posted by Pye@Sep 27 2005, 03:43 AM
How DARE you give Creationism as MUCH credence as Numerology and Astrology next thing you know you&#39;ll be telling me that my tea leaves mean NOTHING

[post=346813]Quoted post[/post]​

Oh OK, we will add intelligent tea leaves to the curriculum.

 

[D_Barbi_Queue]

Originally posted by jay_too+Sep 26 2005, 11:26 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jay_too &#064; Sep 26 2005, 11:26 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-TexAssgirl@Sep 26 2005, 11:12 PM
I don&#39;t care if it&#39;s taught, but it shouldn&#39;t be required.

[post=346759]Quoted post[/post]​

I care if it taught. Why? It is just another example of the dumbing down of America.

[post=346812]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

People don&#39;t have to belive it if it&#39;s taught. If it&#39;s not required, only those interested in the perspective can take the course. Perhaps those people already follow those beliefs. Perhaps people just want to educated themselves on other perspectives.

There are a lot of things that are still taught in school that we may not believe in anymore. I can think of a certain Psychologist whose theories are still taught, but not everyone that takes the course follows. Ever heard of Freud? I certainly don&#39;t believe in Penis Envy theory or the Oedipus complex, but I&#39;m glad that I learned about them.

 

[jay_too]

TAG..

It is my impression that public school education is about the teaching of skill sets for use in later life such as physics, algebra, multiplication, grammar, spelling, etc. It is the responsibility of a parent, church, or civic group to teach a belief system. Besides I am not certain that the core beliefs of Methodists and Baptists are not in conflict...much less those of Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Jains...whatever.

Science is a search for an explanation of the natural world. Scientific theories are derived from natural law and principles. Theoretical predictions are verified or modified by data; in some cases, the data overturn the theory. Intelligent design/creationism relies upon a Creator from whom all flows; this sounds a lot like a religious belief.

Unlike Freddie, I am not sure that creatioism should even be in a social studies curriculum. If included, then it should be restricted to a few minutes of discussion on Colonial America. Essentially everyone in 17th Century America believed in Creationism; everywhere they looked, there was evidence. English walnuts were a remedy for headaches and brain tumors [the nutmeats look like a brain], and bloodroot was good for strengthening the blood. Bad things in life such as a lightening strike were the result of Satan and his minions. One of my forebears was accused of being a witch because a neighbor saw her cringle her nose and by the time he got home, a pail of milk had curdled. She beat the rap....hence me&#33; :+

America is not producing enough scientists and engineers to supply our economy. Since 9/11 we are attracting fewer foreign students. Yea, yea, I can hear the chorus of "Who wants engineers anyway?" However, this is an economic security issue of the 21st Century. I would like every public dollar spent on the basics, and I believe we need to spend more on real science and math education in K-12. We need better teachers, better equipment, and tougher assignments. Why the latter? A part of science and math education is teaching a student to put his ass in a chair and not get up until the problem is worked...the theory understood....whatever. So many Americans drop out of technical curricula because they lack discipline and cannot compete with foreign students.

I have not problem with churches and parents giving their children instruction in Intelligent Design outside of school. Some children take ballet lessons after school or spend Saturdays and a couple of weekdays doing gymnastics. These are private activities supported by private money.

I am against dignifying Creationism with a place in public education. I have no problem the belief system; I even accept Pye&#39;s Intelligent Tea Leaves.

jay

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by TexAssgirl+Sep 27 2005, 10:23 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TexAssgirl &#064; Sep 27 2005, 10:23 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>People don&#39;t have to belive it if it&#39;s taught.[/b]

it does, however, gain an entirely inappopriate veneer of legitimacy and authority if it&#39;s taught - not really acceptable when the recipients are young and impressionable.


<!--QuoteBegin-jay_too@Sep 28 2005, 12:45 AM
It is the responsibility of a parent, church, or civic group to teach a belief system.

[post=346996]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]
actually, it&#39;s the responsibility of parents not to indoctrinate their kids.

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by jay_too@Sep 27 2005, 07:45 PM
TAG..
Unlike Freddie, I am not sure that creatioism should even be in a social studies curriculum. If included, then it should be restricted to a few minutes of discussion on Colonial America. Essentially everyone in 17th Century America believed in Creationism; everywhere they looked, there was evidence. English walnuts were a remedy for headaches and brain tumors [the nutmeats look like a brain], and bloodroot was good for strengthening the blood. Bad things in life such as a lightening strike were the result of Satan and his minions. One of my forebears was accused of being a witch because a neighbor saw her cringle her nose and by the time he got home, a pail of milk had curdled. She beat the rap....hence me&#33; :+

jay

[post=346996]Quoted post[/post]​

jay,

The place to teach about religions and the what those religions believed about the origin or the universe and life is in social studies, but as a part of the study of individual cultures. For instance, in ancient Egypt we find that the pyramids were built to house the dead pharoahs who were waiting to be resurected. It would be almost impossible to study the pharoahs and the pyramids without learning about the Egyptian religion and that religions belief about the origin of life. The Egyptians also believed that the universe was like a bowl with the earth on the bottom and the sky at the top of the bowl. Doesn&#39;t make it true. And science has proven that belief wrong. But we can&#39;t change what the ancients believed.

One of the components of a culture is its belief system. So when ancient cultures through 700 AD are taught, the foundation of nearly every major religion is also taught. By keeping all discussion of religion and beliefs within the scope of study of particular cultures, it allows learning without any hint of endorsement by the teacher or school of any particular belief system. It is improper to use the terms them and us on issues of beliefs and in the study of history, we weren&#39;t there. So religions are referred to by name. "Now we believe this while the &#39;religion&#39; believes..."; that kind of sentence by any social studies teacher is improper.

In the study of the Roman Empire we learn how Christianity became the legal religion after being persecuted for a period of time. The ancient Hebrews are studied. The Chinese are studied and how they believed they came to live on earth, etc.

But the origin of the world is only a small part of the study of each of those cultures. Obviously, one can not believe all the beliefs that all those cultures had or in the case of today, have. It is not the duty of social studies to determine the correctness of a belief system of some culture. Rather, it is simply to make the student educated about humans and their culture of the past and of the present.

In our American culture, our belief system is rooted in the principles of democracy and the freedom of each person to believe what he or she wishes about a supreme being and other religious doctrines. Yet, there is a group of laws and customs that at least most of us agree to follow. In general, most Americans accept a concept of God, though we don&#39;t all come close to agreeing who or what God is.

 

[jonb]

If we&#39;re teaching archaic right-wing ideas as science, are we going to have a copy of Phrenology Today next?

 

[KinkGuy]

What do "science", "facts" and "reality" have to do with pandering to the extreme right to solidify votes? "Intelligent design" is about votes and money, not science.

 

[madame_zora]

Originally posted by KinkGuy@Sep 28 2005, 05:28 AM
What do "science", "facts" and "reality" have to do with pandering to the extreme right to solidify votes? "Intelligent design" is about votes and money, not science.

[post=347077]Quoted post[/post]​

And THAT is the much missed point in all of this. I can assure you that our pres doesn&#39;t give a fuck about creationsim, even though he appears to care about it. He talks about things the right-wingers want to hear to secure votes so he can do things the American people would not have tolerated otherwise.

If anyone wonders why there is a feeling of animosity toward Christian fundamentalists right now it&#39;s because of this. Because they are programmed to accept things that don&#39;t make sense, they&#39;ve allowed our country to be sold out from under us in a unprecedented way. bush and cheney were in the right place at the right time and decided to tap in to this force of Americana that had been only a topic of scorn previously. Advancing right-wing agendas has been pretty profitable for Haliburton, wouldn&#39;t you say? And let&#39;s not forget about the bush dynasty&#39;s investments in oil, I bet they&#39;ve fared rather nicely, thanks to the fucking fundies.