Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[Bob Hubbard]

The question Dan, is where does 1 draw the line? Who determines just what a subversive group is?

 

[Flatlander]

The question Dan, is where does 1 draw the line? Who determines just what a subversive group is?

OK, I see your point.

 

[michaeledward]

The question Dan, is where does 1 draw the line? Who determines just what a subversive group is?

Now, a religous group that commits mass suicide, even if stylishly covering their faces with purple scarf (I wonder about the significance of that) I think would qualify as a 'subversive group', but perhaps they could petition for equal time.

Of course, students have a limited time in school. And if all these groups, fringe or otherwise, are able to petition to affect the curriculum, we may have a problem with the 12 year plan.

Don't you think it might be better if we let the experts in field of study determine the curriculum? You know, people who understand trigonomotry and calcus should be involved in deciding whether algebra and geometry have any value; people with lots of experience with words, and stories should be looking at the English language requirments. Do we really need to read Shakespeare, after all? Maybe there is just something about Preachers petitioning for the curriculum of Science class that seems out of whack.

But maybe that's just me.

 

[loki09789]

if the KKK want to have a parade, parents have the option to keep their kids away. Kids must go to school.

True. But, the democratic idea that they are not denied the opportunities of presentation from the government, have just as much right to present their view in public - as long as they are not violating the law or some decency code.

In both cases the point that the gov. is allowing diverse views to be presented - regardless of PERSONAL ideology my main point.

I don't remember the town but I remember seeing a HISTORY channel special (GEEK REVEALED) about a small town that was doing everything under the sun to block a Neo-Nazi group from assembling publically - the group petitioned to the ACLU and got a Jewish lawyer that willingly represented him.

Some really blasted the Jewish Lawyer for representing this Neo Nazi Group. IMO it was the best thing - how can you claim to have the true science and correct ideas on race and superiority when you are relying on a Jewish lawyer? It is SOOO much better than standing there and yelling at them or blocking their civil liberties.

 

[qizmoduis]

All this stuff about the KKK being allowed to demonstrate publicly is totally irrelevant to creationism in science class. Science class is for science, which isn't something that is or should be amenable to influence by agenda-pushing groups of people for political or religious purposes. Creationism in science class is just as inappropriate as porn in mathematics class. If a preacher wants to stand in a park blathering nonsense 8 hours a day, every day, then he's perfectly capable of doing so, but science class is for science. That fact that this still comes up as an issue boggles my mind, and I don't like having my mind boggled.


:flame:

 

[heretic888]

That fact that this still comes up as an issue boggles my mind, and I don't like having my mind boggled.

Its not that mind-boggling, quizmodius, when you take a look at contemporary trends in academia, philosophy, science, and politics.

This is the symptom of a dying ideology. Bishop John Shelby Spong wrote a book entitled "Christianity Must Change or Die", and he was right. The fundamentalist-evangelical current of Christianity --- while popular in some respects among certain media outlets --- is becoming increasingly discredited and ridiculed. Even among conservatives.

Most American "Christians" today are leaning toward some type of quasi-deism. The reactions we are seeing among the Religious Right are just that --- reactions to a world that is increasingly seeing their rantings as archaric, silly, and quaint.

They are gaining a little political momentum because of a variety of factors as of late, but it ultimately won't last. Not enough people buy into their claims, and more than enough prefer more practical and rational approaches to religion.

Another interesting thing, Bishop Spong actually agreed with Freud's analaysis of the patriarchal "father god". Wiggy.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Yeah, students do really need to read Shakespeare.

Perhaps if folks read what are about the greatest works in the language--for their humanity, intelligence, critical eye, and beauty--there'd be a lot less of the sort of ignorance and fear that leads to attempts at censorship.

 

[loki09789]

All this stuff about the KKK being allowed to demonstrate publicly is totally irrelevant to creationism in science class. Science class is for science, which isn't something that is or should be amenable to influence by agenda-pushing groups of people for political or religious purposes. Creationism in science class is just as inappropriate as porn in mathematics class. If a preacher wants to stand in a park blathering nonsense 8 hours a day, every day, then he's perfectly capable of doing so, but science class is for science. That fact that this still comes up as an issue boggles my mind, and I don't like having my mind boggled.


:flame:

I've never said that Creationism should be taught in Science class. I have said that the community that is paying taxes into the local public school system has the right to have their students education reflect that community as well as expose the students to a wider diversity as well. That by no means is permission for the school to 'convert' students to these diverse views (whether scientific, mystical, ...what ever) but only expose them to these other idea. We teach 'Nazism' in Social Studies on a regular basis and I don't see students coming out 'converted' on a regular basis.

Should we stop teaching Native American mythos/ideology or Greek Mythos, or any other 'Creationistic' mystically based views of the world origin as well? These are taught as part of diversity/multi-cultural education so that people recognize and respect difference without judging it - and those who believe in it - blindly or in a bigotous way......

The point isn't that people are saying that Evolution/Big Bang can not be taught - so it isn't a case of sensorship. The point is that a sector of the community is seeking representation in their own childrens public education.

I teach in a community with a Native American population, if they wanted to find a way to include some educational lessons on their culture/heritage and beliefs would it be fair to say no simply because they believe the beginning of the earth was a pile of dirt from the bottom of the sea dropped on a turtles back?

The school board decided that it would not be fair (even though the NA population is less than 4% of the overall student population) and do have programs that educate NA and non NA students alike on the local NA traditions and culture and Language.

 

[heretic888]

Yeah, students do really need to read Shakespeare.

I agree. If you are learning anything about Western literature, and someone as influential as Shakespeare isn't being included, then there are some serious problems in the curriculum.

 

[heretic888]

I teach in a community with a Native American population, if they wanted to find a way to include some educational lessons on their culture/heritage and beliefs would it be fair to say no simply because they believe the beginning of the earth was a pile of dirt from the bottom of the sea dropped on a turtles back?

It would be quite fair to say no, if they proposed teaching it in a biology classroom. Certain other classes, however, would be most appropriate.

 

[shesulsa]

I have avoided this thread carefully, but for some reason, today I decided to don the hip boots and wade through which I have been doing for the past hour plus. And boy does my head hurt.

Sadly, we have seen a strong example of what we battle against in society - the ignorance of unilateralism in fundamentalism. One wonders if folks with these opinions are jealous because they can't afford parochial school where creationism is favored over evolutionary science. But then, that could be construed as flaming, so I would never accuse anyone directly of this.

I am still struck by the lack of evidence supporting the "creation science" theory and emotional banter which are the hallmarks of what I call the "Christian Right" (please see this thread before feeling insulted) and the power they supposedly wield on the general populus and were engaged by a certain someone who is no longer here.

HHJH - I looked for a map online (to emulate your red-and-blue) of the population of the country, but I think we can all generally agree that we can generally assume the higher populus of the country lie in the blue states, yes? And yet, the value statements of the few (bible belt) continue to wax ignorant and rule our country.

I am all for an "origins of man" elective which explores creationism, evolution, animism, etcetera and a religious studies elective which considers Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Buddhism, Agnosticism, Atheism, you name it. But I really disagree to even evolution being taught as required curriculum unless all viewpoints will be considered. There are missing links to evolution, after all.

Is it just me, or does anyone else kinda think both are at play here? Couldn't it be we were created but were, perhaps, in a different form and evolved as we can see species evidently have over the millions of years?

Regards,

G

 

[michaeledward]

I have said that the community that is paying taxes into the local public school system has the right to have their students education reflect that community as well as expose the students to a wider diversity as well.

Many members of the community do not have any interest in public education (such as my mother-in-law, whose daughter went to private school and graduated some 20 years ago). Do we allow these tax paying citizens to decide not to contribute to the local school system because they draw no tangible benefit from it? Of course, not. The community has decided that mandatory education benefits all members of society, therefore, all members of the community must contribute to it. Do we give voice to my mother-in-laws concerns by eliminating the education portion of her property tax?

Is this not the logical extension of your argument?

Is this not the argument for 'vouchers'? Let's privatize all education to a pay-for-what-you-use market system. And if people choose not to educate their young, so be it. Eliminate mandatory education for the country's youth. Let the Faith Based schools educate those who choose to pay for it. Break the backs of the teachers unions.

That is not the country I want to live in. Thank you.

Michael Atkinson

 

[rmcrobertson]

It is grossly inaccurate to describe evolution as one among many, "viewpoints," or to claim that there are, "missing links," to evolutionary theory in support of such a description.

Evolution is the best scientific account we have of how we all got here. It is as well established as any theory in science. Its lacunae do not change the fundamental theory at all; they are simply example of why many of the details still need to get straightened out--especially those having to do with the ideas that the process was, "guided," or, "deliberate," or, "purposeful," in the way so-called intelligent design theory would suggest.

It would be nice if folks either learned the sccience, or let the professionals handle it. One preferes that they learn the science...

 

[loki09789]

Many members of the community do not have any interest in public education (such as my mother-in-law, whose daughter went to private school and graduated some 20 years ago). Do we allow these tax paying citizens to decide not to contribute to the local school system because they draw no tangible benefit from it? Of course, not. The community has decided that mandatory education benefits all members of society, therefore, all members of the community must contribute to it. Do we give voice to my mother-in-laws concerns by eliminating the education portion of her property tax?

Is this not the logical extension of your argument?

Michael Atkinson

That is not the logical extension because you are talking about taxation and where the local school funding comes from and I am talking about curriculum. If the property owning, school tax paying members of the community don't want certain things included they have the opportunity to comment, lobby and vote/persuade on these issues... If she (or anyone for that matter) feels strongly about an issue they have the chance to raise their voice about it in a productive forum.

Herrie,

Amen brother.

 

[Erik]

Great. We want to teach this in public schools?

"Lev 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you-those born in your land. These may become your property. 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life.

And we want this kind of primitive racist idiocy to be taught in public schools, a place where kids must attend?

This is part of the reason we have a separation of Church and State. I trust the State far, far more than any religious body. I do not want my kids accepting religious-based information with the same trust as academic information.

 

[Flatlander]

Great. We want to teach this in public schools?

"Lev 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you-those born in your land. These may become your property. 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life.

And we want this kind of primitive racist idiocy to be taught in public schools, a place where kids must attend?

This is part of the reason we have a separation of Church and State. I trust the State far, far more than any religious body. I do not want my kids accepting religious-based information with the same trust as academic information.

This doesn't really address the topic of the thread. In other threads, we have discussed at great length the various ways of interpreting specific passages from the Bible, however, with regards to whether or not, and in what context, Biblical Creationism belongs in the classroom is the topic here.

If you disagree with the validity of the Bible in its entirety, then it is apparent that this will color your opinion of its educational value.

 

[loki09789]

Great. We want to teach this in public schools?

"Lev 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to be from the nations around you; you may purchase male and female slaves. 45 You may also purchase them from the foreigners staying with you, or from their families living among you-those born in your land. These may become your property. 46 You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life.

And we want this kind of primitive racist idiocy to be taught in public schools, a place where kids must attend?

This is part of the reason we have a separation of Church and State. I trust the State far, far more than any religious body. I do not want my kids accepting religious-based information with the same trust as academic information.

We teach 'slavery' in Social studies and ELA when we discuss the American Civil war period. We teach "Nazism" when we teach WWII (which includes Genocidal treatment of the Jews). We teach 'sex' when we teach student human reproduction and Health class issues..... do you get my point?

In a public school setting, these topics are not to be presented as "THE WAY IT IS" issues but "this is the way that people who did/do view the world this way and did these things because of it" issues.

I would say that even among those who don't see a problem with teaching 'creationism' as a survey topic that none of us are saying that it should turn into 'church' where these ideas are presented as 'the way' issues.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

This doesn't really address the topic of the thread. In other threads, we have discussed at great length the various ways of interpreting specific passages from the Bible, however, with regards to whether or not, and in what context, Biblical Creationism belongs in the classroom is the topic here.

If you disagree with the validity of the Bible in its entirety, then it is apparent that this will color your opinion of its educational value.

More specifically, Biblical creationism in the science classroom. I'm all for a comparative world religions course - I think it would be a good idea for kids to learn.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Among fundamentalists, the basic objection to Darwin is this: evolution denies the revealed truth of God's Word, as set forth in Genesis; once one aspect of that Truth is undercut, all aspects are damaged. The result is social chaos, the breakdown of the family, rising immorality, dogs and cats living together...

Therefore, a) ALL parts of the Bible would demand equal time, b) every aspect of the Bible--including the loonbox ranting about gay people in the King James version--would be shoved into every classroom.

First, Creationism; then, fundamentalist fantasies about God's Plans for women, gay people, the human race, etc., in social studies, history, sex ed, whatever.

They've been explicit: the point is to do away with humanist education, and replace with a "God-centered," curriculum that they dictate.

The idea is very much the same as with so-called, "school prayer:" get the government involved in shoving their weird little reading of the Bible down everybody else's throat.

 

[Flatlander]

First, Creationism; then, fundamentalist fantasies about God's Plans for women, gay people, the human race, etc., in social studies, history, sex ed, whatever.

It seems to me that your strenuous opposition to this is based on a fear of "opening the door" to the possibility of further fundamentalist agendizing. It seems to me that this is projectionist and unfounded, and further to that, uncompromising. Is this not ironic, given that it is in fact these fundamentalist qualities which you seem to so despise?

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that there ought to be one way or the other. What I am suggesting is that through the principles of tolerance and mutual understanding, our children will have the opportunity to be exposed to unlimited ideas, rather than propaganda. That they may be able to formulate their own opinions, rather than live a life of blind faith and naivety. That rather than imposing limits on their learning because of the concepts we fear, we can allow them the freedom to choose their own paths.

Knowledge is power.