Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[Feisty Mouse]

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...

:roflmao:

Dogs and cats living together? That's crazy!

 

[raedyn]

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 ...

I disagree. If you look at the writings of people supporting the creationist view, they are consistently filled with other fundamentalist christian rhetoic.

examples:
from the splash page of creationism.org

articles about our ancient history and the importance of our creation in God's own image and fall from grace. Each new false religion of the post-Flood period has sought to detract from our Creator and from our responsibilities in this life; evolution's effect is no different <snip> Pray about this!

Aha! It's really about the TRUE religion, isn't it? And how does prayer enter into scientific discussion?

from the FAQ page of creationism.org

At the time of the Fall, when Adam and Eve sinned we lost direct contact with our Maker. This was about 6,000 years ago. In the intervening generations it has been a struggle to preserve and pass on our place in the universe and how to get back into a right place with Him.

And these are just a couple of examples drawn from the first hits on a cursory Google search for "creationism". As you can see, their trust in God having created the heavens and the earth and constucting Eve out of Adam's rib is inextricably intertwined with the rest of their religious ideology. It is the same thing. Even in a setting designed to convince outsiders, these people cannot make their arguements without constant reference to various christian myths. These hold no water for anyone that is not that type of christian.

The sites also devote a lot of time to pointing out some of the weaknesses of evolution. The Center for Scientific Creation's website in particular spends a lot of time refuting evolution in an item-by-item fashion. That's fine by me. Infact, I even found some of their points interesting to think about. I maintain evolution is the best explaination we've currently got, but wouldn't try and claim we won't have a better explanation in the future. If evolution is correct or not is a separate issue from if creation myths are correct or not. None of these sites have provided one IOTA of evidence that their theory has any merit, just challenges to the standing theory and leave it out there as assumed that in the vaccum left without evolution, "the word of God" is the obvious answer to fill in the blank. Well that just has no creedence with a non-believer.

Also, all of the creationist sites talk a lot about the Great Flood. Super! We can have a scientific discussion where believers and non-believers can agree that there was, 5000ish years ago, a massive flood. Flatlander, you and I have even watched programs about this together that very eloquently outlined scientific & anthropologic evidence that support this idea. But believers and non-believers have different reasons for agreeing that this was the case. Believers say "Look, it's written in the Bible! The word of God! It must be true!" and non-believers say it's written in the Bible and exists in various other myths because it is a real historical event, and the Bible is only another manifestation of a culture attempting to record & interpret the events of the past.

Again, these people believe that if we agree that one portion of the Bible could have a leg to stand on, then we must accept the entire book, word for word. I whole-heartedly disagree. But this is obviously the position of those advocating for this story to be included in science class.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The term "Biblical Creationism" is accurate in describing the present conflict. A comparitive studies class would have to be termed something else, and would need to include the explanation of other creation stories of the world. "Biblical Creationism" limits it to the Christian/Orthodox Judaism's version alone (Islam's too...though I think its slightly different).

Let's assume for the sake of argument that at all levels of elementary, middle, and high school we threw out the standard science texts and replaced them with creationism texts and taught only those. Speculate as to where we would be.

-College freshman would be finding that what they'd been taught conflicted completely with their astronomy, geology, anthropology, archeology, physics, oceanography, meteorology, chemistry and history classes. Note I didn't mention biology. That isn't the only friction we would see. Creationism currently contradicts the findings of all the above scientific fields. Evolution is but one theory with which creationism conflicts.

-Students, lacking the basics because of this, might shy from the sciences in even greater numbers than they do now.

-Competing nations could as a result continue the trend towards superiority in the sciences that they currently enjoy. India has twelve of the best technical schools in the world and are exporting qualified researchers and engineers worldwide. We're taking in many of them due to a shortage of our own. The US is publishing less scientific research papers than ten years ago, and South American countries are publishing more and more. We're slipping.

-We could conceivably lose our competitive edge in military and industrial areas. Allready Japan and Europe are spending several billion on fusion research in a joint venture. America's federal expenditures on nanotech research are a fraction of Japan's. We seem even now (without our hypothetical scenario) to be losing an interest at the national level in basic research. Is this due to encroaching scientific illiteracy?

Now this is a worst case scenario and I suspect (and hope) we won't see this due to stiff resistance to sliding down such a slippery slope. Still, the argument over creationism itself costs us dearly in terms of self-respect and international esteem. It is embarrassing to have to debate this...yet debate we must for the sake of free speech. On that note...

As to the argument that creationists are being censored--that their arguments are being shouted down--hardly. There is a difference between censorship outright and the placement of boundaries. Churches are free to preach creationism. Christian home school programs and Christian schools can teach it. Evangelical cable channels are welcome to promote it. The internet is an easily accessable resource for those wanting to learn about it or, for that matter, research the pro-science counter arguments. Libraries and bookstores today carry books pulling for creationism and knocking evolutionary theory. That the debate exists clearly indicates that fundamentalist Christians are not being squelched. Shouted at, perhaps, but not shouted down...and as we've seen here on this forum they're perfectly capable of shouting right back.


Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

For those who argue against the proposition that for these fundamentalists, it all hangs together, let me suggest a peek at:

http://www.csinfo.org/Creation_Versus_Evolution_as_World-Views.htm

For those who have questions about some deliberate national strategy, let me suggest the last few pages of:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=109

These folks ain't kidding, neither.

 

[Flatlander]

I disagree.

As I have stated previously in this thread, I also do not believe that Creationism belongs in a science class. I do think that it belongs in a well rounded and equally representational philosophy class, and would support the inclusion of such class in a Secondary curriculum, to stimulate young minds, and get them thinking about intangibles. I believe that any way we can stimulate young minds is a good thing.

If you look at the writings of people supporting the creationist view, they are consistently filled with other fundamentalist christian rhetoic.

Indeed. However, I think that including the creation myth as part of a well rounded philosophy or history program doesn't necessarily require the allowance or endorsement of the entire fundamentalist agenda. I believe that the middle way exists, somewhere.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Just got this in from someone.


Regards,


Steve

 

[raedyn]

flatlander - I understand you aren't advocating for biblical creationism (thanks for the handy term, HHJH) to be included in or to replace our current science curriculum. What I was disagreeing with is your assertion that fears of "opening the door" to the possibility of further fundamentalist agendizing is projectionist and unfounded. I believe it's very soundly built on the words of these people themselves. It's all a part of their agenda.

Read Robert's links, they're enlightening.

And of course I don't believe that every Christian would take it to these extremes. But I do believe these are the people that are driving this movement. And that's a scary thought. They say the evolution theory has born only evil fruit including abortion, homosexuality, beastiality, drug culture, pollution, pornography, genocide, euthanasia, criminality, slavery... the list goes on. How they pin all this on the theory of evolution is beyond me. Nevermind that these things existed before anyone thought up the theory of evolution! And nevermind that some of these things have been done in the name of GOD or (it couldn't be!) with the assent of Christianity.

 

[michaeledward]

You know ... this conversation has evolved passed the idea of fossile evidence (chuckling to myself on that one). But, just when you think its safe to believe Genesis, news like this comes out.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/18/great.apes/index.html

(CNN) -- Scientists in Spain announced Thursday that they've unearthed a 13 million-year-old fossilized skeleton of an ape that is possibly a common ancestor of humans and great apes, including orangutans, bonobos, chimps and gorillas.

The find could add a yet another branch to the human family tree and fill in a gap in our knowledge of hominoid evolution.

"It's very special," said Frans de Waal of the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta. "It's almost as if we will have to redraw the (evolutionary) tree if these discoveries keep coming out."

Salvador Moya-Sola of the Miguel Crusafont Institute of Paleontology in Barcelona, Spain, and his colleagues describe the species, which they have named Pierolapithecus catalaunicus, in the November 19 issue of the journal Science.

 

[heretic888]

Nice discussion, guys. Keep it comin'. :asian:

And of course I don't believe that every Christian would take it to these extremes.

Oh, of course not. Like I said before, most Christians in America lean towards a type of quasi-deism.

Which means, basically, that they evince a certain type of ideological trends that are sympathetic with humanism and rationalism. A big emphasis on free will and determinism, an increasing Christian disbelief in a literal Satan ("evil", instead, is seen as a side-effect of free will), a personal God that typically avoids overt intervention and stands moreso as guide and teacher and supporter, an increasing Christian rejection of the notion that only those of their ilk are "holy" or will "go to heaven", and that sort of thing.

Even with Jesus, there is the increasing idea that he was more of a political or civic activist (in sympathies with modern American ideals), and less of a notion of an apocalyptic prophet (the traditional understanding).

The evangelical-literalist fundamentalists are a dying breed, and they know it. That's why they are so deathly afraid, and so desperate in their attempts to force their views upon the rest of us.

Yup. :asian:

 

[Flatlander]

What I was disagreeing with is your assertion that fears of "opening the door" to the possibility of further fundamentalist agendizing is projectionist and unfounded.

I will grant that the word "projectionism" was perhaps out of place in this discussion. "Unfounded" may stand, because no sources were provided. You have provided ample evidence to counter that.

I believe it's very soundly built on the words of these people themselves. It's all a part of their agenda

The clarity of this agenda carries as much weight as we allow. Ultimately, the method of delivery, the language, the context in which students are exposed to creationism will be what determines what amount of "endorsement" it may or may not receive from the representative. The agenda is theirs to promote, not ours to accept. Why not simply extract what is useful, and work with that?

I see value in the creation story. I see value in the lessons taught in the Bible. I see value in the impact that this book has had on the history of human civilization. In order to contextualize where our society comes from and the things that it has done, the creation story has an important place within the framework of Christianity's influence.

 

[Rich Parsons]

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...

Robert,

To some the world is still flat.

To some cutting into people for surgery is an afront to god, since the body is a temple, ...

The list goes on and on.

I agree it is not a list among many. It is the best theory out there that science can come up with the existing data. All these others are just stories people told to explain things to the frightened, and or to keep people frightened.

Yet, as others stated before, even yourself, Faith is belief in the absense of facts of data. I do not question a person's right to believe in their own home in their lives, etcetera, yet I do not expect to have to believe as they do either.

 

[Makalakumu]

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.

I'm not so sure. What if someone is wrong? What if you know it and you can prove it? What happens if this persons ignores the evidence and then goes about passing on this incorrect information to others...in essence passing on lies?

That is what we are talking about here. Creationism, when compared to evolution as a scientific theory, doesn't stand a chance. It is incorrect and demonstratably so. Therefore passing it off as science, despite the evidence, is nothing more then a lie.

 

[Makalakumu]

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?

In my opinion, diversity is precious and it is frightening. It takes a strong spirit to stand up and face difference and accept the fact that you may be kindred in some special way. In a philosophical way, this is a reflection of the principle of evolution. Our common ancestors bind us all, making us responsible for each other despite our differences.

This fundamentalist philosophy would do away with this responsibility. They would like to create McAmerica where everybody is the same, one food, one flavor, one God, one people, Novus Ordo Seclorum, everywhere. Diversity exists under the thumb of God and everything is safe again (referring to that mythical time that fundamentalists reinvent whenever new information disproves the history the've rewritten).

Paradoxically, they would like to change our society to the point where one can do anything to anyone for a buck. Cut down the forests, poison the water, centralize the wealth and power of this country to benefit their High Priests, and let children starve...

Perhaps it is not so paradoxical...

Our President and his ilk are basically saying, "Donate to charity if you want, but if you feel like screwing the (insert dehumanizing adjective) (insert person or people different then you), do that too."

Mission accomplished.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," the unwritten axiom for the true conservative America. Eventually, the good buried in a fundamentalists heart will be buried by this evil. My family shares special relationships with many people who share a fundamentalist beliefs and I know these people are good people, yet I feel that this strange alliance they have formed with capitalophiles is only knocking on the Devils Door.

upnorthkyosa

 

[raedyn]

I see value in the lessons taught in the Bible.

Me too, as long as we are looking at the work as a parable, not literal word for word truth.

I see value in the impact that this book has had on the history of human civilization. In order to contextualize where our society comes from and the things that it has done, the creation story has an important place within the framework of Christianity's influence.

You are absolutely correct. I think it's important to learn where people's ideas come from. It is incredibly useful to learn about our history and about WHY people thought & behaved in certain ways. Our knowledge of the past - in context - can inform our future. We can best learn from our mistakes and our triumphs if we know how we got there in the past. So I agree (I think most everyone currently in this discussion does as well), this stuff should be taught - but in the right context - just as we teach about slavery and Nazism and Greek mythology etc.

 

[Makalakumu]

The evangelical-literalist fundamentalists are a dying breed, and they know it. That's why they are so deathly afraid, and so desperate in their attempts to force their views upon the rest of us.

This letter was published in our local paper and I think that it is indicative of the fundamentalist mindset...

Election Makes Liberal Opinions Irrelevent

I can't believe how irrational you liberal ideologues are. I truly pity you. You've just been given a verdict by the people of the United States and have no ability to comprehend it. You are stunned at this devastating loss. To you, power, not morality, has been the basis of truth, and you have neither.

It shows in this campaign. You conscripted the entire media machine, Hollywood entertainers, ground war prostetylizers, and other wealthy liberal elitists to ensure the defeat of George Bush. You thought power resided within these. You lost and you are distraught. And now your secular humanistic view of the world is crumbling like a house of cards and you can't change this because you are blinded by the fog of moral relativity.

There is one lesson you need to learn in order to understand why you lost. Bush is a moral absolutist. Sen. John Kerry is a moral relativist.

The president never had to worry about being all things to all people. He's had a vision and we all know where he got it...God. He did not have to run from who he is. His decisiveness was refreshing and comforting. Kerry never had this same certainty. He had to cater to the "heralded" diversity of his party and he was the ideal candidate to represent the mongrolized liberal base of his party. He was eager to redefine his ever changing views, but never resolute. Unfortuneately, for him and all other liberals, the problem remains the same.

The understand of your dilemma is so obviously simplistic. Your opinion is irrelevant and your worldview is defunct. This twisted sense of reality has allowed you to rationalize behavior that disgusts most decent folk. There is one absolute reality, and it is not yours. Face up and think deeply about your purpose in life. Stop attempting to impose this godless ideology on the rest of us. There is hope for you and me in Jesus Christ.

Andrew T Persons
Superior, WI

Flip on the TV sunday mornings. Listen to the High Priests talk about the "mongrolized liberals." Turn on the 700 club. Watch Pat Robertson pray for to God to kill activist liberal judges. Watch our President pray in front of the cross and then drop some more bombs on little brown children.

Looks like I'm going to have to clear off a lot of places in Hell... :whip:

Evolution is only one battle in the fight against the "secular humanist" agenda.

:jedi1:

upnorthkyosa

 

[raedyn]

I am amazed at the dismissal of 49% of voters! This minority is far from irrelavant, no matter what the victors might say.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Mr. Persons' opinions in bold. It'd be nice if he were on this forum so we could answer him:


Election Makes Liberal Opinions Irrelevent

Well, if Arlen Spectre gets confirmed that'll blow this argument out of the water.

You've just been given a verdict by the people of the United States and have no ability to comprehend it. You are stunned at this devastating loss.

The verdict was handed down by a slim majority that obviously don't speak for the entire United States. As to it being a devastating loss...Persons thinks so and many Democrats seem to agree if you look at their hand wringing. It ain't over yet.

To you, power, not morality, has been the basis of truth, and you have neither.

We have both. Kick back and wait.

It shows in this campaign. You conscripted the entire media machine....

Like FOX network and Rush Limbaugh....

The understand of your dilemma is so obviously simplistic. Your opinion is irrelevant and your worldview is defunct.

Again...kick back and wait.

Thanks for the letter. I'm going to forward it to friends. This kind of hubris is going to backfire for them. I reeeeeally am going to enjoy watching them feed on each other when their agenda isn't met by Republicans.

Creationism will be one of those things I suspect will be a problem for them. If this gets a lot of press and makes any headway in the Republican agenda, expect the pendulum to swing.



Regards,


Steve

 

[loki09789]

I'm not so sure. What if someone is wrong? What if you know it and you can prove it? What happens if this persons ignores the evidence and then goes about passing on this incorrect information to others...in essence passing on lies?

That is what we are talking about here. Creationism, when compared to evolution as a scientific theory, doesn't stand a chance. It is incorrect and demonstratably so. Therefore passing it off as science, despite the evidence, is nothing more then a lie.

It has already been discussed that a faith based mental construct will not stand up in a scientific mental construct. Vice versa is true too.

I am not debating the validity or the accuracy of these beliefs. I am saying that if the community that is paying taxes into the local public school are lobbying for their community values to be represented (not in place of, instead of, or better than the science but at least represented) what is wrong with that?

Too many people here are spending time judging the values instead of focusing on how it is just another aspect of diversity education/multiculturalism.

The way that "creationism" or any other faith based ideas would be presented in the classroom would not be evangelical or recruitment, it would be presented as another view point.

In church you look at the Bible as a divine work. In an educational classroom (ELA or Social Studies appropriately) it would simply be described and explained in detail and summary as objectively as possible (yeah as possible).

I took a Bible as Lit course (two actually) where the other students were doing the same thing: Looking at it as a divine work instead of a literary work. "IT" just is there for the sake of educational discussion.

Once this kind of thing is in place, I can see it being treated like Sex in health class or disection in Bio: Note goes home to parents, parents are given the chance to pull their child from the class during that lesson and given equivalent/alternate assignments.

Like I have said before about other 'isms' being taught in school: It will be discussed in an educational/informational way NOT pushed or treated as "THE WAY" as it might be treated in a church or by 'believers' that knock on your door.

Nazism, totalitarianism, socialism, mysticism, communism....all being covered in a students education. Why would this topic be any different other than personal prejudice and judgemental views seem to be overwhelming the reasonable members of this forum who generally argue for the protection of a citizens civil liberties - including an education that represents their community and the wider world.

 

[Satt]

I just wish schools would teach kids how to get a job. LOL.

 

[michaeledward]

I am saying that if the community that is paying taxes into the local public school are lobbying for their community values to be represented what is wrong with that?

There you go again ....

You are saying that the 'community' has a voice with which to petition the curriculum. In business, we call this the 'voice of the customer'.

What are the limits to this voice?
At what point, can the voice of the community reach no further into the functioning of the school?

It seems you are presenting that the voice-of-the-customer can reach into the classroom as far as the content of material taught. You disagreed with the argument that the voice-of-the-customer could extend as far as whether anything is taught at all. Why would the voice-of-the-customer be able to affect one, but not the other?

I believe the community should decide if education is required for all children or not. (In this country, this argument has long been settled. Like most ideas, perhaps it needs to be revisited occassionally.) Once that decision is made, we should allow the experts in a particular field of study determine what is appropriate to be taught in that field.