Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[Tgace]

I'm not sure how to respond to this, but I'll give it a go. I've got a Masters in Education and now in Physics. Does this give my opinion more weight when talking about issues involving these two topics?

If I was respectful in giving this opinion to you and it went against something you believed, how would you react?

What if my opinion was soundly grounded in fact?

upnorthkyosa

In a democracy, should that allow you to override the public will?

In that vein, should I be the "last word" and final arbiter on law enforcement around here? I think my opinion on the topic should bear a little more consideration due my experience, but I dont expect or want people to "clam up" because I know better.

Personally, until a moral line is crossed, I think we should be extremely careful about ignoring the public will because "we know better than them...the ignorant fools".

If a teacher can say, "scientists think we develpoed through evolution but some people believe in creationism. Make your own choice" than who cares if its said in a science class or a social studies class. How much time can you spend teaching creationism anyway? Either you believe or you dont. I wouldnt think there would be a lot of subject matter to dwell on.

BTW: I "believe" that evolution is the most likely mechanism of lifeform development. However it dosent bother me that others believe in creationism. Most of them probably aren't going to become biologists anyway.

 

[rmcrobertson]

One continues to be astonished not merely by the lack of understanding of the differences between science and faith, and by the refusal to accept that the fundamentalists mean precisely what they say, but by the utter rejection of the Enlightenment values that were so precious to Franklin, to Paine, to Jefferson, to Adams, and to the others who framed this country.

For the 2, 416th time then--and recognizing that it's useless--science is not predicated upon belief, unless you think that the existence of the material universe is simply a matter of belief. Science involves the generation of reasoned hypotheses based upon previous knowledge, and the subsequent testing of these hypotheses by observation and experiment. Religion does not. When you teach kids that evolution and fundamentalist Protestantism offer equally-valid theories of human origins, you are lying about what science--and for that matter religion--fundamentally are. When precisely was it that lying to students, and distorting the nature of what they are studying, became an American value?

One recommends perusing already-posted links, in reference to what Protestant fundamentalists are demanding and to their plans for the future. Their notion is that evolution is OF A PIECE with sex ed, multiculturalism, etc., as teaching destructive of basic moral values. Indeed, these guys repeatedly link evolution to promiscuity, the rise of homosexuality, the decline of school prayer, etc., etc., etc. They do not want compromise. They want these things, and many others, removed completely. They demand compulsory fundamentalist prayer. They demand "abstinence-only," sex ed. They demand book censorship. And oh yes--they demand that women be forced back into what they conceive (and "conceive," is preciselt the right word) as their traditional role. They make these demands, and they assert these relations, in virtually every piece of literature they put out. One is disposed to believe them.

Most of all, it is disturbing to see the rejection of the fundamental values--humanist, Enlightenment, scientific--upon which our Constitution was framed. One supposed that rightist political correctness knows no bounds, but one is surprised to read the repeated rejection of basic American values.

 

[michaeledward]

I think it is so great when Robert says stuff like that. It doesn't hurt that he is correct either.

Science is not supposed to be about what the community standard is. As I recall, Galileo got into a bit of trouble with those community standards. But, in the end, he was right. So, do we teach what is right .... or what is the community standard right-now?

 

[Tgace]

Are these people saying they want Darwin banned from the classroom? I thought they just wanted creationism taught as well.......a little different from the Galileo example. Nobody (as far as I can see) is talking about banning thought, just including another.

 

[michaeledward]

Not at all .. it is very American to be 'Fair' and present differing points of view.

Except, the two issues being discussed do not carry equal weight. One, as Robert so clearly spelled out three posts back, is based on rigorous testing and evaluation, as well as processes that seek to disprove any assumptions that may mislead, and finally be repeatable in different place at different times. The other is because someone 'Says So' (be that someone a local authority or a generations perished author).

Curriculum should not be based on what is 'Fair', but what is 'Known' and 'Knowable'.

 

[Tgace]

I just think people are twisted around bringing religon into the classroom, unless its some "other" religon or culture we must be "tolerant and openminded" about.

I remember creationism being taught alongside evolution when I was in grade school and that was the late 70's early 80's. So I just cant get too worked up over the subject. If the religious segment was trying to suppress evolutionary theory that would be a different story.

 

[Tgace]

Additionally, if creationism/darwinism is being reinforced at home anyway, how much of a difference will this make? Let the school present each thought and leave it at that.

The educators just seem to be more upset over the fact that they dont believe in creationism and have to teach it IMHO.

It also seems odd that people who would have a cow if a religious group tried to keep evolution out of the classroom are for keeping creationism out of the classroom because this isnt about being "fair". I thought "inclusiveness" was a liberal buzzword.

 

[Makalakumu]

Are these people saying they want Darwin banned from the classroom? I thought they just wanted creationism taught as well.......a little different from the Galileo example. Nobody (as far as I can see) is talking about banning thought, just including another.

Yes, they are. Check out a little of what Ken Ham has to say...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/ham.asp

 

[Makalakumu]

I just think people are twisted around bringing religon into the classroom, unless its some "other" religon or culture we must be "tolerant and openminded" about.

I remember creationism being taught alongside evolution when I was in grade school and that was the late 70's early 80's. So I just cant get too worked up over the subject. If the religious segment was trying to suppress evolutionary theory that would be a different story.

They are and they have. There have been many instances across the country where school boards or administrators have outright banned the teaching of evolution.

 

[5 hand swords]

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.

Or...
If you think of the Bible as equal to other great early documents about how to build a social structure that works based on rules of law for behavior, but that existed in a pre-scientific framework.
Might this also color your opinion as to it's scientific relavence?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Good to know that it is, indeed, OK to be lying to students about what science is, in the name of compromise with community standards.

One wonders if teaching creationism as what it is--a) an interesting aspect of Christianity; b) an opposite of scientific thought; c) a fringe belief no longer held by the Catholic Church as well as groups such as the National Council of Churches; d) a good example of superstition; e) an interesting aspect of anti-humanist and anti-modern thought; f) one among several (the most obvious being fundamentalist Islam) attempts to roll back the clock to the 13th century--would be an acceptable compromise.

From Robert A. Heinlein, "Year of the Jackpot:"

"TENNESSEE SENATE VOTES TO REPEAL LAW OF GRAVITY"

 

[heretic888]

People often seem to forget that the State has rights, too. One of this is that its citizens have a certain modicum of proper education.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Additionally, if creationism/darwinism is being reinforced at home anyway, how much of a difference will this make? Let the school present each thought and leave it at that.

The educators just seem to be more upset over the fact that they dont believe in creationism and have to teach it IMHO.

It also seems odd that people who would have a cow if a religious group tried to keep evolution out of the classroom are for keeping creationism out of the classroom because this isnt about being "fair". I thought "inclusiveness" was a liberal buzzword.

Well, that's another problem with talking about different groups and assuming that no creationism = liberal agenda.

Not every conservative in this country is 1) a fundamentalist Protestant Christian, or 2) wants creationism taught as science in schools.

Having schools present non-science as science would be doing kids a disservice. How much further behind other industrialized nations does the US have to fall, before we realize how important it is?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Or...
If you think of the Bible as equal to other great early documents about how to build a social structure that works based on rules of law for behavior, but that existed in a pre-scientific framework.
Might this also color your opinion as to it's scientific relavence?

Social Structure.

I see we should stone people for certain acts.

I see we should not eat pork at all. ** this was because people did not know how to cook it to avoid issues. **

Eat Fish only on Friday, ** which is a light meat to help in the purification process of the Sabbath of the 7th day of the week which is from Sunset on Friday to Sunset on Saturday. **

It was a good idea for guiding people at that time. The faith portions still are relavent, yet, no one follows 100% of every word in the Bible. If they do, then most likely they could not function in society today. So, just like Robert pointed out, rolling back the clock is what people seem to want, in this aspect. I personally do not know how to go back in time, nor how to change everyone on the earth to get theri views back to flat world and medicine is the work of "Satan".

:idunno:

 

[heretic888]

So, just like Robert pointed out, rolling back the clock is what people seem to want, in this aspect. I personally do not know how to go back in time, nor how to change everyone on the earth to get theri views back to flat world and medicine is the work of "Satan".

Or, as Jon Stewart put it, "bring the world back to a state that never even existed in the first place".

 

[Tgace]

Personally, I just dont think this is a place where its necessary for the government to step in (is that what ya'll want? or is this just a gripe session?). If the people of the state want it, well its their loss. I just think we should be very careful about where and when its necessary for us to "not allow" our fellow countrymen to do what they want, as long as its legal.

 

[TonyM.]

The flat world thing was just meme from Washington Irving. Most people never believed that nonsense, especially sailors. I call what John Stewart is intimating national cognative dissodence. Who new Leon Festinger would inadvertingly predict the end of true democracy and reason.

 

[heretic888]

Actually, most people did believe the world was flat.

It was part of the whole metaphysical system of the time --- the world had to be flat, and the sun had to revolve around the earth, and the earth had to be the center of the universe.

Why?? Because, "God" had to literally be "up there" watching all of us --- and if the world wasn't flat, then he could only see half of what's going on at any given time.

In addition, the "flat earth" idea also fitted in with the notion that "heaven" is literally "up there" (where "God" is), and "hell" is literally "down there" --- i.e., there was belief in a 3-tiered layering of the world.

 

[Tgace]

Did they chance their minds because some government mandated it. Or did they chance their minds because they were "properly" educated.

 

[heretic888]

Did they chance their minds because some government mandated it. Or did they chance their minds because they were "properly" educated.

It should be noted that not everyone in the populace held to "flat earth" beliefs. Like heliocentrism and evolution, the "round earth" are among concepts that philosophers and scientists (such as Plotinus, Pythagoras, etc) have held to for centuries.

Think Darwin was the first one to propose evolutionary ideas?? Nope, he was jsut the first to support it with hard evidence. Think heliocentrism originated with Galileo?? Nah. Likewise, many other philosophers of the time disbelieved the predictive power of astrology and doubted the notion that the world was "flat".