Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[raedyn]

on a side note to the current discussion, but relevant to original topic;
see http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/

 

[rmcrobertson]

We must teach whatever belief comes up in the community, no matter how wacko, as equally-valid as the very best knowledge of the sciences and the humanities that we have. Fine. Let's run with that.

1. A significant portion of the American public believes in astrology. Astrology is now a mandatory subject--more than that, it must be taught as equally-valid theory--in all astronomy classes.

2. Many Americans believe that the Holocaust never happened, or that it wasn't anything like six million to ten million killed in gas chambers. Fine. All history classes must teach this as an equally-valid version of historical events.

3. Many of us believe that HIV is a) a CIA plot; b) not the cause of AIDS. Fine. We must now teach this as equally-valid science in all health/sex ed classes.

4. Many Americans believe that we should ban Mark Twain, Judy Blume, "West Side Story," and a range of others, from libraries. Fine. We must now ban these books, and teach students that censorship and book-burning are perfectly acceptable ideas.

5. A significant minority of Americans believe that black people really are inferior. And Asians are smart and sneaky. Fine. We must now teach racist ideas as perfectly-valid, because the local community wants it.

This is, of course, insanity. One was taught that Americans did not do such things--that it was the bad guys who did them.

Incidentally, one's experience teaches that students are universally aware of what Creationism says. Less than 50% are familiar with even basic evolution.

Congratulations.

 

[Makalakumu]

1. Generalization. There are many a debate in religious study - whether between sects or within sects. There are also hertical treatment of people with diverse views on a subject (oh say like evolution.....)..

There is no heresy in science. No scientist has ever been burnt at the stake or excommunicated because of his or her "beliefs". There is only evidence and lack there of. A scientist relies the colleages that disagree in order to pain a better picture of the real world. This is not the case in religious circles...

What if somewhere in the future, there is a way to identify, measure and show evidence of some divine scheme?.

Care to wager on that postulation?

Does the 'majority' or 'popular' views of some in science have the right to squash the views of others who disagree...it is happening right now..

Is it? People world wide deride creationism because it isn't science...and there beliefs matter because we are talking about science. Science descries there world too.

THere is a theory of an aquatic ape as part of the human evolutionary process (or a possible parallel evolution that died out) that has been laughed out of 'majority' scientific views. The Berring st. idea about the human migration of the American continent has been challenged and resisted early on.... so disagreement in Science does not automatically mean joy nor do all scientists agree when they see the same data.

There are many things on which scientists disagree. There are also many things that scientists agree. When scientists have an abundance of data that is repeatable by anyone, then it is safely assumed that we have glimpsed this real world. Evolution is a good example of this.

Conviction in your beliefs/ideas 'right' isn't only in religion. There are many 'educational superiority king/queens' out there that behave just as narrowly as religious superiority king/queens..

In my experience, this has been the exception and not the rule. A scientist is swayed by data. Pet theories are extraordinarily discouraged.

Oh, btw, the idea that the laws of nature are for everyone sounds a lot like "Jesus/God died for all men, regardless of time or place...." it's for everyone..

In a world where Jesus does not exist, F=ma still applies. So do a whole host of other natural laws. Your comparison falls flat because you are confusing a meme with the real world. Thoughts are precious because the are so rare in this vast universe. Yet, even they follow Natural laws. Evolution for instance...

Are these fundamentalists so arrogant that they can declare their memes reality? 2+2 does not equal 5.

2. No, the fundamentalists are lobbying for their particular cultural view to be presented in their childrens education. Beyond that it is speculation..

This is not speculation. Read the literature posted. They see evolution as a direct frontal assault on genesis and they seek to banish it. And they have accomplished it in the recent past! Recent moves are only steps toward this old goal.

3. No. The majority are not throwing away the scientific method, only seeking representation within their community. Are we a democracy or not?.

Democracy can be a double-edged sword. Good can come from it and so can evil. And yes, they are throwing away the scientific method. They are trying to shove a theory that is replete with singularities into an arena that is supposed to describe the real world. This is an old battle, religion vs reason.

4. Again, this is not a case of censoring information or limited book lists. It is a case of including a local cultural norm in the local educational system. Isn't this argument against allowing them to include their culture in there education ironic when your very argument is intolerant of their view?.

Including the local cultures beliefs into the educational curriculum is totally appropriate in other subject areas. Not science. Science describes something that transcends culture. There is only one real world and a meme can only be a reflection of that world. A meme can never transcend the real world...the laws of nature.

5. What slave state? New World?..... If there is some grand scheme involved it is going to be an old world anachronism not an 'new world' if religion is going to rule - which I don't see in this case in any way.

The implications of putting particular cultural memes into a science curriculum are staggering. Again, science describes the real world. By giving a cultural meme the label science, one is saying that this meme describes the "real world" and others do not. This is arrogent bigotry at its finest.

Furthermore, it undermines science when one says a cultural meme somehow describes the real world without repeatable evidence to back up that claim. Do we have a Christian science and a Muslim science and a Russian Science and a Chinese science and a Communist science and a Capitalist science...etc

Are all of these worlds equally valid or are there natural laws that pervade all of them?

Guess what, evolution pervades all of them.

 

[Tgace]

Just goes to show that everybody will turn dictator when the issue is right.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was a a college professor who taught pretty much what some of us teach--letters, and science--and a liberal by the standards of his day. Certainly, he supported the Union cause, and opposed slavery, whatever the mores of local communities.

One wonders what he'd have thought about the abandonment of reason, and the idea of human progress, in favor of an affirmative action and political correctness that valorizes the notions and the whims of a minority group of Christian wackos--who, by the way, can be traced directly back to the "strict constructionists," of Genesis who used their accounts of human origins and God's purposes to justify slavery.

Carl Sagan, cited bizarrely above as a legitimation of know-nothingism, would've got along just fine with Chamberlain, a personal hero of mine. Jerry Falwell and the rest of the Bible-thumping ignoramuses would not...whoops, one should've cited Bob Jones, a staunch supporter of Creationism and the ban on inter-racial dating at his, "University."

But hey, Savonarola sends a big shout out to the rest of the book-burners.

 

[Makalakumu]

Just goes to show that everybody will turn dictator when the issue is right.

I suffer under the dictatorship of reason and I am ever thankful for it's flame to burn away my ignorance.

 

[Flatlander]

I suffer under the dictatorship of reason and I am ever thankful for it's flame to burn away my ignorance.

For me, reason is more like a council than a dictatorship.

:asian:

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Just goes to show that everybody will turn dictator when the issue is right.

How is saying creationism isn't scientific a dictatorial thing? Science is a process that relies on particular things. Creationism does not fulfil these things to be considered a science. It can be something else, but not science.

Again, as I've said before, it doesn't mean I'm going to go to a creationist and say "your beliefs are wrong". I will, however, try to keep people from teaching it to kids AS A SCIENCE, because that is doing those kids a disservice.

 

[Tgace]

Im talking about the "we cant let them" tone Ive been seeing; and the "democracy is a two edge sword" stuff. Im not "for" creationism. Im against circumventing the public will without very good reasons, and some sort of process.

 

[Tgace]

For me, reason is more like a council than a dictatorship.

:asian:

Exactly.
:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

For me, reason is more like a council than a dictatorship.

:asian:

That is a better way to put it, because it takes into account different points of view...but in science, which was where my comment was directed, evidence trumps POV...yet POV are important. See what I'm saying?

 

[Makalakumu]

Im talking about the "we cant let them" tone Ive been seeing; and the "democracy is a two edge sword" stuff. Im not "for" creationism. Im against circumventing the public will without very good reasons, and some sort of process.

Do you think preserving science in our society is a worthy enough cause? I don't like to circumvent the public will...but I can imagine the world they imply. It would be a huge step back for our country. In the end, I can't circumvent the public will anymore then you can. We live in a democracy and I we vote. If I lose, then I lose. My children will learn what I think is appropriate and they will be better prepared for scientific carreers then their Christian peers.

The interesting thing is that science education used to stink in this country. Before WWII Biology was memorizing lists of animals. After Sputnik, our leaders made the decision to fund science education to a level it has never yet surpassed. Cold war paranoia fueled it all. In our schools, we have 40 and 50 year old equipment lying storage closets that no one uses anymore...and there is some cool **** among the junk. Cyclotrons, Cloud chambers, van de graff generators, untold numbers of huge coils...and I now know how to use it...but the point is imagine what we could have in our classrooms today if science were really supported in this country.

Evolution vs Creation is just part of a picture that is broad based. Science and education in this country have been neglected by a series of leaders who had other things on their mind...like robbing the national treasury. I find it ironic that the paranoia in the "War on Terror" has illicited the opposite response.

 

[heretic888]

That is a better way to put it, because it takes into account different points of view...but in science, which was where my comment was directed, evidence trumps POV...yet POV are important. See what I'm saying?

Sometimes, though, the delineation between the two can be a little blurry.

Myth of the given, and all that.

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

Im talking about the "we cant let them" tone Ive been seeing; and the "democracy is a two edge sword" stuff. Im not "for" creationism. Im against circumventing the public will without very good reasons, and some sort of process.

It just occurred to me that our "founding fathers" circumvented the public will for the good of the nation. They did it with the Bill of Rights and then they made the Constitution incredibly difficult to amend. So, is the Light of Reason important enough to protect with a Constitutional amendment? Our country was founded in the Age of Enlightenment and the Constitution is based on those principles. Have we reached a point in our country where we need to protect science from those it challenges? What would an amendment protecting science look like?

 

[heretic888]

It just occurred to me that our "founding fathers" circumvented the public will for the good of the nation. They did it with the Bill of Rights and then they made the Constitution incredibly difficult to amend. So, is the Light of Reason important enough to protect with a Constitutional amendment? Our country was founded in the Age of Enlightenment and the Constitution is based on those principles. Have we reached a point in our country where we need to protect science from those it challenges? What would an amendment protecting science look like?

Well, it is true that the American founding fathers circumvented the public well for the "good of the nation". By all accounts, a war against England seemed to be a rather unpopular prospect for most of the populace --- and it is quite unlikely the majority supported anything resembling Separation of Church and State (as opposed to Freedom for All Protestants).

However, I myself am a bit leary about a constitutional amendment that specifically protects a particular ideology and philosophy. One of the purposes of the existence of the Democratic State is to not promote nor support any favored version of the Good Life. Although, a background encouragement may be acceptable --- but, this most assuredly does not entail the establishment of new laws or amendments.

Unless, of course, you are referring to protecting the institutional practice of science itself. In which case, the first amendment seems to have most of the bases covered.

Laterz.

 

[Tgace]

However, I myself am a bit leary about a constitutional amendment that specifically protects a particular ideology and philosophy. One of the purposes of the existence of the Democratic State is to not promote nor support any favored version of the Good Life. Although, a background encouragement may be acceptable --- but, this most assuredly does not entail the establishment of new laws or amendments.

Well put. My thought on this whole thing too.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Ah. Consensus is vital, when it comes to teaching scientific method (again, it isn't merely evolution that's at stake: it's the accurate teaching of the nature of science)...but presumably not at all vital, when it comes to launching dubious wars based on inadequate or even falsified evidence, despite the direct, clear opposition of about half of the American public.

This is precisely the sort of consequence one can expect, when the reasoned evaluation of information, the generation of rational hypotheses, and the testing of those hypotheses against reality, is replaced by catering to the faith-based, blind prejudices of a group of fundamentalist zealots who actively refuse to examine Nature.

It's Lysenkoism come back again, and pushed by a central government dominated by ideologues.

One would be curious to read the responses to a repeatedly-asked question: what makes Creationism--latest in a series of desperate attempts to maintain ideas that are in complete defiance of scientific method and physical reality--any different from a) Lysenkoism, b) "faith-based," arguments in favor of slavery, c) Islamic fundamentalist arguments in favor of women's oppression, d) the assorted bizarre ideas enforced by the government of North Korea?

 

[Satt]

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

I agree with myself!!!

 

[loki09789]

However, I myself am a bit leary about a constitutional amendment that specifically protects a particular ideology and philosophy. One of the purposes of the existence of the Democratic State is to not promote nor support any favored version of the Good Life. Although, a background encouragement may be acceptable --- but, this most assuredly does not entail the establishment of new laws or amendments.

Unless, of course, you are referring to protecting the institutional practice of science itself. In which case, the first amendment seems to have most of the bases covered.

Laterz.

I agree Herrie. I read through the original text and there is no specific statement that clearly states that creationism must be taught in Science class in the Wisc. case. The only clear cut statement is that alternate/various theories need to be represented. That means it could be negotiated/worked out that Creationism would be put in Soc.St. or ELA class.

I am leary of a fundamental idea that only Science can have depth of meaning or value to teaching people 'reality' in the world. Granted, teaching Creationism as science isn't my cup of tea either - but this is not a case of censorship of Science. They are NOT saying that science and the scientific method is "EVIL" - and they are applying a scientific method to making their case and organizing their argument.

That only in science is debate or contraversy aloud or acceptable. There is a history - as Herrie has mentioned - of religious based groups that permit and encourage questioning and discovery. Government approved "science" was the basis for the race line for the Nazi party during WWII. They used science to defend their political agendas and subjected others of 'different' points of view (artisans, teachers, musicians, Jews....) to some pretty horrible things - all because these people didn't fit into the Nazi's "scientific" view of the world...

The price of a democracy is tolerance and pluralism...whether we personally agree with it or not. Lobby, vote, be active - that is all we can do.

Pretty 'liberal' for a 'staunch Republican' (as I have been called on occasion).

I wonder how people in general - and UpNorth specifically - reconcile their faith values with their scientific rationale. Why should we have the right to impose our personal or sub-culture values on others who reconcile their faith/science values differently - other than through the constitutionally protected civil liberty preserving process that is in place now.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

That only in science is debate or contraversy aloud or acceptable. There is a history - as Herrie has mentioned - of religious based groups that permit and encourage questioning and discovery. Government approved "science" was the basis for the race line for the Nazi party during WWII. They used science to defend their political agendas and subjected others of 'different' points of view (artisans, teachers, musicians, Jews....) to some pretty horrible things - all because these people didn't fit into the Nazi's "scientific" view of the world...

The price of a democracy is tolerance and pluralism...whether we personally agree with it or not. Lobby, vote, be active - that is all we can do.

Pretty 'liberal' for a 'staunch Republican' (as I have been called on occasion).

I wonder how people in general - and UpNorth specifically - reconcile their faith values with their scientific rationale. Why should we have the right to impose our personal or sub-culture values on others who reconcile their faith/science values differently - other than through the constitutionally protected civil liberty preserving process that is in place now.

I would not try to impose a particular worldview on others - my perspective of the world is probably very different than most people I meet.

Science, like faith, can be used as a bludgeon - as a tool for authority by one group over another. Both systems are vulnerable to abuse in that way.

The core of science is that it is a process - not that you have gathered certain pieces of data, or that you have a degree from somewhere - but you follow a process with a critical eye. Often in the history of science, and scientists, people have lost this vision in pursuit of a different goal - and, in the case of Nazis, racism and genocide. I think I've mentioned it before, by SJ Gould's The Mismeasure of Man traces some "interesting" science performed by people determined to demonstrate that certain people - of a race, or gender, or whatever - are less intelligent than the typical European white male.

I would not stand up in a school and tell a student that their religious beliefs are wrong, even if I disagree with them. But I would tell them, in a science class, when something is following the process of science, and when it is not.