Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[rmcrobertson]

Exactly. Pushing creationism--and make no mistake; all this nonsense about "diversity," and "open-mindedness," is simply the latest tactic adopted by fundamentalist Protestantants to impose their views on everybody else--in science classes is exactly like walking into a room where everybody's playing Monopoly, and demanding that the game include Parcheesi rules.

Nobody's even talking about "imposing beliefs." We're talking about teaching people what science actually is, how scientific method works, and what the results are of looking at the natural world from a scientific standpoint.

Now if one wishes to teach ALL "alternative," notions of creation, that's just fine--though again, the fundamentalists who push this stuff never are talking about that. Theirs is the only alternative to consider, apparently. But teach 'em all-and then explain them, much as I was originally taught, as the pre-scientific superstititions and interesting symbols that they are.

The only way that fundamentalist Creationism and "intelligent design," can be taught in a real science classroom is as myths that we just need to get over. And make no mistake--the Creationist guys are out to do away with scientific and humanist thought. That's explicitly what they say--and it's probably best to take them at their word.

Incidentally, this will mean doing away with the scientific and humanist accounts of women--it's back to the kitchen, girls, to Fulfill God's Plan. It says so, right in the Bible...and again, scope out the various creationist websites, if you think this is far-fetched. It's exactly what they say.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Pushing creationism--and make no mistake; all this nonsense about "diversity," and "open-mindedness," is simply the latest tactic adopted by fundamentalist Protestantants to impose their views on everybody else--in science classes is exactly like walking into a room where everybody's playing Monopoly, and demanding that the game include Parcheesi rules.

lol!

 

[loki09789]

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.

And I agree with you on this point. But, if the school board votes on the curriculum that, generally speaking is reviewed or even written by the faculty within, includes creationism or other models/theories of origins of life I would say that it would have to be taught responsibly so that no one is 'judged' less or more 'real' in presentation at the very least as a demonstration of respect for the people who make up that culture. There was already a discussion about teachers abusing their authority role in the class by pushing their personal values instead of simply teaching the content....is it right for a teacher of Science to reduce a set of personal values shared by a school district as 'superstitious nonsense' or simply teach the content area?

Look at how many times people here are hand slapped for not playing nice in the process of 'telling the truth' and yet 'facts' are still toted as more important that people in discussions like this. So which is it? Do we respect other POV and present/recieve them with an understanding mind or do we fight for 'truth and reality?'

If someone asks me what I think about the origins of life during one of these lessons, I would talk positively about what I believe and not bash what someone else believes.

I see a lot of 'those people' and 'ignorant' comments about those who choose to see the origins of life in the fundamentalist way - as a gesture of faith. Please remember that the idea of creationism is not a departure from the scientific method or science as a whole. It is a conscious choice to believe that there was a creator so powerful that he could bend the laws of nature to his will in order to create life. This belief is a gesture of faith. It is a willful belief that God is powerful enough to defy 'nature.' It is the belief that this act of creation should be witnessed as a 'sign' of God's might and power...doesn't mean that everyone has to believe that way. Just means that they choose to and also want that faith represented in their culture.

There are extreme believers that refuse medical intervention, won't see doctors at all or what ever because they want to live in a 'thy will be done' kind of way but the general population are not like that. They still see science, medicine, technology as things that are created based on God's gift of intelligence and creativity - and should be used in a responsible way and not abused.

It is interesting how resistant to being respectful or open to other perspectives folks can get when you hit certain topics....this is the double trouble because it is politics about religion. It is hard to believe that some of the strongest commentors about quarrenting dissent are not on the other side of civil liberities issues and even dancing on the edge of revolutionary/anarchist permissiveness in the name of a chosen 'faith' in science....

Science and Faith are not meant to be compared in the same petri dish. I don't believe they belong in the same classroom and it does not say that explicitly in the original text. I do believe that, as Americans, these people have the right to vote and use proper channels to lobby and institute their local values on their school district. I don't think that they are talking anarchy or rebellion.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sigh.

If a science teacher teaches the content area strictly, they probably shouldn't be teaching "creationism," at all. They certainly shouldn't be teaching creationism as an equally-valid scientific theory, or indeed as any kinbd of scientific theory at all.

The fact that somebody wouldn't know this is a sad indicator of the state of science education in our schools. If things weren't a mess, folks would know what science is, and how it works--and they certainly wouldn't get evolution confused with somebody's mere opinion. The simplest thing about science is this: science is a way to SEPARATE opinions from realities.

But what the hey, let's teach creationism, and its attendant network of crackpot ideas. Let's teach people that the Earth is only around 10,000 years old, despite the geological evidence. Let's teach 'em that the "Big Bang," never happened, and that the background radiation we can observe radiating anisotropically isn't there, despite our repeated observations of it. Let's teach them that the Grand Canyon was dug out overnight in a Great Flood for which there's no hard evidence. Let's teach them that evolution does not take place around us every day, that the extended fossil record is meaningless, that DNA's mechanisms are not real, that the work done on tracing back our ancestors is just some stuff pointy-head nerds made up. Dinosaurs? Not real. Noah's Ark--real; we saw it on FOX, didn't we?

In brief, let's by all means teach students that the whole beautiful framework of science, built up over the last couple thousand years, is just doody. Let's by all means teach them that a whacko doctrine, taught by a smallish crowd of right-wing fundamentalists and unsupported by any mainstream religious group in this country, is just as good as anything that people like Linnaeus and Darwin and Barbara McCourt and Gregor Mendel and Watson and Crick struggled to figure out.

Great idea. Then, let's git the rest of thet damn secular humanism. Which books ya wanna burn first?

 

[heretic888]

Please remember that the idea of creationism is not a departure from the scientific method or science as a whole. It is a conscious choice to believe that there was a creator so powerful that he could bend the laws of nature to his will in order to create life. This belief is a gesture of faith. It is a willful belief that God is powerful enough to defy 'nature.' It is the belief that this act of creation should be witnessed as a 'sign' of God's might and power...

Actually, the Biblical "creation science" being discussed here is a very extreme departure from the scientific method. It directly contradicts existing evidence, providing no worthwhile counterevidence in its place.

Belief in a God, Intelligent Designer, or Supreme Being is not anti-science, of course --- but the belief that said Being somehow made the universe in a week some 7,000 years ago most assuredly is.

Also, to note, the doctrine of "intelligent design" is rather harshly criticized even in philosophy classes. Aquinas attempted to use the argument to prove the Christian-Catholic God existed (or, as he put it, "it is rational to believe") --- but, even at its best, the argument can only approximate that an intelligent Other (which may be Zeus, the Buddha, Allah, or an advanced alien civilization) worked at a couple of things.

Its really simple, really. What you are calling "God" --- if it is to understood to have any substantive reality at all (as opposed to being a projection of one's own superego) --- is ultimately transrational. You will not find evidence for such a being in the prerational, physical world of materialism. You will not find evidence for such a being in the rational, logical world of humanism. There is none, zilch, nada.

Any "evidence" for "God" will be found in the appropriately transrational world --- of illuminations, nada, satoris, contemplation, awakenings, and so on. Its not gonna be found by geologists or other hard scientists, and its not gonna be found by people really good at Socratic method.

People really need to stop pretending they have any physical or even rational evidence for this kinda stuff, when it just ain't there.

 

[qizmoduis]

And I agree with you on this point. But, if the school board votes on the curriculum that, generally speaking is reviewed or even written by the faculty within, includes creationism or other models/theories of origins of life I would say that it would have to be taught responsibly so that no one is 'judged' less or more 'real' in presentation at the very least as a demonstration of respect for the people who make up that culture. There was already a discussion about teachers abusing their authority role in the class by pushing their personal values instead of simply teaching the content....is it right for a teacher of Science to reduce a set of personal values shared by a school district as 'superstitious nonsense' or simply teach the content area?

You keep bringing this idea up as if it has any relevance to the discussion. It doesn't. This isn't about cultural diversity or points of view or personal values. It's about science, and the attempts of christian fundamentalists to force schools to teach christianity in science class. Nothing more or less. Quite simply put: the school board, regarless of local majority support, does not have the authority to teach religion in any setting. The constitution explicitly forbids it. Period. End of sentence.

Note that this does allow (and I would say require) schools to to teach ABOUT religion and religions (<-- plural) in their various historical and cultural contexts. But again, this point is really irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Look at how many times people here are hand slapped for not playing nice in the process of 'telling the truth' and yet 'facts' are still toted as more important that people in discussions like this. So which is it? Do we respect other POV and present/recieve them with an understanding mind or do we fight for 'truth and reality?'

Reality always wins over beliefs and 'POV'.

If someone asks me what I think about the origins of life during one of these lessons, I would talk positively about what I believe and not bash what someone else believes.

I have several problems with this. First, the sincerity of one's beliefs does not excuse those beliefs from crititicism. Frankly, this whole idea of personal religious beliefs somehow being sacrosanct is ludicrous and points out yet another problem with religion as a whole. This kind of thing doesn't happen in science. Beliefs, data, experiments, observations, speculations, hypotheses, theories, etc. all exist to be attacked, repeatedly, mercilessly, in order to get better. What good is a belief if it isn't subject to criticism? Heck, I'd go so far as to say that students are in school to have their beliefs challenged. Beliefs by themselves are not automatically worthy of respect.

Second, it's still not relevant to the discussion, which is about attempts to supplant the teaching of science with the teaching of one particular minority version of christianity, which again, is forbidden by the Constitution.

More in the same vein...

You either don't get it, or are deliberately trying to argue a completely different topic. Next thing you know, you'll be advocating the teaching that pi = 3 in math class for the sake of "cultural diversity". After all, that's in the bible as well, and is actually supported by a small group of fundamentalists in this country. They believe that the value 3.1415926... is an atheistic conspiracy against their religion.

Your argument would require that math teachers teach that point of view in math class, even though the math can be shown to be trivially incorrect

But wait! Believe it or not, you have a way out of this mess you've gotten yourself into. If you want to teach pi = 3 in math class, show that it's correct. If you want to teach creationism in science class, support it scientifically. Right now, the body of "creationist literature" consists entirely of psuedo-scientific screeds against the various bodies of scientific knowledge (biology, paleontology, astronomy, physics, cosmology, geology and anthropology). Every single argument advanced by the supporters of creationism has been rejected, rightfully so, as being non-scientific in addition to being plainly wrong. In other words, creationists need to actually get off their lazy, bible-soaked, hyper-political asses and do science. They need to support their ideas with data and experiments and scientific models and stop whining about "the vast, atheistic conspiracy" against them.

That day will never happen, of course, because they're not really interested in doing science anyway.

 

[Melissa426]

Actually, the Biblical "creation science" being discussed here is a very extreme departure from the scientific method. It directly contradicts existing evidence, providing no worthwhile counterevidence in its place.
Its really simple, really. What you are calling "God" --- if it is to understood to have any substantive reality at all (as opposed to being a projection of one's own superego) --- is ultimately transrational. You will not find evidence for such a being in the prerational, physical world of materialism. You will not find evidence for such a being in the rational, logical world of humanism. There is none, zilch, nada.
People really need to stop pretending they have any physical or even rational evidence for this kinda stuff, when it just ain't there.

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commende for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible." Hebrews 11: 1-3

http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html

The first two points note that basically nothing should be accepted on faith, all human problems should be answered thru critical reasoning, scientific inquiry, etc.

These are in such opposition that there never will be an acceptable way to reconcile the two points, IMO.

I believe that creation story is Biblical, a reference to God's involvement in the lives of his Creation. If we can't pray in school, we probably shouldn't be teaching biblical beliefs in school--- the old separation of Church and state argument.

My two cents,
Melissa

P.S.
(and this probably belongs on another thread) where are all the charitable organizations that secular humanists started to bring "fulfillment, growth, and creativity to all individuals and humankind in general." For example, the Salvation army, Samaritan's Purse, the United Way, etc.

 

[Flatlander]

You keep bringing this idea up as if it has any relevance to the discussion. It doesn't. This isn't about cultural diversity or points of view or personal values. It's about science, and the attempts of christian fundamentalists to force schools to teach christianity in science class. Nothing more or less. Quite simply put: the school board, regarless of local majority support, does not have the authority to teach religion in any setting. The constitution explicitly forbids it. Period. End of sentence.

Just to clear something up here, allow me to post an excerpt from the original article that Rich linked to spark the discussion:

Wisconsin law mandates that evolution be taught, but school districts are free to create their own curricular standards, said Joe Donovan, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction.

It seems that as long as curricular standards are the responsibility of the school district, cultural diversity will play a role. If you have a community full of fundamentalists, and a majority of fundamentalists on the board, expect that to be reflected in the curriculum. In order to prevent that, laws need to change.

 

[loki09789]

1. You keep bringing this idea up as if it has any relevance to the discussion. It doesn't. This isn't about cultural diversity or points of view or personal values. It's about science, and the attempts of christian fundamentalists to force schools to teach christianity in science class. Nothing more or less. Quite simply put: the school board, regarless of local majority support, does not have the authority to teach religion in any setting. The constitution explicitly forbids it. Period. End of sentence.

2. Note that this does allow (and I would say require) schools to to teach ABOUT religion and religions (<-- plural) in their various historical and cultural contexts. But again, this point is really irrelevant to the topic at hand.

3. Second, it's still not relevant to the discussion, which is about attempts to supplant the teaching of science with the teaching of one particular minority version of christianity, which again, is forbidden by the Constitution.

.

1. Scientifically speaking, these people are a cultural group based on their shared values and ideas. It doesn't have to be 'foriegn' to be culture. There are scientific discussions of the 'culture of schools/military/business/.....' all the time. It is about culture. What I am seeing is a lack of scientific objectivity in this discussion from the science defenders in general.

2. This is exactly my point. Teaching about creationism within the appropriate content - which could be ELA or Soc St. (and again, the class was not specifically stated as Science in the article nor was any specific curriculum/format mentioned about the Wisc school case) along side other POV is fine with me.

3. THe article is NOT about subplanting science with Creationism.

4. The Constitution, like the Bible, is a document that people interpret all the time. The 'majority' don't have the right to 'subplant' a minority simply because they don't agree with them or disapprove of them....like people have discussed about ethnic/racial/religious minorities all the time here.

5. Change the 'culture' to Muslim faith (which is already discussed in Soc/Global classes along with Buddhism and other world views). What if a group of Muslims in the local school districts were petitioning/lobbying and following the democratic process to get their culture represented in the local curriculum? How many here would be so openly hostile about it?

I understand and agree that Creationism is not rational. I don't subscribe to it personally, but we as fellow citizens of 'those people' don't have the right to block their lifestyle. As long as they don't break the law. They don't circumvent the legitimate political process they are within their rights.

The opposition is just as in the right to lobby/petition/vote to counter these actions. The school board, school union, administration can negotiate rationally, fairly and respectfully to work out how and where these ideas are presented within the school philosophy and mission....

Herrie, in far more eloquent fashion than I, basically said - as far as I understood - that no matter what you want to do to rationalize or support your 'faith,' by its very nature it can not be supported completely with evidence. Comparing or examining creationism or any faith issue through a scientific design is going to be setting it up for failure...

I am not evaluating or defending creationistic theories. I AM talking about the fact that as citizens these people have the right to be represented and are actively exercising it.

I notice no one really wants to touch the idea of how they either personally or through their own faith group reconcile those 'irrationallities' that they choose to believe even within this scientific world.

In this school district the community imposed their philosophical idea on the school district on the curriculum by passing an issue of homework. It was mandated that students be given at least 5-8 hours of homework a week. The local 'cultural value' about work ethic and teaching was influencing the school/teachers and the curriculum because of it. This was before my time, but personally I think that is ridiculous to impose. I am not a big 'homework' giver as a teacher. If I had been here (and tenured ), I would have been against it. But, if it was passed, I would have to do it or it might be grounds for dismissal.

As citizens of a democracy, we all have free will....oh wait that is the religious term....we all have freedom. I didn't mean to overlap my national values with my religious influence on them....I mean...there I go again.....

 

[loki09789]

In order to prevent that, laws need to change.

Thanks for the post Flat,

My concern is that if a democratic/freedom based nation starts passing laws that bar certian ideological groups/cultures from equal representation isn't that even MORE unconstitutional than any church/state issues with this?

 

[Flatlander]

Thanks for the post Flat,

My concern is that if a democratic/freedom based nation starts passing laws that bar certian ideological groups/cultures from equal representation isn't that even MORE unconstitutional than any church/state issues with this?

Another problem being that this closes the door to an "exit" if you find that the community you are in is moving in a curricular direction that you are uncomfortable with or otherwise not wanting your children exposed to. Forcing homogeneity of curriculum could have the side effect of being "not quite what you had in mind".

 

[heretic888]

1. Scientifically speaking, these people are a cultural group based on their shared values and ideas. It doesn't have to be 'foriegn' to be culture. There are scientific discussions of the 'culture of schools/military/business/.....' all the time. It is about culture. What I am seeing is a lack of scientific objectivity in this discussion from the science defenders in general.

2. This is exactly my point. Teaching about creationism within the appropriate content - which could be ELA or Soc St. (and again, the class was not specifically stated as Science in the article nor was any specific curriculum/format mentioned about the Wisc school case) along side other POV is fine with me.

3. THe article is NOT about subplanting science with Creationism.

4. The Constitution, like the Bible, is a document that people interpret all the time. The 'majority' don't have the right to 'subplant' a minority simply because they don't agree with them or disapprove of them....like people have discussed about ethnic/racial/religious minorities all the time here.

5. Change the 'culture' to Muslim faith (which is already discussed in Soc/Global classes along with Buddhism and other world views). What if a group of Muslims in the local school districts were petitioning/lobbying and following the democratic process to get their culture represented in the local curriculum? How many here would be so openly hostile about it?

I understand and agree that Creationism is not rational. I don't subscribe to it personally, but we as fellow citizens of 'those people' don't have the right to block their lifestyle. As long as they don't break the law. They don't circumvent the legitimate political process they are within their rights.

The opposition is just as in the right to lobby/petition/vote to counter these actions. The school board, school union, administration can negotiate rationally, fairly and respectfully to work out how and where these ideas are presented within the school philosophy and mission....

Herrie, in far more eloquent fashion than I, basically said - as far as I understood - that no matter what you want to do to rationalize or support your 'faith,' by its very nature it can not be supported completely with evidence. Comparing or examining creationism or any faith issue through a scientific design is going to be setting it up for failure...

I am not evaluating or defending creationistic theories. I AM talking about the fact that as citizens these people have the right to be represented and are actively exercising it.

I notice no one really wants to touch the idea of how they either personally or through their own faith group reconcile those 'irrationallities' that they choose to believe even within this scientific world.

In this school district the community imposed their philosophical idea on the school district on the curriculum by passing an issue of homework. It was mandated that students be given at least 5-8 hours of homework a week. The local 'cultural value' about work ethic and teaching was influencing the school/teachers and the curriculum because of it. This was before my time, but personally I think that is ridiculous to impose. I am not a big 'homework' giver as a teacher. If I had been here (and tenured ), I would have been against it. But, if it was passed, I would have to do it or it might be grounds for dismissal.

As citizens of a democracy, we all have free will....oh wait that is the religious term....we all have freedom. I didn't mean to overlap my national values with my religious influence on them....I mean...there I go again.....

Okay, there are a few things I'd like to emphasize yet again:

1) Once again, the people lobbying for "creation science" are not concerned with multiculturalism, tolerance, diversity, or any of that other liberal/postmodern yumminess (which can turn into politically correct nonsense and nihilism at its extremes). What they are concerned about is force-feeding their religious fundamentalism to the rest of the world. As Mr. Robertson pointed out, just peruse some of these guys' websites for ample proof of this agenda. Its easy to see why some of the "science defenders" are a little uppity about stuff like that.

2) Creation myths and legends are already taught in comparative religion, social studies, theory of knowledge, philosophy, and cultural anthropology (although a class exclusively dedicated to discussing "origins of man" might be interesting) --- in fact, the number of classes and fields that cover "creationism" far outweigh those that cover the theory of evolution. So, there really is no point in arguing for them to be "represented" in the school curriculum. No, this is about them trying to get the Bible forced into a classroom.

3) I think most of us would be just as alarmed if a Moslem fundamentalist group tried to push their myths onto the rest of us as we are with Protesant fundamentalism. This, I'm afraid, was a misassumption on your part.

4) As a student myself --- with hopes to be a college teacher one day --- I find the notion that having to cirumvent the established and accepted positions in any given academic field at the behest of the "public will" is equivalent to intellectual malpractice. Such individuals that willingly distort their curriculum and contradict the accepted notions in a given field --- at least at an introductory level class --- are seriously violating their responsibilities as educators.

5) As "eloquent" as I may or may not be ( ), the point I was trying to get across is that reason and rationality can tell us no more about "God" than geology and physics can tell us about the human ego. This isn't necessarily a matter of "faith" (as mystics directly experience the Divine on an almost continuous basis), nor am I advocating a rigid dichotomy between "science" and "religion" (I would suggest Wilber's The Marriage of Sense and Soul as a more meaningful and practical alternative to Gould's NOMA). But, the simple truth is that the Divine (or Spirit or Buddha Mind or God or Tao or Shiva or Brahman or whatever) is properly transrational. Which means, basically, that any attempts to describe It (including my attempt right now) are doomed to failure, since It is "beyond" the subject/object duality inherent in rational, Aristotlean thought.

6) Calling "free will" a religious idea isn't entirely accurate. You will find that notions of predeterminism, fatalism, and "undeniable fate" generally dominated the Western intellectual atmosphere during most of the Dark Ages. With the Renaissance, and even moreso with the Age of Reason --- when science and secular humanism really began to guffaw about the stupidity of fundamentalism, we see ideas like deism, determinism, and "free will" really begin to show up.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[loki09789]

Okay, there are a few things I'd like to emphasize yet again:

1) What they are concerned about is force-feeding their religious fundamentalism to the rest of the world.

2) So, there really is no point in arguing for them to be "represented" in the school curriculum. No, this is about them trying to get the Bible forced into a classroom.

3) I think most of us would be just as alarmed if a Moslem fundamentalist group tried to push their myths onto the rest of us as we are with Protesant fundamentalism. This, I'm afraid, was a misassumption on your part.

4) As a student myself --- with hopes to be a college teacher one day --- I find the notion that having to cirumvent the established and accepted positions in any given academic field at the behest of the "public will" is equivalent to intellectual malpractice.

5) As "eloquent" as I may or may not be ( ), the point I was trying to get across is that reason and rationality can tell us no more about "God" than geology and physics can tell us about the human ego... since It is "beyond" the subject/object duality inherent in rational, Aristotlean thought.

6) Calling "free will" a religious idea isn't entirely accurate....
Laterz. :asian:

1. What 'they' are concerned about and what is going on in this article are two different things. I am discussing what is within the context of the article at hand. I do agree that there is a larger agenda being pushed in total. Unfortunately, or fortunately, 'they' are not trying to block, censor or replace evolution in this case so the larger agenda isn't really the issue.

2. I tend to agree with you academically. I don't agree with you in a political sense. They are working within the system and being active, there is no civil grounds to block them - unless they are talking about creationism as an agende as described in #1 but since that is not what is being described in the article, non issue.

3. Again, though I see and agree with the 'larger plan' that is not what is being presented in this case.

4. So, private/corporate donations to colleges/universities that suddenly have programs that spring up in relation to the business area of the 'philanthropists' doesn't happen? Curriculum changes for the public will all the time. Consider the values/educational philosophy of Vigotsky vs. others. Social values will always influence what is considered acceptable curriculum.

5. Theology is a subset of philosophy, IMO, so I agree with the idea that Science/Religion/'God' issues really don't hold up in comparison. Apples and oranges - thus my point about not teaching this stuff in science.

6. There may be other places/historical contexts that teach 'free will' as well. It may not have been a part of religious teachings early on either. It is/was part of the religious education that I recieved and was mentioned in my Bible as Lit classes. It may not be a complete explanation, but it isn't inaccurate to say that free will is part of the current 'Christian' education.

 

[rmcrobertson]

One still doesn't see what this has to do with blocking anybody's, "lifestyle." it has to do with teaching science rather than fundamentalist versions of creation.

One remains interested in a) why ONLY the fundamentalist Protestant view deserves special recogition; b) why we should overlook their express mission of removing science from public schools; c) why in the world sschools should teach superstitions as truths.

Freedom of religion, my foot. That's the last thing this is about.

 

[heretic888]

1. What 'they' are concerned about and what is going on in this article are two different things. I am discussing what is within the context of the article at hand. I do agree that there is a larger agenda being pushed in total. Unfortunately, or fortunately, 'they' are not trying to block, censor or replace evolution in this case so the larger agenda isn't really the issue.

2. I tend to agree with you academically. I don't agree with you in a political sense. They are working within the system and being active, there is no civil grounds to block them - unless they are talking about creationism as an agende as described in #1 but since that is not what is being described in the article, non issue.

3. Again, though I see and agree with the 'larger plan' that is not what is being presented in this case.

4. So, private/corporate donations to colleges/universities that suddenly have programs that spring up in relation to the business area of the 'philanthropists' doesn't happen? Curriculum changes for the public will all the time. Consider the values/educational philosophy of Vigotsky vs. others. Social values will always influence what is considered acceptable curriculum.

5. Theology is a subset of philosophy, IMO, so I agree with the idea that Science/Religion/'God' issues really don't hold up in comparison. Apples and oranges - thus my point about not teaching this stuff in science.

6. There may be other places/historical contexts that teach 'free will' as well. It may not have been a part of religious teachings early on either. It is/was part of the religious education that I recieved and was mentioned in my Bible as Lit classes. It may not be a complete explanation, but it isn't inaccurate to say that free will is part of the current 'Christian' education.

1. Okay.

2. Okay.

3. Okay.

4. Because it happens often does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. Besides, I don't think philanthropic influencing is the same thing as willingly teaching something contrary to a given field's accepted positions and truths (although, it does depend on the circumstances).

5. The point I was trying to make is that "science" and "religion" are not necessarily apples and oranges (as very few involved in religion are actually concerned at all with approaching the transrational), but that "God" is neither a physical nor a rational qualia. There are "sciences" to approach transcendental qualia, but they are not in biology (at least not directly).

6) Yes, "free will" and "determinism" are derived from things like secular humanism, rationalism, and so forth. The reason they are so commonly popular in Christianity today is because most Western Christians practice a form of quasi-deism, as I have said before, and not the more historically-prevalent fundamentalism that the traditionalists do.

Laterz.

 

[qizmoduis]

Just to clear something up here, allow me to post an excerpt from the original article that Rich linked to spark the discussion:
It seems that as long as curricular standards are the responsibility of the school district, cultural diversity will play a role. If you have a community full of fundamentalists, and a majority of fundamentalists on the board, expect that to be reflected in the curriculum. In order to prevent that, laws need to change.

Actually, my point stands. The Constitution trumps any local attempts to modify curricula to include religious instruction. This has been hashed out repeatedly over the past few decades and confirmed every time by the Supreme Court.

 

[loki09789]

4. Because it happens often does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. Besides, I don't think philanthropic influencing is the same thing as willingly teaching something contrary to a given field's accepted positions and truths (although, it does depend on the circumstances).

5. The point I was trying to make is that "science" and "religion" are not necessarily apples and oranges (as very few involved in religion are actually concerned at all with approaching the transrational), but that "God" is neither a physical nor a rational qualia. There are "sciences" to approach transcendental qualia, but they are not in biology (at least not directly).

6) Yes, "free will" and "determinism" are derived from things like secular humanism, rationalism, and so forth. The reason they are so commonly popular in Christianity today is because most Western Christians practice a form of quasi-deism, as I have said before, and not the more historically-prevalent fundamentalism that the traditionalists do.

Laterz.

4. It isn't as upfront, but it is there and similar. I would rather have these kinds of issues clearly and openly worked out like in this Wisc. issue than have someone 'donate' a science wing to a school/college...that was conditional on using it to teach robotics/nuclear/bio/chemical science....and then having MOOG or DuPont suddenly using that institution as a recruiting pool - which was the end run desire.

5. Well said. I agree. On this point we have already discussed which classes would be better suited for "God" topic discussions.

6. Yup. On a human/culture level of religion, it was bound to happen because of basic competition. Either find a way to incorporate it into what you do or loose a number of your following to other ideologies.

On a less jaded level, this is good because it acknowledges the 'many doors to one room' idea IMO. Of course, the institution won't present it that way .

On a more jaded level, this is no different than the use of technology to create gadgets and tricks that keep people showing up to your temple because it has the best gratification/novelties. Automatic doors that visitors will believe are the gods responding to prayers, coin operated holy water dispensors, singing mechanical birds manipulated by priests (or at least the interpretation of what the singing means...).

 

[loki09789]

Actually, my point stands. The Constitution trumps any local attempts to modify curricula to include religious instruction. This has been hashed out repeatedly over the past few decades and confirmed every time by the Supreme Court.

And, quite honestly, the fact that Creationism over Evolution isn't the form of this curricular decision. They may have modified it to lobbying for inclusion instead of replacement because they were being shot down previously. If that is the case, good. That means that either the gov., opposing interest groups or a combination are actively participating in the democratic process.

This issue in Wisc. is instituted right now. I wonder if there is any action about taking it to a higher court to be changed or thrown out?

 

[loki09789]

One still doesn't see what this has to do with blocking anybody's, "lifestyle." it has to do with teaching science rather than fundamentalist versions of creation.

One remains interested in a) why ONLY the fundamentalist Protestant view deserves special recogition; b) why we should overlook their express mission of removing science from public schools; c) why in the world sschools should teach superstitions as truths.

Freedom of religion, my foot. That's the last thing this is about.

Please read the original article, it is not about 'rather.'

a. It doesn't, but it is the group that is actively seeking representation in the curriculum. Other groups have the opportunity afforded them to do the same thing if they choose to: Lead, follow, get out of the way. No one is going to these people and saying "here, do you want to do this?" They are actively participating. Same option that anyone has if they choose to use it.

b. We are not overlooking it, and as was mentioned by another poster, the supreme court has shot down cases of subplanting or replacing evolution with creationism in the past.

c. No one said to teach 'superstitions' as truth - or at least I didn't. We teach some very toxic ideas/concepts to our children all the time in school:

Science/recipies and 'how to' possibilities for technological and bio/chemical nasties that can become drug labs or bomb factories.

Nazism/Facism

Fitness/sports that teach group cooperation that can transform into 'gang' mentallity....

Teaching another POV about the origins of the world isn't any different - as long as it is taught responsibly and objectively.

We teach or study violence and physical force and don't automatically become murderers or thugs do we?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Paul, I appreciate the point you have been making - that, in this particular case, there is a group of people in the local community who want representation for their pet issue. I've made replies, as have others, addressing the creationism-versus-science issue, whereas you have been focusing more on the what-are-their-rights? issue.

I think one of the reasons people - particularly, if I may say so, some scientists - may be so reactive about this topic is the general trend in this country - and is, in part, due to changes on the national level - moving away from science-based decisions, and more to faith-based decisions - even when the topic at hand should be addressed scientifically.

For example, an issue near and dear to my heart - global climate change. Scientists - the vast majority of them - are standing on their heads, trying to get the Administration to acknowledge what is going on. The Administration deliberately chooses to take a non-scientific approach.

This was not at all meant as a thread gankage, but may explain why people - like me - are so concerned with science education and the scientific process being respected. Like all human endeavours, it is not perfect. But I fear that, in more than one arena, it is under attack by faith-based explanations.

I am also someone who thinks spirituality and faith are very important parts of our identities as people. But currently, in our country, we seem to be undergoing a conservative-christian-protestant backlash, and it worries many.

My thoughts.