Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

"Cultural diversity." Ludicrous. Creationism began--and remains--the fundamentalist mythology invented, maintained, and promulgated by an almost-exclusively white group of Protestants in this country, who have made it very clear indeed that they intend to remove evolution from science classes, sex ed from health classes, any mention of gay people from history, and any book of which they disapprove--there's an extremely-long list--from school libraries. And oh yes--they tie forcing creationism onto science curricula directly to forcing their prayers down students' throats, and reinstituting paddling. Read their websites: that's what they explicitly say.

They're our very own homegrown version of right-wing mullahs, intellectually speaking, and you want to force their ideas down everybody's throats in the name of, "cultural diversity."

Which does have the virtue of bringing up the matter of race--useful, given the racism inherent in Creationist doctrine. Fundamentally, these folks have a little problem: the science says that the human race--all of it--originated in Africa. Oops; one understands their problem. They rest their ideas on a literalist reading of Scripture--oh good; that's exactly the kind of reading that was used to justify slavery, on the grounds that black people were descendants of Noah's son, Ham, ordained by God to serve. They insist on each state's right to...oh wait; where've we heard THAT one before? Oh yes...Lester Maddox at the Pickrick restaurant.

Tell you what. Let's put creationism in bio textbooks exactly as it was done back when I was in, oh seventh grade--you know, back when according to these folks American education worked, back when we did the Pledge every day, back when they did indeed have paddling and prayer and all the rest of the nonsense. When I was a kid, in about 1966, CREATIONISM WAS TAUGHT AS A PRE-SCIENTIFIC, SUPERSITITIOUS DOCRTRINE THAT BELONG WITH OTHER QUAINT DOCTRINES SUCH AS THE ONE ABOUT THE EARTH RESTING ON THE BACKS OF TURTLES. Then, my teacers went on to explain the differences between religious viewpoints, and scientific ones.

Anybody think that doing things exactly the way we did them back, oh, thirty or forty years ago, which the likes of Jerry Falwell define as the good old days, will satisfy these clowns?

The point is this: these guys don't want to go back to tradition. They want a radical, revolutionary change in our schools, so that they work the same ways religious schools work in Iran.

That's why this is dangerous nonsense. It isn't simply the complete ignorance of the last 500 years of scientific development. It's the agenda, pushed on behalf of a smallish group of white men who believe that their country's been overrun by...you know...them.

But support it, by all means.
 
the science says that the human race--all of it--originated in Africa

While I agree with the majority of your previous post, Robert, this claim here isn't entirely accurate.

Currently in basic paleoanthropology, there are a few different hypotheses on how humans evolved: the "replacement" model (which is usually, but not always, centered in Africa by theorists --- southwest Asia and Mesopotamia are popular locales, too); the "multiregional" or "regional continuity" model (which also tends to place Africa as one of the many places that humans evolved contemporaneously in); and a sort of "middle ground" model (which combines elements of both).

It is true that the "replacement" model is currently the most popular one (and it almost always centers the action in Africa), but it is not the only model taken seriously in academic circles.

I would agree, however, that there is a fair amount of racist and sexist themes underlying the arguments put forward by "creationists".
 
heretic888 said:
I would agree, however, that there is a fair amount of racist and sexist themes underlying the arguments put forward by "creationists".
Same could be said about evolutionary theories.
 
loki09789 said:
Same could be said about evolutionary theories.
Can you give an explanation or example of what you mean by this?

Is this a reference to the "survival of the fittest" idiom by which rich white men sought to justify their ascendency to social/political/economic kingship? (I don't want to put words in your mouth:idunno: )

Peace,
Melissa
 
Maybe it has something to do with blonde haired, blue eyed Germans around the 1940's?
 
heretic888 said:
Currently in basic paleoanthropology, there are a few different hypotheses on how humans evolved: the "replacement" model (which is usually, but not always, centered in Africa by theorists --- southwest Asia and Mesopotamia are popular locales, too); the "multiregional" or "regional continuity" model (which also tends to place Africa as one of the many places that humans evolved contemporaneously in); and a sort of "middle ground" model (which combines elements of both).

It is true that the "replacement" model is currently the most popular one (and it almost always centers the action in Africa), but it is not the only model taken seriously in academic circles.

One thing that I would like to point out is that the disagreement in this case has nothing to do with opinion, point of view, or democracy. It has to do with the evidence. One side is showing evidence and providing an argument and another side is doing the same. Currently, the afrocentric theories are winning out because of the wealth of evidence people have found in africa to support the theory. If the other side is able to use more evidence to support their theory, then the paradigm shifts.

Science is not a game where everyone can play. Science is a brutal competition of ideas and if your idea does not have the evidence to back it up, then it is not taken seriously. This is how science is done and if fundamentalist christians want to change this, then they are redefining science.

This type of change won't have a great impact if only a few local areas do it, but on a statewide basis or a nationwide basis, the ramifications of redefining science to include all viewpoints regardless of the evidence would be immense. (by the way, the above is a coded statement by fundamentalists, what it really means is inclusion of their viewpoint) Should this be allowed to happen? We live in a democracy and people could very well vote for this type of change...for good or ill.

The article itself talks basically about casting doubt on evolutionary theory, yet further reading clearly shows that this is just part of the fundamentalist agenda. Casting doubt on the theory of evolution in science class makes alternatives seem more probable...ie Creationism suddenly becomes more attractive to people ignorant of the evidence.

The reality of the situation is that this is a stepping stone. The Right needs to make baby steps with its agenda because the big picture would scare too many people. They are being patient and calculating, make no mistake. They have also learned to manipulate through ignorance. They are also highly organized. Crackpots or not, the appropriate response is to organize and educate on a widespread basis. Scientists can no longer just trust that the evidence is so clear that the choice is obvious. If creationists want to play scientists then they need to be prepared for the appropriate attacks. No beliefs are sacrosanct in science. Reality trumps everything.

Creationism is a weed of unreason that very much resembles Lysenkoism and it bodes to cause the same type of damage as that fraudulent ideologic science. Convincing people to see this on a widespread basis is probably the only way something like this can be defeated in our society. Present the evidence and the choice is obvious. The key is PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE...which is another thing fundamentalists would like to curb...

upnorthkyosa
 
loki09789 said:
Same could be said about evolutionary theories.

Not with any degree of evidential certainty which is why those theories were thrown out. This is another way that science is different then religion.
 
Melissa426 said:
Can you give an explanation or example of what you mean by this?

Is this a reference to the "survival of the fittest" idiom by which rich white men sought to justify their ascendency to social/political/economic kingship? (I don't want to put words in your mouth:idunno: )

Peace,
Melissa
"Survival of the fittest", at least in terms of biological evolution, has no racist or political undertones or agendas whatsoever. I believe what you're referring to is Social Darwinism, a rhetorical stance which misapplies Darwin's evolution to a social sphere, where it doesn't belong.
 
Melissa426 said:
Can you give an explanation or example of what you mean by this?

Is this a reference to the "survival of the fittest" idiom by which rich white men sought to justify their ascendency to social/political/economic kingship? (I don't want to put words in your mouth:idunno: )

Peace,
Melissa

Hitler killed our threw out all scientists who espoused evolutionary theory in Germany unless they pressed a crackpot notion that Jews and colored folk were inferior to whites. The evidence didn't matter and even at that time, the evidence in this case was clearly against such a postulation.

The Nazis also pushed something that was called "human natural selection" in which they reasoned that mentally retarded or physically disabled people were "unfit" to reproduce. Millions of people were forcebly sterilyzed or murdered because of this.

Real evolutionary theory says that the more genetic difference a species has in its gene pool, the healthier that species is. This is backed up by genetic observation and population observations in which species with narrow gene pools and large gene pools are subjected to environmental change. Those species with the greatest amount of difference are able to better deal with the change and in many cases, survive where the narrow gene pool species does not.

If we turn this into a value discussion to compare the differences between evolutionary theory and Nazi ideology, evolutionary theory values the diversity of a species recognizing the fact that it is integral to that species survival.

Difference is strength.

upnorthkyosa
 
Wow, no wander so many of my friends are trying to home-school their kids now. My younger brother just graduated high school recently. It is kind of funny, because he can talk you blue in the face about evolution vs. creationism, BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY JOB HUNTING SKILLS!!!!!!! Sad. I still love him though.
 
upnorthkyosa said:
One thing that I would like to point out is that the disagreement in this case has nothing to do with opinion, point of view, or democracy. It has to do with the evidence. One side is showing evidence and providing an argument and another side is doing the same. Currently, the afrocentric theories are winning out because of the wealth of evidence people have found in africa to support the theory. If the other side is able to use more evidence to support their theory, then the paradigm shifts.

Well said. ;)

upnorthkyosa said:
Science is not a game where everyone can play. Science is a brutal competition of ideas and if your idea does not have the evidence to back it up, then it is not taken seriously.

Well, not unless you are talking about the "Historical Jesus" debates. *ducks*

Its rather incredible how so many people acknowledge a position that has practically zero evidence to support it --- be it "creationism" or the "historical Jesus". *ducks again*

The main difference is that, for whatever reasons, the "historical Jesus" is intellectually vogue at this time. "Creationism", on the other hand, is not. *ducks yet again*

Heh, sorry. Couldn't help myself. :p

upnorthkyosa said:
The article itself talks basically about casting doubt on evolutionary theory, yet further reading clearly shows that this is just part of the fundamentalist agenda. Casting doubt on the theory of evolution in science class makes alternatives seem more probable...ie Creationism suddenly becomes more attractive to people ignorant of the evidence.

The reality of the situation is that this is a stepping stone. The Right needs to make baby steps with its agenda because the big picture would scare too many people. They are being patient and calculating, make no mistake. They have also learned to manipulate through ignorance. They are also highly organized. Crackpots or not, the appropriate response is to organize and educate on a widespread basis. Scientists can no longer just trust that the evidence is so clear that the choice is obvious. If creationists want to play scientists then they need to be prepared for the appropriate attacks. No beliefs are sacrosanct in science. Reality trumps everything.

Creationism is a weed of unreason that very much resembles Lysenkoism and it bodes to cause the same type of damage as that fraudulent ideologic science. Convincing people to see this on a widespread basis is probably the only way something like this can be defeated in our society. Present the evidence and the choice is obvious. The key is PRESENTING THE EVIDENCE...which is another thing fundamentalists would like to curb...

Exactly. ;)
 
RandomPhantom700 said:
"Survival of the fittest", at least in terms of biological evolution, has no racist or political undertones or agendas whatsoever. I believe what you're referring to is Social Darwinism, a rhetorical stance which misapplies Darwin's evolution to a social sphere, where it doesn't belong.

The term "survival of the fittest" actually comes from Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin himself never used the term. This is a rather common misassumption many people have.

And, rest assured, Social Darwin is one of the 19th century "evolutionist"* positions that is biggoted, racist, sexist, and scary in every sense of the word.

*Note: please recall the differences between "evolutionism" and the biological theory of evolution.
 
heretic888 said:
The term "survival of the fittest" actually comes from Social Darwinism. Charles Darwin himself never used the term. This is a rather common misassumption many people have.

And, rest assured, Social Darwin is one of the 19th century "evolutionist"* positions that is biggoted, racist, sexist, and scary in every sense of the word.

*Note: please recall the differences between "evolutionism" and the biological theory of evolution.
And justified, reinforced, inspired many an ugly action on the planet - similar to the 'evils' that were justified by faith based motives such as the Crusades and other religiously motivated (at least in the propagandized versions).

Give it enough time in civilization and 'science' as the new religion will be the motive and justification for just as many - if not more because of the brutal efficiency of technology and how it is a force multiplier - 'evils' as religions have been given credit for over history.

As far as explaining my Evolutionary theories comments and racism and such.

These ideas are not thrown out. They exist and are believed in varying degrees - just like there are varying 'factions' within religious beliefs....

Science, like religion, has its range of disciples - lay people, the 'masses', the 'experts/priest/scientists' and has it's hierarchy and 'sects' (Catholicism, Judeism, Muslim....) and even has it's variations within (Chemical biologists, Paleobotanist.....)

There are those who are 'scientists' that are far from altruistic and use it to make personal profit/status/reputation....and abuse it to rule over people.

In Science and Religion as discipline, there are disciples. These disciples follow leaders. There are some very 'scientific religious leaders' and there are some very 'religious (can I say dogmantic) scientific leaders' and so on. Then there are the rest that fall somewhere in the middle...

Where in science do values/morals/ethics fit? Where is the scientific rationale for ethical practices? It is simply 'cohabitation/consensus?' or is it more 'community.'

The reason that characters like the infamous "Ex Mrs. Frasier Crane/Lilith" are so funny is because of how she struggles to be so scientific/rational but has to balance that with her intuitive/emotional and spiritual side...as we all do.

Maybe it needs to be a tangental thread, but no one has touched how/where they balance their scientific/faith views on the world but seem to feel free bashing others for where they put that line to mark where it is for them.
 
loki09789 said:
Maybe it needs to be a tangental thread, but no one has touched how/where they balance their scientific/faith views on the world but seem to feel free bashing others for where they put that line to mark where it is for them.
Go for it. You apparently have thoughts on that subject.

[As an aside, I don't know that everyone bashes others for their 'line in the sand' concerning scientific/faith views. Mostly, one will continue to believe what he believes, despite proof to the contrary. Contrary is what humans can be.]
 
One is quite well aware of the competition between "out-of-Africa," and other hypotheses. However, they don't change the basic concept that our origins trace back to that continent.

Well-trained students shouldn't need all that much specialized work on job-hunting, though I do recollect getting a lot of that. They need it now because schools have had more and more ridiculous claptrap jammed on them by groups like Creationists.
 
loki09789 said:
Maybe it needs to be a tangental thread, but no one has touched how/where they balance their scientific/faith views on the world but seem to feel free bashing others for where they put that line to mark where it is for them.
I think that, perhaps, in part because this balance involves some kind of faith, has a lot to do with life experiences, and involves How You Think The World Is, some people can be happy to sit back and say, "we see it differently, and that's OK", whereas others think everyone should share the same view - or else you are wrong, and/or threatening them.
 
Feisty Mouse said:
...whereas others think everyone should share the same view - or else you are wrong, and/or threatening them.

Or threatening to infringe on their civil liberties because of a difference... or even condoning 'revolution' because of it.
 
loki09789 said:
Or threatening to infringe on their civil liberties because of a difference... or even condoning 'revolution' because of it.
lol - so far, I don't think I've tried to threaten anyone's civil liberties.

And revolution would come not from one person's unhappiness with the "line in the sand", but from many, right or wrong.
 
Personally, I'd never interfere with anyone's God-given right to be as dumb as dirt and ignorant as all hell.

We've simply been arguing that nobody should have the right to force their religious fantasies down everybody else's throats, nor to walk into science classes and force their little fairy tales into the curriculum.

However, if one DOES choose to remain dumb and ignernt, then they've pretty much surrendered their ability to argue about evolution in a meaningful fashion. That's why they so often resort to Bible-thumping and bullying...
 
Back
Top