Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[PeachMonkey]

BTW - What's wrong with astrology?

As a bit of a laugh over a cuppa when reading the paper, nothing. As anything more substantive, everything.

See: http://www.skepdic.com/astrolgy.html

 

[Tgace]

I find the impassioned defense of the purity of science here very similar to the defense of religious belief.

 

[Makalakumu]

I find the impassioned defense of the purity of science here very similar to the defense of religious belief.

The defense of a religious belief usually turns out to be a defense against the evidence, whereas science is a defense of the evidence. They are actually very dissimiliar.

 

[Tgace]

Whos talking about the "belief"? Im talking about the people.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Whos talking about the "belief"? Im talking about the people.

The only thing you're accomplishing (other than sniping) is being wrong; the defenses people are making of scientific procedure are actually backed up by process and logic. Perhaps a stronger background in actual science would advance your understanding of the issue.

Faith is an entirely different matter.

And, as heretic will happily point out, there's always the scholarly, scientific approach to the religious experience itself.

 

[MisterMike]

Sniping??? :idunno:

 

[Tgace]

Point is, everybody has their angle on "reality" and will resort to very human emotions and attacks on the opposition while defending it...

I think that the fear that fundamentalist religion is going to turn the US to a scientific "dark age" is kind of a stretch. If it does I think its a sign that science isnt answering some sort of need in the people that religion is. How to fix that? I have no idea.

 

[Melissa426]

Point is, everybody has their angle on "reality" and will resort to very human emotions and attacks on the opposition while defending it...

I think that the fear that fundamentalist religion is going to turn the US to a scientific "dark age" is kind of a stretch. If it does I think its a sign that science isnt answering some sort of need in the people that religion is.

Amen, brother!:asian:

Agree or disagree, the illogical, irrational, and against all the evidence need for some people to have the creation myth taught in public schools demonstrates their impassioned compulsion to spread their deep-seated beliefs regarding their core spiritual values to an unbelieving world, in the presumption that the message will reach the hearts, minds, and souls of the desperate, hopeless, unredeemed peoples of their community, country, and earth who after seeing the light will no doubt step up and become fully committed members of the family of God, even if those people didn't realize that they had a void that needed filled.

(Hmmm.
I don't think I 've written a sentence that long since grad school 15 years ago. It's almost Faulkner-ish. )

It's paternalistic and intolerant and will not succeed, IMHO.

Personally, I still think it should stay out of the classroom. I think I know better ways to reach those people who need to hear the message.

Peace,
Melissa

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Amen, brother!:asian:

Agree or disagree, the illogical, irrational, and against all the evidence need for some people to have the creation myth taught in public schools demonstrates their impassioned compulsion to spread their deep-seated beliefs regarding their core spiritual values to an unbelieving world, in the presumption that the message will reach the hearts, minds, and souls of the desperate, hopeless, unredeemed peoples of their community, country, and earth who after seeing the light will no doubt step up and become fully committed members of the family of God, even if those people didn't realize that they had a void that needed filled.

(Hmmm.
I don't think I 've written a sentence that long since grad school 15 years ago. It's almost Faulkner-ish. )

It's paternalistic and intolerant and will not succeed, IMHO.

Personally, I still think it should stay out of the classroom. I think I know better ways to reach those people who need to hear the message.

Peace,
Melissa

Melissa, I think you make a very good point, which hasn't been mentioned so far in this thread, I think - that trying to merge creationism into classrooms is probably one of the least sucessful ways of actually proseltyzing!

 

[michaeledward]

Agree or disagree, the illogical, irrational, and against all the evidence need for some people to have the creation myth taught in public schools demonstrates their impassioned compulsion to spread their deep-seated beliefs regarding their core spiritual values to an unbelieving world, in the presumption that the message will reach the hearts, minds, and souls of the desperate, hopeless, unredeemed peoples of their community, country, and earth who after seeing the light will no doubt step up and become fully committed members of the family of God, even if those people didn't realize that they had a void that needed filled.

An 'unbelieving world'?

As I understand it, approximately 95% of the population of the world believes in a power greater than themselves.

If this premise is true, then the issue is more about people not believing the 'right' information, as opposed to their 'unbelief'.

Mike

 

[rmcrobertson]

OK, goin' to all caps, in the hopes this will cause some folks to actually read and respond.

1. SCIENCE IS NOT, REPEAT NOT, A BELIEF SYSTEM. Science, as every damn historican of science will tell you, is a method of hypothesizing, testing through experiment and observation, re-testing, and further developing theories. SCIENCE IS A WAY OF SEPARATING WHAT'S MERELY BELIEVED FROM WHAT IS IN FACT TRUE ABOUT NATURE. The clear fact that some folks don't know this is evidence of the damage done to science education over the last thirty years.

2. BECAUSE SCIENCE IS AN EMPIRICISM, IT CANNOT BE USED TO EVALUATE METAPHYSICAL ISSUES. At best, science-like logic and science-like methods can be used to offer some strong suggestions about which beliefs are likely to be just plain nuts. Conversely, METAPHYSICS CANNOT TELL US MUCH ABOUT SCIENCE.

3. CREATIONISTS DO NOT WANT ALL BELIEFS TAUGHT EQUALLY, AND THEIR BELIEFS SUBJECT TO THE DEMANDS SCIENCE MAKES FOR PROOF. They explicitly state that they want ONLY THEIR beliefs taught, and they want science either completely suppressed as godless humanism, or warped until their ideas are supported. They will NOT, REPEAT NOT, tolerate having their claims examined.

4. CREATIONIST BELIEFS REST UPON CLAIMS ABOUT THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, AND ABOUT THE SCIENCES THAT ARE NOT MERELY WRONG--THEY'RE ABSURDLY WRONG. For example, creationists insist that the earth is "young," certainly less than 100, 000 years. To entertain this weird notion, it is necessary to assume that nearly everything we know about not only paleontology and geology, but physics, chemistry, biology and astronomy is wildly wrong. Keeping one's mind open is one thing--letting one's brain fall out is another.

5. CREATIONISM, AT PRESENT, IS INTIMATELY CONNECTED TO A CONCATENATION OF IDEAS THAT OUGHT TO MAKE ANYBODY WITH A BRAIN WORRY. Creationists announce, in no uncertain terms, that the teaching of evolution is tied to God's punishment of this country, our moral decline, the collapse of the family, the rise of homosexuality, the abolition of prayer and the Pledge. They announce, in no uncertain terms, that their attack on evolution is part and parcel of their attack on godlessness, our supposed moral decline, feminism/women's rights, gay people, contraception, and all the rest. Into the bargain, they announce, explicitly, that they also want certain Evil Books removed from libraries.

6. CREATIONISM IS ALSO DIRECTLY TIED TO A CONCATENATION OF DEMANDS FOR 'REFORM,' IN SCHOOLS THAT INCLUDE ENFORCED FUNDAMENTALIST PRAYER AND THE RECITATION OF THE PLEDGE, CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, THE ABOLITION OF MEANINGFUL SEX ED, AND THE REMOVAL OF ANY TEACHER OR ADMINISTRATOR ESPOUSING DIFFERENT VALUES OR HAAPPENING TO BE GAY. In supporting them, you are supporting what they explicitly call a crusade.

7. Most of the improvements humanity has made in the last 500 years--public health and sanitation, general literacy and education, democratic rights, women's rights, civil rights in general, the spread of books and art, and a very long list of others, are directly tied to the rise of secular humanism and the decline of religious fundamentalism. Perhaps some of us can be pardoned for getting a bit het up about the nationwide, orchestrated attempt to roll back that clock--and anybody who thinks this is an exaggeration would do well to check into "The 700 Club," the Promise Keepers organization, the ACLJ, and the rest of these guys. They aren't kidding. They mean it.

8. SO IF we're going to demand that fundamentalist wackoism has to be made part of every public school kid's education, on the politically-correct grounds of diversity, WHY CAN'T EVOLUTION BE MADE PART OF EVERY HOME SCHOOL AND CHRISTIAN SCHOOL EDUCATION IN AMERICA?

9. What are these people so afraid of? The Catholic Church isn't afraid; the Nat'l Council of Churches isn't; none of the various Jewish organizations are; none of the ecumenical groups are. What's the big fundamentalist Protestant worry over science? Why the rejection of the traditional Christian humanist idea that examining the universe in all its diversity and beauty and history was part of God's Plan? What are you so skeered of?

 

[Tgace]

Personally, I still think it should stay out of the classroom. I think I know better ways to reach those people who need to hear the message.

Peace,
Melissa

Personally,if my kids school was trying to push out evolutionary theory with creationism, Id fight against it. If I were out voted I suppose I would switch to private schools (do Catholic schools teach evolution?). I just dont quite understand what the ultimate point here is. Should the federal government step into this school districts business??? Or is this just another "bashing" of a backward thinking, bible thumping, Bush voting, red state???

Was Wisconsin a red state? :idunno: Either way I think you get my point.

 

[Cruentus]

Personally,if my kids school was trying to push out evolutionary theory with creationism, Id fight against it. If I were out voted I suppose I would switch to private schools (do Catholic schools teach evolution?). I just dont quite understand what the ultimate point here is. Should the federal government step into this school districts business??? Or is this just another "bashing" of a backward thinking, bible thumping, Bush voting, red state???

Was Wisconsin a red state? :idunno: Either way I think you get my point.

The Catholic Church excepts evolution as a viable scientific theory. Since Catholics are not "biblical literalists" it isn't vital to the belief system for the earth to have been created in 7 24 hour days. Genisis and the creation story is taken metaphorically...meaning the belief is that it can be "true" if looked at the way it was intended. THis is where the "what if a day to God was a billion years" types of arguements come to play.

Sorry...back to our scheduled program... :uhyeah:

 

[rmcrobertson]

These "State's Rights," arguments have a long, and in many cases ignoble, history in this country. Unfortunately, the Federal Government--at which level those pesky things like the Bill of Rights obtain--has had to step into all manner of "local," issues. They've had to enforce voting rights, guarantee civil rights, crack down on local corruption when local cops are infested, and a whole host of other "interferences," including environmental regulations, employment and housing laws, etc. etc.

And they also do set standards in education, in large part because it is from the Feds that the Almighty Dollar cometh. Funnily enough, ranchers and sheep farmers, people living in flood plains/fire zones/hurricane areas, dam and highway builders, contractors and local pols who want a slice of the new sports megaplex, and a whole long list of others never object to the Feds stepping in to award money.

But let the government desegregate the military, or step in to stop lynchings, or guarantee everybody's right to an equal education, or set rational standards for teaching kids, and oh my! They're poking into my bidness.

Incidentally, the Feds generally do not get into local business unless they absolutely have to.

And Wisconsin simply proves that yahooism is not the special property of the South.

 

[michaeledward]

I was just reading the 'Daily Outrage' on the Nation's website. It was good to get the blood boiling. But, best of all. ... was this:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/giraffe1.htm

Enjoy.

 

[Melissa426]

If this premise is true, then the issue is more about people not believing the 'right' information, as opposed to their 'unbelief'.

Mike

You got it.

Melissa

 

[Makalakumu]

Was Wisconsin a red state? :idunno: Either way I think you get my point.

Wisconsin was a blue state. "Bush Bashing" is an interesting way to describe the argument...considering our President's beliefs fall neatly in line with the group of people in question. Is this "bashing" warrented?

 

[kenpo tiger]

First, ideas aren't being repressed. Pseudoscientists are free to express themselves as much as they want, and people are free to read (and often pay lot's of $$$$ for) their ideas. A quick perusal of the Internet or the nonsense sections of your local library and bookstores should suffice to support that. Public schools, however, have a very important, even critical, responsibility to educate our children. The decision to NOT present "alternative ideas" is not equivalent to repression of those ideas. It's the school's responsibility to teach that PI = 3.1415926.... because it produces correct results. It is NOT the school's responsibility also teach that PI = 3 (because it's in the bible) or PI = 3.146264 as advocated by supercrank Ralph Rene http://www.rene-r.com/circle_squared.html, who has quite a following among hyper-conspiracists.

Second, the real question should be: What's right with astrology? The answer: Nothing. Astrology is pure bunkum that has no basis in reality. It is exactly like creationism in that respect, and yet, there are millions of people that believe in it, including groups that would like to have it taught alongside astronomy in public schools. Astrologers in this country, fortunately, don't have the political power that their creationist counterparts have.

More ideas that we could teach in science class:
Phlogiston Theory
Aetheric Vacuum
Hot Comets
Electric Stars, which is loosely associated with Velikovskyism

The list is almost literally endlless, and every cranky idea out there has it's supporters. We should only teach what has been demonstrated to work, and that is what we do (not well enough, unfortunately). There's no need whatsoever to teach that which doesn't work.

I want to emphasize my use of the word demonstrated above. That's EXTREMELY important. In fact, it's paramount. Demonstration is irrelevant to belief and point of view. As martial artists, that's something we should ALL be familiar with.

Hmm. So ----- the school district here on Long Island which not only banned but destroyed books it demonstrated to be disturbing was correct, according to your logic. (That's Island Trees, folks, and it happened back in the 60s or early 70s). I guess we're not completely immune to the fundamentalist insanity here in the East after all. Maybe this isn't scientific demonstration, but I do believe that one of those books spoke to Darwin and evolution...

Peach! Thanks for the link. Very interesting, and I do agree that Astrology is good for a laugh here and there.

Where's Herrie in all this mess?

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hmmm. According to the just-expressed standards, any book that is felt to be disturbing or in any way violating of somebody's moral standards, is scientifically proven to be worthy of burning.

Science does not rest on feelings. It does not rest on a sense of moral violation.

The theses fundamental to evolution are demonstrable; the observations and experiments are repeatable; the results do not depend on individual biases. The theses fundamental to creationism are NOT demonstrable; there are no repeatable observations and experiments to back them up; it does indeed matter what the individual believes.

This doesn't mean it's wrong, or inferior, or any such thing. It means it ain't science.

One continues to be a bit--disturbed--by the general lack of knowledge about the basics of science, as well as the skimpy understanding of some very basic, extremely important ideas about empiricism, religion, and humanist thought.

It's a shame more folks don't attend catholic schools, which do a very good job of instilling all these things. It's a shame we've let public education collapse like this.

 

[Nightingale]

The Roman Catholic Church officially accepts evolution. Most Catholic schools teach evolution. Some don't, but they don't teach creationism either. Usually, if they don't address evolution, they don't address any kind of origin of life theory at all.