Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[kenpo tiger]

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.

That's very interesting. One of my friends is a religious Catholic and she told me the other day that a lot of the fire and brimstone we *think* is the official stance of the church really isn't -- that after my mentioning that I am considered by Catholics to be going straight to Hell because I'm not. She said that it wasn't what she was taught nor does the church teach that. However, I'd like to know why the church accepts evolution and why it's taught, since it does seem to be in opposition to what Catholicism is. *tiger looks around for certain monkeys and heretics to spring from the bushes*

 

[michaeledward]

However, I'd like to know why the church accepts evolution and why it's taught, since it does seem to be in opposition to what Catholicism is.

I can only offer a guess in response to this question ... but, it could have to do with the overwhelming amount of evidence available.

Seems to me that Galileo Galilei was imprisoned because he proposed that the universe was not earth-centric. This was contradictory to the teaching of the bible. But, once you can show people that the planets (wanderers) have phases, the explanation that the solar system (at least) is sun-centric is hard to dispute.

I think that if the Pope continued to have people killed for speaking such things (in the presence of evidence), he would have made the church obsolete.

Ignoring evidence does not make it go away. Perhaps someday, the fundamentalists pushing creationism will marginalize themselves. One of the issues is how much damage do they do before then.

Mike

 

[qizmoduis]

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...

You're going to have to explain how you arrived at this conclusion, because it makes no sense to me. Nothing I posted could be reasonably seen to support book banning because a book feels "disturbing".

 

[loki09789]

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?

Most 'book banning/burning' that occurs is because of literary ignorance because too much is read into the text or people aren't even reading the book. That can be 'fundamentalist' from a philosophical stance of any kind - not just christian types.

In the main, you will find teachers in schools laughing at the 'banned books' that are put on lists by moral organizations. Schools usually select books because of the skill/age level appropriateness of the difficulty, the content lends itself to teaching the skills that teachers need to see being used/possibly link to other subject areas in that grade (Social studies is doing American history so ELA covers American Lit...), and they are 'appropriate' for a broad community base/diversity.

I would love to be able to teach Tom Clancy novels, but the general educational community doesn't recognize the literary significance of the work on the average (and I am not tenured to push it harder ).

Again, this issue of creationism in the school isn't a censorship or replacement issue - it really isn't even a 'science class' issue because the schools are free to set up the curriculum as they see fit. In all honestly, I imagine there are even school districts in Wisc that can already say that they have it covered because of the way they are teaching global studies/ancient civilizations and such.....

 

[heretic888]

"It's one thing to interfere with a person's beliefs. But it's more unsettling to disturb the very foundations and props that got the beliefs up and running in the first place." Alan Campbell

Heh, I love anthropology --- one of the many areas where creation mythology should be appropriately taught. Note it is not a biology classroom.

Oh, and on a side note, I'm gonna go with Ken Wilber on this one...

1) If a religion makes empirical claims about the empirical world, they should be put to the test. If they say the world is on the back of a big turtle, the world was created in 6 days, the planet is a big ol' egg that came from Vishnu --- then put those to the empirical test. Now, you are free to believe them all, of course, but if'n they fail the empirical test (which they all have) then you can't claim they are supported by good science.

2) If a religion makes personal claims about individual spiritual experiences --- and claims these experiences are repeatable --- then they should be put to the phenomenological test. If they say doing this practice will result in this satori, chanting this prayer in such a way will generate this flash, this meditation will disclose this Reality, then put it all to the test.

Now, religion by and large has been shown to be a big load of dookey as far as a point 1 is concerned. But, in point 2, certain religious strands (Transcendental Meditation, Zen practice, Christian contemplative prayer, Sufi mysticism, and so on) have overwhelmingly given the scientific method the one-two.

If you wanna mix up religion and science --- then point 2 is your best bet. Point 1 is a friggen' dead end. Sorry.

 

[PeachMonkey]

But, in point 2, certain religious strands (Transcendental Meditation, Zen practice, Christian contemplative prayer, Sufi mysticism, and so on) have overwhelmingly given the scientific method the one-two.

If I'd realized that you would bring up Transcendental Meditation as an example of "scientifically proven" religious practice, my good man, I would have looked at you with a bit more skepticism.

Speaking of skepticism:

http://www.skepdic.com/tm.html

 

[Cruentus]

Couple-a things...

#1. Contrary to popular B.S., it is actually against the Catholic Church doctrine to condemn ANYONE to hell...that would be considered God's job.

#2. There is nothing about evolution that is "against" Catholic doctrine. This all depends on how one interprets scripture. Genesis is not taken literally by the Catholic belief.

#3. Before anyone decides to state any further misconceptions regarding Galileo, read my post regarding it here a little ways down the page: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5653&page=13&pp=15&highlight=Galileo

There...now have fun.

 

[Makalakumu]

#3. Before anyone decides to state any further misconceptions regarding Galileo, read my post regarding it here a little ways down the page: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5653&page=13&pp=15&highlight=Galileo
Paul, if you have time, could you PM me the sources for that information on Galileo? I'd like to see them and see if they are good enough to use in my science classes. It would be interesting to present an alternative point of view.

 

[Satt]

Thanks Paul. That was a really good post. I appreciated that. I especially like the part about how "science tries to explain how things work, and the church tries to explain why things work." IMHO if everyone would stop trying to prove themselves right over everyone else and just try try to help prove each other's theories, we might just get somewhere in science and belief systems together. As far as school goes, I still think they should worry more about "life skills" (finding a job, money management, etc..) over why or how the universe was formed. Again IMHO.

 

[loki09789]

Couple-a things...

#1. Contrary to popular B.S., it is actually against the Catholic Church doctrine to condemn ANYONE to hell...that would be considered God's job.

#2. There is nothing about evolution that is "against" Catholic doctrine. This all depends on how one interprets scripture. Genesis is not taken literally by the Catholic belief.

#3. Before anyone decides to state any further misconceptions regarding Galileo, read my post regarding it here a little ways down the page: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5653&page=13&pp=15&highlight=Galileo

There...now have fun.

Be careful with that idea in #1 and #2. There are different organziations under the Catholic blanket that are just as 'fundamentally passionate' about their ideas and values. The diocisine or Non Order community is generally as you describe it, but if you were to ask Judist (YOODIST) Order priests, Fransican priests.... there might be just as hard line a POV as people are ascribing to 'Fundamentalists.' The other thing to remembe is that there are Orthodox Catholics that would argue tooth and nail about seemingly trivial practices to Diocisine/Roman Catholics.

The "Universal Church" has its own internal factioning to deal with as well.

I wouldn't worry about this thread becoming a Catholic bash fest though, the target right now is the Christian fundamentalists....

 

[loki09789]

Heh, I love anthropology --- one of the many areas where creation mythology should be appropriately taught. Note it is not a biology classroom.

.

Amen, put the topic of creationism into an Anthro elective. It is an appropriate scientific format and a way of presenting the 'multiple theories/models' as the Superintendent mentioned he wanted to see in his district.

The sticking point for many of the criticisms I have read here hinge on the idea that creationism MUST be taught in a biology type science class to satisfy the Fundamentalist 'agenda' (actually it MUST replace is the 'agenda'). Yet, this is a fabricated issue in regards to the article and thread starter. Each district is free to set up the curriculum, and there is no specific mention of creationism being a requirement in the hard science curriculum. That is the most objective way that I can view the information and form an educated analysis without injecting too many of my own personal bias.....oops how scientific of me .

 

[rmcrobertson]

"Life skills." Sigh. By all means, let's reduce the world students live in to something even smaller--that way, the Creationist types can have even freer rein, and capitalism can run forth with even less check.

Incidentally, I was taught all that stuff. Back when evolution was simply taught in biology classes as the Way Things Are, and creationism appeared as the quaint, outmoded superstition it is.

Apparently, the rise of unreason is directly tied to the rise of impracticality in education.

 

[qizmoduis]

The sticking point for many of the criticisms I have read here hinge on the idea that creationism MUST be taught in a biology type science class to satisfy the Fundamentalist 'agenda' (actually it MUST replace is the 'agenda'). Yet, this is a fabricated issue in regards to the article and thread starter.

Yes, actually this IS the agenda espoused by the creationists and the ID'ers. This isn't even remotely a fabricated issue. They are most emphatically NOT satisfied when various mythologies are placed alongside one another in a neutral academic atmosphere. You REALLY need to do some research into this subject. I've been following it for quite a few years, and I can tell you that you are 100% wrong on their motives and their objectives.

 

[heretic888]

If I'd realized that you would bring up Transcendental Meditation as an example of "scientifically proven" religious practice, my good man, I would have looked at you with a bit more skepticism.

Speaking of skepticism:

http://www.skepdic.com/tm.html

Meh, TM was a bad example --- and it really doesn't address the point I was trying to make. TM is too caught up in the New Age "meditation is great for stress and your hormones!" stuff --- i.e., an almost wholly materialistic approach to a transcendental practice, ironic as it sounds --- to really be that useful.

Still, there is some good research and data here and there. By no means is it all good science, and the researchers definately ignored negative repercussions that can occur from meditative practice (something many people don't seem to know too much about). But, this isn't all-or-nothing here.

More validated, accessible examples would be the research devoted to Zen practice.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Meh, TM was a bad example --- and it really doesn't address the point I was trying to make. TM is too caught up in the New Age "meditation is great for stress and your hormones!" stuff --- i.e., an almost wholly materialistic approach to a transcendental practice, ironic as it sounds --- to really be that useful.

It also doesn't help that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is an insane abusive cult leader.

 

[raedyn]

But the REAL question is - will this thread ever die?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

But the REAL question is - will this thread ever die?

Took a while, but the thread's finally starting to tangent from creationism in biology classrooms to Transcendental Meditation and cult leaders. The unravelling has begun.

 

[loki09789]

Yes, actually this IS the agenda espoused by the creationists and the ID'ers. This isn't even remotely a fabricated issue. They are most emphatically NOT satisfied when various mythologies are placed alongside one another in a neutral academic atmosphere. You REALLY need to do some research into this subject. I've been following it for quite a few years, and I can tell you that you are 100% wrong on their motives and their objectives.

You REALLY need to understand that contextually, the article and the decisions are NOT what you are discussing when you mention the grand scheme of fundamentalists to take over the world....but I am.

Use to go to a fundamentalist church. I was told that eastern Meditation practices 'let in the devil' and were wrong. I was told that as long as I was 'saved' once as an act of choice that no matter what I did after that moment, I was forever 'saved' even if I committed murder. I lived it from the inside for a few years - I know that there is an evangelical 'mission' in fundamentalism - thus the idea that they should spread across the globe. Generally speaking, the dynamics of 'those people' were no different from any other group: Majority fell somewhere in the middle with the extremists at the ends and in smaller proportion - just like a union meeting, social club, high school....

 

[PeachMonkey]

Generally speaking, the dynamics of 'those people' were no different from any other group: Majority fell somewhere in the middle with the extremists at the ends and in smaller proportion - just like a union meeting, social club, high school....

While the picture you paint here is very sweet and reassuring, Paul, this comfortable, middling majority of fundamentalists is not the shrill group that is trying to dictate a religious agenda in education, the media, and politics, and in particular, the issue of biological creationism.

 

[Tgace]

No different from any other special interest groups. The fringes get the attention simply due to their extremity.