Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[Rich Parsons]

Right, but it is not an endorsement, any more than they are endorsing Shakespear. It should just be allowed to be taught.

Oh and for "no attacks on creationism"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=4&u=/ap/evolution_debate

Mike,

Here is the catch. The Catholics I know will not let there children learn about Christianity form someone who is not ordained by their religion. They will not allow them to even go to Young Life which is a non denominational Christian organization, for they might say a prayer or something, or get non approved propaganda oh I mean infomration.

So, you see all the people are assuming that it will be their version that is being taught. So, now when it is not, we will have people pulled just like sex ed, and people protesting that their child is being corrupted, and this is from Christians. It just will not work logistically. You open the preverbial Pandora's Box and you need to then let everything out to be fair to all, to avoid hurting peoples religious views.

I put this in the same theory/category of when the "Church" denied the world was round and other such heresies of science.

Would you like your child to also learn about ancestor spirits and totems? How about re-incarnation? It is a door best left closed, yet, open and fail and see the ACLU jump in and represent someones rights being violated. Establish more laws of what cannot be done, when the Bill of Rights does a good job if you just follow it. If you truly want your child to learn about creationism then teach them or send them to a private school.

Peace

 

[MisterMike]

Rich, of course there will be discrepencies, I'm not voting for one version or the other. Maybe an introductory course would teach about all denominations.

Robert, Heretic, I see a lot of fear and anxiety in your supposition that this is all a fundamentalist brainwashing attempt. (Sorta like "them fags want to convert my kid too")

Hardhead, I don't think this is intended to replace gym. Touch football and dodgeball classes will remain in tact. Electives are usually taken by kids with ambition, not the obese potatoe-chip eating video-gamers. I hardly see a threat to the overskilled and underpaid phys. ed. teachers (who are generally more obese then their students).

My, my, how the world would fall apart if our kids learned anything new. YA see, the thing is, it's my tax dollars too and if I and well, 50+% of the rest of the country would like a class on Creationism in public schools well, kinda like the Democrats this election, the opposition has a bit of a problem.

 

[michaeledward]

Rich, of course there will be discrepencies, I'm not voting for one version or the other. Maybe an introductory course would teach about all denominations.

Robert, Heretic, I see a lot of fear and anxiety in your supposition that this is all a fundamentalist brainwashing attempt. (Sorta like "them fags want to convert my kid too")

Hardhead, I don't think this is intended to replace gym. Touch football and dodgeball classes will remain in tact. Electives are usually taken by kids with ambition, not the obese potatoe-chip eating video-gamers. I hardly see a threat to the overskilled and underpaid phys. ed. teachers (who are generally more obese then their students).

My, my, how the world would fall apart if our kids learned anything new. YA see, the thing is, it's my tax dollars too and if I and well, 50+% of the rest of the country would like a class on Creationism in public schools well, kinda like the Democrats this election, the opposition has a bit of a problem.

Which rib do you suppose god created woman from ?

 

[MisterMike]

The spare rib? :idunno: (nyuk nyuk)

 

[Makalakumu]

Which rib do you suppose god created woman from ?

The left one, isn't it obvious! Heck, I learned that after my first year married...

 

[michaeledward]

The spare rib? (nyuk nyuk)

Not Good Enough.

If we are going to teach this information, we are going to have to agree upon a curriculum.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

Further, why is there not a 'space' left over in the human male, from where the LORD God took the rib? Where could it have been? Why doesn't woman have one more rib than man?

Waiting patiently for a serious answer.

 

[Makalakumu]

My, my, how the world would fall apart if our kids learned anything new. YA see, the thing is, it's my tax dollars too and if I and well, 50+% of the rest of the country would like a class on Creationism in public schools well, kinda like the Democrats this election, the opposition has a bit of a problem.

Here is the deal, Mike. If this theory was more widely taught, I seriously think it would backfire. Sure evolution is a theory too, but if you attempt to hold them both side by side, there really is no comparison. No body would believe in creationism anymore.

That is why creationism textbooks strive NOT to do this. They put forth many of the same arguments that Parmandjack posted. They talk about the philosophy of science and really argue determinedly that creationism is a theory. Yet, when it comes down to the simple nuts and bolts of observation the books I've seen are pretty threadbare.

Take the example of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. This example appears in many creationist textbooks and they use it to show a point that microevolution exists, but not macro. So, I hope you can see that creationism, at the very least, isn't offering much new.

The things that it does offer are as follows...

1. A catastrophist view of plate tectonics in which the continents float on water. This water escapes through cracks in the earth, causing the continents to fall and buckle where they strike each other. Not only is this just a modification of the old defunct geosyncline theory, it also has no real explanation of how the water got underneath the continents.

2. The great flood was caused by an atmospheric event in which vast quantities of water vapor were absorbed by a warmer earth. This gas rich primordial atmosphere was the reason that people in the old testament were able to live so long...hundreds of years in fact. Then, the Hand of God intervened and the earth cooled. The rains started and hence, the great flood. They claim that the existence of the grand canyon provides support for this theory.

So, as you can see, I have no doubt who will emerge the victor if both of these theories are held up side by side. I also have no doubt that many of these same fundamentalists know this too...which is why they want to restrict people talking about evolution rather then teaching them side by side.

In the end, you get a statist replacement of one truth with another. Reason is not involved in this process.

upnorthkyosa

 

[heretic888]

Robert, Heretic, I see a lot of fear and anxiety in your supposition that this is all a fundamentalist brainwashing attempt.

And why not?? Religious myths have no place in a biology classroom.

I wonder if you would be so keen on the idea of teaching "creationism" to biology students if it wasn't your religion's particular version?? Which, again, is what this all basically boils down to...

 

[PeachMonkey]

Robert, Heretic, I see a lot of fear and anxiety in your supposition that this is all a fundamentalist brainwashing attempt. (Sorta like "them fags want to convert my kid too")

Actually, it's more like a couple of educated guys who have seen what happens when fundamentalists are given prevalence in society over science, reason, and freedom.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6749807&src=rss/topNews&section=news


ATLANTA (Reuters) - Lawyers for a Georgia school district and a group of parents clashed on Monday over the constitutionality of placing stickers that challenge the theory of evolution on textbooks.


Gee. Its just a poppin' up all over.

Interesting fact enclosed in the above article. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism could not be taught in public schools alongside evolution.




Regards,


Steve

 

[parmandjack]

One supposes that it would be perfectly all right to teach "creationism," in any class dealing with mythology, its origins, and its debunking.

This might include a science class, assuredly, since the proper approach would be to discuss "creationism," as an excellent illustration of a) pre-scientific thought, b) a fundamentally-different approach to reality than the scientific; c) a good key to present opposition to a rational world-view.

However, one doubts that the creationists types would be content with merely including their beliefs in any such fashion, since their point is clearly to force their beliefs down everyone else's throats and save America from godlessness and hell.

I'm just wondering whether or not you realize that all the "stuffing-beliefs-down-your-throat" kind of chatter that I'm reading here, is exactly what evolutionists are doing to everyone else?

Scientists the world over recognize evolution as a theory, only those who seem fanatical about it claim it is a fact.. and they are highlighted as wrong by other scientists who recognize that it is only a theory... As for your comments about creationism being -pre-scientific... do you not understand that science flourished in the Christian world? and is "brain-dead" in non-christian cultures? so.. I guess that sort of points you out as being wrong in your claim...

But the most striking thing I seem to have noticed, is not not many (if any) of you, seem to have taken the time to actually read my post in completion.. for it present many "facts", that your simply ignorance of, doesn't mean they are negated...

Take teh time to read the post, then address the points on it.. dont simply side step them... that doesn't seem very... "scientific" of you in your study...

With sincerity,

Jack.

 

[parmandjack]

Not Good Enough.

If we are going to teach this information, we are going to have to agree upon a curriculum.


Further, why is there not a 'space' left over in the human male, from where the LORD God took the rib? Where could it have been? Why doesn't woman have one more rib than man?

Waiting patiently for a serious answer.

this is symantics of a sort... you are assuming that God created man with the exact same numebr of ribs that He eventualy gave to women... I can assume then, for the sake of this issue, that God gave Adam 1 extra rib to start with, which in turn hHe used to create women... couldn't I correct in my assumtion?

And since you are jumping to the conclusion that this assumed contradiction disproves Genesis immediately, can you tell me why there are no transitional types of fossils (amonsgt the billions of fossils that have been found), showing once-and-for-all exclusive proof of linkage from one form of life to another... lets say... oh...fish to amphibians... etc.. such as evolutionists claim?

Thanks.. waiting for a serious answer...

 

[parmandjack]

... Interesting fact enclosed in the above article. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism could not be taught in public schools alongside evolution. Steve

...another interesting fact is that the supreme court ruled a number of years ago that it was ok for a women to murder her unborn child... soes that make them correct on that one also?

 

[Flatlander]

The thread Abortion Compromise addressed the abortion issues recently.

 

[Mark Weiser]

Let the seculsion begin Everyone should be home schooled to prevent interaction and when the children come out of the house at age 18 give them a club to bash in the heads of anyone that is not taught or think like they have been taught.

A good quality education is well rounded and exposes the child to the world around them and to different points of views on myraid of subjects. Hiding the children from certain ideas I belive stumps his or hers intellecutal devolpement.

 

[heretic888]

I'm just wondering whether or not you realize that all the "stuffing-beliefs-down-your-throat" kind of chatter that I'm reading here, is exactly what evolutionists are doing to everyone else?

Ok, first off, let's get some terminology straight here: evolutionism is the now-discredited theory of "unilinear" sociocultural evolution that was prevalent in anthropology during the 1800's (not to be confused with more contemporary and dynamic models of sociocultural evolution as seen in Habermas, Whitehead, and Wilber) --- before cultural anthropology as a discipline firmly took root. It in no way refers to proponents of the biological theory of evolution, which consists of pretty much 99% of the scientific community.

Secondly, among the half-dozen biology, chemistry, anatomy/physiology, and neuropsychology classes I have taken in both high school and college, not once have I ever heard the theory of evolution presented as unquestionable "fact" --- unlike the mythic absolutisms I always hear parroted by Protestant fundamentalist leaders. In fact, one of my professors went into quite some detail as to the nature of a "theory" in the scientific method, compared evolution to other existing theories, and suggested how evolution might one day be supplanted by a superior theory. However, "creationism" aint' it.

That same professor was also quite correct, in my opinion, in that the theory of evolution is only presently seriously questioned by religious circles. Not by the scientific community.

Scientists the world over recognize evolution as a theory, only those who seem fanatical about it claim it is a fact.. and they are highlighted as wrong by other scientists who recognize that it is only a theory

Your qualifier of "only a theory" indicates you don't actually understand the nature of theories within the scientific method. Which, honestly speaking, comes as no big surprise.

As for your comments about creationism being -pre-scientific... do you not understand that science flourished in the Christian world?

This, in fact, is not true. The stretch of time when the Christian Establishment had exclusive control of the Western world was termed the "Dark Ages". There was a reason for this --- all forms of education and literature were banned, for the most part. Similar, yet again, to what this same establishment is trying now with "creationism" (i.e., stamp out all other forms of intellectual competition).

It was only with the aptly-named Renaissance, and the later, even more auspicious Age of Reason (or Age of Enlightenment), that we see science truly taking hold as a formal institution. It was at this point in history that the Establishment lost its stranglehold on education and literature, that Christic theocracies increasingly gave way to democratic governorships, and that secular/humanistic philosophies along the lines of Rousseau began to see the light of day. It was no coincidence this all happened simultaneously (resulting in the eventual founding of the United States of America).

and is "brain-dead" in non-christian cultures?

Yup. 'Cuz them heathens in India, China, Korea, and Japan have no scientific institutions or technologies whatsoever. Nope, nope, nope.

Just ignore the fact that Japan in many ways kicks our collective asses in the tech-development department....

But the most striking thing I seem to have noticed, is not not many (if any) of you, seem to have taken the time to actually read my post in completion.. for it present many "facts", that your simply ignorance of, doesn't mean they are negated...

Its interesting that those "facts" have not passed the test of any peer-reviewed scientific panel. In fact, the only basis at all for you claiming that they are "facts" is because they happen to be by a scientist that agrees with your religious persuasion.

A note for the wise: just because you agree with an idea, a "fact" it does not make.

Heh. Laterz.

 

[parmandjack]

The thread Abortion Compromise addressed the abortion issues recently.

my point was not to start talking about abortion... my point was simply to address the fact (as had been given) that simply because the supreme court sez something, doesn't make it right...

 

[Mark Weiser]

How dare you speak so openly aganist our governmental establishments. You maybe branded as a non-combatant by GBW himself. LOL!!!

 

[parmandjack]

Ok, first off, let's get some terminology straight here: evolutionism is the now-discredited theory of "unilinear" sociocultural evolution that was prevalent in anthropology during the 1800's (not to be confused with more contemporary and dynamic models of sociocultural evolution as seen in Habermas, Whitehead, and Wilber) --- before cultural anthropology as a discipline firmly took root. It in no way refers to proponents of the biological theory of evolution, which consists of pretty much 99% of the scientific community.

umm.. incorrect... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated, they don't change the fact that "evolution" is as it was, an attempt to present our existance as the result of the following equation...

nothing + time = everything... thereby negating the requirement of a God

Secondly, among the half-dozen biology, chemistry, anatomy/physiology, and neuropsychology classes I have taken in both high school and college, not once have I ever heard the theory of evolution presented as unquestionable "fact" --- unlike the mythic absolutisms I always hear parroted by Protestant fundamentalist leaders. In fact, one of my professors went into quite some detail as to the nature of a "theory" in the scientific method, compared evolution to other existing theories, and suggested how evolution might one day be supplanted by a superior theory. However, "creationism" aint' it.

...that is a bold faced lie... while it is an UNPROVEN theory, it is presented and pressed in schools, media, museums, etc as "fact"... while in "fact", quite a large number of people on all these threads stand in their proverbial "pulpits" hammering away that evolution is a fact based on solid science... while "creationism" isn't, or in your wording... "ain't it"... why is that? why is it that a piece of data examined by a scientist who believes in evolution and who reviews that data with his personal bias towards evolution, is given more credence than the results of a scientist who reviews the same piece of data, but determines that evidence contradicts the evolutionary theory and instead supports a "Creation" base?

That same professor was also quite correct, in my opinion, in that the theory of evolution is only presently seriously questioned by religious circles. Not by the scientific community.

... well, i'm glad to see that you note this as your opinion, but your opinion added to the "opinion" of the teacher, doesn't really change the fact that the "theory" of evolution is under assault from the scientific community also, admittedly slow, but building all the same, regardless of your personal opinion on this matter...

Your qualifier of "only a theory" indicates you don't actually understand the nature of theories within the scientific method. Which, honestly speaking, comes as no big surprise.

...oh... I see we are back to disparaging comments about the intellectual capacity, cognative abilities and logical skills of those who oppose your opinions and positions, this seems to be your back up plan in most of these strings regarding topics of this nature... what do you do in the dojo or on the street when you're beaten, call them names too?

Actually, I understand a great deal about science and proposed "theories", I simply choose, unlike you, to use common verbiage to describe my position as opposed to vomiting dictionaries to impress, or perhaps as an attempt to brow-beat my opponents...

Unlike you, I have not blinded myself to the scientific realities that abound in the field of Origins science..., and that commpletely disprove the goo-to-guy fantasy religion of evolution. I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.

This, in fact, is not true. The stretch of time when the Christian Establishment had exclusive control of the Western world was termed the "Dark Ages". There was a reason for this --- all forms of education and literature were banned, for the most part. Similar, yet again, to what this same establishment is trying now with "creationism" (i.e., stamp out all other forms of intellectual competition)......

... well, you are corrert about the dark ages... but my original statement stands, regardless of your denial of it...

As for "stamping out other forms of intellectual competition.. doesn't it appear to you that that is exactly what you and the proponents of evolution are trying to do when confronted with differing theories, such as creationism... you immediately commence with ad hominum attacks and flippent dismissals of readily verifyable data, simply because they destroy your position.

Yup. 'Cuz them heathens in India, China, Korea, and Japan have no scientific institutions or technologies whatsoever. Nope, nope, nope.

...s'funny that while you condemn scientists who also happen to be christians as moronic fanatics who don't perform real science, simply because their position contradicts your 100 hours of high school and college classes, you still deny that science flourished via the spread of christianity.

Just ignore the fact that Japan in many ways kicks our collective asses in the tech-development department....

... who's denying facts (other than you and other evolutionists)... its a fact that soccer was originated in Scotland, its also a fact that golf originated in Scotland... are they the world champs these days? nope... thats also a fact... so what's your point? that was really a rhetorical question.. i'm not interested in your point.

Its interesting that those "facts" have not passed the test of any peer-reviewed scientific panel. In fact, the only basis at all for you claiming that they are "facts" is because they happen to be by a scientist that agrees with your religious persuasion.

.. actually, they have passed numerous peer reviews.. however, secular dominated mag's simply refuse to publish opposing views from scientists who don't believe in evolution, I could inundate you with proofs, but you would simply dismiss them as you have all others...

...a note to you here would be to point out, since you dont seem to be aware of this, that not all scientists who disagree or refute evolutionism, believe in or are automatically aligned with creationism, or even consider themselves christian, or for that matter, support the bible... they simply dispute evolution as a workable theory because the facts prove otherwise...

... so with regard to your statement above that simply because facts agree with your position doesnt make them facts... take that lucid comment to heart and apply it to your own position... mirrors are wonderful things you know...

A note for the wise: just because you agree with an idea, a "fact" it does not make.

... he's right... but in his narrow minded bias doesnt understand its just as true when applied and used as a filter for his own proposed position.

Why are YOU (read evolutionists) so terrified about letting the theory of creation be taught in classrooms as an alternate to evolution?... if the theory of evolution was so rock solid, then it should be able to stand up to the light of public scrutiny of the supposed facts used to support it, as well as all the facts against it... wouldn't you agree? If however via this public scrutiny it cannot be proven as a valid theory, then obviously there must be some other explanation for our existance... hmmm... seems to me that thats what creationist theory is all about... and if held up to public scrutiny, shouldn't it (creationism) be destroyed as quickly as evolution once all the fact are displayed if it is in fact, "nonsense"?

It seems to me that it is the evolutionists who are cramming their personal religious belief in an unproven theory down the throat of everyone else, while at the same time attempting to silence any other competing positions... not the bible believing fundamentalists... we are just trying to get a word in edgewise in a society rife with mini-gods and ACLU and activist judges etc... we can't have a sensible discussion when we're not allowed to present our side publically in the same environment eh?



...My two bits...

 

[MisterMike]

Not Good Enough.

If we are going to teach this information, we are going to have to agree upon a curriculum.


Further, why is there not a 'space' left over in the human male, from where the LORD God took the rib? Where could it have been? Why doesn't woman have one more rib than man?

Waiting patiently for a serious answer.

Well, I honestly didn't think we were going to decide on a curriculum today, but just agree there's no harm in teaching different religions in the school.

Incedentally, if you lost a finger on the job in an accident, and later your wife had a child, would he have only 9 fingers?