Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Should creationism be taught in schools? Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:02:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
And he keeps digging and digging and digging.......

Kudos on clinging to that whole "Dames" thing though. If you want to steal any more of my material, I can suggest something that is actually funny if you like.

And let me pre-empt your next response by stating it for you...

"You've said something funny? Let me know and I'll be sure to laugh."

wait.... Let's add constitution, freedom and guns (along with Dames) and we've exhausted the limits of the mrnudiepants lexicon.

apples and oranges? please explain. or just keep digging...the rest of us are enjoying this greatly. :)


Then let's change it up a bit.

You've posted something pertinent to this thread? 'Cause if you did, it would be a welcome change from all your normal douchebaggery.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:03:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:
http://law2.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub9563.pdf


"CONCLUSION
The debate in the United States over human origins is once again in full swing. However, it is important to clarify that for constitutional purposes, this debate is not about which side is right or wrong: It is about jurisdiction. If the theory of intelligent design is correct, it cannot be taught as true in the public school classroom because it is an inherently religious doctrine and is not science. In fact, even if it could be taught as science, it would inevitably have the effect of subjecting an inherently religious doctrine to scientific proof or disproof, which government cannot allow because it would be the equivalent of declaring religious truth or falsity. Intelligent design could, in theory, be introduced to public school students so long as views on intelligent design’s merits are not discussed. However, since substantively teaching intelligent design in public schools is unconstitutional,discussing intelligent design at even a basic level might provoke a legal challenge that teachers and schools endorse its validity. Resolving such disputes would involve fact-intensive inquiries and therefore, if asked about intelligent design, public school teachers should inform students that some people believe in religious understandings of human origins and that students should turn to their families or places of worship to discuss those understandings." -- Richard Bauer, J.D. Fordham University


Still waiting for you to address the issues I've raised. Do I need to bring them back up front again, or can you just scan back a couple posts?

DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:27:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:
And he keeps digging and digging and digging.......

Kudos on clinging to that whole "Dames" thing though. If you want to steal any more of my material, I can suggest something that is actually funny if you like.

And let me pre-empt your next response by stating it for you...

"You've said something funny? Let me know and I'll be sure to laugh."

wait.... Let's add constitution, freedom and guns (along with Dames) and we've exhausted the limits of the mrnudiepants lexicon.

apples and oranges? please explain. or just keep digging...the rest of us are enjoying this greatly. :)


Then let's change it up a bit.

You've posted something pertinent to this thread? 'Cause if you did, it would be a welcome change from all your normal douchebaggery.


I think I actually have.... Maybe check the first few pages of the thread. Even though there is an absence of the term "douche" I think i made a few succinct points.

Or just keep skirting the subject and throwing insults at anyone who doesn't own a shotgun or a pickup truck. I wish I would say that your stubborness was admirable, but this is becoming an embarrassment. Once again you are painting yourself into a corner. I think you're going to have to pray to god that the rest of the readers don't see you as a complete idiot.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 9:31:23 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,525
"I'm still waiting for you to explain how teaching these subjects is bad for students." -- Your issue.

"In fact, even if it could be taught as science, it would inevitably have the effect of subjecting an inherently religious doctrine to scientific proof or disproof, which government cannot allow because it would be the equivalent of declaring religious truth or falsity." -- Richard Bauer, J.D. Previously cited.

Are the ramifications not evident?

"I have said that any time a government bans education, it's a bad thing, and that free dissemination of knowledge and ideas is one of the best ways to combat tyranny. Do you disagree with that statement?" -- Your issue.

Response: In sole regards to:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

Yes. ID and it's "teach the controversy" proponents seek to do exactly what you say you are against. It is contrary, in whole, to the "free dissemination of knowledge." It seeks to replace, not include or compare, only to replace.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 8:57:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:


I think I actually have.... Maybe check the first few pages of the thread. Even though there is an absence of the term "douche" I think i made a few succinct points.

Or just keep skirting the subject and throwing insults at anyone who doesn't own a shotgun or a pickup truck. I wish I would say that your stubborness was admirable, but this is becoming an embarrassment. Once again you are painting yourself into a corner. I think you're going to have to pray to god that the rest of the readers don't see you as a complete idiot.


Now you're ranting against random people who own shotguns or pickup trucks? There's nothing wrong with a person owning either, but still... how the fuck would I know who owns what? Your elitism is showing through. Sorry that the world can't be entirely filled with little "DamonX" clones, dames, but it is what it is. If you don't like it, maybe you should leave.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 9:37:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:
"I'm still waiting for you to explain how teaching these subjects is bad for students." -- Your issue.

"In fact, even if it could be taught as science, it would inevitably have the effect of subjecting an inherently religious doctrine to scientific proof or disproof, which government cannot allow because it would be the equivalent of declaring religious truth or falsity." -- Richard Bauer, J.D. Previously cited.

Are the ramifications not evident?

"I have said that any time a government bans education, it's a bad thing, and that free dissemination of knowledge and ideas is one of the best ways to combat tyranny. Do you disagree with that statement?" -- Your issue.

Response: In sole regards to:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

Yes. ID and it's "teach the controversy" proponents seek to do exactly what you say you are against. It is contrary, in whole, to the "free dissemination of knowledge." It seeks to replace, not include or compare, only to replace.



Your whole post is bullshit, eviotis.

I've never opined that Creationism should be "taught as science". As a matter of fact, you've already written that a course in comparative religion would be fine - that's all I've been saying as well. I'm sure the honorable Mr. Bauer is quite a learned man, but in the end, his opinion is just that. (His first name is David, by the way. He's an associate of the firm Davis Polk, in their Corporate Department and is assigned to the Mergers and Acquisitions Group. While I'm sure a corporate attorney specializing in mergers knows more about Constitutional law than I do, I'm equally sure there are others who know more than he does.) His opinion carries just as much importance in this discussion as mine. Why don't you argue your own opinions?

Also, I don't know why you're trying to lump me in with these antievolution people, either. I've never posted anything to even hint that I supported their position. Do you think that all Christians are extremist whackjobs? How would you feel if I claimed that all atheists are extremist whackjobs? Are YOU an extremist whackjob? Somehow I doubt you are, but you assume I am. This is false logic on it's face - making an assumption without any evidence to prove (or disprove) it.

Not being an atheist, I wouldn't know first hand, but the research I've done shows that all but the most extreme atheists admit that there is a possibility, however improbable, that there IS a God. There's just no way to prove or disprove it. Which camp are you in? Do you admit the possibility? Or are you one of the extremist whackos who refuse to admit even that possibility?

Quote:
It is wrong to teach creation science or intelligent design in the science classroom, according to the American Academy of Religion. In its "Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K‐12 Public Schools in the United States," issued in April 2010, the Academy poses the question "Can creation science or intelligent design be taught in schools?" and answers (PDF, p. 21, emphasis in the original):

Yes, but not in science classes. Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Creation science, intelligent design, and other worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others.

American Academy of Religion



Quote:
In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.

The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."

"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.

Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were not surprising because "Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind of argument."

NY Times


TransitionalMan
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:56:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/27/2009
Posts: 108
Location: Ohio, United States
If Creationism is taught, it should be taught as introduction to political issues class, or perhaps religion or not at all.

From a scientific point of view, Evolution has no challengers. While there are debates within the scientific community as to the details of evolution, it explains so much (germ theory of disease, cladistics, et all) so simply that I cannot think of a more powerful theory.

What Creationism is really about is religion. As the world has grown more complex and attaining the "American Dream" more difficult people have turned more and more to more fundamental and literalist interpretations of their faith. But as one Creationst (can't remember who without research) put it, "If Evolution is true then the Bible is wrong.". And he's right. The accounts of creation in both the 1st and 2nd chapters of Genesis cannot be adapted to any literal interpretation of the scriptures. Of course the Genesis 1 and 2 directly contradict each other on the matters of creation, which in itself says much.

This isn't about science, it's about protecting a particular narrow version of religion. As far as science goes, the only pro-creation scientists out there were people who started out wanting to defend their preconceptions. The other 99% teach evolution.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:58:05 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,525
I think atheists are just too sensitive if they even object to a class that covers all religions and creation fables. Leave evolution to science with all the other scientific theories. People really freak out over this subject. Teach your kids and keep up with what teachers teach your kids, thats the main thing, IMO.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:36:27 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,525
Oh so much to respond to, but, I shall not waste another useless piece of drivel in actually discussing the point since my viewpoints, and backing are "douche-ist", and now, "bullshit". Such great moderate stand point and one which breeds absolutely nooo "sensitive" response. As for comparative religions goes, my second foray into this discussion was that of a young girl, age 9 (nine), who was made fun of by children of religious parents. Although her parents try to teach her tolerance of all religions, and that she should inevitably, one day, make that choice on her own, she was initiated into the controversy and teaching of fables, both rudely, and without the same respect that religious people so adamantly ascribe to.

Back when good 'ole George "W" was prez, he used the term "controversy." Yes, controversy, the slight "hint", and a way to try introducing religion into school, since by the language of controversialists, they seek not to introduce controversy or any controversy, but only to replace what others believe. Unless you're Christian, of course. If one is actually aware of these buzz words, then they normally react to same with impudence, since the terminology used is akin to what they have already heard and seen tried (except in New Mexico, lets see how the other states fare). No, let us not look on learned men like the Supreme Court Justices who came up with the "Establishment Clause" that supported the "wall of separation of church and state" by that other cliche prone President Jefferson. Let us only look to journalistic integrity, and other religious apologist, or veiled ID positions on the subject. Let us forget that the same Constitution, and Supreme Court, which have given us the right to free speech and the right to bear arms. If it ain't backed by a Christian god, it ain't right. To the exclusion, of course, that if you believe in a god or a supreme being, then you're square. Atheist's, and other folks are not welcome.

No, I should not rely on any intuition, or belief. I should merely accept what should be taught. Much like what an elementary school child would feel, without actually being able to comprehensively know what is going on. "Well then, it only teaches them how to think." Yes, by divine providence, and not sole intelligence.

As for atheists, the questions always abound. How can you believe that there is no god? Well, how can you believe that there is? Then take that belief, and teach it in the same breath as science? Science does not try to negate god, even since the dreaded Darwin took his voyage on the Beagle, the negation of god was not the purpose. Science, understanding our world, and trying to come up with an explanation was. However, creationists, and ID (same thing with differing positions) only seek to replace his theories, and thus all scientific theories which have derived from it, as false, since god was "probably" the initiator of same. Of course, there is no answer, except to negate, diminish, and replace actual observance, theory, speculation, and discussion which might oppose the only true answer. A Christian god.

Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:53:42 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,525
...and on a more personal note, least my creative endeavor be bullshit as well:

Hush Little Lamb

Let us go and play in the fields
Righteously won with heavenly zeal
Lay with me and on spirits we shall gaze
Freedom, rejoice our escape from materialist maze
No longer blind, we can now see
The true source, of you and me
Silence is golden and pure like you
No longer encumbered by the speculative few
Discovery at hand when the maker sees fit
Let us now smile on abandoned pits
Our culture now safe from origins harm
Controversy now over, no need for alarm
“But, what is this question that burns in me?”
Hush little lamb, why trouble yourself with what you can’t see.
Guest
Posted: Friday, February 18, 2011 1:01:09 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,525
http://www.davispolk.com/lawyers/david-bauer/

...ohhh yeah, I noted the wrong name and linked it to an actual Law Review which anyone could have noted such mistake. But, does it make the argument B.S. or the aversion to an actual issue B.S.?

When ID/Creationists use attorneys, and scientists no problem. But when they have something to say against the controversy...it's B.S. Of course, now, you also have a J.D. Congratulations on your achievement. Wow, those law school bills must be gruesome. Of course law review articles have no more weight than your argument since you are now so learned in the legal system. I just wonder what your colleagues would think about teaching controversy and allowing creationism/Id in schools.

Oh, wait, the NCSE which was quoted states:

http://ncse.com/creationism

Look up next to the title:
"NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out."

So glad you have come on board. Glad we were able to shine the light on you. Welcome.
Jacknife
Posted: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:02:19 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 196
Location: United Kingdom
I've no read through this and I can't understand what, if anything, is being argued. but I know at least at some point there was this idea of teaching the controversy and we teach our children (well not my children) differing points of view and let them make up their own mind.

Ok, lets now expand this to other fields as I'm sure we wouldn't want to be singling anything out.

Mainstream chemistry teaches that Atoms are held together by The Strong and Weak force. Why do we not teach the alternatives? God simply holds them together

No one has devised an experiment to detect the graviton yet, but no one suggests that instead of the gravity theory, Thor simply pushes us down by throwing tiny hammers at us.

We can extend this out of science of course.

In History we have Holocaust denial. Anyone brave enough to suggest we should teach that as a simple alternative or controversy because the argument is a simple extension of the ones previously discussed.

Controversy is not taught to school children. It is discussed in pier review literature until a consensus is reached amongst people who are already well versed in the subject, not school children or your average numb nuts in the street.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, February 20, 2011 8:58:33 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:
...No, let us not look on learned men like the Supreme Court Justices who came up with the "Establishment Clause" that supported the "wall of separation of church and state" by that other cliche prone President Jefferson. Let us only look to journalistic integrity, and other religious apologist, or veiled ID positions on the subject. Let us forget that the same Constitution, and Supreme Court, which have given us the right to free speech and the right to bear arms. If it ain't backed by a Christian god, it ain't right. To the exclusion, of course, that if you believe in a god or a supreme being, then you're square. Atheist's, and other folks are not welcome.


Have I ever implied "If it ain't backed by a Christian god, it ain't right"...? Making things up just makes your position weaker. And please, if you would, explain to us where, in what legal document does the phrase "wall of separation of church and state" occur?



eviotis wrote:
No, I should not rely on any intuition, or belief. I should merely accept what should be taught. Much like what an elementary school child would feel, without actually being able to comprehensively know what is going on. "Well then, it only teaches them how to think." Yes, by divine providence, and not sole intelligence.


The way kids are being told they have to believe in evolution to the exclusion of all else? That there are no other schools of thought, no matter how "unscientific" they should be? From the Discovery Institute — Center for Science and Culture:

Quote:
...The strategy of exclusion may win court cases (at least thus far), but it shuts down the debate. And shutting down debate isn't good for academic freedom or critical thinking. Moreover, it doesn't work. Without understanding this controversy (and some of the historical and philosophical reasons for it), many students will continue to resist or distrust the claims of science.

Yet wouldn't "teaching the controversy" simply confuse students and undermine the prevailing theory? Not necessarily. Consider the April 2002 issue of Natural History with brief position statements for three proponents of intelligent design - and three responses from evolutionists. Surely there's room in the public school curriculum for exposing students to this debate and helping them to engage the issues.

If the aim of science education is scientific literacy, then students must learn the prevailing theories in science. But if we expect them to believe what they hear, they must also learn something about the conflicts and controversies surrounding those theories.

For anyone who cares about good science education, winning court battles isn't enough. Winning the hearts and minds of students is what really counts.

Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar and director of education programs at the First Amendment Center. An educator for more than 20 years, he writes and speaks on religious liberty in public schools, religion and values in American public life, and First Amendment issues in education. He is the author or co-author of six books, including Finding Common Ground: A First Amendment Guide to Religious Liberty in Public Schools.


MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, February 20, 2011 9:09:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:
http://www.davispolk.com/lawyers/david-bauer/

...ohhh yeah, I noted the wrong name and linked it to an actual Law Review which anyone could have noted such mistake. But, does it make the argument B.S. or the aversion to an actual issue B.S.?

When ID/Creationists use attorneys, and scientists no problem. But when they have something to say against the controversy...it's B.S. Of course, now, you also have a J.D. Congratulations on your achievement. Wow, those law school bills must be gruesome. Of course law review articles have no more weight than your argument since you are now so learned in the legal system. I just wonder what your colleagues would think about teaching controversy and allowing creationism/Id in schools.


And you're an attorney from what firm? Oh, that's right. You're a paralegal. As a paralegal, I'm sure Mr. Bauer's JD impresses you greatly. For myself, however, I've known too many PhD's, JD's, and MD's who were total fuckups to be impressed by it. No doubt if I had a dreadful merger coming up Mr. Bauer may be one that I choose to go to for legal counsel, but he's not a Constitutional scholar (as you implied). Since you want to go to the Supreme Court, let's just ask Justice Scalia whether teaching Creationism is Constitutional or not:

Quote:
As far as the Constitution is concerned, Scalia insisted, all that matters is that legislators sincerely believed that creation science was scientific. It is not necessary, for constitutional purposes, that their collective assessment was right. If a legislature full of ignoramuses requires geography teachers to teach that the earth is flat, it is a sorry state of affairs—but not an unconstitutional one. Moreover, the fact that many supporters of the law might also have had religious motivations is of no concern. Scalia noted that the Court would never “strike down a law providing money to feed the hungry or shelter the homeless” just because legislators might have had religious beliefs that influenced their decision.

Scalia left little doubt that he thought the majority let its own views about creation science and evolution—rather than the beliefs of Louisiana legislators—determine the outcome of the case.


Oh, wait, the NCSE which was quoted states:

http://ncse.com/creationism

Look up next to the title:
"NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out."

So glad you have come on board. Glad we were able to shine the light on you. Welcome.[/quote]

What's your point? I never said I want Creationism taught as science. If you weren't inflicted with such tunnel-vision, you would already know that. I want it taught, for the enrichment of all students. The reasons for which I've already posted numerous times. You still haven't said why it's bad for the students to learn that it's a great big world out there filled with all kinds of people who may have different points of view than themselves. You can argue it's Constitutionality all you want - but why is it bad for the students?

MrNudiePants
Posted: Sunday, February 20, 2011 9:22:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Jacknife wrote:
We can extend this out of science of course.

In History we have Holocaust denial. Anyone brave enough to suggest we should teach that as a simple alternative or controversy because the argument is a simple extension of the ones previously discussed.

Controversy is not taught to school children. It is discussed in pier review literature until a consensus is reached amongst people who are already well versed in the subject, not school children or your average numb nuts in the street.


To be totally truthful, I think the schools are doing their students a disservice if they never tell them that there are people in the world that believe the Holocaust never happened. They should show the students the evidence (in an age-appropriate manner) and then mention how there are stupid, evil, cruel people in the world that deny this ever happened. And that this is why all people should work to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

As for teaching controversy... how else do you teach critical thinking? You post two (or more) opposing viewpoints, introduce the controversy between them, and then let the student work out which is correct and which is not. I've got no problem teaching evolution in school. I just think schools are doing their students a disservice if they never teach alternate points of view. Not in science class, but somewhere in the curriculum.

Jacknife
Posted: Monday, February 21, 2011 4:41:34 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 196
Location: United Kingdom
MrNudiePants wrote:
Jacknife wrote:
We can extend this out of science of course.

In History we have Holocaust denial. Anyone brave enough to suggest we should teach that as a simple alternative or controversy because the argument is a simple extension of the ones previously discussed.

Controversy is not taught to school children. It is discussed in pier review literature until a consensus is reached amongst people who are already well versed in the subject, not school children or your average numb nuts in the street.


To be totally truthful, I think the schools are doing their students a disservice if they never tell them that there are people in the world that believe the Holocaust never happened. They should show the students the evidence (in an age-appropriate manner) and then mention how there are stupid, evil, cruel people in the world that deny this ever happened. And that this is why all people should work to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

As for teaching controversy... how else do you teach critical thinking? You post two (or more) opposing viewpoints, introduce the controversy between them, and then let the student work out which is correct and which is not. I've got no problem teaching evolution in school. I just think schools are doing their students a disservice if they never teach alternate points of view. Not in science class, but somewhere in the curriculum.


Wonderful answer MNP

So following on from your logic this scenario should be acceptable. Students go into science class and are taught about evolution. The next class would then be comparative religion class where Creationism/ID is looked at with the disclaimer, "people who believe this are idiots."

this to me would be perfectly acceptable. I have no problem with students knowing that creationists exist. My problem is them being taught what they believe and wanting to call it science. There is a difference between teaching that Holocaust denial exists and teaching holocaust denial. In there same way there is a difference between teaching creationism and teaching that creationism exists.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, February 21, 2011 8:52:40 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Jacknife wrote:


Wonderful answer MNP

So following on from your logic this scenario should be acceptable. Students go into science class and are taught about evolution. The next class would then be comparative religion class where Creationism/ID is looked at with the disclaimer, "people who believe this are idiots."

this to me would be perfectly acceptable. I have no problem with students knowing that creationists exist. My problem is them being taught what they believe and wanting to call it science. There is a difference between teaching that Holocaust denial exists and teaching holocaust denial. In there same way there is a difference between teaching creationism and teaching that creationism exists.


Well... I would cut it off before I reached the "...are idiots." Lots of very intelligent people believe in some form of creationist faith. Maybe it's Christian, maybe Muslim, or Shinto. I would just teach that there are beliefs other than those explained by science, and what the major ones are, in a nutshell. I would also encourage the students to go to their parents or guardians for clarification or further information. Children get most of their beliefs and morals from their parents anyway - this wouldn't be any huge stretch for them.

Guest
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 8:50:43 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,525
"I just think schools are doing their students a disservice if they never teach alternate points of view. Not in science class, but somewhere in the curriculum."


...hmmmm, perhaps bible study in school?
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:05:32 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,525
"I would also encourage the students to go to their parents or guardians..."


That's where most should "cut it off." As usual per deists, bible thumper's, and controversialists, no response to the whole, but only a reactionary response to parts. Attack the weak points, don't engage the strong points, and where ever possible diverge from the argument and make yourself seem knowledgeable.

Attacks on reason and in this case constitutionality are usually childish, and unresponsive to the majority. Consensus, that is.

LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 12:36:53 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
eviotis wrote:
"I just think schools are doing their students a disservice if they never teach alternate points of view. Not in science class, but somewhere in the curriculum."


...hmmmm, perhaps bible study in school?


Micho, as long as its not taught in science class, what's the big f-ing deal?

I'm not religious either, but if I'm a parent someday, I'm thinking I'd be well served to take the rage I might feel toward creationism being taught, and putting that toward not letting that teacher/school have the last word. Yes, I know lots of parents suck and couldn't care less (like mine did), and just to be clear, I think its a terrible idea to have creationism within 50 feet of a science classroom, but to be righteous about anything relating to religion being taught anywhere in any school seems to reek of trying to make a right out of two wrongs.

I get that everyone's butthurt over having religion shoved down society's throat for a few thousand years, but how does being strident about it now help YOUR kid? And if its not about your particular kid, then why would one have any stake in any other kid, no matter what point of view you happen to espouse? Once again, I agree it has no place as a science lesson, but after that, it seems to be every bit as much about personal agenda as secular people would accuse religious people of.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 2:49:28 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,525
The point is the agenda that is behind creationism and especially ID. As for ID itself (looking at the Wedge) it would try to replace science, and does not promote comparative study, does that not bother anyone? Or am I not able to think in the think tank and just say ehh screw it, forget what I read and just go with the flow.

As noted before, my first comment was about a 9 year old girl who was made fun of by kids from religious households, and the thought that all people no matter what their belief should be respected equally, just a thought, then I get comparative religion classes argument for a nine year old, and a bunch of other stuff that never made any sense.

Said it before, I'll say it again. I don't have a rage against religion, my daughter is open to choose any religion or spiritual belief that makes sense to her and gives her strength, guidance, and comfort. Just keep the church out of the classroom.

As for my lengthy responses I will do myself a favor by not responding to your colleague and take his word on everything.

LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:11:47 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
eviotis wrote:
The point is the agenda that is behind creationism and especially ID. As for ID itself (looking at the Wedge) it would try to replace science, and does not promote comparative study, does that not bother anyone?


I wonder if we're actually all agreeing with each other more than it seems, and are just too busy talking past each other to realize. Who among us is really on board with "creationism" being within the realm of science? I know neither me nor Nudie does.

If we agree on that, then we agree that religions are nothing more or less than non-scientific disciplines with their own non-scientific theories, just like politics, philosophy, art, and others.

And other than science, what discipline values comparative study over convincing the world that their movement is best, if not outright 'correct'? Free-market conservatives aren't at all interested in continually comparing their ideas against communists, or likewise. Both are convinced they are right, and the other is an utter failure and fallacy. Does that mean neither should be taught?

I'm reading a lot about art lately. Deconstructivists believe that classical rules about composition are oppressive, stifling, and not representative of our fractured world. Are they 'right'? Hell, who knows, everyone feels differently, but should differing theories not be taught because they seek to discredit the others?

If not, and if we agree that creationism isn't, and under no circumstances should be, science, then what are we arguing about: what age survey of religions, mythology, philosophy, art theory, and political science should be taught?

I agree, 9 is a little young for many of those.

Dancing_Doll
Posted: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:30:08 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,299
Location: West Coast
Just out of curiosity... and I haven't been to bible studies or Sunday school so I have no idea how it is dealt with. But if a kid goes to one of these classes (outside the school curriculum), and starts talking about what he learned in science class about evolution or the origins of life, and is confused about why his science teacher is telling him one thing and his bible study teacher is telling him something else... how does that kid figure out who is right? Would a bible study teacher tell him that what he learned in science class is wrong? Would devoutly religious parents tell them to take what they learned in science with a grain of salt, and refer to the Bible as the correct text? Like I said, I don't know how bible study works, or how much they instruct kids that "hey, this is just an interpretation or 'theory' of the origins of man"... but I imagine it would be pretty confusing for a child.

Now, at an older age, after kids understand the concept of a 'theory', then comparative studies, and learning about various religions makes more sense to me, just on a purely educational level.

But I often wonder how a school-aged child makes sense between what's being taught in science class and what's being taught at Sunday school or bible study. And I would have a serious issue if the bible study teacher is trying to establish superiority over what is being taught in school. Again, I don't know if they actually do this, but it just makes me wonder.


stephanie
Posted: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:20:05 PM

Rank: Bohemian

Joined: 1/1/2010
Posts: 4,886
Location: Dublin, Ire., Ireland


I grew up in a Junior School where Catholic Dogma was taught as fact....

(We still had "Limbo" then, a since reneaged Catholic concept that maintained that un-baptised infants, those who had died in childbirth for example, were forbidden to enter Heaven.... An imaginative child, I remember being deeply troubled by the concept of loads of little unloved babies floating around alone in space waiting for someone to love them.... Horrible thought!)

By the time I was Seven years old I realised that the whole notion was total twaddle!

THERE IS NO GOD! We should be good to each other because we CAN and it's the proper thing to do.... We are the most intelligent animals on Earth..... Organised religion simply divides us and stops us working together as a species to better our planet....

I have no objection to those who believe in God, or the healing power of crystals, or the Astrology section in your local daily tabloid newspaper....

But I wouldn't teach any of that in schools...

Creationism is Christian fallacy.... The New Testament has some pretty cool ideas, (Love Thy Neighbour As Thyself etc....) but that's simple Social Science, (THAT word again....)

Organised Religion stifles free thinking.... "Why should I be good?" is a really good question.

"Because if you aren't good you'll go to hell" is a stupid shit answer....

We're here NOW..... And we're not doing a very good job.....

Teach that!

xxS

(I respect all who hold firm beliefs. I merely state mine.....)

Imbecile! - de som empire
Si nos efforts te delevraient,
Tes baisers ressuseraient
Le cadavere de ton Wampyr! (Baudelaire.)
(I'll ATTEMPT a free translation...)
"Idiot! Even if our efforts were
To deliver you from Her empire,
Your kisses would bring back to life
The corpse of your beloved Vampire."
EVERYONE WHO SPEAKS FRENCH: "THat isn't quite correct..."
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:15:21 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
eviotis wrote:
The point is the agenda that is behind creationism and especially ID. As for ID itself (looking at the Wedge) it would try to replace science, and does not promote comparative study, does that not bother anyone? Or am I not able to think in the think tank and just say ehh screw it, forget what I read and just go with the flow.

As noted before, my first comment was about a 9 year old girl who was made fun of by kids from religious households, and the thought that all people no matter what their belief should be respected equally, just a thought, then I get comparative religion classes argument for a nine year old, and a bunch of other stuff that never made any sense.

Said it before, I'll say it again. I don't have a rage against religion, my daughter is open to choose any religion or spiritual belief that makes sense to her and gives her strength, guidance, and comfort. Just keep the church out of the classroom.

As for my lengthy responses I will do myself a favor by not responding to your colleague and take his word on everything.



Rail against the strict fundamentalists who teach hate in the guise of love. Rail against the bigots who teach "Our God is greater than your God". Fight so that your child's education is as complete as it possibly can be, without the school board or faculty promoting any one particular agenda over another. What you're doing now... I see no difference between those that say, "You'll never teach about religion in my child's school" and those who say, "You'll never teach about science in my child's school..."

MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 10:23:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
Just out of curiosity... and I haven't been to bible studies or Sunday school so I have no idea how it is dealt with. But if a kid goes to one of these classes (outside the school curriculum), and starts talking about what he learned in science class about evolution or the origins of life, and is confused about why his science teacher is telling him one thing and his bible study teacher is telling him something else... how does that kid figure out who is right? Would a bible study teacher tell him that what he learned in science class is wrong? Would devoutly religious parents tell them to take what they learned in science with a grain of salt, and refer to the Bible as the correct text? Like I said, I don't know how bible study works, or how much they instruct kids that "hey, this is just an interpretation or 'theory' of the origins of man"... but I imagine it would be pretty confusing for a child.

Now, at an older age, after kids understand the concept of a 'theory', then comparative studies, and learning about various religions makes more sense to me, just on a purely educational level.

But I often wonder how a school-aged child makes sense between what's being taught in science class and what's being taught at Sunday school or bible study. And I would have a serious issue if the bible study teacher is trying to establish superiority over what is being taught in school. Again, I don't know if they actually do this, but it just makes me wonder.


That's actually a pretty good question. I suppose it would depend on how strict that particular sect was in it's blind adherence to "The Word." Many branches of Christianity teach that the Bible is the Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing But the Truth. Others teach that the Bible is a set of guidelines on how one should pattern one's life. Personally, I've never had much use for any kind of organized religion. God has acted in my life. He's shown Himself to me in such ways that I believe wholeheartedly that He does exist. That's good enough for me. My belief in God doesn't make me disbelieve in science. As has been paraphrased here before: The Universe is the What. Science is the How. God is the Why.

active1
Posted: Thursday, February 24, 2011 4:13:53 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 12/16/2010
Posts: 150
is all bullshit just waste of time teach something worthwhile
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, February 24, 2011 6:16:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
active1 wrote:
is all bullshit just waste of time teach something worthwhile


Grammar, for instance...

Jacknife
Posted: Thursday, February 24, 2011 12:37:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 196
Location: United Kingdom
MrNudiePants wrote:
active1 wrote:
is all bullshit just waste of time teach something worthwhile


Grammar, for instance...


Would defiantly agree with you on that one!!!
stephanie
Posted: Thursday, February 24, 2011 1:26:08 PM

Rank: Bohemian

Joined: 1/1/2010
Posts: 4,886
Location: Dublin, Ire., Ireland


Spelling is DEFINITELY a good subject to teach......

(OH JACK I'm SOOOOOOO sorry but I couldn't resist.... I'm a bitch!!!) xx S

Imbecile! - de som empire
Si nos efforts te delevraient,
Tes baisers ressuseraient
Le cadavere de ton Wampyr! (Baudelaire.)
(I'll ATTEMPT a free translation...)
"Idiot! Even if our efforts were
To deliver you from Her empire,
Your kisses would bring back to life
The corpse of your beloved Vampire."
EVERYONE WHO SPEAKS FRENCH: "THat isn't quite correct..."
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.