Evolution not the only thing to be taught anymore?

[IrishEyes]

I saw this link and knew it should be part of our discussion. It talks about a school district in Wisconsin that has opened the door for alternatives to evolution to be taught in public schools. Please take the time to browse the article, then tell us what you think.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/index.html

 

Here is a small excerpt from the article, which can be found at cnn.com:

 

GRANTSBURG, Wisconsin (AP) -- School officials have revised the science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

 

Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

[Freethinker]

That's right, We need to teach that trolls pull people down as well as the Theory of Gravity. That little gnomes live in our heads and paint pictures along with the Theory of EMF/ Photon "light".

 

There is not a single other SCIENTIFIC process to challenge Evolution Not a single one.

 

Unless someone here is the first in the world ever to offer a viable, factually supported, predictive, falsifiable alternative.

 

(And yes Irish, I was aware of this, and I thought only Southerns allowed such ignorace!)

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

I saw this link and knew it should be part of our discussion. It talks about a school district in Wisconsin that has opened the door for alternatives to evolution to be taught in public schools. Please take the time to browse the article, then tell us what you think.

I'll tell you what I think all right.

 

What these, and other people doing the same with other school boards in America, don't realise is that the theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life, and that "Intelligent Design" or Genesis creationism are not scientific theories. Many people think creationism is a scientific theory, even though it doesn't predict much and it mostly can't be tested. The parts of creationism that has been tested have all failed miserably: Neither the Universe nor the Earth are 6000 years old; all species did not exist at the same time; some human cultures predate the age of the Earth according to creationists, etc.

 

Another thing to think about is why creationists, especially in the western world, only wants the Genesis myth to be taught in schools as if it was science. Why not the Norse mythology as well? Could it be because they have not been raised to believe in that particular set of myths and fantasy stories? If people wish to believe in these stories, then go ahead. But keep them away from science education, and keep it away from children. It's completely unfair to attack them and make them believe all kinds of rubbish under the disguise of science. Have they no shame?

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

That's right, We need to teach that trolls pull people down as well as the Theory of Gravity.

 

Are you perhaps referring to the Intelligent Grappling theory?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Stargazer

Are you perhaps referring to the Intelligent Grappling theory?

ROTFLMAO!

 

Thanks, I had not run across that. I am only familier with the Micro/ Macro Gravity debate.

 

That bowling balls fall is an example of micro-gravity.

 

Macro-gravity is only a theory.

 

Anyway, bowling balls only fall IF YOU LET GO OF THEM. They don't fall on their own.

 

Remember that nobody has seen gravity, and so it's just a belief.

 

Gravity is not falsifiable, so it can't be scientific.

 

People use gravity to support evil things.

 

Anti-gravitationists deserve equal time.

 

Gravity violates the third law of thermodynamics (that nothing can fall all the way).

 

Some of the world's greatest scientists are anti-gravitationists.

 

I will post the theory of anti-gravitationism as soon as I get it worked out.

[Stargazer]

Hehe, macro/micro gravity? I wouldn't be surprised if this could be applied to every theory in science... Strange thing, though, is that theories for gravity are rarely under attack as the theory of evolution often is.

[sanctus]

Sincerely I did not read the article.

 

I'm from Switzerland, and I have to say that, even if I see that europe gets more and more americanized, I hope we never get to the point teaching creationism anywhere else as in theology!! Sorry to say it, but I remember when about 4 years ago, I first heard about creationism, I was really amazed how ignorant people can be!

 

This is not meant as an insult, just that if you believe in creationism you ignore many things!!!

 

There "creational views" I can accept, for example the one of a very religious friend of mine who studies physics as well: he says that he believes god created live in being the activation energy to form the first molecules.

 

But believing that Adam and Eve really existed, sorry that's something I can't comprehend. It's not like believing in god, that easy to comprehend why people believe no matter if he exists or not.

[BlameTheEx]

Personally I rather like Russian style determinism.

 

If a child is born black its because the mother was a slacker. It would be white if she had really tried. Lol.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Please take the time to browse the article, then tell us what you think.

 

The article provides no background for the decision, but nevertheless it is a tragedy.

 

When the argument is that it is necessary to teach more than one "scientific" theory then they are completely out of their league. This is a classic example of creationists and ID-followers to use "scientific methods" to claim that they teach "science" when what they have is a doctrine based on a religious opinion.

 

Evolution _is_ science. Evolution may be discussed, investigated, tried, and tested.

 

Creationism can only be assumed and argued about. All attempts that I have seen so far to argue for creationism either start by claiming that Darwin was wrong (and thus showing they know nothing about evolution) or by claiming (as the article does) that life is too complex to have developed without a creator. The first is simply ignorant, the second is usually more philosophical, but they always end up bashing evolution.

 

Anyway, that's what I think.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: BlameTheEx

Personally I rather like Russian style determinism.

 

If a child is born black its because the mother was a slacker. It would be white if she had really tried. Lol.

Can't say I ever heard that one before!

[lindagarrette]

I think it won't matter if the school boards force teaching of ID. Unless the teachers are stupid, they will easily show how absurd a notion it is. And, after high school, it is no longer an issue.

[Tim_Lou]

well... if creationism is taught, biology would be gone. no one in that school would be able to take bio thus would have a huge disadventage going into fields in college that deals with medical, chemical, biological stuffs.

 

""Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public funds," "

yep, thats right...it would mess the whole biology class up.

 

imagine you took the bio class, and take the standardized test. one open ended question ask you about orgin of organisms... and you say "god creates everything". guess what? zero for that answer.

 

its just the way it is... change one, and one will have to change all.

[BlameTheEx]

This always rather confuses me. If there is a God, then reality is whatever he made it, and Science is the deeply religious act of appreciating His work. Why could not God create life through evolution?

 

As to whether life is too complex to be developed without a Creator, the jury is out. Life evolved, but we don't know how it started. The jump from chemicals to life puzzles us all. Can it happen by chance alone. How easy is it? We just don't know. When we don't know it is perfectly valid to say a thing is an act of God.

 

Well, we don't know yet. At any time the mechanism may be worked out, but that won't be an attack on God's existence, or power. If evolution is all that is necessary, still God set the basic laws of our universe so that it is possible.

 

This whole fight has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with dogma.

 

Personally I side with Linda. The teachers will show the notion as absurd. However this is like the evidence that smoking kills. The evidence has been around just about as long as tobacco, but if you don't want to believe it, there is always somebody willing to give you an alternative theory. It is a shame that this time the alternative theory will gain entrance to the school curriculum.

 

Finally a warning. Evolution is clearly substantially correct, but it might not be the whole story. Science can have dogmas too.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

I think it won't matter if the school boards force teaching of ID. Unless the teachers are stupid, they will easily show how absurd a notion it is. And, after high school, it is no longer an issue.

 

Now this is interesting. What if the teachers would in fact teach ID and creationism (of more kinds than just the Genesis) alongside proper science? Maybe they could start out with the scientific method, explain what science is and how it differs from religion and pseudoscience. Then they could teach them about creationism and actual science, and perhaps that will be a way to show the students just how ridiculous it is to include religion in science.

[Stargazer]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou

well... if creationism is taught, biology would be gone. no one in that school would be able to take bio thus would have a huge disadventage going into fields in college that deals with medical, chemical, biological stuffs.

That's something that is confusing as far as the behaviour of creationists. They think that creationism is supported by evidence, that it's a theory just like evolution or big bang. They seem to be completely blind to the fact that they are completely wrong, and that the theory of evolution is one of our most successful ones. When students that are brainwashed with religion comes to a college and gets in touch with real science (assuming that they are going to a real university), they will have a disadvantage. If this happens to a lot of people, then America will fall behind. These people are willing to destroy the education for entire generations.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

I think it won't matter if the school boards force teaching of ID. Unless the teachers are stupid, they will easily show how absurd a notion it is. And, after high school, it is no longer an issue.

 

I am afraid I have no such faith in teachers. Plus if teaching creationism and ID in schools are okay, then I guess they should bring back prayer and worship, too.

 

I thought the US had a separation between the state and the church. Why can't Americans teach their religion at home, and science in school?

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: lindagarrette

I think it won't matter if the school boards force teaching of ID. Unless the teachers are stupid, they will easily show how absurd a notion it is. And, after high school, it is no longer an issue.

This would have some standing if it were not for the fact that some percent of biology teachers "are stupid" and do accept creationism and thus are anxious to teach it instead of Evolution. And others do not wish to get involved in the "dispute" and refrain from teaching Evolution regardless of what the School Boards decide.

 

From Skeptical Inquirer, Nov-Dec, 2001 by Randy Moore

 

* In Oklahoma, 33 percent of high school biology teachers place little or no emphasis on evolution. In Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee, 23 percent of high school biology teachers have the same view (Weld and McNew 1999).

 

* In Louisiana, 24 percent of high school teachers believe that creationism is scientifically valid, and another 17 percent are not sure. Even more (29 percent) believe that creationism should be included in high school biology classes. More than one-third of the high school biology teachers in Louisiana's public schools allocate time to creationism (Moore 1999c).

 

* In Minnesota, 40 percent of biology teachers spend little or no time teaching evolution (Hessler 2000).

 

* In Pennsylvania, one-third of high school biology teachers do not believe that evolution is central to biology (Weld and McNew 1999).

 

* In Indiana, 33 percent of high school biology teachers reject or are undecided about whether evolution is a scientifically valid explanation of the state of living organisms of the past and present (Rutledge and Mitchell 2002).

 

In my kids' Middle School the Biology teacher tells me he does not ahve time to teach Evolution, just "Change over time". Want to guess what his personal POV is?