RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events



Message

Veritas -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 6:49:00 PM)

First the creationists tried to claim that creationism was science. It is not, and no one was fooled.

Then they tried to claim that they were not promoting religion, they were looking for scientific evidence for design. And the ID movement was born from the creationist movement. Again, no one was fooled.

This is just the latest in the series of scams they try to pull. Pretend that it is not about creationism or ID at all. They just play coy and say it's about academic freedom or some such. The purpose of this bill is to allow the introduction of ID creationism into the public school system. This is stealth creationism.


quote:

FROM: Dr. Forrest's Analysis of SB 733 (a .pdf)

NOTE: I have a document drawn up by Mr. Pennington that was obtained from the Ouachita Parish School Board via a public records request and released with a letter from attorney Elmer G. Noah II dated March 4, 2008. Mr. Noah stated that the document was provided over the board's protest. He also stated that this "ten (10) page outline entitled 'Supplemental Materials for the Teaching of Evolution'" was prepared by Mr. Pennington and "was distributed by Mr. Pennington to his fellow science teachers to use in their classroom instruction as they deemed appropriate." The document is full of young-earth and ID creationist material, much of which Mr. Pennington found on the Internet and used without proper attribution. I have identified the sources with help from staff at the National Center for Science Education.

Of course the board protested the release of the document. It shows their true motives. -- To introduce young earth creationism / ID into the public schools which the board knows full well is illegal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

To say that allowing science teachers to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of evolution is allowing ID is more than a stretch.

The Ouachita Paris School Board realizes this is about YEC and ID creationism.

Look at the post in this very thread by the supporters. You only have to look to the posts by those who support the bill -- They realize that this is bill is about ID creationism.

Both the supporters and the opponents realize that this is all about trying to let ID creationism be introduced into the public schools in violation of the constitution. It's a stretch to think anyone is fooled. Are you really so naive that you don't see what the opponents and supporters alike all see? Or are you just playing coy?



Marcus. -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 7:51:03 PM)

I'm also not so naive to realize that many of the darwinists are willing to do anything to prevent debate and even will "create" evidence themselves.

I see some of the opposition as designed to squelch even scientific evidence that contradicts or at least doesn't support evolution.



tafkam -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 8:16:58 PM)

quote:

Both the supporters and the opponents realize that this is all about trying to let ID creationism be introduced into the public schools in violation of the constitution.


Perhaps you could show us where it violates the Constitution (and please no "separation of church and state" nonsense, since that is NOT in the Constitution....)



Veritas -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 9:37:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

I'm also not so naive to realize that many of the darwinists are willing to do anything to prevent debate and even will "create" evidence themselves.

Early on in this thread, you said, "To say that allowing science teachers to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of evolution is allowing ID is more than a stretch." It's not just the opponents that see the connection. The supporters realize the purpose of this bill is to allow the introduction of ID creationism into the public schools. Do expect us to believe that you do not see what the supporters see in the bill?



tafkam -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/4/2008 9:52:56 PM)

And many of us are still wondering what evolution supporters have their boxers in a bunch about.

Again, are youreally so insecure in your position that any and all debate and disagreement must be squelched?



Marcus. -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/5/2008 12:03:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

Early on in this thread, you said, "To say that allowing science teachers to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of evolution is allowing ID is more than a stretch." It's not just the opponents that see the connection. The supporters realize the purpose of this bill is to allow the introduction of ID creationism into the public schools. Do expect us to believe that you do not see what the supporters see in the bill?


What I see is this being used to silence any dissent on evolution by those who are philosophically invested in it. If you go in the field you will have to know the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Paleontology was my favorite geology class. Strictly being told it is accurate and unimpeachable with no error is gross distortion. That is what the sides that battle these out seem to believe. That isn't science. there have been several variations on Darwin's basic theory. As that stands it is inaccurate and doesn't match the fossil record.



Veritas -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/5/2008 12:18:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

Perhaps you could show us where it violates the Constitution (and please no "separation of church and state" nonsense, since that is NOT in the Constitution....)

I never said that the words 'separaton of Church and State" appear in the Constitution. Just so we're clear, let me state that the words "spearaton of Church and State" do not appear anywhere in the Constituion proper nor do the words appear in any of the various amendments to the same. Never the less, the courts have consistently ruled that the teaching of creationism is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
See:
quote:

From Wikipedia: Edwards v. Aguillard

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools whenever evolution was taught was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.

After Edwards, creationists changed their tactics. They tried to call creationism Intelligent Design. The creationists once again tried to bypass normal procedure and legislate that their religion be taught in the public schools. They thought that if they called creationism by another name, it would not fall under the Edwards decision. They were wrong.

quote:

From Wikipedia: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., Case No. 04cv2688, was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts against a public school district that required the presentation of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution as an "explanation of the origin of life." The plaintiffs successfully argued that intelligent design is a form of creationism, and that the school board policy thus violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The judge's decision has sparked considerable response from both supporters and critics.


quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

And many of us are still wondering what evolution supporters have their boxers in a bunch about.

Again, are youreally so insecure in your position that any and all debate and disagreement must be squelched?

Creationism whether it is called creationism or ID is religion. The public school is not the place to promote religion.

A public school science classroom is not the place to promote unproven and unsupported hypotheses. There is ample opportunity for debate and disagreement. -- Just not in the science classroom. The science classroom is the place to teach proven science. It is not the place for creationism anymore than it is the place to teach astrology or witchcraft.

The bill will be challenged in court and the result will be the same as it has been each and every time creationists try to violate the Law of the Land.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/5/2008 9:18:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam
I will never understand why liberals are so afraid of having any point of view other than their own given air time in the public arena.

I, on the other hand, understand perfectly why the right is incapable of distinguishing religion from "points of view."

quote:

I for one have no problem with evolution AND creation being taught

. . . Case in point . . .

quote:

How nice knowing that your beliefs are so precipitous that it can't handle the slightest challenge.....

Like I said, let's also start "challenging" math and English with "alternatives" and make our students 100% maleducated-- as if education in the rest of the western world wasn't already leaving America in the dust.



iluvatar -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/5/2008 9:24:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

iluvatar, I'm curious, do you believe we humans evolved from apes?


I didn't start out there, but that's where I see myself heading. I'm moving towards the position that the creation of man wasn't literally being molded out of dirt, but rather imbuing a pre-existing creature (or perhaps, a slightly altered version) with a spirit and understanding of morality.

quote:

I for one have no problem with evolution AND creation being taught, but the left cries foul at the very mention of the "C" word.


I'll concede that there may be some overreaction, but when you consider the poor state of science education in this country along with the high popularity of the belief that the earth is young, the almost non-existent physical support for young-earth-creationism, and the generally dishonest and ignorant manner in which creationist apologists have attacked evolution over the last ~50 years, it's easy to understand why they get so riled up.

-Dan.



Sophie11 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/5/2008 10:55:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11

iluvatar, I'm curious, do you believe we humans evolved from apes?


I didn't start out there, but that's where I see myself heading. I'm moving towards the position that the creation of man wasn't literally being molded out of dirt, but rather imbuing a pre-existing creature (or perhaps, a slightly altered version) with a spirit and understanding of morality.


Well when I was in high school this was what was taught, that we evolved from apes. Then later I looked into the evidence behind such a theory and found it to be severely lacking at best.



tafkam -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/5/2008 2:13:22 PM)

quote:

The science classroom is the place to teach proven science.


Which evolution is NOT. It is a theory, nothing more....



Veritas -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/5/2008 5:25:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

quote:

The science classroom is the place to teach proven science.


Which evolution is NOT. It is a theory, nothing more....

I meant proven itself as a valid scientific theory, not proven as in mathematics. I admit proven was an unfortunate choice. I usually try to avoid the word when referring to scientific theories. The theory of evolution is not proven in a mathematical sense any more than any other theory in science. The theory of gravity and the theory that germs cause disease are not proven either.

A theory is the highest product of science. You are right -- evolution is a theory. The fact that evolution is a theory is not a weakness; it is a strength.



TaoPoohBear -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/5/2008 6:10:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

quote:

The science classroom is the place to teach proven science.


Which evolution is NOT. It is a theory, nothing more....


quote:

Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. Predictions can be made and tested based on this theory
The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.

In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it. A revision of the current theory, or the generation of a new theory is necessary if new observations contradict the current theory, as the current findings are in need of a new explanation (see scientific revolution or paradigm shift). However, the falsification of a theory does not falsify the facts on which the theory is based.

"Fact" - A fact, in science, is an observation.
"Theory" - A theory, in science, is an explanation of the observations.
Evolution as theory and fact

Your "theory" on evolution not being science (that should be taught in a science class) is a "conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions."
The theory of Evolution in science is an explanation of facts.

Unsderstand the difference?



Sophie11 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/6/2008 9:21:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaoPoohBear

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

quote:

The science classroom is the place to teach proven science.


Which evolution is NOT. It is a theory, nothing more....


quote:

Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. Predictions can be made and tested based on this theory
The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions.

In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it. A revision of the current theory, or the generation of a new theory is necessary if new observations contradict the current theory, as the current findings are in need of a new explanation (see scientific revolution or paradigm shift). However, the falsification of a theory does not falsify the facts on which the theory is based.

"Fact" - A fact, in science, is an observation.
"Theory" - A theory, in science, is an explanation of the observations.
Evolution as theory and fact

Your "theory" on evolution not being science (that should be taught in a science class) is a "conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions."
The theory of Evolution in science is an explanation of facts.

Unsderstand the difference?


You know PoohBear, I have been noticing in this thread and others that you have an extremely patronizing way of responding to others.

As far as evolution being an explanation of facts, that depends on what subject you are saying evolved. When it comes to humans, the science community has no observations of such a thing occuring.



1dblthnk02 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/6/2008 10:18:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sophie11
Well when I was in high school this was what was taught, that we evolved from apes.

. . . Then, you were taught poorly. The theory (within the greater theory of evolution) is that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.

quote:

Which evolution is NOT. It is a theory, nothing more....

I'll ignore the fact that you obviously don't realize the significance of a theory, and bring it back to:
At least it is a theory. Creationism is not.



stephanos -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/6/2008 1:00:22 PM)

Anyone who rejects Creationism, is not a Christian.

Why?

Because whether you believe God did it over billions of years, or in 6 days, GOD CREATED EVERYTHING! If you dont believe that, you do not believe in the one true God, and are not saved.



Veritas -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/6/2008 6:54:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos

Anyone who rejects Creationism, is not a Christian.

Why?

Because whether you believe God did it over billions of years, or in 6 days, GOD CREATED EVERYTHING! If you dont believe that, you do not believe in the one true God, and are not saved.

Creationism is religion that pretends to be science. One can be a Christian while realizing that ID creationism is not science.

At least you understand that this bill is all about ID creationism.



todd_t -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/6/2008 7:44:03 PM)

quote:

Evolution cannot be observed, merely theorized upon.


Yes, it can be observed...via fetalogy and measuring the fossil record of various species.

quote:

And many of us are still wondering what evolution supporters have their boxers in a bunch about. Again, are you really so insecure in your position that any and all debate and disagreement must be squelched?


Insecurity has nothing to do with evolutionists' rejection of ID; it's that it fails the definition of what science constitutes at every level. Furthermore, ID is offensive to some because it would place one form of religious creationism (Christianity) above all others in a public school environment.

This said, tell me: how are non-Christian stories of creation (e.g. Hindu, for example) more valid than the Christian one, and provide the data that proves it.

Are you following me?

Other than saying "Because the Bible says so" (which is a statement of faith) scientifically proving Christian creationism to be more ironclad than Hindu creationism is impossible. And science doesn't operate on faith.



solo_soprano22 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/6/2008 8:23:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iluvatar

Science doesn't and can't say anything about God, but it can speak about the progression of natural processes - the contents of a science curriculum should be scientifically sound.

-Dan.


If you say that science can't tell us what's moral/ethical in threads (in that forum), people act like they can't understand. [8|] I know what you said is slightly different, but what you said made me think about it. :)



stephanos -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/6/2008 9:41:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veritas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stephanos

Anyone who rejects Creationism, is not a Christian.

Why?

Because whether you believe God did it over billions of years, or in 6 days, GOD CREATED EVERYTHING! If you dont believe that, you do not believe in the one true God, and are not saved.

Creationism is religion that pretends to be science. One can be a Christian while realizing that ID creationism is not science.

At least you understand that this bill is all about ID creationism.


Do you deny that GOD in what ever way, Created the Universe? See this is the problem that evolutionists have. They refuse to admit that GOD CREATED EVERYTHING. I admit, I am a Six day Creationist. But I do have respect for Christians who believe that God CREATED the universe over the course of several hundred billion years. At least they admit that GOD did it. I dont care really if you believe in macro-evolution, but to say God is/was not in control, that is to deny God and proof positive of the fact you dont believe in the one true God.

Let me say that again, Evolution is not a sign of non-belief. Believing that it all just happened, and God was not the cause, IS A SIGN OF NON-BELIEF.

Again, NO CHRISTIAN can say that GOD did not CREATE the universe.



Marcus. -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/6/2008 9:46:00 PM)

The other religious creation stories read like poor fairy tales.



Veritas -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/6/2008 11:01:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marcus.

The other religious creation stories read like poor fairy tales.

The Christian creation story talks about days before the sun to mark them. It has a talking serpent and a tree that imparts knowlege.

If this isn't about trying to introduce the Christian creation story into public schools, then please tell me, what do religious creation stories - Christian or otherwise - have to do with this bill?



stephanos -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/6/2008 11:51:02 PM)

How about the flaws that the current theory of Macroevolution has!?

Like the unreliability of Carbon Dating.

Like the fact that macroevolution in humans is dependent on a "missing" link that does not exist/has not been found. You see I am not saying it absolutly does not exist because it has not been found (admittedly as some other 6day Creationists do) but it is rather presumptive to say that it does exist when no proof of it has ever been found (as almost everyone on the Macroevolutionary side does).

While Christian Evolutionists can answer this, atheists can not. What caused the Big Bang? If you can answer that with out God, then what caused the cause. Somewhere something had to start the chain that is outside the normal cause and effect line. What is that? I call that God. Someone who is beyond our line of time, who was/is the Creator of everything. Atheists answered this paradox with the Chaos Theory. Aparently the universe can just spring out of nothing for no reason at all.



Marcus. -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 12:43:19 AM)

They have nothing to do with. It has everything to do with covering the cons with the pros, which some folks seem to want to ignore.



Sophie11 -> RE: State frees teachers to criticize evolution (7/7/2008 9:24:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t
quote:

Again, are you really so insecure in your position that any and all debate and disagreement must be squelched?


Insecurity has nothing to do with evolutionists' rejection of ID; it's that it fails the definition of what science constitutes at every level. Furthermore, ID is offensive to some because it would place one form of religious creationism (Christianity) above all others in a public school environment.


You know, with everything else that is being taught to our children in public schools nowadays, like sex ed for first graders and how to get birth control without parent's knowledge, it cracks me up that the idea of creationism being brought into the science classroom is the thing that gets some people so upset!



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI