I dont think creationism should be taught in schools because this is a free country and some people dont believe in god.
Isn't this backed up by freedom of religion right? Anyways when it comes time for armageddon, and you dont believe in god you are going to...*dum Dum DUM!* go to hell. And the rest of us are gonna happily live ever after in paradise. ;)

Personally, I think creationism (meaning literal 6 day creation) is a joke and shouldnt be taught anywhere...

Evolution is the way to go, as it in no way contradicts the possibility of a 'Higher Being' (God).
God created evolution, simple as that. ;)

Last edited: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 at 4:02:27 PM

I think perception of time in the eye's of god can not be comprehended by our feeble human minds. A day in the eye's of god can span millenniums. If perceived in this light, I believe the book of revelations could make sense.

I think the kids are confused enough. Let the parents do their job. I just want the evolutionist instructors to state that Evolution is the current THEORY (yes, that's right), and that there are other potential explanations. Let the parents explain their view. There are too many variants of Creationism for the school to safely pick one.

- Bomb…James Bomb

As long as we are pointing out that evolution is the current theory.. And point out that while there are other points of view, there are no other competing theories. While we are at it, we should delve into what a theory is.. So as not to confuse everyone by obfuscating the meaning of the term.

Churches need to stop being lazy.

So do "thinkers"

I like how my science teacher does it.
first he will give every, at least somewhat accepted, theories with an explanation of each. This includes religous. He then shows how each can be right, and then how each can be wrong. And basically he let's us decide. He doesnt try to drive any specific belief into our heads.

^ good man your teacher. Evolution is the theory de la dia where I'm at however.

I am just happy that Men are finally about 1/2 way done evolving.... Sheesh... You guys sure are taking your time.

:)

I dunno flea, the teacher is introducing the students to a wide array of theories...but presumably only "teaching" the one(s) that withstand the rigors of the scientific method. I don't see the harm in considering other views in the science class, as that seems like it is what Bak's teacher is doing...

Tankgirl! If you think we are bad now..just wait! Ps...you ever hear of the book "the woman who never evolved" ? By sarah hrrdy ( I think). What an awesome book...talks about the different biological adaptations women have made...instead of the usual male-centered dross...i love the idea of wide hips and constant breasts of signs of never ending estrus...as a way to control your man!

So who would believe this all could of happened by chance?

Who has enough hubris to suggest that *we* are the children of a god ?

- btw, I disagree with the positive assessment of bak's teacher.
now, if dude's a preacher and he wants to teach evolution in his sermons and whatnot, I'm all for it, teach both in both places.
do you see what I'm getting at here?
thought I've never been in church that wasn't also a museum, I have a hard time picturing the above scenario.
"Here are 2 theories. Make up your mind."
When that happens, I'll test out my homemade gossamer wings while my trained pet monkey throws me a frisbee.
As per usual, the everywhere-ness, the unquestionability of all things religious seeps into public policy.
( by religious , I mean christian ).
please revert back to my initial comment.

Last edited: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 at 9:31:28 PM

MM, I provided the link where I stole it.
You're supposed to do your own work! :-)

He also added this below...

"The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence", does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable."

Jose Wudka
9/24/1998

Last edited: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 at 9:40:40 PM

You do realize that if the supporters of Intelligent Design get their way, schools will also be obligated to teach this sort of crap: http://www.rael.org/

@ Poke
Ya know, if the US was the only country that had a clue about science I might just shake my head in disbelief.

But considering how the US is going to have to compete with China, India, Europe, Japan, Korea et.al. Even harder in the coming years for medical, scientific, and technological advances I am left absolutely dumbfounded. Even the trend that foreign students would come to the US for their scientific and engineering training is starting to reverse. They have their own first class schools now people! And creationism, ID, and UFO have no place there. OR HERE!

Last edited: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 at 10:42:00 PM

Long live rael.
or why not these theories? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_mythology
you want theories, I got theories

Bah.. That greek stuff is just a poor retelling of the Enuma elish http://www.pantheon.org/articles/t/tiamat.html . LONG LIVE MARDUK!

Last edited: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 at 11:23:08 PM

Marduk? MARDUK????
sorry "creator," but these cats have ownage.
http://www.culture.gouv.fr:80/culture/arcnat/lascaux/en/

Part of being a resident theologian (or pastor as we have come to know them) is getting to wrestle with different theologies and ideologies which seem to challenge our understanding of God's activity in the world. Too many people are willing to dismiss God as inactive, withdrawn, apathetic, drawing from an incomplete form of the scientific method, I cannot observe, therefore it must not be true, or after having their own beliefs smashed against the rocks of experience, they have scurried to find a God that they can make sense of, or at the very least cope with, which ends up being a mish-mash of eastern and indigenous spirituality. My guess is, it's because indigenous and eastern theologies tend to focus more on the individuals quest and involvement in the spiritual process, rather than be involved within a community of faith and all that comes with it. Or at the very least they don't have to deal with ecclesiology and dogma and settle into the comfortable wellness of their own being.

That having been said, the creationist position has some problems.
- Creationism tends to be composed of the following tenets. First the biblical accounts of creation in Genesis 1-3 are factual. Second, evolution based views of the world's origins and processes are antithetical to a belief in God and to the Bible. A theistic evolutionism is unacceptable because it is a contradiction in terms. Third the essence of the biblical position on creation is belief in God's special creation. Fourth, evolutionary theory is not able to explain all that science has discovered about the world.
There are problems with this approach.
- First the creationists misuse the biblical literature by setting it over against scientific treatises, as if there were a one to one correlation between them. I.e. They assert that there is absolute Bible accuracy on the subject of plant physiology, for them, Deut. 33:14 indicates that sunlight plays a role in photosynthesis. As pokemalo so astutely stated, the OT borrows from many types of literature, most of which is doxological in nature and that much of it is poetic, symbolic and not intended to be science or history in our sense of those terms.
- secondly, the creationist position is so simplistic in relating to the Bible to scientific discoveries and so unwilling to accept dynamic change in natural processes through natural development that it actually betrays the Christian affirmation that God relates to the world as it is . They do the opposite by relating contemporary scientific understanding to the understandings of the world that prevailed in biblical times. The result is that the classical creation witness is proclaimed with little relevance to the world that people today actually experience.
- thirdly, the creationist strategy does not relate biblical faith to the ongoing activity of scientific research and discovery; it only tries to verify biblical statements about the natural world. The creationist is not interested in contributing to scientific discovery so much as in verifying the Bible with scientific means. They do not enter vigorously in to the pursuit of knowledge as scientists.
The greatest harm done by creationists is certainly their energetic pressing of a simplistic understanding of the creation-affirmation and its significance. They deprive both their adherents and the secular society of a forceful presentation of the power and the problematic of the claim that this world is dependent on God the Creator for its being, with all that entails. This should be the job of those of us who work with and within the church, not within the public school system.

@Memphis,

That was excellent.. Great post.

Ditto that^

Memphis....
You were clearly peaking on smart-pills when you wrote that.... :) You used more big words per sentence than any post in the history of PTT!!!

After your brain-high has faded off into the sunset.... Maybe you could jot down a synopsis with simpler terminology for us commoners. For the life of me, I can't tell what your stance is on the subject.... (me, a dumb redhead).

Thanks Mem..
Katherine

Ever wonder why the Bible was written before any contemporary "The Origin of Species?"

I think baklava summed it up perfectly.

So simple and easy.

Last edited: Wednesday, December 15, 2004 at 7:43:59 PM

This was in my morning paper today...

"The American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed a lawsuit on Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania against the school board of Dover, Pa., saying the board violates the rights of several parents and students by requiring the teaching of an alternative theory to evolution in public schools.

Twenty miles south of Harrisburg, Dover is apparently the first school district in the United States to require high school biology teachers to introduce students to the theory of intelligent design. The theory says the development of the universe and the Earth was guided at each step by an ``intelligent agent."..."

For the rest of the story;

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/12/15/a8.nat.evolution.1215.html

If you substitute the word "trust" for "faith", you might have a better idea of how Christians view their faith, not how an unbeliever does. ;)

As far as evolution in school goes, I'd just prefer that it was taught later in the students' academic career, say beginning in 9th grade. Honestly, I'd prefer to have my son's formative years to myself without having to compete with the secular version of our origins. Once he's older and able to make personal judgements and handle the implications of evolution, then I wouldn't be so bothered by his exposure it the idea.

Now some may object to that since they feel I'm indoctrinating my son. Well, maybe from the opposition's perspective, but then I feel that's what they're doing with their secularization of the schools and this country in general.

Heh, as soon as one thread dies, another starts up. It's very similar to watching a crowd of scrummers move from server to server.

...anyhow...stink's thread has pages of my personal belief, so I'll just concentrate on the school aspect.

As a theistic evolutionist, I don't have a real problem with schools teaching evolution as long as they qualify it as one theory. Let parents do the rest. I was taught evolution in school, but I have my own take on the thing because my parents and church did not expect the school to do the job for them. Some people say children can't handle conflicting information. If the kid has any friends, I'm sure they've already dealt with the lessons of "conflicting points of view."

However, the "shotgun approach" of teaching ALL of the different possible theories for the sake of being equal...is just nuts! Separation of Church and State. My anthropology instructor was pretty clear. "There are different views on exactly how these species relate. I will be teaching you the non-theological theory of evolution. I'll deal with teaching about Intelligent Design just as soon as the Church deals with teaching Evolution. Understand?"

Why is there separation of Church and State? To keep things equal. Otherwise, I would be sending Jack to a school that will be trying to pump his brain full of theories, mythologies, and practices of over 20 religions and beliefs. Give me a +*#$&^ break!

Give the kids some credit: they are a lot smarter than you think. Parents do their job. Churches do their job. Schools do their job. I don't want the school trying to do my or the Church's job. I doubt I'd like the results.

- Bomb…James Bomb

Ya know, I personally think children should not be allowed to be subliminally influenced by the ideas of theology and IDT. Hey, that was short, but it's not called "my 2 cents" for nothing... XD

Whattabout letting science teachers just let er rip, even in middle school...and just allow parents who object to it exempt their children from science? That way the science that gets taught doesn't get dumbed down to the level of religiously acceptable discourse...what ever that is at the moment...

We always seem to strike compromises which lead to mediocre products...perhaps a safe, koshered science could be taught to children who's parents object to the theory of evolution...this way they would still have a basic level of scientific understanding that would prepare them, say, for careers in...oh...foodservice, or janitorial work...that way they could serve those citizens who took the real science classes and thus serve a useful function in society.

And lets face it: students from the US are not performing as well in science and math when compared to students from other post-industrialized nations. Teaching some namby-pamby, religiously and politically correct, neutered science isn't going to catch us up.

Last edited: Thursday, December 16, 2004 at 7:36:23 PM

Being politically correct is not the main reason for our education rating. GRADE INFLATION, due to teachers being legally pounded by the parents in denial, IS the main reason. We've become lazy in our studies because Mommy and Daddy will come rampaging into the Director's office if that mean, slave-driving teacher dares drop our grades. We're not bad performers, we're just being singled out because we need a different "approach" to learn the subject.

My Dad is an instructor in Junior High. The stories I could tell of the parents' antics when a kid is a pirating, lazy, idiotic slug. Man, we have a lot of dumb and defensive people in this country.

Differentiating FACT from THEORY is not diluting education, it is making it accurate. Crimony, somebody get the air-freshner....

- Bomb…James Bomb

Oh what the hell do I know...i'm just a sped instructor in a middle school and a high school..i defer to your anecdotes...

But you conflate your argument with the argument of the religious populists that oppose evolution...JB: they aren't asking for Evolution to be taught with a caveat in most places. That's your argument, not theirs...mr. High horse.

And yes, there is pressure on teachers to deflate grades...some of it actually comes from sped teachers like me acting under policies that come from IDEA. But principals (presubably under pressure from parents...but sometimes reflecting the will of the district) also pressure teachers...in many cases, the result is a DUMBED DOWN curriculum that gets taught to all the kids...and surprise surprise! They all get A's and B's.

As I said, in mississipi (or was it missouri) it is actually against the law to teach evolution...considering how thoroughly dependent the biological sciences are on evolution...how do you even teach this branch of science...without being wrong?

So, actually...curricula are dumbed down...either through pressures of powerful administrators reflecting the will of parents, the perhaps illogical over extension of IDEA, or both, or through the will of the people, expressed to local or state education association. The phenomenon of grade deflation exists, but it affects only the individual teachers who bow to the wills of the huffy puffy parents...the true culprit is more systemic.

Last edited: Friday, December 17, 2004 at 1:12:31 AM

<deleted>
Admin Note: You think Lonewolf is the only one? He's got a posse, little fella!

Last edited: Thursday, December 16, 2004 at 9:40:53 PM

Yow^

Anywho...in terms of putting stickers on books warning that the contents are merely theoretical...i got no problem with that if it is applied to other theoretical subjects as well...history, economics, civics, language arts...pretty much everything else.

And maybe the bible should have a sticker put onto it while we're at it...something like: "this is an ontology. It is one of thousands. Belief in this ontology doesn't give you stomping rights over everything else."

I don't think the exclusion of evolution in science classes makes for bad science. There are lots of theories out there that aren't taught, especially on the elementary and middle school level. There's plenty of experiments and ideas that make good science that will engage students and inspire them to learn more. Currently my 6yo wants to be a scientist so he can create dinosaurs that only eat plants so we can ride around on them. After he's going to look into making some aliens. ;)

As far as "parents doing their jobs", that sounds good on paper, but do you really expect me, let alone some blue collar worker, to be able to compete with a science professional? I suppose if I spent all my free time studying evolution/creation/intelligent design theories then I'd be able to "do my job", but then I wouldn't have much time for anything else (or all those others aspects of my parental job). It's kinda funny that the only parents who are expected to "do their job" are the parents who have an issue with evolution. I guess the other parents don't have to do anything since the State is taking care of it.

And I tend to lean towards JB's reasons for poor scoring. Add to that the cultural attitudes towards education in general. Instead of a climate that rewards hard work and being smart, we're migrating towards either hitting the lottery or winning a big lawsuit. Oh, and the fun factor. There are so many ways to be entertained and distracted these days. Of course, I know it's my responsibility to monitor and curb my children's activities, but I've got to study evolution/creation/intelligent design theories, remember? ;)