Creationists and Public Schools

Post Reply New Topic

DW a mom said:

" We can't NOT teach evolution and expect to stay competitive in a science based global economy,"

Please: explain exactly how today's global economy disadvantages people who do not know about Evolutionary Theory. What industries does it impact? Is it that essential to progress in electronics, or the development of new drugs? Will Darwin's insighte help us desin a better mouse trap?

And if that is so - dare we fall behind the rest of the world by NOT teaching the theory of Pragmatics?

The next Big Thing will be biologically based. New drugs are developed in a biological context. Biology makes little since exclusive of genetic variations and selection in the environment. So a country ignorant of biology will fall behind in biologically based technology. Electronics is nearly seventy years old is very main stream and no longer on the cutting edge of science.

ruveyn

Let me clarify / rephrase. Teaching creation "science" requires, in my opinion, a distortion of scientific method and critical thinking. Teaching evolution shows how these work. People need to be able to understand hard science and how conclusions in hard science are reached. Any teaching that puts a hole in that interferes with the ability to think in the ways leading, cutting edge industries require.

We are already at the point where we hire a large percentage of our technical expertise from outside the US. It's not necessarily a bad thing, when kept in proportion, but those who watch these trends feel it is going to rise out of proportion over the next few decades, to the point where we could become dependent on those with a foreign education. The issue goes beyond whether or not schools teach evolution, obviously, but you can't take out a piece of the puzzle and expect the puzzle to come out right.

What the anti-evolution crowd is pushing is just as wrong as asking for equal time to teach the earth is flat in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Besides confusing the students, it is a waste of everybody's time to do this and intellectually dishonest to boot.

Sure present the evidence, teach the kids how to reason critically from evidence, and then hear some parents scream even louder that the state is bashing their religion. If their beliefs are as stupid as insisting that the earth is flat, or that evolution doesn't happen, they don't have any right to force such idiotic unsupported falsified assertions onto everyone else's children to make those other kids as dumb as they want their own kids to be.

ruveyn and DW_a_mom both point out good reasons why we should not allow this to happen. Some fundie Christians are also super-patriots, but apparently don't realize the harm they are causing their own country (and humanity, and the planet) by trying to legislate ignorance in science classrooms. They are actively trying to repeal the enlightenment and send us back to the Dark Ages, and turn America into a theocracy against the specifically expressed wishes of the Founding Fathers (these bozos also try to rewrite history similar to Orwell's 1984).

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 24 Jul 2011, 1:16 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Thank you. If you put it in those terms I do not have to rear up. I am for a number of reasons a bit of a wording finick with a tendency to read things literally.

If one says : We must teach evolution or science dies - even if that person is my own brother - which it is - I rise up and roar.

Teaching the output or the attitudes of Creation Science so styled - yes, that would discourage science. NOT - brother mine, I insist - NOT kill it. But putting Creation Science in the public schools presumes conforming pressure from the State which will shift the politics of the academy which are bad enough now but do leave some people in the sciences relatively free to work.

Progress in the Popular Sciences would be pushed out into the home laboratories [as has happened to us in some less popular sciences] or the R&D facilities of industries that are not too strictly regulated. That would, yes, be a setback in the global economy.

If they teach creationism they should teach Pastafarianism as well. All glory to the flying spaghetti monster!

Open letter to the Kansas city board

Since we should all be clear from my previous posts that I don't consider creationism to be science, I will repeat something I noted earlier: I'm not opposed to including it in the curriculum and, in fact, I think some of our issues arise from the way texts totally omit Christianity. My son learned, in social studies, about Judaism, ancient Vedics, Muhammad, and more ... But nothing about Christianity. I found that a bit glaring as an omission. Is it just too contentious, that we couldn't even get our Christians to agree how to summarize it in two pages? I don't know, but it is a glaring gap. By filling it in, there would also be the opportunity to talk about faith based theories on creation, and note why some of faith consider certain scientific teachings incompatible with their faith, and even mention that religious scientists have different ways of resolving these conflicts (either don't read the Bible literally, or develop alternative theories) ... Then leave students to work out their own priorities.

My son was definitely asking these questions, and it all got handled by a combination of home discussion and discussion in religion class (as Catholics, we don't challenge scientific findings, but do look for the hand of God in it). But I was left wondering why the school left such a big gap. The kids learn about the Holocaust and modern slavery, Buddha and Thor, but they can't learn anything about Christianity?

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 24 Jul 2011, 7:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

a. "Creation Science" is based on faith.
b. Faith proves nothing.
: : "Creation Science" proves nothing.

Teaching useless courses that prove nothing is a waste of taxpayers' money.

Interesting, isn't it?

At the end of the day, no, creationism is NOT science. I DO understand that.

The issue, I think, is really THIS: No one was present when the world and all in it came into being. Saying that evolution on a macro level is an absolute fact and saying THAT is falsifiable when it is by nature not something we can recreate and verify--and THEN say about intelligent design and creationism that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is just plain hypocrisy. Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't (macroevolution). But you DO have people who believe in God and believe the Bible. If they examine available evidence and come to a different conclusion, that's one thing. But stating as absolute that there couldn't possibly have been 7 days of creation is straying from the area of human observation and into theology. You don't KNOW that with any certainty, and evidence both from the fossil record AND in Genesis suggests a pre-human existence. It is unreasonable to dictate to Christians what they should believe in terms of those 7 days, and evolution as it seems to be most often taught intrudes into the area of religion. If we truly have freedom of religion, then public schools, as an agency of the government, ought not be about the business of telling children what to believe in terms of a religious issue.

I'm not saying it SHOULDN'T be taught at all. I just mean keep a proper perspective. "Scientists have come to THIS conclusion, and here is the EVIDENCE from the observed world that supports it." Also, because science explores the observed, physical world, it makes not up its mind on matters of the existence of God. It doesn't jump to a "Goddidit" conclusion. Rather, a Christian has already made up his mind that God did it. But just because God did something doesn't mean we can't take something apart (the physical world) and understand for ourselves how it works. Science and religion need not intrude on each other that way.

Back to DW's points: If we're talking social studies, I think it's a shame that the roles that religion has played is left out of history books. You may not be a Christian or agree in any way with Christianity, but the influence of historical Christianity is undeniable in our present way of life. Part of northern Europe's interest in settling North America came from a desire for religious freedom, inhabiting a land free of the control of a state religion. It's not that what they were doing wasn't setting up a theocracy of their own, but rather they felt they ought to be able to worship God as they pleased and their search was motivated by religious persecution at home.

Persecution and radical fanaticism resulting in witch hunts and the like were influenced by the dominance of the Church. On a positive note, the moral compass of Western society has often hinged on Christians and Christianity. Our justice system is based on the same model as Biblical justice (lex talionis). So I think it's a tragedy to conveniently leave out an important group of people that shaped everyday life in the Western world.

That's not to say you CAN'T recognize the contributions of other cultures. That would be like focusing on sacred music from Palestrina to Brahms as the single most important determining factor in modern and contemporary western music while outright ignoring any influence at all from India and the Middle East. And Africa--don't forget Africa! The point is that everyone played an important role--some roles having more of a determining influence than others, but none insignificant. You can't leave out Christianity just because virtually everyone is either Christian or affected by Christianity. The plain fact is it HAS an important role in the world. And it's not just about Christianity. Many people have done significant things throughout history because of religious fervor in general. If you want to get rid of religion from the historical discussion, understanding WHY 9/11 happened isn't going to make much sense. What are you going to say? "Well, Johnny, the reason 9/11 happened is a bunch of crazy guys got on some airplanes and crashed them into a couple of buildings. We don't really know why..." No, you'd say, "Well, there was a guy named Osama bin Laden who didn't like how Christians live and resented American involvement where he lived. So he taught people who believe in Mohammed, who is kinda like their Jesus, how to strap bombs to themselves and blow sh!t up. And some of these guys got on airplanes and crashed them into a couple of buildings, killing themselves with a whole bunch of other people. Because they believed that if they did that Allah, who is kind of like God, would give them 300 virgins when they got to heaven."

OK, I'm exaggerating, somewhat--but the point is religion plays a huge part in the development of history and to ignore any part of it is just foolishness. But like DW pointed out, it seems most often that Christianity selectively gets ignored. To me that's the ultimate PC foolishness in that Christianity had more to do in influencing our way of life than any other factor.

Calm down, everybody, I said I wouldn't and I shan't.

A. Teaching courses that "prove" stuff is a waste of money.

B. Teaching courses that stuff heads with "facts" is a waste of meney

C. Evolutionary Theory is based on faith.

D. Evolutionary Theory proves nothing.

E. So-called Creation Science rests on a theoretical framework that is full of inconsistencies and involves wresting the Scriptures if nothing else.

F. Evolutionary Theory provides a theoretical framework which in the current state of our understanding yields productive insights into data well outside the fossil record and oberved instances of mutation.

Geologists can't recreate 20,000,000 years of tectonic forces and generate a full scale mountain in a lab. They just note current active forces , examine the evidence and find that it did happen. The same is true for astronomy, cosmology, etc. LIke them, evolution is verified through examining both current processes and the historical evidence (fossils and genetics in this case). It can be falsified, it just hasn't happened.

You admit that creationism is not science so where is the hypocrisy exactly?

@AngelRho:
Macroevolution is as much a fact as the heliocentric solar system. There is at least as much evidence humans share common ancestry with other living things as there is for the earth going around the sun instead of vice versa as Christians USED to think based on the same style of Biblical interpretation that is causing this current crisis.

Eventually the weight of evidence convinced mainstream Christianity that the earth is not the center of the solar system. Already MOST mainstream Christian denominations and most Christians worldwide either accept the fact of evolution or say whether or not it happens makes no difference to their faith. The very vocal strident minority of Biblical literalists though are SO strident and SO vocal that many people (including many Christians) think they speak for all Christians and represent the mainstream view.

It is my honest opinion that sooner or later those denominations that deny the FACT of evolution will either have to admit they were wrong (similar to what happened with geocentrism) or fade into obscurity as another failed crackpot cult. Of course I could be wrong! If they get their way, civilization may go back to the Dark Ages, or even further away from reasoning and sanity.

Last edited by TheBicyclingGuitarist on 24 Jul 2011, 7:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oh, PLEASE be right!! !

These id-iotas that experience something they are too ignorant to understand and then claim "GODDIDIT!" are too loud and too many.

"You were not there" or "no one was there" is poor reasoning and a dumb argument against a well established theory, especially if that is to favor the proposed pseudoscientific alternative. In any case, you can't , reasonably, put the same amount of skepticism and validity towards Evolution and Creationism, as you are attempting to do, put them on a balance weight, and Evolution wins.


The science itself rejects creationism, so no need to make that quote. In any case, I see no hypocrisy, you can't just compare them, period.

You're kidding, right? I bolded the part where you answered your own asinine question. Evolution matters in medicine. It underpins all of biology.

Pooh. It is absolutely absurd to claim that science [even the Popular Sciences] screams and dies if Evolutionary Theory was never conceived or tomorrow [thanks to an amazing new discovery] is disproven.

It is a trifle less obviously absurd to say - as I have heard it said not just from you - that without Evolutionary Theory Biology withers on the vine.

I am - oh, yes - a taxonomist and a comparativist and a reconstructor of former states, I do with languages precisely what my paleontologist brother and his colleagues do. I work with the evolution of languages, if you will.

But descriptive linguistics and sociolinguistics and stylistics and translation theory and pragmatics and experimental phonetics and syntactic theory and a number of other fields of inquiry work with different data and concepts and are quite independent of Diachronic Linguistics and largely of one another.

So - pretend Evolutionary Theory never ever came up. You telling me that no one is doing anatomy and biochemistry and immunology and studying the behavior of the raven and investigating nutrition and genetics [arguably the most affected by Evolutionary Theory] and devising new drugs?

Tell me another.

That is as much Motivator talk and as little reality based as is saying that if certain select verses in Genesis are not literally true [nobody can really take even just all of Genesis literally] then Christ never rose and God does not exist.