Latest Challenges to the Teaching of Evolution

Im not going to be dragging this out. I just dont want to give the Creationists any time they dont deserve IN SCIENCE. Youre just flat wrong to want to present a seminar presenting evolution v Creation as anything but science. Where else do you feel it can fit and still meet the state ed board guidelines. I dont think any school (maybe Louisiana or TExas) would entertain such a proposal mostly because it would serve absolutely no education purpose. Ive known many teachers who want to offer electives in subatomic particles, but arent equipped themselves. I feel that most teachers would fit this bill in this survey course.

As far as kids being idiots, noone said that except you for suggesting thats the way several of us think, Thats a cheap trick borne from uncertainty in your own poition. The kids are , however, impressionable sponges and such a course would not be a measure of scientific evidence. Instead it would be a measure of pure stage presence and skill at showmanship.

As far as any science teachers being Creationists, Id suggest you look deeper into the makeup of your own school districts, you would be surprised as to how many there really are. There are very few teachers in the earth or bio sciences who are Creationists (but there are probably several in each district). We in Pa dont exclude teachers because of their beliefs but we do require that sections of required information be taught without any worldview diversionary ractics.


To present Creationism as a "theory" has me even doubt your depth of information in this subject. Its not a theory as science defines one, its a worldview that survives despite emerging evidence.

The number of bright tudents who can do that is in a minority, as teachers you are required to reach and teach the majority, not cater to an elite.(If you are only an ad placement teacher then you have pre culled batches of students, maybe 15 % tops). Thats hardly enough to develop a confusing seminar that requires more capability than the teachers have (I mean that with all due respect because as I said before, HS teachers ARE expert at theories of teaching , but not the subject they teach).
Seminars or pecial ed topics ARE presented in community museum outreach or University continuing ed programs for advanced students and educated adults. I think Id trut the real experts at doing a one on one where EVolution biologists debate with Creationists.Outside of a school environment it would be more equalizing because the debates could get specific and no "guidelines" wopuld need be followed.

That is an excellent example of the anti-IDers mindset. How such a class is presented to the students never enters wande's head as a possible factor resulting in students enrolling. He just has this abstract concept unrelated to human weakness in his head whereby anybody who enrolls in a course he wouldn't enroll in despite him knowing nothing about how it is promoted and its nature is an idiot.

If Rebecca was running a course on how to watch paint dry I would have enrolled in the days of my ebullience.

Im not going to be dragging this out. I just dont want to give the Creationists any time they dont deserve IN SCIENCE. Youre just flat wrong to want to present a seminar presenting evolution v Creation as anything but science. Where else do you feel it can fit and still meet the state ed board guidelines. I dont think any school (maybe Louisiana or TExas) would entertain such a proposal mostly because it would serve absolutely no education purpose. Ive known many teachers who want to offer electives in subatomic particles, but arent equipped themselves. I feel that most teachers would fit this bill in this survey course.

As far as kids being idiots, noone said that except you for suggesting thats the way several of us think, Thats a cheap trick borne(IMHO) from uncertainty in your own position. The kids are , however, impressionable sponges and such a course would not be a measure of scientific evidence. Instead it would be a measure of pure stage presence and skill at showmanship. To even obliquely "teach" Creationism by your method is not condoned by the US Constitution, and its not a matter of how smart the kids are. When they are exposed to the slight of hand debate tricks that Creationists use (many of whom are professional debators sponsored by several Creationist organizations to appear as "Bible Scientists") many kids will be impressed and think that what they are being presented is actual truth when its actually all garbage thats full of lies, fraud, and mistatements of what evolution scientists say. (EVer hear of "quote mining as a debate trick?")

As far as any science teachers being Creationists, Id suggest you look deeper into the makeup of your own school districts, you would be surprised as to how many there really are. There are very few teachers in the earth or bio sciences who are Creationists (but there are probably several in each district). We in Pa dont exclude teachers because of their beliefs but we do require that sections of required information be taught without any worldview diversionary ractics.


To present Creationism as a "theory" has me even doubt your depth of information in this subject. Its not a theory as science defines one, its a worldview that survives despite emerging evidence.

The number of bright tudents who can do that is in a minority, as teachers you are required to reach and teach the majority, not cater to an elite.(If you are only an ad placement teacher then you have pre culled batches of students, maybe 15 % tops). Thats hardly enough to develop a confusing seminar that requires more capability than the teachers have (I mean that with all due respect because as I said before, HS teachers ARE expert at theories of teaching , but not the subject they teach).
Seminars or pecial ed topics ARE presented in community museum outreach or University continuing ed programs for advanced students and educated adults. I think Id trut the real experts at doing a one on one where EVolution biologists debate with Creationists.Outside of a school environment it would be more equalizing because the debates could get specific and no "guidelines" wopuld need be followed.

Ionus, the only one who used the word "Idiots" was aidan. You just picked it up as if it were a true statement. Obviously neither you or aidan are versed in the tricks and falshoods that the Institute of Creation SCiences use (many of the Craetionist Institutes had been founded by several AUstralians).
These guys have highly trained debators (Not one is a real scientist0 and they engage in miscasting evidence and science data in a baldface fashion , as if they had backup literature on their side. They are a devious bunch of professional liars who will cherry pick science quotes totally out of context and try to use those as a "proof" that scientists are "NOT CERTAIN" about what they are damn well ceratin about.

The whole issue of the age of the earth is just one example. How do the Creationists deny the physics and nuclear chemistry that supports stratigraphic and fossil assemblages. YET , on the same hand , they will quietly accept that nuclear medicine, power, amnd weapons technology is valid. All the equations that define the energy releases of isotopes are the same equations that underpin the science of radioisotope dating.

The phrase "serve absolutely no education purpose" is a disguised version of idiotic. Don't let the self-regarding flummery fool you.

And the "emerging evidence" is that discovered if you start from the position fm does and close your mind to other scientific evidence of the type that is not immediately capable of interpretation in simple terms.

anti-ID is trying to have a philosophy with the least effort which is the correct evolutionary method for the construction of an authentic currach or for satisfying pressing needs in social settings where ugly and desperate ladies hang out and, as such, unsuitable for philosophies except those of a somewhat extremely attenuated style.

If you want to gauge the integrity of that remark Ionus I suggest you read the thread. To save you the trouble it has zero integrity.

AIDAN THEN SAYS



What youve just engaged in is what I meant by "Quote mining". Youve used one of my statements and then selectively added another and , by doing so, make it appear that there was a relationship. A normal Creationist would do that to make a false impression out of some some scientific literature.

WHAT I SAID was that. THE EVIDENCE would refute theior case. DO YOU ACTUALLY THINK that a Creationist would present that very data? NO the students wont figure it out because they wont have the resources to the evidence that points out the errors in the Craetionist way of thinking.

Its not that the kids are "IDIOTS" (you initiated the term). They just wouldnt have availability to the scientific data at the seminar.
I firmly believe that youve not been in the presence of the Creation "Scientists" like Duane Gish or "Dr" Ham, or "Dr Dino". These guys are baldface liars and will use any audience to spread their untruths to any receptive audience. To do this in a public school , no way.

Has anybody on here suggested that the persons you have picked out of the 7 or so billion inhabitants of the planet are to teach in public schools.

If not I humbly submit that you are playing fast and loose with communication yourself.

Aidan stated that shes a teacher, unless I misread.
I was addressing her as a fellow teacher. Having her seminar assumes that it would be part of the "ed system" and not on a streetcorner.

I, on the other hand feel that presenting such a seminar would be OK in a college where the kids and the faculties are better [prepared for the discussion.

I beg to differ.
http://able2know.org/topic/121621-194#post-3850152
But the point is somewhat muted because I was referring to this post
http://able2know.org/topic/121621-194#post-3850359 by wandeljw. Perhaps you thought I was replying to you.

If we are saying Creationists have a shockingly bad knowledge of true science, I agree totally. If we are saying their use of science to defend God is wrong, again I agree totally. But if we are saying their defence of a belief in God is wrong, then I diasagree totally.

Yes, fundamentalists select which science to believe and which not to believe. It is an embarrasement to anyone who loves science and believes in God. Not only is misusing science to defend God unnecessary, it is inherently based on a lack of religious faith. There is no science that disproves God. The literal meaning of the Bible will take a thrashing, but justly so. It was never written as a book to be literally true. It was written as a teachers guide to discuss points of morality.

As far as Im aware, thats never been the goal of science. The Creationists, on the other hand, have been fighting a losing battle to have their worldview "TAUGHT AS SCIENCE". Theres a huuuge difference. AS long as the "defense" of religious views does not require a special involvement of public institutions to make its case, its ok in my book.

Do You mean that the defense of religious freedom must include its entry into the science academics to make its case in a manner counter to standard scince?? I will fight your "Assumed rights" on that one. IN the US, its specifically forbidden to teach Creationism as science in public schools. Its also forbidden to teach Intelligent Design as "avalid alternative theory" in the Federal Ditrict that includes Pa.
Both decisions were decided resulting from cases involving Creation Institutes and The Discovery Institute trying to sneak the camel under the door jamb of the schools in Louisiana and in Pa (1987 and 2005, respectively).

In the US, the Creationist worldview has had its day as the single unifying model for science curricula until the late 1920's when several cases began a long period of change in public school structure. If parents want their kids taught Creationism and ID as valid science, then the parents have the right to yank their kids out and send them to the myriad of parochial and other private schools, and also, to "home school" their kids where they are free to teach them anything they wish as long as the kids pass the standardized tests that each state requires in determining the kids proficiency.

NO, the point I was referring to was aidan . She, in its context herein, introduced the term "idiot" to try to help her thesis. I was referring to spendi in a more lighthearted manner since edgar had broken the ice in referral to spendi in a similar fashion just ahead of me.
YOU were nowhere involved in the swipe. Sometimes its hard sorting the flyshit from the pepper in these threads

I certainly didnt take offence from what you said as it was not directed to me and I was replying to wandeljw.

My position is that Creationists have no claim to science but these threads tend to end up with so-called scientists attacking the Bible to prove God does not exist. This is clearly unscientific and should be relegated to the same area of deep thought as the world was created 10,000 years ago. I would have no problem with creationism being taught in schools if it was a part of culture studies and involved other religions and their theories of creation. Creationism is not an alternative to science and does not deserve equal time.

I only used the word because it stuck in my mind from earlier. Spendi doesn't mind. We trade this kind of crap daily.

And I only used the word to describe what students are not.

There IS a relationship for any thinking person. If, as you said, and I happen to agree that 'most of the data will refute their entire case,' that in and of itself will 'reinforce the truth'.

That's what evidence does.

I have never called anyone or implied that anyone on this forum is an idiot. I only used the word to describe what I KNOW students are not. Because I would never call another person an idiot - and especially not a student.
Any statement that denies that is a misrepresentation.

You obviously give creationists more credit than I do. I've never heard any of them say anything in such a way that I'd be convinced to overlook scientific evidence to accept their premise (if you like that word better than theory).

But the fact that they are advocating a premise can and should not be denied in terms of current events and issues that are affecting education and I feel it would be interesting to have those very people who would be effected be informed and have a place and/or opportunity to discuss the implications this might have in their lives and in the lives of others.

This is the FIFTH time I'll say - it would not be a science course in the science curriculum. It would be (in my mind) a sort of sociological exploration of the implications of various belief systems in and on society and education. The science would have to be presented, so the students could know what exactly was being examined and what the evidence was.

I never used the the terms 'Evolution VS. Creationism'. I never used the term pros and cons. It would be an objective examination of the available literature and information- period.

I might have a vaulted impression of the students I have in mind, but I don't think so. I know some incredibly bright and self-motivated thinkers who happen to be in highschool. Yeah, they could sit in the basic and beginning courses with everyone else - or they could be offered something that spurs some creative thinking and utilizes and hones their skills.

I also know teachers in highschool who are experts in their subject area. They've got doctorates and have written textbooks. Just because they don't teach at college or university doesn't mean they can't. It means they like who they're working with and what they're doing where they are.

When people start belittling other people for their beliefs and ideas, and impugning their intelligence and casting aspersions on their motivation - that's when I give up. I realize I can't make anyone understand what they are determined not to understand. That's become clear when I am fingered as using the term idiot to impugn someone else when I clearly used it to defend the intelligence of students.

You all have a nice Christmas.

I meant to say 'vaunted' - as in higher than deserved...not vaulted.

25 + years in the academic "Trenches" dealing with this very issue will do that to you. I can see that you are not familiar at all with the Discovery Institute or The Institute for Creation SCience and their well funded group of "outreach" MINISTRIES that travel about trying to inculcate the young by speaking at Churches and , If invited , at schools.

I can tell you this, TODAY there are no such individuals in either Pa or Del. (We require individuals in my field to be licensed, and that includes academics). terminal degree in a science (like a PhD or a Master of Applied SCience MAS) is a separate discipline than a Doctorate of EDucation (ED), each is a requirement imposed in order to practice in a particular state. You cant teach High school without an education or teaching certificate and (several other requirements Im not familiar with). Teaching in college or practicing the dicipline as "An expert in the applied or theeoetical science" requires the terminal degree IN the field itself.
I do know of a few colleagues who, after careers in geology, went and triwed to "give back" to their community by serving as a teacher in a high school. The high schools are not frinedly in protcting the unison status of their teachers. They require the EDucation degree, getting the teaching certificates or advanced degrees IN EDUCATION (or some aspect of ed theory or applied).

The high school teaching industry is protective of its own and tries to discourage "experts" from coming on board because , at least in Pa, the argument is that "experts in their fields dont know how to teach High school". I dont know how it is in your state.

As far as textbooks, the market needs good introductory texts, the mahority of texts are advanced texts used in college abnd grad school and research. I dont deny that high school science teachers have produced good intro high school texts. Often, in thing like phgysical science the format is equally important as the substance. The expwrienced HS teacher can add a huge benefit to how a text is structured and how it reads. Ive edited colleagues texts in advanced geo subjects and the process of writing a shitload of technical information needs to have organization (Something that is like pulling teeth to the research scientist who is used to writing collaborative "papers").
Im in the process of writing an intro text for use in college and Ive got a retired English Professor who is helping me out in the entire format department. I know hes pulling his hair out regarding some of my initial deliveries.
So I applaud high school teachers who write really good and accessible texts for the physical sciences curricula for use in HS's.

Precisely. Thats why, in the space of an hours seminar, I would guess that the Creationist would avoid all references to any data and the SCientist wouldnt have enough time to really refute the lies. The way that these things are handled in larger audiences is to have both sides limited to a specific area of presentation.

Your flippant use of "Theory" is a crux of the problem when presented by laymen. The term theory is quite rigorous to a scientist and anyone who confers some religious worldview with the scientific credibility of "theory" has already won a large part of the argument for the CReationist and thats just done by ignorance of the language . SO the students think that theres an equal batch of competing theories when there isnt. Theres only a theory of nat selection , v the myths of Abraham. Thats all.

Also,even in college beginning courses I see kids coming in all armed with their parents religious beliefs who will either change their beliefs as they are further educated , or they too push back and pursue their religion as inerrant truth despite the evidence. These are all bright students who are merely displaying the fact that they are ipressionable(which has often little to do with intelligence)