Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

wearing cheese on your head seems to effect your brain in a negative manner.

Well said, dys!

Here it goes again. That Dover Pa reference is flat wrong. While the board can approve anything it wants, the state ed board closed thhe door on Creationism as science over 2 years ago. The Dover pa ref. was actually to
"allow the teaching of the evolution /Creation controversy as a scientific exercise"

Im more and more less impressed with the quality of writing in our newspapers. Unless everyone believes theyre a tabloid

By teaching the ev/creation controversy, the fundamentalists hope to get a degree of advocacy and credibility from the mere act of exposing a controversy. the troubling part of the logic is that its not a controversy among the scientific community.

dont worry, were active here in Pa and there will b e a gentle reminder from the state ed board about the precepts of science and the scientific method. the active fundamentalists want to chhange reality for all our kids by introducing this clap trap even though there is no application basis for anything in bio o geo that depends on a creationist mindset. That is always ignored by the fundamentalists and the Intel Designers , and now "the controversyists'

it keeps our winters from being too boring

as for wisconsin, I believe that the election kept much attention from this and, now that election season is past, Im sure the advocates of Creationism will see the challenges come to the front row.
I wouldnt indict an entire state for the careful, well funded, and highly organized activities of a small group of zealots who want their point of view included in science no matter what.
As I said,, nothing in Creationist thought is testable, provable, or usable in any of the science disciplines it contacts. it should die of its own connection to myth. however, it keeps arising from the dead every few years. It arrives at times when the entire fundamentalist agenda is on a national rise. It was highly active in the Reagan years. It rose again during Clintons time but (if truths be known) the Pa test was actually a set up to prove how creationism fails the test of science. BUT, these guys are more infused with their mission than theyve been in a while.

No surprise after all religion just won the election. The next step will be to try to stop the teaching of evolution. When do the Salem witch trials begin? :wink: :wink:

No, au Im not going that far because there are as many people of faith who want their kids to only be taught what is correct. This proposal keeps morphing into new presentations as the Creation school gets more savvy about PR .
The present line is waay beyond mere intelligent design, because the school boards saw that as an obvious stalking duck (we use ducks in PA).
the new line is to actually teach "the controvesry" as if there IS one. That aargument, I have to admit, is brilliant, although totally cynical in its manufacture.

Never underestimate the zeal of righteous:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/national/06texts.html?th

The Great State of Texas is going to define marriage the right way in health textbooks.

Oops, I started a duplicate thread on this...

link to other thread... for whatever it's worth

yes you did, but, having read a point over there, Ill comment about not to forget about the ncseweb.org siite. It is ,the clearing house for updates on the Creationist camel

Bein' a resident of the county (but far removed from the actualk jurisdiction ... 'bout as far away as can be and still be in the same county, I hasten to add) in which this flap is takin' place, I've taken more than casual interest in the matter. As publicity has grown, so has local notice. Its become a hot topic .... last big thing around here was ... uhhhh .... uhhhhhh .... well, there prolly was somethin'.


Anyhow, by the talk I've heard ... and there's been plenty of it ... this proposition well may be in for a rethink. I wouldn't count real heavilly on that, but the Grantsburg schoolboard members are catchin' lotsa personal heat apart from the fact the schoolboard itself is held in somewhat lower local esteem than recently it had been. There is growing, if not yet convincing, reason to suspect the issue may be at the very least back-burnered before the start of the coming school year.

esteemed lower than whale ****?

If you read the article about the Dover Pa case (similar) in
http://www.ncseweb.org

youll see that the legal fight they anticipate is already generating sides . In PA we have it easier, the state ed board has already shot down the issue 2 years ago and , little did we realize that the door is open at the local level. Many schools will lose funding in science if they pursue this track. Its nice to have personal religious beliefs and convictions. However if it imparts a distinct educational disadvantage to your kids, the state will not be a party to funding , which in this state is about 6500 semolian per kid.

Noddy wrote


Indeed. who would have thought they could elect a president of the US?

Separation of church and state--0

Religious fundamentalists-------1

Stickers Put in Evolution Text Are the Subject of a Federal Trial

By ARIEL HART

Published: November 9, 2004

ATLANTA, Nov. 8 - A federal judge began hearing testimony on Monday about whether the Cobb County School District should be allowed to leave stickers in biology textbooks saying that evolution was "a theory, not a fact" and should be "approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered."

In a lawsuit against the district, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing on behalf of five parents that the stickers violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

The school board says the stickers, which do not mention creationism or religion, are nothing more than a neutral gesture to parents who have lost their battle against teaching evolution in the public schools.

The stickers were placed in the textbooks in 2002. The books include a thorough treatment of evolution, and the stickers were intended only to "acknowledge that it may hurt some people's feelings," said E. Linwood Gunn, a lawyer for the board.

In 2002, Mr. Gunn said, the board dropped a policy prohibiting the teaching of human evolution in classes that were required for graduation. "For years we had an unconstitutional policy and nothing was ever said about it until we tried to correct it," he said. "It's a little bit ironic."

Kenneth Miller, a Brown University professor who is a co-author of the biology textbook, testified that he feared that singling out evolution told students "we are certain of everything in this book except evolution."

"What bothers me," Professor Miller said, "is it plays on the popular understanding of the word 'theory,' which is like a hunch, not the scientific understanding."

Marjorie Rogers, a parent and self-described "six-day literal creationist" who led a drive that prompted the stickers, said she was not advocating the teaching of religion, but just more theories besides evolution, which she said was disputed science. "I just want an even footing, if there's any kind of science to support it," she testified.

Judge Clarence Cooper of Federal District Court will rule after the bench trial, which is expected to end this week.

I, uhhhh, screwed up , just skip this thread

should the "sticker folks" prevail in Ga, then the precedent for a host of stickers will have been set.

I suggest another sticker below the one that says evolution is a Theory. This one should state something like

"WARNING,IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THEORIES IN SCIENCE ARE NOT ALSO FACTS, THEN YOU SHOULD THANK YOUR RELIGIOUS LEADERS FOR MAKING YOU SO IGNORANT"

Then iinclude the Gouldian definition of theory,
'A THEORY, IN SCIENCE, IS A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR A PHENOMENA, IN WHICH ALL EVIDENCE presently IS IN SUPPORT AND, NO present EVIDENCE REFUTES .
In other words, a theory IS a fact.

id go for that because there may be more of a "strength of evidence" argument that the schhool kids could become interested in , and the kids could see that all of modern biology is underpinned by Evolution theory.

I liked this statement: "The religious views of some that contradict science cannot dictate curriculum," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Maggie Garrett argued Monday before U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper.

The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Some may read that sticker and say, so what, it just says to have an open mind, and that nothing is know for certain.

But the fact that evolution is singled out, implies more than that, and it's the implications which (in my opinion) make the stickers unconstitutional.

For example, to make things balanced, other stickers would also be needed which say the following: "This textbook contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Or, "This textbook contains material on atomic structure. Atomic Structure is a theory, not a fact. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

Nobody puts stickers in text books regarding gravity or particle physics, and yet, and validity of the science underpinning those things is the same as the science which backs up evolution (if anything evolution is even more comprehensively confirmed).

The stickers represent an 'implication by exception'. They express dogmatic misrepresentation of scientifc theory, and they specify a redundant request for open mindedness. Open Mindedness and critical thinking are the hallmarks of good science, and are maintained through peer review. Unfortunatley, the same level of open mindedness and critical thinking is not demonstrated by those groups who support the stickers.

Fossil in Pennsylvania: http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/09/amphibianf.ap/index.html

Farmerman, I envy your "back yard" (Pennsylvania). It seems that some really neat fossils are in your area.

All I get up here are glacial erratics.

from the November 09, 2004 edition

In Texas, a stand to teach 'abstinence only' in sex ed

By Stacy A. Teicher | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Presidential politics isn't the only realm where the Texas way prevails. As a heavyweight in the $4.3 billion textbook market, the state puts its stamp on materials bound for many of the nation's classrooms. On Friday, two messages came through loud and clear as the State Board of Education voted on a new list of approved health books: That abstinence should be taught without any textbook discussion of contraception. And that the books should be explicit about marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Texas is one of 21 states with a centralized process to review textbooks, but it's the second-biggest market. "If [interest] groups can be successful in California and Texas in getting some restrictions as to what content is covered, that will have a major influence on textbooks that are sold nationally," says Martha McCarthy, chancellor's professor of education at Indiana University in Bloomington.

Everything from evolution to multiculturalism has come up for scrutiny in textbook debates over the past century. But the origin of the state-approval process dates even further back to just after the Civil War. Southern states organized to keep out textbooks that they saw as disparaging the Confederacy, so Northern publishers began sending separate books with more palatable references, like "the War for Southern Independence," according to a September report on textbooks by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute in Washington.

The report criticizes states that dictate what books schools can purchase, saying the practice "entices extremist groups to hijack the curriculum, and papers the land with mediocre instructional materials." Textbook publishing is ripe for reform, it argues, because students spend somewhere between 50 percent and 90 percent of class and homework time focused on textbooks.

In hearings before Friday's vote in Texas, the debate centered on the discussion of abstinence and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) in four high school books. Protect Our Kids, a coalition of educators, health experts, parents, and religious leaders, raised concerns that three of the books don't talk about condoms or other contraceptives at all, while one mentions latex condoms briefly.

Instead, all the books teach that abstinence is the only 100 percent effective way to prevent pregnancy or STDs. One offers strategies such as going out in groups, avoiding alcohol and drugs, and getting plenty of rest to avoid having "to make a tough choice when you are tired."

"We agree that teens should remain abstinent," says Dan Quinn, communications director for the Texas Freedom Network, a watchdog group and part of the coalition. "But [we want] basic, medically accurate information [for] students as they go forward in life."

The state curriculum standards require students to be able to "analyze the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods," and Mr. Quinn wonders how students can do that when their books don't mention use the word "condom." "This is high school health class - for many of these kids it's the last opportunity to get this kind of lifesaving information," he says.

"What they're saying is we want a double standard taught - which confuses children," counters Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum and a supporter of the abstinence-only approach in the textbooks.

Publishers will provide information on contraceptives in free supplemental materials - to give local school boards flexibility about whether to include those lessons in their curricula. Charts about the effectiveness of various methods for preventing pregnancy and STDs are also included in the teachers' editions of the books.

"There's a united effort in the local school districts [to] know what the social mores are at the local level, so we're happy for [teachers] to be able to introduce what they know to be in line with what parents and administration agree to," Mrs. Adams says.

But some observers in Texas and beyond are concerned that the supplemental information won't make its way into the hands of most teens who need it.

An editorial in the Austin American-Statesman this summer pointed out that 15- to 17-year-old girls in Texas have the nation's highest pregnancy rate, and it urged schools not to buy the new textbooks. The decade-old books currently used in Austin high schools encourage abstinence, but also talk about condoms as a way to prevent the spread of STDs.

Some board members did request changes to middle school and high school books before approving them on Friday - but not the ones that Quinn had been hoping for. Publishers agreed to replace some gender-neutral references with words such as "husbands and wives," to satisfy concerns that students would get a subtle message approving of same-sex unions. Texas law does not allow gay marriage or recognize civil unions.

This type of activity by the Conservative Right is particularly hypocritical given their complaining about "Activist Judges" imposing their choices on people (even though it's the job of judges to "judge" the law).

Does it occur to anyone The Family, not The School, is the appropriate venue for the conveyance of moral values and the precepts of personal and social responsibility?