Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

If we want to use the "let them decide for themselves" tac, how about letting children choose from the many religions that are practiced in this world? That'll be a good start.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Rosborne,

McGentrix makes a good point about the difficulty of teaching philosophy as part of a science class. Also, would it be appropriate to teach naturalism at the elementary or secondary level?

Actually, I wasn't thinking about kids in school classes when I said that. I was thinking that Farmerman and others who are speaking in front of school boards should make sure the "board members" have a clear understanding of the definition of science and its relationship to naturalism.

Frankly, I'm surprised that these creationist pushes can survive the mere act of defining science and clarifying what science class is for. That argument alone should be sufficient. My only guess as to why it isn't convincing is that the school boards don't understand the definition of science, and the goal of science class. Either that, or they are completely ignoring the definitions, and reacting to political pressure, in which case, the definitions merely need to be impressed on the general public, as well as the board memembers.

As far as science classes themselves are concerned, teachers should definitely take the time to define science for the kids, and to state that science is based on naturalism. And I think they can even take the time to define naturalism for the kids, but if they kids want to discuss the validity of naturalism as a philosophy, that should be handled in a philosophy class (whether that occurs in high school or college).

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Frankly, I'm surprised that these creationist pushes can survive the mere act of defining science and clarifying what science class is for. That argument alone should be sufficient. My only guess as to why it isn't convincing is that the school boards don't understand the definition of science, and the goal of science class. Either that, or they are completely ignoring the definitions, and reacting to political pressure, in which case, the definitions merely need to be impressed on the general public, as well as the board memembers.

Ros: Ouch! Nice to see you're not being Fascist these days. Cool

0 Replies

rosborne, People get up in arms with the word "marriage." It's only a word for chrisesakes.

0 Replies

ci, a rather annoying piece of news came from my ncse newsletter. It seems that since this admin took over, 37 states have forwarded creation teaching programs in science class. im getting really disappointed in the cumulative IQ of our countrymen (and women).

Im certain its a vocal minority thats doing all this pushing.im certain that most people want a quality education for their kids and have higher expectations for them. I was in high school running up to the moon landing and att that time science was considered vital to our horiizons. now, it seems that a retreat to the 'Natural Philosophies" of the Middle Ages may soon be unveiled in Congress.

0 Replies

farmerman, I'm afraid our educational system is broken. Leave no child behind has exacerbated the financial problems for schools with unfunded federal mandates, and many schools in California are closing their doors. I wish the problem was only with teaching creationism is our schools, but I'm afraid it goes deeper than that. There's a big to-do about a christian teacher in Cupertino, California, who is teaching religion in his history class. This country is more worried about the word "marriage" than most other important matters of our society. This country is headed into a hand basket very soon.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

I'm afraid our educational system is broken. Leave no child behind has exacerbated the financial problems for schools with unfunded federal mandates

Are you aware that The President's 2005 budget calls for raising Education Spending to over $57 Billion? Or that under No Child Left Behind, Title I aid alone has risen to more than $12 Billion? Or that Education Spending increased more during the first three years of the Current Administration than during the entirety of The Previous Administration's period of stewardship? Or that under NCLB, Federal Funding for reading and science programs has more than tripled in the past 3 years? Or that despite education leaders' complaints that schools cannot afford NCLB, states and school districts are sitting on over $6 Billion in unspent Federal Education Funds from previous years, including roughly $2 billion in Title I aid? New York ranks first in unspent funds, with nearly $690 Million; California is second with over $670 Million.

Sources: National Center for Educational Satatistics and the Government Accountability Office

Our education system needs drastic overhaul, but throwin' more money at it ain'y gonna help a bit. What needs changin' is its entrenched and fiercely partisan, self-interested middle and upper management/administration. A total revamp of the NEA wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

Quote:

and many schools in California are closing their doors

Thats been goin' on since the folks in California saddled themselves with Proposition 13.

0 Replies

Niels Bohr thought it was not good for human beings to hold on to things which were, as nearly as one could see, not true.

0 Replies

Rosborne makes some excellent points, as do farmerman and CI. This nation is in a retrospin that makes it dumber each year. If the religious merely wanted their viewpoint known, they have ample opportunity to do so. What they want in fact is to stop children from learning true science at all.

0 Replies

timber, Too late for many schools. This administration underfunded leave no child behind by 28 billion. We keep hearing about about the 'increase' in funding, but the initial underfunding have had devastating effects on many schools. Closed schools will not be reopened because funding in 2005 is increased.

0 Replies

eb wrote:

If the religious merely wanted their viewpoint known, they have ample opportunity to do so. What they want in fact is to stop children from learning true science at all.

Can't much argue with that, edgar. If any comfort exists to be drawn upon, it lies in the secularist bent of the judicial system. Any of these Creationist/Intelligent Design initiatives that meet with the scrutiny of higher courts face unpropitious precedent.

0 Replies

Well, I certainly believe in the credibility of some "intelligent design", but not the way it's being presented by religious bigots. I'm also quite confident evolution is happening as we speak. I think evolution is part of the design.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Well, I certainly believe in the credibility of some "intelligent design", but not the way it's being presented by religious bigots. I'm also quite confident evolution is happening as we speak. I think evolution is part of the design.

So, can I take that to mean you believe in God?

0 Replies

I think science and the belief and God should be considered as two separate areas. One does not preclude the other.

Evolution is science. The belief in God is religion.

I think that a belief that God designed the Universe and that evolution was a part of his plan is a reasonable belief and does not contradict anything in science.

I think to say that science provides evidence that a particular God exists is not reasonable. A belief in any God requires faith and is thus outside the realm of science.

However, to say that science proves there is no God is equally unreasonable. A certainty there is no God is a philosophical statement and is likewise outside the realm of science.

The term "Intelligent Design" is now politically laden. If you mean to say that you believe in God as the designer of the scientific universe as a matter of faith, then I accept this as a credible philosophy.

If you mean that science proves or even suggests there is an intelligent designer as a matter of scientific fact-- I will have to disagree.

Science does no such thing.

0 Replies

You must be able to observe it for it to be science.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

You must be able to observe it for it to be science.

I'm not sure this is correct. Some things that are science are deduced from observation and logical inference.

Maybe someone can clarify the use of "observation" within science for us.

Thanks,

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I think science and the belief and God should be considered as two separate areas. One does not preclude the other.

Evolution is science. The belief in God is religion.

I think that a belief that God designed the Universe and that evolution was a part of his plan is a reasonable belief and does not contradict anything in science.

I think to say that science provides evidence that a particular God exists is not reasonable. A belief in any God requires faith and is thus outside the realm of science.

However, to say that science proves there is no God is equally unreasonable. A certainty there is no God is a philosophical statement and is likewise outside the realm of science.

The term "Intelligent Design" is now politically laden. If you mean to say that you believe in God as the designer of the scientific universe as a matter of faith, then I accept this as a credible philosophy.

If you mean that science proves or even suggests there is an intelligent designer as a matter of scientific fact-- I will have to disagree.

Science does no such thing.

Very well said Ebrown. I agree with every single statement Smile

0 Replies

Quote, "I'm not sure this is correct. Some things that are science are deduced from observation and logical inference."

0 Replies

We live in a time of twin credulities: the hunger for the miraculous combined with a servile awe of science. The mating of the two gives us superstition
plus scientism--a Mongoloid metaphysic.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Evolution is science. The belief in God is religion.

LOL - that is definitely a misprint.

What he should have said was: "Evolution is a religion masquerading as science, despite God."

0 Replies

Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know