Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

bib. now what the heck do you mean by all that nonsense?
I said this quote many times before, but its relevance is here once again

rejection wiithout proof is the foundation of modern science

Acceptance without proof is the foundation of modern religion.

LOL - you're not serious. Well, isn't that just handy. When the evidence isn't available to support your theory, you make up an axiom that allows for no evidence being the evidence for the theory!!!

then you sir are blind as a bat., maybe its the Guiness

Define "concordia" as it applies to geochronology

Bib,

We've been over this several times in other threads. You make the same statement, fail to back it up, someone posts the science behind evolution, and you wander off to another thread to make the same statement.

Repeating the same assertion endlessly without support will not convince anyone that you know what you are talking about.

amen...

Nicely done, c.i.

I think you need to be careful with a definition in which observation is a reequirement. We haven't observed the Big Bang, nor have we observed Evolution, yet these things are considered valid scientific fact.

As far as I know, scientific theory is not dependent on observation.

Science has proof without certainty. Religion has certainty without proof.

Well, that's clearly wrong. I'm sure you meant to say that Religion is a delusion masquerading as the path to God, despite reality.

Big Bang Cosmology

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.
Foundations of the Big Bang Model
The Big Bang Model rests on two theoretical pillars:

General Relativity
The first key idea dates to 1916 when Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity which he proposed as a new theory of gravity. His theory generalizes Isaac Newton's original theory of gravity, c. 1680, in that it is supposed to be valid for bodies in motion as well as bodies at rest. Newton's gravity is only valid for bodies at rest or moving very slowly compared to the speed of light (usually not too restrictive an assumption!). A key concept of General Relativity is that gravity is no longer described by a gravitational "field" but rather it is supposed to be a distortion of space and time itself. Physicist John Wheeler put it well when he said "Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move." Originally, the theory was able to account for peculiarities in the orbit of Mercury and the bending of light by the Sun, both unexplained in Isaac Newton's theory of gravity. In recent years, the theory has passed a series of rigorous tests.

The Cosmological Principle
After the introduction of General Relativity a number of scientists, including Einstein, tried to apply the new gravitational dynamics to the universe as a whole. At the time this required an assumption about how the matter in the universe was distributed. The simplest assumption to make is that if you viewed the contents of the universe with sufficiently poor vision, it would appear roughly the same everywhere and in every direction. That is, the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when averaged over very large scales. This is called the Cosmological Principle. This assumption is being tested continuously as we actually observe the distribution of galaxies on ever larger scales. The accompanying picture shows how uniform the distribution of measured galaxies is over a 30° swath of the sky. In addition the cosmic microwave background radiation, the remnant heat from the Big Bang, has a temperature which is highly uniform over the entire sky. This fact strongly supports the notion that the gas which emitted this radiation long ago was very uniformly distributed.

These two ideas form the entire theoretical basis for Big Bang cosmology and lead to very specific predictions for observable properties of the universe. An overview of the Big Bang Model is presented in a set of companion pages.

Come on CI, just because you can find the word "observe" in these texts doesn't support your point. For example, in the following



what they are "observing" is the distribution of galaxies, not the actual Big Bang. They are deducing certain things by observing others, which is exactly my point.

All I'm saying is that I don't think that direct observation is required in the definition of a scientific theory. Do you disagree? If so, then please argue the point directly. Just pulling up texts which happen to contain the term "observation" doesn't really help me understand why "observation" would be a requirement.

Thanks,

Ok CI, I looked back, and I think I see where we may be getting off track here.

I'm talking about observation of the theory itself which is not required by science. However, I do agree that observation of "something" is required by which theories can be formed. These are the empirical requirements of science.

If this is what you meant in the first place, and I didn't understand, I appologize.

Georgia backs off, but other states become battlegrounds
well mom, its been a very active year in the Creation camp, lemme review some of the things that have occured besides the Wisconsin activities, maybe youll find it interesting. As you know, this year has been anomalously active. A lot of us feel that the election had something to do with it , but it has been going on ever since tthe big fight in Louisiana in 1992

The current battle lines all relate to the 1987 supreme Court Decision that stated creationism is religion and cannot be taught in science classes. since then anti-evolution movementst have gathered adherents under the Intelligent Design umbrella.Theyve also been mounting grassroots camapaigns based on the premise that iD is NOT religion.Heres a few that occured in 2004

1.georgias battle began on Feb 19 2004 with the now famous "book stickers" and also included omitting some key concepts in the physical and biological sciences. An ensuing uproar caused state ed SUper kathy Cox to restore evolution and the other supportive words, as well as disallowing the goofy 'evolution is only a theory' stickers
however, theyve still left out plate tectonics, the age of the Earth, and geologic systems like 'Paleozoic"

2 In Ohio, the Board of Education has allowed a curricular chapter called "a Critical Analysis of Evolution' which is neither an analysis, nor scientifically critical, its pure religious clap trap. It is based upon J Wells's ICONS OF EVOLUTION, which is about a scientific as Buffy the Vampire Slayer

3 In Michigan, Grand Blanc officials aare pursuing the teaching of Biblical creation ism in Science curriculum because they feel that , as a local school district, they are immune from supreme Court decisions governing state ed boards.

4 in Darby Montana , a local minister, Curtis Brickley, has become the epicenter for curriculum revisions that have entered creationism into science classes. In typical Montana fashion, the school board deliberations have often ended in bloodshed.Meanwhile back at the raanch,The Alliance Defense Fund of Scottsdale arizona , (a religious group) has offered to defend the darby School District if a suit ensues.
(this could be the court test that ID proponents want to happen so they can officially air their position)

5.In Missouri,this year, a bill was introduced that required teachers to present equal time for ID beginning in 2006, AND, any teacher who refused would be fired.

6. In Alabama, a reverse bill was introduced that "protects" teachers who wish to teach alternative theories to evolution


7. in Texas(yeh why not Pdiddie) antievolution members of the state ed board,have been ordering textbook publishers to "correct errors" in biology texts that Creationists feel are significant. Raandall Flagg lives on in Texas

8 Of course in Dover PA, the schoolboard has bent to the whims of a single anti-evolution member who has , singlehandidly, morphed the high school biology and physical science curricula, into a support system for Creationist thought, despite a state guideline clearly banning 'non-rigorous religion based teachings in the sciences" which was contested and passed down 3 years earlier.

9.In a survey conducted by the ncse, it was found that up to 20% of high school biology teachers are teaching Creationism in their science classes. Then when the kids reach college, we get them all pre-loaded with myth based knowledge that makes them ill fit to hit the ground running.

My colleagues who teach the intro level courses , such as Physical and Historical Geology, spend much time in remedial science thought.They have to teach our little dears how to critically sort through the bullshit to get at the cow.
Well thats about it, with all this activity in 2004, 2005 oughta be a real hoot.

rosborne, my aphorism was a quote from the "Dancing WU Li Masters"

now how long will bib be gone ?

Mine was from Ashley Montague



Only until he has stirred up enough discussion on his other threads, then he'll probably be back here to stir this one up again

I'm a big proponent of States Rights and individual determinism, figurin' the proper role of Federal Government oughtta be pretty much restricted to stuff which preserves, protects, promotes, and defends the common wellbeing of The Nation as a whole. The states and their various school boards and districts that seem not to have the ability to distinguish between science and sillyness imperil the education of our children, placing The Nation at disadvantage in the global arena. I think that time has come for the development, emplacing, and enforcement of a Federally mandated minumum curriculum ensuring the students of today are prepared to face the challenges of the 22cnd Century, not the 18th.

I wonder how this happens exactly. Do they use a textbook for Creationism, or do they just start spouting off their own personal account of things.

I agree.



I think the religious fundamentalists would argue that the moral fiber of our country is in peril due to secularism, and they probably see this as a more important issue than placing the kids at a disadvantage in science education.

I really think that the issue of what's being taught in science class is being driven by a more fundamental underlying difference of opinion.

rosborne, I dont know but , from my own experience, there are a number of texts that the Creation lobby hands out.
the most used is "Of Pandas and Man" and The Creationist drivvle tthat the National PArk Service sells at the Grand Canyon. These are paraded as legitimatte scientific inquiries for eager minds. all they are is incorrectt slanted propaganda.

If you can find the edwardsv aguillard supreme Court AMicus brief that was prepared by a whole bunch of nobel laureates and delivered on behalf of the appellees, one can see that the SCientific community didnt even bat an eye to the way that evolution is miscast by the Creationists.
The USSC decision was in 1987 so the amicus was probably in 1986. i have a print copy with courtt numbers and docket crap so Ive never bothered to google it up. Its some wonderful reading
BUT, having said that, the Creation lobby has been working farther down and deeper into Intel Design so as to deflect any new Court decisions.
the Edv aguillard decision was, 7 to 2 and,as I recall, based upon 1st amendment admonitions against "The establishment of a state Religion"

The Intel Design boys are trying ever so carefully to remove any bit of religion from their toolbox, so that any future ruling will be based upon an argument that is supposedly pure'Science" and not subject to the "Establishment" clause.
i would imagine that it will take the stronger all encompassing precedent of that case ( to mirror Timbers comments) to shut this down for future generations.

Farmerman,

I am afraid that you are, like many members of the "technologically minded community" tend to be a bit optimistic as to the future of intelligence vis-a-vis humanity in general.

Humans are intrinsically lazy simply as a result of their "intelligence". Who do you know that would scratch up a bit of dirt and plant a seed simply on the off chance that plant for a salad would come up and be able to be eaten in some thirty to one hundred eighty days. Hell no, I'd go to the Wal-Mart and buy one when I wanted it. Who do you know who will run down a deer, a moose or even a rat when the wife wants some meat.

It's easier to go to the shop or the office, sit down in a comfortable environment, and work for somebody who pays me for what I know (prostitute my degree ) and then I will pay someone to make a machine to raise lettuce or kill animals and then I will simply be a cog in the machine. No Sweat

The proponents of ID are humanly lazy. A perfectly normal (I would call it the defining one) human characteristic. Perhaps it's even a characteristic of life itself. ( I'd like to make an arguement of that sometime )

It's a damn sight easier to blame anything that one does not understand on a higher intelligence than to try and figure it out for your self. Consequently there will always be wars and rumors of wars in the human condition as there will always be (due to random interactions and the laws of genetics) people that will rather base their interactions with other people on the easiest answer than go to the trouble of finding a "root cause" of any difficulties that a person or a society may encounter. Our minds, at this point in our evolution are really pretty tiny. It takes a lot of work to understand . IDer's do not seem to wish to perform the work.

I regret despairing of the human condition so much. Unfortunetly it is probably a necessary function of a surviving genome .

Good luck, May I remark that you seem to have the patience of a Saint