Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

Timber wrote


Than why have sex Ed classes? They are not looking to do away with those classes just to restrict what is taught. They need to take a good look at reality and take their heads out of where the sun don't shine.

rosborne-yes we do have some great fossils in Pa, and many of them are dead (baadabump)


I am obstinately attachedx to the statement that a theory is also a fact, unless someone disproves the theory.
Wherever the theory ( evolution,atomic, germ,Debye Hucke, etc etc) all calculations and applications based upon the specific theory work out for us. We can do something with them, like invest our money on an outcome. This is what pisses the Creationists the most when they try to yell and scream that evolution is a dying concept.

au, I have no problem with sex ed classes. I do have a problem with using sex ed classes as a forum from which to promote and endorse moral tenets, regardless the slant of that promotion and endorsement.

I think the best way to introduce human sexuality to these young students is for the parents to get involved at home and talk to their child when questions arise.

Since many parents fail their childrenl, I have to accept that my child will be taught sex ed. in school... I would want the text to be very conservative in content.

I'm a prude and a prig and a believer in family rights.

On the other hand, as a liberated taxpayer, I'd like all children to know exactly how to prevent making babies before they hit puberty and their hormones hit them.

Yeah, I agree with that too...this is a toughy. I still think that the conservative approach in public schools is best. Kids will find out what they need to know...the question is, are they responsible enough to get the supplies needed?

PamO--

Kids can't get the supplies if they don't know the equipment exists.

One step at a time.

Good one Farmerman... but keep your day job anyway



Agreed; a good working definition.



Functionality is the essence of good science.

However, when cornered with this argument, don't the creationists fall back on the "micro evolution" excuse, admitting that small changes occur from day to day, but denying that large changes (macro evolution) occured in the past?

yes, and that often traps them . When do "small changes" become evolution?
How about if the small changes become retained and passed along until, via successive generationa, these changes differentiate the new population from the old or parent.
They often dance very closely to Darwins own words.

PS, I was just given the recent National Geographic . It had a very good article called
"Was Darwin wrong?"-- It was written by Dave Quammen, who did a very good book on evolutionpatterns that occurby populations isolated on islands. He , in essence(withhout giving any tip o the hat) retraced what Wallace did in his paper on evolution (for which many people, me excluded, feel that the theory of evolution by Nat Selection should be shared betwen Darwin and Wallace--balderdash sez I) ANYWAY. The nAt Geo article is very good and not a tangle of complex sentences like Goulds work. Quammen is a reporter of science, and hes first interested in communication. I enjoyed it a lot.There are a lot of unconnected graphics, but if youre familiar withh the concepts in play, they shouldnt be dificult. There is a neat bit of an interview between quammen and a paleontologist whose been associated withh all the wok in cetacean evolution in the 90s. That was quite revealing about the process of holding lightly to our pet theories.

PS, the conclusion of the article was that DArwin was indeed correct.

I do not know how my generation survived. We did not have sex education in schools and parents rarely went thru the birds and bees thing. However, there was less promiscuity and by today's standards none at all. We had respect for our elders and from a male viewpoint respected the female. Particularly the "good" girl. We managed to learn about sex without government intervention. WOW. :roll:We also did not have a a permissive society and a TV and movie industry selling and glorifying sex and violence.

"The youth of today dress and behave immodestly, have no respect for their elders, disdain education, and have no regard for their own future"
Socrates

It should be noted that the existence of domesticated crops and animals so distanced by selective breeding from their naturally occuring ancestors as to be not only visually unrecognizeably related but also incapable of crossbreeding therewith, over the few Thousanda of years such genetic manipulation has been going on argues powerfully that a few Million years of survival-of-the-fittest genetic selection will have profound results.

Having sex is easy. Controlling the results is hard.

I believe they would say that the small changed never lead to evolution.



I haven't looked at their arguments lately, but again, I believe that they simply deny the possibility of this happening, and ask for "proof" that such an event has occurred. The answer usually leads to archeoptrix and eohippus fossils, which are then attacked due to lack of transitional detail (extreme detail: from generation to generation).

Macro evolution is not a process which can be show, but only inferred. Creationists reject inference and deduction, unless it suits them. Science accepts inference and deduction so long as it matches the evidence. This is a difference between the philosophies.

rosborne979
It wasn't that easy in those years. It certainly was not thrown at you as it is today. Boys were always looking but girls at that time were a hard sell.

Don't get me wrong AU, the girls are still a hard sell. It's just that between having sex, and controlling the outcome, I think the control part is still the harder of the two.

I was at "The Galleria" the other night (not by my own will) and the young girls I saw there sure gave a good show. I know this query is off topic, but really rosborne979, the way some young gals dress these days is ridiculously sensual. Where are the responsible parents? ok, back to original topic....

Rosborne-looks like you have 2 divergent strings going.

The Creationists can try to deny intermediate fossils all they want, they just show their agenda is not thhe proliferation of fact but digma. The fossils you stated , the dawn horse and ancient bird, have, since the Creationists stated,
"show me the intermediate fossils'

Science has been doing exactly that.since archeopteryx was first found in the 1930s There are now known more than 20 proto bird species from the Triassic through the Cretaceous and I believe over 10 intermediate horse fossils that are tied to successive stratigraphy of thhe Eocene through Pliocene. Only a complete fool would deny the similarities and successive changes, although , many times fossis have been found from parallel strata that show totally different divergence or convergence paathways.
Whales are about the biggest available stash of intermediate fossils nowadays. The way many of us see it, if you show me a single genera that demonstartes evolutionary changes, Ill show you them all..
It used to be that the"falsification" argument was applied to evolution as evidencing the craft of debate rather than science , but today, with detailed records of genera and speciation , we can actually see evolution in the field (as long as the species of interest have rapid breeding cycles). Now its easy to refute the falsifiability argument , even though the argument itself is kind of bogus

Yes, an accident.



I agree with you of course Farmerman, but as the arguments become more esoteric, the ability to convey them to the general public, and to the decision makers in education, becomes more difficult.

The creationist arguments of imagery and daily experience (watchmaker) are more glib, and easier to spread. In our society of sound bites and spin, accuracy isn't always the best persuader.

In this area of combat, Science must find a way to express the evidence in a way which speaks to daily experience. And this is very difficult given the timeframes involved in evolutionary processes.

I am a newcomer to this forum, and was simply doing a little searching on the topic of Creationism teaching in Wisconsin (there's a talk-radio program tomorrow on it). Since there doesn't seem to be any other Creationist's on this topic so far, I feel obligated to say a few things.

First, as far as teaching curriculum, most of my fellow creationists would never want to force the teaching of Creationism. This would just cause evolutionist science teachers to teach the subject mockingly and not productively. Rather, most creationists, myself included, want to simply give teachers the OPTION of teaching creationism on top of evolution. At the very least, we just want to be able to discuss the PROBLEMS and flaws with evolution. In a country supposedly so big on information and truth, I find it amazing that teachers can face such serious consequences just for mentioning a few problems with evolution without even suggesting creationism.

Second, many of you seem to think that there isn't even a real controversy, at least in the "scientific" community. Might I remind you that the basic definition of a creationist is a scientist who believes in creation; in comparison, an evolutionist is a scientist who believes in evolution. Anyone who tries to make the claim that there is no controversy in the scientific community is either ignorant of the minority of real creationists (much like the pro-gay lobby "ignores" the many real ex-gays), or simply defines anyone who believes in creation as "not a real scientist". I could just as easily decide that no "real" scientist would believe in evolution. I hope my point is clear: there IS a real controversy over creation/evolution, even in the scientific community.

Third, and finally, I read several statements about Creationist beliefs that I felt I had to correct (again, since no one else is). I will try to be brief, but for some better explanations try the Q&A section of www.answersingenesis.org.
Someone mentioned that Creationism doesn't contribute to any real science, but Evolution is just as guilty of this claim. If you ask any field geologist doing survey work for an oil company, for example, you'll find that they don't use any evolutionary geology information. There is a very distinct difference between OPERATIONAL science and ORIGINS science. Operational science is what can be repeatedly tested in the present; origins science cannot. Operational science leads to valuable contributions to engineering and society; origins science does not. As an earlier post discussed "theories" such as gravity, atomic structure, and evolution: gravity and atomic structure involve operational science which can be tested and observed in the present; evolution (and creation) involve origins science, and cannot be tested or observed in the present.
The other major point before I signoff: The distinction between micro-evolutuion and macro-evolution is irrelevant. This is just different degrees of natural selection, which is not in contest (might I remind you that creationist scientists had formulated natural selection long before Darwin). The difference is that Evolution requires changes which INCREASE information, while Creationism says that any changes would DECREASE or resort existing information. In fact, to date, there has NEVER been a single case of mutational change which increased the complexity of the DNA molecule (i.e., resulted in some new gene or function). Rather, all observable changes involve the reshuffling or corruption of pre-existing genetic information. This would be one of those problems with evolution that students should know about, since even most adults aren't aware of it.

I can't promise I'll keep up with this post, but feel free to email me if you need a response: [email protected]

Kevin

ps - in case you were wondering, I'm a Nuclear Engineering student at UW-Madison, and I wish I had heard some of this information when I was in grade school, instead of living in ignorance for the better part of my life.

Not the best idea to post a personal email address on the net!