Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

Quote:

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

Heheh, yes I understand the risk. Don't worry, I have an excellent junk mail filter, and I'll also be graduating this year and getting rid of this email.

0 Replies

Quote:

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

kEVIN-welcome to the boards. However as to your above statement,this is just not the case of how evolutionary thought has gone. first, most geneticists and evolutionary scientists state9via evidence not pre stating a belief) that genes are merely the records of a taxas migrations, evolution, and incidental mutation. the economy of the genome is the very fact that makes the evolution engine so elegant. No-one assumes that the genome must increase (except in the non-coding STR sections) For that reason , mice and humans have very similar genomes and we are just better developed chimps. However,there are many amphibians whose genomes are 100 times bigger than humans.wHY? Simple , theyve been on the planet for eons longer than humans Their genomeiS longer.

There is a homologous function that many genes play. Im sure you know that the genes that regulate the thoracic wing structure in insects, also define the extremeties of higher taxa. Once the expession is defined by good ole centuries of fertilization and recombination, the expression of that gene is left to affect the same function in higher orders. Homolgy works. Thats how weve been able to trace the evolutionary relationships between modern whales and antelopes, by genetic homolgy.So no-one, (except you has stated that the genome must become more diverse and complicated, the Hox gene for a fruit fly is the same one that works for a bat)

as far as mutational driven diversitty, weve known , through research , that recombination though fertilization, inserts enough new divesrity so that macro evoluttion can occur. (MAyr sez this). You make it sound like Creationists were busy doing lab work when thats just so much eywash. Thhe only research that Im familiar with is mounting these expensive and silly expeditions to Mt Arrarat to find the ARK. CMon, you cant name one piece of significant Creationist research that has been published. (And dont give me this crap that Creationists are "Locked" out of the major journals)

Your comment about field and origins is lost on me. Im a teacher/professional field geologist. We dont have a research corps of scientists who only do evolutionary theroy. The entire work has been done by those in the field who also teach and research. (In other words the same guys do both )
For example, in the 60s 2USGS field geologists named Epstein, first discerned that ordovician conodonts have a trend to increasing spinosity in younger layers of the Ordovician. They also discovered that distinctive colors were imparted on the conodonts by the process of thermo diagenesis (compression of clay into rock), these colors and the evolutionary spines , play an important role in defining Ordovician oil and gas fiels, because thhe spiiny ones were in the time zone of a series of deep gulfs. and thhe colors that were darker paralleled where the original biotic material had been "cooked" into a petroleum.

Also,The University of Minnesota had, in the recent past, done a major job in defining the micro evolutionary changes of ostracods and foraminiferans. the work was done under contract to a series of oil companies because the morphology via evolution of certain types forams is(as Im sure you know) vital to the location of specific petroleum traps.
please dont try to blow smoke on that issue, youll lose, cause I can go into the literature and blow you aside with examples of where evolutionary research has resulted in tailoring search techniques for resources.

Also, a scientist doesnt "believe", The scientist has it proven to them. We dont hold on to our pet theories with super glue. look at all the geologits whose entire careers were based upon a 'stable craton' theory. the only motion of the planet was up and down as whole continents sank or raised due to some "Isostatic means". nowadays, since the late 60s, weve discovered that continents skid around the shallow mantle like a water drop on a hot stove. Many geologists such as Marshal Kay, , just gave it up and quit rather than learning a whole new technology

All the Creationist 'research' could be fit into arather small volume . while there is and Institute for Creation Science, its main output is cynical deceit and its MO is to compile sloppy attempts to debunk real research that is sponsored by universities, govt or industry. For example, the human foorpriint in the cRetaceous shales of Texas , and next to dinosaur prints was published by iCS journal. It was later found (oops) that the footprints were actually carved very well by someone with a creationist agenda.

How many major industries have pumped money into extractive field work in order to find some resource using creation science. Ill answer that for you... NONE..
while I respect your own beliefs, I will fight your Creationist organizations like a wolverine to keep it from being taught as science. I dont care what clothes you dress it in, its all the same myth posing as real world science.

I now see that the new approach is not classical creationism, Intelligent design, or "Old Earth creationism". its now
'Teaching the Controversy' , as if , by teaching kids that a major controversy exists, it will give Creationism some instant credibility. Im sorry we aint buying that either.
Why not teacah creationism in surveys of philosophy or history of scientific thought.

Your retro claiming ownership of "evolutionary thought" by earliier scientists. That is true that there were many who preceded Darwin, some even came close to his mechanisms.but how many of those people dissasociated their thoughts from a theistic underpinning. Even Gaston du Lac, who's credited with naming the science GEOLOGY, he did so as a counter to the study of THEOLOGY.

0 Replies

Hi Kevin, welcome to A2K.

AtrusBatleth wrote:

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.

The problem here is that there are no FLAWS with evolution. Every prediction generated by the theory has proven to be true, and there isn't even a scrap of contradictory evidence to refute it.

Scientists are still debating the details of certain evolutionary processes, and the interaction of these processes, but the fact of evolution is not in debate (except by creationists).

AtrusBatleth wrote:

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.

There are a lot of people in the world who call themselves scientists, and a lot of them have some pretty wild theories, but just because there is a fringe element who may be legitimate scientists, doesn't mean that all their theories are "valid science". Valid science is determined by peer review which is weighted by majority, not merely by the fact that some scientists come up with a theory. If this was the case, then we would be faced with teaching thousands of differnt theories for everything you can imagine, 99% of which would be wrong. Science education, and scientific discussion within trained groups are two vastly different things.

AtrusBatleth wrote:

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

For answers to all of the misinformation found on www.answeringgenesis.org, see www.talkorigins.org

AtrusBatleth wrote:

Someone mentioned that Creationism doesn't contribute to any real science, but Evolution is just as guilty of this claim.

Incorrect. Evolutionary theory is used and validated on a daily basis in medical research and in genetic research among others.

AtrusBatleth wrote:

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.

My step brother and cousin are field geologists who use their understanding of evolution on a regular basis to explain geological formations used in various mining operations. Also, I believe Farmerman is a geologist, so he can probably address this statement himself.

AtrusBatleth wrote:

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).

I'm sure most of this stuff you are now saying comes from the answeringgenesis web site, but could you please give examples of which creationists formulated natural selection before Darwin.

AtrusBatleth wrote:

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).

Really? How can anyone make this statement? Was someone watching every generation of bacteria and insect from the precambrian to the present?

And where did all the genetic information come from if there is no new material being created? Did God create it all in a "poof"? Is this what you are referring to when you say a "problem" with evolution? You read this on answeringgenesis and you think that genetic information has never been increased by mutation?

AtrusBatleth wrote:

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.

As Farmerman and I have discussed in a past thread on SaberTooth cats, it is to be expected (and predicted by evolutionary theory) that "most", but not all, morphological change would occur from remixing of existing genes, just because there is so much material to work with during cell division.

The core point to all this is that certain things are considered science, and certain things are not. Some things don't even meet the definition of science (creationism), and other things don't hold up to peer review (various theories from scientists or otherwise). But when it comes to educating kids so that they can actually learn science, then you need to teach them real known science, and there is no better right now which matches the scientific model and teaches the process and success of science, than Evolution by Natural Selection.

0 Replies

Reiterating Dlowan's post, please reconsider posting your email address on a forum. Spybots zoom in and note email addresses and deposit spam on you forever more, at the least.

Really, you should remove the link.

This is generally advised when you check in here, y'know.
They don't warn you just to be talking to themselves.

0 Replies

Welcome AtrusBatleth.

I'll only answer the two points of contention that I feel have been inadequately dealt with.

AtrusBatleth wrote:

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).

Were it not for the i.e. I would ask you to define complexity as pertaining to the DNA molecule.

This is false. Most genetic material is bound up in so called "junk DNA" which does not produce RNA. (which causes proteins to be syntesised at mitocondria) Special sequences of DNAcode is involved in determining which parts produce RNA. (a start and a stopp code if I remember correctly.) By shuffling junk DNA around new start codes can form, and many stopp codes are already found in junk DNA (some bits of junk DNA tends to insert copies of itself into other segments of DNA, and ofthen carry other junkDNA with them) This results in a new gene. A previously useless segment of DNA is now coding for a new protein. This adds to the number of genes, and has been observed in bacterial strains. (not the actual process, it's a before and after thing.)

AtrusBatleth wrote:

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.

1. Such reshuffeling can and do sometimes cause increased complexity as defined by you. ("i.e., resulted in some new gene or function")

2. Are you familiar with downs syndrome?

(edited to remove embarasing typo)

0 Replies

You really should remove the link. Or at least disassemble it, and let people who want to e-mail you reassemble it.

0 Replies

There has never been a single case of an email address increasing in complexity.

Where on Earth did you get such a throw-away line like that? Has Duane Gish managed to isolate the DNA of every living organism and manage to match it against samples somehow held in storage since the beginning of time? Or is it bullsh*t? That is preposterous - no-one has done such research and it would not prove a damn thing anyway. The proof is in the tasting - there are infinite mixes and matches of genetic material every generation, when it no longer makes a close enough fit with the environment that is when it's news.

0 Replies

E-jar, it's Downs Syndrome. And yes that is a situation where the unfortunate has an extra chromosome. Suprise, they are not extra-humanly gifted. It is a bad thing. Thus the definition of being human is to have a fixed number of chromosomes. Too few = bad. Too many = bad.

Too damn many and you actually revert to our common ape/hominid ancestor (human have fewer chromosomes than apes, the result of a fusion of material). At that point you would still be a couple of steps up the ladder from a member of the Wisconsin Board of Education.

0 Replies

I was debunking this statement

Quote:

All observable [DNA] changes involve the reshuffling or corruption of pre-existing genetic information.

Downs syndrome requires neither a reshuffling nor a corruption of any pre-existing genetic information. It does provide for notable changes in phenotype.

Most mutations have a negative impact, and adding an entire chromosome is bound to have undesireable side effects.

0 Replies

It ain't the Wisconsin Board of Educatioin ... just the goofy Grantsburg School Board. Locally, the backlash has been building, and the Grantsburg school board is makin' noises like they're thinkin' of backin' down. Lots of folks, including a buncha concerned parents and a whole slew of Wisconsin educators are makin' noises like they're gonna bring legal challenge if the schoolboard doesn't change its mind. Here's an article from a couple days ago ....

Quote:

Wisconsin school district is focus of evolution debate
Paul Levy, Star Tribune
November 10, 2004

GRANTSBURG, WIS. -- When the Grantsburg school board unanimously passed a resolution last month allowing "various theories/models of origins" to be taught in its science curriculum, the words "evolution" and "creationism" were never mentioned.

But by becoming the nation's only school board to allow theories other than evolution in public school classrooms, the school board created a national controversy.

The resolution has angered some Grantsburg parents and prompted written protests from more than 300 Wisconsin college science professors.

"Did somebody in Grantsburg, Wis., forget about the separation of church and state in public schools?" Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, asked Tuesday from her office in Oakland, Calif.

"Come on, we're talking creationism, and the school board in Grantsburg, Wis., knows it," Scott said. "The Supreme Court says you can't teach creationism in public schools. Other than the theory of evolution, there are no other scientific theories of origin."

But in Grantsburg -- a rural community 100 miles northeast of the Twin Cities -- Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students, said she was surprised that a "small group has twisted" the board's decision and suggested that "creationism" will be taught.

"I don't understand the fear I'm reading into this," she said. "Promoting the critical thinking of students was the board's objective."

Burgin said response is "divided" in more than 300 e-mails she has received.

Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Science at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, spoke to Burgin for nearly an hour last week, asking her if the school board understood the religious implications of its ruling. Zimmerman said he was so outraged when he heard of the board's decision he wrote a letter of protest that has been signed by 312 science professors representing 43 Wisconsin public and private universities and colleges.

"I keep talking to her about science," Zimmerman said of Burgin. "And she keeps talking to me about religion."

Similar arguments are being heard this week in Georgia, where evolution disclaimers placed in textbooks in Cobb County are being challenged in court.

In Ohio, a sharply divided state Board of Education adopted a 10th-grade biology lesson that some scientists fear will allow creationism in high school classrooms. There have been similar controversies concerning teaching alternatives to evolution in Kansas, Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana in recent years.

But Grantsburg is the first school district to act alone in allowing teachings other than evolution in its science classes. Wisconsin law says that evolution must be taught but nothing prohibits theories of "intelligent design" to be taught in biology classes.

The design debate

"Intelligent design" is the term being used to mask the more religious "creationism," say critics such as Ron Numbers, a historian of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Call it intelligent design, and there's no connection to the Bible whatsoever," Numbers said. "It's outrageous. And to call it science is terrible."

The change in the Grantsburg curriculum was not created overnight. Last year, a Minnetonka-based evangelist, Ron Carlson, founder of Christian Ministries International, gave sermons in churches in Grantsburg and the nearby community of Webster, about theories of creation other than evolution.

Carlson said in a statement Tuesday evening that the Grantsburg school board "is simply advocating for academic freedom to teach students critical thinking skills." He compared the evolution vs. creation debate with the competing theories of capitalism and communism in economics class, and with opposing political parties in a political science class.

"If evolution is so scientifically sound, why are they afraid to allow students the freedom to critique the evidence for themselves?" he asked. "It seems that the state of Wisconsin wants only the religion of evolution to be taught and not true science. We must wonder what their agenda is and why they are so threatened by a progressive school board that believes in quality education."

A Web site biography said Carlson travels widely and lectures on "the Christian biblical response to world religions, cults, New Age philosophy, the occult and evolution." He is a graduate of Bethel College and Theological Seminary in St. Paul, the Web site said, listing among other academic accomplishments a doctorate of divinity degree that he received from the Northwest Graduate School of Ministry in Kirkland, Wash.

It was after Carlson's last visit that Grantsburg school board President David Ahlquist began writing the motion that would change the way science is taught, although it's not clear how much Carlson might have influenced the decision. Ahlquist, associate pastor at the Grace Covenant Baptist Church in Grantsburg, was not available to comment Tuesday.

"I think the agenda is religion in this school district, and I believe that's been the agenda all along," said Marilyn Chesnik, a special-education teacher at the high school for 11 years. She cited a scripture reading at the high school Christmas concert, and a Bible study class at school during lunch hour.

"I asked them to stop reading scripture, and the reaction from at least one board member was awful," she said. "You'd think we were asking them to give up God, church and everything else."

For future hires

Joel Prazak, a technology education teacher in St. Croix Falls, taught for seven years in Grantsburg and has two children in the Grantsburg school system. He said the new policy was railroaded without discussion.

"Boom, there it was," Prazak said.

District members were made aware that the science curriculum would be reviewed -- as each curriculum is every six years, Burgin said.

"What caught my eye back in late June was that when the science teachers put together their new curriculum, it was based on the state standards," Prazak said. "But in an article [in the Burnett County Sentinel] Dave Ahlquist said the science teachers' suggestions didn't leave any room for other ideas, like creationism."

Burgin said that Matt Berg, Grantsburg High's biology teacher, will continue to teach "what he's always taught." The board's revision was intended more for future teacher hires, she said.

If it does go as far as legal challenge, among the organizations that have expressed interest in assisting with the challenge are the ACLU and the NEA. It appears as well that the Wisconsin Department of Education has lifted an eyebrow. The idiots in charge of things there in Grantsburg bit off a good-sized chunk, and it well may prove to be more than they can chew.

0 Replies

Timber, thanks a lot for the news update on this. As weve heard, the Dover, PA school district has done the same damn thing even though the state of Pa has tied the teaching of Creationism in science as a basis for review of funding continuation. Its an interesting timing issue with the evangelicals having been emboldened .

Looks like we will be girding for another round or two here in Pa. I think with what Ive heard from colleagues in the great state of Wisconsin, tis too will be treated with a great deal of attention...

0 Replies

Seems to me that the only problem in this debate is that people on both sides can't objectively make decisions based on what's best to ensure the broadest possible foundation of education for the children.

What screws things up is that people can't see through anything but their own personal filter to ascertain the unprejudiced "right" and "wrong", vis a vis teaching children.

If even-minded and principled educatiors, and not hysterical parents and not puffed-up politicians, were allowed to handle this, I think what would result would be curricula which presented both Creationism and Evolution, and let the kids make up their own goddamn minds.

0 Replies

unfortunately, snood,evolutionary theory is a foundation of science that has vast ramifications in such areas chemistry, genetics, geology, etc. We wouldnt think of teaching about
phlogiston theory" and then P chem together. The kids have to be grounded in enough of the science to be able to discern that Creationism is just crap in a lab coat.

I dont mind teaching Creationism at all, just lets not dignify it byputting it in the science curriculum. The US is already losing enoughof a technological edge in the world. You dont see this happening in Japan or Germany or the UK. (Maybe in Pakistan)

0 Replies

snood wrote:

If even-minded and principled educatiors, and not hysterical parents and not puffed-up politicians, were allowed to handle this, I think what would result would be curricula which presented both Creationism and Evolution, and let the kids make up their own goddamn minds.

I disagree. Especially at the early levels, education is not about throwing experimental ideas at the kids and letting them decide for themselves, it's about taking the best knowledge which a majority of trained professionals agree on, and teaching it to them. Otherwise we might as well just let the kids fend for themselves amidst a sea of information and not influence them at all. But that isn't education, it's natural selection.

0 Replies

rosborne-a very very astute use of the subject to make the very point. Im gonna borrow that if I may Very Happy

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rosborne-a very very astute use of the subject to make the very point. Im gonna borrow that if I may

Go for it. Anything to help the cause Smile

0 Replies

From Timber's post earlier, the following arguments seem to be the new strategy of the push for creationism in science class.

Quote:

Wisconsin school district is focus of evolution debate
Paul Levy, Star Tribune
November 10, 2004

Carlson said in a statement Tuesday evening that the Grantsburg school board "is simply advocating for academic freedom to teach students critical thinking skills." He compared the evolution vs. creation debate with the competing theories of capitalism and communism in economics class, and with opposing political parties in a political science class.

"If evolution is so scientifically sound, why are they afraid to allow students the freedom to critique the evidence for themselves?" he asked. "It seems that the state of Wisconsin wants only the religion of evolution to be taught and not true science. We must wonder what their agenda is and why they are so threatened by a progressive school board that believes in quality education."

I think we need to answer these particular arguments with short, clear answers.

I don't have time right now, but I will break them down later and try to answer them.

0 Replies

So, from what I glean from your responses, you think it's okay to introduce Creationism, only not as part of a science curricula (no one suggested calling it a science), and not until the children are "grounded" in enough science.

It sounds like you don't mind it being taught, as long as it's not taken seriously.

I think this particular recurring debate is one of those areas of human endeavor where the only progress made is going to be characterized by compromise. Some of you don't seem to understand that there are as many people who are as stubbornly convinced that Evolution is a ridiculous idea, as you are the same about Creationism. And as influential, well-connected, etc......

In other words, you can bellow as loud and long as you'd like about how crazy an idea Creationism is, but neither side is going to have the other banished from schools.

I think the only sane approach is to try to find a way of providing a version of equal time that will pacify each rabid extreme.

0 Replies

snood,then we should be just as adamant about teaching an earth centered universe, as was the standard model until the thoughts of Arab scientists and some midieval monks began theorizing otherwise.

I think that , to state that Creation and evolution are coequal in scientific weight does absolutely no good to the thought process. It takes the mystery out of religious teaching and it attempts to deny the evidence FOR evolution,.
There is no debate about the validity of evolution. Scientists agree. The people who dont agree and "pose" as scientists have not attempted to understand the overwhelming evidence in favor.
There is no research being conducted on Creation mechanisms,there is no evidence being followed. If there is, Id love to hear of it. It all comes down to that, show us the evidence. If some scientists came up with evidence of a sudden appearance of humans in an ancient garden or any other point in Creation myth, why those scientists would, after significant inspection, be on the speakers circuits all over the world.
Remembr, even Darwin was training for the ministry and was a devout theist. He began having doubts when he spent all those years analyzing his field data. He suspected that he as onto something big.AND, in his first book, which he published more as a quick volume to provide some timely meat to Wallaces meager paper,he avoided mention of human evolution.

PS, I dont believe that anyone here is "bellowing". If you disagree with the posts, fine, we agree to disagree. I believe that your just not familiar with scientific evidence but on no occasion has anyone bellowed. Whined maybe yeh , but Ive not heard nary a bellow.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

So, from what I glean from your responses, you think it's okay to introduce Creationism, only not as part of a science curricula (no one suggested calling it a science),

Yes, the (the creationists) do want it included in science class, that's the problem.

Nobody cares if they want to teach it in theology class, or even in a sociology class as an example of an ongoing debate within a culture. But there is no debate with the sciences as to the fact of evolution.

snood wrote:

It sounds like you don't mind it being taught, as long as it's not taken seriously.

No, we just want science class to be limited only to valid science, not theories which are in question, or by definition, "not science".

snood wrote:

Some of you don't seem to understand that there are as many people who are as stubbornly convinced that Evolution is a ridiculous idea, as you are the same about Creationism.

It doesn't matter how many non-scientists are convined of one thing or the other. What is, or is not science is not determined by popular opinion. Nobody votes on which version of Quantum Electrodynamics to teach based on public opinion. We teach the one which is most widely accepted. And Evolution by means of natural selection is not only the one most widely accepted, it's the only scientific creation theory, there are no others to teach.

0 Replies

Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know