Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching

Snood
I learned much of my atheistic thought from a conservative, a man who hated my liberal activities in the 60s. Contrary to popular thought, there are conservative atheists too.

Well, the question is, does edgar or those who agree with him get to decide what's an "appropriate setting" for God to be mentioned? The rub, huh?

Not me personally, not my friends - The courts are the final arbiter and they mostly have been siding with science.

I guess time will tell... Hey, what do you think about scientists who believe in God?

I haven't met any.

That's a bit of a hasty answer. There are scientists who believe in God. I have no quarrel with them so long as they accept separation of church and state.

I've met a number of conscientious, reasonable, genuinely tolerant theistic scientists, jursists, and academicians, and about a similar number of conscientious, reasonable, genuinely tolerant atheistic or agnostic representatives of those disciplines ... upstanding folks all, and all loathe to impose theistic concept of any stripe - or for that matter any other philosophy - on others. Conscientious, reasonable, genuinely tolerant folks aren't the problem. Which, of course, is not at all unusual.

There are a number of theist scientists in my circle. all of them are physical scientists or engineers. They too, are reasonable in that they dont mix their religion with their faiths
The life scientists and geoscientists are a lost cause. I know of only4 geosciientists and a few more biologists who are part of the CRI "faculty", nice enough guys , but totally pulled apart by the religious dictates upon their science. ICR is mostly a classical Creationist organization.
There is some personal dynamic at work among them because they are forced to recant certain laws (like Uniformitarianism) because it works against their faiths position.

Well, I just asked the question to see if anyone would acknowledge that there are normal human beings who suffer no damage from incorporating both points of view into their own system of beliefs, values, whatever.

It is because I've met and know of many such people that I believe there need be no deleterious effect from having creationism and darwinism both on the same daily teacher's agenda.

The two subjects cannot coexist in a single classroom. Creationism argues against the proven. It can only fit in a specially created class.

So you're saying that because nobody is harmed (directly) by including "Creationisms" in public school, that it's ok to spend school time on it.

Then I guess you wouldn't mind having Islamic, Buddhist and Borneo island, Creation scenario's included either then. Do we have to represent every view?

Including creationism in science education is a debate that never seems to end. It seems to reappear in different U.S. communities at different times. Does anyone know a good source on the creationism debate?

Snood does not seem to be proposing putting Creationism into science class. He seems to be saying that public schools need to acknowledge Creationism in other curricula, but I'm still not sure exactly why he thinks this is beneficial to students in comparison to a host of other creation stories.



Yes, this thread, and many others on A2K. What are you asking for exactly?

snood, "Darwinism" is not what science teaches; Darwin is but one component of Evolution Theory.
Reason and learning brook no "Father Figure Personality Cult", be the central figure human or otherwise.

True Science is not about gods or people or faith, its about the ongoing quest for knowledge. Creationism/Intellegent Design is a religionist philosophy plain and simple, nothing more.

It is not an "Alternate Theory", it is a "Faith", something which claims the unproven to be proved by the unprovabe. It is a solopsistic tautology, not a methodology based on critical thought.

rosborne979,
I probably should have spent more time reading this thread. However, I am interested in reading a recent book or magazine article that gives an objective overview of how this issue has been handled in American education. In the nineties this controversy appeared in Arkansas and I thought it was resolved. But since then the controversy has reappeared in Indiana and Wisconsin.

wandeljw
And anywhere else that the evangelists have gained an upper hand.

The scary right

Religious zealots riding high after W's win



Less than a month after the national elections, the mullahs of America's religious right are in full swagger. Dispensing with pretense, they are openly reconfiguring American government in the service of a narrow version of fundamentalist Christianity.
For weeks, the press has focused on how a vast mobilization of evangelical voters helped President Bush to reelection. That's missing the disturbing sequel to the story: an explicit, organized campaign to erode the nation's status as a modern, secular and constitutional democracy.

Consider the following events, all of which have taken place since Election Day.

In a letter dated Nov. 3, the president of Bob Jones University, the politically influential Bible college in South Carolina, sent Bush an open letter, posted on the school's Web site.

"In your reelection, God has graciously granted America - though she doesn't deserve it - a reprieve from the agenda of paganism," wrote Bob Jones 3rd. "Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ."

A few days later, James Dobson, the archconservative founder of Focus on the Family, a lobbying group, bluntly notified the nation that he expects Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to be an errand boy for the religious right.

Specter committed the sin of suggesting that Bush would have problems winning Senate approval of Supreme Court nominees who are determined to overturn Roe vs. Wade and outlaw abortion.

Dobson promptly went on national television to issue a political fatwa. "He is a problem, and he must be derailed," Dobson said.

Senate leaders hastily patched together a compromise that will let Specter keep his job. "He will assume his new position on a very short leash," said Mullah Dobson.

In case any other slow learners in Congress needed help, Dobson gave clear marching orders. "Especially, especially, putting conservative judges on the judiciary, that is the key to everything," he said on ABC's "This Week."

Speaking of the judiciary, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made two appearances this week that confirm his oft-stated intent to erase traditional lines separating church and state. "We are fools for Christ's sake," Scalia said at a Red Mass, a tradition for Catholic lawyers, in Illinois. "We must pray for the courage to suffer the contempt of the sophisticated world."

A few days later, addressing Congregation Shearith Israel in Manhattan, Scalia dropped the Christ references but kept the message touting government support of religion.

"There is something wrong with the principle of neutrality," he told the congregants, according to The Jerusalem Post. The true goal, he said, "is not neutrality between religiousness and nonreligiousness; it is between denominations of religion."

In a 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, then-Sen. John Kennedy described the restraint and neutrality that government leaders should exercise with regard to religion.

"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," said Kennedy. "Where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.... I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair."

America in the age of the mullahs has strayed a long way indeed from Kennedy's wise words.

Originally published on November 26, 2004

wandeljw if its a historical perspective on creation Movements in the world, Id suggestt going to
http://www.asa3.org.
This is a Christian view of all sciences . They have a page on "Ceation/Evoluttion" Once your at that page, along the bottom are a series of "historical" accounts .An article from Contra Mundi , by Charles Bergman develops a good hhisttory of the Creationists since the 1800s.
Anothere article on The Burgess Shale is a decentt account .
This organization is not proselytizing for Creation "SCience", in fact its more a mainline Christianity page.

Thats another point snood, the proponents that Creation be taught in science are a relative few in numbers. Most parents wantt their kids to be educated so that they can enter tthe sciences or medicine for careers. AS it turned out, less than 14% of the parents polled in DOVER PA (the other place where all this is festering) want Creattionism in school at all. They feel that Creation myth can best be handled in their Sunday Schools. SO, it appears that the pressure of vast numbers of proponents that you seem to refer, just dont exist.

We need to differentiate Snood's argument. He isn't asking for Creationism in Science class any more (if he ever was). He's making a slightly different argument which seems to be something along the lines of "teach the controversy" in some type of sociology or logic class. But I'm not sure I understand the point of such a thing exactly (waiting for Snood to explain in more detail).

Well, I've suggested giving creationism a room removed from the science, but if I understand correctly, snood wants them mixed so the students have an option to learning science. If true, that's a good scenario for the Middle Ages, but not the 21st Century.