| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > Evolution |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 13 2004, 02:22 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Science vs Religion > Evolution Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 30 2004, 06:37 AM QUOTE Georgia Takes on 'Evolution' By ANDREW JACOBS Published: January 30, 2004 TLANTA, Jan. 29 — A proposed set of guidelines for middle and high school science classes in Georgia has caused a furor after state education officials removed the word "evolution" and scaled back ideas about the age of Earth and the natural selection of species. Educators across the state said that the document, which was released on the Internet this month, was a veiled effort to bolster creationism and that it would leave the state's public school graduates at a disadvantage. "They've taken away a major component of biology and acted as if it doesn't exist," said David Bechler, who heads the biology department at Valdosta State University. "By doing this, we're leaving the public shortchanged of the knowledge they should have." Although education officials said the final version would not be binding on teachers, its contents will ultimately help shape achievement exams. And in a state where religion-based concepts of creation are widely held, many teachers said a curriculum without mentioning "evolution" would make it harder to broach the subject in the classroom. Georgia's schools superintendent, Kathy Cox, held a news conference near the Capitol on Thursday, a day after The Atlanta Journal-Constitution published an article about the proposed changes. A handful of states already omit the word "evolution" from their teaching guidelines, and Ms. Cox called it "a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction." She added that people often associate it with "that monkeys-to-man sort of thing." Still, Ms. Cox, who was elected to the post in 2002, said the concept would be taught, as well as "emerging models of change" that challenge Darwin's theories. "Galileo was not considered reputable when he came out with his theory," she said. Much of the state's 800-page curriculum was adopted verbatim from the "Standards for Excellence in Education," an academic framework produced by the Council for Basic Education, a nonprofit group. But when it came to science, the Georgia Education Department omitted large chunks of material, including references to Earth's age and the concept that all organisms on Earth are related through common ancestry. "Evolution" was replaced with "changes over time," and in another phrase that referred to the "long history of the Earth," the authors removed the word "long." Many proponents of creationism say Earth is at most several thousand years old, based on a literal reading of the Bible. Sarah L. Pallas, an associate professor of biology at Georgia State University, said, "The point of these benchmarks is to prepare the American work force to be scientifically competitive." She said, "By removing the benchmarks that deal with evolutionary life, we don't have a chance of catching up to the rest of the world." The guidelines, which were adopted by a panel of 25 educators, will be officially adopted in 90 days, and Ms. Cox said the public could still influence the final document. "If the teachers and parents across the state say this isn't what we want," she said, "then we'll change it." In the past, Ms. Cox, has not masked her feelings on the matter of creationism versus evolution. During her run for office, Ms. Cox congratulated parents who wanted Christian notions of Earth and human creation to be taught in schools. "I'd leave the state out of it and would make sure teachers were well prepared to deal with competing theories," she said at a public debate. Educators say the current curriculum is weak in biology, leading to a high failure rate in the sciences among high school students across the state. Even those who do well in high school science are not necessarily proficient in the fundamentals of biology, astronomy and geology, say some educators. David Jackson, an associate professor at the University of Georgia who trains middle school science teachers, said about half the students entering his class each year had little knowledge of evolutionary theory. Posted by: sexkitten Jan 30 2004, 02:49 PM Isn't it twenty years too late for this sort of thing? War is Peace! Posted by: SyrioForel Jan 30 2004, 02:55 PM This is another one of those things that I'm not sure if I should laugh or be upset about. On the one hand, its so mind numbingly idiotic I have to laugh. On the other, these idiots are destroying the science education of a significant number of students. And its already bad enough from what I've seen. On the other, other hand, potential competition for good jobs has just gone down. On the other, other, other hand, if these people get their way in more and more places, America won't need to worry about external threats, as it will have already rotted from within. Someone over on the Talk Origins news group suggested this was a plot by Walmart and McDonald's to assure a constant supply of 'qualified' labor. ~D Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 30 2004, 03:05 PM Things like this make me wonder if America will get over its fundamentalist addiction. We can't seem to shake it and these idiots continue to pop up in positions of power. Posted by: SyrioForel Jan 30 2004, 04:25 PM Well, Jimmy Carter has come out and said he is embarrassed for Georgia for deciding to do this, and fears for the academic reputation of the state's colleges. The superintendent responsible for the banning explains that its necessary because 'evolution' is such a loaded word that it causes extreme emotions that interfere with learning the concepts, but the intent is to still teach all the concepts in biology. Riiiiiiight. ~D Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 30 2004, 04:42 PM QUOTE (SyrioForel @ Jan 30 2004, 07:25 PM) The superintendent responsible for the banning explains that its necessary because 'evolution' is such a loaded word that it causes extreme emotions that interfere with learning the concepts On that basis the next "loaded" words to go will be - Reason - Sex - Homosexual - Natural Selection - Cosmology - Scientific Method - Evidence - Humanism Pretty soon those Georgia kids will have a much smaller vocabulary to master. Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 30 2004, 04:43 PM QUOTE (SyrioForel @ Jan 30 2004, 07:25 PM) Well, Jimmy Carter has come out and said he is embarrassed for Georgia for deciding to do this, and fears for the academic reputation of the state's colleges. I like Jimmy Carter more and more. I wonder if he'd consider becoming president again? Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 30 2004, 07:01 PM Damn bush, his idiot campaign for "vouchers" have been mainly used for christian schools which teach evolution as a [laughable] theory. Posted by: RowdyHoo Jan 30 2004, 07:16 PM Sounds reasonable to me. I've always wondered why a "theory" was treated so special, as compared with other theories. One would have to admit that it has required a certain amount of adjustment to remain viable, and it still has some significant problems. All I'm saying is that it is no closer to becoming a law no than 50 years ago. Admittedly, it has to be considered as a leading theory, but it gets too much undeserved credit...I feel. Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 30 2004, 07:32 PM QUOTE (RowdyHoo @ Jan 30 2004, 10:16 PM) Sounds reasonable to me. I've always wondered why a "theory" was treated so special, as compared with other theories. One would have to admit that it has required a certain amount of adjustment to remain viable, and it still has some significant problems. Well it is the best scientific theory we have. What I was saying is that they way they teach it is more along the lined of "Yea, evolution is a good theory, but we all know that God really created everything exactly like it is." Posted by: TruthWarrior Jan 30 2004, 07:49 PM QUOTE (RowdyHoo @ Jan 30 2004, 11:16 PM) I've always wondered why a "theory" was treated so special, as compared with other theories. One would have to admit that it has required a certain amount of adjustment to remain viable, and it still has some significant problems. I've always wondered why a "religion" was treated so special, as compared with other religions. One would have to admit that it has required a certain amount of adjustment to remain viable, and it still has some significant problems. QUOTE All I'm saying is that it is no closer to becoming a law no than 50 years ago. Admittedly, it has to be considered as a leading theory, but it gets too much undeserved credit...I feel. I found creationism to be filled with more scam artists and hoaxsters then the evolution side. Creationism has much more flawed logic and sticks to outdated and disproven "evidence". All based on the fear god might not be happy. So evolutionary science has more credibility. I think also the changing of theories within evolution is a natural part of science. While changing theories within creationism puts one in danger of the "fires of hell". Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 30 2004, 07:57 PM QUOTE (RowdyHoo @ Jan 30 2004, 10:16 PM) Sounds reasonable to me. I've always wondered why a "theory" was treated so special, as compared with other theories. The word "theory" in popular usage doesn't mean the same thing as the meaning of "theory" when applied to science. In popular usage it means a guess or hypothesis. In science, a theory is a working model that is supported by evidence. Evolution, as a scientific theory, is not treated any differently than any other scientific theory. QUOTE One would have to admit that it has required a certain amount of adjustment to remain viable, and it still has some significant problems. That's exactly what differentiates it from religion. Religion/creationism allows no changes or disagreement. Science expects change, requires change. As new evidence is found the theory is adjusted as needed to incorporate the new material. That's not a bad thing - that's how science works. If evolution were religion, we'd have to say "Nope, that new evidence can't be right since it's not what the prophet Darwin wrote in the holy book". QUOTE All I'm saying is that it is no closer to becoming a law no than 50 years ago. Admittedly, it has to be considered as a leading theory, but it gets too much undeserved credit...I feel. Scientific laws are observations about how things work. It's considered a law when all observed instances (of whatever) appear to work in the same way. There will never be a "Law of Evolution" - that's too broad. There may well be laws that apply to specific mechanisms within the scope of evolution. There are no other workable theories for how species have evolved. There are no other scientific models that are supported by the evidence. This isn't to say that there isn't debate on specific points - just that scientists agree on the key points and overall structure of the theory. Only religionists make claims that there is evidence for a supernatural creation event a few thousand years ago. It's not science when you already "know" the supernatural answer and are just trying to make the pieces fit. Posted by: Doug2 Jan 30 2004, 08:31 PM Carter slams Georgia's 'evolution' proposal ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday he was embarrassed by the Georgia Department of Education proposal to eliminate the word "evolution" from the state's curriculum. "As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox's attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia's students," Carter said in a written statement. Cox explained the reasoning at a news conference on Thursday and in a statement posted on the Department of Education Web site, saying that the concepts of evolution would remain in the curriculum. "The unfortunate truth is that 'evolution' has become a controversial buzzword that could prevent some from reading the proposed biology curriculum," Cox said in her statement. She added: "We don't want the public or our students to get stuck on a word when the curriculum actually includes the most widely accepted theories for biology. Ironically, people have become upset about the exclusion of the word again, without having read the document." But Carter said dropping the word would leave Georgia's high school graduates "with a serious handicap as they enter college or private life where freedom of speech will be permitted." Carter also predicted ridicule for the state, along with discredit on Georgia's university system. "The existing and long-standing use of the word 'evolution' in our state's textbooks has not adversely affected Georgians' belief in the omnipotence of God as creator of the universe," Carter said. "There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy. "There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith." http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/01/30/georgia.evolution/index.html Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 31 2004, 06:14 AM QUOTE (Doug2 @ Jan 30 2004, 11:31 PM) Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday he was embarrassed by the Georgia Department of Education proposal to eliminate the word "evolution" from the state's curriculum. Now I'm sure... Carter for President! Posted by: Rhiannon Jan 31 2004, 07:12 AM Here is something I dont understand ... Coming from a UK schooling here, not US, so its all a little strange to me ... When I was in Physics class I was taught about the Plum Pudding model of atoms (sheesh, long time now, I think I have forgotten most of it!) and how that was the theory for long enough, and that since then experiments have shown that it doesnt work, and we now have a new model. In Biology, I was taught that Larmark had a theory about evolution, later studies showed it didnt work, and Darwins theory was much more appropriate. Whats the problem with showing more than one theory? I personally can see no way that creation happened just like that, one minute just the creator, next minute *POOF* everything is created. But there are creationists who can see that Darwins theory can hold for small scale evolution - varieties of finches or the peppered moth as examples. Even if the most stubborn of christians couldnt accept evolution as fact, why not as theory. And really, why the hell is it anything to do with schooling! If their church wants to tell them that evolution is wrong and all the animal and plant life appeared in 7 days, well church is the right place to tell that. Not school. Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 31 2004, 07:47 AM QUOTE (Rhiannon @ Jan 31 2004, 10:12 AM) Whats the problem with showing more than one theory? I think school children SHOULD be taught that there are conflicting views about aspects of evolution. It's part of teaching children the scientific method. But, conflicting theories are worthy of being taught only where there is valid evidence to back up those views. There is no scientific evidence to support the notion that the universe was created supernaturally in six days approximately 6000 years ago. The best the creationists can do is come up with evidence that they think goes against some portion of evolution. (And that's fine, if the evidence is true). However, evidence against one theory is not proof for another. In the case of evolution, new valid evidence is used to refine the theory. I'm sorry for mixing evolution and cosmology, but that's what creationism is (a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe, plate tectonics and the origin of species - among other things - rolled into one) Posted by: Rhiannon Jan 31 2004, 10:33 AM I was never taught creation in school as a science, it was covered in Religious Education class, the scientific theories were discussed in Science classes. I would say while I would prefer it that way, if your options are * No evolution, only creationism * Evolution with its evidence, and Creationism with its "evidence" I think its better to give creationism some room on the floor so that evolution is at least taught. Those that bother to think about it can see that evolution has a lot of weight behind it, those that dont think, well, they dont think anyway. I would much rather that creation myths were shown as just that ... myths, alongside all the other creation myths, but I think we need to take baby steps to get there Posted by: RowdyHoo Jan 31 2004, 12:05 PM I guess we should really define which evolution we are discussing. It is a fact that micro evolution occurs (finches, flies, moths, your familar with the specifics) but I don't buy into the macro biology-that's how we all got here-evolution just yet. Though I admit it's the best scientific theory we to date. I agree, adjustment of a theory is not a bad thing. And I also have to admit, there are those who refuse to give any room for negotiation in creationism. As a Christian, I leave the door open to the possibility that God could have created it all in 7, 24-hr days. But using the mind that he gave me tells me that he likely didn't. Unfortunately, many fundimental Christians are too dogmatic to even discus that. And if you think that is irritating to you, hell, I get regular doses of it every week (at church and bible study). Bottom line, is that I still can't swallow the whole macro evolution theory (especially from the very begining) but it is viable, and we have to keep looking at it...honestly. Final word, trying not to be a smart-ass, Jimmy Carter was and would be a terrible president. He's a great man, and I respect him, but he doesn't have the complete-package to run it all. He may be too nice and too smart (not being sarcastic). I'm surprise that you guys would say that though, as he is a devout Christian. Posted by: Cain Jan 31 2004, 12:48 PM He may be Christian but fortunately he doesn't reflect it. He's open minded and tolerant. Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 31 2004, 02:58 PM QUOTE (RowdyHoo @ Jan 31 2004, 03:05 PM) Final word, trying not to be a smart-ass, Jimmy Carter was and would be a terrible president. He's a great man, and I respect him, but he doesn't have the complete-package to run it all. He may be too nice and too smart (not being sarcastic). I'm surprise that you guys would say that though, as he is a devout Christian. I don't think an atheist would have a chance in hell to become president with politics the way they are today. (Or at least not an honest atheist.) It's very likely we'll be having christian presidents for a while yet, so I'd just as soon have one that is truly compassionate and is willing to stand up to fundamentalists as Carter's done with this evolution incident in Georgia. IMHO, he's turned out to be one of the best ex-presidents we've ever had. I respect him for his work towards international peace and his habitat for humanity involvement. I wasn't too serious about him running for president. For one thing, I doubt that he would want to go through all that again at his age. But it would be nice to have someone who shares his good qualities to vote for. Posted by: moorezw Jan 31 2004, 03:07 PM QUOTE (RowdyHoo @ Jan 31 2004, 03:05 PM) I guess we should really define which evolution we are discussing. It is a fact that micro evolution occurs (finches, flies, moths, your familar with the specifics) but I don't buy into the macro biology-that's how we all got here-evolution just yet. RowdyHoo- There is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution- they use the same mechanism, just on different timescales. Anyone who says differently doesn't understand evolutionary biology. Posted by: Doug2 Jan 31 2004, 09:09 PM Carter is a christian, but he is certainly no fundy. He just finished authoring a fiction book with a nice fornication scene in it. Why is it the christian creation story that we must teach in science class? As has been said on the board many times, if we teach that one, we should teach the native american story, the greeks, celtics, egyptians, hindu, etc. I have no problem teaching the differing Scientific theories, but science class is not mythology class. Posted by: Matthew Feb 1 2004, 12:38 AM I am going to vouch for an unorthodox solution to the origins controversy in public schools. I think that both creation theories of design along with evolution should be either taught in public science classrooms or all theories of origins, wether or life, or of biodiversity, or both should be saved for community workshops in education. Such would reflect a free market exchange of ideas. Kids should be taught creation theories and intelligent design theories along with naturalistic theories of evolution. If creationism is a crank theory, then why not present it along with evolution? What better way for the students to see the scientific method in action and distinguish real science from pseudo-science? I really don't think evolutionists are in a position to gripe about taxmoney paying for creationists/design theories taught because creationists are taxpayers too. I personally believe that all ideas should be taught along with arguments for each side. That way, all taxpayers are satisfied. Having community educational workshops seem ideal because that way, everyone gets equal exposure to all ideas, everyone can sit down and talk about what they see, hear, and are being taught. Mainstream scientists can explain why they reject creation/design theories and the creationists/design theorists can explain why they think that modern mainstream science is somewhat off. I personally think that having only naturalistic evolution taught is extremely arrogant. Many evolutionists might bitch about their taxmoney paying for alternative theories taught at their expsense, but are not creationists taxpayers too? I know I am not alone in stating this. An evolutionary biologist named William Provine of Cornell University expressed similar sentiments: QUOTE Evolutionists have worked hard to keep alternative theories of origins out of the science classrooms. I think this is a tactical mistake. It means that anyone who comes in believing in creationism, for example, will not have his/her beliefs challenged directly with evidence from the teacher or students because the issue of creationism is supressed in class. Evolutionists fear that students will believe creationism rather than evolution, and that only evolution should be taught. How interesting, indeed, that evolutionists might think that the evidence for creationism is more compelling to students than the evidence for evolution, or that the teachers of biology are incapable of presenting evolution convincingly, the solution for which is supression of creationism. I think the better solution is to let creationism and evolutionism fight it out in the science classrooms everywhere. Entirely apart from constitutional considerations, I would hope that any teacher of evolution would raise issues about alternative theories of origin. He even has suggestions that I wholeheartedly agree with: QUOTE I have a suggestion for creationists. Do not try and hide the supernatural aspect of creationism. It sets intellectual dishonesty as the standard of the discussion. Good reasons exist for discussion in the science classrooms of supernatural origins (for me and many evolutionists, eradicating them; for Bird and others, spreading them--hey, the classroom sure will be interesting). The Lemon test is limited to the USA and is an anachronism that should be revised. Teachers and school boards in public schools are already free under the Constitution of the USA to teach about supernatural origins if they wish in their science classes. Laws can be passed in most countries of the world requiring discussion of supernatural origins in science classes, and still satisfy national legal requirements Evolutionists don't go unscathed either. He writes: QUOTE And I have a suggestion for evolutionists. Include discussion of supernatural origins in your classes, and promote discussion of them in public and other schools. Come off your high horse about having only evolution taught in science classes. The exclusionism you promote is painfully self-serving and smacks of elitism. Why are you afraid of confronting the supernatural creationism believed by the majority of persons in the USA and perhaps worldwide? Shouldn't students be encouraged to express their beliefs about origins in a class discussing origins by evolution? If these two volumes are a measure, we have nothing to fear from the arguments of creationists Well said Dr. Provine! Matthew Posted by: TexasFreethinker Feb 1 2004, 06:44 AM I think the line has to be drawn at natural vs supernatural for two primary reasons: time and evidence. If we truly were to give equal weight to natural and supernatural theories, there were be very little time in the school year spent on actual science. As Doug has pointed out several times, there is not just the christian story of creation to deal with. There are dozens of others. Should evolution and the scientific method be shrunk to a one week session so another week can be devoted to the Cherokee theory and another to the Ute theory and another to the Mayan theory another to the Aztec theory and another to the Hindu theory and another to the Christian theory, and another to Aboriginal dreamtime theory and others to the various African and Asian theories? Sounds like a good plan to destroy the science skills of American children to me. Why should a teacher or student be forced to spend precious school time on any theory that doesn't have evidence to support it? Will we next be asking students in geology to spend equal time on the flat earth theory, or students in astronomy to be tested on the earth-centric model of the universe? If creationists (or any other supernatural story supporters) want their theory taught in schools, then they need to provide the hard evidence to support it. And I mean ALL of it. If there is no proof that the earth is only six thousand years old, then that aspect should not be allowed to be taught. If there is no evidence that suggests that the earth is older than the sun then that aspect should not be taught. Any aspect of a supernatural theory that is not supported by evidence belongs in Sunday Schools, not Public Schools. Posted by: Matthew Feb 1 2004, 03:35 PM TF, That's why I suggested community education workshops. In fact..I think that if alternatives are not presented in public schools then mainstream theories shouldn't be presented either. I think that having mainstream and alternative theories taught in educational workshops like I suggested is a much better alternative. Either that, or briefly mention different theories in the classroom, like one or two weeks and then introduce a supplementary textbook on different theories and related arguments. QUOTE If creationists (or any other supernatural story supporters) want their theory taught in schools, then they need to provide the hard evidence to support it. And I mean ALL of it. If there is no proof that the earth is only six thousand years old, then that aspect should not be allowed to be taught. If there is no evidence that suggests that the earth is older than the sun then that aspect should not be taught. Any aspect of a supernatural theory that is not supported by evidence belongs in Sunday Schools, not Public Schools. Well creationists do insist that there's evidence to support their views. Just because the evidence is not powerful, sufficent, or even convincing to the satisfaction of skeptics like ourselves won't stop creationists from insisting upon the existence of evidence that they claim is either being ignored, repressed, or both. That's why I insist that students be exposed to all theories and all arguments, wether they are bogus or not. This way, the public can be better informed about the nature of science and pseudo-science. Most students are going to encounter creationism sooner or later so why not just have it all debated and battled out and let students decide for themselves which is the winner? Matthew Posted by: Lokmer Feb 1 2004, 08:40 PM In a philosophy course, Matthew, I'm all with you. But these are science classes. Creationism is not a science - it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis. Intelligent Design perhaps does, but it ddes not differ significantly in process or evidence from naturalistic evolution, it only quibbles over the progenation argument - something that is outside the sphere of science anyway. You wouldn't teach literature in a math class. Why should you teach philosophy in a science class (beyond the scientific method et.al.)? A class is meant to learn the dicipline being discussed. A student is entitled to (and should be encouraged to) form their own informed opinion about philosophical/theological issues that the dicipline raises. The same is true for Literature, History, Philosophy, Mathematics, Engineering, or Carpentry. The place for creationism and naturalism is in a philosophy course or in a philosophy of science course, not in a physics or biology cousre. In those courses, the student should be learning the history and current practice of the dicipline, not what a church thinks about it. They can investigate that for themselves, and should be encouraged to do so. Outside of class. -Lokmer Posted by: Bruce Feb 1 2004, 09:07 PM The problem of "creation-science" is mulifaceted. Although most creationists try to focus on creationism as an alternative for evolutionary biology, that tactic is disingenuous. Creationism, particularly young earth, special creationism impacts all of the sciences. If the biblical creationism is taught as a valid alternative, then everything we as a species know about genetics, cosmology, asttronomy, physics, hydrology, et al., is ALL wrong. The sciences are referential to each other. For instance, one cannot study and deal with epidemiology without a thorough understanding of evolution. Hence, the bird-flu crisis in Asia, where treatment is hampered by the rapid evolutionary adaptation of the flu strain. Creationism, does not posit any theories that can be falsified. In fact, the very concept of creationism is that a supernatural entity intervened, suspended the natural processes and caused X to occur miraculously. Once magical causality is accepted, then all science is moot. In short, it would amount to a return to the superstitious, midieval, demon-haunted world, where cause and effect are not rationally explainable, but the result of activities of invisible and unverifiable entities. As someone once said, the invisible and the non-existent look remarkably the same. When creationism is taught as an alternative to evolution, it will not be long before astrology is taught as an alternative to astronomy or demon-possession is taught as an alternative to pathology. //Bruce// Posted by: Doug2 Feb 1 2004, 09:34 PM If the christians believe their theory is good, let them submit it for review in a scientific journal. It will then be in the science books. Until then it has no more basis in science than some wacky theory I dream up. Posted by: Erik the Awful Feb 1 2004, 10:12 PM QUOTE (Rhiannon @ Jan 31 2004, 07:12 AM) Whats the problem with showing more than one theory? I personally can see no way that creation happened just like that, one minute just the creator, next minute *POOF* everything is created. But there are creationists who can see that Darwins theory can hold for small scale evolution - varieties of finches or the peppered moth as examples. Even if the most stubborn of christians couldnt accept evolution as fact, why not as theory. And really, why the hell is it anything to do with schooling! If their church wants to tell them that evolution is wrong and all the animal and plant life appeared in 7 days, well church is the right place to tell that. Not school. The problem for christianity showing more than one theory is that showing more than one theory leads to QUESTIONS about the validity of the currently most favored theory. My educational history isn't broad, but out of approxamatly 23 christian teachers, only 2 had the intelligence or the honesty to discuss evolution. One went so far as to discuss scientific evidence that supports Darwins theory of evolution, and scientific evidence for and against the "flood theory." He *demanded* that we students think for oursleves. You will often hear that Christianity is concerned with the "seperation of church and state." I think that means "christianity supports seperation of chuch and state if christians aren't running the government." other than that, I'd bet that I can find good evidence supporting the hypothesis that Christians want control of the public education system, for the purpose of indoctrinating America's youth. ... and so does everybody else. Posted by: pitchu Feb 2 2004, 07:40 AM QUOTE (Rhiannon @ Jan 31 2004, 07:12 AM) And really, why the hell is it anything to do with schooling! If their church wants to tell them that evolution is wrong and all the animal and plant life appeared in 7 days, well church is the right place to tell that. Not school. Exactly. Georgia public school students, no matter their religious affiliation or absence thereof, will now be taught the xian faith, plain and simple. Odds are this will be challenged in court. Posted by: sexkitten Feb 2 2004, 11:04 AM QUOTE (Rhiannon @ Jan 31 2004, 07:12 AM) And really, why the hell is it anything to do with schooling! If their church wants to tell them that evolution is wrong and all the animal and plant life appeared in 7 days, well church is the right place to tell that. Not school. In the US, the public school system is a battleground for a very old culture war that's at least as old as US public schooling (though the latest iteration is rooted in the 1960s). It is vitally important for the ideological forces in our country to control the public schools, for that in turn gives them control over the country's future. Public schools as cultural indoctrination goes back a long way. Our school system was created in part to combat the wave Catholic immigration in the mid to late 1850s by indoctrinating Protestant values (which is also why we have such a strong private Catholic school tradition). When the schools eventually abandoned the teaching of Protestantism (early 1900s), many Protestants cried foul, claiming that secular school system was indoctrinating against their religion. The 1960s brought about key US Supreme Court decisions which supported the decisions of several states to abandon teaching Bible as religion in schools and to abandon organized prayer in accordance with constitutional principles and changing public mores. The Civil Rights battle drastically changed the demographics and cultural homogeny of public school populations in many states. The 1960s saw the end of the white Protestant control on the schools and on the culture as a whole, and that brought the religious right fighting back and fighting hard. Here in America, the most bitterly fought battles around schools are about religion, ideology, values, and culture - and not about literacy, math skills, facts, reason, or education at all. And its been this way for a very, very long time. Posted by: woodsmoke Feb 2 2004, 06:45 PM Wow. Just.....wow. This is just my ego speaking, but your viewpoints also back up the thinking by many that public schools are not institutions of learning and development, they are institutions of conformity. Nicely done, Kitty! Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com) © Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com) |