Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[RandomPhantom700]

The first note is that these issues always produce wild inaccuracies, even on the part of those with whom we might otherwise agree. At the moment, the most glaring of these lies in the claim that, "by the same reasoning that the religious Right want to impose their marriage norms on society (parrallel with the imposition of creationism in science classes), the government should be allowed to intrude into the churches' decisions by forcing them to marry homosexuals," when nobody at all has called for churches to be forced to do anything.

I wasn't claiming that the churches have yet been forced to do anything of the sort; I know that they haven't been, and hope for the sake of Freedom of Religion that they aren't.

All I meant was that the same reasoning you used in saying

If we aren't to respect differences between science and religion, and therefore teach creationism is science classes, then there can be no reason not to force the teaching of humanist and evolutionary ideas and theories in churches

could be applied to the gay marriage issue. I.e: If we aren't to respect the difference between legal rights and religious rights, and therefore bar homosexuals from civil union, then there can be no reason not to force the recognition of the legitimacy of gay marriage in churches.

See?

 

[michaeledward]

Remember, science proves nothing...onto transition fossils. Below is a variety of sources...

Hey, check this out. God must have know we were having this 'Hot' discussion. So he created a new fossil for our consideration. He then aged it so it would like like it was 300 million years old and hid it in Pittsburg. Wow.

A brand new Genus. A brand new Species. Not quite a crocodile, not quite a salamander. It's a Striegeli.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/09/amphibianf.ap/index.html

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (AP) -- A geology student on a field trip stumbled across the fossil of an oversized, salamander-like creature with vicious crocodile-like teeth that lived about 300 million years ago, paleontologists said.

Scientists say the find is both a new species and a new genus, a broader category in the classification of plants and animals. Talks are under way about what to call the new species, starting with "Striegeli" -- after the University of Pittsburgh student who discovered it.

 

[qizmoduis]

Part of the problem with arguing with creationists is that they redefine words, usually without notice, into something that fits and supports their paradigm. The word theory is perhaps the best example of this.

To a scientist, a theory is a rigorous model, supported by experiments and observations, that seek to explain an observation or related set of observations, and to make predictions about those observations. Theories must be falsifiable, meaning they can be proven false using the same methods - experiments and observations - that were used to support them in the first place.

To a creationist, a theory is just a guess. To them, one person's guess is as good as any other person's guess.

That's why it's nearly impossible to debate a creationist. They simply don't operate under the same definitions as you do.

This segues into a very important point about Evolution that is often missed: Evolution and the Theory of Evolution aren't the same thing. Evolution is an observed fact. It is observed in the fossil records and in current, everyday lab experiments. It is observed out in the field. Evolution was known to have occurred by scientists long before Darwin wandered into the scene.

Darwin was the first to set forth a well-supported Theory of Evolution that attempted to explain how the observed Evolution happened. We've been refining his model ever since. Every single branch of science (except perhaps the cosmolgical sciences) feeds into and out of evolutionary biology. It is so well-supported now, that to falsify it would require the falsification of nearly our entire body of scientific knowledge.

The Theory of Evolution is supported by chemistry. It is supported by physics. Statistics supports it, even chaos theory lends a hand. It's amazing what can come out of extremely simple chaotic systems. Look at the Mandelbrot equations for a good example. Evolution is observed result of a stupefyingly simple chaotic system.

Creationism in it's current incarnation, suffers from another problem: It doesn't seek to explain anything. All creationist efforts seek to insert bible-reading into science classrooms at the mid-grade level. They don't actually do science. There is no such thing as "Creation Theory", because what they're trying to promulgate isn't a theory. It's religious scripture using a smattering of scientific-sounding words mixed with usually misguided and always completely incorrect complaints about evolution.

Anyway, my favorite site for this is www.talkorigins.org. One of the best places on the net for refutation of creationist nonsense.

 

[loki09789]

I think the BIG problem is that people who are arguing 'faith' are trying to force it to stand up to scientific scrutiny and people who are arguing 'science' are trying to use it to destroy mystical/faith beliefs.....

They are two different categories/mental structures so of course they will not 'stand up' to each other in the home court comparision - it is no easier to compare/discuss 'pro choice' and 'pro life' because you are not even discussing the same issue.

Can people at least acknowledge that much? These discussions boil down to name calling and insult because that simple idea isn't clearly understood.

As I said before, I don't have a problem with 'diverse views' being presented in education, but it is totally senseless to teach a religious/philosophically based construct of the world in science class - leave it to the global studies or ELA classes.

 

[someguy]

It seems that alot of people think of theory as well a guess not a theory as a theory really is.
Then again evolution originally had a differnt meaning.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library.html Look for the article that is something like What does the dreaded E word mean anyway?
As you can see the word has changed meanings.
So What is my point? I dunno do I really have to have a point. Ok fine. Words can take on a new meaning. Theory can have to meanings.
Now if that isn't off topic I don't know what is.

 

[loki09789]

It seems that alot of people think of theory as well a guess not a theory as a theory really is.
Then again evolution originally had a differnt meaning.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library.html Look for the article that is something like What does the dreaded E word mean anyway?
As you can see the word has changed meanings.
So What is my point? I dunno do I really have to have a point. Ok fine. Words can take on a new meaning. Theory can have to meanings.
Now if that isn't off topic I don't know what is.

Well I can see a point in your submission: Even with the "evolutionists" there is discrepancy about how 'evolution' should be defined or detailed.

Take that same internal strife into the 'creationists' and you could expand it beyond 'those damnable fundamental christians' to include non-christian faith structures that have other than scientific/evolutionary ideals about how the world is made.

So, to really crank on this point (not you Paul ), if a 'creationist' is speaking from a Hindi mysticism and commenting on his "Strictly Darwinian" definition of evolution to a "evolutionist" that follows a different/more current variation on evolutionary theory BUT is assuming that this 'creationist' is talking from 'fundamental christian values' what kind of frustration/miscommunication is going to happen? How emotionally irritated are people going to get over assumptions? VERY.

That isn't even addressing the heat between the 'Divine Spark' people who get flak from both sides of the issue.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

... while your liberal use of "big words" sounds impressive to the uninitiated,

Or reasonably eloquent to those with an education. Here...try this:

Dictionary.com.

It'll help you with the tougher words.


...that is a bold faced lie... while it is an UNPROVEN theory, it is presented and pressed in schools, media, museums, etc as "fact"...

Theories can not be proven. They can only be falsified. If you understood the scientific method, you'd know that. You have yet to present any evidence falsifying the theory of evolution.


but your opinion added to the "opinion" of the teacher, doesn't really change the fact that the "theory" of evolution is under assault from the scientific community also, admittedly slow, but building all the same, regardless of your personal opinion on this matter...

Science is self correcting. Every time a hypothesis is overturned do you jump on that as evidence of evolution being under assault? Please show us where science is backtracking.

Actually, I understand a great deal about science and proposed "theories", I simply choose, unlike you, to use common verbiage to describe my position as opposed to vomiting dictionaries to impress, or perhaps as an attempt to brow-beat my opponents...

No, you don't. You don't understand science or the scientific method. You haven't an inkling. You don't seem interested in learning it, either.


Unlike you, I have not blinded myself to the scientific realities that abound in the field of Origins science..., and that commpletely disprove the goo-to-guy fantasy religion of evolution. I used to be a proponent of evolution.. the "facts" convinced me otherwise.

Placing the word facts in quotation marks doesn't establish them as facts or lend them any truth. It doesn't really do anything grammatically as you use it here, come to think of it I knew a Christian who used to use caps with FACTS, and then wouldn't spend any time defending the statement. We see that here.

As for "stamping out other forms of intellectual competition.. doesn't it appear to you that that is exactly what you and the proponents of evolution are trying to do when confronted with differing theories, such as creationism... you immediately commence with ad hominum attacks and flippent dismissals of readily verifyable data, simply because they destroy your position.

Proponents of evolution do not attempt to get evolution taught in Sunday school classes. As for verifiable data, where?

...s'funny that while you condemn scientists who also happen to be christians as moronic fanatics who don't perform real science, simply because their position contradicts your 100 hours of high school and college classes, you still deny that science flourished via the spread of christianity.

Science did in fact spread in the Christian world, and once tension occured from what it presented, the Christian world attempted to squelch it. Witness the persecution of Galileo.

.. actually, they have passed numerous peer reviews..

Where? In what journals? As tested by whom?


Why are YOU (read evolutionists) so terrified about letting the theory of creation be taught in classrooms as an alternate to evolution?...

Because America is lagging behind the rest of the developed world insofar as science and math...and for the sake of the country I'd hate to see it get any worse by abandoing the scientific method for a confirmation bias that embraces ONE particular religious mindset.

It seems to me that it is the evolutionists who are cramming their personal religious belief in an unproven theory down the throat of everyone else, while at the same time attempting to silence any other competing positions...

Hardly. The churches in this country are free to teach Creationism. By attempting to have it taught by the government you unwittingly profess the impotence of your faith. You're having the government step in and take up the slack. You're confessing the Church can't cut the mustard.


we can't have a sensible discussion when we're not allowed to present our side publically in the same environment eh?

Fine. Provided you allow us to come to church and get our equal time with the kids in Sunday School classes.

...My two bits...

Or, you could have written "just my opinion" or "IMHO" or "my two cents." These are the various ways in which people sign off on posts.

Its a disingenuous attempt at absolving yourself and your opinions of any real blame should your perspective get slammed in analysis. It is, after all, only your opinion (or in this case your two bits). Opinions thus presented are supposedly unassailable, as everyone is "entitled" to one.

Let us all dispense with these. Of course its your two bits. State it, stand by it, and defend it.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

Why are YOU (read evolutionists) so terrified about letting the theory of creation be taught in classrooms as an alternate to evolution?...

I missed this before. As an alternate? Because it is a fable. Why on earth would I want my children taught that this is fact? What educational standard does this demonstrate? As an alternate? Never. In a religious studies class, balanced with other creation myths? Sure! Why not? I don't want my children sheltered from information, but I certainly don't want them coerced into believing, later in life, that they have an "obligation" to pay off your church masters either.

The churches in this country are free to teach Creationism. By attempting to have it taught by the government you unwittingly profess the impotence of your faith. You're having the government step in and take up the slack. You're confessing the Church can't cut the mustard.

Excellent insight. Very nice.

 

[heretic888]

I think the BIG problem is that people who are arguing 'faith' are trying to force it to stand up to scientific scrutiny and people who are arguing 'science' are trying to use it to destroy mystical/faith beliefs.....

They are two different categories/mental structures so of course they will not 'stand up' to each other in the home court comparision - it is no easier to compare/discuss 'pro choice' and 'pro life' because you are not even discussing the same issue.

Can people at least acknowledge that much? These discussions boil down to name calling and insult because that simple idea isn't clearly understood.

As I said before, I don't have a problem with 'diverse views' being presented in education, but it is totally senseless to teach a religious/philosophically based construct of the world in science class - leave it to the global studies or ELA classes.

Well said, Loki. :asian: :asian:

 

[heretic888]

That isn't even addressing the heat between the 'Divine Spark' people who get flak from both sides of the issue.

Hrmmm... somehow I think that includes me.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Finally, folks like P'jack aren't a threat. Nor are their ideas; they believe what they believe, and well, so it goes.

However, when they drag in the local witch-burners and the government to force their ideas down everybody sensible's throats, they become a problem. Then, their utter lack of knowledge (let me guess: haven't read Gould, don't know who Louis and Mary Leakey are, haven't gone to a real museum in years, won't look at the evidence, certainly ain't gonna read one of the great achieveements of humankind, "The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man," third-hand Creationist texts only, right?) and their refusal to look at reality becomes a problem.

Once they call in the cops--and that's what they want--the mere fact that they don't know the books, they won't look at the evidence, and they cannot alloww themselves to reason, becomes an issue for everybody. Hell, one would think that they'd be mildly twiddled by the fact that the Catholic Church doesn't see a prob reconciling Darwin and Genesis, or by the extent to which other practicing Christians can quote and interpret the Bible at least as well as they can--but nope, not an issue. Perfectly hermetically-sealed self-confirming belief system--but then, so are all paranoiac constructions of knowledge.

The real questions all revolve around why they believe this guff, and why they demand that everybody else must too. Of course, they'll always claim that they "just want to represent all viewpoints," that they, "only want equal time." A lie, and apparently a lie that many of their evangelical groups are encouraging them to tell as a tactic.

What they want is their fantasy of the 13th century: creationism taught as science, sex ed banned, contraception banned, homosexuality made illegal, women shoved back (oh, so sorry--encouraged to fulfill their special, holy mission as bearers of children, cooks, toilet scrubbers, mommies and sex toys), public executions, paddling in schools, the whole sick ball of wax.

And, of course, their small, frightened version of Protestant Christianity enshrined as our State religion. Right after that, maybe we can ban Papism, erase Unitarianism and them damn non-violent Quakers and Amish, run the Muslims out of God's Country, and just generally get on with the Crusade that leads to Armageddon. Of course, they'll be liberal about it--Jews will be...encouraged, shall we say?...to convert.

Anyone who thinks this an exaggeration would do well to look up the Promise Keepers, check out a couple episodes of "The 700 Club," listen to Trinity Broadcasting, track down the various pamphlets and publications that groups like the ACLJ (Jay Sekula, smart man) put out.

Oh yes--apparently Bush is going to put Ralph Reed up for Rep. Party Chairman. Scope out THAT guy's career.

Happy to debate the issues any time; quite unafraid of debate, since these guys will ALWAYS lose any debate. We have better arguments and actual evidence. Hell, many of us have more knowledge of the Bible, sounder theology, and real understanding of ourselves to employ.

That's why they don't want to debate. They want to demand, with the aid of the cops.

 

[heretic888]

check out a couple episodes of "The 700 Club,"

I've actually done just that. I was thoroughly disgusted about 2 minutes in.

One of the REALLY great ones was when they brought in a "reformed homosexual" who had a wife and two kids, thus proving that "homosexuality is a choice".

Errr... sorry, off-topic. :uhyeah:

 

[michaeledward]

Happy to debate the issues any time; quite unafraid of debate, since these guys will ALWAYS lose any debate. We have better arguments and actual evidence. Hell, many of us have more knowledge of the Bible, sounder theology, and real understanding of ourselves to employ.

That's why they don't want to debate. They want to demand, with the aid of the cops.

We need be constantly vigilant. Seems to me Kerry won three debates, Edwards won one debate ... and we still lost the battle.

 

[MisterMike]

We need be constantly vigilant. Seems to me Kerry won three debates, Edwards won one debate ... and we still lost the battle.

I guess more people thought that Bush won them then and the Dems will continue to lose the battle.

At least they are well aware that they need to get someone a little closer to the "heartland" and doesn't appear so radically leftist. They pulled it off with Clinton, much to my dismay. Curious who they will nominate in 08. It won't be Hillary or they'll lose again. The country knows the track record and well, frankly isn't ready to elect a woman.

 

[Makalakumu]

I think the BIG problem is that people who are arguing 'faith' are trying to force it to stand up to scientific scrutiny and people who are arguing 'science' are trying to use it to destroy mystical/faith beliefs.....

They are two different categories/mental structures so of course they will not 'stand up' to each other in the home court comparision - it is no easier to compare/discuss 'pro choice' and 'pro life' because you are not even discussing the same issue.

Can people at least acknowledge that much? These discussions boil down to name calling and insult because that simple idea isn't clearly understood.

As I said before, I don't have a problem with 'diverse views' being presented in education, but it is totally senseless to teach a religious/philosophically based construct of the world in science class - leave it to the global studies or ELA classes.

In the same way that science cannot be used to explain away the existence of God, Creationism, when put into the rigours scientific light, does not hold up as a theory. When the two are compared and their explanations analyzed, Occum's Razor mutilates one of them...

 

[Makalakumu]

I guess more people thought that Bush won them then and the Dems will continue to lose the battle.

People who really know what debate is suppose to look like, know who won. Those are the people who are saying Kerry won. Debate coaches, speech professors, professional politicos who debate all of the time, all agreed. Bush/Cheney lost the debates. Kerry/Edwards won them. Therefore reasoned debate played, in this instance, did not sway many voters.

Anyway, its the same with evolution and creationism. The last thing I can see these guys wanting is for the theories to be held up side by side.

 

[MisterMike]

People who really know what debate is suppose to look like, know who won. Those are the people who are saying Kerry won. Debate coaches, speech professors, professional politicos who debate all of the time, all agreed. Bush/Cheney lost the debates. Kerry/Edwards won them. Therefore reasoned debate played, in this instance, did not sway many voters.

Anyway, its the same with evolution and creationism. The last thing I can see these guys wanting is for the theories to be held up side by side.

People who really know, will agree those weren't debates, but whatever...

Also, the object of teaching creationism in the classroom isn't to say which is better. If it isn't even theory, why are you trying to compare it to evolution? And if the evolutionists have no fear that it may stack up against their theory, why do they work do hard to keep it out of the schools?

 

[Flatlander]

People who really know, will agree those weren't debates, but whatever...

Also, the object of teaching creationism in the classroom isn't to say which is better. If it isn't even theory, why are you trying to compare it to evolution? And if the evolutionists have no fear that it may stack up against their theory, why do they work do hard to keep it out of the schools?

Mike, with all due respect, this is not what the thread is demonstrating. What seems to be the goal is the teaching of Creation instead of Evolution. And note that most are saying that there's no real problem with teaching Creation, as long as they don't limit it exclusively to the KJV story. There are other myths that warrant study and exposure too.

 

[MisterMike]

Mike, with all due respect, this is not what the thread is demonstrating. What seems to be the goal is the teaching of Creation instead of Evolution. And note that most are saying that there's no real problem with teaching Creation, as long as they don't limit it exclusively to the KJV story. There are other myths that warrant study and exposure too.

Well, I'll concede that that is where people have brought this thread, but the subject is just "getting a place in the classes." Where it's primarily gone is that Creationism is being 'pushed' by the fundy 'right wingers' to convert our precious nation's youth into Bible-thumpers.

I for one would be interested in Native American beliefs as well, but we run into the same problem of Who is 'expert' enough to teach it?

Bottom line is that they don't want it offered at all. Leave it to the churches and family to teach. Well sorry, but for the rest of the people who don't grow up with any idea of what it is about, you get the likes of half the ignorant posters on this thread. (Myself included as I'm not Bible scholar either.)

 

[Feisty Mouse]

MrMike, are youthen advocating for a religious studies or international cultures studies class?

I think that is an excellent idea.