Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[heretic888]

Its a rather simple problem, Mike.

"Creationists" want to teach fundamentalist Protestant theology in a science classroom. A theology which, by the way, has no supporting scientific evidence. That is what is so truly bizarre.

So, yes, this truly is a matter of the Religious Right trying to forcefeed their beliefs down the throats of America's youth.

I'm all for teaching different creation myths and philosophical speculations on the origins of existence. But, guess what?? We already do that. They're called So-and-So Literature, Philosophy, Theory of Knowledge, Comparative Religion, Cultural Anthropology, and so on --- in fact, there are a helluva lot more classes dedicated to talking about this stuff than they are about evolution.

These "creationists" aren't fighting for having "alternate views" portrayed in our schools --- which they already are, in the appropriate classrooms and settings. No, they are fighting to have their religious beliefs passed off as "science".

Because, rest assured, these guys would still be absolutely livid if it was Hindu or Buddhist or Mithraic creation myths being taught and not theirs...

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just FYI, the Puritans came to this country because they were a narrow-minded, bigoted religious cult that meddled in national politics. They came here to DENY the religious liberties that Englishmen and Englishwomen were slowly acquiring.

Pennsylvania--William Penn?--is there in large part because when this group of loons took over England in the 1640s, they immediately attacked groups like the Quakers. Rhode Island is there because these selfsame Puritans meant their name, and drove out any and all Dissenters.

 

[Makalakumu]

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

I agree with you here. All four debates were like extended infomertials...anyways...

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?

I have no problem comparing evolution to creationism on their "scientific" merits. No body wishes to do so on this thread and in the creationism community, nobody really wishes to do so either.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Just FYI, the Puritans came to this country because they were a narrow-minded, bigoted religious cult that meddled in national politics. They came here to DENY the religious liberties that Englishmen and Englishwomen were slowly acquiring.

Pennsylvania--William Penn?--is there in large part because when this group of loons took over England in the 1640s, they immediately attacked groups like the Quakers. Rhode Island is there because these selfsame Puritans meant their name, and drove out any and all Dissenters.

Robert, I agree that the Puritans, are Religous intolerants, yet, they came here to practice their religion their way. I never said they were right or that those in Rhode Island, need to be given special treatment for past sins committed toward them.

As to Penn and the Quakers, I agree that it goes back to England for the source, yet, teh creators of the Constitution, knew of them and did nto want them to take over here as well. Yet, they did nto wish to deny them the right to practice their religion no matter how wierd it might seem to anyone.

:asian:

 

[heretic888]

As to Penn and the Quakers, I agree that it goes back to England for the source, yet, teh creators of the Constitution, knew of them and did nto want them to take over here as well. Yet, they did nto wish to deny them the right to practice their religion no matter how wierd it might seem to anyone.

Ummm.... since when have the Religious Society of Friends tried to "take over" anything?? They don't even believe in having militaries. They're as pacifist as it comes.

And, just for kicks, if I were to single out any one or two religions/philosophies that definitively shaped our constitutional forbearers my vote goes to Unitarianism (which later became Unitarian-Universalism) and Deism.

Unitarianism, by the way, in addition to influencing such intellectuals as Jefferson and Franklin also gave us the first truly great American literary movement: Transcendentalism (Emerson and Thoreau, anyone?).

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Among the reasons that one "does not want," creationist doctrines taught as serious scientific theories in science classes (and just incidentally, such theories often do come up--so that they can be debunked, and the difference betweeen science and religion explained) is the notion that it's for the same reason that one doesn't want three-year-olds playing with choo-choos--grownups have better things to do.

2. Who wrote anything about folks from RI deserving "special treatment," because of past sins committed against them? Compensation for Roger Williams, whose statue one used to live two doors down from on Congdon Street? (And, by the way, about a block and a half from the First Baptist Church...no, really, the first one, which was there BECAUSE RELIGIOUS FANATICS DROVE ALL DISSENTERS OUT OF THE MASS BAY COLONY, which was also why the first synagogue built in this country is in Newport, RI...good state.) One suspects that this is another case of over-reading (those libs...always wanting guilt money...) a simple recognition of history.

3. Personally, who cares if there's a jumble of "pagan," and "Christian," symbols on our money? Atheists--who some folks quite correctly believe have made their own leap of faith in declaring that there ain't no God--fussing over Masonic imagery would do better to sweat over, say, the un-Constitutional recitation of forced prayer at public meetings. Money's just representative of our history...why go back and scrub off all the bits ya don't like? You'll be left with precious little history.

4. The real crossover to worry over isn't science and religion. It's capitalism and Christianity.

5. The preamble to the Constitution cites Nature's God simply in order to postulate an origin for subsequently-discussed Rights. Why? because (see Kaja Silverman's opening chapters, "The Subject of Semiotics," or Chris Weedon's "Feminist Practice and Post-Structuralist Theory") it's very difficult to work out the reasons that rights should even exist if everything's grounded in human practice and history alone. In other words, on one hand you have essentialist theories: there's some, 'essential,' reality existing before human practice came along, and continuing along outside our control to legitimate/make meaningful what we do. On the other, you have 'cultural construction:' no outside solid reality, and we make the world meaningful in whatever fashion we collectively choose.

Examples of essentialism: all religions; Jungianism; biology/evolution based theories of human behavior, rights, culture, gender differences, etc. These all share the notion that there's something defining us, outside our culture, language, history, etc.

Examples of cultural construction: Marx's, "men make history, but they do not make it from materials of their own choosing;" Foucault's arguments.

OK, this is oversimplifying a bit for the sake of clear illustration. But in the Constitution, you see: a) Rights guaranteed by "Nature's Creator," so that they can be put outside our ability to change them--therefore, the Bill of Rights, which despite some goofball claims, we cannot vote away, and which is protected by a judiciary taking its authority from Nature's Creator, whoever or whatever one thinks that is; b) government and laws constructed through human action, and continuing to evolve as we reassemble and rethink our history and our institutions.

Why? One explanation: essentialist theories explain why there are, "certain inalienable rights;" constructivist theories explain, and allow people intellectual grounds for building as just a society as possible.

Is there a tension between them? Sure. Perfectly healthy for the Republic. Built in, in fact. Good.

The problem with religious nutcakes (including the Madalyn Murray O'hares of the world) is that they want the tension to go away. This a bad thing. See Iran. See Lysenko.



However, science also has an Authority that's outside human intervention: Nature, to which we pray (just kidding) by observation and/or experiment. By definition, science tables and/or brackets the whole question of is there a God, placing that outside the order of science.

Incidentally, these "bracketings," and construction of systems of thought around irreducible tensions and/or core illogicalities go on everywhere. See Jacques Derrida's work, especially the stuff on supplements to origins.

 

[Flatlander]

Discussion of Religious symbolism on US money spun off to E Pluribus Unum thread.

 

[heretic888]

Thanks, Flatlander.

 

[loki09789]

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...

Occum's Razor, being a scientific/logic process, is going to be obliterating creationism I take it?

My point is that the comparison is pointless. Apples and oranges.

Personally, believing the Creationist view or 'fundamentalist' view of the Bible as literally and exactly accurate is about as reasonable to me as believing that Santa Claus is real instead of what 'Santa Claus' stands for as a symbol.

BUT,

That isn't the point. The point is that Americans are suppose to give equal voice/time/respect to diverse/multicultural views that represent the spectrum of the population. If that means that I end up teaching a multicultural unit that presents diverse mythical 'creation' stories and Social studies presents the 'global' belief systems so that students get exposure to the different ways that Americans see the world, that is fine.

Since we are discussing public education that is state/locally funded, if the people in that community want to pursue presentations that are not presently being made, so what.

In our area they have magnate schools that are thematic (Native American school, Italian school,....) and that was partly to represent the diverse cultures in the city.

 

[heretic888]

Well, personally, I think biology teachers have enough on their plate to deal with without getting into different creation myths --- which could be an entire class in and of itself.

 

[loki09789]

Well, personally, I think biology teachers have enough on their plate to deal with without getting into different creation myths --- which could be an entire class in and of itself.

Yup, English or Global or a combo of the two in a public education setting.

 

[Makalakumu]

Occum's Razor, being a scientific/logic process, is going to be obliterating creationism I take it?

Yes. That is why I think putting so called "creation science" into the scientific field really does a disservice to the symbol the creation story is. There are important metaphors and symbols that wouldn't be addressed as the rigor of science dismantles "creationism" in a very literal sense. I think that it would eventually harm people's faith in Christianity.

My point is that the comparison is pointless. Apples and oranges.

The comparison is important, if only to teach people the difference between science and religion. For some, it takes the placement of an apple and an orange before their eyes before they'll see the difference.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Since Occam's Razor has been brought up--William of Ockham's remark that one must not multiply hypotheses unnecessaily, often translated as, "always try the simplest explanation first"--one must speak to the notion that "creation science," somehow belongs in the science classroom as a matter of diversity.

Leaving aside the issue of the Right's goofy political correctness, there's this: the Razor is utterly incompatible with fanciful ideas about Jehovah slapping the world together in six days. Such faith-based ideas are, by definition, NOT based on reason, and they are NOT based on facts. If anything, faith acts DESPITE reason and DESPITE facts.

Science does not merely teach this theory or that theory, this fact or that fact. Science teaches students to try and put aside their beliefs and their biases, whatever these are, and to simply look at the world as it really is. Science teaches students to construct reasoned hypotheses, and to test them against Nature, and to discard or modify hypotheses that do not work, no matter how dear to one's heart they might be.

One suspects, at times, that religions are indeed going to have a difficult time surviving rational thought and a respect for reality. Perhaps Clarke was right--Buddhisms will do fine, but the sky-god cults are in for a rough ride...at least, if they keep insisting on nonsenses.

One also suspects that multiculturalisms don't have a lot of place in science classes, though they assuredly do in the history of science. (It'd be nice if white men quit pretending that they invented everything....) especially since one of the most hopeful things about science and mathmatics is that they really do offer a lingua franca for everybody, a way of allowing everybody to look at the world with less bias, and make rational judgments about what they see.

It would be every bit as revolting to have, say, Norse mythology jammed into biology as it is to have wacko Protestant fundamentalism jammed in there. It's just that we don't happen to be hip-deep in Baldur-worshippers at the moment.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

It would be every bit as revolting to have, say, Norse mythology jammed into biology as it is to have wacko Protestant fundamentalism jammed in there. It's just that we don't happen to be hip-deep in Baldur-worshippers at the moment.

:roflmao:

Whew! That was excellent.

 

[michaeledward]

The point is that Americans are suppose to give equal voice/time/respect to diverse/multicultural views that represent the spectrum of the population.

I wasn't aware that was the point.

What if one believes that all human beings come from a race of superbeings hiding in a space-ship that follows closely behind comet Hale-Bopp?

Does Heaven's Gate get equal time?

 

[Nightingale]

The theory of evolution was formed when scientists looked at evidence, and came up with a theory to explain the evidence.

Creationists formed the idea first, and then began trying to squeeze the evidence into their idea, and proceeded to ignore what didn't fit (dinosaurs).

That is why one belongs in a science class and the other does not. One is a scientific theory that is the best explanation we have at this point in time and fits all the available evidence. The other is a random idea with no source other than a single book that's been translated and mistranslated for the last few centuries, and practically re-written by Constantine, and doesn't fit the evidence anyway.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

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

I think that is an excellent idea.

I think its a great idea, too. I suspect, however, that Fundamentalists won't much like it when we teach them about Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Shinto, Animism, and the others.

The latest article. Georgians are worried that people will think them uneducated because of the controversy over evolution. Can't imagine why:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/12/evolution.embarrassment.ap/index.html


Regards,


Steve

 

[michaeledward]

And now Pennsylvania steps into the fray!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6470259/

School board OKs challenges to evolution
Controversial step taken in rural Pennsylvania district

DOVER, Pa. - When talk at the high school here turns to evolution, biology teachers have to make time for Charles Darwin as well as his detractors.
With a vote last month, the school board in rural south-central Pennsylvania community is believed to have become the first in the nation to mandate the teaching of “intelligent design,” which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by an unspecified higher power.
Critics call the change in the ninth-grade biology curriculum a veiled attempt to require public schoolchildren to learn creationism, a biblical-based view that credits the origin of species to God. Schools typically teach evolution, the theory that Earth is billions of years old and that life forms developed over millions of years.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

And now Pennsylvania steps into the fray!

<sigh...>

Thus it begins.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/bob_jones_bush

"In your re-election, God has graciously granted America — though she doesn't deserve it — a reprieve from the agenda of paganism....You have been given a mandate.... Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ,"


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

Ugh. Maybe it really is the End Times after all. :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

*vomits in disgust*