It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Battle Against Teaching Evolution in Texas Begins: Should creationism win out, textbooks throughout

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Battle Against Teaching Evolution in Texas Begins: Should creationism win out, textbooks throughout the country–not just Texas–will challenge the theory of evolution in science curricula


www.dallasobserver.com

Already, the board is dominated by a far-right faction deeply concerned with promoting political and religious ideologies. In recent years, the board has rejected one textbook that taught about global warming—calling it "junk science" and "anti-capitalist"...

All of which is a prelude to the looming battle over the science curriculum, which is up for review in November. Seven of the 15 board members support the teaching of creationism or intelligent design.
(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 6-4-2008 by Parabol]




posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I am a Christian who believes in evolution (the idea of God creating a dynamic adaptable system is far more 'believable' and logical to me), but I also believe that people can, and should, practice their own beliefs. I think creationism is a closed minded theory, but it does me no harm to know others believe it.

But... when it comes to science it does not belong. It doesn't matter which one is "right", what matters is that you teach/practice religion on your own time. Just because creationism is considered pro-christian doesn't mean the opposite, evolution, is anti-christian. It's not religious at all. I don't believe the argument that if you teach evolution you have to offer creation as well holds any ground because of that fact. Science says, 'look we found this and this, it seems to work like this, what do you think?' If you want to look at that evidence and believe creation, fine, but creation is NOT A SCIENCE. Heck, you don't have to believe the conclusions of science, but you can't deny the observations and tests that have been done. If there are 10 stones on the ground, and I tell you that, and then you tell me God only made 8 well.... ok, there's 10 sitting there, maybe the other two rolled over there, whatever, it doesn't matter, what matters is I can see the 10 stones. You don't have to believe the reason I think they are there, but it's observable and testable (turn around, yup, still there.) Unless you want to assume the scientists are all liars, which is pointless for argument because anyone could say the same for religion.

The term science just doesn't fit and I'm sick of semantics dominating discussion because two sides are using the same word but defining it differently. Science is not 'better' than religion, it's apples to oranges, they just aren't in the same category to make statements like that. If people want creationism taught, then do it in church.

And I don't care what you're arguing for, any time I read statements like this from people...



Already, the board is dominated by a far-right faction deeply concerned with promoting political and religious ideologies. In recent years, the board has rejected one textbook that taught about global warming—calling it "junk science" and "anti-capitalist"—and forced the publisher of another to replace a picture of a woman carrying a briefcase with a picture of a woman baking a cake. Board member Terri Leo has accused "liberal New York publishers" of inserting "stealth" homosexual messages into textbooks, and Republican David Bradley of Beaumont, the de facto leader of the far-right faction, once criticized an algebra book because it had pictures, recipes and references to Vietnam in it he considered inappropriate for the subject matter. Knowing that legally he could not reject a book on these grounds, he ripped the cover off. "Ladies and gentlemen," he said, tossing pieces of the cover to both sides of his chair, "worthless binding. I reject this book."


...I know we aren't working with people open to new thought, compromise, or other people's opinions. I'd be pissed if those people had that attitude towards creationism. It's just wrong. You can't constructively debate with people unwilling to listen to, AND attempt to understand, their opposition. I don't want people who think like that making any decision that strongly affects me.


www.dallasobserver.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I am a christian who finds creationism the more logical and even scientific theory. However they should both be taught as theories subject to further proof and lay down the evidence for each.

It is obvious of course that God allowed some adaptation in the genetic process. However I do not believe it is a creative process. That is natural selection alone can not explain the origin of all the species.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 


Here Here, Parabol, great topic! Star'd & Flag'd!

Evolution Debate

As a born Catholic, i was taught about Genesis...
Creationism: What's a Catholic to Do?

This thread should generate lots of good discussion, after all, court cases
have popped up recently in alot of places...
Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

I'm glad that you believe in people exercising their own beliefs, because
mine are not etched in stone, anymore.

Ya know, the more adults debate this controversy, the more confused the
children must be! They are smart, and start thinking for themselves at an
early age. No matter which side of the argument you're on, the fact
remains that they are all "theories" so far, with no proof either way!

I believe in God, but i am opened minded enough to accept alternative
explanations, also...Like what about the possibility of life coming from
asteroid impacts with earth? Or highly technologically advanced lifeforms
from other worlds, putting humans on earth? (We could be some kind of
experiment gone wrong)!

It's hard to believe that our ancestors once "squiggled" around in water;
so i remain eager to hear others.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


Seven, I think the OP, as a Christian, is very brave for starting this, and I applaud.

I must, respectively, disagree with you about Creationism being a 'science', since there has not been one shred of verifiable evidence.

Oh, I'll correct myself, and postulate one possible event of 'creation'....that would be when the Universe was first initiated. THAT is a possibility I will concede.

ALL that has happened since, about 13 or so BILLION years (but that's only by our reckoning, from pretty accurate cosmological observations) could, and I say "could", have been 'pre-set' for a result that we now exist to see and try to understand. But remember, the Universe has been around for a very, very long time compared to our puny, recent existence.

While it may be difficult for many to 'wrap' their minds around the great timescales involved, it is important to try...only then will understanding dawn...

WW



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


With all due respect, evolution is much more than natural selection. I see where you're coming from but I think many people over simplify evolution.

And I don't think it should be taught in schools. Would you allow another religions interpretation of creation taught to your children in school? Science is objective and observable, any person could sit down and look at the evidence. When I say evidence I don't mean for a particular cause, just the facts that have been observed and recorded. I could show you strands of DNA, spanning many generations, which highlight particular mutations. You don't have to believe the reasons I think it works, or what it means, but we can all see that, for example, portions of the code had changed or amino acids were replaced. Again, you don't need to agree with me why they did or what will happen. We teach science because we all have human bodies capable of individually observing and verifying the exact same thing. Then, as with religion, people can choose to believe that x and y equal 2 or 3.

As I write this I realize people could argue that there isn't enough evidence, dating procedures are wrong, etc. For a moment I'll assume that all of that is correct, that being the case, at least I can say that science tried. It investigated, tested, tested again, asked others to test it, came up with new ideas, tested again, and so on. Religion just doesn't do that. It has books and intangible beliefs, and even within the same religion they can be interpreted differently. Science at least attempts to research and study that which can be literally be sensed by all. It is presentable in an organized fashion, and is normally devoid of personal belief, or rather should be. Any time personal belief is highly involved, regardless of how good the intent, it shouldn't be forced on others.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I also wanted to highlight a major difference I see in the debate.


Science sees the world for what it is, and then attempts to define it.

Creationism begins with a definition, and attempts to see the world that way.



The idea that fossils or starlight were put here to test us feels like a pretty juvenile idea. Do you think God really tests us like that? I know He gave us free will, I just can't remember where He decides to screw with us by placing oddball, unaccountable,objects within a very ordered universe.

Ever notice how God uses natural processes to do His work? He doesn't just snap His finger all of the time. A flood takes us out. He sends Jesus, his flesh and blood son, to the Earth. He works within the system He has created because He knows that if He starts showing off everywhere then it's going to be pretty apparent that He exists and our free will could be compromised. So why would He maintain our free will and natural law on one hand, and then insert fake fossils and scientific phenomena on the other?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Parabol are you Catholic or some denomination of Christianity? What Church are you a member of, and do you currently attend?

I have other things to add and ask, but I am curious to know that first.

*edit to add: didn't mean to sound intrusive


[edit on 023030p://6u34 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

While it may be difficult for many to 'wrap' their minds around the great timescales involved, it is important to try...only then will understanding dawn...



Very true and very pertitent in today's world. Many Christians seem to underestimate the impact of the vastness of time and space..

However, even the scientists will readily admit science itself is not equiped to understanding or exploring the concept of God, as it is by its very nature outside of nature, and therefore outside of the scientific method of observation. At least in the traditional sense.

Science has not by any means disproved God, not with any theory, and not with evolution. Nor have Christians or other religious or spiritualists proved God does exist. Scientists have shown through theory that there is evidence both for an against God. Even the scientists are back and forth on this one. Also interesting is how many distinguished scientific figures believed in a 'Creator'..



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Sounds like a deist to me! Nothing wrong with that at all, but that is my interpretation of Parabol's above statements.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by aava

Sounds like a deist to me! Nothing wrong with that at all, but that is my interpretation of Parabol's above statements.


Yeah I was getting the same 'vibe' so to speak, which contributed to my curiosity.

I am something of a 'Deist' myself, but not really per se. I believe in God, I don't attend a Church and I don't adhere to specific doctrine. Although I read from most on a regular basis, and it does affect my actions on daily life.

I just call myself a 'PanENtheist', as that term is a better description for my view on God the Creator then others I have seen.

[edit on 023030p://6u55 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I'm not Catholic, nor do I consider myself a particular denomination. Odd that you ask, I spent a lot of time praying last night before I went to sleep about that. I believe in a Creator God, but I don't think the Bible does him justice. People concentrate on the wrong things and argue over pointless conjecture. I normally picture God as a male but recently I've changed that. When I thought of God as a female my perspective was altered. God seemed to feel more compassionate or understanding in a female form. As I thought about this male/female stance I realized that it doesn't matter. It's as if you heard beautiful music in the distance and argued with your friend about whether the instrument was an oboe or a clarinet instead of listening to, and appreciating the sound. It doesn't change the teaching or the way I live my life. I think a lot of Christians get wrapped up in things like this, such as.... creation!

For a person who truly believes in God it doesn't matter how any of this was created. The fact is, it's here. Now I can spend my time arguing about why it's here, or I can experience what is here.

I think a lot of it comes back to my statement about attempting to cram the world into your beliefs, instead of seeing the world for what it is. I feel like I see (not literally) God everywhere. There is so much simple beauty in this world if you stop for a moment to look. I don't know, I feel like I'm getting a bit off topic here but it's difficult for me to explain how I view God and this world. I reached my beliefs through Christianity, yet I disagree with some Christian action or doctrine. A lot of it doesn't seem very Christlike to me. You have churches calling out gays and other 'unholy' members of society who seem to have forgotten that Jesus spent time with the prostitutes and tax collectors. The lowest of the low. Now we pretty much just damn them to hell. Ahhhh, don't even get me started on the idea of hell.

Don't know if that cleared my beliefs up but feel free to ask any questions you'd like. I'm an open book. And i'm not 100% sure what you meant by deist. I'm assuming it would mean that I believe in a God, but not one of any particular religion.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
Just found this article, it's about the scientist who 'cracked' the human genome and how he believes in God.

I've found God, says man who cracked the genome



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Theory of evolution should be taught in schools.

Theory of creationism should be taught at home.

Creationism is a religious theory that does not follow seperation of church and state. Quite simply, if creationism is taught at school, then every other religion's explanation for the creation of mankind must also be taught, and then we no longer have a separation of church and state, but rather a school that is proselytizing.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DJMessiah
 


I like that idea more then I like the idea of just throwing Creationism and ID into a science class that is teaching Evolution


That class shouldn't be obscured like that. They could just say "there are other theories that contradict evolution, and some that believe there is a Creator diety that is compatable with Evolution, but we will not be discussing that in this class..." However,...

I think it would be ideal to have an additional class in school that teaches religion and spirituality from a world-perspective, this class could cover the creation doctrine and mythology of the world's religions and spiritual systems. They could call this "Religion and Spirituality" and it could be done in a scholastic manner, without divination to any paticular.

School is about educating and preparing people for the real world, and religion and spirituality is a big part of that real world, regardless of what side of the fence you're on



[edit on 043030p://6u20 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Theory of evolution should be taught in schools.

Theory of creationism should be taught at home.

Creationism is a religious theory that does not follow seperation of church and state. Quite simply, if creationism is taught at school, then every other religion's explanation for the creation of mankind must also be taught, and then we no longer have a separation of church and state, but rather a school that is proselytizing.


I agree with you completely DJM. Creationism is a religious concept, not a scientific one. It would violate the separation of church and state. Not even all Christians believe in creationism, as Parabol pointed out. I'm not Christian, but I was raised Christian. My mom taught me that God did create the world, but she believed in evolution, not creationism. Even if I was Christian, I would object to creationism being taught.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   
"In recent years, the board has rejected one textbook that taught about global warming—calling it "junk science" and "anti-capitalist"..."

Oh sh#t.

They've got the evolutionists over the barrel on this one guys.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
However, even the scientists will readily admit science itself is not equiped to understanding or exploring the concept of God, as it is by its very nature outside of nature, and therefore outside of the scientific method of observation. At least in the traditional sense.


I have to disagree with you here, LL. What about biology? Some might even say climatology is about nature. Then there is botany, zoology, paleontology, geology and well, evolution. Those are just the ones I can think of right now that study nature. In fact, I would even venture to say that MOST of science is about Nature.

Many people become biologists simply BECAUSE they love Nature. My husband is one of those.

You mentioned the scientific method of observation - unfortunately, empirical science, as it is called, is not now considered science and hasn't been for approximately 100 years. Unless you meant something else by "observation"...?



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I think that's a great idea. Like I said before, if they want to teach Christian creation doctrine then they need to do so for all religions. A separate class that children could take on world religion would be great. It just needs to be separated from science. It's not that science is necessarily better, but they don't belong together.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

Well, speaking for my old school here, we had a calss similar to that. I also had a good teacher, and learned a good bit. true, it was a Catholic school, but I've found that with the right teachers that means little but in name. The teacher provided a fair balance in the curriculim, first stating the things she was required to state, and then taught about the religions themselves. Their differences and similarities to Christianity, and welcoming comments about them. She also made it a point no to mention her religion or her personal views on any of them. I thoroughly enjoyed the class.

In my opinion, Creationism is a religiouse issue. It should be taught in Religion. Case in point, again, at my school the Biology teacherhad to mention Creationism. His words as I recall were "As far as Chritianity is concerned, remember, God did it.Got it? Good. Now lets learn some heresy." Good guy.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join