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.

 

Wisconsin district to teach more than evolution

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Evolution 1 (From the evolution of eye thread) Creationism (1)

"GRANTSBURG, Wisconsin (AP) -- School officials have revised the science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin."

www.cnn.com...

The good part is that we are keeping an open mind. The bad part is that we are still holding to something that is clearly disproven.

I suppose all the anti-evolution people here are happy. But I am not.


Surf




posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Well, some argue the best way to combat creationism is to falsify it; look at the claims it makes, if any, and prove them wrong, which isn't hard to do.
It's really a waste of time to spend any time teaching it though, when more time can be put into the study of real scientific theory.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Excellent debate on this from the Debate Forum.


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Does anyone think that creationism in schools will become the next Bush issue?


Nah. :p



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
It's really a waste of time to spend any time teaching it though, when more time can be put into the study of real scientific theory.


When we do that we are putting our beliefs over someone else's, which isn't really the definition of democracy.

So even though we have one foot in the wrong direction, our other foot is in the right direction.

Intrepid, Thank you for linking us. I guess Jamauhn is happy, he argued for it and it came true. (I am kiddingm)

Surf



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfup

When we do that we are putting our beliefs over someone else's, which isn't really the definition of democracy.

Surf


Ah, but there is a difference between science and beliefs, do you agree? On what basis has creationism been verified? The bible says it - anything else? Any empirical evidence? Creationism is a belief, a religious belief that has a core set of value and beliefs that will not change given new evidence that falsifies the claims made. That isn't science - it's religion.
They will be teaching creationism in science class.
Personally, I don't believe in creation science, thus I don't think creationism should be taught in a science class.

With regard to you mentioning democracy... democracy is generally seen as majority rule. Do the majority believe in creationism?



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:11 PM
link   
People should have the right to chose. After all nobodys right all the time.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Christianity should be confined to the HOME, HEART, AND THE CHURCH, it has no place in the School.

Creationism is easily detracted, as per Christian dictation, by scholars and intellects alike; those who laud it do not understand the mechanics of evolution and refuse to believe it vis--vis a 'bifurcation' fallacie: "Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so..."

www.infidels.org...

Deep

[edit on 6-11-2004 by ZeroDeep]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:48 PM
link   
I wonder if the teaching of alternate theories would include the theory that ETs seeded the earth and humanity is an experiment... For some reason I think that the people in this Wisconsin district that want creationism taught would object to this.


For these people, alternate theories are fine as long as it involves an invisible man in the sky creating the earth in 6 days. And this is the 21st century....it's looking pretty bleak so far...



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:52 PM
link   
This...is a double-edged sword.

For one, I support that a broader range of topics are being taught in our schools, but I do have the following concerns.

That the issue will bring the bible too much into our schools. (Schools are for academia, churches are for religion)

What I mean by this is that now, Christian Creation can be taught in school, but will that motivate some teachers to take the lessons beyond creationism? I don't know, and none of us can pretend to.

I for one believe that we have separation of churches and schools for a reason. If a parent really wanted their child to be taught in an all-inclusive manner, they would send their child to a church school. (Yes, they do exist.)



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Creationism is NOT science and should not be taught in schools as such. This is theology and belongs in religion classes and churches.

Although, I always was interested in alternative theories like these, just for the sake of curiostiy. Way back in the day, I had a high school biology teacher who was really cool and who skimmed on the alternative topics such as the alien creator theories to the Adam and Eve story (though I believe he could have gotten into trouble for mentioning the latter).

[edit on 7-11-2004 by TheLotusLady]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   
One potential problem with this decision, which by the way has been coming for some time, is that it could allow the teachings of any number of theories.
Among them: Creation Science, which, in McLean vs. The Arkansas Board of Education (1982), was deemed to have no scientific significance and more resembled religion masquerading as science than anything else.

The US Supreme Court has ruled (Eduards vs. Aguillard) that mandating balanced treatment for creationism was unconstitutional on the grounds that it endorsed a religious view.

The interesting thing is that a large percentage of science teachers actually lean towards the creationism view and would rather teach that than evolution. Sadly, the ones who are in favor of evolution often find themselves caught between angry parents and what they are required to teach. Many simply avoid the whole topic altogether and do slide shows about the mating habits of snails.

It comes to this; Creationism, while a logical and substantiated version of the earths origins to the believers of various religious groups, does not represent the opinions of all. Teaching creationism in public schools would alienate and put at a disadvantage those students who do not subscribe to the religious doctrines requiring faith in order to have credibility. The only way to avoid this is to continue teaching evolution and the scientific process in public schools. Private schools may teach as they wish, as the students are there because of their convictions and beliefs (or that of their parents).

I will be watching this one, Im curious as to how it will develop.


Peace,
BG



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
Ah, but there is a difference between science and beliefs, do you agree? On what basis has creationism been verified? The bible says it - anything else?


Yep there is a difference, which is relative. For some people the bible is more than enough. The number of people who flock the church every Sunday tells me that they believe in Bible.


With regard to you mentioning democracy... democracy is generally seen as majority rule. Do the majority believe in creationism?


Maybe they do. 90% of the people believe in religion. Yes that doesn't say that majority believe in creationism, but two resemble each other very very closely. Even though the majority don't believe in strict creationism, most of them believe in a supreme being and lesser degree of creationism.


Surf



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Check out that debate, it's well done and will make you think. It's up there. ^



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by beergoggles
One potential problem with this decision, which by the way has been coming for some time, is that it could allow the teachings of any number of theories.
Among them: Creation Science, which, in McLean vs. The Arkansas Board of Education (1982), was deemed to have no scientific significance and more resembled religion masquerading as science than anything else.

The US Supreme Court has ruled (Eduards vs. Aguillard) that mandating balanced treatment for creationism was unconstitutional on the grounds that it endorsed a religious view.


OK, I'm a little confused. Is there a difference between Creationism and Creation Science? I thought they were the same.

Creation Science - where it tries to be scientific by attempting to apply the scientific method to prove the existence of God - correct?

Is Creationism the same, or is it merely just laying out what is said in the Bible, with no attempt to explain it via the scientific method?

[edit on 7-11-2004 by TheLotusLady]



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Creation Science



A large subset of creation scientists could be called "Biblical creationists", who take the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be real history, including the creation of all things in six 24-hour days


Creation Science believes that the word of the bible is absolute and without flaws. They take the scriptures literally, believing that the earth and universe is somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years old. For instance: they subscribe to the concept that the grand canyon took shape in one of two ways: a) in one day, during the creation flood when the waters receded as God created land (Gen 1:9-10). Or b) when the waters receded after God flooded the earth in the time of Noah (Gen 7)
Within their line of thinking, evolution does not exist; that since creation, no new species have developed and only negligible changes and adaptations have been made within these existing species.


basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer.


Simply put, they believe that if there are flaws of any kind in the evolutionary theory; it is wrong and the Biblical account is the correct one. Period.

emporium.turnpike.net...
emporium.turnpike.net...


Peace,
BG



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Despite the opinion of many here, scientific truth is not subject to democratic process. We cannot change unpopular facts by voting on them.

"What the majority believes" has no bearing on the validity of a theory, particularily if the majority is poorly informed.

Recall that the majority long held the belief that the Earth is flat. The shape of the planet did not change simply because the population changed their minds about reality.....

Science must be carefully distinguished from dogma. If it isn't subject to question, then it is not science.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by herm

Science must be carefully distinguished from dogma. If it isn't subject to question, then it is not science.


You're absolutely right. The demarcation of science is crucial in defining whether creationism is scientific or not. It must constantly be questioned, and if evidence comes that falsifies the theory and it doesn't change, how can it be called science?

It should not be taught as science.



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by parrhesia
The demarcation of science is crucial in defining whether creationism is scientific or not. It must constantly be questioned, and if evidence comes that falsifies the theory and it doesn't change, how can it be called science?


But living in a century of freedom (almost), we should give everyone the right to choose, that means also giving those people (I hate it too) giving the right to choose, right?

Aren't we forcing something we believe it is true onto someone else? I mean I understand ours is a science, clearly proven and theirs is an uninformed belief, which has absolutely no proof, but until they understand that themselves, we can't force them.

If they want to live a life of deception, we have to let them.

Surf



posted on Nov, 7 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   
surf, it isn't a matter of evolutionists forcing anything. The standards are already set and the creationists are pushing for change. But I do understand what you are saying.

If Creationists are able to bring me a useful and logical argument that does not include my using faith or imagination, I will listen. In the meantime, they should send their kids to private schools that follow their line of thinking and not try to force their beliefs on my children as they attend public schools.

Peace,
BG

*500*



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join