You have been pinged because of your interest regarding matters of Creation vs. Evolution - from the young-earth Creationist perspective. Freep-mail me if you want on/off this list.
Add me! / Remove me
News ping.
Posted on 09/06/2006 9:20:08 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
CINCINNATI (Reuters) - Americans who question evolution are testing a new tactic in Ohio, arguing that schools should be required to discuss all controversial issues from creation to stem cell research and global warming.
In what critics on Wednesday called a new attempt to bring religion into the classroom, the Ohio State Board of Education will consider a proposal next week that would oblige schools to teach critical thinking in all subjects.
The proposal, to be discussed on Monday by a school board subcommittee in Columbus, is the latest gambit by those who believe Darwin's theory of evolution should be taught as only one disputed explanation for the origin of humankind.
School board President Sue Westendorf said the committee would debate but probably not vote on the proposal. It is designed to replace curriculum rescinded in February after a Pennsylvania court ruled that teaching the theory known as "intelligent design" in that state was unconstitutional.
The debate between those who accept the theory of evolution and those who believe in the Biblical account of creation has bubbled up periodically in U.S. schools since before the Scopes "monkey trial" in Tennessee 80 years ago.
The Pennsylvania decision handed down last December found that "intelligent design" -- a theory that God must be behind evolution because life is too complex to be random -- was a religious doctrine without any scientific merit.
Ohio teachers had been allowed to question evolution under a model lesson plan approved in 2004, but the school board canceled it in February after the Pennsylvania ruling.
The board, made up of religious conservatives and moderates, has been trying to replace the lesson plan ever since. Westendorf said the new proposal was aimed at broadening the disputed curriculum to require debate on topics beyond hot-button questions surrounding religion and science.
"This is about critical thinking in social studies, science, math -- all of the entities, because there are controversial topics in all of those areas," she said.
But critics said conservative Christians were simply trying to find a back-door way to teach that God created the earth.
"Ohio has always been the bellwether. Things are floated in Ohio to see if they work, and if they work, they'll try to get them adopted elsewhere," said Lawrence Krauss, a member of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, which opposes the teaching of religion in public schools.
John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, which promotes the teaching of intelligent design, said the proposed new policy was "good pedagogy and good for students" because it would teach them how to sift and analyze evidence.
"Students don't like to be told that there are some questions they don't have the right to raise."
Duh!
You want critical thinking? Try to defend the flood against scientific data. Even the creationist geologists gave up on that one about 1830. The evidence that there was no global flood has only become stronger since then.
And if the flood story is wrong, what about other parts? You want all of that opened up to "critical thinking?" I should think that's the last thing you would want.
Or is this to be one-sided? "Critical thinking" only applies to science, not to religion?
(Time for bed. I'll check back in the morning to see if this thread has evolved.)
Nothing so unsettles the cult of Darwinism as the threat to teach critical thinking to eager minds.
Back from vacation? If you're going to come back, then don't come back with the same content I'm still waiting for you to refute. You've literally copy-pasted the same retort from last post, even after it was refuted. Please return there so we can finish that conversation.
Can't you just see the ACLU trying to stop the schools from teaching critical thinking? What a hoot. That would sound real brilliant of them, wouldn't it? *We're suing on behalf of all those parents who don't want their kids to be taught to think.*
And really, they have to pass a proposal to oblige schools to teach kids how to think?!?! Silly me, that's what I thought they were for in the first place.
So the mere fact that many Christians believe something means it can't be taught in Marxist public skrewls without violating the mythical "separation of church and state"??? Does that mean we can't tell school children that they should be kind to people they meet and that when they grow up they should pay their taxes??
Shouldn't they first try teaching thinking [as such], before attempting to teach critical thinking?
...to the Another Reason to Homeschool list.
This article is about Creation, evolution, and critical thinking in Ohio schools.
This ping list is for the "other" articles of interest to homeschoolers about education and public school. If you want on/off this list, please freepmail me. The main Homeschool Ping List by DaveLoneRanger handles the homeschool-specific articles.
No, it's nothing of the sort. Only science may be taught in science class. Biblical/Koranic creationism can be taught as part of the history of science, a failed hypothesis like phlogiston or spontaneous generation of maggots in rotting meat. ID can be used as an example of a nonscientific hypothesis (because there's no way to test it).
But the fact that over 99% of specialists in the biological sciences accept that evolution is the only theory that explains the diversity, and distribution of life, and also explains genetic findings, fossils, and other facts, is itself an important data point. To teach otherwise, to pretend that a theological or political dispute is scientific, is fraudulent.
Critical thinking skills are key, I welcome it, but the creationist will not like it one bit, if they do this, it is going to backfire on them big time.
Facts and logic are key to critical thinking skills, and religion has little, if anything to do with facts and logic.
I think the objection you quoted is that the only reason to teach it is from a religious basis. Absent a compelling non-religious basis, it does not belong in a public school science class as it is tantamount to teaching a religious belief. I'm not making a value judgement, just stating why "intelligent design" is not taught in science class in the context of your question.
It would not be a church-state issue if there was a non-religious reason to teach it. Evolution must exist in biological systems as a mathematical consequence, so it is a compelling hypothesis even if it is not in fact the primary mechanism of speciation. The probability of intelligent design in biology is not even decidable mathematically, which makes it a pretty useless hypothesis even if it is correct. And being finite entities we are incapable of discerning "correctness", so we are left sifting hypotheses by their quality (Occam's Razor). The rest follows from there.
The evolution of the debate.
Critical thinking skills are key, I welcome it, but the creationist will not like it one bit, if they do this, it is going to backfire on them big time.
Facts and logic are key to critical thinking skills, and religion has little, if anything to do with facts and logic.
The last thing the YECs want, though they don't know it, is Genesis examined 'critically' in public schools. If they get what they want, 'critical' examination of evolution, this 'critical' examination must be extended to all of the science that supports evolution (physics, genetics, etc.) and the 'alternative theory' of Genesis. In such a 'critical discussion' there will be a lot of 'on the one hand' Genesis says this and 'on the other hand' science says that, and a literal interpretation of Genesis will loose.
It's actually a good thing for them if they don't get what they want, but they are so driven by irrationality and a fanatical desire to force their religious ideas on the rest of the world that they can't see that.
And to top that off, their religious beliefs would have to be examined 'critically' vis-a-vis other religious beliefs. Historically this has often led to religious wars. Fortunately our Founding Fathers, with recent memory of the religious wars that devastated Europe fresh in their minds, between Christians no less, in their wisdom thought it was best to try keep religion out of our government.
I think a lot of science teachers would appreciate being freed up to discuss physical history in light of evidence. Right now there is a lot of tiptoeing around the issues, but if critical analysis is mandated, science teachers will be able to discuss the thousands of creation stories and the evidence, or lack thereof, for each of them.
A global worldwide flood just does not fit any of the data we have about the history of the Earth's crust, oceans, and continents. The following link alone punches huge holes in the idea of a global flood.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/developing.html
Well stated!
Over time, the actual content of science teaching will be determined by the teachers and their organizations. This is true even without mandates, since teachers who disapprove of evolution simply don't get to it -- something made possible by the placement of evolution at the end of the book.
I think that since creation and evolution are both equally religious, it is the religion of the "science" teacher that determines what they want to teach.
[...if critical analysis is mandated, science teachers will be able to discuss the thousands of creation stories and the evidence, or lack thereof, for each of them.]
Suppose this becomes reality and science teachers are routinely discussing ID and global flood hypothesis in class, as mandated by law, and then correctly telling the students these ideas are scientifically unsound.
Is THIS what anybody really wants? Does anyone think this is desirable?
If critical analysis is mandated, then religion based versions of physical history will be examined with the methods of science. What else would you expect?
You’re not thinking critically. Sorry to rain on your parade, but your statement is wrong.
To be honest, yes. Will put the notions of a 6000 year old earth, global flood, arks with all the animals two-by-two, creationism, ID, etc. as a valid science to bed permanently.
It's quite correct. I guess you have to understand what religion is to see that.
All right, that's a reaonable view. Looking at it in that way, I can see where Pennsylvania is coming from.
Then why do hundreds of cultures have legends that all smack of the Biblical flood? Perhaps you should visit that link and refute that evidence before you switch gears and throw evidence from a different arena back at me.
IDists/creationists say, "If the facts don't fit their theory, change the facts."
a. it would never occur to him that the world is only 6,000 years old [How Old is the Earth];
b. it would never occur to him that there had been a miles-deep global flood about 3,000 years ago [The Geologic Column and its Implications for the Flood];
c. it would never occur to him that all species lived at the same time [The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"]; and
d. he would inevitably conclude that all species are related by common descent, and that the relationships are becoming more clear all the time [Tree of Life Web Project ].
"We are being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture."
Hilarious.
The Theory of Evolution is not a religion.
Evolution has no priests, pastors, ministers, preachers, bishops, ayatollahs, imams, mullahs, prophets (or televangelical profits). No holy books or sacred scriptures. It has no holidays, no feast days, no canonized saints. It depends on no miracles. It gets no tax exemptions.
Evolution has no alter boys, no prayers, no church establishments, no edifices with crosses, stars or crescents, no churches or temples, no coming-of-age rituals like Bar Mitzvah or confirmation.
Evolution has no banned books, no warnings about heresy or blasphemy, no record of burning witches or heretics, no public displays of piety or prayer, no holy book supposed to contain "All Truth", no creed to be ritually recited. Evolution does not define pagans or infidels. There are no mythological beliefs or transubstantiations.
Evolution has no history of torturing non-believers, has never started a war, never burned an opponent at the stake. The idea of evolution has no record of sex scandals. No record of financial frauds. No record of trying to get a passport stamped for entry into heaven. Evolution offers no condemnations to hell nor promises of an after-life.
Evolution does not support occult beliefs. The scientific theory of evolution has no dependence on a supernatural deity or pixies; no prayer rituals, no burial rituals, no sacraments. There are no invisible beings, gods, deities, devils, demons, ghosts, satans, angels, spirits, cherubim, seraphim, faeries, or a soul. Evolution recognizes no destructions as "acts of God" nor acts of violence as "acts of Satan or an anti-christ."
Evolution does not depend on blind faith; it offers no argument from authority; no conclusion first, facts second. There is no body of "apologetics" from the theory of evolution.
The above are evidences of religion. The idea of evolution, which is based on observation of the natural world as we see it, does not have any of the attributes of religion. Indeed, evolution is the opposite, it welcomes energetic inquiries and thoughtful inputs.
Evolution looks not to miracles to understand the world around us. Evolution, as all science, looks to evidence that we can see and understand and test. Neither evolution nor any scientific construct claims to offer moral or political guidance.
Evolution is consistent with a democratic outlook in which the rights of the people are derived from the people. Evolution is not consistent with the view that the natural world is only revealed to or by self-selected authorities or a view that rights derive from authorities, especially not from authorities anointed under a doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. It is the natural world as all can see and understand, and it depends on no outside-of-nature revelations, no sacred texts.
The theory of evolution champions the free mind, and the spirit of free inquiry to see where facts, observations, and the power of reason lead.
The first thing that needs to be taught is the difference between apologetics and science.
Oh it certainly does. They are called teachers and scientists. They are in positions of social power and political power just like priests and preachers have been at times. They teach a world view and show how to live a life dedicated to the ultimate reality of time and matter and man. Religion is what one does because of his belief in God or gods or any ultimate reality.
If religion would stick to that instead of making pronouncements about physical history, there would be no conflict. Science does not make pronouncements about the existence of gods or ultimate reality.
Oh boy do they. They are the children that are taught this world view of survival of the fittest who then dress up like monkeys are act like animals. They pray in their hearts to chance and wisdom and education in the hopes of being the fittest to survive the financially and socially competitive society they help to make. Their churches are every public school and university.
False science, which is accepted as science, says evolution happened. The bible says otherwise. Therefore "science" makes pronouncements about the existence/veracity of God/the Bible.
Ditto for every other comparison.
This is one of the weakest arguments ever for Noah's Flood. 1. If the Biblical account is correct, there would be no survivors to ever tell such legends!
2. "hundreds of cultures have legends" about ghosts, faith-healing, spirits who arrive in the dark of the night to have sex with sleepers (the incubus, succubus beliefs), and superstitions about snakes. Such widespread beliefs are not proof that ghosts or incubi actually exist. They are proof that we humans are remarkably gullible when we are not careful to be skeptical and informed to think critically.
3. You might have noticed that many of these legends contradict each other, and also differ markedly from the Genesis account. Your attempt to derive comfort from them for your belief is pretty desperate.
This is one of the weakest arguments ever for Noah's Flood. ...
Perhaps it is because virtually all major population centers were established near large bodies of water?
" ... attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." placemark
Hmm, you have such insight as to know what people pray for in their hearts? Are you claiming "psychic" powers?
Are you against wisdom and education? Are you promoting a view that ignorance and illiteracy make for a better society?
Just curious.
Teaching critical thinking is like handing kids one-way tickets to Atheistville.
Religionists are often confused between having high ground (e.g., Mt. Sinai, Mormon Smith's NY mountain) and actually dwelling in the low land.
"Large bodies of water" implies oceans and lakes. I think most early civilizations were riverine. River environments are more prone to unexpected floodings.
Another possibility is that writers of these accounts depended on large quantities of wine and beer.
I intended "large bodies of water" to include rivers. In prehistoric times, there were few major population centers at great distances from some large water source.
Most amusing. Did you forget a /sarc/ tag?
Atheistville is actually a pretty nice place. It is true that no one goes to heaven, but, then, no one goes to hell, either. This saves us from sending lots of money to false prophets and frees us to lead productive lives unencumbered by the double-think of faiths.
In Atheistville, exactly like in Bhuddistville, Christianville, etc., the flowers bloom, the crops grow, people like each other mostly, and teenagers have messy rooms. And have moral values.
I looked at your links and they are not substantive. The operative term here is Legend. There are lots of legends for little people (elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc.) from all over the world.
Does that make them real?
Science also says the earth moves. If you make literal readings into articles of faith, you will face continuous disappointment.
The notion that there was a global flood orchestrated by an angry deity is quite absurd. Mad gods should have the ability--and power--to be selective, not kill unborns and neonates, for example. The Genesis account meets no smell test in science, but violates all the morality that anti-evolutionists claim to be their unique Truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.