Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kids' Book on Evolution Stirs Censorship Debate
Star Tribune ^ | May 12, 2005 | Jill Burcum

Posted on 05/12/2005 5:30:04 AM PDT by wallcrawlr

With its lavish illustrations of colorful, cuddly critters, "Our Family Tree" looks like the kind of book kids keep by their bedside to read again and again.

But when its St. Paul author, Lisa Westberg Peters, planned to talk about the book in classroom appearances today and Friday at a Monticello, Minn., elementary school, educators got cold feet.

"Our Family Tree" focuses on evolution, the scientific explanation for human origins that some believe contradicts biblical teachings. Peters' appearances, which were to focus on helping kids learn how to write, were canceled.

"It's a cute book. There's nothing wrong with it. We just don't need that kind of debate," said Brad Sanderson, principal at Pinewood Elementary.

Monticello's assistant superintendent, Jim Johnson, said school officials made a reasonable request of Peters to talk about writing but leave the discussion about evolution to teachers. When she refused, the visit was scuttled.

Across the country, there has been increasing opposition to teaching evolution. Peters said officials at two other Minnesota school districts have asked her not to talk about the book in visits over the past year.

The author believes that she is being censored -- something the schools deny.

"Once you start censoring, it's a slippery slope. Are geology and physics next? You have to stop it right away," said Peters, who won a Minnesota Book Award for "Our Family Tree," published in 2003.

In Kansas, the State Board of Education is expected to require that teachers tell students that evolution is controversial. Bills have been introduced in Georgia and Alabama to allow educators to question evolution in the classroom and offer alternatives.

Last year, the Grantsburg, Wis., school district drew widespread attention when a new policy urged teachers to explore alternative theories to evolution.

(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: churchandstate; crevolist; education; mustardmists
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-296 next last
To: wallcrawlr
Its been a long time since I've had a discussion on Fr where someone like yourself gets so personal

I wish that I could say that it's been a long time since I've had a discussion on FR where someone like you engaged in such sheer blatant dishonesty in an attempt to cover up logical fallacies, but then I argue with creationists quite frequently.

Enjoy your smug superior attitude, but understand that your attempts at "argument" aren't fooling anyone with an IQ above 70.
121 posted on 05/12/2005 9:25:08 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Let's see....imagine trying to chat with ELEVEN children running around?? heeheehee


122 posted on 05/12/2005 9:32:41 AM PDT by Politicalmom (Don't retire to Florida. They murder their "useless eaters".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I chose it to mean — nothing less, and nothing more."
— Alice Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll
123 posted on 05/12/2005 9:33:43 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I realize that the double blind concept doesn't apply to all of science, but it is the only way to ferret out the quackery and pseudoscience that infests so much of medicine and social science. There are some people posting here about supposed mental fields that bind all living things together ala Star Wars.

Toss in a double blind experiment and this stuff evaporates like the reputation of a spoon bender on videotape.
124 posted on 05/12/2005 9:35:42 AM PDT by js1138 (e unum pluribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: blowfish

You've never used a University telescope? Stars are absolutely observable, and observations of trajectories, eclipses and orbital paths are repeatable and predictable. I agree though that astrology for the most part, other than observing the skies for impending danger, is a "nonproductive" science, at this time.

Geology is a critical science, on the other hand.


125 posted on 05/12/2005 9:39:24 AM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Disputed by whom?

No offense but are you really not aware that the scientific community has proved woefully inadequate at proving the "man evolved from an ape" and the "it all started with a big bang of a super dense particle" theories? It's beyond being disputed: Evolution/Big Bang has become just another religion in which a reasonable percentage of the human population earnestly believes.

126 posted on 05/12/2005 9:45:44 AM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Dimensio

AGREEMENT OF THE WILLING

Effective August 9, 2003, we, the undersigned, freely and in good faith agree that henceforth we shall treat others on these threads as we wish to be treated ourselves.

The agreement will continue even if any one or more of the following guidelines are found untenable. Any person joining in this agreement may withdraw at his own discretion without explanation. All remaining parties to the agreement agree to be bound even if one or more parties disavow their agreement.

Guidelines

5. Language Restraint: We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster or whatever that poster believes; however, merely factual or logical criticism and rebuttal shall never be considered "obscene or belittling."

If one of us notices another poster creating problems on the thread, we may post a warning in behalf of all of us, to the effect of: "Hey X, that post of yours [number 123] was a bit provocative. You know we have rules about disrupting (or whatever). I understand that you're momentarily swept up in the debate, but please restrain yourself."

Or: [in lieu of the 2nd sentence in bold] "Under our agreement, the actions of provocateurs, trolls, spammers, and disruptors are prohibited, as is the use of obscene or belittling words to describe another poster or his beliefs."

After having made such a good faith attempt to bring the offending poster into compliance, if the problematic poster continues in the offending behavior we may post a warning (such as: "Don't feed the trolls!") to other posters that the problematic party has chosen not to comply. If the problem persists, the offender may thereafter be called a provocateur, troll, spammer, or disruptor, and doing so will not be a violation of this agreement.

Separate Agreement for Fundamentalist Christian Freepers:

Concurrent with the AGREEMENT OF THE WILLING, and binding only those Free Republic Fundamentalist Christian posters who voluntarily agree, we the parties to this separate agreement resolve as follows:

We additionally agree to forgive all trespasses prior to the effective date and thereby join in agreement praying for civility among all the participants and blessings for each and every one. Mark 11:24-25.


127 posted on 05/12/2005 9:55:21 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
man evolved from an ape

Misstatement of the concept is lying no matter how many times it's tried.

128 posted on 05/12/2005 9:57:32 AM PDT by ASA Vet (Those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
In the context of science, "theory" does not mean "belief". That definition is not the one used. It is a correct definition for some uses of the word "theory", but not when speaking of "scientific theory". Stop pretending that we're too stupid to understand this...

In the context of science, Evolution does not qualify as a Theory, except by "consensus" of an elite group from within the "scientific community". You can't win an argument by shouting over and over "but they say so, and they really know what they're talking about".

129 posted on 05/12/2005 10:00:09 AM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
In the context of science, Evolution does not qualify as a Theory, except by "consensus" of an elite group from within the "scientific community".

Okay. Explain exactly what is wrong with the presented evidence, and also explain how the "fact" (to be demonstrated) that it is incorrectly termed a "theory" justifies dishonestly switching out definitions of the word "theory" to prove this point.
130 posted on 05/12/2005 10:02:23 AM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet

Even people who believe in creation have no problem observing adaptation of species to environmental changes.


131 posted on 05/12/2005 10:06:18 AM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Hang on while I dig through my old posts (to save breath of course.)


132 posted on 05/12/2005 10:07:57 AM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
Conservative Creationists are missing a really great opportunity by rejecting evolution.

Evolution not only selects those that physically survive well, but it also evolves sucessful human cultures as well.

We can see that right now with liberals. Evolution predicts that those who support abortion will have less children. We see exactly that now in Europe and Russia, which I believe have more acceptance of abortion, and their populations are declining.

Evolution favors conservatives, because they reject abortion, and honor children and families. Conservatives support marriage, which has been documented to be superior for raising successful children.

Conservatives could use the theory to argue against abortion. Since it's mostly liberals who support abortion, the theory predicts that liberals will die out within a generation or two. If liberals wish to keep their political interests alive, then they'd best reject abortion, and accept hertosexual marriage.

Conservative Creationists are really missing a great opportunity.

133 posted on 05/12/2005 10:11:56 AM PDT by narby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief
And how do you know that those dots of lights that you see in a telescope are suns like our own? Could it be that you are using a host of inferences, after all no-one has been there to check? (creationist mode) No-one has really *proved* that they are suns any more than anyone has *proved* that one "kind" can become another. (/creationist mode). At one time the church was absolutely certain that they could not be suns, on sure and certain Biblical Authority. They burned Bruno for daring to suggest it.

Pretty much all scientific knowledge is inferred indirectly from observations, including the overwhelming evidence gathered that supports the theory of evolution. No-one has ever seen an electron either.

134 posted on 05/12/2005 10:17:07 AM PDT by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Politicalmom

I'm used to that kind of thing. We could just send them outside :-).


135 posted on 05/12/2005 10:28:34 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Every day is Mother's Day when you have James the Wonder Baby!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
also, do you generally trust wikipedia with other sourcing of things...havent you found it to have a somewhat liberal bias??

Actually wikipedia was ony part of that post. The stufff on gravity I wrote personally.

136 posted on 05/12/2005 10:42:35 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

Wikipedia is written by people like me. It is unreliable, but interesting.


137 posted on 05/12/2005 10:45:17 AM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio; RadioAstronomer
Or are you the only one who gets to decide what definitions apply and when?

He's apparently invoking the Anti-Evo's "Egalitarian Principle of Definitions": All definitions of a word are interchangeable and have equal applicability in all circumstances, but only when it is useful to supporting HIS argument.

The one thing that is clear is that rational discourse is impossible with those who invoke such principles.

138 posted on 05/12/2005 10:47:47 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

It is really a tad dishonest to quote yourself when sourcing an argument, no? (Surely this is not an acceptable practice within the scientific community?)


139 posted on 05/12/2005 10:48:08 AM PDT by TaxRelief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: TaxRelief; RadioAstronomer
It is really a tad dishonest to quote yourself when sourcing an argument, no? (Surely this is not an acceptable practice within the scientific community?)

RadioAstronomer is an authority on gravity. Why shouldn't he write his own material?

140 posted on 05/12/2005 10:51:24 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-296 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson