Posted on 07/11/2008 4:06:06 AM PDT by Soliton
Louisiana is another story. A hub of creationist activism since the early 1980s, it was Louisiana that enacted the Balanced Treatment Act, which required that creationism be taught alongside evolution in schools. In a landmark 1987 case known as Edwards vs Aguillard, the US Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, effectively closing the door on teaching "creation science" in public schools. ID was invented soon afterwards as a way of proffering creationist concepts without specific reference to God.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Many parents would prefer that their children be in classrooms where their teacher **does** share their religious theology and where their teacher would be completely free to say so. Forcing these children into classrooms where their teachers can not or do not feel free to support the religion of the student is **not** a religiously neutral environment. It is an environment that subtly undermines that child's worldview. He is taught that he and his teachers must be silent about his beliefs and/or that his beliefs are irrelevant and tangential.
Also....There are parents by the millions in this nation who do **not** believe that their religion is tangential or irrelevant to the science classroom. Forcing children into a classroom that communicates ( subtly or overtly ) this belief is an assault on freedom of conscience, and is not religiously neutral.
I also respect those parents who want secular or godless approach to teaching science.
Privatize education. There can be no compromise between these groups of people, not only with evolution but many other subjects. For them to compromise would be to lie to themselves about what in their hearts they believe to be true.
I followed your link, which gave the name of the essay. I searched for the essay by name and found it on omniology. Does it really matter?
//Forcing these children into classrooms where their teachers can not or do not feel free to support the religion of the student is **not** a religiously neutral environment. It is an environment that subtly undermines that child’s worldview. He is taught that he and his teachers must be silent about his beliefs and/or that his beliefs are irrelevant and tangential//
Fantastic point you made there.
the only fraud is what’s talking to you in your head, pretending to be your thoughts.
If you've read one Amelia post, you've read them all - pro-public school, anti-school choice.
If someone thinks their religion is not tangential to Science they are confused about Science, their belief is irrelevant to Science as it is done and as it is taught.
And no, you do not respect parents who want “Godless” teaching of Science, because you attempt to demean it with the term “Godless” rather than recognizing it for what it is- neutral to religious beliefs.
Amen. That is the crux of the issue. As long as government is in control of education, there will be students who are taught a worldview contrary to their parents' beliefs, whatever they may be. The private sector could provide so many more options for every family if the education industry were not monopolized by the public school system.
Homeschooling serves as an example of the free market responding to demands for more options in education. The term "homeschooling" is a misnomer; in addition to studies on their own at home, homeschooled children attend classes at museums, cooperatives, art studios, etc. What we're really doing is buying education on the free market. And the free market responded with an overwhelming number of options.
For the record, I've always believed in Darwin's theories of natural selection and evolution (though not in the later, twisted theories advanced in his name). We are not a churchgoing family. And yet, I agree that education can never be religiously neutral. Each subject (math, English, etc.) may be viewed as separate from the whole, but each one together is building upon a foundation. One's core beliefs are the foundation.
The Big Government worshipping, hardcore evolutionist's worst nightmare.
Because they worship the very liberal, coercive, Big Government public school monopoly.
If education were privatized you would choose a private school that upheld your philosophy, and parents who disagreed would find private schools that upheld their's.
I am pleased we agree on this.
Fantastic point you made there.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thankfully, it has been widely picked up by the mainstream conservative press.
Government schools are a First Amendment and freedom of conscience abomination!
There mere fact you are a mutated gene doesn't give you an advantage in the genome equal to that of a non-mutated gene. The system will edge you out; gobble you up; turn you into something else.
I believe we are saying the same thing. The dfference is that I think the machinery to do those things was designed and you think it just popped up.
Let's try it a different way - there's not been enough time since the coming of the eukaryotic cell system to try out that protective system more than a couple of full cycles to see if it really works. There's no trial and error going on at the class level.
Unless, of course, eukaryotic cells were first developed over the course of several billion years "somewhere else" (mysterious UFO music plas in the background = Rod Serling steps out from behind the curtain).
“the only fraud is what’s talking to you in your head, pretending to be your thoughts.”
Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/
“A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.”
It is quite obvious that you are unfamiliar with both The National Science Education Standards and the Benchmarks for Science Literacy, both of which say that students should be learning how "real scientists" think about and do science, and to critically evaluate different scientific claims, not just indoctrinated from a textbook.
Like your husband's patent applications, journal articles, and lectures, it is "inappropriate to the **practice** and profession of science" to teach science in any but a religiously neutral way, and this has nothing to do with the religious worldview of teachers or students.
As you have already stated, considering God in science class is inappropriate because it is impossible to prove His existence or non-existence.
Most government teachers are utterly incapable of being scientists. They completely lack the education and training for it!
Be careful, your ignorance is showing.
Most of the high school science teachers I know have at least bachelors' degrees in a science major (instead of education) and quite a few have M.S. degrees in said science major. I've known several with Ph.D.s. Several of the science teachers I know also teach night science classes at the college and university level, and I've been asked to do so myself.
As allmendream pointed out to you, a number of us have worked in research labs and industry before (and sometimes after or in the summer while) working in the classroom.
Children of all grades, those in high school, those in AP courses, and even most college undergrads, are still in the information gathering stages and are **not** in any way capable of making any rational judgments about scientific opinion or practice. These children and youth must accept, without question, what is spoon fed to them in their textbooks and from their teachers.....By the way, even students on the undergraduate level are still in the information gathering stages....
If you are correct, this speaks poorly for the future of our nation, because it means that only Ph.D.s and similarly educated people are qualified to make decisions about such things as alternative energy, global warming, assisted reproduction, evolution, nuclear power and weapons, and other current issues which involve science.
Surely this is not what you mean?
So under this proposal, a Muslim immigrant enclave could "privatize" and incorporate a local madrassas where their children would be educated and indoctrinated by muslim clerics, in thier native language. The children could be effectively insulated from any other cultural influence. The school could charge whatever they wanted, and the parents could claim tax exemptions for that amount.
The system in place of random changes, trial and error, differential reproductive success, etc; all made the evolution of life inevitable.
Just as the laws of physics ensured that stars and planets would form. I don't think God had to actually intervene to get the composition of Earth to be the way it is, or scoop out some Hydrogen to ensure the Sun wasn't too big, or ensure that there was an impact large enough to throw off a large moon, etc. The Bible makes claims of God's prescience and I do not doubt it. Nor do I suppose for an instant that the universe was Incompetently Designed (the I.D. hypothesis) and that angelic forces are needed to prop up the edifice of reality.
Muslims do this now. They also have access to charter schools, vouchers, and tax credits in many states. So?...Do you propose eliminating vouchers and charter schools for the millions of non-Muslim children in the U.S. because there are a few nuts in the nation?
Given your reasoning NEA workers would snatch infants from their mother's arms at birth and raise these babies in government infant schools. Why? Because some parents might abuse their children.
Finally...The best way to prevent the spread of Islam in our nation is by strengthening the Judeo-Christian values of the children of our nation. This can **best** be done in private schools because private schools are not constrained by the First Amendment.
Can you give me a example of one of these that's supported by tax exemptions and subsidies, and is not subject to govenment approval of it's curriculum?
This can **best** be done in private schools because private schools are not constrained by the First Amendment.
Your previous arguments would seem to lead to a conclusion that it can **only** be done by private schools.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=muslim+charter+school+&btnG=Google+Search
Also....There are still some fragments of Judeo Christian culture in our government schools. Private schools, because they are not constrained by the First Amendment do a better job.
All of these examples seem to be cases where these schools are in possible violation of existing laws with regard to public oversight of their curriculum. I don’t understand if you’re proposing that we not have any control of their curriculum and let them continue to operate as they have been, or that we emulate them and operate our own private schools in voloation of the law.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jewish+charter+schools&btnG=Google+Search
Yes, charter schools are now constrained by law to preach the official government religion of atheistic Secular Humanism,..but...within the charter school framework there is opportunity for great flexibility.
In some states vouchers and tax credits are permitted for parochial schools. In these cases there is no restriction on the preaching of religion within the school.
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.