Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US
New Scientist ^ | 7/9/2008 | Amanda Gefter

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 ...


TOPICS: Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: crevo; education; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-238 last
To: Amelia
As you have already stated, considering God in science class is inappropriate because it is impossible to prove His existence or non-existence.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I did not say this. I have never said that it is inappropriate to consider God in a science class. Please provide a link.

In fact, I did include a discussion of God in my lessons with my children about the natural world. There are many parents who want this for their children. To force a godless approach to science upon them is disrespectful and intolerant of their religion, culture, and beliefs.

How can I defend a strawman argument of your creation?

221 posted on 07/12/2008 10:23:43 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Amelia

Surely this is not what you mean?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I did not say this. Thoughtful readers will clearly see that.


222 posted on 07/12/2008 10:26:17 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
Most government teachers are utterly incapable of being scientists. They completely lack the education and training for it! ...wintertime
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Most government teachers have B.S. or masters degrees. This would qualify them to be technicians. They would be doing the grunt work and bottle washing for those with Ph.D.s.

Whether or not government teachers with B.S. or master degrees could be accepted into a Ph.D. program would depend upon the competitiveness of their college, their GRE scores, grades, and recommendations from their professors. As a group, teachers are not known for having stellar GRE scores.

As for those few government teachers with Ph.D.s in the sciences whether or not they could get a research position in industry, in an research institute, or a university would depend on:

* The competitiveness and quality of their university program.

* The topic and quality of their thesis.

* Recommendations from their professors.

* Whether or not they were able to have their thesis published in a reputable and peer reviewed journal.

* The quality of the research done in any post-doc programs and whether or not this research was published.

* Bags full of good luck.

223 posted on 07/12/2008 10:40:52 AM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
Most government teachers have B.S. or masters degrees. This would qualify them to be technicians. They would be doing the grunt work and bottle washing for those with Ph.D.s.

Like everything else you post, that's not necessarily true, as those of us who have worked in research and industry already know.

224 posted on 07/12/2008 2:43:23 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Amelia

This is not an especially helpful site. For instance the description of “Chemistry Professor” fails to give the educational requirements needed for the job.


225 posted on 07/12/2008 2:49:04 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

If you’ll look a bit further, there are actual vacant jobs posted, with actual job descriptions and educational requirements.


226 posted on 07/12/2008 4:15:13 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
It appears to me that most of these jobs are technical jobs ( task oriented work) and not directly, or even indirectly, related to actual scientific research. They can not be in anyway classified as being “scientists” even if their jobs require some scientific backround.

Oh... And please remember that while technicians assist scientists with the lab duties and experiments they are merely the grunt workers. Technicians work under supervision of the scientist who plans experiments and directs all the work and has full responsibility for the lab and its output.

227 posted on 07/12/2008 4:38:18 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Amelia

That should read: Background.


228 posted on 07/12/2008 4:38:44 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

Thoughtful FReepers are able to go to the web page and judge for themselves.

By the way, Your Arrogance, technicians generally have at most an associate degree in chemistry.


229 posted on 07/12/2008 7:45:33 PM PDT by Amelia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Amelia

That makes order taking technicians not research scientists.


230 posted on 07/12/2008 9:24:20 PM PDT by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are NOT stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
Louisiana passed this law because a significant portion of the electorate does not find the Darwinian narrative persuasive, so it's not as if anything that's added to the school programs will be new to most students

I think they should teach more about evolutionism in schools, specifically the history of evolutionism. That would be new to a lot of people.

231 posted on 07/13/2008 12:03:04 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Darwinism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

An excellent arrangement of information.


232 posted on 07/13/2008 3:59:00 AM PDT by Tax-chick (Tax-chick's House of Herpets. We're basking - how about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: wintertime

The laboratory’s budget officer actually has total control of all of that stuff. The scientists merely give it names.


233 posted on 07/13/2008 7:02:44 PM PDT by muawiyah (We need a "Gastank For America" to win back Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Two things ~ the defense went in prepared to defend Creationism, not ID. Secondly, the judge went in to judge Creationism and did so, totally ignoring ID.

The judge's understanding of biology was also questionable ~ really strange decision in fact.

234 posted on 07/13/2008 7:06:24 PM PDT by muawiyah (We need a "Gastank For America" to win back Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: wintertime
It is **not** religiously neutral to force children into godless Secular schools and scrub God from the curriculum. It teaches them that God is irrelevant to their lives. At a minimum it teaches them that God is irrelevant to their education. This is **not** religiously neutral!

Ah, I see where you are coming from. Your view seems to be that unless the glory of God is mentioned in every single subject in school (even phys ed anbd shop class?) at all times, the school is "godless."

Is my desk godless because the Lord's Prayer isn't inscribed on its surface? Is McDonald's godless because the employees don't say grace before giving you your Big Mac? Is my financial advisor godless because he talks about my stock portfolio when I call him, rather than the Semon on the Mount?

Or could it be that teachers want to teach math and biology and spelling without getting bogged down in religious arguments?

The First Amendment does not apply to most or some of the people. It applies to **all** of the people (especially the minority).

A school not teaching relgion to its students isn't a violation of the students' 1st Amendment rights. The government is not required to talk about religions, it's only required not to impinge on your right to believe as you see fit. You seem to believe that the 1st Amendment gives you the right to demand that other people talk about your religion. That's certainly a... novel.... view of the 1st Amendment.

Government schools promote a godless religious worldview. They never were, are not now, and never can be religiously neutral. It is impossible.

Nonsense. If public schools don't talk about religion, that is the essence of religious neutrality. Secular schools should not take a position, one way or the other, on the existence of any deities.

The solution to the thousands of utterly irresolvable philosophical conflicts is to privatize universal K-12 education.

This has very, very little appeal to Americans. I assume you are aware of that.

235 posted on 07/14/2008 7:31:58 AM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: wintertime; Amelia
Most government teachers are utterly incapable of being scientists. They completely lack the education and training for it! ...wintertime ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Most government teachers have B.S. or masters degrees. This would qualify them to be technicians. They would be doing the grunt work and bottle washing for those with Ph.D.s.

This is what's known as "moving the goalposts."

236 posted on 07/14/2008 7:39:37 AM PDT by Citizen Blade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: Soliton

Are you convincedas much that the Word of God in unfallible?


237 posted on 07/14/2008 2:39:01 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Soliton
Darwinism predicted that there must be a biological mechanism for passing on traits from one generation to another. Genetics proved him right. Evolution science makes many predictions and they have been overwhelmingly confirmed

Actually Mendel's studies predicted that, and he lived before Darwin.

238 posted on 07/14/2008 3:01:31 PM PDT by Hacksaw (Deport illegals the same way they came here - one at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-238 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
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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