New legal threat to teaching evolution in the US

New Scientist ^ | 7/9/2008 | Amanda Gefter

[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.

[MrB]

I'm just not buying the argumetns that purging the theory of evoulution from the classroom is going to correct every evil in the world, and render all of our enemies powerless.

And I'm not arguing that.

Can you teach evolution in schools without imposing an atheistic, dehumanizing worldview? (Do you want to...?)

There are merits to the science and theory of evolution.
And I use "theory" here in the same sense of "music theory", the "method of the study of" a topic.
I'm going to teach it to my homeschooled kids.

When it is used as an indoctrination tool - that's when you get resistance.

[tacticalogic]

You want to "begin the process".

The process beings with having private schools for people to choose.

Who are you proposing should begin this process, the government?

[Soliton]

Amelia is a beautiful name by the way. I used to live on Amelia Avenue in Louisiana many years ago. You should watch the youtube video.

[allmendream]

And objective discussion of historic revisionism as if it had any merit would be a threat to History education. An objective discussion of a young earth as if it had any merit would be a threat to Geology education. An objective discussion of “Das Kapital” as if it had any merit would be a threat to Economic education. An objective discussion of geocentricism as if it had any merit would be a threat to Astronomy education.

Incompetent Design has no merit within Science. It is not a Scientific hypothesis, it is not testable, and it is not useful as a means of gaining information. If all things were designed then nothing was not designed. It tells you everything about nothing and nothing about everything. It is “god of the gaps” revisited, an asinine theology abandoned as fruitless and a loosing game by most theologians long ago.

[tacticalogic]

Can you teach evolution in schools without imposing an atheistic, dehumanizing worldview? (Do you want to...?)

If people can reconcile their religious beliefs with evolution, then the answer appears to be "Yes".

[MrB]

I’ve read one convincing book in this direction,
written by the director of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins.

It’s called “The Language of God”. He shows how evolution can produce the complex DNA combinations we see, yet reconciles the Creator into the whole elegance of it all.

I just read a critique by a (rabid) atheist who was rhetorically screaming with his hands over his ears that he didn’t want to hear any such thing. Just convinced me all the more.

[Amelia]

Thanks! I know you are correct, but I will check out the video.

[Coyoteman]

Because the law allows individual boards and teachers to make additions to the science curriculum without clearance from a state authority...

The teachers will be free to tell the truth about ID without fear of reprisals.

They will be able to expose ID for the fraud that it is:

--a scheme that was "designed" following the U.S. Supreme Court decision that eliminated creation "science" from the schools as a way to sneak creationism in the back door

--a sham, with religion masquerading as science dishonestly trying to fool those who don't know any better.

In other words, a lie from start to finish.

And when teachers expose this lie this new law protects them. HA! The law of unintended consequences strikes again.

[Soliton]

have you seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI

[Always Right]

And objective discussion of historic revisionism as if it had any merit would be a threat to History education. An objective discussion of a young earth as if it had any merit would be a threat to Geology education. An objective discussion of “Das Kapital” as if it had any merit would be a threat to Economic education. An objective discussion of geocentricism as if it had any merit would be a threat to Astronomy education.

Considering so many things in school they are teaching are wrong, an objective discussion on many topics would be a good thing. This bill is not specifically about ID, so the real consequences of this bill may be completely different than expected.

[Coyoteman]

cdesign proponentsists!

That was a classic goof. Gave away the whole dishonest scheme.

[atlaw]

When communists invaded countries in Europe, they didn’t indoctrinate people with the benefits of communism, they taught evolution.

Communists put evolutionary biologists and geneticists in the gulag. Lamarckism and Lysenkoism was the order of the day. And it led to some rather disastrous agricultural policies.

[Soliton]

really, really beautiful ain’t it? ;-)

[dmz]

Can you teach evolution in schools without imposing an atheistic, dehumanizing worldview?

I hesitate to respond, as it is a rather contentious discussion, but the only folks claiming that the teaching of evolution imposes (the key word here in my view) an atheistic, dehumanizing (your words) worldview are the creatiionist/IDers.

I'm of the opinion that even the lowliest high schoolers are pretty clear that the natural sciences have, as their sole focus, the natural world. That means the discussions of the supernatural world, the world of religion and faith, is a bit out of its element in the study of the natural sciences.

[allmendream]

Amazing how often that particular untruth gets trotted out.

The Communists HATED Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection because it smacked too much of Capitalism with unequal distribution and unequal outcomes and individual accomplishment.

[Soliton]

When communists invaded countries in Europe, they didn’t indoctrinate people with the benefits of communism, they taught evolution. I'm having a hard time believing the Soviets didn't conduct any political indoctrination classes in their classrooms.

Do a google for "communist indoctrination". It happened and it wasn't evolution.

[RightWhale]

Evolution is barely mentioned in Gummint school. Even in college it is such a small part of the curriculum that it is nearly irrelevant. Once out of school, so few make a living from Evolution that it is nearly irrelevant altogether. Same for the competition such as it is. If Lysenkoism returns to agriculture it might be a matter of importance in politics again.

[Soliton]

Once out of school, so few make a living from Evolution that it is nearly irrelevant altogether.

Evolution is just biology. VERY important things are happening in biology. Our children's lives will be better than ours because of it.

[RightWhale]

Biological evolution is irrelevant. Social evolution is where the activists spend their time. O’Bama is riding that horse named ‘Change’ and by the nature of the change he advocates it is change for change’s sake and that is hard to distinguish from the goal of Anarchists.

[wintertime]

Can you teach evolution in schools without imposing an atheistic, dehumanizing worldview? (Do you want to...?)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There are only 2 worldviews possible in teaching about the origins of the universe and man:

1) The godless, atheistic, dehumanized, godless worldview.

2) A God-centered worldview.

BOTH have profound religious, cultural, and political consequences that are **NOT** neutral.

There is NO possible way for any government school to teach about the origins of life and man's appearance on the earth and do it in a way that is religiously neutral!!! It is impossible!

As I have posted many times before ( and that you clearly understand):

Government schools are a First Amendment and freedom of conscience abomination! ( I should make this my tag line.)