Posted on 10/30/2003 6:10:17 PM PST by Dales
STILLWATER— Neither registered nor write-in candidates for the District 834 School Board believe that Minnesota educators should teach creationism. Two candidates, however, said teachers should not deny students the opportunity to discuss in school theories that challenge evolution.
Origin-of-life debates arose anew in Minnesota last month after the Minnesota Education Department released accidentally two drafts of its new standards for teaching science — drafts which differed only in how they prescribe how educators should teach evolution. One draft version included words such as “might,” “may” and “possible” in language that some believed was designed to question evolution’s veracity.
A recent Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “creationism” as a “doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis,” the Bible’s first chapter.
The five officially registered School Board candidates — incumbents David “Choc” Junker, Christy Hlavacek, Mary Cecconi and John Uppgren, and challenger Andrée Aronson — discussed the debate about mankind’s origins at a candidates’ forum at Stonebridge Elementary School on Oct. 7. Write-in candidates Christopher Kunze and Nancy Hoffman addressed the matter in e-mail interviews earlier this month
Questions about creationism did not arise in Tuesday night’s candidate’s forum October 21 at Stillwater Area High School.
“Do you agree with teaching (creationism) in public school?” Stillwater resident Scott Neestrum asked in the Oct. 7 candidates’ forum. “And, if you don’t, how would you combat it?”
Aronson indicated a personal belief in creationism, but said unequivocally that Minnesota educators should not teach creationism as fact. Cecconi and Kunze both said that the state should not prohibit discussion of creationism.
“It’s very important to have creationism presented to learning people ... to try and get some feel for ‘This is out there?’” Cecconi said. “I think it’s wrong to keep anything silent and say ‘It’s not there.’ I think the teaching of ‘Guess what, this is coming down the pike, what do you think?’ (is acceptable). As far as scientifically, I am straight on the lines of evolution.”
Uppgren, Hlavacek and Hoffman each said that local churches are better suited to teach creationism.
“I’m worried about teaching math and science and writing well — we do not have time to be bothered by these political games that people play that have other agendas. ...” Uppgren said. “We do not have time to address these nuisance ideas that legislators have, because they’ve never bothered to come and sit down and talk with the School Board.”
Said Hlavacek: “We do not have enough time, energy and money to put into teaching something that will not further our student achievement. ... I strongly oppose that.”
Junker, who asked Neestrum to define creationism for him, did not specifically answeer the question, but said he doesn’t “like the idea of religion mixed with politics.”
Below each of the following sub-headings are additional excerpts from each of the candidates’ responses to Neestrum’s question. The official candidates answered in the forum. The write-in candidates answered via e-mail, a few days after the forum. Responses have been edited for space and usage, and in some cases, to omit digressions not germane to the creationism debate.
The candidates in the forum also discussed transportation issues, parents’ role in the education process, Minnesota’s new education standards, and the many challenges facing schools here and throughout the state.
Aronson
Said Aronson: “I do not believe that creationism should be taught in schools. ... Creationism is one of many beliefs of how the world was started, and that is a different (theory than) scientific evolution. Evolution is based on science and research.
“Creationism might be my personal belief, but that’s what it is — it’s a belief. And I don’t think that they should mix.”
Hoffman
Said Hoffman, a confirmation guide for a second year at Trinity Lutheran Church: “People can make a difference in our youth, and participate in many ways at their local churches and use these opportunities to help our youth develop their faith belief system.”
Cecconi
Said Cecconi: “This is one of those questions where you have your personal belief and then you have your board hat. And first off ... personally, I am absolutely opposed to ... the teaching of creationism in a public school.
“However, I have to say that I would like ... my own children to be able to have that conversation in a very lively way with a lot of students who can give them different feelings — maybe in a literature course, maybe something that’s not being taught to them; definitely not proselytizing. As a board member, I think I need to fight that tooth and nail.”
Kunze
Said Kunze: “I do not believe that religious views should be taught as absolute truth in schools, but I also believe that a healthy discussion of major beliefs is acceptable and beneficial.”
Uppgren
Said Uppgren: “All I can say with certainty is (that) we have very good churches in our community. And it seems to me that we’ve done a pretty good job as a culture of taking more and more things away from churches. It wasn’t long ago that churches organized sports, they handled a lot of social activities. And suddenly, that’s become the domain of independent associations and schools and things like that. ... I have a lot of faith in churches in this community to do an excellent job of teaching creationism.
Hlavacek
Said Hlavacek: “I would not support the teaching of creationism in school. I strongly believe that role belongs to the churches in this community, not to the ... public schools that we (as School Board members) represent.”
Science classes should be teaching kids what the consensus view of working scientists isI highly disagree. The consensus view of 'working scientists' right now is that global warming is a fact. Thirty years ago the consensus view was that global cooling was a fact.
The things which are facts should be taught as facts. The things which are theories should be taught as theories-- with the predominant counter theories also explored.
Well I disagree with your disagreement. (So there!) Global warming is no where near the consensus view of the scientists themselves, IMO. There's a lot of agenda-driven popularization of the actual scientific debates which is coloring the public's perception of a united front. Though I agree that the global warming skeptics are in the minority. But that's an example of a minority view I'd want to be heard in HS class: Their objections to the global warming theories are much more sound, and more widespread, than creationism's (or even ID's) objections to evolution.
Because if we are talking about it being a majority, then we are back to where I just tried to place us.
I believe that anything that is a theory should be taught as a theory with the predominant counter theories explored. There seems to be a real resistance to doing that, however, and that has always seemed strange to me. Intellectual vigor would seem to me to demand presenting and exploring competing theories.
I hear ya. I'm thinking more of how much scientific & logical support they both have, compared to the alternatives.
True science cannot measure God, thus, must be agnostic when it comes to God. So, depending on the curriculum, there is a place for that to be said.
Fair enough. But the debate in the country's school boards is all around what should go into the science curriculums & textbooks. Whenever somebody proposes a compromise to put ID in a comparative religion class, the ID activists always reject that.
Ah, but the key word is "predominant". Sure, creationism and/or ID makes a lot of noise in the culture at large, but within the discipline of the relevant sciences, there's nary a ripple. And that's not because of prejudice, conspiracy, nor as some claim, nihilistic scientists recoiling at having to answer to a higher authority figure than themselves.
There are no dominant scientific countertheories to evolution.Why do they have to be scientific theories? Besides, there is always going to be bleeding of educational disciplines into others. Try separating some scientific discussions about genetics away from ethics which is tied directly to sociology and history and culture. It can't be done. There is no need to that tightly segment education.
There are many counter theories.
What makes it a theory is that there is no categorical proof that it is a rule.
Calculus and Shakespear aren't trying to answer the same thing, unless by some strange twist of fate the answer to "to be or not to be" is actually the integral of sine theta delta theta.
Since both your evolution article and your 'creationism' article favor evolution, methinks we can.
unless of course you also wish to see the buddhist creation storyThe odds of the buddhist creation story ever playing a part in an American child's life is pretty slim.
The odds of an American child having to grasp with the creation/evolution debate is significantly higher, approaching 1.
Trouble is, there are no counter theories to evolution. Creationism/ID is incapable of being falsified - any observation can be 'explained' by saying "well, that's just the way the designer did it". In other words, it makes no predictions that can be tested. Until someone comes up with some limits on the hypothetical designer's powers, the id hypothesis remains that - a hypothesis. Mere armchair speculation. Not a theory.
Evolution, otoh, has made many predictions, a great many of which hve been validated. EG:
No fossil elephant will ever be found in Hawaii
If a 'missing link' between people and apes is found, it will be in Africa.
Any pseudogene found in chimps and orangutangs will also be found in people and gorillas.
No fossil or living organism intermediate between a bird and a mammal will ever be found.
No rock will ever be found containing both trilobite and whale fossils.
And so on. What other theory makes detailed predictions about what we should expect to find in fossils and genes, and is corrrect in these predictions? Until there is one, evolution is all that belongs in science classes.
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.