7 School Board candidates would oppose teaching creationism

Stillwater Gazette ^ | 10/28/03 | Greg Huff

[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.”

[metacognative]

see Cobalt blue/ jennyp exchange...besides Marx was an fervent materialistic atheistic evolutionist

[metacognative]

Pay attention. The sun IS running down. Without maintenance, your car WIll run down. Maybe you have a maid, so you don't realize that orderliness runs down...not up!

[Dimensio]

Pay attention. The sun IS running down.

Bait and switch. You said that the "world is running down", not the sun. The sun is, in fact, running down, however before it runs its course it will continue to direct the same amount of energy toward this planet for a few more million years. So long as that keeps happening, the world won't run down. Yes, the world will run down once the sun runs its course (actually, it will probably be incinerated in the resulting red giant), but for now there is no "running down" of the world.

Without maintenance, your car WIll run down.

Non-sequitur. The planet is not a car.

[Dimensio]

besides Marx was an fervent materialistic atheistic evolutionist

Therefore what?

Jeffrey Dahmer claimed to turn to Christ after he was caught. Should I conclude that all Christians were cannibal serial killers before their conversion?

[Ogmios]

As long as the earth recieves more energy then it uses, it will not run down.

The sun is not running down, it is only a middle aged star.

It will last for another 4 billion years at least, then it will probably expand and destroy the earth and Possibly Mars, and if it does go supernova, everything within the solar system will be destroyed.

In the meantime, the earth is getting more energy from the sun then it uses, this is why when it is clear at night, the heat escapes to space, this is why plants grow, this is why storms rage, this is why the surface of the earth stays warm, etc, etc, etc.

The sun does, still does, and will continue to, give the earth more energy then it can possibly use, and as long as that continues, evolution, weather patterns, etc, will continue to occur, when the sun finally fades, in another 3-4 billion years, then the 2nd law will kick in with a vengeance, until then, the earth will continue to do what it has done for the last 4 1/2 billion years.

Life itself is the result of all this energy from the sun, life is the battery that keeps a percentage of that energy here on earth, the earth itself also holds some of that energy, and releases it, this is what causes weather, hurricanes, snow storms, rain. It is, all of it, powered by the sun.

When storms quit raging, when snow stops falling, when plants stop growing, when night is 24 hours a day, then we can talk about the earth running down, until then, nothing of that sort is occurring.

[Dales]

Amazing.

Four threads up in two days. Over 400 replies made on them.

Not a single abuse report. Not a single 'ping' to the moderators about abuse. Not a single email about abuse.

You know what that tells me?

It tells me that there was never a reason for all the crap that usually goes on in these threads. Good. Let's keep it this way.

[metacognative]

OK, I give up. There is no Second Law of Thermodynamics. Now can I be a Darwinite too?

[metacognative]

If you're silly. Sure. Go right ahead.

[Ogmios]

Of course there is a 2nd law, but it applies to a closed system, the earth is not a closed system, and until the sun dies, it will not be.

When the sun finally fades and dies, the 2nd law will kick in with a vengeance, but until then, it does not apply to the earth biospheric system. If it ever gets the chance to kick in, because when the sun finally does die, it will expand and swallow all of the inner planets, thus destroying them, Mercury, Venus, Earth, and possibly Mars will be consumed.

[metacognative]

The Darwinite Myth is our Liberal Elite Creation Story. Atoms pop out of nowhere and do impossible things...culminating in ecosystems and intelligence.
If you accept it, you get promoted in Academia's priesthood. Otherwise You're an ignorant heretic. Scientific evidence points to Mind before Matter, but you must not speak this truth.

[Ogmios]

Evolution is a scientific theory, nothing more.

If it threatens your religious viewpoint, I believe that it is a personal problem.

I have no problem with evolution, the evidence is mounting up as we speak, and it has been mounting up for the last 150 years.

As I said, I have no problem with evolution, then again, I do not take Genesis literally.

Also, evolution is science, and creationism is Religion.

Beleive one or the other, or believe both, because neither of them actually contradict the other. One is science, one is religion, they can't contradict, because they are 2 different things.

[whattajoke]

The Darwinite Myth is our Liberal Elite Creation Story.

Actually, the term, "Darwinite Myth," is a false construct of bible literalists and has no real weight or meaning. Also, Darwin's works were published long before the liberal elite became a distinct "force," for lack of a better term.

Atoms pop out of nowhere...

Actually, Darwin never once mentioned "The beginning of life" in all his work, to my knowledge, and evolutionary theory does not touch on such things. Darwin was also not aware of atoms, so the "Darwinite Myth," has once again proven to be a false costruct of bible literalists. Oh, and Darwin also believed in the Christian God and happened to have a theology degree.

...and do impossible things...

I assure you that atoms have never once done impossible things. That's the nature of science. That is, if we observe it, it is therefore not impossible. If you have some cites to back up your statement that atoms have done the impossible (aside from Genesis 1-5), please educate me.

If you accept it, you get promoted in Academia's priesthood.

Not to be nitpicky, but there is no such thing as a "priesthood," in Academia. The "priesthood" is reserved for Catholicism and some of its various offshoots.

Scientific evidence points to Mind before Matter, but you must not speak this truth.

I am very excited to see this evidence of which you speak. I promise not to steal it, and will give you full credit for it. You surely do realize that this evidence will turn the scientific establishment on its head, garner you all sorts of awards and recognition, and propel your name to historically stand beside the Newtons, Pascals, and Einsteins for all eternity. Congrats.

[Dimensio]

I believe that metacognative has made it clear that he's not interested in intelligent discussion. He's just here to spout stupid, trite one-liners that have nothing to do with real science since he's either too lazy to do any real research or he's too afraid that his fragile worldview will be shattered if he learns that the facts are stacked against him.

[metacognative]

You are nitpicky and humorless. And I am not a biblical literalist. Read Luke anyway.

[metacognative]

Why do you darwinites always want to talk religion?

[whattajoke]

You are nitpicky and humorless.

Thank you. The mark of a good scientist. (Though, I am most assuredly not "humorless," if you must know).

Read Luke anyway.

I have. Maybe I will revisit it, thanks for the suggestion. You then posted to Ogmios,

"Why do you darwinites always want to talk religion?"

Getting past the fact that there is no such thing as a "Darwinite," as I previously made very clear to you, why would you suggest I read Luke and than get snippy when someone else wishes to discuss a related topic?

That's just odd.

[PatrickHenry]

Marx was an fervent materialistic atheistic evolutionist

Oh? How could that be? Yes, Marx was an atheist (which Darwin was not), but was Marx an evolutionist too? Most of Marx's written work was published before Darwin published Origin of Species, so evolution couldn't have influenced Marx at all. Marx's final work, Das Capital, was published later, and mentioned nothing about Darwin or evolution.

[whattajoke]

Oh, and btw, I never once said you were a bible literalist, just that some of your phrasing was borrowed from those who are, that's all.

Also, in light of my post # 72, as well as PatrickHenry's post # 77, will you be retracting posts #61 and #70 at the very least?

[metacognative]

Luke is believable isn't he? Much more so than old evolutionary ideas. By the way, I think I'm a Bergsonian-Lamarckist still searching the evidence.

[metacognative]

Please quote 'bible-literalist'. Retract what for why?