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.”
Whoopie! What a wildly impressive factoid. And Darwin declined the "honor," saying that he didn't understand the book. To my knowledge, this is the only known correspondence between the two men. So where does that leave you?
Before this thread dies, I want to nail down for the lurkers that this statement of yours in post 61, attempting to link Marx with Darwin's theory of evolution, is presumably abandoned, because you've made no attempt to support it. I'm sure that you won't bring it up again.
Just cleaning up loose ends.
No one disputes that Marx was an atheist. But it's just plain silly to claim that he was a "darwinist." History is against you. Marx was writing about communism and running around as a communist agitator years before Darwin ever wrote about evolution. Nothing Darwin wrote ever found its way into the later work of Marx (Das Capital).
Marx was a contemporary of Darwin's. So was Alexander Graham Bell. So was Thomas Edison. So was Robert E. Lee. So what? As I explained earlier, the only known "connection" between Darwin and Marx is that, late in his career, Marx tried (without success) to cash in on Darwin's fame by getting Darwin's consent for a book dedication. He may have tried to dedicate that book to other famous people too, but this means nothing. The book (Das Capital) had nothing to do with biology.
If Darwin's theory can be said to have influenced anything in the world of economics (which it didn't), the creationists usually come up with stuff like this:
DARWIN'S INFLUENCE ON RUTHLESS LAISSEZ FAIRE CAPITALISM (Institute for Creation Research). But even that isn't true in a cause-and-effect way, because Adam Smith published Wealth of Nations in 1776, a wee bit before Darwin's Origin of Species appeared (in 1859).
Your attempt to blame ol' Darwin for all the ills of the world just isn't supported by any facts. Consider this:
1. There were atheists before Darwin (such as Socrates) and after him (like Ayn Rand). Obviously, from those two examples, atheism can exist without communism. Or with it (Marx). But it's like having red hair -- there's no causal connection between atheism and communism.So now, after all this, wouldn't you agree that Marx's work wasn't "darwinist."2. There were communists before Darwin (for example the Spartans and the Mayflower settlers) and they weren't atheists. From those two examples, it's obvious that communism can exist without atheism. Or with it, as in the Soviet Union. Again, it's like having red hair. No causal connection.
3. Stalin hated Darwinian evolution and executed biologists who disagreed with him. His favored biologist was Lysenko, who was anti-Darwin.
No it is not. Marx offered to dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin but Darwin declined the offer. Evolution is the basis for Communist scientific materialism. It is also not a coincidence that the evolutionists, atheists, leftists, socialists, Communists and the NEA are working together to keep God out of the schools.
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.