Education panel stalls curriculum vote for creationism appeal [S. Carolina, another Kansas?]

MyrtleBeachOnline ^ | 14 December 2005 | Staff

[PatrickHenry]

An education oversight panel has put off a final recommendation on the state's biology teaching standards at the urging of a state senator who wants alternatives to evolution - including creationism - taught in classrooms.

The Education Oversight Committee voted Monday to recommend approval of the state's biology content standards, but by an 8-7 vote, the panel removed for further study the wording that deals with teaching evolution.

The committee plans to put together a panel of scientists and science teachers to advise committee members on the biology standards dealing with evolution, JoAnne Anderson, the committee's executive director, said Tuesday.

State Sen. Mike Fair, a panel member, wants the education department to change the standards to encourage teaching alternatives to the theory of evolution. Fair, R-Greenville, also has proposed a bill that would give lawmakers more say on biology curriculum.

The Education Department writes standards teachers must follow in designing their daily lessons. The State Board of Education must give those standards final approval. The Education Oversight Committee can recommend the board approve or reject those standards.

The head attorney for the state Department of Education said he didn't think committee members are authorized to change the standards.

"This is unprecedented," attorney Dale Stuckey said. "It's my interpretation of the law that [EOC members] have no authority to change the standards."

Anderson said Tuesday that is not the committee's intent. The committee issued a news release clarifying that it does not have the authority to revise content standards.

"We are asking our colleagues at the State Department of Education for recommendations of individuals from the science community who can assist the committee in bringing about a resolution."

Fair said he wants to encourage "critical analysis of a controversial subject in the classroom."

State Education Superintendent Inez Tenenbaum, a Democrat, said Fair was trying to derail teaching standard revisions she said have wide support in academia. The agency recently conducted a yearlong review of key subjects and basic knowledge all science teachers in public schools must teach.

Current biology curriculum includes Charles Darwin's 19th century theory that life evolved over millions of years from simple cells that adapted to their environment. Creationism relies on the biblical explanation that mankind's origin is the result of a divine action.

In November, the S.C. Board of Education approved changes to science standards some teachers said needed clarification. The oversight committee put off voting on the rules in October to give Fair more time to lobby education officials.

Karen Floyd, a Republican candidate for state education superintendent, has said she will encourage the teaching of intelligent design.

Rep. Bob Walker, R-Spartanburg, said he supports Fair's efforts because "there are other ideas that can be addressed as to how this world came about."

One school official, Lexington-Richland 5 science supervisor Kitty Farnell, said the committee's questioning of educators' work sets "a terrible example for our students."

"It's an embarrassment," she said.

[Dimensio]

Any attempt to claim science must only be concerned with "nature" is an arbitrary demarcation.

No, it's the fundamental nature of science. Yes, all definitions are "arbitrary" as human inventions, but claiming that science can encompass the supernatural is redefining the long-standing definition of science as it is currently established.

[Thatcherite]

[UK spelling]

Heh! I'm about the only Freeper here posting in English.

[PatrickHenry]

Donkeys giving birth to jaybirds

That's a candidate for THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM, but I'm waiting, because I think this particular creationist can do even better.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"That's a candidate for THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM, but I'm waiting, because I think this particular creationist can do even better."

I have no doubts. This one has potential.

[unlearner]

"claiming that science can encompass the supernatural is redefining the long-standing definition of science as it is currently established."

To remain consistent you must then object to current experiments in particle physics trying to demonstrate fundamental forces working in dimensions which CANNOT be experienced directly.

Scientific observation is obviously limited to what is observable. To extrapolate this to limit scientific inquiry is bias in its purist form.

I have never heard anyone arguing against super colliders exploring string theory even when its foremost proponent admits the theory is not falsifiable.

I have never heard the advocates of pure science stand up to oppose theoretical physicists from exploring the possibility of dimensions of existence which cannot be experienced directly.

I am willing to limit the observations of science to what is observable. But the conclusions must be limited by only what is real.

Those in the forum who advocate "only science in the science class" need to be consistent and advocate the removal of mathematics from science. If you stick to your definition limiting science to nature, we should remove math from science.

[Dimensio]

To remain consistent you must then object to current experiments in particle physics trying to demonstrate fundamental forces working in dimensions which CANNOT be experienced directly.

No one claims that these dimensions are supernatural in nature.

[Blzbba]

"Piss poor analogy. We KNOW clocks are created. We know who created them. We have seen them be created. We know how they are created. Thus, when we see an object that we already KNOW is created, we can assume that it was probably placed there."


Yeah, but what if I write in a book that a Magic Man with Magic Powers actually put the clock there over a period of 7 days and it was good?

THEN, my 'theory' becomes INDISPUTABLE. Why? Because my 'theory' is now in a book and I can just claim to have been 'inspired by God' when I wrote the book. With that, all other "scientific theories' are invalid and my 'theory' should be forced onto all children. Anyone who disagrees is an evil, godless heathen who'll burn in hell!!

[js1138]

You are on a roll guessing the authors of quotations. Who said the following:


“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”

“Two thousand years ago a man was similarly denounced by this particular race which today denounces and blasphememes all over the place. . . That man was dragged before a court and they said: he is arousing the people! So he, too, was an agitator!”

“I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these fourteen years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.”

“We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

“Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.”

“It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.”

“The advantages of a personal and political nature that might arise from compromising with atheistic organizations would not outweigh the consequences which would become apparent in the destruction of general moral basic values. The national government regards the two Christian confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality: their rights are not to be infringed.”

“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.”

“This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious belief.”

“The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war and unrest, of strife and discord. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles.”

“The judgment whether a people is virtuous or not virtuous can hardly be passed by a human being. That should be left to God.”

[Blzbba]

"ID argues from the reality of what we observe: complex systems are created, designed."


Umm..noone has observed the 'creation' and 'design' of the complex systems, unless man himself is doing the creating/design. Contrary to popular belief, the writes of Genesis were NOT present during the time Creation allegedly occurred.


" My wireless keyboard did not morph from my previously cumbersome wired keyboard. My ABS breaking family van did not mutate from my 1963 Ford Falcon."


No, they were created by human beings. They're also bad examples here, since both are inorganic machines.

[Blzbba]

"when there is no observable evidence that anything remotely like this sort of parenthood could exist."


Yet there is a plethora of observable, measurable evidence that (for example) Noah's Ark didn't happen as it is written in the Bible...so should that little fairy tale passage be removed?

[Blzbba]

"And that's in spite of the results of WWI and WWII which showed that God is on the side of the wealthier nations."



Actually, the fact that the nations were wealthier had more to do with it than any unprovable divine intervention.

There's no way the Axis would've ever conquered America, for example.

[unlearner]

"Why does Biblical Creationism make this prediction?"

Revelation 13:15 predicts that man will at some point "give life". That is a remarkable claim that in its day might have been seen as undermining the Creator as well as being humanly impossible. It is consistent with a biblical version of ID. Man has not but may at some future point "create life". If so, ID is testable.

"Why does Biblical Creationism necessitate that this be true?"

ID and creationism assert that complexity of life and its particular order are such that they cannot arise without intelligent intervention. To find one instance of life spontaneously self-organizing would falsify this premise. It would not prove that life was not created by God, but it would prove that is not the only possible way life could have come to exist.

"Where are the accounts of these 'living witnesses'?"

It is asserted in the Greek scriptures as I am sure you are well aware. You apparently dispute the veracity of these claims. I do not feel like debating it. I believe the gospel. God lives in me. That is confirmation for me. You cannot experience this unless you first believe what I say is true.

"What evidence is there of this 'indwelling'?"

the evidence is experiential to those who experience it. All other evidence is accepted by faith. That is true of science as well.

"If it is the latter [not natural], then it cannot be considered scientific."

Math is outside the realm of nature. Is math now unscientific?

"This amounts to a completely subjective claim and as such cannot be considered scientific evidence."

Real experiences can be subjective. Further, do you put the same demands on what you accept as scientific? Do you need to experience all scientific phenomena by observing it for yourself? Or do you, like we all do, accept the word of those who have observed them?

The doctrine of the trinity asserts that God has three persons or indivisible parts.

Part of God is spirit which is something that cannot be seen (invisible), except that a spirit can take a temporary physical form. Thus even the Spirit is observable in a sense.

Part of God is so "glorious" that observing Him would cause death. This part is observable in a limited sense.

The God that is seen is the part that "became flesh". He is the express image of the invisible God and the embodiment of the fullness of the Godhead. This is Jesus.

Jesus was seen, closely observed, heard, and touched. He is empirical evidence of God.

I am touching on theology because you are using it as an excuse to dismiss His existence as "unscientific". God is experienced in the natural realm - fully. Arguing that the God of the Bible is not pantheistic is merely a theological ploy to attempt to categorize biblical faith as being unscientific. But your argument is not a scientific one. It is philosophic.

That is OK as long as you realize that philosophy defines science.

Likewise for your point in 126:

"No one claims that these dimensions are supernatural in nature."

That is a philosophical argument. These "dimensions" contain things which cannot pass from there to here. We cannot pass from here to there. We can experience the effects of these dimensions' existence. Same is true of the spiritual.

[Blzbba]

Re:post 128


That'd be the Jackass of the 20th Century - Der Fuhrer!

[Thatcherite]

That was my guess too. Was I right?

[js1138]

A good reason for ignoring what people say about religion supporting ethical behavior.

[dread78645]

"I would rather be descended from an ape than a bishop."

Although no transcripts were kept, the line was:
"I would rather have an ape for an ancestor than an intellectual prostitute like Bishop Wilberforce."

[Dimensio]

Revelation 13:15 predicts that man will at some point "give life". That is a remarkable claim that in its day might have been seen as undermining the Creator as well as being humanly impossible. It is consistent with a biblical version of ID. Man has not but may at some future point "create life". If so, ID is testable.

That would be an observation consistent with your interpretation of the book of Revelation, but are you saying that such an observation would be best explained by your interpretation?

ID and creationism assert that complexity of life and its particular order are such that they cannot arise without intelligent intervention.

Why is this assertion made, though? What observations form the basis of this assertion?

To find one instance of life spontaneously self-organizing would falsify this premise.

But the premise thus far lacks justification.

It would not prove that life was not created by God, but it would prove that is not the only possible way life could have come to exist.

Which means that it would, in fact, not falsify Biblical creationism because you could still assert that life was created by God even if it could have come about through another means. A falsification criteria is a hypothetical observation that, if made, would demonstrate that intelligent design is impossible, not simply that another mechanism is possible.

It is asserted in the Greek scriptures as I am sure you are well aware.

Asserting the existence of living witnesses is not the same as demonstrating the existence of living witnesses. You are offering nothing but empty assertions and calling it evidence. That is not how science works.

the evidence is experiential to those who experience it.

So how would a neutral observer test for it?

Math is outside the realm of nature.

Math is a construct used as a tool.

Is math now unscientific?

Math is a tool used by science, though it is not inherently scientific in itself.

Real experiences can be subjective.

I do not argue that point, however subjective experiences do not amount to scientific evidence.

Further, do you put the same demands on what you accept as scientific?

Yes.

Do you need to experience all scientific phenomena by observing it for yourself?

No, however the ability for anyone with the requisite sensory organs to be able to make the same observations under the same conditions is a requirement for science.

Or do you, like we all do, accept the word of those who have observed them?

I accept the word of scientists because thus far the scientific method has proven reliable. If I wished to replicate the observations of scientists, I could follow their documented procedures to do so. I do not need to rely on nothing more than someone's "feelings" to have confidence in a claim; I can look at the independent research of multiple individuals producing the same results, and -- if I so desire -- I could replicate those results on my own.

You are asserting that your religious beliefs are true and calling that science. Science doesn't work that way, and your methodology is no more valid than a Muslim or a Hindu claiming that their particular religious beliefs are true and claiming that their personal experiences with respect to their religion stands as scientific evidence.

[Dimensio]

I'd heard a few of them before, so I already knew.

I wonder why no one has named the author of the quotes presented in post #74, however. I notice that farmer18th hasn't returned to reply to that post. Perhaps farmer18th is embarassed about their source, or perhaps he is in hiding for fear of having to admit a mistake regarding the predictions of the theory of evolution (when was the last time a creationist ever admitted being mistaken when caught making claims about the theory that are false?)

[Blzbba]

"(when was the last time a creationist ever admitted being mistaken when caught making claims about the theory that are false?)"



That was the answer last night on 'Jeopardy' for the $200 question in the 'Never' category.

[shuckmaster]

Why are Republicans shooting themselves in the foot over a nonpolitical question? These idiots need to worry a lot more about Marx and a lot less about Darwin in schools.