I would cheer any form of "Evolution" in Arkansas!
Oh well. I doubt there's much to be done to change this. Sad.
I don't have a problem with teaching evolution in the classroom as long as labs are provided so students can observe the evolution process.
"Bob" could find another job if he's really that unhappy.
I don't mind them calling it evolution, as long as they teach it as a theory that is based on lies and presuppositions rather than facts.
Unfortunately (and I've lived in Arkansas), my advice to Bob would be to move.
So the site of the death of Creationism in science classes has found a new, sneakier method to get to the same end?
Sounds fabricated to me.
Unprepared Arkie students mean that much less competition for my decendants in placement at elite universities and high paying jobs.
I am sure Arkies wil remain tops in snake handling and telling people to 'squeal like a pig'.
So9
The e-word might hurt creationist sensibilities.
Why does the Muslim world lag in Science?"
snip:
Islam contributes to the Muslim world's lagging behind in science insofar as its tenets have not satisfactorily been reconciled with those of science.
...
Yet, these incremental and pragmatic measures must still confront a hostile environment. For science again to flourish in Muslim countries requires a recognition that it requires long-term continuities, the lessening of authoritarianism, and a serious effort to reconcile faith and reason.
And from NSCE (note that BAV = Bilim Arastirma Vakfi, an Islamic fundamentalist group supported by ICR, an "American" group intent on spreading fundamentalism in the middle-east, and having great disdain for scientific progress).
Tactics and Pseudoscience of Islamic Creationists BAV's tactics and strategies are also adapted from those used by ICR for decades. Most of the information, slides, figures, and ideas they use in their conferences resemble those long used in ICR presentations. A quick overview illustrates both the ICR heritage and the local adaptations in the BAV approach.
1) BAV uses pseudoreferences. The references they cite in their books and presentations usually support and defend evolution, but they take just one sentence that they think might seem to support their arguments and use it as their scientific reference. They claim that they can find scientific proof of creation in journals such as Discover, Scientific American, Nature, and Science, even though a cursory reading would show that these references support evolution, not creation. Because it is so difficult for Turkish readers to have access to these journals, however, most of Harun Yahya's arguments go unchallenged.
2) BAV never acknowledges the overwhelming weight of scientific research supporting evolution, but generally distort a single news item (for example, from a popular journal like Discover) to "prove" their conclusion. It does not discuss the fact that the rest of the article or other articles in the same issue of that journal defend and support evolution.
3) BAV first concludes that evolution is wrong and then tries to build up a whole system of "proofs". These proofs do not use any traditional logical and scientific methods to reach the scientific conclusions; instead, they cite the Qur'an as the ultimate (and also the scientific) truth. They even cite surahs as scientific references. Creation is an axiom, not a hypothesis to defend!
4) BAV rejects anything that opposes its ideology or that supports evolution. It does not accept any evidence that shows its proposals as unscientific. According to BAV, science is what proves the Qur'an - and BAV's interpretation of it.
These characteristics are consistent in approach and method with the ICR's version of creationism - selective citation, incomplete survey of appropriate literature, prior conviction that evolution must be wrong (and evil) with an emphasis on the scientific truth of scripture, and the conviction that "true" science must be concordant with scripture.
However, there are some significant differences between the approaches of these two groups. For the most part, Harun Yahya is not aiming for a sophisticated scientific presentation. Acting in Turkey, BAV does not face the difficulty of opposing a highly trained and prominent scientific community, as does the ICR in the US where some of the world's most sophisticated scientific knowledge is produced. BAV has not faced much resistance from the universities or scientific organizations until our recent campaign.
Conclusions
Islamic scientific creationism has become a threat not only to science but also to democracy and the secular system in Turkey. Unlike Christian creationism, it is a critical part of the rise of an extreme religious movement and has actively contributed to the decline of democratic reforms and progress in scholarship and research in the Turkish Republic. If groups like the BAV are unopposed by Turkish science organizations, universities, the government, and individual scientists, they will continue their propaganda unchecked. If they succeed in their efforts, they will influence not only the believers but also the rest of the society, since there is a very weak scientific foundation among the vast majority of the Turkish public. We must recognize the power of the BAV's appeal and take a page from the successful opposition to the ICR and its allies in the US. The only hope for Turkish science and society is a vigorous campaign to expose and oppose Islamic creationism in every forum throughout the country.
ping
They can teach that the moon is made of green cheese and, while I regret it, I have no right to change that. Of course, in Arkansas, they may need to start with reading, but that's another discussion.
Read the article which started this thread, then ponder the fact that science students in many other countries are learning *real* science, not just the watered-down neutered version which won't offend the touchiest parents in Arkansas and elsewhere...
Eep eep eep eep eep.
Of all the schools in Arkansas that I have any connection to whatsoever (friends who are teachers, the couple I have taught in, and family associations), I have yet to find one that dodges Evolution in any way.
I truly believe that this article is an attempt to stirr up trouble - and may very well be based on only some partial truths and distortions.
Then again, if it IS in some way true - then there is a problem- at least for some people. My own beliefs aside, teaching evolution as fact is not a solid foundation as portrayed by it's proponents.
Some rather interesting arguments here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Following are facts extreme evolutionists don't want the public to know.
1. I am a recently retired public middle school mathematics teacher in West Virginia with over 30 years experience as an educator including administration.
For the last five years of my full-time career, with the full knowledge of State, County, and ACLU officials, I demonstrated to my students that mathematics proves beyond the shadow of doubt that evolutionism is nonsense. The students saw that the evidence clearly shows that every item associated with humans, animals and plants are Intelligent Designs and Intelligent Design is science because it is observable by billions of people trillions of times, always has been, always will be. I always let them figure it out for themselves and allowed them to believe what they chose, but at least they were exposed to the scientific facts that extremists want to censor from the minds of public school students. After the lesson a student from an atheist family said, "Evolution is silly."
2. Currently, as a substitute teacher, I have contact with more public school students than ever and take advantage of every opportunity to provide them with the facts described above.
3. Evolutionists are bluffing when they say their beliefs are scientific. Be sure to look at the list of evolutionists who refuse the debate challenge from my friend Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo. See the list at http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/. Click on the Life Science Prize at the bottom.
Karl Priest
kcpriest@aol.com