Replies

Huckabee: I’m not familiar that they’re dodging it. Maybe they are. But I think schools also ought to be fair to all views. Because, frankly, Darwinism is not an established scientific fact. It is a theory of evolution, that’s why it’s called the theory of evolution. And I think that what I’d be concerned with is that it should be taught as one of the views that’s held by people. But it’s not the only view that’s held. And any time you teach one thing as that it’s the only thing, then I think that has a real problem to it.

Governor Huckabee’s answer has several problems and is laced with some very important misconceptions about science. Perhaps the most insidious problem with his response is that it plays on one of the most basic of American values: Huckabee appeals to our sense of democracy and free expression.

So?

But several court decisions have concluded that fairness and free expression are not violated when public school teachers are required to teach the approved curriculum.

One of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. The author must mean that its OK to violate fairness and free expression in the case of school, not that they are not violated which is stupid.

These decisions recognized that teaching creationism is little more than thinly veiled religious advocacy and violates the Establishment Clause.

Screw SCOTUS and all Federal Judges. Maybe some people want to know how life got started. Is the author saying we cannot discuss that question in school because it is religious in nature? It does not conflict with science since it has no answer for that question. So what are we supposed to teach? Spontaneous generation? That concept was proven false 200 years ago and also violates the Law of Biogenesis (Pasteur, I think). Since spontaneous generation is obviously false, what other choice is there besides Creation, whether thought of religiously or not.

"Is the author saying we cannot discuss that question in school because it is religious in nature? It does not conflict with science since it has no answer for that question. So what are we supposed to teach?"

We should teach religion in a science class because science doesn't have a particular answer yet?

"Since spontaneous generation is obviously false, what other choice is there besides Creation, whether thought of religiously or not."

Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation; as it is the only theory with any scientific credibility that concerns the origins of life, that would be the only choice. Or the class could be told that scientists don't know yet.

Huckabee appeals to our sense of democracy and free expression.

So?

Americans are more likely to accept information, truthful or not, if that sense is appealed to. In this case the information is false, so appealing to the sense of democracy and free expression is manipulative.

So what are we supposed to teach? Spontaneous generation? That concept was proven false 200 years ago and also violates the Law of Biogenesis (Pasteur, I think). Since spontaneous generation is obviously false, what other choice is there besides Creation, whether thought of religiously or not.

Actually what was proved all those years ago was that modern organisms do not originate in refuse and rotting meat. It said nothing about simple molecules.

Is arbitrarily disqualifying alternatives to Biblical creation based on improper interpretation of prior science or on cherry picking information from prior science acceptable behaviour in your world?

But several court decisions have concluded that fairness and free expression are not violated when public school teachers are required to teach the approved curriculum.

One of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. The author must mean that its OK to violate fairness and free expression in the case of school, not that they are not violated which is stupid.

The author means that teaching from the curriculum, according to the courts, does not violate fairness and free expression. And look! That's what he wrote!

Nazis, UFO abductees, the Nation of Islam, and adherents of every other crackpot theory under the sun have the right to fairness and free expression. That right does not extend to having their views presented in the classroom to provide "balance."

Maybe some people want to know how life got started. Is the author saying we cannot discuss that question in school because it is religious in nature? It does not conflict with science since it has no answer for that question. So what are we supposed to teach? Spontaneous generation? That concept was proven false 200 years ago and also violates the Law of Biogenesis (Pasteur, I think).

I'm sure that that you know that abiogenesis, the hypothesis that the first reproducing living organism was the natural result of earlier chemical processes, is not the same as the Theory of Evolution, which explains the origin of species from reproducing living organisms, with inherited characteristics, with variation, which are subject to differing reproduction rates as a result of natural selection. And Pasteur, as explained by others on this and other threads, did not disprove the possibility of abiogenesis.

What the schools should be teaching is content consistent with state curriculum guidelines; which is that evolution took place over a period of many hundreds of millions of years; and the Theory of Evolution which explains how that happens.

The Arkansas situation, where only are small minority of students are being allowed to enjoy a scientific education due to Creationist bullying (and cowardly teachers and administrators) gives the lie to the Creationist claim that they just want to give all sides in a spirit of fairness: Arkansas, the Scopes trial, the anti-evolution laws that Creationists had put in place until they were struck down by the SCOTUS, demonstrate when Creationists have the power, they will prohibit scientific education that conflicts with their Fundamentalist beliefs, and as this story demonstrates, attempt to use science classes to promote their sectarian Creationist beliefs.