Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Down with Evolution! Creationists changing state educational standards
Scientific American ^ | March 2002 issue | RODGER DOYLE

Posted on 02/12/2002 12:24:57 PM PST by PatrickHenry

Since 1920 creationists have been successful in persuading legislatures in five Southern states to pass laws favorable to their views, but the courts consistently struck them down, saying that they violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. In the 1990s creationists began focusing instead on changing state educational standards. The most famous attempt to do so in recent years--the decision of the Kansas Board of Education to eliminate evolution from the state's science standards--was not a success: the decision was reversed in 2001 when antievolution board members were defeated for reelection.

Still, creationists have been victorious in many other states, a trend catalogued by Lawrence S. Lerner of California State University at Long Beach. His evaluation, summarized and updated in the map below, is valuable in part because it points up the widespread sway of creationists in Northern states, such as Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin, that have a liberal or moderate tradition. Furthermore, it highlights the fact that certain Southern states--North and South Carolina--have more rigorous educational standards than some Northern states, such as New York and Massachusetts.

There is little information on what is actually taught in individual classrooms and school districts, so it is not clear what effect state standards have on the quality of evolution teaching. The influence of the standards is, however, potentially great because they are likely to affect the content of textbooks and lesson plans. Standards set the tone under which teachers and administrators work and, if written well, make it easier for science-oriented educators to insist that all teachers, including the one third who advocate equal time for creationism, observe proper guidelines.

Creationists have been able to alter state education standards despite being a fairly small minority. According to a 1999 poll by the People for the American Way Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based organization opposed to the teaching of creationism in science classes, only 16 percent of Americans support the teaching of creationism to the exclusion of evolution. A huge majority--83 percent--favor teaching evolution, but most of them maintain that creationism should be discussed in science classes with evolution. Only 37 percent expressed strong support for evolution--that is, teaching it to the exclusion of all religious doctrine in science classes.

In the absence of a majority favoring strict standards for evolution teaching, it is easy to see why creationists have been able to make headway even outside the circle of evangelical Christianity. In 1996 Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic Church's commitment to evolution, first stated in 1950, saying that his inspiration for doing so came from the Bible. Despite this, 40 percent of American Catholics in a 2001 Gallup poll said they believed that God created human life in the past 10,000 years. Indeed, fully 45 percent of all Americans subscribe to this creationist view. Many who are indifferent to conservative theology give creationism some support, perhaps because, as mathematician Norman Levitt of Rutgers University suggests, the subject of evolution provokes anxiety about the nature of human existence, an anxiety that antievolutionists use to promote creationist ideas.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 621-636 next last
The article has a good map showing how each state rates in the teaching of evolution. CLICK HERE.

The famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].

1 posted on 02/12/2002 12:24:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jennyp; vaderetro; physicist; radioastronomer; longshadow; crevo_list
Bump.
2 posted on 02/12/2002 12:26:07 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
A bump to you on Darwin Day.
3 posted on 02/12/2002 12:31:12 PM PST by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic; Ahban; Karl_Lembke; donh; Sabertooth; Nebullis; JediGirl; AndrewC
Bump.
4 posted on 02/12/2002 12:31:23 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Bump for later.
5 posted on 02/12/2002 12:34:14 PM PST by Jeremy_Bentham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Those that believe in the creationist point of view tell me all they need to know is in the Bible. No admissions, no changes, everything is there. "Fine I say. What about Kangaroos? Where did they come from? How could Noah not have saved them during the flood and yet they can exist?" "Well," they answer: "Kangaroos came later." "But they're not mentioned in the Bible." After a while, I get that concession. "So, the Bible doesn't tell me everything about the world with no additions, changes, etc.

If a creationist has to look between the lines to find proof for the existence of kangaroos, then how does the creationist know that his point of view is absolute?

6 posted on 02/12/2002 12:35:17 PM PST by Utopia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
[...] teaching [evolution] to the exclusion of all religious doctrine in science classes.

[snicker]

Evolution is religious doctrine, and there are evolutionists every bit as dogmatic as any Southern Baptist. Probably some of them will show up here.

7 posted on 02/12/2002 12:36:30 PM PST by Barak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Barak
"We...have always been here."
8 posted on 02/12/2002 12:52:03 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Barak
Evolution is religious doctrine, and there are evolutionists every bit as dogmatic as any Southern Baptist. Probably some of them will show up here.

In case you are unaware, your reply (Post #7) was to FR's chief high priest of evolutionism.

9 posted on 02/12/2002 12:54:55 PM PST by caprock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
IMHO, it is unnecessary to talk about creationism or any other religous doctrine to question evolution.

Methinks Belief in Evolution = A Form of Lysenkoism ...

Because

The Third LAW of Thermodynamics (enthropy) is incompatible with The THEORY of Evolution

BTW, Lysenko was a Russian scientist (favored by Stalin if memory serves) who held 'scientific' views that
were not permitted to be questioned without risk of losing ones job, position, or freedom.

10 posted on 02/12/2002 12:57:22 PM PST by RileyD, nwJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utopia
Those that believe in the creationist point of view tell me all they need to know is in the Bible.

This is a classic strawman argument if I ever saw one.

11 posted on 02/12/2002 1:00:39 PM PST by chapman55k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RileyD, nwj
The Third LAW of Thermodynamics (enthropy) is incompatible with The THEORY of Evolution

Where to begin? Where to begin?

12 posted on 02/12/2002 1:04:12 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RileyD, nwj
"The Third LAW of Thermodynamics (enthropy) is incompatible with The THEORY of Evolution."

Pop quiz: How many things can you find wrong in this one sentence?

13 posted on 02/12/2002 1:05:08 PM PST by OBAFGKM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Of course, most of what passes for "evolution" in the public schools is really Flintstonism.
14 posted on 02/12/2002 1:12:28 PM PST by Salman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RileyD, nwj; RadioAstronomer; ThinkPlease; Physicist
"The Third LAW of Thermodynamics (enthropy) is incompatible with The THEORY of Evolution"

Stunning quote of the day bump

15 posted on 02/12/2002 1:12:50 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OBAFGKM
At least three things wrong:

It's the SECOND Law of Thermodynamics that supposedly conflicts with evolution.

It is spelled "entropy."

The Second Law only applies to closed systems not receiving any energy input from an external source, such as, for example, a rather energetic star only 93 million miles away.

16 posted on 02/12/2002 1:19:43 PM PST by Poohbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
I wonder which creation account we teach? Judaeo/Christian, Native American, Hindu, Traditional Chineese . . . I guess we should teach ALL of them right?
17 posted on 02/12/2002 1:27:55 PM PST by realpatriot71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
And while they're at it, it might be a good time to re-visit the idea of making pi=3.00000

I certainly can't be the only person who notices how much easier figuring round stuff out would be with this reform.

It's just a lot of smarty-pants nerds who are so stuck on the ridiculous 3.1416.blahblahblah that are opposed.

And Terrorists!!!

18 posted on 02/12/2002 1:31:49 PM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
I guess we should teach ALL of them right?

That would probably be okay with some folks, but then the question is if we were to do so, when would we find time to teach SCIENCE?

We are talking about SCIENCE class, aren't we?

19 posted on 02/12/2002 1:32:15 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RileyD, nwj
That was funny !

More please !

20 posted on 02/12/2002 1:35:38 PM PST by Eddeche
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 621-636 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson