Posted on 08/30/2003 11:39:21 AM PDT by yonif
WORLAND, Wyo. (AP) - School board members want theories other than evolution - such as creationism - taught in science classes and only sexual abstinence - not how to use contraceptives - taught in health classes.
The board voted this week to present the policy changes to the district's Policy Committee for consideration. More than 100 people attended the meeting.
The recommendation for sex education reads: "It shall be the policy of Washakie County School District No. 1, when teaching sex education, the curriculum shall be based on abstinence only."
Also endorsed was a recommendation for teaching biology: "It shall be the policy ... when teaching Darwin's theory of evolution that it is only a theory and not a fact. Teachers shall be allowed in a neutral and objective manner to introduce all scientific theories of origin, and the students may be allowed to discuss all aspects of controversy surrounding the lack of scientific evidence in support of the theory of evolution."
Board member Tom Ball, who opened the discussion on the proposed changes, said he thought the evolution recommendation should use the word "required," rather than "allowed."
Several people addressed the board, including Pastor Bud Surles who said "evolution is more a product of Hollywood movies than based on real science." He also said the district should teach that "sex is safe only in a heterosexual, monogamous relationship" and that abstinence until marriage should be the message delivered by the district.
Another pastor, Mike Brush, quoted scholars whom he said "understand the misconception of evolution" and are more inclined to accept the "intelligent shaping of matter."
"Intelligent design is not religious-based. I would not want you to teach religion in any way, shape or form," he said.
Worland High School health instructor Dawn Bellis, who told the board that she teaches the "controversial part" of sex education, said she was disappointed that no one on the board contacted her, health instructor Jackie Pike or Principal Hal Johnson to find out what was being taught before going about changing policy.
"It seems backward to change a curriculum and policy without knowing what is being taught," she said.
"Sexuality is a three-week portion of my semester's class. Children cannot make decisions without being informed and that includes knowing the consequences of their decisions."
She said her class ultimately is "totally based on abstinence."
High school student Charity Ward told the board she took one of Bellis' classes. She urged the board not to teach "abstinence-only," saying she found it helpful to learn about sexually transmitted diseases and other potential consequences of having sex.
"Without that information I probably would have made bad choices," she said.
Kitsy Barnes, head of the high school science department, said Wyoming teachers are mandated by the state to teach the state science standards.
"Science teachers are prohibited from teaching creationism due to the Supreme Court ruling Edwards v. Aquillard, which states that teaching creation science is a religious idea and thus an illegal violation of the church-state separation.
"Science is a way of understanding the world, not a mountain of facts. Before anyone can truly understand scientific information, they must know how science works. Science does not prove anything absolutely - all scientific ideas are open to revision in the light of new evidence. The process of science, therefore, involves making educated guesses - hypotheses - that are then rigorously tested."
School district attorney Bill Shelledly cautioned the board that every time they write a new policy, it is like putting up another lightning rod that can get hit. He held up a blue binder containing the board's policies and said, "I don't want one more page put in this policy book."
Pointing to the crowd, he said, "This is only part of the community. You are elected to represent the entire community."
The average Hollywood movie watcher is too limited to understand or care about real evolution. What is presented as evolution by Hollywood nothing more than excuse to waste $100 million on special effects in place of an compelling plot. Evolution is a product of a century and a half of painstaking research done by many who have devoted their lives to it.
Pastor Bud Surles is your typical, ignorant Liar for Christ. (not implying that all Christians are this way)
I have a degree in Biology. Evolution was briefly covered in my semester of Genetics and covered slightly more in my semester of Genetics of Populations. However, the idea of man evolving from chimps or birds evolving from snakes or dinosaurs evolving from whatever they evolved from did not come up - it was not necessary. The evolutionary concept that we dealt with in Genetics was the simple mutation of a gene. The evolutionary concept that we dealt with in Genetics of Populations was the simple, minor, observable change in genetic makeup of a given population.
I also took both standard Biology and Advanced Placement Biology in high school. Evolution was discussed for about one day - and that was in the context of other theories/hypotheses regarding the origin of species - aquired characteristics, creation, etc. It was not essential to understanding Biology - just a background of general knowledge on the subject biology.
This is a giant non-issue.
"High school student Charity Ward told the board she took one of Bellis' classes. She urged the board not to teach 'abstinence-only,' saying she found it helpful to learn about sexually transmitted diseases and other potential consequences of having sex."
How does one conduct "abstinence education" without covering STD's? What do they think abstinence education is - just a 10 second class where the teacher says "don't have sex"? There has to be an explanation - don't have sex before you're married, and here is why: pregnancy, STD's, the fact that condoms are not 100% effective, even if used properly. Of course, this is all operating on the assumption that sex education has a place in government school - it does not. And, that question is based on the assumption that there should even be government schools - there should not. Thus, the root of the problem - government schools.
I get your point and agree with much of it but please don't perpetuate the notion that a "Theory" is nothing more than a hypothesus. A scientific theory such as the atomic theory is a well worked out, tested and testable body of thought and observations. The atomic theory is testable in any number of ways from nuclear fission reactors to thermonuclear devices. Evolution, though not subject to exactly analogous tests (due to the long timeframes required) is testable from the genetic material comparisons and the cladistic comparisons one can make.
Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a fact. They do not threaten anybody's religion because, to a believer, evolution can be viewed as simply the method of creation. It is certainly more elegant a method than simple creation ex nihilo.
Hi. I agree completely with what you are trying to say in your posting.
Someone said and I agree that God is subtle but not maliscious. He created order and logic within the fabric of our universe.
There is truth waiting to be discovered or perhaps revealed to the seeker. There is so much we still don't understand about the universe and our origins that it's far too early to dismiss conclusively any explanations that are plausible and do not outrightly violate the laws of physics.
Truth is truth. Most people (including top notch scientists and well-respected christians) choose to compartmentalize their lives. To them, there are the scientific truths (the natural or physical only) and then there are religious truths (the supernatural only) or only one or the other can be true.
I am of the firm belief that there is only one grand TRUTH and it most likely is a perfect combination of the natural and the supernatural (spiritual/heavenly truths spoken of in the Bible). Those who are honest with themselves know deep down that there is more than just the natural or the physical world. I have yet to encounter an outright contradiction between science and what I've read from the Bible. Some things are seemingly a contradiction on the surface but really are not when read carefully in the context it was given.
Best Regards.
How does one conduct "abstinence education" without covering STD's? What do they think abstinence education is - just a 10 second class where the teacher says "don't have sex"? There has to be an explanation - don't have sex before you're married, and here is why: pregnancy, STD's, the fact that condoms are not 100% effective, even if used properly.
So true ...
High school student Charity Ward told the board she took one of Bellis' classes. She urged the board not to teach "abstinence-only," saying she found it helpful to learn about sexually transmitted diseases and other potential consequences of having sex. "Without that information I probably would have made bad choices," she said. Without that information, she "probably" ... uh wait a second, did she get the information or not? how so? Did she make bad decisions or not? If not, what is the problem, obviously the class didnt make go out and get pregnant out of ignorance? And what is a 'bad decision'? Is it that she was taught 'dont do sex' and now regrets following the advice?!?
UGGG, another mistaken Supreme Court ruling. And if we had made a Saint out of Isaac Newton, would they also forbid F=ma ?
Imho, letting kids know about evolution and what natural selection means and what fossils tell us, and also present what creationists think, then moving on quickly to bust open a frog and learn photosynthesis is the best way to handle it. No big deal. As someone noted here, it's not critical point in understanding most of biology. You could take years of mol. cell biology and evolution of species wouldnt enter into it.
Maybe, but how about this...The Bible is a product of two milleniums of painstaking research done by many who have devoted their lives to it.
Or this...FILL IN THE BLANK WITH NAME OF YOUR FAVORITE EVOLUTIONIST is your typical, ignorant Liar for Darwin. (not implying that all Evolutionists are this way)
Please, these type of statements are not necessary and will only attract the rabid evo's who will drag this thread into the Smokey Backroom.
Hi. I agree with you here. In everyday usage, the meaning of theory is no different than a mere hypothesis.
Scientific theory, on the other hand, is defined as, a synthesis of a large body of information that encompasses well-tested and verified hypothesis about certain aspects of the natural world (got this from my favorite textbook, Conceptual Physical Science written by a physicist named Hewitt ;). Hewitt devoted a prologue about science in this text and I thought you might like to read a couple of excerpts from it:
"Scientists must accept their experimental findings even when they would like them to be different. They must strive to distinguish between what they see and what they wish to see, for scientists, like most people, have a vast capacity for fooling themselves. People have always tended to adopt general rules, beliefs, creeds, ideas, and hypotheses without questioning their validity and to retain them long after they have been shown to be meaningless, false, or at least questionable. The most widespread assumptions are often the least questioned. Too often, when an idea is adopted, particular attention is given to cases that seem to support it, while cases that seem to refute it are distorted, belittled, or ignored."
Hewitt also said that, "... it is mainly people who are either uninformed or misinformed about the deeper natures of both science and religion who feel that they must choose between believing in religion and believing in science. Unless one has a shallow understanding of either or both, there is no contradiction in being religious and being scientific in one's thinking."
Best Regards.
Too late! We are here. ROTFLMAO!
Irrelevant, I was referring to scientific research. My point about the 150 years was to show how untrue the statement made by the pastor was.
Or this...FILL IN THE BLANK WITH NAME OF YOUR FAVORITE EVOLUTIONIST is your typical, ignorant Liar for Darwin. (not implying that all Evolutionists are this way)
His statement was such an outlandish and easily-refutable distortion that it is fitting to call him a liar.
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.