Ga. school board OKs teaching creationism

CNN.com ^ | Friday, September 27, 2002 | CNN

[Heartlander]

ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) --A suburban Atlanta school board Thursday night voted unanimously to allow teachers to introduce students to different views about the origins of life, among them creationism.

The Cobb County Board of Education, the state's second-largest school board, approved the policy change after limited discussion, calling it a "necessary element of providing a balanced education."

[Heartlander]

Dawkins and Gould? Surely their beliefs don’t influence them…

Stephen Jay Gould’s greatest hits:
Track 1: “Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God. . . .”
Track 2 "Before Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us."
Track 3 “Why do humans exist? . . . I do not think that any 'higher' answer can be given. . . . We are the offspring of history, and must establish our own paths in this most diverse and interesting of conceivable universes-one indifferent to our suffering, and therefore offering us maximal freedom to thrive, or to fail, in our own chosen way.”
Track 4

Naturalism is a religion.

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Now I follow, thank you. Actually, I don't disagree with this at all since I see the left as abandoning the uncertianty of democracy and majority rule for the assurance technocracy and expert rule.


152 posted on 9/10/02 12:17 PM Pacific by Liberal Classic

[4CJ]

So what? your ease of belief is of no interest to science.

Both creation and evolution are based on belief - not provable facts (unless you can invent a time-machine to go back and verify the proportions of elements, and zillions of other evolutionary assumptions).

If evolution was fact, their would be no discussion about this today. My point was that it is far more believable to me tho believe in ONE thing (God), than trillions of "chances".

[Heartlander]

Intelligent design isn't a theory.

You are correct, ID is a fact of life and we use it all the time in science and life. The problem is we don’t apply it to biology when we discover items that cannot be explained by natural mechanisms alone.
For example:
Was your mind designed by intelligence?

Yes, is the old Jed-‘ID’ mind trick…

[hoosierskypilot]

I don't want to offend anyone with using terminology that demeans or insults. I think all who post here should do likewise, and refrain from terms which are, by nature, inflammatory.

That being said, let me say that I am not a scientist. But I would reference what other scientists have said about this subject.

G.A. Kerkut, the eminent British evolutionist, wrote a book entitled, "The Implications of Evolution." He listed seven nonprovable assumptions upon which evolution is based. At the very top of his list (note: his list; not mine), was this statement: "the first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred." (1960, p.6)

These are assumptions that the evolutionist must make before he can hold to the theory of evolution. It is an assumption that has no basis in scientific fact. It cannot be proven scientifically. That means it is, equally, unscientific. That makes it, in my mind (a layman), almost as much a matter of faith as Creationism.

In fact, Nobel laureate Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, 21 years later wrote: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears, at the moment, to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."

It appears to me, (again, a layman) that there is as much faith required for evolution as Creationism. It's dismissive to label Creationism as "myth." It's also inconsistent to examine Creationism under the microscope of absolute truth without subjecting evolution to the same criteria.

But, once again, let's stay focused. This is about a group of parents who are fighting to take back their schools, in their community, paid for with their tax dollars. In that endeavor, we must all be united.

I am surprised, however, that evolution vs. Creation generates this much controversy. One would think this to be as volatile an issue as gun control or immigration. Let us not become ungentlemanly in the quest for truth.

Now, I've got to get back to my Data Based Management Systems homework. By the way, can anybody explain "equiJOIN" for me?

[f.Christian]

Evolution(pc taliban) is social engineering/politics/ideology/religion by whack---elitists---quacks!

[f.Christian]

The second way of dealing with it will be an exhaustive, comprehensive narrative fiction class during which the teacher tries to capture every single creation myth in existence from the Pau Pau New Guinean "The world was created from a giant Egg," to Greek mythology to Norse mythology, on and on and on and on and on and on. Now tell me, dear creationists, does that sound like science class to you? does that sound like something you want your kid sitting through? This GA decision is stupid beyond words.

50 posted on 9/27/02 12:46 PM Pacific by whattajoke

I like this explanation...

"Though the sentiment is obviously inane, Mr. Trilling's hubris, and that of liberals in general, was perhaps understandable in light of the fact that he wrote at the precise midpoint of the long liberal interregnum that prevailed from the presidency of Herbert Hoover (1928) until the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The position of Left intellectuals of that day seems somehow reminiscent of the famed little old lady who told a physics lecturer that all he had said about the heliocentric universe was rubbish because :"

'The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.'

"The scientist gave a superior smile before replying,"

'What is the tortoise standing on?'

'You're very clever, young man, very clever,' said the old lady. 'But it's turtles all the way down.'

"Trilling and company, perched on the middle tortoise, assumed it must be tortoises all the way up and down. As Russell Kirk amply demonstrated, they were as wrong as she."

"As Russell Kirk amply demonstrated, they were as wrong as she."

Real funny...

it must be tortoises(evolution/atheism) all the way up and down.

Did you ever study Western Civilization---American History?

Maybe if you did...you wouldn't be so distracted---confused!

Try this... book---review!

[Doctor Stochastic]

This policy will please the Scientologists.

[Heartlander]

Of those who have a belief beyond purely natural explanations for everything, who will this not please?

[f.Christian]

it must be tortoises(evolution/atheism) all the way up and down...

only/total---"no competion" via 'patrick henry'!

[f.Christian]

Are evolutionists scared of competition?

There is no competition. Evolution is the only scientific theory that explains the evidence. All the "competing" tales are religious in nature. I have no problem with any of them, but they don't beling in a science class.

48 posted on 9/27/02 12:41 PM Pacific by PatrickHenry

competing 'tails'...

[Condorman]

I don't want to offend anyone with using terminology that demeans or insults. I think all who post here should do likewise, and refrain from terms which are, by nature, inflammatory.

Noble sentiment. If I came across as insulting you, then you have my apologies. Too much time on these threads tends to leave one rather jaded.

At the very top of his list (note: his list; not mine), was this statement: "the first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred." (1960, p.6)

This is commonly referenced as being crucial to the theory of evolution. However, while abiogenisis (the commonly used term for the process described in the quote) and the theory of evolution are related, they are independent. Aboigenisis is, in layman's terms, "How Life Came To Be," while the theory of evolution describes "What Happened Next." You other cite is similarly flawed in that it concerns the Origin of Life, not the Origin of Species.

there is as much faith required for evolution as Creationism.

Not true. Evolution is based on evidence. Critters evolve. This has been observed. Populations of like critters can speciate. This has also been observed (Google on "ring species"). The fossil record is replete with examples of gradual change, with the regular emergence of particular structures (VadeRetro's ear bone example, for one), and an orderly pattern of descent and divergence. New fossils are discovered daily and in almost all cases fit neatly into the pre-existing structure. Those that don't are accomodated with minimal fuss. This is evidence, not faith.

Creationism has no evidence, defines no structure of descent, and, in fact, compels that the appearance of an evolutionary lineage be denied.

This is about a group of parents who are fighting to take back their schools, in their community, paid for with their tax dollars. In that endeavor, we must all be united.

I live in Cobb County. Regardless of any other characteristics (good OR bad) they may share, fundamentalist Christians are notoriously poor science teachers.

[Dimensio]

That is a pretty weak definition. A creationist could counter that creation is the act of creatures producing creatures in kind, another observed phenomenon.

Well, yes, they could. It doesn't reall do anything useful as a definition, and I don't see how it could be used as a significant part of any actualy 'theory' of creation (a definition is not a theory).

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

Have you heard the story going around about the bio prof in a well-known NorthEast university who is speaking about evolution and notices three guys snickering in the back of the room? "You guys must be fundamentalist Christians" snorts the professor. One of the three replies "No, we're math majors; like, we understand the laws of probability..."



17 posted on 9/27/02 11:07 AM Pacific by piltdownpig

[f.Christian]

No, we're math majors; like, we understand the laws of probability..."

SCIENCE---LAWS/design!

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Either one believes in creationism (a higher being) or evolution.

Only if apples and oranges are the same "kind".

There is no contradiction in believing that we are God's creation and observing that God's creation behaves in the way we observe it. It's a mistake to bring the Bible down to the level of just man's knowledge, because men know so little.

[Dimensio]

One of the three replies "No, we're math majors; like, we understand the laws of probability..."

Bad joke. Demonstrates ignorance of how probability works.

If one and only one of one-million possible unique events occurs, that event still occured even though the odds were one-million to one against it.

[Condorman]

Great job! I can tell you've been really working on your cut-&-paste skills! No, really. I mean, you're pretty good at that.

Keep up the good work and give me a ping when you've mastered "coherent thought."

[Nataku X]

You get an A+!

[Nataku X]

Hmm... I'll wager no one ever slept in your classes... ;)