This content is inappropriate
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
(Opinion) Texas Public Schools Earn "F" on Evolution Education
By Texas Freedom Network
You are seeing 37 Comments.
See all 39 Comments on this Opinion.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Texas Public Schools Earn "F" on Evolution Education
I skimmed over the story, but read the study.
"Why Science Standards are Important to a Strong Science Curriculum and How States Measure Up" is the title of the study, and the basis for the story.
It struck me as interesting that, knowing there are two major ideas in conflict, those on the science side can apply the scientific method to argue against the faith-based side. Yet they do not try to argue the scientific side of the argument using faith-based methods. I understand why they don't, but the fact that they do not shows us how the two ideas are not closely related enough to measure up to the others' standard.
It really is this simple, folks:
You cannot prove or disprove the religious idea using science and cannot prove or disprove the scientific theory using faith.
So why try?
- SolarSanitizer
August 16, 2009 12:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Science class
"Yet they do not try to argue the scientific side of the argument using faith-based methods."
How would this be done in a Scientific manner?
"You cannot prove or disprove the religious idea using science and cannot prove or disprove the scientific theory using faith."
Very true, so why include faith in a Science class?
- MrBook
August 16, 2009 2:19PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, of course it should. (pt1)
Or are blinded by your anti- religion -at-all-costs attitude?
Let me teach you something.
We know that there are two major ideas concerning creation. Neither of the two are scientifically provable or disprovable. That's right, MrBook, science cannot prove evolution . But I'll explain why not in a moment. For now, I'll argue that it is appropriate to give students both sides of the story, if you'll suffer the simplistic description.
In Kerwin Thiessen's discussion, 'Should Creationism Be Taught in Public Schools? Yes!', it is pointed out that "The definition of science shows that something is scientific only if it can be observed {25} and verified. All must admit that it is impossible to prove scientifically any particular concept of origins, creationism or evolution. No human being was there in the beginning to observe and verify how matter and life came into existence."
He continues to illustrate how both creation and evolution are "belief systems".
"For nearly one hundred years evolution-as-a-dogma has been accepted and perpetuated in America’s public educational institutions, and the proof of such a statement is seen in the almost universal acceptance of three sub-beliefs: 1) faith in spontaneous generation of life substance, 2) faith in transitional forms between different kinds of organisms, (unverifiable on the basis of anatomy, embryology, blood and protein analyses, fossils, or genetics) and 3) faith in mutations as a source of raw materials by which supposed evolutionary changes in organisms might have come about in the past. Each of these three sub-beliefs is dependent upon the other, as well as the very definition of evolution as given by Huxley. And each of these statements is made without experimentally verifiable or observable scientific evidence.
The point is that both evolution and creationism are belief systems. Both are embraced through “believing what is unobservable” rather than on the basis of what is scientifically provable. ...Science deals with observable data. Religion deals with belief and faith in the unobservable."
Furthermore, to show why both creation and evolution should be included in the classroom when the public wants it included, I'll point to the 1st Amendment:
"What about the matter of public education , i.e., “Should the public schools teach what the public wants?” The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Section One, states,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Clearly the intent of our forefathers was that freedom prevail in all areas of civil life, education included. Neither creationism nor evolution should be barred from the classroom where citizens of the republic desire that they be taught. Should not public education be nonpartisan? Some students and their parents will place their faith in the belief-system of evolution when it comes to the study of origins. Others will embrace creationism. Both should be presented in the classroom where both are desired by the public.
The role of today’s educator should permit such an approach. The teacher used to be seen as a disseminator of knowledge, imparting to eager students the information and concepts they should know. Today’s teacher, however, is taught to be skilled in questioning techniques, {26} particularly in the disciplines of science and social science instruction.
This inquiry approach puts priority upon a presentation of data by the teacher coupled with thorough reading and experimentation by the student. Such an approach is intended to be objective with the result of developing logical thought and decision-making skills among the students rather than reflecting the pre-conceived bias of the teacher. Such skills as observation, classification, inferring, predicting, measuring, communicating, interpreting, formulating questions and hypothesis, experimentation, and formulating models, teach students to make critical observations when dealing with data.
- SolarSanitizer
August 16, 2009 3:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Inquiery
“Or are blinded by your anti- religion -at-all-costs attitude?”
So creationism is an idea based in religion?
“We know that there are two major ideas concerning creation.”
Thats a bit of an over statement. Within the Scientific community there is no sizable debate between the theory of Evolution and creationism... the only ones debating are fringe elements like those arguing for a geocentric universe or a hollow earth.
“That's right, MrBook, science cannot prove evolution .”
Where have I said that Science proves evolution? From a Scientific standpoint the evidence is strongest in the direction of Evolution by a significant margin.
“All must admit that it is impossible to prove scientifically any particular concept of origins, creationism or evolution. No human being was there in the beginning to observe and verify how matter and life came into existence."”
That is a very interesting definition of Scientific proof. No Science cannot prove that Evolution took place like it could the presence of the cook book sitting on the table in front of me. Following Mr. Thiessen's logic one could not prove that Christopher Columbus ever visited the Caribbean Ocean or that George Washington was ever the president of the United States... because we cannot observe those facts.
He continues to illustrate how both creation and evolution are "belief systems".
"1) faith in spontaneous generation of life substance”
Faith? This is an area of great uncertainty and research. Scientists don't know how life came about, and are currently researching possible theories. There is currently no Scientific consensus as to how this happened.
“2) faith in transitional forms between different kinds of organisms, (unverifiable on the basis of anatomy, embryology, blood and protein analyses, fossils, or genetics)”
A massive misrepresentation! The fossil record is full of 'transitional species' because every species is ether a transitional one or one that went extinct.
“3) faith in mutations as a source of raw materials by which supposed evolutionary changes in organisms might have come about in the past.”
This has been, and is being, experimentally verified. It is the basis for pathology, oncology, and the domestication of animals / plants.
“Each of these three sub-beliefs is dependent upon the other, as well as the very definition of evolution as given by Huxley. And each of these statements is made without experimentally verifiable or observable scientific evidence.”
The only one that has not been experimentally verified is the first one, abiogenesis has yet to be observed in the laboratory.
“Both are embraced through “believing what is unobservable” rather than on the basis of what is scientifically provable. ...Science deals with observable data.”
You mean like the fossil record, genetics, and animal breeding?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So if the majority of an areas population was Muslim then teaching the Koran in that areas public schools would be acceptable?
“Should not public education be nonpartisan?”
Yes, but subjects should remain in their appropriate classes. An English class should not teach Math, a Math class should not tech woodworking, and a Science class should not teach religious beliefs.
“Others will embrace creationism. Both should be presented in the classroom where both are desired by the public.”
Which creationist theory should be taught? The one where Ymir falls asleep and Oden builds the sky from his skull? No body observed the creation of the universe so that could have happened.
“The role of today’s educator should permit such an approach. The teacher used to be seen as a disseminator of knowledge, imparting to eager students the information and concepts they should know. Today’s teacher, however, is taught to be skilled in questioning techniques, {26} particularly in the disciplines of science and social science instruction.”
Yes teachers should disseminate knowledge, but they must be confined by reason in doing so. If all viewpoints are to be put forth then what about teaching geocentric theories as fact?
“Such an approach is intended to be objective with the result of developing logical thought and decision-making skills among the students rather than reflecting the pre-conceived bias of the teacher.”
So it would be appropriate to teach scientology in a psychology class? Chakras in anatomy?
- MrBook
August 16, 2009 4:43PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
reply
"So creationism is an idea based in religion ?"
It is based in belief, just like evolution . Which do you "believe"?
"That is a very interesting definition of Scientific proof. No Science cannot prove that Evolution took place like it could the presence of the cook book sitting on the table in front of me. Following Mr. Thiessen's logic one could not prove that Christopher
Columbus ever visited the Caribbean Ocean or that George Washington was ever the president of the United States... because we cannot observe those facts."
Your logic ignores that there were human witnesses to such facts. This is not the case with evolution or creation.
"There is currently no Scientific consensus as to how this happened."
The point is that the community believes that it did happen.
"The fossil record is full of 'transitional species' because every species is ether a transitional one or one that went extinct."
It is also full of exceptions to the rules and proves nothing.
"This has been, and is being, experimentally verified. It is the basis for pathology, oncology, and the domestication of animals / plants."
Having not been verified, it is still the basis for scientific specialties. Sounds like it was believed before proved. As I have argued.
“Both are embraced through “believing what is unobservable” rather than on the basis of what is scientifically provable. ...Science deals with observable data.”
You mean like the fossil record, genetics, and animal breeding?"
No, it means that no human was able to observe and record what actually happened, of course. You know... the Scientific method.
"So if the majority of an areas population was Muslim then teaching the Koran in that areas public schools would be acceptable?"
Yes. Take the middle-east for example. I bet they teach from the Koran there. Here in America, we teach from the bible . We do so because in this area, that is acceptable. You think they don't teach ideas from the Torah in Israel?
"Which creationist theory should be taught? The one where Ymir falls asleep and Oden builds the sky from his skull? No body observed the creation of the universe so that could have happened."
If the public demanded such in their public schools, sure. Science cannot disprove that, either.
"Yes teachers should disseminate knowledge, but they must be confined by reason in doing so. If all viewpoints are to be put forth then what about teaching geocentric theories as fact?"
Do you want school boards and teachers, whop are beholden to government, determining what can and cannot be taught, or do you want parents to decide what can and cannot be taught? Do you have any kids ?
"So it would be appropriate to teach Scientology in a psychology class? Chakras in anatomy?"
Only if the parents decided that this was appropriate. Or would you rather the government decide what your kids can learn about and what they cannot?
- SolarSanitizer
August 16, 2009 5:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
reply to a reply
“It is based in belief, just like evolution . Which do you "believe"?”
I 'believe' in neither. Having seen and read the evidence for Evolution I find that it is most accurate and reasonable description of the diversity that we see around us.
“Your logic ignores that there were human witnesses to such facts. This is not the case with evolution or creation.”
Who? All you have is the written record, no finger prints or videos or DNA.
“The point is that the community believes that it did happen.”
It is not a 'belief' it is a logical conclusion. According to the fossil record there was a time when there was no life on earth, there is life on earth now... so at some point in the distant past life began. Without evidence for a deity or panspermia that life had to have started here on earth.
“It is also full of exceptions to the rules and proves nothing.”
What exceptions?
"Having not been verified, it is still the basis for scientific specialties. Sounds like it was believed before proved. As I have argued."
What exactly do you mean here? Yes there is still research into Evolution... there are still unknowns in the Theory. However it is so strongly supported that it is used in much of Biology and Medicine.
Just because a theory has been proven does not mean that it is shelved. Relativity has been experimentally verified but people are still researching it, and using it in their experiments.
“No, it means that no human was able to observe and record what actually happened, of course. You know... the Scientific method.”
Lacking a time machine (we are working on that) nobody will ever be able to go and directly observe it. But we can look at the evidence left behind and formulate theories as to what happened.
I'm curious, do you find Forensic Pathology to be unscientific? The entire field is based on studying evidence to determine what happened... and is often very good at showing what happened even without a direct witness.
“You think they don't teach ideas from the Torah in Israel?”
I'm not familiar with public education in Israel. My question was would it be acceptable for the Koran to be taught as fact in the United States. Let's say that the majority of the people in Atlanta were Muslims, would it be acceptable for the school board there to teach Muslim beliefs as true?
“If the public demanded such in their public schools, sure. Science cannot disprove that, either.”
So even if a theory has no supporting evidence... is patently absurd... it should still be taught as fact because the majority of people want it to be taught? You don't think that that would be harmful to the children in that situation? That being taught that as true wouldn't hurt them later in life?
“Do you want school boards and teachers, whop are beholden to government, determining what can and cannot be taught, or do you want parents to decide what can and cannot be taught? Do you have any kids ?”
Don't you think that the children of Texas have been harmed in this? If they are being taught something that is unscientific then they will be ill-prepared for college or future careers in fields in which ToE is an important part... which is just about every major field of Biology, and several very important parts of Medicine.
“Only if the parents decided that this was appropriate. Or would you rather the government decide what your kids can learn about and what they cannot?”
So you are saying that a child taught about chakras isn't going to be at a disadvantage if they go to medical school?
What about classes on numerology or astrology? Would students taught that those were true in public schools be at a disadvantage later in life?
How about teaching that one race is superior to the others? If the parents in a region vote for that would it be ok?
- MrBook
August 17, 2009 7:07AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Much appreciated
Thank you for itemizing the same responses that you have had to itemize many times. I don't even make the effort anymore. There is no ground to be gained against those that are adamant, in either direction. It hardly matters anyway. The scientists are busily deciphering our origins, and will get it worked out one century. I won't be here to see it, just glad they are doing it.
But I would love to bring this point up:
"So if the majority of an areas population was Muslim then teaching the Koran in that areas public schools would be acceptable?"
This I will see in my lifetime I am sure. All the religionists in the Christian camp that are so dead set on getting their mythology taught are going to get bit straight in the hindquarters here. They won't have time to worry about evolution when they are fighting off the charge of Islam in the public school system. They think that getting Christ in school is good. Wait until it is Mohammed. They will lose their minds. I can't wait to see them siding up with the ACLU to prevent it.
- tek August 16, 2009 5:28PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
very welcome
"This I will see in my lifetime I am sure. All the religionists in the Christian camp that are so dead set on getting their mythology taught are going to get bit straight in the hindquarters here."
Which is exactly my point. If it is OK for the Christian majority to force schools to include their theology in the lessons then it would also be OK for a Muslim majority to do the same...
So would it be proper for a public school in the US to use Muslim worldviews in their class if the majority of the people in that district were Muslim, and the Christians were in the minority?
Solar's argues that when the Christian majority want's its world view enforced then it should be... then would it not follow that a Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, scientologist, Jainist, Zorasterists, or Satainist majority should be able to do the same?
- MrBook
August 16, 2009 8:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, of course it should. (pt2)
It makes “First Amendment” sense to present students with all available data in their “search for truth” in any given area of study. Especially in a free society , students must be allowed the academic freedom to pursue every viewpoint possible. The most valid conclusion is always the one that best reflects all available data. One certainly cannot label our public schools as “free-learning-centers” when a most crucial area of study, i.e., origins, is oppressed by state and federal legislation permitting only one viewpoint.
My answer to the question, “Should creationism be taught in public schools?”, is, therefore, “Yes! It should be allowed to be taught in those local school districts where students and parents embrace creationism and desire that it be taught by knowledgeable instructors.” My specific rationale for answering in this way is as follows:
1. The constituents of each local school district should determine the parameters of educational instruction for that district and that district only.
2. Since neither evolution nor creation is accessible to the scientific method, since they deal with origins, not presently observable events, both should be formulated as scientific models, or frameworks, within which the student can then predict and correlate observed facts.
3. Such scientific models can neither be proven nor tested, only compared. Which model can explain, with the least amount of difficulty, the observable data in the real world?
4. Evolution is a faith-system. Creation is also a faith-system. Both of these systems have far-reaching implications for the life, world-view, and morality of the adherent. Both systems should be discussed in their entirety and presented as viable options. Therefore, each is as religious as the other. Each is as scientific as the other, as well.
5. Neither evolution nor creationism should be the only view presented in the public classroom if both views are desired by parents and students. Henry Morris of Institute for Creation Research has {27} stated, and I agree, “There are . . . strong scientific and pedagogical reasons why both models should be taught, as objectively as possible, in public classrooms, giving arguments pro and con for each. Some students and their parents believe in creation, some in evolution, and some are undecided. If creationists desire only the creation model to be taught, they should send their children to private schools which do this; if evolutionists want only evolution to be taught, they should provide private schools for that purpose. The public schools should be neutral and either teach both or teach neither.”
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?449
- SolarSanitizer
August 16, 2009 3:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Atavisms
Have you ever heard of atavisms? There have been occasions where an organism was born with phenotypic traits that its species is not known to have, but its ancestors have indeed been known to have. Examples include hind fins on dolphins and teeth in chickens.
There is significant genetic study going on where scientists are learning how to cause "ancient" traits to express themselves in animals (chickens embryos are often used). That is to say, traits which chickens have never been known to have, but their supposed ancestral counterparts did contain (e.g. dinosaurs ).
Atavisms are very compelling if you care to take a look into the concept.
- learnlogic
August 16, 2009 5:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
fringes
“One certainly cannot label our public schools as “free-learning-centers” when a most crucial area of study, i.e., origins, is oppressed by state and federal legislation permitting only one viewpoint.”
So then should racist / sexist ideologies be taught as though they were on equal footing with equality?
“1. The constituents of each local school district should determine the parameters of educational instruction for that district and that district only.”
The school districts in Texas did so... and now the National Center for Science education has given the state a failing grade in Science education.
“2. Since neither evolution nor creation is accessible to the scientific method, since they deal with origins, not presently observable events, both should be formulated as scientific models, or frameworks, within which the student can then predict and correlate observed facts.”
The problem with that is that there is no scientific model of creationism , it makes no predictions and correlates with no observed facts.
“3. Such scientific models can neither be proven nor tested, only compared. Which model can explain, with the least amount of difficulty, the observable data in the real world?”
Evolution.
“4. Evolution is a faith-system. Creation is also a faith-system. Both of these systems have far-reaching implications for the life, world-view, and morality of the adherent. Both systems should be discussed in their entirety and presented as viable options. Therefore, each is as religious as the other. Each is as scientific as the other, as well.”
They can be discussed, but that discussion belongs in a philosophy or theology class... not in a Science class.
“H“There are . . . strong scientific and pedagogical reasons why both models should be taught, as objectively as possible, in public classrooms, giving arguments pro and con for each.”
What is the Scientific reasons for teaching an unsupported theory? What are the arguments for creationism that do not break the church / state separation?
“The public schools should be neutral and either teach both or teach neither.”
Should it then teach racist or sexist ideologies as equal to racial or gender equality?
It is important to note that Texas did make these decisions, and NCSE has given them a poor rating. How is this a bad thing from your standpoint? The NCSE is quite firm in it's stand by the theory of Evolution, so this isn't really all that unexpected.
When you promote ideas that the majority of Scientists see as fringe then how can you be surprised when the majority of Scientists look at you the say way they look at the others on the fringe (homeopaths, geocentrists, etc...)
- MrBook
August 16, 2009 10:59PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
reply
"So then should racist / sexist ideologies be taught as though they were on equal footing with equality?"
Like suffrage and desegregation? I think so. It shows our history and helps our future generation from repeating past mistakes.
"The school districts in Texas did so... and now the National Center for Science education has given the state a failing grade in Science education."
Why did they get an "F"? Their reasoning seems vague to me.
"The problem with that is that there is no scientific model of creationism , it makes no predictions and correlates with no observed facts."
True. He argues that neither does evolution .
"They can be discussed, but that discussion belongs in a philosophy or theology class... not in a Science class."
Then so does evolution.
"What is the Scientific reasons for teaching an unsupported theory?"
Evolution is an unsupported theory also. Neither are proved.
"What are the arguments for creationism that do not break the church / state separation?"
By offering an opposing view, school children can learn to think and make decisions based on the leading theories. I would be on your side of the fence if it were being argued that /only/ creation be taught. This is not the case.
"Should it then teach racist or sexist ideologies as equal to racial or gender equality?"
Not necessarily. That would be overboard. Why teach children that socially repugnant ideals are equal to socially accepted ones? Sure, slavers and misogyny were socially acceptable in America's past, and taught as History (Slavery, segregation, and desegregation; Women's Suffrage and liberation, but they should not be taught as equal. That would be morally wrong and not in the same ballpark.
"It is important to note that Texas did make these decisions, and NCSE has given them a poor rating. How is this a bad thing from your standpoint? The NCSE is quite firm in it's stand by the theory of Evolution, so this isn't really all that unexpected."
It is not wrong of them to do what they do. I didn't have a problem with it. I just think that limiting children to one unproven and unprovable theory when there are others is doing a disservice to our children. I'd be thrilled if they were taught about Native American creation theories also. I don't know if they should be taught Norse theories in Life Science. Maybe in Social Studies.
Maybe it would be appropriate to teach all creation theories in Social Studies instead of Life Science since none of them are proven fact.
- SolarSanitizer
August 16, 2009 11:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life Science
“Like suffrage and desegregation? I think so. It shows our history and helps our future generation from repeating past mistakes.”
Yes but on equal footing? Teaching as though racist ideologies were morally equivalent to racial equality ideologies.
Creationism can be taught if it is taught as part of the history of Science, not as a valid theory.
“Why did they get an "F"? Their reasoning seems vague to me.”
According to the text of the report it is due to ‘creationist jargon’ in the Texas school curriculum.
Texas Starting in 1998, Process Skill 3A was added to the TEKS, stating that students were expected to “analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.” Texas was awarded a score of C by Lerner in 2000, who described its standards as “brief but satisfactory.” In 2008–2009, the standards were heavily revised, and 3A was removed by the Department of Education’s scientific advisory committees. Creationists on the Board of Education attempted unsuccessfully to replace this language but did add many other pieces of creationist jargon, including:
• “in all fields of science , analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student;” (The revised Process Skill 3A, for all scientific subjects)
• “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning any data of sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record;” (7A, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate scientific explanations concerning the complexity of the cell;” (7G, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life;” (9D, for Biology)
• “analyze and evaluate a variety of fossil types such as transitional fossils, proposed transitional fossils, fossil lineages, and significant fossil deposits with regard to their appearance, completeness, and alignment with scientific explanations in light of this fossil data;” (4A, for Earth and Space Science)
• “evaluate the evidence concerning the Big Bang model such as red shift and cosmic microwave background radiation and current theories of the evolution of the universe, including estimates for the age of the universe.” (8A, for Earth and Space Science)
Notably, in the last standard mentioned, the Board removed a statement that the estimated age of the universe was 14 billion years; then-chairman Don McLeroy is a young-earth creationist who has stated that the Earth is about 6,000 years old. Given the loss and adulteration of content in the areas of cosmological and geological evolution and the profusion of creationist jargon, we cannot score Texas’ current standards as other than an F.
“True. He argues that neither does evolution.”
How? Not to sound ‘smart mouthed’ but can you link to his paper so that I can read it?
Evolution has been demonstrated and observed countless times. It is crucial to the study of any bacteriological or viral pathogen, the study of cancer , agricultural research… indeed virtually all of biology incorporates Evolution in their experiments and predictions.
“Then so does evolution.”
The study of disease resistant bacteria or the changes in the flu virus belong in a philosophy class?
“Evolution is an unsupported theory also. Neither are proved.”
While evolution may not be ‘proved’ it is far from unsupported, Over a centuries worth of research supports it.
- MrBook
August 18, 2009 5:34PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life Science pt 2
“By offering an opposing view, school children can learn to think and make decisions based on the leading theories. I would be on your side of the fence if it were being argued that /only/ creation be taught. This is not the case.”
Creationism is not an opposing Scientific theory, it is a religious argument disguised (poorly) as a Scientific theory.
If creationist theories should be taught to provide balance then all creationist theories should be taught as though true. After all the Christian creation theory is equally as scientifically valid as the Egyptian or Mayan one.
“Why teach children that socially repugnant ideals are equal to socially accepted ones?”
Even if the parents in that school district voted for it?
“I just think that limiting children to one unproven and unprovable theory when there are others is doing a disservice to our children.”
Yet, to me at least, you have raised the level of proof to a very high level just to say that Evolution is unproven. If I showed you a piece of rock that had all the composition and appearance of a meteorite, and that I found in a crater, would you argue that it was not a meteorite because I could not
“I'd be thrilled if they were taught about Native American creation theories also.”
Like the Crow stealing the sun from a lodge in the heavens? That should be taught in Science class?
“I don't know if they should be taught Norse theories in Life Science. Maybe in Social Studies.”
Why not? Nobody was there to observe it… how is the theory that mankind appeared when a divine ox licked them out of a glacier less valid then the theory that a deity created a man from clay and a woman from said man’s rib?
“Maybe it would be appropriate to teach all creation theories in Social Studies instead of Life Science since none of them are proven fact.”
Due to the highly theoretical nature of the current abiogenesis theories they are not really taught in great depth. As I recall (from 10+ years ago) life appearing in the primordial sea had only a paragraph or two mentioning the most common biological theories of the time. It then goes on to much firmer Evolutionary ground with the fossil record and the development of multi-cellular life.
What Scientific evidence would you offer for the Christian creationist theories?
- MrBook
August 18, 2009 5:34PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What is the truth?
It makes “First Amendment” sense to present students with all available data in their “search for truth” in any given area of study. Especially in a free society , students must be allowed the academic freedom to pursue every viewpoint possible.
Perhaps some ideas would be better explored in a philosophy class instead of a science class. Just a thought!
Evolution is a faith-system. Creation is also a faith-system. Both of these systems have far-reaching implications for the life, world-view, and morality of the adherent. Both systems should be discussed in their entirety and presented as viable options. Therefore, each is as religious as the other. Each is as scientific as the other, as well.
I always thought creationism was part of a "faith based system" not a faith system in and of itself. Christianity and Judaism (both faith based systems) teach creationism. You simply believe or do not believe in the Bible or church doctrine. Science does not have anything to do with it. Evolution is a scientific theory. It is not part of any religious doctrine. It is not related to any faith based system. To my knowledge, there is no church that teaches the belief in evolution . I don't understand where you get the notion that evolution is religious. I was educated in Texas and that may reflect negatively on my thought processes, but I came to the conclusion that the belief in creation and the theory of evolution were not mutually exclusive! We simply have too many people who feel as though to accept certain aspects of evolution is to deny God. Is it not possible that when God explained things he did so in terms that could be easily understood by men? That just maybe a day wasn't a 24 hour day as we know it? Maybe each day was much much longer. There are many Christian children out there that want to study science, but find themselves conflicted between their chosen field and their faith. Why can't the two co-exist? Why must it be one or the other? This position is what caused the problem in Texas. If we can't teach creationism in the classroom then we will not teach evolution. So there!
I agree - the students are the big losers.
- bgarner
August 20, 2009 8:47PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
God created science.
The two major ideas in conflict are science vs. young-earth creationism . God can not be contradicted by his creation. Both must be in agreement. With old-earth creationism there is no conflict.
- mike1948
August 16, 2009 8:47PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
my thoughts
A person is born into existence without knowledge of anything, and begin only with instincts (just like animals ). Depending on where said person was born, they will surely be exposed to different proportions of religious influences. This exposure is due to the said person's interaction with other people (ie: family and society ). Their religious ideals vary depending on where they were born. This should raise flags for most people, but it very uncommonly does not.
Science is not a belief system. You do not need to succumb to any unprovable notions to partake in science . Scientific facts are based upon observations. Scientific theories are based upon observations. Generally speaking, creationism is based upon the existence of god , which is unprovable. The myths of creationism can vary from religion to religion. This is inconsistency. The crux of creationism is not based upon any series of actual observations. It is based upon the notion of faith. Not everybody has the same notion of faith as the next person. That is why creationism should not be mandated in schools.
If a person was never born into a society which had never heard of jesus , or muhammed, or whatever, they would not have any notion of these religions. They would either come up with their own beliefs about their existence (and the earth's past), or they would base their assertions on what they are able to examine (which is what science is). That is to say that science is almost inherent in the human mind because no matter where a human mind is born on earth, the inquisitive nature of humans will always result in some scientific process. I will however concede to say that mythological ideas are surely prone to occur due to the creative part of the human brain. BUT specific religions are absolutely not inherent in the human mind, and only come about due to the influence of humans on other humans.
- learnlogic
August 17, 2009 7:53AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
edit
In my comment titled "my thoughts", the last sentence of the first paragraph should say "...but it very commonly does not."
- learnlogic
August 17, 2009 7:57AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But they agree.
Religion is base on cultural artifacts but a belief in a first cause or God is generally excepted. God may be closer to The Force in Star Wars but there is a God. The question I have is, how is it that if you drop the God created the world in 6 days, the sequence in Genesis I agrees with science .
- mike1948
August 17, 2009 10:28AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think...
I personally don't believe that science and religion do agree explicitly. Both of them have a different basis for deduction. The basis of religion is faith, which by definition is trusting something without any particular reasoning. The basis of science is to trust something based upon observed evidence. For me, science has a more rational basis.
And I'll admit that I do not know much about "Genesis I", as you call it. So if there are specifics you'd like to point out about how it coincides exactly with science I'd be interested.
- learnlogic
August 17, 2009 10:56AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Specifics
Especially important is the fact that on day three God creates the plants before he puts the Sun in the sky. This requires knowledge that the writer of Genesis didn't have.
http://www.answersincreation.org/genesis1.htm
- mike1948
August 17, 2009 2:36PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.