Hurray! Creationism Legal in Luisiana Science Classes!
- Thread starter swizzlenuts
- Start date
J.
Old Fart
anything that makes students think, im all for. my wife is a teacher and it's a shame how the school system has sunk just since ive graduated HS (12 years).
used to, teachers encouraged creative thinking, individual thought on vast subjects (religion included). now they simply teach content which will help students pass the TAKS test, nothing more. why? because good TAKS scores brings in state funds, a good ranking, and a positive view of the principal and teachers.
besides, the article did mention evolution would be discussed. in fact evolution vs creationism was taught when i was in school. though not to huge debate or anything, just the basics. no biggie. anything to keep these kids brains functioning on stuff other than phone texting and talking about superman dat hoe.
used to, teachers encouraged creative thinking, individual thought on vast subjects (religion included). now they simply teach content which will help students pass the TAKS test, nothing more. why? because good TAKS scores brings in state funds, a good ranking, and a positive view of the principal and teachers.
besides, the article did mention evolution would be discussed. in fact evolution vs creationism was taught when i was in school. though not to huge debate or anything, just the basics. no biggie. anything to keep these kids brains functioning on stuff other than phone texting and talking about superman dat hoe.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Creationism should not be taught in science classes, primarily because it's just not science and contains no elements of the scientific process whatsoever short of a mere hypothesis, but also because it is the antithesis of evaluative thinking. "God did it" being the answer to every question isn't very thought provoking or really anything at all.
Thanatopsis123
ç½é¬¼
spaffe
Geisterglut
I don't really see what the big deal is either. I like Freedom and would like to see a state that dabbles less in the life of the people; let schools teach the kids what they want to and parents can choose to place their youngs there or pick some other school with a curriculum more to their liking. Besides, it's not like there's a great risk of the kids never encountering Darwinism seeing that its such a widely accepted theory
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
What use is school if parents can decide whatever the hell they want for their children to learn? Shouldn't people who know what the fuck they're talking about make that decision, not hick parents who don't know shit from dirt? Teaching things that are not science in a science class is utterly retarded and a perfect example of why parents shouldn't be able to always get their way in their children's education. It's more important to teach kids what is right than what is desired.
J.
Old Fart
but who deems what is "right"? those principals after high test scores so they can get that raise?
i agree parents should not decide what is taught, but I do think that polar opposite sides of thought should be discussed (not taught) and perhaps a vague description why people may believe one way or another, and then leave it to the kid.
again, im only after making kids think for themselves while learning the material. this "read your chapters and then we'll take a test" cirriculum is bullshit. kids should learn WHY something is the way it is, not just that it is. they need more than mere content.
i agree parents should not decide what is taught, but I do think that polar opposite sides of thought should be discussed (not taught) and perhaps a vague description why people may believe one way or another, and then leave it to the kid.
again, im only after making kids think for themselves while learning the material. this "read your chapters and then we'll take a test" cirriculum is bullshit. kids should learn WHY something is the way it is, not just that it is. they need more than mere content.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you on the state of the public school system and its focus on test taking. I'm a product of it myself. I also very strongly agree with you about the importance of teaching and encouraging critical thinking and viewing multiple viewpoints where useful and/or necessary. I'm speaking basically toward something that doesn't actually exist. The principals shouldn't decide the curriculum, nor should the parents. The teachers should have a say, but not an overriding say. The curriculum should be created by experts in their given fields who show no biases, not by textbook writers who will pay the highest bid and write whatever the powers that be want them to write, as it operates now. Unfortunately, I have no hope for significant improvements any time soon. Oh well, at least I'm out of that system.
EricT
Don't you ever get...
Who else would want to make a bill that says it's okay to be marked correct just because you believe it? No one, it's another way to get creationism into the science class rooms. I'm not saying science education is perfect by any means, but teaching how the scientific method works, why we know evolution is a fact and a theory, how we know what we know in the science classes, etc is what should be teaching. I'm not against teaching creationism in a religious course or comparative religion courses, but we should only teach science in science classes
Let's also teach that the Holocaust never happened or was vastly over exaggerated.
Let's teach that astrology actually predicts what type of person you are.
Let's teach that homeopathy works.
Let's teach that the earth is flat.
Equal Time!
God damn it Eric! I was so pissed off that I didn't spell check
.
Let's also teach that the Holocaust never happened or was vastly over exaggerated.
Let's teach that astrology actually predicts what type of person you are.
Let's teach that homeopathy works.
Let's teach that the earth is flat.
Equal Time!
God damn it Eric! I was so pissed off that I didn't spell check
.
Ellestin
one-click buy
Oh ye who seek to solve the knot
Ye live in God yet know him not
Ye sit upon the rivers brink
Yet crave in vain a drop to drink
Ye dwell beside a countless store
Yet perish hungry at the door
Ye live in God yet know him not
Ye sit upon the rivers brink
Yet crave in vain a drop to drink
Ye dwell beside a countless store
Yet perish hungry at the door
Conspicuously Absent
Linguistically Confused
Queue bill hicks and george carlin.
so muslims, right, cause that imam in saudia arabia issued a fatwa saying so.
"Is france a cuntry? I thought europe was a cuntry, I don't think france is even a country." - dumb blonde bint, who won't seem so dumb to americans in another decade.
spaffe
Geisterglut
This probably takes us some way off-topic, but I still don't see the problem of people learning whatever they want to. Sure, I don't agree with creationism, but to write it all off as nonsense isn't really fair either. There are a few intelligent people propagating the ideas, capable of mounting something of a defense. You do have a good point however in that it should not be treated as a proper science.
Anyway, my point is that people should be free to learn whatever stupid things they prefer; reality usually deals pretty harshly with opinions and views that are nonsensical if you're a reflective person. And, if you happen to be a person who's not reflective and/or intelligent, you're not likely to have any impact on people whose views actually are - rather the opposite
General Zod
Ruler of Australia
The bill states that evolution will still be taught, but that teachers could "suplement with additional scientific materials". Doesn't that rule out intelligent design being taught? There's no science that supports their cause.
Greg
Greg
Russell
__
Just my two cents coming up here, I'm procrastinating
There is a large difference between learning whatever you want to and being taught by a person of authority whatever they want to teach you. As mentioned before, that should be chosen by a consensus among those working in the field.
And those people - and there are undoubtedly some intelligent ones - are also very strongly religious. They make their defence by ignoring the evidence, and it still boils down to "I believe God did it". Despite their intelligence their motives are the same as the less educated advocates of creationism. For example, check out Michael Behe's performance in the Dover School board trials, I think this typifies the type of person you are talking about, and the disingenuous nature of their argument. There's a little bit about it here (and I can recommend the full lecture if you have time on your hands, Ken Miller is a very good speaker, and provides a very interesting account of both the trial, and the evidence on display):
I think it is telling that in three years of going to palaeobiology/palaeontology conferences I have never met one professional researcher who has anything but antipathy towards creationist ideas. Most (rightly) view creationism as antithetical to both the scientific method and stifling inquisitive nature of science. And this is why it is so important that school children aren't taught such ideas in their science class. If they are taught "here is some scientific evidence against evolution" (of which there is none in conflict with evolution, but students can be given examples of genuine gaps in our knowledge as ‘proof’ against evolution) then the idea and clear implication is that God then wins by default. That is not how science works, and it will also make those children think "well, God did it, there's no point in trying to work out another reason" instead of "hey, I wonder why that is, maybe I should become a scientist to answer questions like that".
If you teach children this is acceptable science then you lose a generation of scientists. That’s a whole group of people who - if it wasn't for poor science education marred by religious dogma - could be the scientists working on cures for diseases, new technologies and a whole host of other innovations which we tend to take for granted. They won’t feel able to highlight areas which need more work, or gaps that need filling because creationists will jump on board and try and fill the gaps with God. They won’t want to try and find the answers to questions that puzzle them, because God did it so why bother doing any more work? Even then, if they want to answer those questions, they will have been taught the scientific method so badly that it hinder them massively at a university level, because kids listen to their teachers. If their teachers tell them something, they will most probably believe it.
Again, I agree they should feel free to go onto a creationist website and read all they like about creationism if they want to. They should not be taught it in science. Reality may then at some point “deal with them harshly” due to their beliefs, but by that point it is probably too late for them to make the most of any opportunities to study science or further their scientific education. I would also maintain that in huge areas this is will not be the case. In a recent gallup poll I believe around 70% or the American population does not believe in Darwinian evolution. These people are not dealt with harshly, and end up holding back science, and ultimately mankind’s development.
There is a large difference between learning whatever you want to and being taught by a person of authority whatever they want to teach you. As mentioned before, that should be chosen by a consensus among those working in the field.
And those people - and there are undoubtedly some intelligent ones - are also very strongly religious. They make their defence by ignoring the evidence, and it still boils down to "I believe God did it". Despite their intelligence their motives are the same as the less educated advocates of creationism. For example, check out Michael Behe's performance in the Dover School board trials, I think this typifies the type of person you are talking about, and the disingenuous nature of their argument. There's a little bit about it here (and I can recommend the full lecture if you have time on your hands, Ken Miller is a very good speaker, and provides a very interesting account of both the trial, and the evidence on display):
I think it is telling that in three years of going to palaeobiology/palaeontology conferences I have never met one professional researcher who has anything but antipathy towards creationist ideas. Most (rightly) view creationism as antithetical to both the scientific method and stifling inquisitive nature of science. And this is why it is so important that school children aren't taught such ideas in their science class. If they are taught "here is some scientific evidence against evolution" (of which there is none in conflict with evolution, but students can be given examples of genuine gaps in our knowledge as ‘proof’ against evolution) then the idea and clear implication is that God then wins by default. That is not how science works, and it will also make those children think "well, God did it, there's no point in trying to work out another reason" instead of "hey, I wonder why that is, maybe I should become a scientist to answer questions like that".
If you teach children this is acceptable science then you lose a generation of scientists. That’s a whole group of people who - if it wasn't for poor science education marred by religious dogma - could be the scientists working on cures for diseases, new technologies and a whole host of other innovations which we tend to take for granted. They won’t feel able to highlight areas which need more work, or gaps that need filling because creationists will jump on board and try and fill the gaps with God. They won’t want to try and find the answers to questions that puzzle them, because God did it so why bother doing any more work? Even then, if they want to answer those questions, they will have been taught the scientific method so badly that it hinder them massively at a university level, because kids listen to their teachers. If their teachers tell them something, they will most probably believe it.
Again, I agree they should feel free to go onto a creationist website and read all they like about creationism if they want to. They should not be taught it in science. Reality may then at some point “deal with them harshly” due to their beliefs, but by that point it is probably too late for them to make the most of any opportunities to study science or further their scientific education. I would also maintain that in huge areas this is will not be the case. In a recent gallup poll I believe around 70% or the American population does not believe in Darwinian evolution. These people are not dealt with harshly, and end up holding back science, and ultimately mankind’s development.
Last edited by a moderator:
Russell
__
It would, other than the fact that ID has been rebranded "critical analysis of evolutionary theory", and while the arguments are the same, someone will still have to go to court to prove this "critical analysis" is creationism rebranded and hence stop it from reaching the classrooms.
If it was just down to evidence we wouldn't even be here as the creationists' science was disproven long, long ago, but the arguments are just repackaged and taught again until the next court case, and I think that is what is happening here. Just like ID uses the same arguments as creationism yet was taught after creationism was deemed unconstitutional, this "critical analysis" will have to go through the same thing as ID before it is shown to be the same thing.
spaffe
Geisterglut
Hm, silly of me to forget that this is such a hot topic in the US and other places; seems I got a lot more than I bargained for. Also, I'm not entirely happy about having speak for the creationist cause
Anyway, as I wrote, it, creationism, should not be taught as science. We all agree there. But evolution theory must also stay within the bounds of science, so as not to turn into an -ism, claiming things it has no scientific right to do.
Regarding the "consensus among the scholars" I don't agree with you and stick with my former statement.
No, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to believe what they want to. This is science and, as you probably have noticed, science isn't all that important to most people. Just see the way they (the creationists and the alleged 70%) treat and misunderstand the theory of evolution; not as a scientific theory, but as a "belief", an existential theory of sorts. The purely scientific part is obviously of little interest to them
Come on, you as an enlightened man of the 21st century can't possibly claim to believe in that kind of 19th century mythology? Exacty towards what are "we" developing? And how would an increased scientific knowledge in any way somehow "better" the human race? Technological advance etc affects our means, but not our ends and can thus never be a good in itself; technology and scientific knowledge can be used for good or for bad depending on our ends, but as a means it remains the same.
If development means an increase in scientific facts I'll gladly agree that science is progressing - but would you seriously say that the human race would in some way "develop" (whatever that means) by being aware of the theory of evolution?
Anyway, as I wrote, it, creationism, should not be taught as science. We all agree there. But evolution theory must also stay within the bounds of science, so as not to turn into an -ism, claiming things it has no scientific right to do.
Regarding the "consensus among the scholars" I don't agree with you and stick with my former statement.
No, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to believe what they want to. This is science and, as you probably have noticed, science isn't all that important to most people. Just see the way they (the creationists and the alleged 70%) treat and misunderstand the theory of evolution; not as a scientific theory, but as a "belief", an existential theory of sorts. The purely scientific part is obviously of little interest to them
Come on, you as an enlightened man of the 21st century can't possibly claim to believe in that kind of 19th century mythology? Exacty towards what are "we" developing? And how would an increased scientific knowledge in any way somehow "better" the human race? Technological advance etc affects our means, but not our ends and can thus never be a good in itself; technology and scientific knowledge can be used for good or for bad depending on our ends, but as a means it remains the same.
If development means an increase in scientific facts I'll gladly agree that science is progressing - but would you seriously say that the human race would in some way "develop" (whatever that means) by being aware of the theory of evolution?
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
There's a lot more to science than evolution. And evolution does 'better' the human race by allowing us to understand how and why we developed, and this understanding helps us develop ways to better our lives by understanding what we should eat, how much, how to live longer, how to prevent and cure diseases, how to heal and treat wounds and illnesses, etc. Let's not play semantics here by exploring the nuances of what it truly means for a species to 'develop' or 'become better,' as I think you understand what is meant.
Demilich
Remember
I wonder how many of these pro-God, anti-science rednecks turn down access to modern medicine on the basis that its origins contravene the tenets of their belief system?
When I mentioned this topic at the dinner table a couple days ago, my uncle's friend who had dropped by for some reason asked "If a married couple from Louisiana move to New York state and get a divorce, are they still legally brother and sister?"
When I mentioned this topic at the dinner table a couple days ago, my uncle's friend who had dropped by for some reason asked "If a married couple from Louisiana move to New York state and get a divorce, are they still legally brother and sister?"
Similar threads
