Raw Story: Four states considering laws that challenge the teaching of evolution

[Corcaigh]

My post was a specific response to a statement made which said creationism (which is a general term to cover everything from the beginning of the universe to what we see around us now) has no scientific basis. my point was that its not a fair statement. There are no "scientific" explanations for the origin of the universe. But i get your point that the thread is solely talking about evolution.

Creationism doesn't have a scientific basis. There is significant evidence that a Big Bang happened, but I don't think high school science classes are teaching what caused the Big Bang, or what existed before the Big Bang

[Special K]

I have to wonder sometimes: why are so many people of faith so afraid of science? I never understood it. I've always thought science and faith went hand in hand. If anything, its strengthened my faith.

While I believe evolution should be taught as a theory, which is what it is, other theories like intelligent design should be nothing more than a footnote in science classes.

I expected this kind of things from Montana and Oklahoma, but Missouri and Colorado? Colorado is especially surprising to me.

Colorado surprises you? Guess where "Focus on the Family" is located? Colorado Springs. That organization has a large pull in the political realm of Colorado.

When I worked in public health in COS, we had to tip toe around that organization with birth control and STD outreach in the community. It was a massive headache...and I'm saying that as a fellow Christian. That's why CO doesn't surprise me one bit.

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is n reason that high schools can't teach all manner of subjects. But why do you think this (questions about the science of evolution) is such an important topic for high school students?

I, personally, don't see it as such but, I think it's important to allow each state to make determinations on what is important to them, as a community, of their own accord. That, to me, is more important because it speaks to State Rights and to Personal Freedoms. Those things are important to me.

[DjTj]

No. If there is one thing about Science that is proven over and over, it is that things change and what we thought and believed to be fact one day, can be proven wrong the next. This is not to say that the theory of Creationism is not correct. It might be but it also might not be. The Big Bang Theory is challenged now from science. Learning is never a bad thing and to prevent it is the wrong direction for a civilized culture. The study of one does not preclude the study of the other.

Actually, I do think that the teaching of certain anti-evolution theories can preclude the study of evolution. The only "support" for intelligent design and similar theories is to use logical fallacies to poke holes in evolution (e.g. behold the holy banana). There is no independent evidence for these other theories. There can be useful discussion around some counter-intuitive aspects of evolution that have led to scientific progress (like evolution of viruses and bacteria alongside the development of drugs), but just telling kids, "some people don't believe in evolution" isn't really meaningful education, and certainly not science education.

Believe, nobody is more surprised then I. What we are talking about here is legislation in other States. Why would we oppose what they may or may not legally adopt in their own states? This is not a civil rights issue, nor is it something that is physically harmful. What was going on at the beginning of this thread was not discussion in my view. It was ridicule. That's not good.

If it opens the door to religious teaching in public schools, then it is a civil rights issue. And I do think that certain segments of the anti-evolution community do deserve ridicule. Some people are just wrong, and it is harmful to our progress as a nation. If they want to use the government and public education to impose stupidity on the next generation, then we should most definitely speak out against it.

[Predicto]

It says itself that on the surface, this is reasonable but then goes in to explaining why it may not be. Without actually knowing what the Bills are trying to propose, exactly, it seems reasonable to ask the question, "What are these Bills proposing?"

So, you are asking the question of whether the news story is accurate, while at the same time assuming (without evidence) that the controversy is a red herring. :whoknows: And the article does give us some of that information.

In Montana a bill put forward by local social conservative state congressman, Clayton Fiscus, also lists things like “random mutation, natural selection, DNA and fossil discoveries” as controversial topics that need more critical teaching. Meanwhile in Missouri a bill introduced in mid-January lists “biological and chemical evolution” as topics that teachers should debate over including looking at the “scientific weaknesses” of the long-established theories.

It's really not that subtle.

To specifically answer your question, I would say that it is reasonable to keep Science Courses separate from Theology Courses. I don't know if you call the study or teaching of Creationism (if that is what is being proposed as curriculum) Science per say but yes, I would not be opposed to offering courses on each it that is what the people of those states elect to do.

Creationism is not science. It is pseudo-science.

You can teach it as a religious idea in a philosophy class, but if you start teaching it as "the truth" rather than "what some people believe" then you are going to run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

[Corcaigh]

I, personally, don't see it as such but, I think it's important to allow each state to make determinations on what is important to them, as a community, of their own accord. That, to me, is more important because it speaks to State Rights and to Personal Freedoms. Those things are important to me.

Publicly funded schools cannot be required to promote a particular theology, and that appears to be exactly what's being attempted here.

[Predicto]

I, personally, don't see it as such but, I think it's important to allow each state to make determinations on what is important to them, as a community, of their own accord. That, to me, is more important because it speaks to State Rights and to Personal Freedoms. Those things are important to me.

I fear that this thread is going to go astray now, but I can't resist.

I'd just like to note that a Hindu American citizen might find his or her personal freedom under attack infringed when he or she finds out that his child is being taught fundamentalist Christian theology in the guise of science in their public schools - rather than at church where such teachings belong under our Constitution.

[Corcaigh]

It's really not that subtle.

Yeah ... of all the body of knowledge taught in the typical K-12 curriculum, social conservative legislators are only concerned about the accuracy of certain theories related to genetics and the documented accuracy of fossil discoveries.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Actually, I do think that the teaching of certain anti-evolution theories can preclude the study of evolution. The only "support" for intelligent design and similar theories is to use logical fallacies to poke holes in evolution (e.g. behold the holy banana). There is no independent evidence for these other theories. There can be useful discussion around some counter-intuitive aspects of evolution that have led to scientific progress (like evolution of viruses and bacteria alongside the development of drugs), but just telling kids, "some people don't believe in evolution" isn't really meaningful education, and certainly not science education.

Certain courses are required. Course Material is decided by boards who's job it is to determine such things. These very specific courses, such as Sciences or Mathematics are required for graduation. There is no evidence, what so ever, that suggest the preclusion of required subjects and subject matter.

If it opens the door to religious teaching in public schools, then it is a civil rights issue. And I do think that certain segments of the anti-evolution community do deserve ridicule. Some people are just wrong, and it is harmful to our progress as a nation. If they want to use the government and public education to impose stupidity on the next generation, then we should most definitely speak out against it.

I don't know that this is true. If a course is offered in the study of creationism, and it is not a required course, then what Civil Rights are infringed upon? It is stupidity IN YOUR OPINION. You are free to come to that conclusion on your own behalf. You are not free to come to that conclusion for others.

[alexey]

Good starting place to research the fact and/or theory situation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory#Evolution_as_fact

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory#Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory#Evolution_as_fact_not_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory#Evolution_as_a_collection_of_theories_not_fact

Either way, all "theory not a fact" objections to Evolution try to exploit a common misunderstanding of what is a scientific theory:

scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word

My response to ignorant theologically motivated religion-promoting and science-denying efforts - by all means please go for it. Advance your cause. Push harder. Be more vocal. We need you to stand up for your beliefs so that you can be openly exposed for being ignorant. Expose yourself and your ignorance to help promote scientific education. Your country needs you.

[ABQCOWBOY]

So, you are asking the question of whether the news story is accurate, while at the same time assuming (without evidence) that the controversy is a red herring. :whoknows: And the article does give us some of that information.

You are framing this incorrectly. I am asking the question, do the Bills proposed actually try to force Science Classes to teach Theology in the same course study? I am saying that the article is making certain assumptions that, in fact, are not clear as to what these Bills are trying to do. There is no proof of this that I can see.

It's really not that subtle.

I can not speak towards the subtleties of it. I have not seen what it actually contains so there is no way for me to make any sort of judgement on it, one way or the other. If you have it, I would not be opposed to looking at it and then picking up the discussion from there. I have clearly stated my position on this so I think that if the info is there, we can probably quickly come to consensus between the two of us.

Creationism is not science. It is pseudo-science.

You can teach it as a religious idea in a philosophy class, but if you start teaching it as "the truth" rather than "what some people believe" then you are going to run afoul of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution.

This, I believe, is the crux of the issue. I have no issue with this. I have issue with preventing these States from offering the course outright, simply because of the subject matter. That is unacceptable to me.

[DjTj]

Certain courses are required. Course Material is decided by boards who's job it is to determine such things. These very specific courses, such as Sciences or Mathematics are required for graduation. There is no evidence, what so ever, that suggest the preclusion of required subjects and subject matter.

So you're saying that we're not allowed to talk about this until someone actually changes the curriculum in an actually required science class?

I don't know that this is true. If a course is offered in the study of creationism, and it is not a required course, then what Civil Rights are infringed upon? It is stupidity IN YOUR OPINION. You are free to come to that conclusion on your own behalf. You are not free to come to that conclusion for others.

I am not against having an elective course on theology, or the study of the Bible, or something like that. I am against trying to teach anti-evolution in a biology class. I think that is stupid. That is my opinion that I am expressing on a football message board, and it is not a conclusion I am trying to reach for anyone else. As far as I know, I do not have any mind control abilities, and I am not actually able to come to conclusions for anyone other than myself.

But I do have a right to free speech, and the Supreme Court has said that I have a Constitutionally protected right to political speech, which includes not only speaking but also spending money to influence elections in my state or other states. So if I want to try to influence a political decision in another state, I actually do have a Constitutional right to do so.

[greenspandan]

Yeah ... of all the body of knowledge taught in the typical K-12 curriculum, social conservative legislators are only concerned about the accuracy of certain theories related to genetics and the documented accuracy of fossil discoveries.

ironic that these apparent sticklers for accuracy are for some reason adamantly opposed to any attempts to de-mythologize early American colonization, particularly regarding treatment of native americans or how interactions beween them and settlers are portrayed.

[Predicto]

This, I believe, is the crux of the issue. I have no issue with this. I have issue with preventing these States from offering the course outright, simply because of the subject matter. That is unacceptable to me.

Then you really are discussing something completely different than anyone else here, so I guess we are done.

[ABQCOWBOY]

So you're saying that we're not allowed to talk about this until someone actually changes the curriculum in an actually required science class?

Absolutely not. I'm saying that you can not take anything this article says as absolute truth until we more clearly understand what the Bills are actually proposing.

I am not against having an elective course on theology, or the study of the Bible, or something like that. I am against trying to teach anti-evolution in a biology class. I think that is stupid. That is my opinion that I am expressing on a football message board, and it is not a conclusion I am trying to reach for anyone else. As far as I know, I do not have any mind control abilities, and I am not actually able to come to conclusions for anyone other than myself.

I agree and toke it a step further, I am opposed to having Science do the reverse. The best approach, IMO, is to present the information in the best, most thorough manner possible and allow the students to come to reasonable conclusions for themselves. I will tell you that I have 4 children. Of the 4, the three youngest believe in creationism to varying degrees. The oldest does not. They were all presented with the same information and they all made their own choices. I am OK with that. I see no reason to force anybody into any line of thought either way. However, I also see no reason that the information should not be afforded to anybody who is interested in it. That makes no sense to me.

But I do have a right to free speech, and the Supreme Court has said that I have a Constitutionally protected right to political speech, which includes not only speaking but also spending money to influence elections in my state or other states. So if I want to try to influence a political decision in another state, I actually do have a Constitutional right to do so.

Goes both ways. I have no issue with what you say here.

---------- Post added February-1st-2013 at 03:00 PM ----------

Then you really are discussing something completely different than anyone else here, so I guess we are done.

That, of course, is your choice. I would hope that this angle, which is also very relevant to the discussion, would also be of interest but I guess we will see.

[alexey]

...

I agree and toke it a step further, I am opposed to having Science do the reverse. The best approach, IMO, is to present the information in the best, most thorough manner possible and allow the students to come to reasonable conclusions for themselves. I will tell you that I have 4 children. Of the 4, the three youngest believe in creationism to varying degrees. The oldest does not. They were all presented with the same information and they all made their own choices. I am OK with that. I see no reason to force anybody into any line of thought either way. However, I also see no reason that the information should not be afforded to anybody who is interested in it. That makes no sense to me.

...

Biological creationism is incompatible with science. If your children believe in creationism, they are either not properly educated in science or not old enough to understand it.

If you want to have God in the picture, it's either God created organisms through evolution, God falsified the evidence, or you're scientifically ignorant.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Biological creationism is incompatible with science. If your children believe in creationism, they are either not properly educated in science or not old enough to understand it.

If you want to have God in the picture, it's either God created organisms through evolution, God falsified the evidence, or you're ignorant.

That sounds an awful lot like opinion to me. I have read it and given it it's due. I consider your opinion in this matter closed.

[alexey]

That sounds an awful lot like opinion to me. I have read it and given it it's due. I consider your opinion in this matter closed.

I'm sorry but those are the options if you want to to have God in the picture. Some form of theistic evolition, trickster God, or scientific ignorance. If you don't pick one of the first two, you automatically pick the last one.

[DaGoonie55]

Biological creationism is incompatible with science. If your children believe in creationism, they are either not properly educated in science or not old enough to understand it.

If you want to have God in the picture, it's either God created organisms through evolution, God falsified the evidence, or you're scientifically ignorant.

I don't appreciate this statement. I believe God created the universe, and it operates within a set of rules as observed and measured by science. Calling me, or my children, ignorant on an internet message board while trying to bash my religion nullifies any respect you have gained from me on here. I understand your objective, poorly executed.

That being said, Evolution is a widely accepted way to describe a species survival and adaptation to the environment. Creationism basically says that God created things and they exist as created. The two cancel each other out. Creationism should not be taught in a biology class. It should be offered, if at all, as part of a theology program.

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm sorry but those are the options if you want to to have God in the picture. Some form of theistic evolition, trickster God, or scientific ignorance. If you don't pick one of the first two, you automatically pick the last one.

It is not a matter of sorry. It is a matter of presenting the information and allowing people to decide what is right for them. This country has never been about forcing people to believe any certain thing. In fact, it's supposed to be about exactly the opposite.

There are many, many things that I personally find objectionable but I would never say that another person should not come to his or her own conclusion on said matter.

Present the information in the best possible way and allow people to come to their own conclusions.

[alexey]

It is not a matter of sorry. It is a matter of presenting the information and allowing people to decide what is right for them. This country has never been about forcing people to believe any certain thing. In fact, it's supposed to be about exactly the opposite.

There are many, many things that I personally find objectionable but I would never say that another person should not come to his or her own conclusion on said matter.

Present the information in the best possible way and allow people to come to their own conclusions.

If you decide not to believe in evolution, that means either that you have ulterior motives or that you do not have enough information.

If you have ulterior motives, then you can keep being wrong or reconsider.

If you do not have enough information, then you should seek more information.

---------- Post added February-1st-2013 at 05:23 PM ----------

fyi it is quite common for people with ulterior motives to pretend that there is not enough information for them to believe in evolution or that they considered all information and decided against evolution. It is generally not a good idea for people to waste their time with such characters.

[DjTj]

I agree and toke it a step further, I am opposed to having Science do the reverse. The best approach, IMO, is to present the information in the best, most thorough manner possible and allow the students to come to reasonable conclusions for themselves. I will tell you that I have 4 children. Of the 4, the three youngest believe in creationism to varying degrees. The oldest does not. They were all presented with the same information and they all made their own choices. I am OK with that. I see no reason to force anybody into any line of thought either way. However, I also see no reason that the information should not be afforded to anybody who is interested in it. That makes no sense to me.

I believe in creationism and evolution, and if I had children I would want them to believe in something within the same spectrum. Whether God created the universe with evolution in mind and let things run their course or whether God is actively guiding evolution are matters of opinion, but I see a belief in theistic evolution as the most reasonable, and that is where the Roman Catholic Church and almost all mainline Protestant denominations fall in their beliefs regarding evolution and creationism.

If my children were either strong atheists or young earth creationists, I would definitely challenge their views, whether with ontological or historical arguments or with scientific evidence.

[ABQCOWBOY]

If you decide not to believe in evolution, that means either that you have ulterior motives or that you do not have enough information.

If you have ulterior motives, then you can keep being wrong or reconsider.

If you do not have enough information, then you should seek more information.

---------- Post added February-1st-2013 at 05:23 PM ----------

fyi it is quite common for people with ulterior motives to pretend that there is not enough information for them to believe in evolution or that they considered all information and decided against evolution. It is generally not a good idea for people to waste their time with such characters.

So, your recommendation is to seek more information? Fantastisch! we agree then.

So to this end, why would you be against information from both sides of the question be presented? You should, in fact, be all for it.

If it is as you claim, then you should have no objection at all.

---------- Post added February-1st-2013 at 03:33 PM ----------

I believe in creationism and evolution, and if I had children I would want them to believe in something within the same spectrum. Whether God created the universe with evolution in mind and let things run their course or whether God is actively guiding evolution are matters of opinion, but I see a belief in theistic evolution as the most reasonable, and that is where the Roman Catholic Church and almost all mainline Protestant denominations fall in their beliefs regarding evolution and creationism.

If my children were either strong atheists or young earth creationists, I would definitely challenge their views, whether with ontological or historical arguments or with scientific evidence.

I'll invite you over for supper one of these days. If this is what you believe, then I think you will probably make a point to eat over more often. This is the kind of discussion that we often have among ourselves and unfortunately, all of my kids are much like I was when I was young. They are opinionated, often to a fault and they almost never believe they are wrong. It makes for very lively discussion. Plus, my Wife is a very fine cook. The only rule is that when my Wife has had enough, then the discussion stops (at least for that day) ;-)

[Corcaigh]

If you want to have God in the picture, it's either God created organisms through evolution, God falsified the evidence, or you're scientifically ignorant.

That sounds an awful lot like opinion to me.

His statement is direct but it's largely accurate in terms of the choices.

(1) Many Christians, including the Catholic Church, hold the first view (that evolution is a mechanism designed by god)

(2) Creationist Variant One who believes the evidence for evolution is some devilish plot to test faith - not many of those but they do exist

(3) Creationist Variant Two who is not interested in the science and ignores the readily available facts - the more common type.

[Burgold]

I don't think religion should be taught as science. I don't have a problem with it being taught in history or social studies, but faith is not science even though they can work together. Likewise, I wouldn't teach the Greek theory of democracy or Marxist thought in Science, nor would I teach Bhuddism, Taoism, or Islam. I think each philosophy has value and may even have truth, but they are primarily different disciplines.