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

[alexey]

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.

I am not for presenting things we actually know and groundless speculations (at best) as "both sides".

[Corcaigh]

So to this end, why would you be against information from both sides of the question be presented?

There is no creationist side of the question in any scientific sense.

Presenting the Young Earth Creationist view belongs in a class on Hindu, Muslim and other 'origin' theologies. But not in science class.

[alexey]

There is no creationist side of the question in any scientific sense.

Presenting the Young Earth Creationist view belongs in a class on Hindu, Muslim and other 'origin' theologies. But not in science class.

I'd say "origin' theologies" is pretty much as far as this view should go. It is not even good enough for philosophy classes. Maybe a quick mention in the "history of religions" class also.

[ABQCOWBOY]

There is no creationist side of the question in any scientific sense.

Presenting the Young Earth Creationist view belongs in a class on Hindu, Muslim and other 'origin' theologies. But not in science class.

I think this has already been well established. I am not a proponent of teaching this in any specific Science Class. I am in favor of allowing States, should they so choose, to offer it as a course that can be taken if that is the choice of any given student.

[alexey]

I think this has already been well established. I am not a proponent of teaching this in any specific Science Class. I am in favor of allowing States, should they so choose, to offer it as a course that can be taken if that is the choice of any given student.

I'm pretty sure that you cannot spend public money to advance religions... so imho that would be Constitutional only if it were presented in the "education about religions" context

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm pretty sure that you cannot spend public money to advance religions... so imho that would be Constitutional only if it were presented in the "education about religions" context

This is inaccurate. The Constitution does not prohibit this from being taught. You can not preach gospel, that's certainly true, but the constitution does not prevent you from offering courses such as this. Not that I am aware of.

[alexey]

This is inaccurate. The Constitution does not prohibit this from being taught. You can not preach gospel, that's certainly true, but the constitution does not prevent you from offering courses such as this. Not that I am aware of.

Maybe we are talking about different things... As far as I know, a publically funded class that promotes religion would be unconstitutional. A class that promotes creationism and intelligent design promotes religion.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Maybe we are talking about different things... As far as I know, a publically funded class that promotes religion would be unconstitutional. A class that promotes creationism and intelligent design promotes religion.

That is ture. You can not teach any class that is funded by Federal Dollars that promotes Religion. However, the courts do not view this as promoting religion. That's established.

[alexey]

That is ture. You can not teach any class that is funded by Federal Dollars that promotes Religion. However, the courts do not view this as promoting religion. That's established.

I am not sure what you mean by "this". The article mentions:

...

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.

Finally, in Colorado, which rarely sees a push towards teaching creationism, a bill has been introduced in the state house of representatives that would require teachers to “respectfully explore scientific questions and learn about scientific evidence related to biological and chemical evolution”. Observers say the move is the first piece of creationist-linked legislation to be put forward in the state since 1972.

...

This is creationists probing for a legal way to promote their religions and scientific ignorance... right?

Do you see this as something else? Do you see scientists attempting to promote proper scientific education?

You do understand that there is no general controversy about evolution in science, right?

[Predicto]

I was going to come back into the thread, but I can see that one side is splitting hairs and I don't feel like playing anymore.

You are fine to teach your children what you want. You can even call it science.

You are not a public school.

[Corcaigh]

to offer it as a course

Based on the quotes from the various legislators, what do you think the title of the course should be?

"Popular Lies and Obfuscation about Evolution in Order to Make Creationists Feel Better About Their Faith".

[Jumbo]

I am reminded many times every day why I find the human mind (certainly including mine ) such a fascinating area of interest.

On many such occasions, "fascinating" isn't the only adjective that runs through my own mind. :pfft:

[Larry]

I am reminded many times every day why I find the human mind (certainly including mine ) such a fascinating area of interest.

On many such occasions, "fascinating" isn't the only adjective that runs through my own mind. :pfft:

[ABQCOWBOY]

I am not sure what you mean by "this". The article mentions:

This is creationists probing for a legal way to promote their religions and scientific ignorance... right?

Do you see this as something else? Do you see scientists attempting to promote proper scientific education?

You do understand that there is no general controversy about evolution in science, right?

I read that in the article but I have no idea what the Bill will actually look like. It is my experience that Bills are presented in a certain way but can often change as they go through the process of being ratified. I don't honestly know what those Bills say. That's the point I am trying to make.

If you believe that any half way intelligent, half way informed person will come to the conclusion that Evolution is the only sane conclusion to come to, why would you be against this information being provided?

It is not my place to judge what the intent is of a person who is instructing a course. I start doing that and I then have to question what everybody is teaching. I hope that our school systems are making sure that those kinds of things are being administered correctly.

As for controversy in Evolution, I don't agree with that. There are various different theories and have been through out. That's OK with me. Even healthy in my view.

---------- Post added February-1st-2013 at 06:23 PM ----------

Based on the quotes from the various legislators, what do you think the title of the course should be?

"Popular Lies and Obfuscation about Evolution in Order to Make Creationists Feel Better About Their Faith".

I honestly don't know and haven't really given it much thought Corcaigh. I guess that can be sorted out if/when any of this passes.

However, if you have a vote, I encourage you to propose this course title. "Popular Lies and Obfuscation about Evolution in Order to Make Creationists Feel Better About Their Faith". In fact, you should go down to Oklahoma and do exactly that.

[alexey]

...

If you believe that any half way intelligent, half way informed person will come to the conclusion that Evolution is the only sane conclusion to come to, why would you be against this information being provided?

...

Because this information is a lie and I am against lying to people.

As for controversy in Evolution, I don't agree with that. There are various different theories and have been through out. That's OK with me. Even healthy in my view.

You have been misled. Please consider looking further into it... Take responsibility for getting informed and doing your part to stop the lies. Please do not perpetrate lies onto people around you and your children.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Because this information is a lie and I am against lying to people.

You have been misled. Please consider looking further into it... Take responsibility for getting informed and doing your part to stop the lies. Please do not perpetrate lies onto people around you and your children.

If you could prove that Theology was a lie, I might be more sympathetic to this point of view but you can not. That is an opinion at this point.

I find it interesting that you naturally jump to the conclusion that I believe in creationism. I have not said that. That's interesting.

[alexey]

If you could prove that Theology was a lie, I might be more sympathetic to this point of view but you can not. That is an opinion at this point.

I find it interesting that you naturally jump to the conclusion that I believe in creationism. I have not said that. That's interesting.

You said enough to demonstrate that you bought into the lies. The only "controversy" surrounding evolution is that created by lies of people who try to undermine it.

It does not matter to me what you actually believe. I am just letting you know that if you are an adult who does not believe in evolution, that means you have been lied to and successfully misled. If you pass these lies onto others, you will have been used as a lie-spreading tool of others in the most un-Christian way.

[ABQCOWBOY]

You said enough to demonstrate that you bought into the lies. The only "controversy" surrounding evolution is that created by lies of people who try to undermine it.

It does not matter to me what you actually believe. I am just letting you know that if you are an adult who does not believe in evolution, that means you have been lied to and successfully misled. If you pass these lies onto others, you will have been used as a lie-spreading tool of others in the most un-Christian way.

This is code for, you don't believe as I do so you are wrong. Does not show a great deal of tolerance. The left often accuses the right of being inflexible and intolerant. I am hopeful that your views are not indicative of the left.

[alexey]

This is code for, you don't believe as I do so you are wrong. Does not show a great deal of tolerance. The left often accuses the right of being inflexible and intolerant. I am hopeful that your views are not indicative of the left.

Are you saying that we should tolerate spreading of lies?

[Burgold]

The very fact that this conversation has descended to the level of "lies" demonstrates the problem. Evolution is a testable theory. It can be correct, false, or somewhere in between. It's not about lies, but research and discovery. Evolution is a theory which has been substantiated by experiments such as those done in botany and genomics. Christianity is an issue of faith and thus deals with black and white logic.

For that reason, Creationism and Evolution are two different animals. They don't belong in the same lesson plan although each has value.

[alexey]

The very fact that this conversation has descended to the level of "lies" demonstrates the problem. Evolution is a testable theory. It can be correct, false, or somewhere in between. It's not about lies, but research and discovery. Evolution is a theory which has been substantiated by experiments such as those done in botany and genomics. Christianity is an issue of faith and thus deals with black and white logic.

For that reason, Creationism and Evolution are two different animals. They don't belong in the same lesson plan although each has value.

Dirty liars () have moved this issue from the realm of Creationism vs Evolution or Religion vs Science to "open minded questioning of evolution" vs "close minded dogmatism about evolution".

The whole thing is based on lying about what we know, how we know it, etc, and presenting refusal to seriously entertain these lies as close mindedness.

Finding a proper venue for discussion of creation stories is not really my concern. My passion is in defending science and education from the lies that are being spread about it... and I think the strong language of calling these things LIES is fully justified.

[Burgold]

I'm one of those who find value in both philosophy and science, but when people shrilly yell liar it makes me question whether they have no foundation under their reasoning.

Evolution has been proven to some extent. You can see it every time you go to the produce section of a grocery store or any florist shop. It's silly to call it a lie. You can question whether there are still holes that need to be filled in.

[alexey]

I'm one of those who find value in both philosophy and science, but when people shrilly yell liar it makes me question whether they have no foundation under their reasoning.

Evolution has been proven to some extent. You can see it every time you go to the produce section of a grocery store or any florist shop. It's silly to call it a lie. You can question whether there are still holes that need to be filled in.

If this "questioning of holes" is done with the intent to undermine evolution as a whole, then it is done with an intent to deceive.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

2.

something intended or serving to convey a false impression;

[Vilandil Tasardur]

I'd have to say you boys are right. Evolution isn't perfect; science never is. The theory of gravity is still being tweaked and refined, specifically to how it relates to massive objects in space and whatnot. It's okay to have open discuss about what aspects of evolution do and don't make sense. It's not okay to undermine the good science that is there for your own agenda.

Evolution, as you guys say, stares you in the face every day. The insulin your grandma takes for diabetes, the antibiotics that diseases are growing immunity to, the size of livestock, specifically food livestock, as compared to a hundred years ago. Hell, if you actually READ Darwin's Origin, he goes on and on about "Domestic selection" for like a third of the book before every touching on natural selection. He essentially proves natural selection exists by documenting domestic selection in chickens, cows, pigeons, and other domestically cultivated animals.

[Mad Mike]

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.

Evolution is a PROVEN theory. It is not a hypothesis in need of proof.

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

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[3] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4]

And before we get into further nitpicking, the only reason evolution is not considered scientific "law" is that there are so many factors by which evolution is attained.

What all of this means is that using the word theory in the context of "theory of evolution" in NO WAY implies that evolution is not a scientifically accepted fact.