School Board might OK teaching creationism
| Capitol News Bureau |
| Louisiana Politics Blog
|
 |
The latest news on the Louisiana Legislature and the governor. The Advocate Capitol News Bureau delivers timely and unique insights into the political comings and goings around the state and in the capitol.
Print
Email
Save
Reprints
Tweet
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
- Page 1 of 2
- SINGLE PAGE VIEW
LIVINGSTON — The Livingston Parish School Board will begin exploring the possibility of incorporating the teaching of “creationism” in the public school system’s science classes.
During the board’s meeting Thursday, several board members expressed an interest in the teaching of creationism, an alternative to the study of the theory of evolution, in Livingston Parish public school classrooms.
The discussion came up during a report on the pupil progression plan for the 2010-11 school year, delivered by Jan Benton, director of curriculum.
Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed “critical thinking and creationism” in science classes.
Board Member David Tate quickly responded: “We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can’t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?”
Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, “I agree … you don’t have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.”
Board President Keith Martin, while reminding the members that a decision had been made in the past not to teach creationism, suggested that now might be the time to re-examine the issue.
Martin said that one problem with the teaching of creationism versus evolution is that, “You don’t want two different teachers teaching two different things.”
Martin, noting that discipline of young people is constantly becoming more of a challenge for parents and teachers, agreed: “Maybe it’s time that we look at this.”
When Martin suggested that the board appoint a committee to study the possibility of introducing creationism into the classroom, his opinion met with general, if unofficial approval.
“We shouldn’t just jump into this thing, but we do need to look at it,” Martin said. “The American Civil Liberties Union and even some of our principals would not be pleased with us, but we shouldn’t worry about the ACLU. It’s more important that we do the correct thing for the children we educate.”
The board then unanimously endorsed Benton’s Progression Plan.
Before the vote, Benton presented some highlights of the lengthy document.
- NEXT PAGE »
- 1
- 2
If you enjoy Advocate News coverage why not get it first, directly in your inbox? Sign up today for our Business Today - Daily Digest newsletter and get the news delivered to you!
-
"School Board might OK teaching creationism" This is disgraceful. The members of this school board are not qualified to make decisions about science curriculums. They don't even know what science is. Hint: magical creationism is not science. Also, if they try to get away with dumbing down biology for religious reasons, there will be a trial and these Christian extremists will lose, because America is not a theocracy. Teaching religious ideas in a public school is not allowed. If any evolution-deniers are reading this, I ask you to visit my blog, read and/or listen to a radio speech from a biology professor, and then tell me what you think about it. Thanks. Here it is: http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-theres-anything-that-might-make.html
-
This is absolutely a disgraceful act by the school board. They are conflating their beliefs with science. They are completely ill informed about evolution to put it on par with creationism or any other "belief" and they are irresponsible educators with this shoddy attempt to have their personal beliefs put into the education system to further indoctrinate our youth. Biology is not about belief. Belief is not about evidence. Science IS about evidence. The two can't coexist in the classroom. If you are an evolution denier, then understand that you are wrong. You have no part in the "debate" because you have no facts, and you are not willing to examine any of the ones that you feel you DO have. This is an utter failure of the education system. Leave the beliefs at home, science class is for facts.
-
The attorneys in Louisiana would like to see creation being taught. Everywhere in this country where students, teachers and parents have sued the many public schools, school boards, etc they have WON and the TAXPAYERS paid the millions of dollars in lawyer fees, fines, penalties, etc. It seems that Louisiana is being misled by those who are determined to disobey the well established laws against teaching creationism. They won't pay for their illegal actions, all taxpayers will. Maybe they deserve it.
-
This IS disgraceful! I wonder if the Livingston Parish School Board will be including the, equally valid, ancient Maya/Inca/Hawaiian/Chinese creation myths within the science classes? Is it really possible that these poor, ignorant fools do not know how negatively they will be judged by history in a generation or two?
-
We may all have to start being closet Louisiana graduates..
-
Why do you people keep saying that creationists do not know science when some of the top scientists in the world support creation? Most of you name callers are not as qualified to teach science or conduct science research as some of my fellow creationists, but you keep trying to defend your anti-God views. Creationism needs to put science where it belongs..back in creationism. The trend to teach creationism in school will not stop. I have a grandson and I am going to push creationism in his school near Boston. My science credentials rank among the best in the world despite the racial and religious bias in the science community.
-
MajorRay---Most christians accept that their god used evolution to create humans and all other life forms. It is only the most ignorant that do not. I am sure though that you consider anyone who doesn't think the universe and all life was created in 6 days only a few thousand years ago are atheists. You represent a small but extremely dangerous minority cult known as christian fundamentalists. Very dangerous to our secular way of life. Frankly, I don't believe you are a scientist or the least bit qualified to instruct on evolution. Just bluster in hopes others will take you seriously.
-
"Why can’t we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?" By Odin's lost eye, I'm glad to see someone standing up for our heritage! We Norse raped all across Ireland and England and France, so you know that our blood flows in the majority of people in the USA today. These so called "secular scientists" ignore or ridicule the important role Audumla (the great cow) had in creation, and I've yet to see a biology book mention Ymir's armpit, something quite clear in the sacred Eddas. Nor does modern "cosmology" mention Niflheim and Muspellsheim, places obviously real since even the Judeo-Christian tradition talks about nearly identical places. I am but one of the religious ready to step up and teach the children of Livingston Parrish the true story of creation, exactly as outline in the sacred Eddas, not a single part of which can be definitely disproven by these "secular scientists."
-
MajorRay translated: Why do you people keep saying that FLAT-EARTHERS do not know science when some of the top scientists in the world support MAGIC? Most of you name callers are not as qualified to teach science or conduct science research as some of my fellow FLAT-EARTHERS, but you keep trying to defend your PRO-REALITY views. MAGIC needs to put science where it belongs..back in MAGIC. The trend to teach MAGIC in school will not stop. I have a grandson and I am going to push MAGIC in his school near Boston. My MAGIC credentials rank among the best in the world despite the racial and religious bias in the science community. http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
-
CharleyHorse wrote: "MajorRay---Most christians accept that their god used evolution to create humans and all other life forms." Mr. CharleyHorse, we both accept evolution, but I hope you don't really think a magic god fairy used this completely natural process to create anything. That would be as dumb as saying a god used gravity to keep Earth's creatures from floating off into space. There's not a shred of evidence for any magic fairy, and Christians shouldn't be allowed to get away with tainting the science of evolutionary biology with magic. http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
-
Human Ape----There is an old saying that "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar". I am a "normal person", too. I read some of your blog and I have to comment. Using so many four letter words is one way to lose credibility and appear unsure of your position. Just my opinion. Take that as constructive criticism.
-
Creationism = Religion, and therefore doesn't belong in a science class. However if those Board members insist on having time used for it in science class, then they must also allow equal time to cover evolution in sunday school by a qualified science teacher.
-
Those school board members have every right to BELIEVE in creationism. However, their desire to have it taught in science classrooms as legitimate science reveals they don't have the slightest idea what the term "science" means. The fact that they believe that invoking the supernatural to provide a scientific explanation is horrific. It is frightening to realize that these people are responsible for what our children are taught in school.
-
How is this disgraceful? If you did a poll of most of the parents in this district/parish, you might find that they actually want this. Personally, I think it crass at worse to consider this being a disgraceful thing. Creationism is very scientific and should be considered just like evolution. This will only enhance the diversity and critical thinking ability of the students. I would have love to experience creationism teaching. It's not just Biblical and something embrace by what you call "Christian extremists" but it's fact, scientifically speaking--do research and you will see. Evolution only is one-sided and actually is short-changing our students.
-
fpres1079----10,000,000 people can believe a wrong thing and it is still wrong. Teaching creationism in a public school is illegal. There really isn't much to teach about creationism anyway. Goddidit. That's all there is. A few verses in Genesis written thousands of years ago. If it makes you feel better, convince yourself that science can tell you how goddidit. Don't be taken in by all of the religious industry's pseudoscience. Everything that lying bunch as offered as proof of instant creation has been disproven by a mountain of evidence. Tell them to take a hike. This is 2010 AD not 2010 BC
-
CharleyHorse, are you serious? Trust me--whatever evidence you "think" has disproved creationism can be refuted by creationist teaching. Truth is that people want to separate church & state because they want to do everything they can to avoid truth & conviction. This nation, its education system & everything was founded on the morality, Biblical principles and ideals that support creationism. My how we have drifted so far from it.
-
@fpres1079 Well sure, "creationist teaching" consists of holding up a Bible and saying "it's in here." I also have a holy book that says the center of the Earth is made of bubble gum. Does that mean it should be taught in schools? No, because there's no evidence to support it. So let's hear your evidence. What is your tested, proven evidence that creationism produced life on Earth? I'm all ears.
-
That's what we have church for...brainwash your kids with all the goof ball, magic tricks you want. Leave the academic classroom for grown-ups, and serious scientific discussion. I would love to measure the collective IQ of the Livingston Parish School Board...I'm betting on single digits.
-
MajorRay: "Why do you people keep saying that creationists do not know science when some of the top scientists in the world support creation?" Well MajorRay, how about naming some of these top scientists and giving us a reference to the scientific papers they have written on creation? You can't do it though, can you? Because these top scientists don't exist anywhere outside the imagination of yourself and your creationist friends. Creationists have been struggling for the best part of fifty years to find some scientific justification for their position. And still they have not one single piece of primary research which supports them.
-
Evolution came about by wanting to explain current biodiversity by a natural processes. That's how science works. Creationism came about by sticking to a literal interpretation of the Bible. How can this possibly be scientific? We examine evolution by looking at the effects of mutations (natural or induced) - this changes how we think evolution occurs. That's how science works. Creationism is the belief that the Bible is absolutely true. It exists independently of any result of an experiment or what we see in the natural world. How can this possibly be scientific? Creationism is a purely religious explanation. On those grounds it shouldn't be taught but it's just wrong. It predicts a world that's 10,000 years old but we know from several independent lines of evidence this cannot be true. I understand the explicative language. Louisiana ranks among the worst school systems in country and now they want to do this? Of course it ENRAGING!
-
Ah, creationists. Gotta love stupid people! Bless 'em. Can't wait to find out who these 'top scientists' are.
-
fpres1079---Whenever someone says "trust me", I start rolling my pants legs up. I overheard a woman/ mother state not long ago that she liked "creationism" because it was so much easier to explain than science. You know, goddidit. Don't even have to go to school to hear that. So simple.
-
There is a very serious point that needs to be made. We are in competition with billions of Asians that are doing a lot better job of teaching science than we are. The war against science that the fundamentalist christians are waging, is creating generations of antiscience Americans. How much more stupid can it get than brainwashing students to think science is bad.
-
Well, we might as well fold up the circus tent and go home!
-
Has anyone ever thought Louisiana,as well as other southern states low ranking in education could be due to these states large African American populations and their lack of wanting an education ? Not trying to be a racist,just posing a question.
-
I have nothing against anyone who believes in creation. However, those who try to pass it of as science are either woefully ignorant or out and out intentional, blatant liars. I hope for the sake of the children in Livingston Parish that those school board members are just plain ignorant because if they would lie about this, who knows what else they would lie about?
-
nimby, I don't know: I met plenty of dumb people of all races in Louisiana. Take the school board as example!
-
If evolution is just a THEORY, and is still being called such even in the school system, then why can't one present a "theory" of creationism? And people can call it religion or whatever other name they want to tag onto it, the fact remains that evolution is more a religion than anything, because it forces individuals to BELIEVE its unprovable theoretical premise. People are willfully ignorant. Planets perfectly aligned with perfect orbits. Earth positioned so that it alone can sustain life. We just RANDOMLY landed on the perfect planet for life. Man's seed forming SOLID bones in the womb of a mother. ALL THIS IS RANDOM. And I don't understand how one can interpret the 1st law of thermodynamics [matter can be neither created nor destroyed] without recognizing that it exists, so someone is OUTSIDE of that law. Evolution's Big Bang: First there was NOTHING, and then...IT (nothing) exploded. Hmmm. In closing, I'll say, the Lord God, the Creator and sustainer of life, is gracious, and will forgive our ignorance if we repent. Word up.
-
You people are really off on this one--how can you say that creationism is not science. Plus, do you not realize that almost 50% of Americans want creationism teaching in public schools? Plus, in the UK, the percentage is 54%; many other countries are even-par with America at around 43-45%. In addition to all of this, evolution & creationism only cover a small portion of the teaching of science, so why is this such a big problem. How do you all think you got here? You think your ancestors just "appeared" and you all just came out of no-where? That makes no sense whatsoever; creationism and intelligent design should be taught to help our students be fully enlightened and see things from more angles that just one. In addition, some of Americas smartest/brightest/most intelligent students come from Christian, Catholic & other private schools where they are taught creationism. These are the kids that are some of the bright spots in what can be deemed a dim light beaming from America from an educational perspective at this time. I volunteered at a Christian school for years where there were students who were very well-educated, with even the lowest of students getting academic scholarships to state schools and with those at the middle and top of the class getting 30 on the ACT. Just consider that!
-
There is nothing "just" about a scientific theory. A scientific theory is actually the opposite of what most scientifically illiterate people think. Those who don't have a clue about science think a scientific theory is little more than a guess, a conjecture, etc. Well, that's not at all what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is rigorously tested and overwhelmingly confirmed EXPLANATION of what exists in the natural (not supernatural) world. Few people question other scientific theories, like the atomic theory for example, because they do not appear to conflict with their religious beliefs. However, in the case of evolution, which by the way is the fundamental theory of biology (much as the atomic theory is the fundamental theory of chemistry), some people find apparent conflicts with their RELIGIOUS view (i.e. those who literally believe in creationism). Creationism, regardless of which religious version one holds, has no place in the science classroom. The percent of people who erroneously believe that creationism is in any way scientific doesn't matter--science is not determined by majority consensus anyway, and especially so by people who are scientifically illiterate.
-
And then there are those who erroneously believe that evolution is just RANDOM. Nonsense. There is a random component to evolution but evolution does not work at all without another vital component called natural selection. No scientist has ever said evolution was just RANDOM. Those who scream RANDOM are using a fallacy of logic called the "straw-man argument" (this is where you misrepresent your opponent's position which you then easily strike down, but what you are striking down is NOT your opponent's position at all). Does bjonesmc reject the atomic theory also because there are RANDOM components to that one?
-
@ bjonesmc: > If evolution is just a THEORY, A scientific theory is a broad explanation arrived at through induction. So it has evidence for it. It's not "just" a theory in the sense of there's no support for but a theory just like germ theory, cell theory, theory of gravitation, etc. > then why can't one present a "theory" of creationism? Because it's pure a religious concept and has nothing to do with evidence. > because it forces individuals to BELIEVE you're forced to believe scientific theories? AMAZINGGGGGG! > its unprovable theoretical premise. evolution = descent with modification. Guess what - we can observe it! > Planets perfectly aligned with perfect orbits. What? Perfect circles? Nope. What are you talking about? > And I don't understand how one can interpret the 1st law of thermodynamics [matter can be neither created nor destroyed] Yet, this is exactly what you believe! > Evolution's Big Bang: First there was NOTHING It doesn't actually say this... you should read up on it. >I'll say, the Lord God, the Creator and sustainer of life, is gracious, and will forgive our ignorance if we repent. IF!
-
@ fpres >> You people are really off on this one--how can you say that creationism is not science. << BECAUSE IT IS IMMUNE TO EVIDENCE LIKE SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS >> Plus, do you not realize that almost 50% of Americans want creationism teaching in public schools? << WHO CARES? SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE SUBJECT TO POPULARITY BUT BY THEIR ABILITY TO EXPLAIN AND HOLD UP TO OBSERVATION. >>so why is this such a big problem. << A. IT'S ILLEGAL AND WRONG AND ANTISCIENCE AND IGNORANT. That makes no sense whatsoever; TRUE, YOUR STRAWMAN IS NONSENSICAL. >>creationism and intelligent design should be taught to help our students be fully enlightened and see things from more angles that just one. << SHOULD WE TEACH MAGIC AN ASTROLOGY TOO THEN? >> In addition, some of Americas smartest/brightest/most intelligent students come from Christian, Catholic & other private schools where they are taught creationism. << WHAT YOU ARE TAUGHT DOESN'T AFFECT HOW INTELLIGENT YOU ARE BUT YOU CAN BE WRONG AND INTELLIGENT >> Just consider that! << AMAZING BUT NOT RELEVANT
-
"Plus, in the UK, the percentage is 54%" - someone previously categorized creationists a ignorant or liars. Not sure where this comment fits in. Unlike the poster (probably) I lived in the UK for 20 years. Church attendance is minimal, curches are empty every sunday, many are out of business, and the society is almost entirely secular (except for some muslims and hindus). Christians are viewed as the 'different' or 'wierd' people on each block, and certainly no policitican with reasonable aspirations would ever call themselves a creationist. Blair, the former PM, came out as a christian, and it was front page news - thats how religious people are viewed in the uk - the local good-natured nutcases - god botherers, loons etc. Why make up your numbers?
-
"I volunteered at a Christian school for years where there were students who were very well-educated, with even the lowest of students getting academic scholarships to state schools and with those at the middle and top of the class getting 30 on the ACT. Just consider that!" Thats great, although to be taken with a grain of salt - creationists are not above making things up - thats the essence of their joke science. I have already caught you in a statistical falsehood. Even so, remember not all christians are creationists. Most are not. The catholic church recognizes evolution, and is by far the biggest player in the christian world, and here in the US. Most mainline denominations are also not so ridiculously dogmatic. Its the fundamentalists, the far right absolutists, that cling to creationist foolishness, and they are a relative minority - just very loud (as stupid folk often are - just go to a tea party). Dont confuse sound and fury with size or legitimacy. Creationists are a lampooned and laughable small minority of fundamentalist literalist christian-taliban give-all-your-money-to-Pat-Robertson-cause-the-end-is-nigh know-nothings and knuckle draggers, and always have been. Just because your students attended a christian school, doesnt mean they attended a fundamentalist school.
-
The so-called Christian nations are the most enlightened and progressive...but in spite of their religion, not because of it. The Church has opposed every innovation and discovery from the day of Galileo down to our own time, when the use of anesthetic in childbirth was regarded as a sin because it avoided the biblical curse pronounced against Eve. And every step in astronomy and geology ever taken has been opposed by bigotry and superstition. The Greeks surpassed us in artistic culture and in architecture five hundred years before Christian religion was born. - Mark Twain
-
@bjonesmc "Planets aligned with perfect orbits" LOL. That's what people thought 2000 years ago when the Earth was believed to be the center of the universe. All the bodies were thought to be perfect spheres that traveled in perfect orbits around Earth. And you know what? The church supported that theory because they saw man and Earth as the pinnacle of god's perfect creation! However, 400 years ago, Galileo blew that out of the water by showing that the other bodies weren't perfect: the Moon has craters, Saturn has rings, and Jupiter has moons that travel around it, not around the Earth. The planets orbit the Sun in elliptical orbits, and Earth's orbit could move a fair bit closer to or further from the Sun, and life would still be supported. Even Mars may have supported life in the past. You need to head down to the planetarium, or out to the observatory and educate yourself a little more before you go spouting off about things!
-
oh, and "Evolution's Big Bang" - the two are completely different things. The Big Bang is the accepted model of the formation of the universe, whereas evolution refers to changes in biologic organisms. And did you know that the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest?
-
Is this true? Have a sufficient number of refugees of Tangipahoa's dismal public schools immigrated so far west as to influence the Livingston Parish School Board? Excellent!!! I have always said that the secret to Tangi's future success is not for it to strive to be better itself but instead to convince its competition to play down to its own level. I propose a toast: "Nescience today, Nescience Tomorrow, Nescience Forever."
-
This is disgraceful and embarrassing. Things like this make me ashamed in front of my industry peers around the country. We're trying to take steps forward as a state, not backwards. That this story has made the global news circuit is unfortunate for us all. Benton, you are a sycophant. What would you think of schools in India replacing biology with Hindu creation stories? What would you think of schools in Saudi Arabia replacing science classes with Qur'an study? Or schools in Hollywood replacing astronomy with Scientology?
-
Tsk, this topic often makes scientists act like the religious zealots they despise. Liars? Disgraceful? You-are-ignorant-because-you-don't-agree-with-me? This childishness is not seen in respected publications aside from explicitly criminal behavior. Science to the rescue! Psychology can explain this: humans have desire to think of "what IS the truth", versus possibly messy multiple truths. The pro-evolutionaries here are well caught up in this "IS" thing. Science again to the rescue! In atomic theory, there are civilized debates about the "standard model" versus other possibilities accounting for observations. So let's say evolution is the "standard model" here, but it's legitimate to discuss alternatives in a civilized & scientific manner, even wacky alternatives like the many realms of creationism perspective. So, problem solved... with science!
-
Mr Geek, you mightbe missing the point. It is indeed legitiamte to discuss LEGITIMATE aletrnatives. At this point, there are none. ID and creationism have not one shred of actual evidential support. Not one. Anywhere. THat is not a legitimate alternative. The disgust and disgrace is not aimed at creationists per se (more to be pitied than scorned) but at the school board responsible for thousands of youngsters. Their action, and the astonishing cluelessness it represents, is indeed worhty of the strongest disgust. Creationism (wacky as you genersouly call it) varies from religion to religion, and often within, and has no merit in a science curriculum at all. Again, all these decades and name changes later, and not ONE piece of actual evidence in its favor. TO suppose an even intellectual playing field, to suggest we should 'teach the controversy', to suppose that any and all alternatives have equal wright, is farce, and nothing more than pandering to the very lowest common denominator. School boards are in the business of imparting the most up-to-date, germain, and supportable knowledge to our youngsters. To suggest that the creationism farce, long since deemed unconstitutional in our very state, is somewhere between humiliating and hilarious. Uneducated folk can believe what they will - who cares? Creationism has no respect in any scientific community in the western world. Let them make fools of themselves all day. But the actions of a representative and publically funded school board are indeed a disgrace.
-
But the degree of natural selection required by this standard model of life's origins is not readily observed in other contexts; it's specially invented as a proposed mechanism to explain evolution. For added trickery, it's not something actively observed today or testable in a lab or used to make predictions for the future - in other words, the standard scientific paradigms used elsewhere don't apply here. And let's not confuse this natural selection concept with small functional adaptions and areas where biology shares statistical overlap with other disciplines. Science to the rescue! Science is a method and process, not a given set of beliefs - that may or may not come later, under a "generally accepted" clause. In other areas scientists are all to ready to admit when they don't "know" something, but this trait seems to disappear in this field where lack of a definitive answer is the underlying assumption. So, the academic solution here is to teach scientific methods of analysis, ways to apply them to this origins debate, and for sure discuss the common models we have now - including natural selection and whatever alternatives are fashionable in Louisiana. The non-way forward is to insist on starting from an "IS model" and working backwards from there. But anyway, aside from all our opinions on the subject, does anyone know exactly what agenda will be introduced in Benton's Progression Plan? Maybe it's not as harmful as you fear. Besides, as I recall from my younger days, very little of biology concerns evolution - mostly of the curriculum is more readily determined mechanisms and structures.
-
What a bunch of idiots. I also question why upgrading the football field is the #1 priority for a high school. If I ever have kids they certainly will not be educated in Louisiana.
-
This state becomes more and more of an embarrassment everyday. How someone past a 4th grade education can't even understand the definition of science is quite telling of our education system already Religion, LOL
-
What is this the dark ages I learned all about in junior high school in California. Wonder why education is falling behind in Baton Rouge here is why. Once again a group of ignorant people are dumbing down and deciding what is and isn't acceptable to teach in school. No wonder the people are behind with the upper moral minority telling them what to listen to and read. Now ask yourself why your childrne can't read and write so well. This might be the answer.
-
@MrGeek "And let's not confuse this natural selection concept with small functional adaptions" I think you're missing something here, because that's what natural selection is all about. Functional adaptations that further the survival of the species.
-
Well by that token every sicentific theory is 'specially invented' (clever use of 'specially' to suggest that this particular theory has in some way been imposed upon us by fiat, rather than earning its way). Evolution has been recognised for centuries - Natural Selection was devised to explain it. Until it is disproven, it remains the standard bearer. Genetics came along, and supported NS all the way. As did the fossil record (quite sparse in the 1800s). DNA research and all that implied also supported NS and operated according to its premise. That allows a wide degree if prediction within the new model of what you will find, if NS is true. Thus, when genetic theory was espoused, predictions could be made about whether NS could withstand the new science, or would be defeated. As it is, it held up and was endorsed. Every time a fossil is found, a chance is there to disprove NS. Thus far, hasnt happened, and every fossil affirms NS. THe same for any and all dating techniques (from hundreds to billions of years) - all use differeing approaches, and all support NS. Is there disagreement on details? Of course. But no LEGITIMATE scientific body, community, university, or discipline rejects NS as a framework, accepts creationism, or has found a better explanation thus far - 100 years ad counting. The evidence FOR NS is simply astounding - the evidence for creationism? 0 (as in ZERO - not enough to fill a suitcase, never mind a museum). Standard paradigms are very much in play NS is a biological explanation. Dont expect Physics to weigh in. Science is a process, but one with implications. Its not a simple wander in the dark. Theories are presented in all areas of science that best explain the findings. Thus far, no better theory has come along than NS, and EVERY piece of evidence indicates its essential correctness. NOTHING has been presented that contradicts gradual change over time of organisms. What are your legitimate alternatives?
-
We can talk all day about competing scientific theories, and opening childrens minds and all. That is fruitless. At this time, there is not legitimate competing theory, and the motivation of the school board is not educational - it is religious and political. The school board is comprised of religious fundamentalists (to a degree) and operates in a parish dominated by religious conservatism. They are u nder political pressure just like any other governing body. This measure will be challenged, and struck down, and another black eye for our state on the evening news. But the educational welfare of those children is the last thing on the minds of the school board, Gene Mills, and any other supporter of public schools yielding to the creationism folly.
-
@ Mr. Geek >> But the degree of natural selection required by this standard model of life's origins is not readily observed in other contexts << WHAT DEGREE OF NATURAL SELECTION? HOW MUCH IS NEEDED AND HOW MUCH IS OBSERVED? >> it's specially invented as a proposed mechanism to explain evolution. << WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPECIALLY INVENTED AND INVENTED? BUT WEREN'T ALL EXPLANATIONS "INVENTED" >> For added trickery, it's not something actively observed today << LARGE MUTATIONS ARE OBSERVED TODAY >> or testable in a lab or used to make predictions for the future << SURE IT IS. WE CAN KNOCK OUT GENES WE THOUGHT WERE THE RESULT OF GENE DUPLICATIONS AND LOOK AT THE EFFECTS. THEY DO THIS 10 FEET FROM MY OFFICE DOOR. >> And let's not confuse this natural selection concept with small functional adaptions << HUH? HOW DO SMALL FUNCTIONAL ADAPTIONS [SIC] SPREAD THROUGHOUT A POPULATION? >> Science is a method and process, not a given set of beliefs << AND AN ATTITUDE
-
One need look no further than the Livingston parish school board to find proof that humans were descended from apes. If that doesn't convince you, there is always football...
-
It's getting to the point where I acknowledge that I grew up in Louisiana only grudgingly. I work in high-tech, where we deal with reality every single day. Louisiana seems mostly made up of people who strive to ignore reality every day, whether it be that BP is at fault for the oil spill, or that science is the cornerstone of our society's continued progress. Not another tourist dollar for you, Louisiana - and if my friends insist on going to Louisiana, I tell them to fly into, out of, and to spend all their money in New Orleans.
-
We are having an argument over 1 area of science, which usually doesn't last longer than 3 weeks to 1 month, if that long. So, why do you have an issue--it's public school, so this is only offered as another option. Personally, because of faith & my knowledge of the power of redemption, I am optimistic that some of you will see things differently one day. You all are so so intelligent, so insightful, so thoughtful, yet you missed it when it comes to being involved in the process of helping to decide matters like this--you missed your calling(s). You all simply amaze me in a not-so-good way.
-
"Has anyone ever thought Louisiana,as well as other southern states low ranking in education could be due to these states large African American populations and their lack of wanting an education ? " Only in Louisiana could someone post a question like that and state int he same breath "I'm not being racist". You _are_ being racist. Simply singling out black people and assuming "they" don't want an education is by its very definition, being a racist. You might as well ask "Jews are great, but why are they always hoarding all the money?" It's the same thing as your statement about blacks. Sorry - you're a racist, probably lulled into thinking you're not by the shifting definition of racist you get from your daily Fox News talking points.
-
Ah, fpres, there are none so arrogant as the pious, they say. I only wish that I might see things differently (ie your way) one day. How will your tone change when your local public school, perhaps the one your kids attend, begins muslim instruction? After all, its 'another option' and surely kids should be exposed to all points of view, right?
-
A scientific theory is not something scientists thought up while out drinking. A scientific theory is testable, supported through repeated observations, gives predictions, described observable facts and is parsimonious. Creationism is not, and never will be, science. Teach it in religious studies, not in the science classrooms. Do you love on the planet that i live on, cause there's Pseudogenes and Atavisms Fossils and Homology ERV's and Embryology, organs and behaviors which are vestigial, Phylogenetic Trees, Cytochrome C and there's Human Chromosome 2 within centromeres and telemeres, species distribution which proves evolution. Would be educators get your facts straight. Evolution does not rule out a creator. That would be cosmogony and abiogenesis.
-
Creationism belongs in a philosophy classroom or a Sunday School classroom. It has NO place in a science classroom. I'm supportive of religion but NOT in a public classroom and NOT in my government. /// Creationist are funny.... except when they vote. Is it possible to be religious AND believe in a tall, strong wall of separation between church and state? Evidently not. It's kinda like putting a lightening rod on the church steeple. It seems to show a certain lack of faith. /// It appears to me that several of the founding fathers wouldn't have a "prayer" of being elected by the bible thumping voters that plague us these days. What a shame. /// You keep your church out of my government and I'll work hard to keep the government out of your church. Deal?
-
If Creationism is going to be taught, then the Alternative Theory of Intelligent Design should also be taught. Many of us believe the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
-
Maybe the overwhelming scientific evidence was put in place to test our faith. We all know the universe revolves around the earth.
-
I agree with Pirate #2. I demand to see equal time in the classroom for all views on the Creation. His Noodly Appendage touches me gently when I think of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's generous creation of the universe. If we teach the Christian/Jewish creation, we must also teach the creation stories of all religions, including Pastafarianism.
-
This problem has a simple solution,if you are a voting resident of Livingston Parish,either vote them out or petition for a recall to have them removed from office,if you are not from Livingston parish it isn't your problem.
-
Actually it is somewhat a concern for all citizens, not just Livingston parish. When these children grow up and become school board members or captains of industry, government, etc. believing that the great Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and that science is blasphemy there may be some repercussions. Maybe we should allow swords into churches as well since hacking each other is much more gruesome and more in keeping with the spirit of the dark ages.
-
I remember when in the late 1980's our then State Attorney General Billy Guste took Louisiana's "Balanced Treatment Act" (creationism has to be taught and given equal time whenever evolution is taught) all the way to the United States Supreme Court, who of course struck down Louisiana's law as unconstitutional. The court found that the Louisiana Legislature's stated purpose "protect academic freedom" was nothing more than a sham and that our legislature had a "preeminent religious purpose in enacting this statute." Trying to defend this silly law cost the state over $1 Million, and that was back in 1987. What do you think it will cost the Livingston Parish School Board nowadays when their actions (should they take them) are judged to be unconstitutional in state court? Surely millions. Will they appeal and end up costing the Parish even more?
-
I am is convinced that ACLU really stands for the Anti-Christ's Luciferian Uproar. How can you debate implementing creationism in schools, but you will allow a THEORY of evolution. If it's just a theory, then can't we present a "theory" of creationism? Don't talk to me about LIBERTY, when you don't even know what it is. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Romans 1:22) The problem with the Science buffs and the some Christians (and I am one) is that many are ignorant to the fact that TRUE SCIENCE is validated in the Bible and vice versa. And for those who believe that this is all just some RANDOM cosmic accident, you do worse than those who worshipped idols of animals. RANDOMNESS? Come on. What I do appreciate about randomness and chance is that unbelievers (who KNOW they don't know EVERYTHING) won't lean on that CHANCE in there being a Creator. That's odd to me. Because if by CHANCE, they are wrong, and the Christian Gospel is correct then the consequences are eternally devastating. By the way, many scientists have discovered that ALL this is impossible without a Creator. And the CREATOR is gracious, and has made a way for your forgiveness--- when you repent.
-
bjonesmc - you're joking, right? Can you name some of these 'many scientists' you refer to?
-
Unfortunately evolution is an observable fact and Christianity's bedrock is faith in matters beyond human understanding. There is a difference. It seems to me that God would not have allowed evolution if it was contrary to His plans. There may be more sin in purporting to speak for God and his intentions, i.e. creationism, than in appreciating the truths He has divulged to us. " and to bring to light for everyone what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things Eph 3:9" ,
-
The teaching of faith belongs in a church while science belongs in the classroom. If you want creationism, send your kids to a religious school where such arcanities can be argued as "which came first the chicken or the dinosaur" or "aliens who planted million year old fossils in the earth in the last 6000 years to mislead us", etc. Now if we want to talk about the marvelous physics that holds everything together and its apparent uniformity throughout the cosmos that may engender some awe as to mysteries beyond our understanding, including contemplation of a creator, then so be it. How can one not gaze in to the night sky and not wonder?
-
Well there goes Mr. Straw-man again, still screaming about THEORY and RANDOMNESS. Do you know that there is a THEORY to explain how internal combustion engines work? Do you also deny the internal combustion engine because it's THEORY of operation includes the RANDOM collision of gasoline molecules? Do you therefore believe it is impossible for cars to move when you step on the accelerator? You know everyone who is scientifically literate is laughing at you, don't you?
-
Why was my comment not posted?
-
I have a somment. This is the second time that my comments have been flagged, and i have no idea why. The link to tell me why does not respond. Perhaps I can get an answer from someone. I certainly don't think I offended anyone.
-
If its a long post, break it up into shorter pieces - they get you for being too long
-
What a shame Louisiana takes 1 step forward and two steps back. There is nothing wrong with teaching creationism, as long as you teach it alongside Buddhism, Shintoism, Aztecian sun-god worship, and every other ethos/religion-based story on the origins of man and the universe, AND as long as it is taught as a Philosophy, Religion, or Literature class on the study of the bible. But it DEFINATELY CANNOT be taught as a Science class. Anybody who looks up the definition of science, including those idiots on the school board, can see that.
-
It is such a shame that intelligent Christians in America feel they have to defend or even worse advocate for creationism out of some misguided notion of loyalty to their religion. No other literate culture on earth teaches their religious beliefs and customs as science. What are we, the Taliban?
-
How did such moronic people rise to positions of authority in the career field of Education? I hate that stories like this makes all Louisianians look like idiots...at least I didnt graduate from Red Stick :-)
-
"they get you for being too long" Only because this newspaper has the worst commenting system I've ever seen. A teenager with two hours of perl under his belt could do it better and (hint) more securely.
-
If you substitute "Mother Nature" for "evolution" in these discussions, you add a nice literary style. Now, the creationists go one step further and replace Mother Nature with some degree of deity. The evolutionists do likewise but in a different direction, where Mother Nature is a metaphor for happenings without cause, ie, a null-placeholder like a zero. Biological developments happen as in Voltaire's Candide - because this is the best of all possible worlds, where entropy occurs to benefit humanity in this one special case. Anyway, there's enough material in these discussions for a good science class; teaching about evolution requires a wider background to address the controversies. Don't disappoint us, Benton!
-
CharleyHorse wrote "Most christians accept that their god used evolution to create humans and all other life forms." Later CharleyHorse wrote "I am a normal person, too." There's nothing normal about you mister. Normal people don't invoke a MAGIC MAN as a user of evolution. Grow up, and stop sticking your childish fantasies into science. http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
-
fpres1079 wrote "Creationism is very scientific and should be considered just like evolution." fpres1079, you're a disgrace to the human race. Since when did magic become scientific? Grow up. Better yet, get out of my country. You disgust me. http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/
-
Those are very unscientific comments, something the Taliban might come up with. Really, you science-is-my-religion guys should do a bit of introspection on your beliefs and how you perceive those who disagree with you.
-
Who wrote this? I didn't write it. If somebody is using my name that's disgusting. "Those are very unscientific comments, something the Taliban might come up with. Really, you science-is-my-religion guys should do a bit of introspection on your beliefs and how you perceive those who disagree with you." Who wrote that?
-
Louisiana, there's no nice way to put this. Your state is nuts. If you're one of the rare sane people in hick-infested Louisiana, you need to get to work. It's not enough to defend science education. You have to attack the Christian death cult. You have to eradicate the out-of-control insanity in your state, and the only possible way to do that is by ridiculing Christians relentlessly.
-
Does no-one realise that if the school board does go through with this then they might as well flush any money they have raised for the new sports fields and classrooms down the drain. Fighting a lost cause like this will simply drain money from educating the children into lawyers pockets- dishonest lawyers at that as any legal advisor with a shred of dignity will advise them to drop it. My guess is that there must be elections coming up for the board, I did notice that all of the talk was about 'looking into it' rather than doing. Classical electioneering, as they can just report a negative finding when they get re-elected (sorry guys we tried but ....)
-
This is an election year and the School Board thought they would appeal to the Christian right for votes but the plan backfired in their faces because a lot of intelligent people have moved into the parish and are upset about this ideal.
-
kspill24 - I would love to hear what you have to say. Hopefully you break it up into shorter pieces so we could here it. If not, let us know--I want to hear your viewpoint. Human Ape -- God bless you my friend. You guys check out www.allaboutcreation.org. This thread is amazing. and to say that "Christian nations are some of the most intelligent in spite of it, not because of it" is one of the craziest statements you could make. The fact that most of your most commonly used items in modern society were used invented by Christians--people who believed in & embraced creationist thinking. Most nations that truly embraced Christian as a way of thinking & a lifestyle have experienced great enlightenment. If you want, google it and you'll see. I'm with bjonesmc - repentance is key folks.
-
I just googled the Flat earth society as well. You can see it here: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm Must be true, its on Google. I confess my sin in believing the earth was round, I repent. So now I can be smart like you if I "embrace creationist thinking"? Wow, I didn't know it was that easy . Thanks for enlightening me.
-
Please excuse my lack of enlightenment but besides the Vatican, what nation is a Christian theocracy?
-
"The fact that most of your most commonly used items in modern society were used invented by Christians"...oh, you mean like numbers we use and the concept of zero? You fail history.
-
fpres1079 must be a satirist, otherwise I am astonished. This is what they want in Livingston parish? Folks, please don't believe that all Christians are necessarily stupid.
-
How about we compromise: teach creationism alongside a review of the scientific method! -Let the students formulate a question in relation to the potential validity of creationism, evolution and any other related theories of choice. -Encourage them to do background research with peer-reviewed sources. -Ask them to define their hypothesis. -Work with the students to construct an experiment that will address their original question. -Allow your students to analyze their results and base their conclusion on these proven results. -Bring the students together to share their results. There, pure and simple science and an exercise that will help the students with a wide variety of problems they'll face in the real world.
-
@fpres1079: Just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean they're a creationist. As already mentioned, the Catholic church supports evolution, not creationism. @WaitJustaMoment: There is no peer-reviewed scientific research that supports creationism. The claim that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid as the claim that the universe was created by god.
-
Of all the bad things that go on in the world, moreover our society in America, I find that all of these Atheist comments, and unfair remarks are what is truly embarrasing. This country, was founded by hard working men and women from all over the world, who believed in God thus forming a nation that would forever be free to worship him. I'm not going to go on some religious rant or rave however I find it very important to state my point as so many of you who are lost in this world did. Everyday we have to send our children to school to learn. We send them to learn "Facts" not "theory" and some of us pay good money for it. If I have to hear one more thing about not teaching creationism in school, but everyone being ok for the "theory of evolution" to be taught, im going to explode. I work very hard to teach my daughter that God created the earth and that it didn't just Happen which is foolish anyway, and I have to let her go to school to be taught otherwise? Please. It is completely hippocritical to not allow creationism.
-
"Religion is excellent for keeping the common people quiet" -- Napoleon Bonaparte "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, then you will understand why I dismiss yours" -- Stephen Roberts
-
There are two points that need to be addressed: 1. Why is it that those who are most enthusiastic about creating limited Government, so enthusiastic about expanding Government into the business of religion? 2. Would these people be so enthusiastic about ignoring Thomas Jefferson's separation of church and state if Muslims in this country started organizing and becoming politically powerful?
-
Furthermore, it is ashame that for the handful of people who choose to rebel against God, or turn away from him, we as an entire nation have to cater to you people. Taking away God in school, and God in the pledge of allegiance, is like taking away all thats good about America. Do you people who do not believe in God, think you are helping your children by teaching them that there is nothing after this life, that everything we do doesn't matter, that all the people who give their life in war, and for a friend are just going to end up dead and gone like the murderers and rapist? Yea that is really going to make a great incentive for our youth. You all are whats wrong with this State and this country. Raising children who do not know their creator and leading them into a life full of sorrow and hopelessness. This is a shear BLESSING that they are even considering this, and though you may not want to hear it, or believe it, your time is running out so either deal with it in your schools, because we have to listen to your complaints and theories in school, or get out. Go to a communist country that punishes those who do not believe in God, GO!
-
Truth is all this comment is going to do is create an even bigger uprising against me and against everyone on here that is for Creationism being taught. I'm not interested in anything you have to say against it, i've said my peice and it doesn't matter. I would however like to see some more comments that are for this being taught, and from people who are God fearing so if you are one of those people, email me i'd love to talk, or answer questions.
-
Mr or MS Colon (aka : ) You sure are helping me to understand the state of education in Louisiana
-
@fpres I'd suggest you reread the earlier posts about the definition of a scientific theory. It's not just a guess, or an idea. It's an explanation of something that is observed, tested and verified. And here are a couple choice quotes from our founding fathers. John Adams: "The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Thomas Jefferson: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." James Madison: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise" Thomas Paine: "All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Ethan Allen: "Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."
-
Sorry, that last one should've been @kspill24
-
Adnoseum: What is that supposed to mean? If you post more than one comment consecutively first of all it gives a : aka (colon) and second of all I didn't bother proofreading my comments because it was the millionth time I had to type it. I also didn't know we where in English class.
-
and "smailtronic": Yes, it is an observation, however it is an observation of what is and was already here at the time that they OBSERVED it. Like two animals mating, I OBSERVED them having sex and thus it creates another animal. Tell me, who exactly OBSERVED the evolution of man? They only know what they saw since they learned to read and write. And yes you're probably right about teachings of Jesus and Mary going down the drain, but sadly before that happens entirely none of us will be here to remember that. Just keep on at what you're doing, when you're stuck here at the end of the world, wondering why you were not accepted into heaven remember all the times that you said we where wrong and let your foolishness be your only comfort.
-
@fpres1079 “How do you all think you got here? You think your ancestors just "appeared" and you all just came out of no-where? That makes no sense whatsoever;” LOL!!! fpres1079 book of genesis fail. Scientists don’t think our ancestors just "appeared" and “just came out of no-where”. That’s what YOU think and are suggesting with creationism. Scientists know where we came from and how we got here by looking at the evidence. BTW… Before you embarrass yourself again, please take a look at the “Index to Creationist Claims” www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html At least TRY to be original and post ANY science paper that backs creationism. Once you have a pier review paper with testable evidence then the “Scientists” will have no other choice than to accept the alternative claim as a possibility. Good luck with you search for evidence of creationism, I eagerly await to test it.
-
@kspill24 We observe evolution happening all the time. Take this recent news about evolution among the people of Tibet: http://bit.ly/ddG45o
-
Kspill24: What sects will get into heaven?
-
Kspill24: You speak of the teachings of Jesus and Mary. I would sincerely appreciate if you would please direct me to the specific verses where these teachings include creationism.
-
Adnoseum: i was responding to Smailtronic. I didn't say Jesus and Mary had anything to do with it. Read please. He or she said that the teachings about them will soon be lost.
-
Yet another reason why this commenting system is terrible. I said nothing about Jesus or Mary in any of my posts. I suspect it w as the mysterious ":" that you're referencing.
-
Apparently, creationism is based on a strict literal interpretation of the Bible based on the 7 days of creation a strict timeline to the present of 6000 years which does not tolerate the passing of billions of years and .
-
wow apparently you just magically typed this read the first line of that quote. ""The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." James Madison: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise" Thomas Paine: "All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." Ethan Allen: "Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian."
-
However, if we apply the same strict literal criteria to the Book of Daniel's Prophecy of Seventy Weeks (or 490 years, etc) to the timeline of the end of the earth, then we could not be having this conversation for this world would not exist. Would someone explain this dilemma to me? If it is said that God does things in His own time (which He certainly does) then that does cast doubt on creationism, does it not?
-
I therefore humbly submit that since these mysteries are too vast and profound for our feeble and tiny minds to grasp that a literal interpretation of the Bible may be contrary to the Bible's purpose and may be contrary to Christianity as well since the teachings of Jesus were metaphorical. Literal interpretations of the parables of Jesus would not make sense and were clearly not what Jesus intended.
-
@Kspill24 Ahh, I see where the confusion is. I didn't say the teachings about them would soon be lost, Thomas Jefferson did. The whole point of those quotes was a retort to your 1:29pm post that said "This country, was founded by hard working men and women from all over the world, who believed in God thus forming a nation that would forever be free to worship him." Which, as evidenced by direct quotes from our founding fathers, was not the case.
-
True True Adnoseum you do have a point. I may have mistaken you for somebody who doesn't believe in God or Jesus. Sorry If i did. You do have a point and the absolute only reason I'm for this is because maybe it would make children who where never taught a thing about Creation or God be open to the idea. You are right we cannot fathom how God really did this, and obviously the world didn't really get created in a literal Seven days, it was Gods seven days.
-
I find it amusing how creationists love to point out the small gaps in the large body of evidence that supports evolution, but can't themselves come up with anything better than "God did it".
-
The danger with creationism being taught as science is that religious interpretations are contrived by humans and can and often will be twisted. I am strictly opposed to mixing science and religion in a school's curriculum because religion is by definition a faith and as we have seen, there is too much room for confusion. Science is a human invention to help explain what we can experience. What we know is vastly exceeded by what we don't and attempting to quantify the Bible is anti-Biblical.
-
I am glad this will come to pass. My child deserves to know he was formed from an ash tree by our mighty lord Odin.
-
@kspill24 -- keep doing your thing.... Personally, at the end of the day, will all of your scientific discovery better your eternal value & worth? I doubt it. I don't condemn any of you for what you feel or believe, but your own hearts, thoughts & expressions here tell your story. This is more than just creationism being taught in school--this is about your hearts. Why does this outrage you so? Could it be that there is something in your hearts that fosters a bit of rage against your own Creator. You are probably all the same parents who have latch-key kids watching mtv, bet & vh1 when they get off from school and being filled with filth, get cars when they are 15 or 16, iphones "sex-ting" their friends, etc. You have relative no problems with this I'm sure (maybe you do, but I doubt if you would make this much of a fuss about it)...but yet, you choose to make a big fuss about this--this is indecent & down right shameful. But, this is what our country has turned into--and I am ashamed of it. And, as far as those quotes are concerned from those founding fathers you mentioned, 2 things are to be considered: 1) those are only a few of the hundreds of men in leadership in this country at that time; 2) I am almost certain that some of those men didn't say that at all
-
James Madison, known as the "Father of the Constitution" had this to say: /// "Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." /// [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt] /// Keep the wall of separation STRONG AND TALL!
-
I'm glad that the schoolboard is rethinking how they teach science. Both theories should be taught.
-
@kspill. Science 101: a theory is a generalized explanation based on facts. They are what organizes our thoughts as scientists. Calling a something a theory is not derogatory (as you suggest). @ Mr.Geek. We are all impressed. Now actually say something of substance.
-
Evolution is a FACT. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it. There is NO evidence to support creationism, and don't give me "intelligent design". Natural selection and Darwinian evolution is simple and explains how life came to be so well. The school board has no right to do this. Let the science teachers teach science. Creationism can be taught elsewhere...church, home, but not in schools, please.
-
@fpres1079 You're right, none of those founding father quotes could have possibly been recorded in any fashion. Oh, wait, you're wrong again: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?id=6177
-
@bej77: Creationism is not a theory, it is a feeble attempt by feeble human minds to quantify the allegory in the Bible since the Creator knows that humans are incapable of understanding much more. Again I submit, to attempt to quantify God's allegory which the myth of creationism does very badly is anti-Biblical and anti-Christian and is proof that humans possess limited cognitive abilities.Quantify this: "ye know not the day nor the hour" or this, "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."
-
Here is more proof that evolution is a fact: "In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then He made School Boards." — Mark Twain
-
Just something for everyone to consider. Modern Science did not begin until around 1100AD, at the earliest. Why on earth would a document that was completed well before 900AD have anything in it that looks even remotely like science. The bible is a great moralistic story book about a tribe of people. If anyone has an actual creationist teaching plan that incorporates actual scientific method I'd love to see it. And please look up what the actual scientific method is, you haven't looked at it since high school.
-
I'm not a christian,too often we hear what it's like to be a "good" christian,never heard of anyone referring to themself as a "bad' christian,hypocrisy.Don't believe in the church,if I want to talk with my higher power I will when and where I want,it's a personal matter.While many churches do good work,a lot don't,they are sinkholes for peoples' life savings,their intent,a bigger church.Don't believe in organized religion,organization breeds corruption,another sinkhole,and I don't need a middle man to talk to my higher power,a personal matter.I believe in a higher power to remind me how insignificant I am in this universe,and that there will always be some things man cannot explain,no matter how smart he becomes
-
It is amusing to see quotes of the founding fathers that have been repeated here. I will assume that they are all true quotes, and there are no misquotes, however are they all taken in context? Also what about the other founding fathers? (Others than Jefferson and Adams)? Were they just silent name signers? I don't think so. They were men of character who understood they would have to put aside some personal beliefs to form a more perfect nation. Perhaps they had children or grand children. (They were all white, male, moneyed, and landowners). They sent their children to school. They sent their children to school to learn morality and character. To do this, they had to learn reading. What they read in school was the Bible or text books containing Bible verses. And during this time, not one of the founders objected to the tools used to teach morality and character. So to imply, as many have done here in the last few days that things taught to children of the founders containing Christian values and morals was objectionable to those same founders and not in the intent of the Constitution, is simply not supported. If it would have been, the Supreme Court would have heard these constitutional complaints a long time ago.
-
The argument is not about the teaching of morals and character (which tend to be the same in all the world's major religions and which necessarily must be taught) but about the validity of a man-made time delineated construct based on a literal reading of the Bible which is an allegorical book and which is not supported by evidence in what a creationist must admit to being God's creation. The question is not about God but about foolish humans denying the evidence He left us in a clumsy and bizarre attempt to simplify what they do not understand.
-
Hi, This underscores the need to have people on the School Board that are educated in science. Evolution is a very well-understood theory, with no "fallacies". Keep in mind: When students in Baton Rouge schools are being taught fake science (creationism), this means they are _not_ learning real science. Thus, teaching creationism instead of actual science is not merely a waste of time -- it also makes them less prepared (with a weaker understanding of science) than students who receive a science education. Do we really want this disadvantage for our students?
-
I agree. Evolutionary theory is a bit confusing.
-
For a change I agree with Adnoseum. 'Good" christians taking the Bible at face value might not be able to accept the possibility that Jesus was a 'brother'.
-
nimby?, Bless you
-
bej77says: " I'm glad that the schoolboard is rethinking how they teach science. Both theories should be taught. " The flaw with this argument here is that if creationism is a theory, then does that not invalidate the creationist's arguments for an immutable creation? So now we say the Bible is theory? Since a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world is not bej77 invalidating the creationist argument since creationism cannot be substantiated by the evidence, in fact the evidence invalidates creationism.
-
@Human Ape: It was me, Mr.Geek, who talks about you science-is-your-religion-guys. This forum sometimes drops authors. @WaitJustAMoment bej77: Right on, teach creationism plus the scientific method. Quantum theory may be a good precedent for a discussion of disagreement with science; eg, Einstein accepted its equations are valid, but not that it's the real explanation of what happens. Also, relativity "disproves" Newton but we still teach both. So too with evolution creationism? @ubernerd: Something of substance? OK, let's compare the evolution science to economic science. It's science, and some economists win Nobel prizes with their theories, but still we don't believe these models completely, except for discredited communists who are manic about *their* theories. I propose this same confidence paradigm for creationism and evolution - do teach all of the best ideas, based on consistencies, but don't get caught up in what "IS" the truth. Take heed you evolutionsists, the best southern wisdom comes from Bill Clinton: "It depends what the definition of IS is." Be proud of fine your Arkansas products. @GetReal: Oh, Benton is just posturing for the election. Darn, I thought he was on to something here. OK, let's all just go home. I was hoping this might instead turn into a discussion of just what might be taught in his classes. Oh well.
-
Hmm, "evolution creationism" should be "evolution and creationism". This forum silently drops the plus-symbol. Maybe it looks too much like a cross. :-)
-
So to be fair according to the constitution, now we must give equal time to the Great Spaghetti Monster, Wiccans, Flat Earth, etc,etc.? All conjecture aside, point is the LPSB will waste much time and money on what is probably an indefensible position. If the community supports this so much, why not offer free religious classes outside of the schools? Doesn't presenting creationism as a theory unnecessarily raise questions and doubts about the Bible, which is quite contrary to the obvious intent of teaching a faith?
-
Science to the rescue! It's the method that underlies the teaching, and all of these points can be dealt with quickly and methodically. "Spaghetti Monster - A parody of creationism by pro-evolutionists. It's unclear whether anyone actually believes this, except to be contrarian." Maybe the final assignment could be for each student to write wikepedia-style descriptions of each belief system. They'd all come out wiser, regardless of whatever they choose to believe, if anything at all. And isn't that the point of education?
-
Teaching creationism as science not only corrupts science, it cheapens creationism. The Bible is a document given to us by God to impart faith and hope for things we cannot understand. Science is given to us to help understand things we can. We could say that some people believe that 2 plus 2 equals 5 but this is irrelevant to the purpose of the Bible. So which theory of creationism is to be taught? Baptist? Catholic? Pentecostal? Islamic?
-
Ha,ha,ha. We is gonna show those smart-aleck egghead scientists something. We is gonna make anti-gravity cream out of hog giblets and sassafras bark. Wee-doggies.
-
Evolution isn't science. All that's 'proven' is that species adapt to changes around them. There is no credible example of them evolving into an entirely different species. For you 'educated' individuals talking about how its so scientific, the truth is that its not. Anyone with a basic understanding of engineering should know this: Do you ever drive past a skyscraper and think to yourself 'Gee, I guess billions of years of random chance could have just as easily assembled all of that glass, steel and concrete as well as a team of engineers, architects, construction workers working from blueprints? Of course not! But that's what evolutionists would have you believe in when it comes to living organisms. It doesn't make sense. Merely postulating the theory or belief that the universe could have been created through intelligent design is just as scientific as evolution, if not more so. This isn't physics people. That's science. Evolution is definitively, and conclusively NOT.
-
Bladerunner, human-made objects are nothing like biological objects. Buildings, as far as we know, do not reproduce and they're not based on DNA. So comparing our feelings towards building and other engineered objects is a really bad and inappropriate analogy. We know much more than organisms just adapting. We are homing in on the genetic programming that turns DNA into an organisms and we can compare the genome of different organisms and see what the changes are that are required and none of these changes (ie., mutations) are precluded by the laws of physics and can be observed in living organisms today. Just by proclaiming evolution isn't science doesn't make it so and trying to substitute special creation (aka magic) is hypocrisy beyond my ability to stomach.
-
Wow, history sure does seem to repeat itself! Come on now Livingston Parish, don't you guys watch the news! Do you really want a repeat of what happened in Dover! Do you honestly want to end up the laughing stock of the nation just like they did? Creationism is NOT science! Here is a link to the PBS video on what happened in Dover. Why don't you enlighten yourselves a little with a few facts before you make Louisiana look like a bunch of ignorant hicks. Let's let the school board members claim that title For themselves only. Let's take one step forward while we watch the board take one step back. -It won't allow me to post a link, but you can google "PBS video Intelligent Design on Trial" Nova . . . and if you want a chuckle, check out this site! I am a proud member of the Church of the Flying ! -Google "The Church of the Flying Spaguetti Monster"
-
Livingston Parish intends to call this curriculum item the Kompulsory Kreationism Klass
-
Its not at all conclusive, Ubernerd. Science hasn't proved it yet. Its still a theory, and if you look at probability, its a pretty bad one. To be honest, I don't even think its valid enough to be considered a theory. Its 'Mathematically Impossible. Basic probability tells you that the odds of a blob of primordial ooze morphing into a man, regardless of how much time has passed, are so remote that mathematicians regard it as impossible. Incidentally, Fred Hoyle and Emile Borel rejected evolution on those grounds. People like to find a way to explain away their existence without having to involve a higher power, and evolution fits the bill nicely. Hence, they'll defend it tenaciously like its absolute truth, even when the evidence is still inconclusive. It has no business being taught as fact. As a possible theory, yes, and as such, there should be alternatives. That doesn't happen. Why does the mere thought of an alternative being offered make you so upset? If evolution is true, then it should stand on its own, and not be propped up by narrow-minded professors and teachers.
-
Bladerunner, it does stand on it's own. There are journals, meetings, research, etc based on evolution. These days, the only people that don't believe in evolution are evangelical Christians that insist the Bible is literally true! It's not based on science or evidence at all. Evolution is a theory and a theory is a broad explanation - it's not a hunch (see germ theory). How does one calculate those probabilities anyway? They're numbers based on strawman arguments like all the parts of a cell coming together at once which is something that evolution doesn't posit. And Hoyle was an astronomer and wasn't familiar with biochemistry, paleontology at all. Irrelevant anyway, because you can find many many many many more scientists that support evolution. He also supported evolution from space - do you support this or do you just cherry-pick ideas that you like? Didn't the other person die some 60 years ago??? As for evolution being a fact: it is. Living things reproduce and are based on DNA, which changes from generation to generation. There's no stopping it. So EVOLUTION MUST HAPPEN.
-
'several board members expressed an interest in the teaching of creationism, an alternative to the study of the theory of evolution' Umm, so I must have been living under a rock for quite some time, b/c I didn't realize there was evidence that earth was created in 6 days.
-
Fallacies in evolution? WTF? Oh that's right, that was a board member saying that. He must have a degree in evolutionary biology.
-
A particular fallacy keeps appearing here in the pro-evolution crowd. I describe it as going from point A, to point B, to point C. Point A is where the school board is now, needing a curriculum. Point C is having the needed agenda, what to teach - right or wrong, at least they have some material. This is the goal. Point B is the usual approach, knowing what "IS" true, and then teaching it. This works well for things like basic mathematics and auto repairs. But in this case, there's too much debate on what IS or IS NOT true. So the solution is as some of us have been saying, teach what's known, the methods of analysis, other competing views & theories and how they relate to each other. Call this point X. You guys are so obsessed with this point B you don't see the point of point C, a teaching agenda. Think Economics, where the "IS" theories are mostly a bunch of squish. You're not up in arms about that, are you?
-
Mr. Geek, "needing a curriculum"? Huh? They're talking about replacing an EXISTING curriculum with another. The issue is taking out evolution and putting in creationism - replacing science-based theories with religious-based mumbo jumbo in a science class. Makes no sense, does it? Seems idiotic, doesn't it?
-
No to both - seems to me, these are straw-man arguments: add a funny label to something to make it appears ridiculous, then "of course" it doesn't count. A teaching curriculum changes every year, that's the nature of things, now it's time for the next one. "Maybe it's time we look into this." I remember old debates about teaching sex education in school - much opposition, but the statistics showed unwed teen pregnancies go up without it. Now, it's not necessary to for educatees to accept the agenda or believe what they are taught, the goal is to transfer awareness of the topic. So too with evolution and creationism; awareness is the "point C" goal. No need to get caught up with "what IS" as you Ubernerds keep trying to do. And this is a very scientific perspective. Consider the issue of NP-complete problems where we likewise cannot make "IS" statements. Mathematicians and scientists are already comfortable with this scenario in general, but look what hackles are raised when evolution or creation comes into the picture! You guys are just so caught up in your vision of what "IS" that you miss the point of what to teach about the whole thing.
-
So even though creationism is a completely religious idea you would like to expose students to it as if it was a legitimate scientific idea? Seriously?
-
Yes that's right, and seriously. That's because I don't buy your argument that creationism is only a religious theme and cannot be dealt with scientifically. You can add all the nasty labels you want, berate as you wish, but yes I still think it's a valid topic for an introductory biology class where evolution mechanisms are also involved. This doesn't mean it has to be taught, I suppose it's the job of the school board to decide. And higher level institutions like colleges don't need the input of you and I, those students are advanced enough to guide themselves. Still, this philosophical milestone is just the beginning. The real meat and potatoes is the agenda itself; just what do Benton and company intend to teach? That makes all the difference.
-
"Yes that's right, and seriously." SIMPLY DEPRESSING "That's because I don't buy your argument that creationism is only a religious theme and cannot be dealt with scientifically." SO YOU THINK THE BIBLICAL STORY OF CREATION IS NOT RELIGIOUS? BUT I THINK YOU CAN TREAT IT SCIENTIFICALLY. IT PREDICTS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE WORLD IS 10,000 YEARS OLD. THIS HAS BEEN SO THOROUGHLY FALSIFIED THAT IT MAKES CREATIONISM ABSURD AS AN IDEA AND TO GIVE IT TIME IN THE SCIENCE CLASSROOM IS A WASTE. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ARGUE TO USE SANTA AS A LEGITIMATE IDEA.
-
Hmm, looks like someone popped his caps lock key! Raising hackles indeed, not to mention jumping to conclusions. Certainly I wouldn't approve of YOUR teachings about creationism, ie a short age of the earth - although the idea is worth mentioning, along with flat earth, etc, to teach what used to common thinking. You're still caught up in the "is" thing, as though discussing a topic means it "is" or "isn't" true. Hence your hackles. As mentioned already - and as avoided continuously - the solution is first teach scientific methods how to approach these topics, controversial though they may be, and use lower-case print in textbooks. I keep wondering what Benton will come up with for an agenda.
-
(That last comment was from me, Mr.Geek, in case I've been anonymized again to a single colon,)
-
I using caps to simply indicate whose response is mine what what's his/hers.
-
I researched this topic some more, and my findings are not encouraging. It seems creationism advocates have more of a political agenda - along religious lines - rather than a scientific approach. Not surprising I guess, but there's a real missed opportunity here. Much of the natural selection / evolution argument is structured around the belief that since it's the simplest explanation "we" can come up with, it must be true due to the "law" of parsimony. As if nature ever bothers to justify itself to our own sense of sensibility. Maybe some of you religious folks on this forum could comment, whether you'd be interested in the method approach I've outlined here as a way of incorporating your creationist sentiments into a classroom agenda? Or are you also caught up in the same "it IS like this" syndrome of the gung ho evolutionists? In which case, solutions-oriented folks like myself will just sit on the sidelines and watch with amusement as you two sides fight it out - most likely, to no avail. Has it occurred to you that it's possible to accept some creationist conclusions purely on scientific grounds without any religious drivers? Don't alienate potential allies with church rhetoric!
-
@Mr. Geek "Has it occurred to you that it's possible to accept some creationist conclusions purely on scientific grounds without any religious drivers?" They have yet to propose any conclusions that can stand on any sort of scientific ground. Nobody has stepped forward with any verifiable evidence in support of creationism. Until that happens, I don't see how any one can justify giving it equal weight in the classroom.
-
I second smail. If you can ignore the fact that creationism (1) comes from a Biblical literalist position that (2) makes it impossible to be falsified then you can approach it scientifically. This means you set out to show it to be false by experiment or observation. You think of what your theory predicts and then you find "critical" experiments or observations that would determine if you are correct or false depending on the outcome. Creationism (ignoring 1 and 2) makes many predictions: the age of the earth < 10,000 years, populations and species divergence dates < 10,000 years, a global flood < 10,000, a mish-mash of fossils including modern species throughout the fossil record (if you can say that fossils exist at all), evidence for a great migration from Turkey (the supposed place of the ark), and on and on. If you're honest and look at how these predictions fare in the face of observation or experiment, you'll come to the same conclusion that most educated people come up with: creationism is bunk.
-
Sounds like several individuals are trying to prove who's is the superior intellect.This is all a moot point,in case you haven't been to a public school lately,you cannot get kids to learn anything,will this be any different.
-
@smail: You're right that the pro-creationists have dropped the ball on coming up with a "unified theory of creation", especially something meshing well with other themes like fossil records. But lack of a needed theory doesn't mean the concept is invalid. E/NS (Evolution via Natural Selection) has enough gaps that a supplement is warranted, it's just not here yet. If I were a scientist in that field I'd try it myself, but I'm merely a Geek. @Uberberd: You're at it again, talking about supposed "facts" of creationism then diverting to Bible stories. You're building straw men. The Genesis flood is only one version of a tale which does appear in other histories too Gilgamesh) along with archeological evidence of a water deluge over the Bosphorous. But this is not creationism, any more than Homer's Iliad. I'm talking about the implicitly stochastic proposal where structure keeps appearing out of nowhere, from molecules on up the food chain to human thought processes. Experiment? Sure, what sort of evolution laboratory can show this? Evolution is not a lab-able science. Pure observation leads to models, some better than others for a given purpose. But you keep talking about "is"-isms, what IS or what IS NOT. Hence myself as an educated person concludes that you have a limited scope of discourse - not bunk, but not wide enough to make conclusions. Anyway, this forum should what to teach about the topic. @Nimby: Yes I like a good debate, but I'm also honest enough to admit this isn't about my opinions. We've said enough already, what will Benton's school board do next?
-
nimby? Qote from article, school board member "Martin, noting that discipline of young people is constantly becoming more of a challenge for parents and teachers, agreed: “Maybe it’s time that we look at this.” Teaching creationism is a solution to classroom discipline? The school board is that clueless? I re-quote Mark Twain: "In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then He made School Boards." — Mark Twain
-
(Nuts, the site colon-ized me again, and garbled the text a bit.)
-
@: "You're at it again, talking about supposed "facts" of creationism then diverting to Bible stories." Of course, that's what the school board is also considering. They're not talking about any other type of creationism. Or do you think they are? " I'm talking about the implicitly stochastic proposal" What? "Experiment? Sure, what sort of evolution laboratory can show this? Evolution is not a lab-able science." You look at the genetic changes that are proposed to go from critter A to critter B then you start manipulating both critters to see what happens. Evolution is a amenable to experimentation! They do it across the hall from me. "But you keep talking about "is"-isms, what IS or what IS NOT." Riiiiiight, and? "Hence myself as an educated person concludes that you have a limited scope of discourse - not bunk, but not wide enough to make conclusions." Seriously? Maybe I'm over-educated then. "Anyway, this forum should what to teach about the topic" right - don't teach creationism. It's a religious concept that fools attempt to apply science too. Don't give it any legitimacy by bringing into the classroom unless you want to use it as an example of how science should not work.
-
Why don't they believe that the Earth is the center of the universe created by God. Can't they see the sun evolving around us?
-
Sorry, I (Mr.Geek) don't buy it, for reasons I've given. But you know that by now. Let's hear from someone who knows more about this school board's specific intentions, or perhaps from some creationists what teaching agenda you would accept, especially proposals which might withstand a no-religion-in-schools court challenge. I'm sure it's do-able, but that doesn't mean it will happen.
-
God hates fossils.
-
Geek, I think the type of person you're looking for won't be reading these forums since it takes a special person that can do the mental gymnastics to see creation as not being religious. If they're any good they're busy writing blogs for the Discovery Institute or some "family forum". In the meantime, feel free to state explicitly why you think creationism belongs in a science curriculum. And you must know, everyone must know, what the school board's intentions are: supplant a science curriculum generated by biology experts by a curriculum that skirts around the demands of science to pander to the populace. Way to go school board!
-
"pander to the populace", a populace whose critical thinking is evidently impaired from decades of school board pandering.
-
If you're familiar with the art of reverse-engineering software or mechanical structures, you might be struck by the similarities of that process and the manner in which evolution theory describes the de/ascent of man from fossils. But in the latter case, the natural-selection-ites deny there's any engineering in the first place, but rather, things "just happened" if you'll excuse my drastic summary to a sound bite. That there's no other readily available explanation doesn't make it true; parsimony is only a decision heuristic, not a physical law. But you're right, most creationists aren't coming from this bottom up avenue - although it's unclear how compatible is this perspective with the belief-oriented "is-ism" crowd (like you, Ubernerd). Hence my queries to the creationists out there, as well as my interest what Benton's school board actually intends to promote. There's certainly enough nonsense going around on both sides in this area - for example, on the Slashdot web site which first reported this development to the Geek world.
-
If you understand how natural selection works in conjunction is genotypic variation it makes the engineering reference an analogy - a poor analogy at that. Engineered objects are engineered at the "phenotype" level but organisms are engineered at the genotype, which doesn't exist for engineered objects. Engineering is performed with endpoints in mind. Organisms have variation (due to mutation and recombination) that is the endpoint and function is consequential. Engineers plan to produce an object and we know from observation that recombination and mutation that these things are random - no endpoint can possibly be planned.
-
"Martin, noting that discipline of young people is constantly becoming more of a challenge for parents and teachers, agreed: “Maybe it’s time that we look at this.” -How is teaching creationism in a science class going to change the discipline and demeanor of students? I suppose things work differently in Livingston Parish.....
-
Reading the post the article about Livingston Parish and creationism has been very interesting. I would like to add my two cent worth in the conversation. Part 1
-
Part 2 One problem I see is that a school board should not have the ability to choose curriculum. This job should be done by educators that have the knowledge of students, real world needs and teaching strategies. If you need new curriculum adopt the Core Standards that has been developed. This could even help us in the Race to the Top Funds. The next problem has to do with teaching creationism. First, Creationism is considered a religious doctrine not a scientific theory. For creationism to be reclassified it must follow the scientific model of investigation. One must create a theory that can be tested and reviewed by peers. This has already been stated in several posts already. Second, by reviewing the court case of Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) you will note that teaching creationism in a public school will never win. This is because our fore fathers had the forethought to create a constitutional right to have a separation of church and state. Public schools belong to the government. Next if the school board decides to push this issue, the board must decide which religious doctrine about creationism to teach. Will it be the Jewish belief, the catholic, belief, the fundamental Christian belief or even the Christian other belief. Each of these doctrines is different. In fact all but the fundamental Christians believe that the Theory of Evolution supports the Creation Doctrine. They all differ when they talk about the creation of the soul. If you teach one you must teach them all. Then you get into having to teach all religious beliefs.
-
Part 3 Teaching creationism just to be teaching creationism is not a valid point. What about considering a section in science that explores the conflicts religion has had on science? The curriculum can start with Galileo and cover all the way through Quantum Physics. This will give creationism a space in the curriculum without teaching the religious views.
-
Part 4 Had to post in part due to it being too long. The school board could even decide to create an elective that teaches the Bible as literature. I have reviewed the textbook and even own a copy of “The Bible and its Influence.” This book is being used in secular schools throughout the US. In fact a small number of schools in Louisiana are using the book. The text explores the Bible stories and how it has influenced history, art, music, literature and culture. This would be a perfect way to study the Bible in public schools. You can find out more information about this text at bibleliteracy.org.
-
Reading the post the article about Livingston Parish and creationism has been very interesting. I would like to add my two cent worth in the conversation. I must post in four parts.
-
RuisFM, the school board isn't talking about creationism just as an academic or historical phenomenon; they're talking about giving it legitimacy by presenting it as a viable alternative to evolution in the biology classroom.
-
Yes I understand that and have already addressed the issue. If you look at the court case I posted you will find that the supreme court in that case against Louisiana "ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion." The livingston board will have to overturn that ruling before they can make creationism a part of thier curriculum. Besides who's doctrine of Creation will they teach? It takes one parent that dissagrees with it to head back into to court. Since there is already a ruling the future does not look to bright for the board.
-
What version? There should be no mistake that the board are, most likely, Southern Baptists so the King James version of course. Funny that some people here act as if the intention of the board isn't clear. You're talking about people that think the earth is < 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve, etc. And with that goes the charge to tell the world about the "Truth" of their religion.
-
David Tate, LPSB member “We don’t want litigation, but why not take a stand for Jesus and risk litigation,” Jesus says, in Mark 10:6 that "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female." A literal reading of Genesis states God made humans on the sixth day. So which literal account is right? This is just one of sundry examples why it is a bad idea to interpret the Bible as literal, it is a Holy, moral guide and compass and was necessarily written for people throughout the ages to enlighten man, not to keep him ignorant or for man to foolishly impose timelines on a divine plan. It is the ultimate in foolhardiness to attempt to impose constraints on God. Jesus did say "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority." Acts1:7. There are many Biblical examples where it is obvious that Jesus did not intend for His parables to be taken literally, as a matter of fact many of the parables would not make sense if interpreted literally. The parables were obviously meant to be interpreted by different cultures of people people throughout time. This in no way distorts their universal truths. It seems to me that if God wanted to keep us ignorant, He could have easily not left the fossil records for us to discover and denied man the capability to develop science. Man's understanding is infinitely exceeded by his ignorance but we have been given the capability to observe and wonder. Mr. Tate does not know whereof He speaks.
-
Apparently these citizens believe the only way to keep their brand of religion alive is to trap and force-feed children at an early age. And they would undoubtedly be correct.
-
Teaching beliefs is only a problem if you're caught up in teaching "what is", versus teaching various models of how we think about a topic. This latter style is already used in advanced science like quantum physics. By doing this, the ability - as promoted by F. Scott Fitzgerald (I think it was him) - to hold conflicting ideas in one's head at the same time is enabled. This is the solution to the artificial problem continuously harped upon by "IS-ists" here like Ubernerd and RuisFM straw men, namely "which beliefs to teach?". Teach all, as models. Then there was a comment about relocating the teaching curriculum from school boards to the teachers themselves. As an unrelated aside, the UK is about to relocate NHS health care decisions (and their billions of $$) from gov't advisory panels to the doctors themselves. Let's see how well it works to put the technocrats directly in charge. I have my doubts.
-
The fact is, the school board isn't talking about epistemological issues but teaching what "IS". I agree, students should understand ways of knowing but that's not the issue here is it (isn't that how you define a strawman, btw). The school isn't talking about introducing divine second hand revelation vs. empiricism - they're debating if they should tell students that the earth is <10,000 and all the organisms were instantaneous created. They won't be so explicit but that will essentially be the upshot. Hopefully, you're not saying that a biology class be devoid of content (what "IS") and simply be about how we know stuff. This isn't how quantum physics is taught either. Physicist also want to know what "IS".
-
I didn't glean that <10k scenario from the text above, how do you know this? Or is that just a common fear? Yes there have been abuses in the past - like "man evolved from the apes" (a terrible stereotype) - but what does Benton actually propose to teach? And what do the other creationists here have to say about what they would find acceptable? Maybe we scared them away. I think most creationists don't have compatibility problems with modern biology, but some opinionated agenda-ists sometimes step overboard and introduce unwarranted negative viewpoints towards parallel religious views.
-
"I didn't glean that <10k scenario from the text above, how do you know this?" That what creationists believe and what creationist textbooks suggest. I've been following the debate for some 20 years but, if you wander what is taught, crack open the King James. You can also see what they believe in websites such as Answers in Genesis. "Or is that just a common fear?" Common fear of? Scientists? Sure. "but what does Benton actually propose to teach?" A. "Doubts" in what we know such as the age of the Earth and the fossil record and B. a substitute including global flood and complexity from intelligence. "Maybe we scared them away." I don't think most creationist think any more than "Goddidit". "I think most creationists don't have compatibility problems with modern biology" except the explanation for nearly everything is evolutionary.
-
With the election season coming up. I feel that the residents of Livingston Parish should have a vote in what is being taught to its students. I have a child that is attending a school in Livingston Parish and I see the need to either vote in creationism or at least be able to vote that our existing evolution classes be disband. I feel that if the truth isn't going to be taught than omit what is being taught. That way we can teach what we believe to be correct to our children at home. We don't want our children to be unclear of the facts. For all you that don't believe in Creationism- When we both come to the end of our lives and we discovered that my beliefs were just a myth. I have lost nothing. But if you realize that my beliefs were real - YOU HAVE LOST EVERYTHING . Which would you rather your children believe in. Evolution or Creationism ?
-
@ stand_up, so what you're saying is: despite the evidence contrary to a Biblical interpretation, believe it anyway? And it's worth living a life of illusion just in case God judges you based on your epistemology?
-
despite the evidence of what? Evidence has been changed over and over in my life. Text books have been rewritten to add in their so called new findings. But the schools still wants to teach Darwinism. This has been discounted as truth more than once by their own scientist. If they can't believe in their own beliefs then why do they expect that we are as the apes that they claim that we came from. Besides even if it were choosing to believe in one way or the other, I would still choose to believe in a heavenly creator then believing that we came from apes. Which take more faith to believe, That we came from nothing and then we were, (big boom theory) or that a loving creator made us an breathed breath in us. Again I think that it would really take less faith in believing in God. I live with not only faith but with the knowing in the core of my being that God is very real. Once you meet Jesus then you would agree. But until you do, you cannot judge or condemn what you have no idea of. So hold your tongue until you have experienced what I'm speaking of. The best way to tell you is, If someone came to live in your house, slept on your couch and eat out of your refrigerator. Would you not know that they were there? This is what happens when Jesus comes into your life and changes you. He has re arranged things in my heart that only he could do. Definitely not me. Although it was things that I truly wanted to change, but couldn't, not on my own. There are still changes that are being made in my life and we are changing them together. So when you say living an illusion, not so. This is a reality that even you could know. Jesus loves you too.
-
stand_up, you are right. This creationism curriculum will make sure the kids stay in Livingston parish once they graduate. Won't be any brain drain from the parish!
-
Hey, that's not a bad strategy: 1. Teach Creationism to Livingston Parish students. 2. They stay in Livingston Parish, keeping the meth labs all in one area. 3. ?????? 4. Profit!
-
@ stand up: yup, we so-called scientists up-date our so-called science (is it "so called" when you don't agree with it?). That's how science works all around the world and in every area of science. HOWEVER, the scientific consensus has never redacted evolution (is that what you meant by Darwinism?). There are non-believers in the science world but, not surprisingly, they're all born-again and nearly all Southern Baptists. How they do the mental gymnastics to believe in creationisms is beyond me. But, again, you reaffirm that you would believe second-hand revelation as opposed to evidence. And you would wish this is how we would teach our children? Barf.
-
As a christian and a parent, I have mau problems with this issue. While I feel that learning about God is an important tool in develpoping a strong moral compss, I feel I have the right to apporve how and by whom my child is being creationism. I feel that this cirriculum coud be very subjective depending on the individuals beliefs. Additionally, it is my experience that if God and creationism is not reinforced at home, then teaching it in school won't have a huge impact of disciplien issues. I send my child to school to learn math, science, english, etc.; I send him to bible school to learn about God. By doing so, I enable him to make his own educated decisions. I don't want my child to be graded on his level of religious conviction. Again, that is way too subjective. If creationism is taught, does that mean they would not teach about Darwin and evolution? If so, I will be sending my child to another parish!
-
Scientific theories are testable in principle. Creationism IS testable. There are various methods of determining, for instance, the age of the earth. ALL of those methods show the earth to be over 6,000 years old. Creationists, then, must reject the standard methods of science insofar as Creationists believe that the earth is no older than 6,000 years. Why? Because science MUST BE CONSISTENT. Consistency (and a need for it) is not a problem in religion (note the many inconsistencies within the Bible; read these at http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/). Rejecting the standard methods of science is obviously problematic for scientists, and one of the strongest reasons that scientists reject the... I guess notion of creationism. Teaching creationism to students who have only the slightest notion of what theory development in science is all about is supremely irresponsible from a scientific perspective. Doing it for "religious reasons" is just abhorrent from a religious and moral perspective. Intelligent design is NOT testable in principle. It is a meta-scientific theory. ID does not bear on the theory of evolution, for or against. It is a discussion that has its appropriate place completely outside of hypothesis testing, experimentation, and the development of scientific theory. Because ID is "beyond" science, it (and I mean this as literally as possibly) HAS NO PLACE in a science classroom. It has its place in a philosophy classroom.
-
David Tate, a Livingston Parish School Board member, said after the meeting, ‘I believe that both sides — the creationism side and the evolution side — should be presented and let students decide what they believe.’ 'Let the students decide.' How ignorant can these people be? How about we present Ptolemy's 'Geocentric' model of the Universe and Galileo's 'Heliocentric' model and let the students decide what they believe. I am deeply ashamed of being a Louisianian. What a disgrace. WARNING. WARNING. Do not let your child be educated in Livingston Parish. http://www.creationismstrojanhorse.com/ Everybody should read this fantastic, yet sadly necessary book from local professor and Louisianian. The board members of the Livingston Parish School Board should especially read it.
-
You know what is really maddening? A whole series of opinions removed from this argument by a news gathering source that would scream First Amendment rights if the same had been done to them. Shame on you Advocate. For those of you are are reluctant to say you are from Louisiana when you travel or discourage those you come in contact with to avoid it. Good riddance. You're not wanted here anyway. Regardless of what this short sighted school board may have said this is still a great place to raise a family and I wouldn't want to be in any other place in the world.
-
(RaisedinRedlands: What is this the dark ages I learned all about in junior high school in California. Wonder why education is falling behind in Baton Rouge here is why. Once again a group of ignorant people are dumbing down and deciding what is and isn't acceptable to teach in school. No wonder the people are behind with the upper moral minority telling them what to listen to and read. Now ask yourself why your childrne can't read and write so well. This might be the answer.) Is this for real? Keep your California education...This dumbed down hick can't for the life of me figure out what the heck you are trying to say.
Click "Report Abuse" to notify our moderators that a comment may contain objectionable content.
Your comment appears to contain objectionable content and must be reviewed by a site moderator. If your comment is deemed objectionable, it will not appear on the site.
 | ||||
| Most Popular | Most Emailed | Hot Topics | ||
