Evolution, Science And Education

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette@Jan 20 2005, 09:38 AM

I almost always agree with everything Duck says, but I do disagree on one point. I think the stickers are very blatently creationist. They were specifically pointed at evolution, and didn't include other scientific "theories" such as: electricity, relativity, and thermodynamics. Since these things are theories, perhaps Georgia schools should put stickers on the light switches reminding them that, even though the lights turn on when the switch is flipped, it's still only a theory. The same with school lunch. It's "only" a theory that the food will cool off enough to become edible, so it's not safe to depend on it. The whole thing is so silly.

Curvy,

If you had time to read the court's decision (it's long and dry), you read that the court ruled that one of the school board's purposes in using the sticker -- minimizing the offense to people whose beliefs conflicted with evolution -- was a legitimate secular purpose. It happens that evolution is a theory that has theological implications in a way that thermodynamics, gravity, etc. do not. (At least not anymore, the Catholics having finally admitted a few years ago that they goofed on that Galileo thing.)

There is therefore no need to take steps to avoid offense at the theory of gravity. There are probably other scientific theories which might have theological implications; some of the advanced theories of neuroscience come to mind (those which call into question whether free will exists, or a soul, or whether human consciousness involves nothing more than chemistry and electricity.) But those theories generally are too advanced to be part of the high school curriculum anyway.

Also, electricity and thermodynamics generally aren't used as clubs against religion by religion's opponents.

I stand by my conclusion that the stickers are religiously neutral, not creationist. I don't think I personally would have voted for them, but neither would I, as a judge, have concluded that they constitute an establishment of religion.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 20 2005, 12:08 PM

neither would I, as a judge, have concluded that they constitute an establishment of religion.

Hmmm...now that's a thought! I think you'd make a fine judge! (You're so funny too!) I wasn't able to read the whole thing because PDF's take forever to load on my system. Thanks for the clarification.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 19 2005, 07:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 19 2005, 07:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 19 2005, 06:51 PM

Thanks Pd...I see what you are getting at...what are your personal views regarding the labels being attached to the text books?  Do you think that they should have been attached or not, considering that the school was supposed to be neutral as far as religious beliefs was concerned?

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory."

I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists.

The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history.

I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God.

When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue.

You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist.

[pushka]

Hiya Cal...it's great to see you back here posting...I find your posts very interesting...

May I ask you, are you LDS and is the picture on your avatar supposed to represent Bob Dylan? :)

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 22 2005, 10:36 PM

Hiya Cal...it's great to see you back here posting...I find your posts very interesting...

May I ask you, are you LDS and is the picture on your avatar supposed to represent Bob Dylan? :)

Yes, I am LDS--but you will notice, I ask some awfully "suspicious" questions and at times sound like something of an atheist. I'm not, though, I can seen their point of view and it has some merit. I would classify myselft as a born-again mormon-humanist-see-lots-of-good-and-bad-in-all-religions.

My avatar is just some guitar guy as far as I know--I've been a week end guitar hero since I first heard Duane Eddy Twang that thang. Currently I'm doing a weekend guitar duo gig at a local seafood restaurant.

[pushka]

That's great Cal...I read another post earlier about how you maintain your belief in the LDS church...I once attended the church, for 5 years, but left it when I became involved in a relationship which would have got me tangled up in the 'do's' and 'don'ts'. I suppose I was the same sort of believer that you are at the time, I still see some good in all the religions I've read about, but I don't follow any specific one anymore.

Hope your guitar thang goes okay!

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 23 2005, 11:42 AM

That's great Cal...I read another post earlier about how you maintain your belief in the LDS church...I once attended the church, for 5 years, but left it when I became involved in a relationship which would have got me tangled up in the 'do's' and 'don'ts'. I suppose I was the same sort of believer that you are at the time, I still see some good in all the religions I've read about, but I don't follow any specific one anymore.

Hope your guitar thang goes okay!

Thank you---I hope you continue to find your way through the minefield of religious philosophy.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 22 2005, 03:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 22 2005, 03:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 19 2005, 07:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 19 2005, 06:51 PM

Thanks Pd...I see what you are getting at...what are your personal views regarding the labels being attached to the text books?  Do you think that they should have been attached or not, considering that the school was supposed to be neutral as far as religious beliefs was concerned?

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory."

I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists.

The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history.

I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God.

When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue.

You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist.

It's not the texts, it's the lectures. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 24 2005, 05:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 24 2005, 05:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 22 2005, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 19 2005, 07:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 19 2005, 06:51 PM

Thanks Pd...I see what you are getting at...what are your personal views regarding the labels being attached to the text books?  Do you think that they should have been attached or not, considering that the school was supposed to be neutral as far as religious beliefs was concerned?

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory."

I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists.

The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history.

I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God.

When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue.

You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist.

It's not the texts, it's the lectures. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.

The issue is textbooks, that kids read....the kids who the Supremes consider most vulnerable the States attempts to promote religion----lots of people lecture, like Dawkins--it has little to do with the issue of promoting religion in science classes in public schools. I've never heard a public school science teacher even mention his name in a Biology class. His name is not in Biology textbooks, at least at the K-12 level.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 24 2005, 08:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 24 2005, 08:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 24 2005, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 22 2005, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 19 2005, 07:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 19 2005, 06:51 PM

Thanks Pd...I see what you are getting at...what are your personal views regarding the labels being attached to the text books?  Do you think that they should have been attached or not, considering that the school was supposed to be neutral as far as religious beliefs was concerned?

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory."

I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists.

The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history.

I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God.

When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue.

You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist.

It's not the texts, it's the lectures. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.

The issue is textbooks, that kids read....the kids who the Supremes consider most vulnerable the States attempts to promote religion----lots of people lecture, like Dawkins--it has little to do with the issue of promoting religion in science classes in public schools. I've never heard a public school science teacher even mention his name in a Biology class. His name is not in Biology textbooks, at least at the K-12 level.

What is wrong with a broad understanding of all that is spinning in this world? I allow my children, who clearly believe in God, to study a teaching which totally does not allow for God in it, why must it be so one sided? Why can it be more open. The very fact that they are scared our children might hear the word God in the public school system speaks volumes about how narrow and closed minded they are. The Christian/God believers are so much more open and tolerant than these freaks of Godlessness.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 25 2005, 03:55 PM

What is wrong with a broad understanding of all that is spinning in this world? I allow my children, who clearly believe in God, to study a teaching which totally does not allow for God in it, why must it be so one sided? Why can it be more open. The very fact that they are scared our children might hear the word God in the public school system speaks volumes about how narrow and closed minded they are. The Christian/God believers are so much more open and tolerant than these freaks of Godlessness.

Amilia...are you saying that the school in question did not have any religious instruction lessons at all for its students? Even in the UK our state schools teach a broad religious curriculum...obviously taking into account the many varied religions of their students, and are neutral in their teachings.

I agree that all students should be able to be taught a wide range of subjects for life, including science, sex education, religion, and maybe how to debate on political issues...without, of course, trying to sway those students into voting for one particular political party over another when the time comes, as well as following the required national curriculum subjects...english, physical education and others...

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 25 2005, 03:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 25 2005, 03:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 24 2005, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 24 2005, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 22 2005, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 19 2005, 07:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 19 2005, 06:51 PM

Thanks Pd...I see what you are getting at...what are your personal views regarding the labels being attached to the text books?  Do you think that they should have been attached or not, considering that the school was supposed to be neutral as far as religious beliefs was concerned?

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory."

I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists.

The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history.

I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God.

When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue.

You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist.

It's not the texts, it's the lectures. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.

The issue is textbooks, that kids read....the kids who the Supremes consider most vulnerable the States attempts to promote religion----lots of people lecture, like Dawkins--it has little to do with the issue of promoting religion in science classes in public schools. I've never heard a public school science teacher even mention his name in a Biology class. His name is not in Biology textbooks, at least at the K-12 level.

What is wrong with a broad understanding of all that is spinning in this world? I allow my children, who clearly believe in God, to study a teaching which totally does not allow for God in it, why must it be so one sided? Why can it be more open. The very fact that they are scared our children might hear the word God in the public school system speaks volumes about how narrow and closed minded they are. The Christian/God believers are so much more open and tolerant than these freaks of Godlessness.

Amillia--its a little thing called separation of church and state. Evolution is scientific, not religious--creationism and the idea of God is a religious doctrine. Public schools, being an agency of government is not permited to promote or endorse religion over non-religion. It's not a matter of equal time--religion gets NO time in science classes, and shouldn't.

High school science classes are about teaching science, not religion. Nor are science classes about about teaching AGAINST religion---religion is simply not an issue. Science teachers teach what the scientific method allows--hypothesis that are testable using the scientific method---religion and God are not, therefore they don't belong in public school classrooms---at least not to the extent that they promote a religious view over a scientific one.

It's not like creationism and evolution are both on equal footing scientifically. Creationism has virtually no place in science since no one has yet devise and experiment that can either verify or disprove the existance of God or a divine creation. Where as, there are lots of scientific observations and experiments that can test the hypotheses of evolution.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Back to the topic, I just thought I'd remind everyone that the sticker said nothing about creationism.

The main reason creationism has no place in "science" is that it begins with the conclusion and works backwards, and science is supposed to work the other way around.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by pushka+Jan 25 2005, 06:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pushka @ Jan 25 2005, 06:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 25 2005, 03:55 PM

What is wrong with a broad understanding of all that is spinning in this world? I allow my children, who clearly believe in God, to study a teaching which totally does not allow for God in it, why must it be so one sided? Why can it be more open. The very fact that they are scared our children might hear the word God in the public school system speaks volumes about how narrow and closed minded they are. The Christian/God believers are so much more open and tolerant than these freaks of Godlessness.

Amilia...are you saying that the school in question did not have any religious instruction lessons at all for its students? Even in the UK our state schools teach a broad religious curriculum...obviously taking into account the many varied religions of their students, and are neutral in their teachings.

I agree that all students should be able to be taught a wide range of subjects for life, including science, sex education, religion, and maybe how to debate on political issues...without, of course, trying to sway those students into voting for one particular political party over another when the time comes, as well as following the required national curriculum subjects...english, physical education and others...

Our schools don't allow God to be taught. At least when my kids were in them.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 25 2005, 07:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 25 2005, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Jan 25 2005, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 24 2005, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 24 2005, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 22 2005, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 19 2005, 07:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 19 2005, 06:51 PM

Thanks Pd...I see what you are getting at...what are your personal views regarding the labels being attached to the text books?  Do you think that they should have been attached or not, considering that the school was supposed to be neutral as far as religious beliefs was concerned?

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory."

I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists.

The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history.

I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God.

When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue.

You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist.

It's not the texts, it's the lectures. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.

The issue is textbooks, that kids read....the kids who the Supremes consider most vulnerable the States attempts to promote religion----lots of people lecture, like Dawkins--it has little to do with the issue of promoting religion in science classes in public schools. I've never heard a public school science teacher even mention his name in a Biology class. His name is not in Biology textbooks, at least at the K-12 level.

What is wrong with a broad understanding of all that is spinning in this world? I allow my children, who clearly believe in God, to study a teaching which totally does not allow for God in it, why must it be so one sided? Why can it be more open. The very fact that they are scared our children might hear the word God in the public school system speaks volumes about how narrow and closed minded they are. The Christian/God believers are so much more open and tolerant than these freaks of Godlessness.

Amillia--its a little thing called separation of church and state. Evolution is scientific, not religious--creationism and the idea of God is a religious doctrine. Public schools, being an agency of government is not permited to promote or endorse religion over non-religion. It's not a matter of equal time--religion gets NO time in science classes, and shouldn't.

High school science classes are about teaching science, not religion. Nor are science classes about about teaching AGAINST religion---religion is simply not an issue. Science teachers teach what the scientific method allows--hypothesis that are testable using the scientific method---religion and God are not, therefore they don't belong in public school classrooms---at least not to the extent that they promote a religious view over a scientific one.

It's not like creationism and evolution are both on equal footing scientifically. Creationism has virtually no place in science since no one has yet devise and experiment that can either verify or disprove the existance of God or a divine creation. Where as, there are lots of scientific observations and experiments that can test the hypotheses of evolution.

Well we study Einstein don't we? Then why not the greatest of all scientists~ God?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 25 2005, 10:59 PM

Back to the topic, I just thought I'd remind everyone that the sticker said nothing about creationism.

The main reason creationism has no place in "science" is that it begins with the conclusion and works backwards, and science is supposed to work the other way around.

Really. Sometimes I think that they will use any sort of logic to excuse their exclusion and extreme prejudice.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 25 2005, 09:59 PM

Back to the topic, I just thought I'd remind everyone that the sticker said nothing about creationism.

The main reason creationism has no place in "science" is that it begins with the conclusion and works backwards, and science is supposed to work the other way around.

Exactly--creationism has to start out as a conclusion since no decent scientist has ever been able to get to creationism through the route of Hypothesis--experiment--conclusion.

"Intelligent Design" is just an end run around the issue---a euphemism for creationism. It is being promoted for the same reasons creationsim was. Since the Courts have trashed creationism, lets create a different term and see where it gets us.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 25 2005, 11:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 25 2005, 11:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 25 2005, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Jan 25 2005, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 24 2005, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 24 2005, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 22 2005, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 19 2005, 07:29 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 19 2005, 06:51 PM

Thanks Pd...I see what you are getting at...what are your personal views regarding the labels being attached to the text books?  Do you think that they should have been attached or not, considering that the school was supposed to be neutral as far as religious beliefs was concerned?

I think I would have been inclined, had I been on the school board in question, to vote against the sticker, or at least support the alternative -- if for no other reason than that the sticker does show a mangled understanding of the word "theory."

I do not think that the sticker rendered the school other than neutral between religious beliefs. I think that in order to be seen as taking the creationist side, it would have had to have been more explicit -- for example, specifically mentioning creationism as an alternative explanation for the origin of species. The sticker simply noted that there are alternative views on the subject. There was no real need for the alternative sticker's reminder that the "other views" are minority views; the fact that evolution was the only view discussed in detail in the actual textbook seemed more than adequate to convey the message that evolution was the explanation for biology that predominates among scientists.

The hoo-hah over evolution isn't simply a function of backward creationists getting the vapors over the whole concept of evolution. It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God. In fact, evolution provides no such evidence. All it proves is that the Genesis creation account is not a literal history.

I think it is entirely possible, given a little good will among religious majorities and minorities, for each others' sensibilities to be adequately protected without taking the First Amendment beyond its intended scope and making it into an absolute ban on religious expression in the public sphere. For example, there is a line of First Amendment cases on the subject of public-meeting invocations that requires that they not be used to proselytize. So the boogeyman of an evangelical praying at a high school football game for Mormons to see the error of their ways and accept the true Athanasian Jesus is a red herring; it's possible to avoid that kind of offense without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It's also a function of opponents of religion who try to use evolution as a weapon for their side, offering evolution as evidence against the existence of God.

When was the last time you saw an attempt by an atheist group try to have science books say specifically, that evolution offers evidence against the existence of God, or even that ANY science textbook writer suggested that it should? It is a non-issue.

You may find authors or commentators making such a claim, but I have NEVER heard it even suggested. I would guess that most opponents of religion tend to be scientific minded as it is, and understand the nature of science better than your run of the mill creationist.

It's not the texts, it's the lectures. Richard Dawkins is a prime example.

The issue is textbooks, that kids read....the kids who the Supremes consider most vulnerable the States attempts to promote religion----lots of people lecture, like Dawkins--it has little to do with the issue of promoting religion in science classes in public schools. I've never heard a public school science teacher even mention his name in a Biology class. His name is not in Biology textbooks, at least at the K-12 level.

What is wrong with a broad understanding of all that is spinning in this world? I allow my children, who clearly believe in God, to study a teaching which totally does not allow for God in it, why must it be so one sided? Why can it be more open. The very fact that they are scared our children might hear the word God in the public school system speaks volumes about how narrow and closed minded they are. The Christian/God believers are so much more open and tolerant than these freaks of Godlessness.

Amillia--its a little thing called separation of church and state. Evolution is scientific, not religious--creationism and the idea of God is a religious doctrine. Public schools, being an agency of government is not permited to promote or endorse religion over non-religion. It's not a matter of equal time--religion gets NO time in science classes, and shouldn't.

High school science classes are about teaching science, not religion. Nor are science classes about about teaching AGAINST religion---religion is simply not an issue. Science teachers teach what the scientific method allows--hypothesis that are testable using the scientific method---religion and God are not, therefore they don't belong in public school classrooms---at least not to the extent that they promote a religious view over a scientific one.

It's not like creationism and evolution are both on equal footing scientifically. Creationism has virtually no place in science since no one has yet devise and experiment that can either verify or disprove the existance of God or a divine creation. Where as, there are lots of scientific observations and experiments that can test the hypotheses of evolution.

Well we study Einstein don't we? Then why not the greatest of all scientists~ God?

Because there is ample "scientific evidence" that Einstein EXISTED. There is no scientific evidence for the existance of God, fortunately or unfortunately depending on how you look at it.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 25 2005, 11:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 25 2005, 11:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 25 2005, 10:59 PM

Back to the topic, I just thought I'd remind everyone that the sticker said nothing about creationism.

The main reason creationism has no place in "science" is that it begins with the conclusion and works backwards, and science is supposed to work the other way around.

Really. Sometimes I think that they will use any sort of logic to excuse their exclusion and extreme prejudice.

Sorry, Amellia, but that happens to be the only kind of logic that CAN be called logic. Science begins with evidence and THEN proceeds to conclusions. Starting with a conclusion like "God zapped everything into existance 6000 years ago" is a conclusion without physical evidence.

If we don't follow those kinds of rules of logic, then anything anyone claims to be true could be force upon us. By your rules of logic, if enough people believe that the moon were made of cheeze, we would have to teach that in science class too. Creationism and a cheezy moon have about the same amount of evidence behind them.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 26 2005, 06:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 26 2005, 06:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 25 2005, 09:59 PM

Back to the topic, I just thought I'd remind everyone that the sticker said nothing about creationism.

The main reason creationism has no place in "science" is that it begins with the conclusion and works backwards, and science is supposed to work the other way around.

Exactly--creationism has to start out as a conclusion since no decent scientist has ever been able to get to creationism through the route of Hypothesis--experiment--conclusion.

"Intelligent Design" is just an end run around the issue---a euphemism for creationism. It is being promoted for the same reasons creationsim was. Since the Courts have trashed creationism, lets create a different term and see where it gets us.

I wouldn't say ID is exactly the same as creationism. It encompasses creationism as providing one possible identity for the intelligent designer, but theoretically there's also the possibility that the designer could be a master race of little green men from Deneb.

I haven't studied ID all that much, mainly because seems to me to relegate God to a kind of detached deistic master watchmaker who I wouldn't bother to worship. But at points it does come close to the scientific theory of the anthropic principle -- the recognition that the conditions for intelligent life are more fine-tuned in its favor than you would expect to result from the random interactions of the observable universe.

I'm not averse to the idea that God could have set up a few variables in a particular way in the beginning and let evolution rip. I wouldn't want that taught as a positive fact in the schools, although neither do I think that to mention that some (including Darwin himself!) consider this a possibility would impermissibly establish religion.

I guess I would want the origin of life taught something like this: "The best available evidence indicates that species evolve from other species by a process of natural selection of random genetic mutations. This theory is sufficient to explain the evolution of all life from a single cell. Nobody knows how that first cell came to be. The best available evidence indicates that based on the age and extent of the observable universe, it is statistically unlikely that the components of a single cell would have assembled themselves and combined as a result of random interactions of molecules. In The Origin of Species, Darwin posited that God had created the first cell. Others posit that life on earth was just amazingly lucky, like rolling double six five times in a row at the craps table. Others have speculated that this universe is one of multiple universes, whose total extent and age suffice to satisfy the extremely long odds against the random generation of a cell. However, this last theory is supported by no more evidence than the first. Students should recognize both the conclusions and the limitations of the best available evidence on this subject."

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 26 2005, 06:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 26 2005, 06:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 26 2005, 06:07 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 25 2005, 09:59 PM

Back to the topic, I just thought I'd remind everyone that the sticker said nothing about creationism.

The main reason creationism has no place in "science" is that it begins with the conclusion and works backwards, and science is supposed to work the other way around.

Exactly--creationism has to start out as a conclusion since no decent scientist has ever been able to get to creationism through the route of Hypothesis--experiment--conclusion.

"Intelligent Design" is just an end run around the issue---a euphemism for creationism. It is being promoted for the same reasons creationsim was. Since the Courts have trashed creationism, lets create a different term and see where it gets us.

I wouldn't say ID is exactly the same as creationism. It encompasses creationism as providing one possible identity for the intelligent designer, but theoretically there's also the possibility that the designer could be a master race of little green men from Deneb.

I haven't studied ID all that much, mainly because seems to me to relegate God to a kind of detached deistic master watchmaker who I wouldn't bother to worship. But at points it does come close to the scientific theory of the anthropic principle -- the recognition that the conditions for intelligent life are more fine-tuned in its favor than you would expect to result from the random interactions of the observable universe.

I'm not averse to the idea that God could have set up a few variables in a particular way in the beginning and let evolution rip. I wouldn't want that taught as a positive fact in the schools, although neither do I think that to mention that some (including Darwin himself!) consider this a possibility would impermissibly establish religion.

I guess I would want the origin of life taught something like this: "The best available evidence indicates that species evolve from other species by a process of natural selection of random genetic mutations. This theory is sufficient to explain the evolution of all life from a single cell. Nobody knows how that first cell came to be. The best available evidence indicates that based on the age and extent of the observable universe, it is statistically unlikely that the components of a single cell would have assembled themselves and combined as a result of random interactions of molecules. In The Origin of Species, Darwin posited that God had created the first cell. Others posit that life on earth was just amazingly lucky, like rolling double six five times in a row at the craps table. Others have speculated that this universe is one of multiple universes, whose total extent and age suffice to satisfy the extremely long odds against the random generation of a cell. However, this last theory is supported by no more evidence than the first. Students should recognize both the conclusions and the limitations of the best available evidence on this subject."

Good comments--however, the idea of intelligent design is actually speculation as to HOW the atoms and molecules interacted so as to form organic materials. There is no evidence that any such manipulation took place. That is the problem with calling ID a theory--it still has no scientific basis. It is NOT a conclusion that any serious number of Biologists have come to.

Darwin was speculating as to how the first cells formed. You can teach that as a "fact of history", but not as a theory of science. He had no "theory" that God created any first cell. He was a better scientist than that. His theory was a conclusion based on the observations in nature that he made. It is still the only theory that has any serious evidence behind it, and so is the only theory that merits any attention in a science class.

If it weren't for the fact that some religions insist that God must have directed evolution, or that didn't even happen at all, would there be any push to have such an idea taught in a public school science class? What if I have a religious belief that the first cell was made on Jupiter's moon Titan, and transported here by alien, which also left a book of scripture describing the event--though the book looks suspiciously like an accumulation of cultural fairy tales mixed in with some legitimate world history. Would I have to teach that in science class too?

[pushka]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 26 2005, 06:30 PM

I guess I would want the origin of life taught something like this: "The best available evidence indicates that species evolve from other species by a process of natural selection of random genetic mutations. This theory is sufficient to explain the evolution of all life from a single cell. Nobody knows how that first cell came to be. The best available evidence indicates that based on the age and extent of the observable universe, it is statistically unlikely that the components of a single cell would have assembled themselves and combined as a result of random interactions of molecules. In The Origin of Species, Darwin posited that God had created the first cell. Others posit that life on earth was just amazingly lucky, like rolling double six five times in a row at the craps table. Others have speculated that this universe is one of multiple universes, whose total extent and age suffice to satisfy the extremely long odds against the random generation of a cell. However, this last theory is supported by no more evidence than the first. Students should recognize both the conclusions and the limitations of the best available evidence on this subject."

Sounds like a good way to teach it in my opinion.

Amilia, I live in the UK and religion is loosely taught in state as well as church schools, we must have different rules over here regarding the teaching of religion in state schools.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by pushka+Jan 26 2005, 07:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pushka @ Jan 26 2005, 07:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 26 2005, 06:30 PM

I guess I would want the origin of life taught something like this:  "The best available evidence indicates that species evolve from other species by a process of natural selection of random genetic mutations.  This theory is sufficient to explain the evolution of all life from a single cell.  Nobody knows how that first cell came to be.  The best available evidence indicates that based on the age and extent of the observable universe, it is statistically unlikely that the components of a single cell would have assembled themselves and combined as a result of random interactions of molecules.  In The Origin of Species, Darwin posited that God had created the first cell.  Others posit that life on earth was just amazingly lucky, like rolling double six five times in a row at the craps table.  Others have speculated that this universe is one of multiple universes, whose total extent and age suffice to satisfy the extremely long odds against the random generation of a cell.  However, this last theory is supported by no more evidence than the first.  Students should recognize both the conclusions and the limitations of the best available evidence on this subject."

Sounds like a good way to teach it in my opinion.

Amilia, I live in the UK and religion is loosely taught in state as well as church schools, we must have different rules over here regarding the teaching of religion in state schools.

It sounds like we do. Maybe it is because we are in Utah ~ a place of religious beginnings and strong holds.

[pushka]

Yes it would seem so.

[mark44]

one huge problem for any LDS who accept evolution is the doctrine of accountability.

evolution was allegedly a very sloooowwww process ie miniscule changes and alterations taking place over millions upon millions, even billions, of years. it took at least a few millions for a fish fin to even look anything remotely like a webbed foot, or a wing perhaps.

so, it must have been the same with humans. okay... in which case, at what point did man become accountable? i mean, it's impossible that the sun came up one day and that very same day pre-homo-sapien suddenly became fully fledged homo-sapien and accountable for his actions.

so, accountability and consciousness must have developed real slow too.

also, who were all the unfortunate pre-existant spirits who had the poor luck of being sent into pre-homo-sapien or neanderthal bodies???

i'm sorry, evolution, at least human evolution, is contrary to church doctrine.

also, how come the oldest buildings in the world only date back to about 5000BC. i believe jericho is the oldest remaining city. history begins in about the same era, with sumeria being the first civilization and no evidence of any civilization (in the sense of a civil society) having existed before it. what, cavemen evolved into a civilization like sumeria overnight!? what? crude paintings of animals on cave walls evolved into sumerian cuiniform overnight!? so we now have missing links, not only in the fossil record, but in the historical record, and in the written and speech record.

most damning of all is the timeline used by evolutionists themselves. "the cambrian explosion" marks a time when all of a sudden, in one millionth of a second on evolutions long slow timeline, all these complicated lifeforms appeared out of nowhere! that's why they call it an "explosiion" coz it didn't happen gradually like evolution should do.