I actually have this really good Free Inquiry article I have to upload or see if I can find online for you guys to check out, its actually very promising and this guy a sociologist really backs up his optimism with lots of more interesting statistics.
According to the fantastic science-based Texas Freedom Network, which has been live-blogging the vote, the creationist amendment lost in a 7-7 vote. They could not add the amendment without an actual victory, so the tie means the garbage amendment goes down.
(a poll) found a strong majority of Americans supports letting teachers explore both "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution
They use this as a reason to teach intelligent design? ugh. who isn't in support of teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution?
We take a relatively small sample size and generalize it to an entire era of life on earth, obviously there are going to be "flaws' or "mistakes".
but to suggest that Intelligent design is an alternative or competing theory is just mind boggling. if someone can come up with an alternative, scientifically provable theory to how life evolved on earth, i'm all for them teaching it, but to suggest the earth is only 10,000 years is beyond 'wrong' it's just plain insane.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, the stars aren't really there, it's just a blanket god puts over the birdcage when it's time to go to sleep.
They use this as a reason to teach intelligent design? ugh. who isn't in support of teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution?
We take a relatively small sample size and generalize it to an entire era of life on earth, obviously there are going to be "flaws' or "mistakes".
but to suggest that Intelligent design is an alternative or competing theory is just mind boggling. if someone can come up with an alternative, scientifically provable theory to how life evolved on earth, i'm all for them teaching it, but to suggest the earth is only 10,000 years is beyond 'wrong' it's just plain insane.
Oh, and in case you didn't know, the stars aren't really there, it's just a blanket god puts over the birdcage when it's time to go to sleep.
See, the theory of evolution (like all scientific theories) is being continuously refined as research is conducted over the years and new information becomes available, so it's an incomplete theory and has weaknesses. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that God created life and the universe and Jesus died for your sins.
Good to see that creationism/ID was defeated yet again. How was it that the vote ended in a 7-7 tie? Do they not have an odd number of people on the board, or did one member abstain?
Barbara Cargill now offers an amendment for Earth and Space Science designed to challenge the Big Bang theory. She wants teachers to tell students that there are different estimates of the age of the universe. (Like, maybe billions of years vs. 10,000?)
And that passed 11-3
*sigh*
It'll be great teaching students the earth is 4.5 billion years old because the challenge evolution part didn't go through, but then teach that the universe is 10,000 years old.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Religious education is to be given by parents and their churches.
Teaching about the different beliefs, history, and cultures of various world religions is an essential part of any social studies curriculum, (as long as the material is taught in a neutral, secular fashion).
Teaching religious beliefs in a science class is completely unacceptable, though.
Religious education is to be given by parents and their churches.
From an academic sense, I think religions - at least the big 5 most influential ones, should be taught in schools. Learning about how people view themselves in the world is an important part of learning why people act the way they do and how cultures develop.
Personally, if I was a business person or in politics, I would not send someone to a foreign country to deal with people there unless they knew everything they could about them; including their religion.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 03-27-2009 at 02:28 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
From an academic sense, I think religions - at least the big 5 most influential ones, should be taught in schools. Learning about how people view themselves in the world is an important part of learning why people act the way they do and how cultures develop.
Personally, if I was a business person or in politics, I would not send someone to a foreign country to deal with people there unless they knew everything they could about them; including their religion.
Good point, but can you imagine the fights over trying to nail down a curriculum just on Christianity?
Frik' if only I had waited to do all those crazy Bio courses, I could've just gone down to Texas and aced the courses without even trying. Instead of studying hardcore to figure out all the genetic links and theories behind evolution, who came up with them and what not, I could've just challenged the final and wrote "God did it" in all the answers.
Can't you wait until only creationists live in the states? Their military will slowly die as the people who design their weapons are chased away for their "blasphemist" views, all the smart people that calculate numbers and work on medical research will be slaughtered or forced to run to Canada. Yes, give it 10-15 years and the States will be restart the Crusades...only problem is that their enemies will believe in science and will just missile them to death.
What's hilarious is that I'm taking a course on sport history, and there's huge chapters devoted to basically bashing extreme Christianity and how we didn't really start making progress until we seperated religion from education. It's fun to see that the more the world changes, the more it stays the same.
