Wisconson brings creationism back to classroom

[Cowperson]

School officials have revised the science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

We should emphansize this is one school district. Is there a problem when teaching evolution to also include creationism?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/ev...s.ap/index.html

Amusingly, National Geographic this month, if you see it on your newstand, has a cover page that asks: "Is Darwin Wrong?" and inside "A resounding no" with the article laying out that evolution is a fact and not a theory.

Does that make creationism rather irrelevent and a waste of time? Not according to many Americans.

According to a Gallup poll drawn from more than a thousand telephone interviews conducted in February 2001, no less than 45 percent of responding U.S. adults agreed that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." Evolution, by their lights, played no role in shaping us.

Gallup interviewers posed exactly the same choices in 1982, 1993, 1997, and 1999. The creationist conviction—that God alone, and not evolution, produced humans—has never drawn less than 44 percent. In other words, nearly half the American populace prefers to believe that Charles Darwin was wrong where it mattered most.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/04...ure1/index.html

Cowperson

[transplant99]

The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

The problem with this statement is that evolution IS supported by some scientific theory/facts.

Creationism simply has no such backing in a scientific sense. At least none i am aware of, although I admittedly have never been intrigued enough to look for it.

People of faith always want others to share the same faith...in all religions. This seems like nothing more than an attempt to qualify a belief by being able to teach it to young minds.

Not good.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I agree. Can't we teach science in the schools (they don't have to debunk creationism as part of teaching evolution IMO) and leave it to churches to teach whatever they teach?

I would be vehemently against this in our district.

[Cain]

Craziness.

The fact that they call 'creationism' a 'scientific theory' boggles my mind. Theory maybe, but definitely not scientific.


I'd have huge issues with the schooling down there if it was my kid being taught creationism. Religion is fine and the theories that they believe are fine as well, but lets keep it in the church and out of the schools.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 7 2004, 05:25 PM
I agree. Can't we teach science in the schools (they don't have to debunk creationism as part of teaching evolution IMO) and leave it to churches to teach whatever they teach?

I would be vehemently against this in our district.

What? Teaching creationism in the classroom? No way! Someone would have to be crazy to think that could be possible!

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Nov 7 2004, 05:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Nov 7 2004, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Nov 7 2004, 05:25 PM
I agree. Can't we teach science in the schools (they don't have to debunk creationism as part of teaching evolution IMO) and leave it to churches to teach whatever they teach?

I would be vehemently against this in our district.

What? Teaching creationism in the classroom? No way! Someone would have to be crazy to think that could be possible!

[/b][/quote]
On a National level Lanny, as you suggested. Anyone who wants to challenge this curriculum in the courts will win.

There is a HUGE difference between one school district in Wisconsin doing this and the newly re-elected President making it a national standard.

[jonesy]

Yes because it is SO scientifict to pretend that something comes from nothing. As I've said many times before, even if there was an evolutionary path that took many Mega-years. What started it? What caused the big bang and what banged?
No scientific theory in the world says you can get something from nothing. Things can change, mutate, evolve, adapt, but they can't just materialize from nothing.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by jonesy@Nov 7 2004, 06:15 PM
Yes because it is SO scientifict to pretend that something comes from nothing. As I've said many times before, even if there was an evolutionary path that took many Mega-years. What started it? What caused the big bang and what banged?
No scientific theory in the world says you can get something from nothing. Things can change, mutate, evolve, adapt, but they can't just materialize from nothing.

If someone came along and said a Supreme Being caused The Big Bang, with all energy, matter and even time as we know it springing from a single point of light and letting the grand experiment loose on its merry way, I'd say: "Okay, that's as good an explanation as any other."

In all seriousness, that's as plausible as anything else regarding where that pinpoint of light came from and what set it off.

But we're not talking about that.

We're talking about the demonstrated fact of evolution verses God creating Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Finding the latter in the curriculum of a non-secular school seems odd.

I work with a person who fervently believes the world was created about 4,500 years ago and laughs and mocks any suggestion to the contrary, including physical evidence of dinosaurs as one example. In turn, of course, I mock his beliefs, although I feel priviledged to know someone so openly and fervently immersed in something like that. In the interests of office harmony, we long ago agreed to not discuss religion, although he's a doorknocker and real keen to save me, and we have a strong working relationship as a result. If we really got into it, there's only one way it would end - badly - and there's simply no point trying to move two immoveable objects.

Cowperson

[Table 5]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Nov 7 2004, 02:20 PM
I work with a person who fervently believes the world was created about 4,500 years ago and laughs and mocks any suggestion to the contrary, including physical evidence of dinosaurs as one example. In turn, of course, I mock his beliefs, although I feel priviledged to know someone so openly and fervently immersed in something like that. In the interests of office harmony, we long ago agreed to not discuss religion, although he's a doorknocker and real keen to save me, and we have a strong working relationship as a result. If we really got into it, there's only one way it would end - badly - and there's simply no point trying to move two immoveable objects.

hey, you never told us you work with stockwell day!

[FlamesAddiction]

I know a family that is like that. When I was a kid, I went to the Winnipeg musuem and was really impressed by the dinosaurs. When I mentioned it in front of the youngest daughter in the family, she told her parents and then they lectured me about how satan put dinosaurs fossils on the Earth to try and lure people away from God. They pretty much convinced me that I was going to Hell.

(And to all the Catholic haters on here - they were not Catholic)

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Nov 7 2004, 06:03 PM

On a National level Lanny, as you suggested. Anyone who wants to challenge this curriculum in the courts will win.

There is a HUGE difference between one school district in Wisconsin doing this and the newly re-elected President making it a national standard.

We'll see Dis. Are you aware that the majority of the school books in this country come from Texas and the content of these books is developed there? I didn't. I learned this only a few days ago when I also learned that Texas was changing their books to reflect creationism and christian family values. This information will now become part of the standard curriculum. All of this done quietly and efficiently. And I might add, having developed curriculum for a government institution, that there is a long process that you have to go through to get this done, so it has been happening behind the scenes for a while now. That was shocking to me and was part of my reasoning for the predictions in the other thread. So is it surprising that Wisconsin will make this change? Nope. Not after hearing that the books have already been printed and are there for delivery, all because of the change initiated in Texas.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Nov 7 2004, 01:37 PM
I know a family that is like that. When I was a kid, I went to the Winnipeg musuem and was really impressed by the dinosaurs. When I mentioned it in front of the youngest daughter in the family, she told her parents and then they lectured me about how satan put dinosaurs fossils on the Earth to try and lure people away from God. They pretty much convinced me that I was going to Hell.

(And to all the Catholic haters on here - they were not Catholic)

So I guess the Calgary Zoo is out for them, eh? Satan's Playground would be a better name for it I suppose.

The sheer stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze. I have a fervently religious friend (you should hear her kids names) and she rants about people you described above. "They make us look so stupid" she says. "You can believe in both!"

[Mike F]

A couple of quick points:

1. Fewer people in the US believe in creationism than believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11 --> doesn't speak well for creationism.

2. I'm betting those who argue for teaching a multiplicity of theories in schools wouldn't be very open to teaching evolution in church.

3. Re: Big Bang --> The only source saying that in the beginning there was nothing is the Bible; physicists believe that in the beginning there was a singularity, a point that was extremely small and extremely dense (a much more extreme version of what lies at the centre of black holes). What caused it to Bang? We don't know right now, but there is a big difference between saying science doesn't have an explanation and saying that science can't explain it.

A couple of hundred years ago science didn't have an explanation for what causes disease, but those who took that to mean that there was no scientific explanation and jumped the the conclusion that it must be the work of the Devil look pretty silly now, don't they?

[Daradon]

Originally posted by jonesy@Nov 7 2004, 12:15 PM
Yes because it is SO scientifict to pretend that something comes from nothing. As I've said many times before, even if there was an evolutionary path that took many Mega-years. What started it? What caused the big bang and what banged?
No scientific theory in the world says you can get something from nothing. Things can change, mutate, evolve, adapt, but they can't just materialize from nothing.

Just because there are s few things to fill in the current theories of evolution and the creation of the universe doesn't mean creationism is a viable SCIENTIFIC answer... lol. Just because one is missing information doesn't mean a story that fills it in has credible facts. Hey it's something to believe, but as you mentioned in your point that 'something cannot come from nothing', well facts can't just be made up from nothing either.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Mike F@Nov 7 2004, 08:09 PM
3. Re: Big Bang --> The only source saying that in the beginning there was nothing is the Bible; physicists believe that in the beginning there was a singularity, a point that was extremely small and extremely dense (a much more extreme version of what lies at the centre of black holes). What caused it to Bang? We don't know right now, but there is a big difference between saying science doesn't have an explanation and saying that science can't explain it.

A couple of hundred years ago science didn't have an explanation for what causes disease, but those who took that to mean that there was no scientific explanation and jumped the the conclusion that it must be the work of the Devil look pretty silly now, don't they?

I just don't see why it has to be one or the other. Why can't evolution be God's mode of creating? Why can't disease, famine, etc, be the devil's way of destroying? The fact that the natural causes of these things is discovered doesn't mean that nature doesn't work along side God's will.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not sure what I believe. I just don't see why some religions and science have to take the stances that they do. For relgious people who believe that the Bible is the direct word of God, I would tell them to think about what would have happened if God told early humans about mechansims of evolution, modern genetics, and cosmological theory. There is no way an ancient culture could have grasped and accurately written down that information. Obviously things are going to be described in a way that they could understand and with concepts that are easily transferrable among cultures and generations. That is why I believe the Bible is more figurative and should not be taken literally.

As for people who are strict adherants of science, I would just point out science will never answer why laws of the universe exist the way they do. All it can do is tell us what they are. Einstein said something about how descibing the universe in terms of scientific theory would be like describing a symphony in terms of being a series of sound waves. There is a more complex and profound element that cannot be descibed scientifically.

[Cain]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Nov 7 2004, 08:28 PM
For relgious people who believe that the Bible is the direct word of God, I would tell them to think about what would have happened if God told early humans about mechansims of evolution, modern genetics, and cosmological theory. There is no way an ancient culture could have grasped and accurately written down that information. Obviously things are going to be described in a way that they could understand and with concepts that are easily transferrable among cultures and generations.

Don't you think though that telling us one obscure little fact that we would be able to verify later on in our development would have been nice for god to say though?

Something like 'Mars is red'...a simple fact that would have been unknown to anyone then, but able to be verified now. Something like that would end all religious debate and wondering.

I think that the bible is figurative and vague, not only because that is all people could understand back then, but to shield it from skeptics pointing out factual errors.

Not trying to derail the thread here...just interesting points I think.

Plug: The book Contact is about this...great book. Bad movie.

[Daradon]

Yup, for all his knowledge an unearthing of new physical facts, Einstien was a frim believer in God.

I don't wholy believe the evolution theory, though you'd have to be pretty dense to discount it altogether when we have seen actual examples of survival of the fittest and natural selection in our lifetime alone, never mind with data extrapolated over longer periods of time. I do wonder about 'the missing link though' and even if we did evolve naturally from apes, like FlamesAddiction said, theres no reason why that might not have been part of 'God's' plan.

The big bang theory has even more holes. still doesn't explain how that matter got there in the first place. Even if it's gone through 'bangs' and 'crunches' many times over. Some theorists even thoerize that when the universe expands to it's maximum size and starts collapsing in on itself again (in the big crunch theory I think it is called) that time would begin to rewind and this process happens over and over again.

Who knows. I don't really look at God in the Christian sense anyway, so it's hard for me to fathom an actual all powerful and sentient being having an actual hand or role and deciding to create something. Even if that were the case it would still beg the question, where did God come from? In science it's like an extra unessecery step. Theologians love to stump scienctific leaning minds by saying where did the singularity come from, or what happened before the big bang, but saying God 'always existed' is really just the same explaination as when scientists say, well the matter was always there.

Sooner or later, something had to be 'always there'. If your looking at time linearly anyway though... Once you start looking at time flowing back and forth, things get a little bit more fun and can make some sense, if you can wrap your head around it. Things CAN always exist, because cause and effect blur or vanish.

I have my own theory that combines what I know about astro-physics (which probably ain't much) and spirituality. But I'm definitely not married to it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Cain@Nov 7 2004, 08:52 PM
Don't you think though that telling us one obscure little fact that we would be able to verify later on in our development would have been nice for god to say though?

Something like 'Mars is red'...a simple fact that would have been unknown to anyone then, but able to be verified now. Something like that would end all religious debate and wondering.

I think that the bible is figurative and vague, not only because that is all people could understand back then, but to shield it from skeptics pointing out factual errors.

Not trying to derail the thread here...just interesting points I think.

Plug: The book Contact is about this...great book. Bad movie.

That's a good point, but I think the point from Christian's perspective is that faith is the key to redemption in God's eyes. You prove your love for God by displaying faith. If the message has to be spoonfed to the people, then there is no need for faith. If there is no faith, then how does one prove their devotion? People would be following God because they felt they had to rather than wanting to.

Making it too easy for the people removes the purpose.

[ah123]

The proponents of intelligent design (aka creationism 2.0) are battling hard to bring this theory to all high school curricula...The Bible or the "G-word" (God) is no longer mentioned in their theories...

The scientific rationale behind intelligent design was being developed just as antievolution sentiment seemed to be bubbling up. In 1991, UC Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson published Darwin On Trial, an influential antievolution book that dispensed with biblical creation accounts while uniting antievolutionists under a single, secular-sounding banner: intelligent design.

The Crusade Against Evolution

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Daradon+Nov 7 2004, 12:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Daradon @ Nov 7 2004, 12:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I don't wholy believe the evolution theory, though you'd have to be pretty dense to discount it altogether when we have seen actual examples of survival of the fittest and natural selection in our lifetime alone, never mind with data extrapolated over longer periods of time.# I do wonder about 'the missing link though' and even if we did evolve naturally from apes, like FlamesAddiction said, theres no reason why that might not have been part of 'God's' plan.
[/b]

Humans didn't evolved from apes. A few million years ago we had a common ancestral species; there was a branching event with one of those branches leading to humans and one leading to the apes. As for the "missing link," the vast, vast, vast majority of intermediate forms in any evolving species are never discovered, however we have found some that have enough common traits that we have a decent idea of with that common ancestor was probably like.

As for this being in line with "Gods plan", well, the same process of evolution that created humans and fluffy bunnies created the viruses and bacteria that have brought about untold suffering. If you want to propose a religion in which there is a sentient being who kicked things of and then just sat back and passively watched it progress, no matter how good or bad things got (e.g. the Holocaust), then I might be able to get on board with that. However, a religion where there is a sentient being who is all-powerful and all loving just doesn't work with the reality of our world and our history.

<!--QuoteBegin-Daradon@Nov 7 2004, 12:56 PM
Sooner or later, something had to be 'always there'.# If your looking at time linearly anyway though... # Once you start looking at time flowing back and forth, things get a little bit more fun and can make some sense, if you can wrap your head around it.# Things CAN always exist, because cause and effect blur or vanish.[/quote]

The part that always gets my head spinning is that not only was all matter "created" by the big bang, but so was time. Therefore there is no such thing as "before" --- there is just a state in which there was the singularity and everything after that.