It's a Sad Day For the Future Of American Children.

I don't believe the school board chose correctly but those people have a right to teach whatever they want to their children, and in this case, anything that does not violate the Establishment Clause goes. The board has decided to teach 'alternative theories' to evolution but so far neither ID nor Creationism has been included.I think they are misguided but it is their right to do this.

[QUOTE][B]There are national standards for education.[/QUOTE][/B]Yes there are. However teaching things other than evolution does not lower the standards, it simply give the students more things to learn. The problem is if they decided to completely replace or omit evolution. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they would like to but that's not what their decision does. [QUOTE][B]If they want to teach their children such nonsense they should put them in private schools which are also privately funded.[/QUOTE][/B]If that 'nonsense' includes religiously driven theories I agree. However you are forgetting that these are 'public' schools...therefore the public has a right to influence what is taught. The only constaint is that from the US Constitution, which precludes teaching religion. Theoretically though they have a right to teach whatever else they want--alchemy, astrology, whatever. It is wrong, but they have a right to be wrong. [QUOTE][B]Plus, there are no "alternative theories" to evolution which aren't pseudo-science and religiously inspired as well.[/QUOTE][/B]Incorrect. As far as I can tell, Hoyle's (silly) panspermia model is an alternative to evolution and is not religiously inspired. Whether or not it is a pseudoscience is a tough call and I'm not venturing an opinion there.

[QUOTE][B]In this case including pseudo-science does lower the standard.[/QUOTE][/B]It does not effect national standards. [QUOTE][B]Actually no they don't. If that were true then things would really be more of a mess than they already are.[/QUOTE][/B]Bald assertion. If you want to turn Canada into a dictatorship, that's fine with me as long as we don't have to invade to protect human rights or ensure the free flowing of maple syrup. But that isn't the way republics work, the people are (and should be) in direct control of what is taught. [QUOTE][B]National standards are not set by public vote. [/QUOTE][/B]No, they are set by people placed there by public vote. Or by people appointed by people placed there by public vote. Sooner or later, it comes down to public vote. [QUOTE][B]It maybe silly but it has nothing to do with evolution, even as a so-called alternative. It is more to do with abiogenesis as a theory of how life got started on Earth and we both know that that isn't what evolution is about.[/QUOTE][/B]That's incorrect. Hoyle's version had all new genetic information falling from comets aboard viruses. There is no evolution in that model.Read: Neo-Darwinism: The Current Paradigm. by Brig Klyce

[QUOTE][B]Of course it lowers science standards gene. If kids are taught that anon-scientific premise i.e. untestable hypothesis is the way that science works then the kids will be handicapped if they attempt to become scientists. Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such. Otherwise kids are not learning science or the scientific method and hence the standards are lowered. It is not merely more stuff to learn...otherwse why not teach alchemy in chemistry class, flat earth theories in geography, or astrology in astronomy classes?[/QUOTE][/B]If people in a school district want to teach flat earth, alchemy, astrology, or invisible elephants in their schools, let them. As long as it doesn't violate the establishment clause it is their right. Think this over for a minute. Who decides what should be taught? Government. Who runs government? The public. What's the problem here? [QUOTE][B]If that 'nonsense' includes religiously driven theories I agree. However you are forgetting that these are 'public' schools...therefore the public has a right to influence what is taught. The only constaint is that from the US Constitution, which precludes teaching religion. Theoretically though they have a right to teach whatever else they want--alchemy, astrology, whatever. It is wrong, but they have a right to be wrong.M: However, the establishment clause separating church and state prevents teaching religion in publicly funded schools and creationism is a religious doctrine.[/QUOTE][/B]The above implies that you did not read my post or you do not clearly understand my position. Please review. [QUOTE][B]However, panspermia has been falsified [/QUOTE][/B]Huh? I didn't know it was falsifiable. [QUOTE][B]Science is not a feel good democratic method where people agree by majority decision how theories should work.[/QUOTE][/B]I'm not talking about science, I'm talking about science class in public schools. Public schools are run by majority decision. [QUOTE][B]Saying that people should have an influence on what science says is not particularly helpful i.e. what if 51% of people would like 2+2 to equal 7? Should that then be accepted as a national standard in math classes?[/QUOTE][/B]Rewire your calculators. [QUOTE][B]let private schools teach whatever they want but public schools should abide by teaching the results of the scientific method...not the result of lobby politics.[/QUOTE][/B]Schools without politics? You mean schools without government. Noble idea but where is the $$$$$$$ going to come from?

[QUOTE][B]Gene, you seem to think that the USA is a direct democracy. It isn't. You elect people you hope will make the right decisions for you. You think that you're electing them to give you what you want, but mostly they give you what you need instead.[/QUOTE][/B]Good point. We're actually a republic. But the idea is the same, that the public has a right to influence the outcome. Now, when there were *laws* regarding what can and cannot be taught (aside from the Establishment Clause) then it would be different. I would be all for it. But until then the decisions are left up to local schoolboards and I think that they should have the privelidge of using that leeway, even if I don't agree with their decisions. [QUOTE][B]You are confusing government with politics.[/QUOTE][/B]I'm not so sure I see a distinction.

[QUOTE][B]It will, eventually once this sort of nonsense is widely accepted and those who choose what is taught on a national level no longer know the difference.[/QUOTE][/B]One case isn't going to do squat. In fact the last time it happened it resulted in most of the old board being replaced following international ridicule of the state of Kansas.But in a sense, I have to admit you're right. Educational policies are a feedback loop. But the fact is, if people are paying for an educational system, they should have a right to strongly influence what is taught. That means I should have a right to push for comprehensive science classes and evolution, but it also means that 'they' have a right to push against me. [QUOTE][B]In a democracy the people have a more direct roll in how things are done, but the USA is not and has never been a democracy.[/QUOTE][/B]I'll buy that. Actually "democracy" is something of a colloquial term, now used interchangeably with republic, formerly a reference to mob rule, and the only really significant use of the word is with "direct democracy", obviously useless with any significant population.In our representational republican form of government we tend to choose people with ideals similar to our own. The net result is that conservative voters will put conservative legislators in office, and Creationists will tend to put Creationists on their schoolboards. Also with schoolboards public hearings are common and people in the community often all know each other so it is about as close you can get to a direct democracy in a representational form of government.OTOH, I have also heard of some boards being equated to tinpot dictatorships in the one-horse and cowtowns of America. Go figure. [QUOTE][B]They place people who are qualified to make those choices for them.[/QUOTE][/B]Hopefully but often those people are not qualified. It often doesn't take much to make it onto a schoolboard. [QUOTE][B]Then why did you say that it did?[/QUOTE][/B]I'm claiming that it intends to replace evolution. Hoyle's colleague (I can't remember how his name was spelled) was even called by the Creationists as a witness in one of those "lets-make-it-legal-to-teach-religion-in-science-class" court cases of the 80s. They expected him to argue against evolution but he actually attacked both sides and undermined their claim that Creationism was the only possible alternative to evolution.

[QUOTE][B]To quote David Berlinski (neither Christian nor creationist)[/QUOTE][/B]Wrong. Dr. Berlinski is a Creationist -- a fellow of the Discovery Institute, an ID think-tank.Discovery Institute | Public policy think tank advancing a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation.He also has his PhD in math, not science. I wouldn't place a lot of "faith" in his opinions on matters biological.