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

It seems that they've finally decided to destroy what is left of science education in Cobb County and start teaching pseudo-science instead. 59% of the people there voted to include the pseudo-science of Intelligent Design (Creationism) as an alternative to the legimate science of evolution. Time to get out your star charts, Philosopher's Stones, and flatten globes since the rest are on the way out as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by frank:
Nos,

​

I presume you refer to the school board of Cobb County. My understanding was that the school board vote was unanimous. Where does the 59% come from ?

​

I feel this issue is far from decided.

​

Thanks

​

Clear Skies !

​

Frank

---

They had put it up to a vote in the county itself. Like the old saying goes, "Democracy is the worse form of government... Except for all of the rest." It just goes to show that some things shouldn't be left up to a vote, especially by those who don't have a clue on what they are voting for.IMO, teaching children a belief based on ignorance and superstition (Creationism) is almost bordering on child abuse.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
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.

---

There are national standards for education. If they want to teach their children such nonsense they should put them in private schools which are also privately funded. Plus, there are no "alternative theories" to evolution which aren't pseudo-science and religiously inspired as well.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by frank:
I was not aware of a county vote. SHEESH ! I had been following this for a while and must have missed it. Education should not be a popularity contest. I will have to check it out again.

​

Thanks for the info.

​

Clear Skies !

​

Frank

---

I had caught the tail end of a report on CNN about it this evening. It had one biology teacher who didn't see anything wrong with it, and in another school one who said that this is wrong and the only way he'd teach ID (Creationism) is as an example of bad science.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-14-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Yes there are. However teaching things other than evolution does not lower the standards, it simply give the students more things to learn.In this case including pseudo-science does lower the standard.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.Actually no they don't. If that were true then things would really be more of a mess than they already are. 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.National standards are not set by public vote.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. 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.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Child abuse?

​

...hmm. Let me see. Kid taught creationism at school. Kid grow up & learn how to use the internet. Kid finds EvC (or other similar platforms). Kid arrogantly starts attacking evolution without knowing. Kid received a sound beating (debunkings & flames & stuff) from nos482 (can be replaced with anybody else) in EvC (or else). Kid retreats with a broken ego & destroyed trust to those who taught him/her creationism. Kid enters dilemma and ends up in a mental wreck.

​

Okay. I agree. That's child abuse!

---

Any child coming on here already believing in creationism is a mental wreck. One can only do them a favor by showing them the errors of that belief.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-15-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctrbill:

quote:

---

gene90
... teaching things other than evolution does not lower the standards, it simply give the students more things to learn. .

---

​

quote:

---

mammuthus
panspermia has been falsified so there would be no reason to teach it ... any more than there is a reason to teach Aristotle's theories of nature as up to date science.

---

​

I studied a California accredited course in biology at a Christian college, but theories of Aristotle which are pertinent to the "science" of Genesis were not brought forward.

​

The Book of Genesis predates Aristotle by a few hundred years and reveals theories which were already out of date when the oral traditions were committed to writing.

​

It was not until I understood ancient ideas of Origin, including those of Aristotle, that I came to see how the Book of Genesis, although certainly outdated now, was at one time quite nicely aligned with the standard "science" of the ancient world.

​

I suspect that if people were aware of the similarities, there might be less conflict between science and religion. Or is this naieve of me?

​

db

​

---

Wasn't the Book of Genesis the last book added to the bible?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:It does not effect national standards. 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.Bald assertion.Buy some Rogaine.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.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.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.But not in a direct manner. They place people who are qualified to make those choices for them.That's incorrect. Hoyle's version had all new genetic information falling from comets aboard viruses. There is no evolution in that model.Then why did you say that it did?

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.Schools without politics? You mean schools without government. Noble idea but where is the $$$$$$$ going to come from?You are confusing government with politics.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-16-2002]

Originally posted by gene90:Good point. We're actually a republic. But the idea is the same, that the public has a right to influence the outcome.Only in regards to electing who they want.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.They have to follow national standards and not start teach such nonsense as astrology and alchemy as an example.I'm not so sure I see a distinction. That is the problem, many don't see the difference, but there is one. The difference is like that between a donkey tied to a mill stone and turning and that of a mill owner whipping the donkey to keep it moving. The donkey is capable of doing the job without the whip.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
On the 17/10/02, the Ohio State Board of Education has voted 17-0 to "teach the controversy"; adopting new science standards. Two of the changes include changing the definition of science to "Recognize that science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, based on observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building, which leads to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena., where previously it was Recognize that scientific knowledge is limited to natural explanations for natural phenomena based on evidence from our senses or technological extensions.

​

NB-These changes do not decrease the teaching of evolution, or mandate the teaching of creation. Rather, it just includes things such as Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.
To quote David Berlinski (neither Christian nor creationist) has words for those who think evolution should be protected from criticism: The idea that the high school has to be a kind of large locker room where only the coach’s pep talk is considered reasonable— that should be repugnant. That’s not really how we want our educational establishment to be run, is it? Let’s give high school students the benefit of the doubt.

​

---

It is not a matter of "evolution should be protected from criticism", but one of teaching something as science (ID, creationism) when it is not science at all. There is no valid alternative to evolution as far as science goes.

Originally posted by blitz77:ID is not creationism. Gene, how could you make that mistake? It isn't young earth creationism or even progressive creationism.Of course it is creationism because it implies a creator. The common idea behind all forms of creationism, wheither it be YEO, OEC, or ID is a creator.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
Blitz, I took a list of the books at the Discovery Institute (the driving force behind the ID movement). Here it is

​

Discovery bookstore
If you really look at some of the books it becomes immediatley apparent that the site is a creationist site.

​

---

Especially this one;Creation Hypothesis, The
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designerhttp://www.discovery.org/...ks/creationHypothesis/index.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nos482:
Especially this one;

​

Creation Hypothesis, The
Scientific Evidence for an Intelligent Designer

---

​

Did you note that of the four main areas that the book addresses that only ONE deals with evolution.

​

---

And barely even that.