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

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The Book of Genesis predates Aristotle by a few hundred years and reveals theories which were already out of date when the oral traditions were committed to writing.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ancient ideas of Origin, including those of Aristotle, that I came to see how the Book of Genesis, although certainly outdated now, was at one time quite nicely aligned with the standard "science" of the ancient world.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 nos482:
Wasn't the Book of Genesis the last book added to the bible?

---

Got me there! I know that it was not the first, but I am unaware of its place in the order of addition. Not that it matters much I think.I recently acquired a Greek/English version of the Septuagint. This is the Bible which was popular among Greek speaking Jews in the time of Jesus (which was most of them), and among early Christians everywhere. In concept, it was like the New International Version of the time.I have been pleased to discover that some of the wording in Genesis appears to clarify what, for many, has been mysterious in the Hebrew and unintelligible in the English. Best example so far is found in verse 2 of chapter 1. Where the English reads "earth was without form and void," the Greek reads aoratos kai akataskevastos (sorry, I don't know how to show Greek letters here).The translator renders this - unsightly and unfurnished. Prior to this reading I had interpreted the Hebrew tohu bohu to mean undeveloped and uninhabited. I still prefer my personal take on it.This additional peek at the ancient understanding of Genesis only sharpens my axe. Nowhere in the Bible is earth mentioned in any way or in any context which would suggest that anyone at the time was aware of it "planethood".db------------------
Creationism Evolves!

[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]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]

[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.

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][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.

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 (IDist) 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.[This message has been edited to change (neither Christian nor creationist) to IDist by blitz77, 10-20-2002][This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blitz77:
[B]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. [/quote][/b]
I actually prefer the new definition, and it still rules out the reaching of evolution and ID. The reason is that Natural Phenomena rules out a Supernatural diety. The second reason is that
"observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, and theory building"
also can not be performed on a supernatural diety and therefore a mechanism can not be postulated in a confirmable fashion for ID.

quote:

---

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.

---

IF that meant that the schools in Ohio were going to teach all the scientific aspects to evolution, ie the varying scientific theories then I would agree, but they DO plan to teach ID, which is creationism.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

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.

[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.

quote:

---

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.

---

ID is not creationism. Gene, how could you make that mistake? It isn't young earth creationism or even progressive creationism.[This message has been edited by blitz77, 10-21-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:

quote:

---

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.

---

​

ID is not creationism. Gene, how could you make that mistake?

---

************************************
ID is creationism but merely avoids naming who they think the creator is.
ID shares another important feature with creationism...neither is based on science.