Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8994 total)
49 online now:
Juvenissun (1 member, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,234 Year: 10,982/23,288 Month: 234/1,763 Week: 201/390 Day: 21/69 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This settles it.. Never moving down south..
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 116 (19851)
10-14-2002 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by RedVento
10-14-2002 10:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RV

Given my bias I still think the data points about equally at both options. So therefore it should be in the curicullum. It does not have to be religiously dictated. Anyone from anywhere would tell you that life is an amazing phenomenon and has two obvious possibilities of origin.


Well I would say that the sheer lack of evidence leaves origins of life a philosophical question

And since High School science classes won't be tackling that subject any time soon, its a question that doesn't need any contemplation(from a curriculum point of view). But origins of life is not the issue. The issue is teaching creationism as a hard science along with actual sciences. Like I said before, if a student wants to learn about creationism as part of a college cirriculum then I'm all for it. Just not at a High School level, where students are being introduced to more complex bio, chem and physics.


Yes, they should first get a grounding in legimate science before they are exposed to pseudo-science so they can tell the difference and then dismiss the pseudo-science for nothing more than a load of irrelevant nonsense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by RedVento, posted 10-14-2002 10:09 AM RedVento has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 107 of 116 (20020)
10-16-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RedVento
09-27-2002 11:25 AM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/EDUCATION/09/26/creationism.evolution/index.html <--- The bible belt must put the stupid in people real early for this to have happened.

********************

I guess you have to include Ohio to now....

In Brief
Ohio to teach evolution debate
15 October 2002
The Ohio Board of Education yesterday recommended that science classes in the state emphasize both evolution and the debate over its validity, reports the New York Times. The months-long debate began when an independent report in 2000 found Ohio to be one of 12 states that fail to teach evolution. In its decision, the committee left it up to individual school districts to decide whether "intelligent design" will be included in the curriculum.

Deja-vu for Darwinism in Ohio
5 February 2002
by Apoorva Mandavilli, BioMedNet News

The timeless debate about whether and how to teach evolution is raging again, this time in Ohio. But in this round, the opponents of evolution tout the creation theory without naming the creator - and that may make a difference.
You're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy, but it may still feel like it. Emulating the infamous evolution episode in Kansas, the citizens of Ohio are embroiled in a bitter battle between evolutionists and proponents of intelligent design - the theory that the world was created or designed by an intelligent higher being. Ohio's state Board of Education will next month host a panel debate to determine whether or not intelligent design (ID) will find a place in the state's science classrooms.

But convinced that ID is a new name for an old enemy - creationsim - defenders of evolution are preparing for a long fight. "It's a political strategy, a political issue," said Lynn Elfner, who directs the Ohio Academy of Science. "The political forces are very strong in Ohio for intelligent design."

An independent report in 2000 found Ohio to be one of 12 states that "fail so thoroughly to teach evolution as to render their standards totally useless." The curriculum as it now stands does not mention the word evolution at all, explains Elfner. Instead, it makes references to "change over time," which is "nonsense," Elfner told BioMedNet News. "The wallpaper on the wall changes over time. My shoes change over time," he said. "Change over time says nothing about evolution."

Urged by the report's "F" rating and under orders from the Ohio legislature, a 45-member panel of volunteers, including scientists, educators, parents and other community members, began revising the standards. Based on the recommendations of the Board's science advisory committee, of which Elfner is a member, and sample curricula from other states, the 45-member volunteer panel completed an early draft of the revised curriculum.

Jeffrey McKee, a paleoanthropologist at Ohio State University was on a focus group that reviewed the new standards and was "quite pleased with what they'd said about evolution," he said. But the same draft provoked some members of the Board to question the rewriting process they themselves had approved.

Michael Cochran, and 5 other representatives of the 19-member Board, now propose that the curriculum be revised to include intelligent design. At the Board's meeting last month, John Calvert, co-founder of the Kansas-based Intelligent Design Network, made an "unfettered, exclusive" 30-minute speech urging members to include ID as a viable theory for the origin of life.

"There is no working model to show how natural selection can produce irreducibly complex living systems," Calvert told the Board then. "The only known cause for such complexity is intelligence - the workings of a mind."

All the evidence for ID is based on "scientific investigation, scientific observation, and scientific analysis per the scientific method," Calvert said, and its study involves biochemists, geologists, paleontologists, mathematicians, statisticians, biologists, cosmologists, physicists and chemists.

The week after the meeting, Republican state representative Linda Reidelbach introduced a bill requiring that "origins science" be "taught objectively and without religious, naturalistic, or philosophic bias or assumption." The day after that, she introduced another bill requiring the state's science standards to be approved by both houses of the General Assembly.

This is not the first time Ohio has tried to introduce ID into its classrooms, says Elfner. Two years ago, Board member Deborah Owens-Fink tried and failed to include intelligent design into the state 12th grade competencies.

Ohio is not alone in grappling with the evolution debate. Across the Ohio river, in Kentucky, work has begun on a $14 million, 50,000-square-foot creationism museum. A new anti-evolution bill was also introduced in the Washington State Senate on January 18, suggesting that teaching evolution is "repugnant" to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, unconstitutional, and unlawful. The bill asks that evolution be removed from all public schools and replaced with "the self-evident truth of creation."

Proponents of intelligent design are careful to distinguish themselves from creationism, however. "Creationism is the Biblical account of genesis; we don't limit it to that," said Cochran. "We just think that there is some type of intelligence behind creation. There's too much orderliness, too much design to indicate evolution."

Cochran says he has no objection to keeping evolution in the curriculum. But while evolution offers evidence of change, he says, it offers "nothing conclusive" about the origin of life. "I don't believe that the whole debate has received enough debate, enough different opinions and ideas," he said. "As long as no one can prove how it began, why not have multiple theories expressed?"

But critics of ID look at such statements askance. "What they're trying to do is get [creationism] in through the backdoor of a science curriculum," McKee told BioMedNet News. "They came up with a new name and say silly things like 'Well we don't know who the designer is.' But it's just a thinly veiled attempt to get creationism taught in a science classroom."

The distinction between ID and creationism is critical: US federal courts have ruled that creationism is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion in schools and cannot be introduced into curricula. Introducing ID, although it doesn't align itself with a particular creator, is still a constitutional issue, says Ohio state Senator Robert Gardner, chairman of the state Senate's Education Committee.

If ID is taught in classrooms, so should theories proposed by Buddhists and Native Americans, Gardner says. "There's probably a place for [discussing] higher intelligence," he said. "But that's probably a history of religion class as opposed to a science curriculum, which is based on fact."

To resolve the debate, the Board has invited two scientists from each camp for a panel discussion at its March meeting. Representing ID will be Jonathan Wells, who holds a PhD in molecular and cell biology from the University of California-Berkeley.

"We feel [ID] should be included because Darwinism has problems with it," said Mark Edwards, spokesperson for the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, where Jonathan Wells is a fellow. "At the basic level, what's being taught is simply not accurate so we just feel like students should be able to know this. That's fundamental to getting an education."

Asked why scientists like Wells have never published evidence for ID in peer-reviewed scientific journals, Edwards says such scientists have been "excluded" from the journals. "There is a degree to which things about and by intelligent-design people get snubbed," he said. "There's a self-selection at work there."

ID has never been published in peer-reviewed journals because it is simply not good science, counter its opponents. "All of us know the scientific process," said McKee. "What the ID people are trying to hide is that they have no testable hypothesis about the diversity of life. That is where they fail."

The seemingly endless point-counterpoint promises to continue well into the year. The State Board of Education is scheduled to vote on adoption of the new standards in December 2002. In recent weeks, rivaling groups calling themselves Science Excellence for all Ohioans (ID supporters) and Ohio Citizens for Science (evolution supporters) have sprung up to support their endeavors.

The evolutionists have modeled themselves after the group Kansas Citizens for Science, which fought against education standards in Kansas. Two years after it voted to drop evolution, the Kansas Board of Education last year reinstated evolution in its curriculum.

"I think we'll win this one mainly because we have the truth on our side," McKee told BioMedNet News. "We saw what happened in Kansas," he said. "Even if we have a one-year hump where it gets in, we'll get it out eventually."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RedVento, posted 09-27-2002 11:25 AM RedVento has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 10:15 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 108 of 116 (20021)
10-16-2002 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Mammuthus
10-16-2002 10:00 AM


Actually, on second thought this could be a good thing. Biology classes on the first day should review the principles of science and the scientific method. Then when they present ID/creationism they can demonstrate why it is not science and evolution is i.e. evolution presents a testable hypothesis, supporting data etc.....ID and creationism make a fantastic example of what science is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Mammuthus, posted 10-16-2002 10:00 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
The Arachnophile
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 116 (20707)
10-24-2002 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
10-01-2002 8:33 AM


Dear TB.

"Macroevolution has not been proven." How many times have I heard that?

Here we are at the core of the problem, I think; the failure or refusal of Creationists to acknowledge that macroevolution is real and has been proven. There are so many indications and chains of evidence that presenting macroevolution to young minds as a valid process is not at fault. I will not go into them here but would be interested in hearing what kind of evidence of macroevolution you'd accept.

The Arachnophile


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-01-2002 8:33 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 110 of 116 (20711)
10-24-2002 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Tranquility Base
10-14-2002 12:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Schraf

I believe the data is roughly split evenly on the issue. God allowed it to be ambiguous so that we would have to have faith. If that is conspiracy then, well, it is.


"I'm being ambiguous becasue I love you... And when I wipe you all out in a flood - why, I'm just doing THAT because I love you, too. And when I allow(cause?) a bus full of Sunday school children to crash, why, I love them the most. "

Yahweh


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-14-2002 12:52 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by nos482, posted 10-24-2002 1:49 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 116 (20715)
10-24-2002 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by derwood
10-24-2002 1:18 PM


Originally posted by SLPx:

"I'm being ambiguous becasue I love you... And when I wipe you all out in a flood - why, I'm just doing THAT because I love you, too. And when I allow(cause?) a bus full of Sunday school children to crash, why, I love them the most. "

Yahweh

P.S.

And since those who suffer the most in OUR NAME get into Heaven faster I allow (cause) them to die in the most horrible manner available at the time.

And those who win sporting events, or are successful, and give thanks to me for it all I especially love so you should bow down to them as well.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-24-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by derwood, posted 10-24-2002 1:18 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
k.kslick
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 116 (78769)
01-15-2004 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nos482
10-01-2002 8:16 AM


ok.
Religion = Man's way of trying to reach God

Ok, your right religion doesn't belong in PUBLIC schools, but alternitives to rediculus theories do!
The Bible is records (never disproven) of the times of Jesus.
The Origin of Species (and like books) are like the bible on evolution.

The state uses books and articals like these as propaganda, poisoning young peoples minds (who know little easy or who are weak in the faith) with one belief.

I would even be against them teaching JUST the bible and Christian perspectives in schools, because it would be hypocritical. Also, because teaching both would show Christians how rediculous evolution and like theories are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nos482, posted 10-01-2002 8:16 AM nos482 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by k.kslick, posted 01-15-2004 10:34 PM k.kslick has not yet responded

  
k.kslick
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 116 (78771)
01-15-2004 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by k.kslick
01-15-2004 10:29 PM


The Devil
The Bible repetitvely states the Devil, or Lucifer is the ruler of Earth. He has control (somewhat) over what goes on here. Read the book of Job to see. God is a(the) loving God, but he is also a mighty, and all powerfull.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by k.kslick, posted 01-15-2004 10:29 PM k.kslick has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3923
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 114 of 116 (78907)
01-16-2004 3:23 PM


Closing topic
While there are many old topics worth reviving, I feel quite confident that this is not one of them.

Adminnemooseus


Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-19-2004 1:18 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3923
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 115 of 116 (79352)
01-19-2004 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Adminnemooseus
01-16-2004 3:23 PM


Re: Closing topic? - I was wrong - AM
quote:
While there are many old topics worth reviving, I feel quite confident that this is not one of them.

I'm now pretty confident that I was wrong. The subject matter of this topic was picked up, at http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=4&t=36&m=53#53, and in some of the following messages there.

You know, I put that "too fast closure of threads" link at the bottom of messages, so people can challange topic closures. They can, and have be re-opened.

That said, I've probably done a pretty good job of killing this topic.

Adminnemooseus


Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-16-2004 3:23 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
johnnyfunkwagon
Inactive Junior Member


Message 116 of 116 (81706)
01-30-2004 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by nos482
10-01-2002 8:16 AM


My suggestion for those who what to teach Creation in schools:
First...

begin a massive political movement to revise the US Constitution such that it no longer contains provisions for the separation of church and state (it's a silly idea, anyway).

Then...

argue that Creationist theories should be taught in science classrooms (or any classrooms) within public schools (and not in the many various religious venues).

While you're at it...

form the US National Religion (USNR) based on majority rule. Arrest and/or oust anyone not adhering to the beliefs of the USNR. Toss those arrested into concentration camps. Dispose at will.

For good measure...

Have all US presidents change their name to "Pope George Washington" upon entering office. Chop down a cherry tree then plant some apple seeds.

Finally...

Launch a global religious crusade to rid the world of all rogue religions. Form the Global-Earth Planetary Religion (GEPR). Think about ways to explore other worlds so that one day, you can spread the word of GEPR to other savage worlds. Realize you can't without science, so dismiss the idea. Science is bad.

Oh, forgot one...

Die, then take you seat at the right hand of the God. You've earned it, you silly wack-job.

No offense.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by nos482, posted 10-01-2002 8:16 AM nos482 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020