NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: Can you tell me what the moral of this story is ( without making snide, sarcastic and generally inconsequential comments ... a real challenge for some of you! )???


In Kansas, Darwinism Goes on Trial Once More (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/education/06evolution.html?th&emc=th)

By JODI WILGOREN
Published: May 6, 2005

TOPEKA, Kan., May 5 - Six years after Kansas ignited a national debate over the teaching of evolution, the state is poised to push through new science standards this summer requiring that Darwin's theory be challenged in the classroom.

In the first of three daylong hearings being referred to here as a direct descendant of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, a parade of Ph.D.'s testified Thursday about the flaws they saw in mainstream science's explanation of the origins of life. It was one part biology lesson, one part political theater, and the biggest stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator.

Darwin's defenders are refusing to testify at the hearings, which were called by the State Board of Education's conservative majority. But their lawyer forcefully cross-examined the other side's experts, pushing them to acknowledge that nothing in the current standards prevented discussion of challenges to evolution, and peppering them with queries both profound and personal.

"Do the standards state anywhere that science, evolution, is in any way in conflict with belief in God?" the lawyer, Pedro Irigonegaray, asked William S. Harris, a chemist who helped write the proposed changes.

When a later witness, Jonathan Wells, said he enjoyed being in the minority on such a controversial topic, Mr. Irigonegaray retorted, "More than being right?"

If the board adopts the new standards, as expected, in June, Kansas would join Ohio, which took a similar step in 2002, in mandating students be taught that there is controversy over evolution. Legislators in Alabama and Georgia have introduced bills this season to allow teachers to challenge Darwin in class, and the battle over evolution is simmering on the local level in 20 states.

While the proposed standards for Kansas do not specifically mention intelligent design - and many of its supporters prefer to avoid any discussion of it - critics contend they would open the door not just for those teachings, but to creationism, which holds to the Genesis account of God as the architect of the universe.

For Kansas, the debate is déjà vu: the last time the state standards were under review, in 1999, conservatives on the school board ignored their expert panel and deleted virtually any reference to evolution, only to be ousted in the next election.

But over the next few years anti-evolution forces regained the seats. And now, the board's 6-to-4 anti-evolution majority plans to embrace 20 suggestions promoted by advocates of intelligent design and are using this week's showcase to help persuade the public. "I was hoping these hearings would help me have some good hard evidence that I could repeat," Connie Morris, an anti-evolution board member, said in thanking one witness.

Sighing was Cheryl Shepherd-Adams, a physics teacher who took an unpaid day off from Hays High School to attend the hearings. "Kansas has been through this before," she said. "I'm really tired of going to conferences and being laughed at because I'm from Kansas."

This article is two pages long. Read the entire article. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/education/06evolution.html?th&emc=th)

Wasn't this done in Tennesee once, and with a better cast too?

If they ban evolution from classes and replace it with "Creation science", then i suggest they should also introduce burning witches and stoning adulterers in Kansas. :D

If they ban evolution from classes and replace it with "Creation science", then i suggest they should also introduce burning witches and stoning adulterers in Kansas. :D

Well, not sure how many witches are in Kansas (I only know a few, and most of them are already stoned), but there are plenty of adulterors. I mean, they're going to have to import rocks.

NOTE: Can you tell me what the moral of this story is ( without making snide, sarcastic and generally inconsequential comments )???

That Primary School Systems are being overrun by anti-intellectual Religionists (while the Unis are/have been overrun by anti-rational-thought Libs)... No, sorry, Probably can't.

Really all they should have to do is say, "There are some who don't believe that evolution is true. You should ask your parents what their views on the subject are." That seems like a perfectly acceptable solution to me.

Wasn't this done in Tennesee once, and with a better cast too?
Yes, Clarence Darrow ( famous lawyer ) and William Jennings Bryan ( famous orator ) squared off over this issue many years ago. Since the Constitution doesn't address the issue of Evolution vs. Creationism, it has come up again and again.

Soon they'll be "updating" their Chemistry textbooks, too! http://pharyngula.org/images/chemistry_book_sticker.gif

... No, sorry, Probably can't.
That one should participate in local elections, as well as that "once-every-four-years-event" called Presidential elections. Politics is everybody's business!

Really all they should have to do is say, "There are some who don't believe that evolution is true. You should ask your parents what their views on the subject are." That seems like a perfectly acceptable solution to me.
It does to me too, but obviously not the elected members of the Kansas School Board. SIGH! :(

I'll teach intelliegent design as long as I can say that the Universe was created by a three-armed, two headed alien from Betelgeuse who sneezed us out into a hankercheif.

If they don't let me do that though, I'm only teaching evolution.

(as a side note, I am not a teacher)

Soon they'll be "updating" their Chemistry textbooks, too! http://pharyngula.org/images/chemistry_book_sticker.gif
LOL! It's not beyond the realm of possibilities. SIGH!

Interesting, teaching creationism and darwinism in the same class. This might get interesting as one was written 2000 years ago by folks trying to explain to others how we got here mixed in with blind faith. The other involved years of scientific testing and observation which can be proven. Throw this in front of students and see which one takes.

I'll teach intelliegent design as long as I can say that the Universe was created by a three-armed, two headed alien from Betelgeuse who sneezed us out into a hankercheif.

If they don't let me do that though, I'm only teaching evolution.

(as a side note, I am not a teacher)
LOL! Neither am I, but my putative Ph.D. is, through a quirk of the subject matter, technically in "Education!" [ shakes his head in wonderment ]

And Who can forget the Cobb County Stickers! (http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/)

Wow... tax money at work... amazing, no?

I'll teach intelliegent design as long as I can say that the Universe was created by a three-armed, two headed alien from Betelgeuse who sneezed us out into a hankercheif.

I am more of one who beleaves Tom Sellik created a time machine and ejeculated into the primodial ooze.

Interesting, teaching creationism and darwinism in the same class. This might get interesting as one was written 2000 years ago by folks trying to explain to others how we got here mixed in with blind faith. The other involved years of scientific testing and observation which can be proven. Throw this in front of students and see which one takes.
Oh, PLEASE! You mean that the older of the two "theories" isn't the best one? [ shocked look ] :rolleyes:

I suspect that what the parents of individual students believe will be the most important factor, although some few may have been ( perhaps inadvertantly ) given permission to think.

Wow, some parts of America are going backwards in such a highly competitive world. I guess other countries (where science has no obstacles) will lead in science.

I am more of one who beleaves Tom Sellik created a time machine and ejeculated into the primodial ooze.

Don't forget Homer Simpson, he was involved too.

I am more of one who beleaves Tom Sellik created a time machine and ejeculated into the primodial ooze.
Nahh! It was actually Vin Diseal. :D

Wow, some parts of America are going backwards in such a highly competitive world. I guess other countries (where science has no obstacles) will lead in science.
They already so in some fields. SIGH!

Wow, some parts of America are going backwards in such a highly competitive world. I guess other countries (where science has no obstacles) will lead in science.

It really explains well why Sony and Toshiba are having talks about a DVD recorder standard format without any American (or European) company involved.

It really explains well why Sony and Toshiba are having talks about a DVD recorder standard format without any American (or European) company involved.
Nahh. That's just greed on the part of American manufacturers.

Oh, PLEASE! You mean that the older of the two "theories" isn't the best one? [ shocked look ] :rolleyes:

I suspect that what the parents of individual students believe will be the most important factor, although some few may have been ( perhaps inadvertantly ) given permission to think.

Though I agree that creationism holds no water and dosen't have a place in a science class, this may turn out to be interesting. Anyone who critically looks at it as they should in a science class would know which one holds more water.
Even though evalution may have holds I still put more stock in it than blind faith.

Though I agree that creationism holds no water and dosen't have a place in a science class, this may turn out to be interesting. Anyone who critically looks at it as they should in a science class would know which one holds more water.
Even though evalution may have holds I still put more stock in it than blind faith.
And the really sad thing is that there is essentially no conflict between the basic teachings in the Bible and the findings of science. I keep preaching this, but no one seems to be listening. :(

And the really sad thing is that there is essentially no conflict between the basic teachings in the Bible and the findings of science. I keep preaching this, but no one seems to be listening. :(

I have actually been shown that. One was done in six days by a god whereas the other was done naturally over a very long period of time. Same setup, just different means and timelines.

Though I agree that creationism holds no water and dosen't have a place in a science class, this may turn out to be interesting. Anyone who critically looks at it as they should in a science class would know which one holds more water.

except that we are talking about school. ain't no critical thinking going on there. and i suspect that in kansas, teaching creationism as a lesson in how to utterly fail to do science will not be looked upon favorably.

though a real scientific look at creationism would be fun if done properly. mmmm, trivial falsification.

I have actually been shown that. One was done in six days by a god whereas the other was done naturally over a very long period of time. Same setup, just different means and timelines.
As I have been at pains to point out to anywho with the presence of mind to listen, Genesis is an allegory and not to be taken literally.

Stupid people.

One of the reasons why people are beginning to hate Christians. Trivial dumb matters like these. Let them teach Evolution/creationism or whatever they want.

Unless your kids are as dumb as a sponge soaking up whatever their teachers tell them, which by the way their parents are fighting in court over the matter, I guess their children are probably spongebrains afterall.

That one should participate in local elections, as well as that "once-every-four-years-event" called Presidential elections. Politics is everybody's business!

???

I meant that I probably can't comment without getting snarky.

What do you mean (besides the truisim?)

Stupid people.

One of the reasons why people are beginning to hate Christians. Trivial dumb matters like these. Let them teach Evolution/creationism or whatever they want.

Unless your kids are as dumb as a sponge soaking up whatever their teachers tell them, which by the way their parents are fighting in court over the matter, I guess their children are probably spongebrains afterall.
The really sad thing about all of this is the impact it will have on the children involved, and the ripple effect it will have on the entire education system in the US. This is the sort of thing that makes me fear for our future. :(

???

I meant that I probably can't comment without getting snarky.

What do you mean (besides the truisim?)
The members of most school boards are elected. I may have misinterpreted your earlier post. Sorry, my bad.

The really sad thing about all of this is the impact it will have on the children involved, and the ripple effect it will have on the entire education system in the US. This is the sort of thing that makes me fear for our future. :(
Yep. The publishers who make textbooks want their books to be sold nationwide, so they'll remove all references to evolution, or include references to creation so that Kansas will buy their books too.

And the really sad thing is that there is essentially no conflict between the basic teachings in the Bible and the findings of science. I keep preaching this, but no one seems to be listening. :(
No, there isn't. But some people want to take the Bible literally to the last period and comma.

Because of their own natures science and religion have their very own, separate, and non-interfering spheres. There shouldn't be a problem unless you want to put one over the other.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing evolution challenged in the classroom, since science is all about challenging ideas. Of course, that means that creationism should also be challenged.

Are they going to start teaching Alchemy as an 'alternative theory' to chemistry now?

I'll teach intelliegent design as long as I can say that the Universe was created by a three-armed, two headed alien from Betelgeuse who sneezed us out into a hankercheif.

If they don't let me do that though, I'm only teaching evolution.

(as a side note, I am not a teacher)Why didn't I think so?

Oh wait, your ignorance of the spelling of "handkerchief". That and the idea that there is no place called Betelgeuse.

Or maybe there is, somewhere out near Earth or one of those other planets.

Kansas is at it again!
Seriously, Americans wonder why we Europeans laugh at them? The thought of evolution being a political issue is pretty hilarious in itself. And I'm from a country where abortion is illegal and divorce was only legalised 11 years ago.

God.

Wow, some parts of America are going backwards in such a highly competitive world. I guess other countries (where science has no obstacles) will lead in science.
We can only hope!

Are they going to start teaching Alchemy as an 'alternative theory' to chemistry now?

Why not. Sounds pretty cool if they can get the teachers and enough students by demand.

Put in the solid bar of Lead into the boiling pot. Boil it until it turns into Gooooooooooooooold! *Eyes glisten*

No, there isn't. But some people want to take the Bible literally to the last period and comma.

Because of their own natures science and religion have their very own, separate, and non-interfering spheres. There shouldn't be a problem unless you want to put one over the other.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing evolution challenged in the classroom, since science is all about challenging ideas. Of course, that means that creationism should also be challenged.You could challenge practically everything in the classroom. Heck, you could even challenge that I'm the undisputed supreme ruler of the world. (Even people who aren't in classrooms seem to do that all the time.)

Beg pardon, but why do even biblical literalists think evolution violates the Christian Holy Book?

You could challenge practically everything in the classroom. Heck, you could even challenge that I'm the undisputed supreme ruler of the world. (Even people who aren't in classrooms seem to do that all the time.)

Beg pardon, but why do even biblical literalists think evolution violates the Christian Holy Book?
Because they beleive the bible is the inerrant word of god, everything in it is true. This extends to the creation stories in Genesis. If genesis is proven false, then the bible is not inerrant, other things might be false. Then their entire beleif system is open to question and doubt, and they don't think their beleifs will survive questioning.

I have actually been shown that. One was done in six days by a god whereas the other was done naturally over a very long period of time. Same setup, just different means and timelines.

It doesn't actually say six days. A thousand years is to a day as a day is to a thousand years and all that jazz. People seem to forget this when they say the bible tells them how old the earth is. A more rational explanation (if you believe the bible was given to a bunch of prophets through visions) is the the vision of the creation of the earth took a day and the vision of the creation of man took a day, etc.

Creationism is not a study of Science. It is a study of religion & philosophy.
Banning the teaching of Darwinism is as bad as banning books in the library or better yet burning books from the library.
If you examine this one theroy that is taught in schools, it opens a big can of worms for other scientific threroies & ideas that are taught in the classroom. Just because you are taught something in school does not mean you have to blindly believe it. I think this is the great misconception that much of the christian populace faces.
If you are really worried about what your children are learning then send them to a private Christian school.
The whole time I was in school. Darwinism was presented as theroy. Not law! Theroy! As far as I know this is still the case. Correct me if I am wrong.
Teaching creationsim if that is what you believe in is the job of the parents, the church & the general community that surrounds you.

Public schools job is to educate children in a fair inpartial & equal way. It's an extention of the government. Which by law holds the separation of church & state sacred. This being the case a unit would have to be taught on every know story of creationism there is in ordrer to keep a impartial.
All Christians I know would vommit pea soup if their children came home talking about Wiccian creationism. Or Hindu Creationism. Wouldn't you!
As this is imptractical I believe it should not be taught at all.

As I have said before as a Christian it is your job & duty to teach the word. It becomes sin & blasphmy to judge others on weather or not their ideas are right or wrong.

Spread the word. Stop stifiling others so you practice what you preach.

Are they going to start teaching Alchemy as an 'alternative theory' to chemistry now?

his holiness jack chick informs me that subatomic jesus is the force that holds atoms together. i want that taught in school.

It doesn't actually say six days. A thousand years is to a day as a day is to a thousand years and all that jazz. People seem to forget this when they say the bible tells them how old the earth is. A more rational explanation (if you believe the bible was given to a bunch of prophets through visions) is the the vision of the creation of the earth took a day and the vision of the creation of man took a day, etc.

It's even more ironic if you consider that, as Clarence Darrow pointed out at the Scopes Monkey Trial, you measure a day by the time it takes for the sun to reach approximately the same position in the sky, and the sun wasn't created until the 3rd or 4th day. So theoretically, it could have been a 25 hour day, or a 23 hour day, or a six billion year day we were talking about.

Creationism is not a study of Science. It is a study of religion & philosophy.

it's not even that. it is thoroughly illogical - it's not even internally consistent - and so it gets drummed out of any claim towards philosophy. as far as religion goes, yeah, it's religion. but a particularly dumb one that intelligent theologians have no time for. to be a creationist means to be constantly in danger of losing faith due to the inherent retardisity of trying to believe things when every single relevant fact about the universe says they're wrong.

to be a creationist means to be constantly in danger of losing faith due to the inherent retardisity of trying to believe things when every single relevant fact about the universe says they're wrong.

Do you mind if I quote this at every opportunity?

Kansas has decided to challenge Wyoming for the title of 'Least Influential American State'. The only thing they have left is Wizard of Oz.

it's not even that. it is thoroughly illogical - it's not even internally consistent - and so it gets drummed out of any claim towards philosophy. as far as religion goes, yeah, it's religion. but a particularly dumb one that intelligent theologians have no time for. to be a creationist means to be constantly in danger of losing faith due to the inherent retardisity of trying to believe things when every single relevant fact about the universe says they're wrong.
So is most philosophy which is why it would apply.

As I said in the other thread about evolution and creationism: This fiasco in Kansas embarasses me as an American far more than anything that people in anti-U.S. threads try to throw at us.

I just wish more people in Kansas understood the difference between knowledge and belief...

I find it interesting to note that the scientific community has decided to boycott the exercise as it would give creedence to the belief that creationism is an acceptable theory.

I don't blame them either. Sitting there being berate for days on end. I'd rather drown.

As I said in the other thread about evolution and creationism: This fiasco in Kansas embarasses me as an American far more than anything that people in anti-U.S. threads try to throw at us.

I just wish more people in Kansas understood the difference between knowledge and belief...

I hear ya.

As I have been at pains to point out to anywho with the presence of mind to listen, Genesis is an allegory and not to be taken literally.

That's impossible. Everything God says is the literal truth. For instance the prodigal son was an actual historical figure...

Yeah, Jesus was a big fan of capitalism too.

Soon they'll be "updating" their Chemistry textbooks, too! http://pharyngula.org/images/chemistry_book_sticker.gif

I have to drive through that county every day. Anyone who makes fun of them is a friend of mine. =)

it's not even that. it is thoroughly illogical - it's not even internally consistent - and so it gets drummed out of any claim towards philosophy. as far as religion goes, yeah, it's religion. but a particularly dumb one that intelligent theologians have no time for. to be a creationist means to be constantly in danger of losing faith due to the inherent retardisity of trying to believe things when every single relevant fact about the universe says they're wrong.

This is highly inaccurate. You will find many believers in creation that also believe in evolution (they do not directly contradict as Eut point out). Also, when evaluated critically the bible does not contradict itself. They way different prophets interpreted their visions, however, on occasion, does.

It doesn't actually say six days. A thousand years is to a day as a day is to a thousand years and all that jazz. People seem to forget this when they say the bible tells them how old the earth is. A more rational explanation (if you believe the bible was given to a bunch of prophets through visions) is the the vision of the creation of the earth took a day and the vision of the creation of man took a day, etc.

That's a great explanation of the Priestly story of creation. Makes sense.

Now if we had an equally great explantion of the Yahwist story, in which man (read: Adam, not all of humankind) is created before plants and animals...

This is highly inaccurate. You will find many believers in creation that also believe in evolution (they do not directly contradict as Eut point out). Also, when evaluated critically the bible does not contradict itself. They way different prophets interpreted their visions, however, on occasion, does.

There is a difference between creation - the belief that God created the Universe and Creationism - the belief that everything in the OT accounts is literal truth and we should search for evidence to prove it.

I find it interesting to note that the scientific community has decided to boycott the exercise as it would give creedence to the belief that creationism is an acceptable theory.

I don't blame them either. Sitting there being berate for days on end. I'd rather drown.

And the sad thing is that any person with actual scientific knowledge (should there be a full debate) would know who was actually talking about science and who was not. Lay-people, however, hear big words and assume that it must be science, since it sounds like science. Thus, as long as Creationists use big scientific words, there will be lay-people who will think it sounds just as good.

So is most philosophy which is why it would apply.

nah. there's a difference between being utterly obscure and pointless, and being thoroughly illogical.

Do you mind if I quote this at every opportunity?

by all means

There is a difference between creation - the belief that God created the Universe and Creationism - the belief that everything in the OT accounts is literal truth and we should search for evidence to prove it.

From Wikipedia -

Creation or Creationism is the belief system regarding origins holding that all material in the universe was created out of nothingness (ex nihilo) by a deity, or by one or more powerful and intelligent beings through supernatural, theistic, or mythological means (see demiurge). Many societies have creation stories that are not ex nihilo.

They comment that Creationism most often is used to refer to the literal translation of the OT but does not by definition mean that. Again, I tend to use encyclopedias and dictionaries to define my terms rather than your subjective definitions.

its because people in this world are overwealmingly stupid, and its up to us to correct their misconceptions, half truths and down right lies.

end of story

This is highly inaccurate. You will find many believers in creation that also believe in evolution (they do not directly contradict as Eut point out). Also, when evaluated critically the bible does not contradict itself. They way different prophets interpreted their visions, however, on occasion, does.What certain creationists believe:

1) God created the subatomic particles

2) He used them to form atoms

3) He used the atoms to form elements

4) He used elements to form everything

5) Then he sat back and watched the new animals adapt to their surroundings (evolve).

They do not contradict each other. The Bible says that God created first insects, then fish and birds, then animals, and finally man. However, nowhere does it say that these are all separate and unrelated creatures. Easily, God could have made the animals evolve from the fish and humans evolve from the animals. Then He made the humans evolve into that pinnacle of evolution, Czardas. :D

Seriously though, evolution does not contradict the bible if you interpret it correctly.

Creation or Creationism is the belief system regarding origins holding that all material in the universe was created out of nothingness (ex nihilo) by a deity, or by one or more powerful and intelligent beings through supernatural, theistic, or mythological means (see demiurge). Many societies have creation stories that are not ex nihilo.

Ah, so people have begun to use it that way?

Of course, anyone can add to wikipedia, so I don't necessarily think it is the end-all be-all in definition.

They comment that Creationism most often is used to refer to the literal translation of the OT but does not by definition mean that. Again, I tend to use encyclopedias and dictionaries to define my terms rather than your subjective definitions.

(a) Encyclopedias and dictionaries are also subjective definitions, as they are based on common usage, not some objective source.

(b) The Creationism that people try to raise up as a "scientific theory" and push into the schools is the Genesis defintion.

What certain creationists believe:

1) God created the subatomic particles

2) He used them to form atoms

3) He used the atoms to form elements

4) He used elements to form everything

5) Then he sat back and watched the new animals adapt to their surroundings (evolve).

They do not contradict each other. The Bible says that God created first insects, then fish and birds, then animals, and finally man. However, nowhere does it say that these are all separate and unrelated creatures. Easily, God could have made the animals evolve from the fish and humans evolve from the animals. Then He made the humans evolve into that pinnacle of evolution, Czardas. :D

That is the priestly version of creation. How do you respond to the Yahwist version, in which Adam is made before the animals, and then Eve is made later?

What I wonder is if they teach this, will unvisersities outside of the state even accept them?

What I wonder is if they teach this, will unvisersities outside of the state even accept them?

If they do, they sure as hell better stick them all in remedial classes.

That's impossible. Everything God says is the literal truth. For instance the prodigal son was an actual historical figure...

Yeah, Jesus was a big fan of capitalism too.

Jesus was a Communist. Everyone knows that.

I don't care what they do with THEIR schools. It should be left up to them. The people that don't like it should leave. There is a God given right in the US to be a complete and total idiot and that right should be protected and not mocked by psuedo intellectual atheists.

I don't care what they do with THEIR schools. It should be left up to them. The people that don't like it should leave. There is a God given right in the US to be a complete and total idiot and that right should be protected and not mocked by psuedo intellectual atheists.
There is no right, however, to use taxpayer money to teach a religious beleif as science. Doing so is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

So is most philosophy which is why it would apply.

You obviously haven't read much philosophy, have you?

It might almost be worth it to agree if we reached a compromise: the Creationists get to read their doctored pro-creation garbage in class if and only if they also had to read David Hume's works on the religious proofs for the Existence of God. The idea of a bunch of Humean atheists running around Kansas amuses me to no end.

There is no right, however, to use taxpayer money to teach a religious beleif as science. Doing so is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

It would be easy to attack the theory of evolution as spiritually inspired dogma of a Gaian belief system. No matter how logical and sensible it seems you can not prove it. I will concede that the preponderance of evidence would lead a rational person to conclude that evolution is fact however.

You obviously haven't read much philosophy, have you?

It might almost be worth it to agree if we reached a compromise: the Creationists get to read their doctored pro-creation garbage in class if and only if they also had to read David Hume's works on the religious proofs for the Existence of God. The idea of a bunch of Humean atheists running around Kansas amuses me to no end.

Heh. I'd be amused to see that in Texas too. :D

Nice to see you again, Xeno.

They comment that Creationism most often is used to refer to the literal translation of the OT but does not by definition mean that. Again, I tend to use encyclopedias and dictionaries to define my terms rather than your subjective definitions.

relevant parts of my copy of the new shorter oed:

creationism
the theory which attributes the origin of matter, biological species, etc., to a special creation (opp. evolutionism); esp. = creation science.

creation science
the interpretation of scientific knowledge according to belief in the literal truth of the bible, esp. as regards the origins of matter, life, and man.


and in political and scientific discourse 'creationism' means exactly 'creation science', with appropriate wiggle room on just how literal 'literal' is to keep the morons together.

It would be easy to attack the theory of evolution as spiritually inspired dogma of a Gaian belief system.

not in any way that isn't trivially false, though

Heh. I'd be amused to see that in Texas too. :D

Nice to see you again, Xeno.

Good to see you too, HR.

Good to see you too, HR.

Thanks. Still fighting the good fight for truth on the forums, eh? :) There's plenty of evolution vs. creation threads lately, so you'll have plenty to work with. :D

Thanks. Still fighting the good fight for truth on the forums, eh? :) There's plenty of evolution vs. creation threads lately, so you'll have plenty to work with. :D

I do what I can. . .

It would be easy to attack the theory of evolution as spiritually inspired dogma of a Gaian belief system.

No, it really wouldn't.

No matter how logical and sensible it seems you can not prove it.

You cannot prove anything using science. What is your point?

It would be easy to attack the theory of evolution as spiritually inspired dogma of a Gaian belief system. No matter how logical and sensible it seems you can not prove it. I will concede that the preponderance of evidence would lead a rational person to conclude that evolution is fact however.
It's testable. One can make predictions based on evolution, then see if those predictions are bourne out. For example, for evolution to take place there has to be a mechanism for changes in heredity. This was understood long before DNA and mutations were discovered. Evolution passes the test. There are many more examples like this.

It makes me happy on some level...as it has been stated before, we live in a very competitive world, and its nice to know I will no longer have to compete with anyone living in Kansas. Lets face it...you don't have to believe what they teach in school, but if a theory is generally accepted, then you damn well better know it, if for no other reason than to be able to intelligently argue against it.


Also, doesn't the bible have two different versions of Adam and Eve? I haven't read it in a very long time and don't have a copy readily available here, but I seem to remember that.

Also, doesn't the bible have two different versions of Adam and Eve? I haven't read it in a very long time and don't have a copy readily available here, but I seem to remember that.

There are two somewhat different creation accounts, yes.

It makes me happy on some level...as it has been stated before, we live in a very competitive world, and its nice to know I will no longer have to compete with anyone living in Kansas. Lets face it...you don't have to believe what they teach in school, but if a theory is generally accepted, then you damn well better know it, if for no other reason than to be able to intelligently argue against it.


Also, doesn't the bible have two different versions of Adam and Eve? I haven't read it in a very long time and don't have a copy readily available here, but I seem to remember that.
Yes, it has two contradictory creation myths. Yes, Kansas students won't be able to compete for jobs as biologists, but it will have a negative impact. It may cause textbook publishers to eliminate evolution or add creationism to textbooks. Then the whole nation ceases to be competative in biology and the associated industries.

There are two somewhat different creation accounts, yes.

yeah, just found my old Torah (can't seem to find my King James text, so the translations are slightly different, but both accurate)...for those who are interested, the first account is 1:27 in which G-d creates both man and woman at the same time. The second account is 2:7 in which man is created of dust. Woman is created in 2:21

yeah, just found my old Torah (can't seem to find my King James text, so the translations are slightly different, but both accurate)...for those who are interested, the first account is 1:27 in which G-d creates both man and woman at the same time. The second account is 2:7 in which man is created of dust. Woman is created in 2:21
Can't get their story straight, can they? If you're going to beleive in something, shouldn't you make an effort to keep your beleifs from contradicting themselves? I mean just from a logical standpoint this invalidates the idea of an inerrant bible.

Can't get their story straight, can they? If you're going to beleive in something, shouldn't you make an effort to keep your beleifs from contradicting themselves? I mean just from a logical standpoint this invalidates the idea of an inerrant bible.

Belief by itself has no need of a Law of Non-Contradiction or "keeping the story straight". Faith in particular simply disregards the idea of proof or logical validity as the basis for truth.

Belief by itself has no need of a Law of Non-Contradiction or "keeping the story straight". Faith in particular simply disregards the idea of proof or logical validity as the basis for truth.
Ok, then please keep your faith out of my science. Thanks.

Sighing was Cheryl Shepherd-Adams, a physics teacher who took an unpaid day off from Hays High School to attend the hearings. "Kansas has been through this before," she said. "I'm really tired of going to conferences and being laughed at because I'm from Kansas."

This article is two pages long.

I'm from Kansas.

Reaction #1: I don't think you're in Kansas anymore. (quote from Wizard of Oz)
Reaction #2: Isn't that where the evolution/creationist war is going on?

Pffft. Why can't we all just get along?

Fact of life: education in Kansas is messed up.

Suggestion for all: Read "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth R. Miller. It's a great summary of why evolution exists, why it's important, and how it can coexist with the idea of God. There's absolutely no reason why you can't believe in both. I certainly do, and, last time I checked, I'm not an utter idiot.

yeah, just found my old Torah (can't seem to find my King James text, so the translations are slightly different, but both accurate)...for those who are interested, the first account is 1:27 in which G-d creates both man and woman at the same time. The second account is 2:7 in which man is created of dust. Woman is created in 2:21

there are actually two different texts that were later combined into one document here. gen 1:1 - gen 2:3 is from what is known as the p (priestly) source and gen 2:4 - 25 (with the same text continuing on through gen 3 and gen 4) comes from the j or yahwist source.

Ok, then please keep your faith out of my science. Thanks.

Maybe I should be clearer. Your saying that belief is invalid is like saying that water is wet. I was just pointing out that the very nature of belief defies constructs such as logic. No need to get pissy about it, especially considering that I've never tried to put my faith in your science.

Maybe I should be clearer. Your saying that belief is invalid is like saying that water is wet. I was just pointing out that the very nature of belief defies constructs such as logic. No need to get pissy about it, especially considering that I've never tried to put my faith in your science.
Sorry if it came off as pissy. I was only under the impression that you were arguing in favor of teaching creation in science classes. My appologies if I misunderstood your position.

Sorry if it came off as pissy. I was only under the impression that you were arguing in favor of teaching creation in science classes. My appologies if I misunderstood your position.

Accepted, and no hard feelings. :) BTW, AFAIK I've never defended creationism or advocated it being taught in schools on these boards. Maybe I should do so now and have some fun, huh? :D

It might almost be worth it to agree if we reached a compromise: the Creationists get to read their doctored pro-creation garbage in class if and only if they also had to read David Hume's works on the religious proofs for the Existence of God. The idea of a bunch of Humean atheists running around Kansas amuses me to no end.

YES!! lol

There's another problem to this whole mess that no one ever really considers. Religion is not allowed in public schools anymore, at least in Kansas, or at least in my school district. So, in truth, I have absolutely no idea why this argument is even taking place.

If I'm not allowed to put a cut-out of a Christmas tree on my locker, call it "Christmas break" instead of "winter break," read a religious magazine in my free time, or even have a religious book on my desk at school, then what do I care about any of these arguments? There's NO POINT.

Maybe the rest of the U.S. isn't so cursèd nuts....

~a Kansan

There's another problem to this whole mess that no one ever really considers. Religion is not allowed in public schools anymore, at least in Kansas, or at least in my school district. So, in truth, I have absolutely no idea why this argument is even taking place.

If I'm not allowed to put a cut-out of a Christmas tree on my locker, call it "Christmas break" instead of "winter break," read a religious magazine in my free time, or even have a religious book on my desk at school, then what do I care about any of these arguments? There's NO POINT.

Maybe the rest of the U.S. isn't so cursèd nuts....

~a KansanI hate political correctness.

But I also hate political favoritism...

I hate political correctness.

But I also hate political favoritism...

Agreed. *shakes fist at U.S. politicians, afraid to actually try anything*

there are actually two different texts that were later combined into one document here. gen 1:1 - gen 2:3 is from what is known as the p (priestly) source and gen 2:4 - 25 (with the same text continuing on through gen 3 and gen 4) comes from the j or yahwist source.


AAAHH! I knew I forgot about something that had to do with the two stories, just couldnt figure out what the hell it was. thanks for that (I also think there was a 3rd or 4th text used now that I'm thinking about it...if you or anyone know more about it, I'd be interested)

Ah, so people have begun to use it that way?

Of course, anyone can add to wikipedia, so I don't necessarily think it is the end-all be-all in definition.

(a) Encyclopedias and dictionaries are also subjective definitions, as they are based on common usage, not some objective source.

(b) The Creationism that people try to raise up as a "scientific theory" and push into the schools is the Genesis defintion.

I thought we were talking about common usage. Maybe I missed it.

I am talking about the genesis definition. People just disgree about what the genesis definition is. I think the genesis definition is not contrary to evolution. It is just sometimes is interpreted that way. The point is that the statement made by free soviets that "to be a creationist means to be constantly in danger of losing faith due to the inherent retardisity of trying to believe things when every single relevant fact about the universe says they're wrong." is simply not true and it was that statement I was correcting.

Let them do it. I can't wait for all the institutions in this country to be fully usurped by fascist religious zealots; then I can rebel against them with a clear conscience.

There's another problem to this whole mess that no one ever really considers. Religion is not allowed in public schools anymore, at least in Kansas, or at least in my school district. So, in truth, I have absolutely no idea why this argument is even taking place.

If I'm not allowed to put a cut-out of a Christmas tree on my locker, call it "Christmas break" instead of "winter break," read a religious magazine in my free time, or even have a religious book on my desk at school, then what do I care about any of these arguments? There's NO POINT.

Maybe the rest of the U.S. isn't so cursèd nuts....

~a Kansan
Religion is allowed if it's not promoted by the school. You can read a bible, koran, whatever in your free time. If anyone tried to stop you the ACLU would be happy to sue them for you.

Religion is allowed if it's not promoted by the school. You can read a bible, koran, whatever in your free time. If anyone tried to stop you the ACLU would be happy to sue them for you.

That's the theory. The problem is that it was the ACLU, (directly or indirectly I'm not quite sure which), that made my district the way it is. Bah.

That's the theory. The problem is that it was the ACLU, (directly or indirectly I'm not quite sure which), that made my district the way it is. Bah.
No, it wasn't. The ACLU has sued for religious freedom in schools many times. Its people who complain about christmas break who made it that way.

Belief by itself has no need of a Law of Non-Contradiction or "keeping the story straight". Faith in particular simply disregards the idea of proof or logical validity as the basis for truth.

Incorrect. Blind faith, which is what many mistake for faith, disregards the idea of proof or logical validity.

I thought we were talking about common usage. Maybe I missed it.

Your own definition says that common usage is referring to a literal belief in Genesis.

I am talking about the genesis definition. People just disgree about what the genesis definition is. I think the genesis definition is not contrary to evolution.

The Priestly version isn't, so long as you don't take the "day" thing too literally, although it does someone contradict other scientific theories. The Yahwist version is, but most people don't bother with that one until they are trying to argue original sin.

It is just sometimes is interpreted that way. The point is that the statement made by free soviets that "to be a creationist means to be constantly in danger of losing faith due to the inherent retardisity of trying to believe things when every single relevant fact about the universe says they're wrong." is simply not true and it was that statement I was correcting.

From the most common usage of the term, it is true. From the broader definition, which simply means that someone believes in some sort of creator, it is not. Most scientists believe in some kind of creator.

Of course, this article (in our local paper) really pissed me off, so i'll share a few more parts of "the enlightened" w/y'all ...

"I was hoping these hearings would help me have some good, hard evidence that I could repeat," said Connie Morris, an anti-evolution board member.
.
The propsed changes would edit everything from the missions statement to notes advising teachers on specific benchmarks for individual grades. Perhaps the most significant shift would be in the very definition of science - instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe it as "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."
.
Even as they described their own questioning of evolution as triggered by religious conversion, the experts testifying Thursday avoided mention of a divine creator, instead painting their position as simply one of open-mindedness.
. AND THE GREATEST IN THE ARTICLE .

"You can infer design just by examining something, without knowing anything about where it came from," Harris said. "I don't know who did it, I don't know how it was done, I don't know why it was done, I don't have to know any of that to know that it was designed.
*note - then WTF do you know? What the hell are you doing having any input at all on anything scientific?*
.
...Linda Holloway, a member of the 1999 state board that dumped evolution, said the mainstream scientist's failure to participate in the hearings signaled that "they're afraid to be cross-examined, they're afraid to defend their theory."


They can go pound f*cking rocks, not that there's anything wrong with that inherently, it just seems to fit their faculty well.

The propsed changes would edit everything from the missions statement to notes advising teachers on specific benchmarks for individual grades. Perhaps the most significant shift would be in the very definition of science - instead of "seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us," the new standards would describe it as "continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

I dodn't see a problem here. The second definition is more detailed and I see nothing in it that is incorrect. Nor do I see anything in it that allows ID as a scientific theory.

Nahh! It was actually Vin Diseal. :D

That's correct. Did you know, he also has a summer house on the sun.

It really explains well why Sony and Toshiba are having talks about a DVD recorder standard format without any American (or European) company involved.

The CEO of Sony is an American.

Edit: I am not positive about this, but the blue laser that makes the new dvds possible was invented by.... IBM, an American company.

I dodn't see a problem here. The second definition is more detailed and I see nothing in it that is incorrect. Nor do I see anything in it that allows ID as a scientific theory.
That specific quote seemed to be a good standard for things, i didn't print it with intent of it being moronic, more in the sense of how you put it. I felt that the broader situation in which it was given makes an interesting contrast to some of the other quotes from the treacle-headed morons cited in here, like Harris's and Halloway's.

Let them do it. I can't wait for all the institutions in this country to be fully usurped by fascist religious zealots; then I can rebel against them with a clear conscience.
I'll probably be too old to engage the enemy anymore, but I'll happily carry your extra ammo and rations! :D

Well, for those who are worried about a textbook change, it won't happen. The textbook industry responds to the two biggest markets, California and Texas. As long as those two don't change, Kansas, with it's shrinking population, won't make a dent.

Of course now I want to go over there and start teaching Biology and when we get to the creation of life, show Star Trek II* The Wrath of Khan. It has genesis in it, right? Created by intelligence, right? So... what's the problem? ;)

In america, the stupid vote the stupider into public office.
Seriously though, evolution is just a theory. It simply has been hijacked for political agendas. If they proposed challenging Creation and Evolution it would be logical and reasonable.
Also too much to expect :)

The CEO of Sony is an American.

Edit: I am not positive about this, but the blue laser that makes the new dvds possible was invented by.... IBM, an American company.
The Blue laser was invented by Shuji Nakamura of Nichia Chemical Industries. They specialize in the manufacture of light emmiting materials. I believe he's now teaching at Berkley. IBM was a good bet though. They patent a lot of stuff, more than anyone else in fact.

Your own definition says that common usage is referring to a literal belief in Genesis.

The Priestly version isn't, so long as you don't take the "day" thing too literally, although it does someone contradict other scientific theories. The Yahwist version is, but most people don't bother with that one until they are trying to argue original sin.

From the most common usage of the term, it is true. From the broader definition, which simply means that someone believes in some sort of creator, it is not. Most scientists believe in some kind of creator.

You mistake common usage with most common usage (you used it improperly in the first paragraph and properly in the last paragraph). My own definition says that a broader definition is common usage, but the more literal belief is the most common usage within the broader definition. It would be like saying the christianity commonly refers to Catholicism (assuming Catholic is the most common sect). It doesn't. It commonly refers to people who believe Christ was divine and a savior and Catholicism is just the most common type of Christianity.

I'll probably be too old to engage the enemy anymore, but I'll happily carry your extra ammo and rations! :D
You might make a good commander. You tend to think things through.
*bows*

No, it wasn't. The ACLU has sued for religious freedom in schools many times. Its people who complain about christmas break who made it that way.

That's the ideal of the ACLU. The problem is that they seem to have a varied idea of what "religious freedom" actually means. People in my school district fear the ACLU more than anything because of this question. They ask, if we have a Christmas tree in the office does this mean that we're promoting Christianity? Oh no! What if we allow Christian art to be displayed by students on their own lockers. That could be promoting a religion, my gosh! Oh, we can't let students sing religious songs of their own volition, either, because they could be promoting their religion! ACK.

*rolls her eyes*

Let them do it. I can't wait for all the institutions in this country to be fully usurped by fascist religious zealots; then I can rebel against them with a clear conscience.
Not if the rest of the world/liberal agenda/ACLU disarms you first... :(

That's the ideal of the ACLU. The problem is that they seem to have a varied idea of what "religious freedom" actually means. People in my school district fear the ACLU more than anything because of this question. They ask, if we have a Christmas tree in the office does this mean that we're promoting Christianity? Oh no! What if we allow Christian art to be displayed by students on their own lockers. That could be promoting a religion, my gosh! Oh, we can't let students sing religious songs of their own volition, either, because they could be promoting their religion! ACK.

*rolls her eyes*

That's cute, considering that the ACLU has repeatedly, time and again, defended students whose personal religious freedom was abridged by schools. In other words, if you weren't so biased against the ACLU, the question of whether or not students can put up religious symbols on their own lockers or, in their free time, sing religious songs, would not be in question.

That's the ideal of the ACLU. The problem is that they seem to have a varied idea of what "religious freedom" actually means. People in my school district fear the ACLU more than anything because of this question. They ask, if we have a Christmas tree in the office does this mean that we're promoting Christianity? Oh no! What if we allow Christian art to be displayed by students on their own lockers. That could be promoting a religion, my gosh! Oh, we can't let students sing religious songs of their own volition, either, because they could be promoting their religion! ACK.

*rolls her eyes*

You are mistaken, you misunderstand the situation, your school district misunderstands the ACLU, or all of the above.

The ACLU has fought vigorously to defend religious liberty in schools. Including the rights of Christians ( :eek: ) to express their religion.

What the ACLU is opposed to is what the Constitution forbids: government establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I live in Kansas. Those idiots are just a bunch of religious nuts. We teach evolution now and isn't there this law of SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE! :headbang: My opinion- If you want your kid to learn about creationism send them to a private religious school. If you can't afford it to bad. Teach it to your kid yourself!

If they ban evolution from classes and replace it with "Creation science", then i suggest they should also introduce burning witches and stoning adulterers in Kansas. :D
Actually stoning Adulterers doesn't sound like a bad idea,as long as they stone men as well as women who seemed in the past to be much more likely to be the stoned then the stonees. I am in favor of teaching evolution along side creationism rather then banning it.Yes i am serious

I don't have time to read all the posts, but as I am a Kansasn I have two things to say.
1) Please dont think we are all this way

2) Im sorry

That's the ideal of the ACLU. The problem is that they seem to have a varied idea of what "religious freedom" actually means. People in my school district fear the ACLU more than anything because of this question. They ask, if we have a Christmas tree in the office does this mean that we're promoting Christianity? Oh no! What if we allow Christian art to be displayed by students on their own lockers. That could be promoting a religion, my gosh! Oh, we can't let students sing religious songs of their own volition, either, because they could be promoting their religion! ACK.

*rolls her eyes*
Hi there, Across-the-Forest, I am a representative of the Encumbered Citizenry of Straughn, and as a formal greeting gesture, i'll pass this on to you ....

To roll eyes .... type ":" + "rolleyes" + ":" altogether.
Lotsa others, like fluffle, gundge, sniper, eek ........
Don't use "" s though!
(Also, read the reply window on smilies you're interested in ... that oughtta do 'er!
*bows*
*slinks off*

You are mistaken, you misunderstand the situation, your school district misunderstands the ACLU, or all of the above.

The ACLU has fought vigorously to defend religious liberty in schools. Including the rights of Christians ( :eek: ) to express their religion.

What the ACLU is opposed to is what the Constitution forbids: government establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
True, yet another group the republicans are slathering with less-than-praise.
Cute though, how they've picked up on Rush "Ass-surgery kept me outta 'Nam" Limbaugh's case. Irony with a twist of lime!

Incorrect. Blind faith, which is what many mistake for faith, disregards the idea of proof or logical validity.

What faith do you propose exists, aside from the "blind" faith?

Actually stoning Adulterers doesn't sound like a bad idea,as long as they stone men as well as women who seemed in the past to be much more likely to be the stoned then the stonees. I am in favor of teaching evolution along side creationism rather then banning it.Yes i am serious

Piffle.

I don't believe a word of it.

meh, Kansas doing this only makes other people's education look better

Evolution hearings end on confrontational note
-John Hanna, AP ... week of May 13, 2005

<excerpts>

...The board is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of "intelligent design," which holds that some features in the natural world are so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain them.
...
State and national science groups led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Kansas Citizens for Science, boycotted the public hearings, claiming they were rigged against evolution.
"This lacks honor and integrity and rules," said Steve Case, assistant director of the Center for Science Education at the University of Kansas.
He said witnesses called by intelligent design advocates merely resurrected creationists' old criticisms of evolution.

I still dont get IDers. Even if god did create the universe and guide the evolution of its creatures (not that i'm saying he did) do they really think that he would leave clues to infer his existence?

I still dont get IDers. Even if god did create the universe and guide the evolution of its creatures (not that i'm saying he did) do they really think that he would leave clues to infer his existence?
I think there's way too much personalization of "the" deity, m'self. That whole "in His image" mentality.
I personally don't feel that it any sensible that such an emotionally fragile entity would feel really all that qualified by beings whose intent and faculty are equally as fragile, to vindicate its existence. It doesn't seem to add up ...
if nothing else i don't understand why any group of people would be so proud to disregard the pursuit of understanding the mechanical nature of said deity - really, the more the merrier!
That having been said, just wishing the problem away doesn't solve anything, and the nature of science should be about solving and understanding, not misrepresenting, hiding, obfuscating and arguing semantically.

If you are going to challenge what is right and has been scientifically and historically proven than why not say 3 + 2 = 78 and the Confederacy won the civil war.

If you are going to challenge what is right and has been scientifically and historically proven than why not say 3 + 2 = 78 and the Confederacy won the civil war.
Um, there are people in the South still convinced the Confederacy DID win the civil war, in a lot of ways......but these are similar to the people who aren't educated enough to know their own state boundaries. (For instance, down the road from our vacation home in AK [we own about a "mountain" and a half up against the Buffalo River], there's a man who I once heard boasting that he'd been out of the state before -- as a kid, he got to go all the way to Little Rock.)