[_ Old Earth _] Wisconsin district to allow theories besides evolution

[Justice]

Wisconsin district to allow theories besides evolution: November 07, 2004

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/e ... ion07.html

GRANTSBURG, Wis.  The city's school board has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

School-board members believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students.

The decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious-studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy. It follows a letter sent previously by 43 deans at Wisconsin public universities.

"Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public funds," said Don Waller, a botanist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison.

State law mandates that evolution be taught, but school districts are free to create curricular standards, said Joe Donovan, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction.

There have been scattered efforts across the nation for other school boards to adopt similar measures. The Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania voted last month to require the teaching of alternative theories to evolution, including "intelligent design"  the idea that life is too complex to have developed without a creator.

 

[paxigoth7]

Well, good. Maybe other districts will do likewise.

 

[mh13]

Praise God!

 

[Quath]

Yeah. I am favoring the theory that a cow licked all the ice away to help form humanity. Lets put some real religion into science class. :roll:

Quath

 

[Featherbop]

Very good. Now if we just get that agenda in it's place, (theory, not truth) then we'll really start some progress.

 

[bibleberean]

Remeber, educators are open minded and tolerant and want to examine all possible avenues of science. :roll:

NOT!

 

[Quath]

I think science should teach what most scientists have concluded. Science never proves anything 100%. It only can give some confidence that something is modeling truth. So if people want stickers to warn students against believing in a theory, it should apply to all theories and not single out one. It is trying to push religion into the realm of science. People should remember Galileo in these types of discussions.

Quath

 

[Spike~]

Schools should be teaching known facts. Teaching a theory that has no evidence to support it just to appease some ppl who believe in this myth is ridiculous.

School should teach facts, not beliefs.

 

[bibleberean]

Creation is self evident and good science must allow for the possibility of Creation.

According to God only a blind fool could miss it.

Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Atheists have dark hearts that is why most of them are so cold when it comes to killing babies (abortion) and love to defend homosexuality according to God at any rate. :-D

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

God doesn't mince words like some of His alleged followers.

Romans 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

This explains much about why some people hate God.

Psalms 53:1 To the chief Musician upon Mahalath, Maschil, A Psalm of David. The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

So true, so true.

God is never wrong.

I am only quoting scripture if this bothers anyone please take it up with God and not me.

This is a bible believing bible quoting Christian forum. :-D

 

[Spike~]

Creation is self evident and good science must allow for the possibility of Creation.

Scientific theories are not self evident. They have to be proven using the tools we have at our disposal. And right now, Creation is severely lacking in evidence.

It isn't the schools job to teach the supposed "truths" of your religion. It's their job to teach the known facts.

 

[bibleberean]

Evolutionists don't have any more evidence than Creationionists.

How do you have creation without a creator?

Accoring to the word of the Living God the creator and sustainer of all life only a fool would disagree.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

I can understand why some people would deny the obvious. :D

 

[Quath]

How do you have creation without a creator?

You are assuming we are created and therefore there must be a creator. However, we both agree there can be life without creation. With me is is life on Eath. With you, it is God.

So since there can be life without ceation, life on Earth does not prove a Creator.

Quath

 

[paxigoth7]

Well, they should teach every valid or semi-valid theory. I wouldn't agree with 'banning evolution' it has some good points and it should be taught. But so should creationism. The evidence for a Creator should be given just as much discussion. From a scientific standpoint, we can't really prove anything, so yes we should be open-minded and tolerant of other views.

Ultimately, you can't make a student believe anything. And no view should be crammed down someone's throat.

 

[Quath]

The problem is that is is very hard to disprove just about ever theory as well with utmost confidence. There are also almost an infinite number of them. Just look at origin of life. We could be interdimensional beings that landed here. We would have been created from travellers in the future in some bizarre paradox. We could be populated by aliens. We could be gods rooleplaying on Earth.

Or go to other theories like gravity. We could teach gravity is a curvature of spacetime or a field effect of gravitons. (These are both taught.) Or we could teach the scientifically unpopular view that we are held to stuff by silly string that is invisible. Or we should just state we don't know enough about gravity due to dark matter, dark energy and space probe not being predicted accurately by gravity theory calculations.

It seems that the best way to teach is to the the best concensus you can of scientists in a field. If there is a good disagreement (like 20% of scientists disagree) then you teach opposing views. However, 95% scientists in all fields believe in evolution. I bet it is a lot higher if you just look at the biology field.

Quath

 

[Highlander]

Teaching creationism in a science class is ridiculous. Where do you do your research? What books are there? How do you do class projects replicating any of the scientific experiments? This is so dumb. They have just caved in to the looney fundies. Besides, which story are they going to teach? The Aztec story of creation? The Mayan? How about the Hopi Indian one? Where will you get all of the materials to cover this topic? Is there a Hopi book of creation that the kids can study chapter by chapter? What idiots decided this made any sense whatsoever?

 

[Highlander]

Well, they should teach every valid or semi-valid theory. I wouldn't agree with 'banning evolution' it has some good points and it should be taught. But so should creationism. The evidence for a Creator should be given just as much discussion. From a scientific standpoint, we can't really prove anything, so yes we should be open-minded and tolerant of other views.

Ultimately, you can't make a student believe anything. And no view should be crammed down someone's throat.

And yet you want to cram creationism down everyone's throat. Which version do you think should be taught anyway?

 

[paxigoth7]

Well, instead of casting it in an evolution vs creation argument, couldn't we say that the real argument is a Creator vs not-a-Creator? The reason I say this, is that there are a lot of scientists (I know a few) who are theistic-evolutionists. Would they be included in your 95% of evolutionists?

The problem I see with much of public school teaching is that it bends towards disbelief in a Creator, when (regardless of how the specifics happened) there is as much reason to believe in a Creator as there is not to.

I started off high school at a public school and in science and elsewhere, it was the 'Creator' idea that was taboo. No one wanted to talk about a 'Creator'. That changed for me when I transferred to a private Catholic school. When I went there, it was the opposite, everyone wanted to talk about a 'Creator'. I repeat, they were opposite paradigms. However, at the Catholic school I went to, the professors had all sorts of varying views, from a literal 6-day creationist standpoint, to a liberal take on theistic-evolution. In other words, any and all 'theories' for things like dates and development were tolerated and discussed. But the important thing was understanding the Creator's role in whichever view you had.

The secular needs the spiritual or else it is self-crumbling. And it isn't just all about which data is correct or isn't. The public school was, at least for me, like the dry bones of Ezekial 37. So much potential, so little life. The Catholic school I then went to was full of vitality. The same class can be taught so very differently.

But everyone knows that a religious-oriented education brainwashes kids. That's why I'm a conservative fundamentalist right-wing anti-gay Republican today.

 

[paxigoth7]

Teaching the creationist theory isn't cramming it down anyone's throat. If anything has been crammed down anyone's throat, it's been evolution.

Which version?

All of them, to be tolerant of people with differing degrees of religious commitment to literalism. I disagree with the literal 6-day creation view. I don't think a commitment to taking the Bible seriously requires it. But here's the thing, something can be true even if it is scientifically 'less accurate'. Let me explain.

Where do babies grow? If you ask a pre-modern Jewish peasant during Jesus' time, babies grow in the mom's belly. If you ask almost anyone today, babies come from fertilised eggs that grow in the uterus.

The two views are not 'right' and 'wrong' they are less accurate and more accurate. The difference is not that we know the 'facts of life' and they didn't, we understand them in more detail than they did. People in a hundred years will know even more about the details than we do now. That means they will be even more accurate.

Accuracy may be beneficial in its own right, but it isn't necessary for faith. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always looked out on the world around us, observed creation, and concluded that we owe our thanks to a Creator. This is what the Jewish people did when they wrote the creation stories in Genesis. We may look at what they wrote and think we know more accurately how God created. Nevertheless, since we both know God created, we agree. Because when it comes down to it, humans will never grasp the full details of it, only God can know that. The creation stories of Genesis look like someone was trying to explain the origins of life to children. That isn't a bad thing. It reminds us to have faith like a child.

 

[Quath]

Well, instead of casting it in an evolution vs creation argument, couldn't we say that the real argument is a Creator vs not-a-Creator? The reason I say this, is that there are a lot of scientists (I know a few) who are theistic-evolutionists. Would they be included in your 95% of evolutionists?

I believe that it was broken up roughly half believed in God and the other half didn't. So it would seem like 50% of all scientists in the US believe that humans are designed by God using evolution.

However, the problem with "Creator vs not-a-Creator" is that if evolution is the method of creation, it looks the same whether there is a Creator or not. So this would mean that the argument would have to based on faith not facts.

Quath

 

[Spike~]

Evolutionists don't have any more evidence than Creationionists.

You've obviously never studied evolution.

And why do you keep quoting Scripture to me? In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not Christian. Scripture means nothing to me. Be like me quoting the Tipitaka to you.