The Creationists are fighting back! Go Fish! "GRANTSBURG, Wisconsin (AP) -- School officials have revised the science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed. Members of Grantsburg's school board 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 in northwest Wisconsin." I think we should teach these school officials a lesson in evolution by making their children infertile.
Let me guess: this scares you. I think it's hilarious! Come on, one of lifes pleasures is debating a creationist, and bringing up sediment, fossils, palte tectonics, carbon-dating, molecular structure, etc. They'll have an argument, albeit bad one, regarding HUMAN evolution as long as we haven't found the "missing link (between homo erectus and homo sapien)," but I'm sure that that find is coming.
Certain parties are trying to institute Creationism into school curricula as a 'science', and that's the problem. To be a 'science', the subject matter has to be 'testable'. In other words...not testable, not a science. You can test fossil finds, genetics, likely environments when critters were running around way back when...stuff that all play a hand in evolution. You cannot test if Abram (or any one of the other biblical characters) lived for 900 hundred years. You cannot test that Eve was created from Adam's rib. You cannot scientifically test matters of Faith.
Creationism? Nope. If the GOP made creationism a platform, I wouldn't vote for the GOP. But welcoming people with different world views than mine to our tent, well, more power to me. As long as they are for lower taxes, personal responsibility, and states' rights on most concerns. But, I don't "fear" the religious folk in my political party. I find them quaint. Agan, when science finds the missing link, creationists will have to sing a new tune. But I find nothing wrong with teaching creationism--not in depth, but as a theory, or in historical context covering a day or two worth of lesson plans.
Creationism* has nothing to do with science. Anyone who disagrees truly has a 'missing link' somewhere in his upper chamber. *along the lines of god, bible, jesus, etc that is!
No, his point is that debating a creationist is entertaining because creationism is based, to a large extent on faith and religious beliefs, whereas evolution is not. The interesting part of arguing with a creationist is that they believe in science, but conveniently just not this part of science.
the point isn't about god. alot of scientist believe in a higher being. they just don't believe the bible's account of how things happened. the earth is not six thousand years old. the christian creatianism myth is nice, but it's no different and no more true than creatian myths from other cultures. so, if you really want your kid to believe in this crap, go for it. just make sure your kid does his learning at home or in church, and not in a publicly funded classroom. it's pretty simple.
They didn't make record deficits a platform in 2000, did they? Wake up and smell the monkey trials. These are the people claiming a mandate. These are the people in power. Do you seriously think George W. Bush believes in evolution? Do you seriously think Dick Cheney or Condi Rice would tell him differently if he didn't? How many Republican senators believe in evolution? I'm going to be generous and say McCain, Chafee, Snowe, and Jeffords. How many Republican Congressmen believe in evolution? I'm going to be generous and say zero. These are the people spending money on science and research now. And they have a green light to release textbooks saying the earth floats on the back of a turtle. Because you gave it to them.
'Origin' and 'Evolution' are consistently mixed up in this whole debate (not this one, but the larger, world debate). Evolution is fact. It can be observed, measured, and followed at this very moment. Evolution is genetic change, over time (millions of years), influenced by Nature. Every time a child is born, we're seeing a microcosm of evolution. Denying it is like denying that oxygen is essential to life on Earth. Origin, on the other hand, is still wide open. There is still no proof about how we (humans) came to be at the very beginning...even evolutionists can't definitively say this.
Wha? Are you referring to the leap from the australopithecines to the homo genus or what? Sure there are gaps. But considering that we are talking populations never bigger than a few million at best, the fossil record is remarkably complete. As for the gaps, I presume you are familliar with the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium?
There just allowing it to be taught as an option in the science classroom. They're not mandating it (creationism) be taught as fact. Just that is be presented as an option to evolution. To provide more choices to students of science in Wisconsin. To provide more tolerance of more than one viewpoint. To allow students of science in Wisconsin to be more open-minded, considering more than one choice. Don't worry, if evolution is the stone cold lead pipe cinch that it is, it will win out in the minds of Wisconsin students. You have nothing to worry about, if evolution is true. Truth always eventually wins out.
I am somewhat familiar with the idea that evolution could occur in a series of 'spikes' whereby the process undergoes great change in a relatively short time, then be slowed down to very little change over a very long period. Is this what you mean by PE? Regardless, origin is still in question. That's all I'm saying. Nothing is fact, at this point. Furthermore, one could argue such things as what it means to be a human. Does our 'origin' simply mean that point in time when a collection of atoms and molecules combined to form DNA strands which lead to the formation of human flesh and bone as we know it? Or does it mean, or at least include, that vague notion of 'self', a sense of individual purpose in this world...the soul? Can we scientifically say right now when, where, and how we became human to the point where we could ask the question 'Where do we come from'? Who was that creature whose immediate ancestor was a simple animal with instincts, and whose immediate descendant was an intelligent being who continued to be 'self aware'. My own opinion is that this question of 'the soul' will be the fall back position for many in the face of mounting evolutionary evidence. I don't know if 'the soul' will ever be testable, yet one surely can't discount it as an important part of a complex human being.
Mike, would you be in favor, or against, your children being taught the theory that we can differentiate witches from the rest of us by dipping them in water and seeing if they drown? Would you be for, or against, your children being taught the theory that the way to cure most illnesses is to bleed the patient? If the answer is, you're in favor of it, all I can say is, interesting. If the answer is, you're against it, then why are you in favor of children being taught creationism in science class?
superdave beat me to it, but I just had to throw in my two cents and remind you that we're not talking about debate class here, this is science. And the alternative viewpoint is there solely because some people aren't 'comfortable' with the implications of evolutionary theory. That's playing politics with an otherwise sound cirriculum, which isn't open-minded, it's stupid.
That's like allowing 2+3 = chair to be taught as an alterative in maths class; it's not only nonsense, it's not maths.
Parts of the earth are flat. I say flat earth-ism should be brought back into the curriculum. "Liberals say the earth is round. How the hell do they know? I never been outta ________ (insert desolate midwest county) and things look awful flat to me!" Makes as much sense as creationism.
ugh. This is my fundamental problem with the left in this country. You all have become more knee-jerk and reactionary than conservatives used to be, simply because conservatives are now beating you at your own game. 80 years ago liberals were the ones asking for open-mindedness and fairness in public discourse on issued of contention within the culuture. While conservatives lambasted evolustionists with slurs and epithets. Nowadays, liberals have equated "creationsim" with idiocy without taking the time to parse all the issues within science and philosophy and have an open and fair discussion. Consequntly this is why democrats are losing electoral ground. Many of them are not really concerned about pluralism and tolerance and fairness, unless it is on their terms only. 1st off, what do you mean by creationism. There are a number of positions held by creationists. 1. Young Earth Creationism- That the Genesis account is an actual and factual account fo creation and that the earth is about 6000 years old. 2. Old Earth Creationism- More concilatory to modern science, believes that God created the earth ex nihilo, but the Genesis account is purely metaphoric and polemical. 3. Theistic-Evolution. These are people who believe in evolutionary basis for the origins of mankind, but believe that God was working through evolution. 2nd. The "factuality" of evolution and its unwavering acceptance within the scientific community is seriously up for grabs right now. A movement called "Intelligent Design" has made significant inroads into the monolith of evolution. So much so that recently a ID artilce was published in a major Evolutionary scientific journal. Intelligent Design scientists are well respected and some of the top scientific thinkers in their fields. And they have cast significant doubt on traditional evolutionary theories of origins. We must remember that both evolutionists and proponents of ID are all working in the area of theory. There has never been any thing remotely close to law or fact come about to prove either one. Of course evolutionary changes within individual species is not in doubt. 3rd. What you are essentially missing is that despite many peoples protestations, Darwinism (when it comes to origins) is essentially a worldview and philosophy. Particularly it comes out of post-Enlightenment thought, which placed full assurance in science and technology over and above any other worldview and prevailing theology. The Enlightenment said that God was replaced by Science. This then led to modernism, which said there was no God. This was the philosophical milieu of Darwinism. It started with the presuppositions that science was all humanity needed and there was no God. It then sought to develop its "science" and worldview around these presuppositions, and explain humanity's origins from the modernist worldview. You must realize that Darwinism is as much a worldview and philosophy as is creationism, because of its suppositions, its desire to explain the nature of reality, and because the idea that science is all we need is a challengeable assertion. With the onset of WWI and WWII and the atomic age, people realized that science was not all we needed. Science could also be a real bitch that could be used to extinguish millions of lives. Thus, there is an essential frustration with modernist thought, leading to post-modernism, the philosophical age we currently live in. Here we have realized that no philosophy or "science" has a full handle on the truth, thus variant forms of truth are all welcome into the fold, to be discussed and tolerated. Kuhn, within science, has been a propoponent of post-modernism and its effect on society. As newer science develops it tends to shed light on past sciences and their inadequacies or falseness. There is always new knowledge, telling us that we only had a partial view of reality a few years ago. For instance, in reality hardly any scientists agree with Darwin's original theories of evolution. Thus, a paradigm shift, and the realization that we will face more and more paradigm shifts that will cast our current beleifs in science with doubt. Which brings us back to creationism. Why is it bad to offer this as another option for understanding the reality of the universe, when atheistic evolutionism is just as philosophical, unproveable, and ideological? Why can we not have a informed and civilized discussion about these issues? Can we not teach religions and science if an objective and fair manner and let students make their own decisions? Is it wrong to simply admit that the majority of the world believes in a higher authority? Or must we keep this reality from children? If so why? In a post-modern world, can we make such truth claims in the public arena without allowing for others of differing persuasions a voice in the discussion?