|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Anti-Science bill in Indiana..... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I think you are yielding on some very important ground; namely that creationism does not represent the beliefs of all Christians. Not all denominations and sects of Christianity rage against evolution in the way that some fundies do.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Nit pick all you want. That is a much better way to say it. Thanks
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I think I had minority in one work through, but apparently lost it before posting. How's this?
The purpose of science education is to teach the leading ideas of science and this includes the theory of evolution which explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life. Creation science is not a leading idea of science, but is a minority religious belief and therefore has no place in a required class. I could also go with: Creation science is not a leading idea of science; and it isn't a leading belief of Christianity. Therefore, it has no place in a required class.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Well, gosh, if nitpicking is okay then how's this:
The purpose of science education is to teach science. Religious beliefs are not science and have no place in science class. Of course, I didn't really rewrite it. I wrote what I would say. Feel free to ignore and discard. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
My strategy is to try and counter some of the reasons that Sen. Kruse gave for promoting the bill. Message 23
The Senators have heard the science and have heard the legal issues and the House will hear the same. Sadly, the majority chose to ignore the information. Notice that some districts are already teaching creationism in science class. So one ruse is to give these districts legal cover.
1 Feb 2012 Indianapolis Star, Indiana Kruse said he is aware of the precedent but isn't sure it would survive today. "This is a different Supreme Court," he said. "This Supreme Court could rule differently." Sen. Tim Skinner, D-Terre Haute, asked whether Indiana is ready for the lengthy legal battle that could follow. "If we get sued," he asked, "who is going to pay for the lawsuit?" The answer to Skinner's question might help explain why Kruse felt the need to put creationism into state law. Technically, a school district could teach creationism now -- and some do. "As far as I know," said Mount Vernon Community School Corporation Superintendent William Riggs, "we've always been allowed to do that." Riggs said Mount Vernon High School's biology class already teaches creationism alongside evolution. "We've been doing this for years." Riggs said the school teaches them as "two theories of the origins of life" and said that in literature classes students often learn about the Bible and the Quran. "The idea is to get kids to think." But districts such as Mount Vernon potentially open themselves up to costly lawsuits. Kruse's bill gives those districts and any other that choose to teach creationism some legal cover -- and likely would draw the state into their defense. Indianapolis (AP) 31 Jan 2012 The proposal doesn't require any school district to teach creationism and allows them to continue with their current science classes, Kruse said. "This does not do away with the teaching of evolution," he said. "This provides another alternative to evolution so our children are being exposed to more than one view, which I think is healthy for them." I guess I'm trying to impress upon my rep that core classes are not the place to present religious views. Schools doing this should be told to use elective classes for this exposure. I'd also like to get the point across that the school system isn't about throwing various views on subjects at our children and the children decide what to accept. They learn the standard of the times and graduate. I haven't worked on wording for that yet. I also want to stress that the religious institutions are there to teach religious beliefs and they can teach creationism all they want. There is no need for religious teachings to be in the public school system other than a means to push beliefs. Why can't they teach creationism next to evolution in their religious institutions? They can open it up to the town.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
purpledawn writes: I guess I'm trying to impress upon my rep that core classes are not the place to present religious views. Schools doing this should be told to use elective classes for this exposure. Well said, put it in: "Core classes are not the place to present religious views. Tell schools to use elective classes." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4259 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
I am beginning to like Indiana more and more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
OMG! U R so FUN E. ROTFLMAO@U!!!!!!!11!!!!!eleven!!!!!!
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I am beginning to like Indiana more and more.
Is it common in North Virginia for people to hold the opinion that science needs to be balanced by superstition? Just curious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Here's what I have so far. I'm trying to keep this to one page. Much more than that and they may not read it through.
As a Christian, I am deeply disappointed that our Senate thought it was wise to ignore a U.S. Supreme Court ruling and made allowance for a Christian Fundamentalist belief to be taught in our science classes. On top of that, to make this bill look less intolerant of other religious beliefs, various religious beliefs concerning origins of life are to be taught. In 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified and the very first one protects our freedom of religion. If we allow a religious belief to be presented as science in a core course instead of an elective course, we are forcing children to learn those beliefs and taking away their freedom to choose not to learn about other religions. Historically in our country, Christianity hasn't always been accommodating when other religions wish to freely practice or not practice a religion. We don't need unnecessary conflict in the classrooms. Jesus did not teach his disciples to force religion onto others or force others to listen to religious beliefs. The purpose of science education is to teach the leading ideas of science and this includes the theory of evolution which explains the diversity of life, not the origin of life. Creation science is not a leading idea of science, but is a minority religious belief and therefore has no place in a required class. Senator Kruse was quoted in the February 1, 2012, Indianapolis Star as saying, "I believe in creation," Kruse said, "and I believe it deserves to be taught in our public schools." The first four tenets of Scientific Creationism: The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity.The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially and supernaturally created by the Creator. Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to "horizontal" changes (variations) within the kinds, or "downward" changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions). The first human beings did not evolve from an animal ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form from the start. Furthermore, the "spiritual" nature of man (self-image, moral consciousness, abstract reasoning, language, will, religious nature, etc.) is itself a supernaturally created entity distinct from mere biological life. These are religious views, not science. Required core classes are not the place to present religious views. Schools that are presenting religious views in core classes should be asked to stop and use elective classes only.
I have room for a witty summary or sign off. Still working on that. How's it look so far? Should I include the link to the tenets?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Nah, we're always cursing the weather wheel and then we have to repent. It's a vicious cycle.
God gave us good (for winter anyway) weather for the Super Bowl, but now winter is back and our gardens will probably pay dearly this summer. We are a muddy mess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warthog Member (Idle past 3999 days) Posts: 84 From: Earth Joined: |
This is all well put and well presented.
quote: I would've made reference to the potential court case this could bring but that may seem needlessly antagonistic. If you include links, they would be more effective if they are associated with the people behind pushing the bill - especially if it is them actually saying it. That would give them much more weight, assuming anyone checked. Good luck with it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3269 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I think this is a very well written letter.
I have room for a witty summary or sign off. These can eb effective, but you have to be careful. If it's too witty, it may seem condescending, or it may even fly over the recipeint's head. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with and later, hearing how it was received. Keep fighting the good fight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
With regards to the court cases, it appears that the bill's authors are counting on being able to over turn those cases. I'm not sure they aren't right about that.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
How's this look?
I ask that you carefully research the facts behind the drive to bring creationism into our children’s classrooms. It isn’t about science. It’s about belief.
We should speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent. The Bible is silent on science.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024