Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Support for Louisiana repeal effort
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 61 of 108 (615293)
05-12-2011 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by dwise1
05-11-2011 11:36 AM


Re: Evidence
dwise1 writes:
Creationism doesn’t teach morality.
It does by example. The example of lies, deception, and demogoguery. Fine Christian witness, that.
When I said Creationism doesn't teach morality, I did not mean that it didn't contain ANY moral teachings, I meant that teaching Creationism wasn't the same as teaching morality in school. If his feeling is that morality should be taught in school, creationism doesn't rise to the occasion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by dwise1, posted 05-11-2011 11:36 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 62 of 108 (615355)
05-12-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tram law
05-11-2011 8:19 PM


Re: Evidence
Yes, science should be taught in schools.
So then, if science should be taught in schools, and the theory of evolution is science (as recognized by the overwhelming majority of scientists such that the few "dissenters" are known in the field of biology as kooks and cranks), then doesn't it follow that the theory of evolution is perfectly acceptable to be taught in schools?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tram law, posted 05-11-2011 8:19 PM Tram law has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 63 of 108 (615417)
05-12-2011 9:27 PM


Trae writes:
A bill is gaining support to repeal Louisiana's antievolution law.
Tram law writes:
Shouldn't this be a state issue and left to the Louisianans determine for themselves?
Rahvin writes:
I guarantee Creationists from out of state are paying attention and funneling money and support into this. Why shouldn't we?
No question that this (like Dover) is/will be a battle of special interests from both sides. And the big money will be on the evolution side. Some of it will be public money, while the creationist money will be all private.
Rahvin writes:
See the Dover trial, Tram - anti-evolution laws are not religiously neutral, they are universally derived from religious dogma and as such constitute a State endorsement of a religion, and as such are a violation of the Constitution. There is no scientific "controversy" regarding evolution, and the only people trying to keep evolution out of schools are doing so for religious reasons, thus violating the religious rights of everyone who wants an actual science education.
There is a controversy regarding evolution among the general public, and the general public is who the schools are for. I know the standard retort to that is if some in the general public don’t believe organisms change over time, then their beliefs don’t matter, but the controversy is largely how the word evolution changes definitions so easily. Does it mean change over time, or does it mean common ancestor Genesis is wrong? It can never be identified - it can switch definitions within one sentence. Science can seamlessly transcend into philosophy (worldviews), and if common ancestor evolution is the only game in town in science classrooms, then there’s nothing that keeps Genesis is wrong from being the topic of the day in science classrooms, and parents have a right to object to it. An anti-evolution law doesn’t only have to be about promoting religion, it can also be about lessening the promotion of the religion of atheism, which also violates the constitution.
It’s always interesting how religion/ID must be kept completely out of science classrooms, because, we’re told, it will lead to all sorts of cheapening of science, of establishment of religion, etc, yet if someone claims that studies of only evolution will lead to atheism, the slippery slope fallacy bell is clanged. When one side has more political clout than the other, free passes for double standards seem to come easily.

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Theodoric, posted 05-12-2011 10:11 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 65 by Coyote, posted 05-12-2011 11:01 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 66 by Jon, posted 05-12-2011 11:05 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 67 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2011 2:18 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 68 by Trae, posted 05-13-2011 3:08 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 69 by dwise1, posted 05-13-2011 3:27 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 05-13-2011 12:08 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 87 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2011 10:24 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 64 of 108 (615421)
05-12-2011 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
05-12-2011 9:27 PM


And the big money will be on the evolution side. Some of it will be public money, while the creationist money will be all private.
Evidence to back this assertion please.
Sorry CS if this request offends your sensibilities.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 05-12-2011 9:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 65 of 108 (615425)
05-12-2011 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
05-12-2011 9:27 PM


Science!
There is a controversy regarding evolution among the general public, and the general public is who the schools are for.
Science is done by scientists, and is not subject to the popular vote of the public. It is evidence that counts in science. To quote a famous voice from the past, "The public be damned."
I know the standard retort to that is if some in the general public don’t believe organisms change over time, then their beliefs don’t matter
This is partially incorrect. The beliefs of everyone in the general public don't matter to science.
...but the controversy is largely how the word evolution changes definitions so easily. Does it mean change over time, or does it mean common ancestor Genesis is wrong? It can never be identified - it can switch definitions within one sentence.
Evolution is a complex field, comprised of many different subdivisions, including biology and paleontology to name just two. It is also two different things: a fact (change over time) and a theory of how that change takes place. It is not surprising that creationists are confused by all of the obfuscation and misrepresentation that creationist websites chose to try to confuse them with. On the other hand, Genesis is a folk myth and has nothing to do with science.
Science can seamlessly transcend into philosophy (worldviews), and if common ancestor evolution is the only game in town in science classrooms, then there’s nothing that keeps Genesis is wrong from being the topic of the day in science classrooms, and parents have a right to object to it.
Parents can object to anything they want, and that doesn't make a whit of difference in the real world. The fact remains that evolution is science and genesis is a local tribal myth. You are just upset because your local tribal myth is not accorded the prestige that science has earned--and earned for good reason.
An anti-evolution law doesn’t only have to be about promoting religion, it can also be about lessening the promotion of the religion of atheism, which also violates the constitution.
Atheism is not a religion, and it will not be a religion in spite of thousands of repetitions of this old canard by creationists.
It’s always interesting how religion/ID must be kept completely out of science classrooms, because, we’re told, it will lead to all sorts of cheapening of science, of establishment of religion, etc, yet if someone claims that studies of only evolution will lead to atheism, the slippery slope fallacy bell is clanged. When one side has more political clout than the other, free passes for double standards seem to come easily.
Science is not determined by political clout, but by evidence. There is evidence for the theory of evolution, while religion is based on belief, scripture, dogma, revelation and other unquantifiable sources.
If religions were based on evidence there would not be an estimated 40,000 world religions, or some 38,000 different brands, sects, denominations, and flavors of Christianity alone! If evidence were used to establish which beliefs were right and which were wrong there should be only one religion, as in science there is usually only one theory covering a given set of facts.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 05-12-2011 9:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 66 of 108 (615429)
05-12-2011 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
05-12-2011 9:27 PM


There is a controversy regarding evolution among the general public, and the general public is who the schools are for. I know the standard retort to that is if some in the general public don’t believe organisms change over time, then their beliefs don’t matter, but the controversy is largely how the word evolution changes definitions so easily. Does it mean change over time, or does it mean common ancestor Genesis is wrong? It can never be identified - it can switch definitions within one sentence. Science can seamlessly transcend into philosophy (worldviews), and if common ancestor evolution is the only game in town in science classrooms, then there’s nothing that keeps Genesis is wrong from being the topic of the day in science classrooms, and parents have a right to object to it. An anti-evolution law doesn’t only have to be about promoting religion, it can also be about lessening the promotion of the religion of atheism, which also violates the constitution.
Utter nonsense. The whole damn paragraph: nothing but nonsense.
It’s always interesting how religion/ID must be kept completely out of science classrooms, because, we’re told, it will lead to all sorts of cheapening of science, of establishment of religion, etc, yet if someone claims that studies of only evolution will lead to atheism, the slippery slope fallacy bell is clanged.
No one clangs the bell. If it leads to Atheism, who cares?
When one side has more political clout than the other, free passes for double standards seem to come easily.
The side with 'more political clout' happens to be the creationist side; the only reason they keep losing is because they are just so so so wrong.
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 05-12-2011 9:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 67 of 108 (615442)
05-13-2011 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
05-12-2011 9:27 PM


There is a controversy regarding evolution among the general public, and the general public is who the schools are for. I know the standard retort to that is if some in the general public don’t believe organisms change over time, then their beliefs don’t matter
(NB: Not an actual quotation.)
but the controversy is largely how the word evolution changes definitions so easily.
No. Occasionally one will hear creationists whining about this, but this is not what the controversy is largely about. Do you suppose that creationists would largely stop complaining about science if from now on no-one ever used the word "evolution" to include the concept of common descent? If so, they could take the first step --- currently they themselves seem to use "evolution" in the sense of anything whatsoever in science that they object to.
Does it mean change over time, or does it mean common ancestor Genesis is wrong? It can never be identified - it can switch definitions within one sentence.
If you are "never" capable of identifying its meaning, on what basis could you possibly say that it "can switch definitions within one sentence"?
P.S: Can you quote a real example of such a sentence?
Science can seamlessly transcend into philosophy ...(worldviews)
If that meant anything in particular it would probably be wrong
... and if common ancestor evolution is the only game in town in science classrooms, then there’s nothing that keeps Genesis is wrong from being the topic of the day in science classrooms...
Apart from the First Amendment.
An anti-evolution law doesn’t only have to be about promoting religion, it can also be about lessening the promotion of the religion of atheism, which also violates the constitution.
You don't need a law against promoting atheism, precisely because the promotion of atheism would violate the constitution. The requisite law is right there at the start of the Bill of Rights.
This, however, has nothing to do with anti-evolution laws.
It’s always interesting how religion/ID must be kept completely out of science classrooms, because, we’re told, it will lead to all sorts of cheapening of science, of establishment of religion, etc, yet if someone claims that studies of only evolution will lead to atheism, the slippery slope fallacy bell is clanged.
* sigh *
If someone were to say that creationism in the science classroom "will lead to all sorts of cheapening of science, of establishment of religion", this would not be a slippery slope argument. It would not be "will lead to" in the sense of "the use of marijuana will lead to the use of heroin". It would be "will lead to" in the sense of "painting something red will lead to it being covered in red paint". It's a logical concomitant.
However, I suspect that this, too, is not a real quote. Let me give you an actual statement by a real partisan of science (me), which you may quote to your heart's content: Creationism in the science classroom is cheapening of science and establishment of religion. Not will lead to, but is.
When one side has more political clout than the other, free passes for double standards seem to come easily.
Now let's identify the side with more political clout. This may be more interesting than your complaints about the double standards of the imaginary people who live in your head.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 05-12-2011 9:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4306 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 68 of 108 (615443)
05-13-2011 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
05-12-2011 9:27 PM


marc9000 writes:
No question that this (like Dover) is/will be a battle of special interests from both sides. And the big money will be on the evolution side. Some of it will be public money, while the creationist money will be all private.
Theodoric has asked for you to support this claim. I’d be surprised if you could. You realize in these suits that the plaintiffs are suing the government and the religious organizations pushing these challenges are also well founded? Where do you think all this evo money is coming from?
marc9000 writes:
There is a controversy regarding evolution among the general public, and the general public is who the schools are for.
The purpose of science education in public schools is to teach current science basics to students, not to try and educate students’ parents, grandparents, and neighbors. By your definition there are controversies in all school subjects since so many people in the general public are misinformed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 05-12-2011 9:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2011 3:52 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 69 of 108 (615444)
05-13-2011 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
05-12-2011 9:27 PM


No question that this (like Dover) is/will be a battle of special interests from both sides. And the big money will be on the evolution side. Some of it will be public money, while the creationist money will be all private.
What public money? Please be specific. What public money?
Let's take a look at "both sides". The creationist side is very clearly religiously and ideologically motivated. They are trying to impose their view despite it being contrary-to-fact.
Now the other side, the one that's opposing them. There's a history that I started to present, only to lose it when IE crapped out on me. Basically, circa 1968 when the anti-evolution movement lost its "monkey laws" that had kept evolution out of the public schools for four decades for purely religious reasons, they reinvented themselves into "creation science" as a deliberate deception to circumvent the court system. Part of their program for carrying their deception to the general public was a travelling snake-oil "debate" show in which they would challenge a local scientist or teacher to a "debate", a contrived sham that only they could win -- or if by some impossible chance the oppenent did win, their national newsletters would still claim victory; the rubes in the next town would never know the truth of the outcome. Those opponents entered into that evolution (proper naval terminology; live with it!) thinking that they were going to actually debate rather than be thoroughly deceived. Over time, those victims came in contact with other victims and they exchanged notes, and they started to read up on "creation science" and to research its claims and to discover what wretched lies it was telling. And they formed state-wide "Committees of Correspondence" exchanging information and experiences. And those CCs then formed a national headquarters, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) as a central point to exchange information between the various state CCs. And by 1979, the creationists were losing those "debates" of theirs, even though they continued to lie in their own publications that they were winning.
Those opponents of "creation science" are educators and scientists who are vitally interested in science education. "Creation science" is diametrically opposed to science education. They are opposing this threat to science education on their own. Yet again, what public money?
There is a controversy regarding evolution among the general public,
The general public. The general public that knows almost nothing about science?
Tell me, who decides what is science and what isn't? Somebody who knows something about science, who has studied and practiced science for many decades, who knows what he's talking about? Or somebody who knows nothing about science and is advocating a contrary position for purely religious reasons? Is science to be decided by lawyers, by legislators, by clergymen, by religious special interests? Or by scientists? The answer is blatantly obvious, yet completely against your position. Do you choose the truth? Or your lie?
Science is not decided by "debates", nor by the general public, nor by lawyers, nor by legislatures, but rather by scientists. If something wants to be recognized as science, then it must do science. It must produce a model, gather evidence, test that evidence, publish the research it's doing, etc. That is what science does. That is what creationism in all its myriad forms (including Dawn Bertolt's ID) refuses to do.
Let's take a look at "both sides". The creationist side is very clearly religiously and ideologically motivated. They are trying to impose their view despite it being contrary-to-fact.
Science can seamlessly transcend into philosophy (worldviews), and if common ancestor evolution is the only game in town in science classrooms, then there’s nothing that keeps Genesis is wrong from being the topic of the day in science classrooms, and parents have a right to object to it.
Bullshit! Farnan v. Capistrano Unified School District. A teacher cannot teach that religious beliefs are wrong unless a valid educational reason can be found. "Genesis is wrong" cannot be the topic. Now, if a religion teaches things about the physical universe that are wrong, then teaching the truth about the world cannot help but to contradict those false religious teachings. So what is the science class supposed to do? Teach the truth? Or lie in order to cover up the lies taught by certain religions? Yet again, the choice is blatantly clear, but it again goes against your position.
An anti-evolution law doesn’t only have to be about promoting religion, it can also be about lessening the promotion of the religion of atheism, which also violates the constitution.
Two points:
1) Every single anti-evolution law so far has been about religion. The very claim of having "purely scientific reasons for opposing evolution" is the fundamental deception of "creation science." And all of "creation science's" attempts to present such "evidences" have proven to be false and deceptive. All anti-evolution laws so far have been religious, despite attempts to hide that fact.
2) what frackin' "religion of atheism" for frak's sake? Those anti-evolution laws oppose the teaching of science. What is that supposed to have to do with atheism? And the teaching of evolution, just what is that supposed to have to do with atheism? The belief that evolution is equivalent to atheism is a purely and blatantly religious belief! Your very act of equating evolution with atheism exposes your religious intent!
It’s always interesting how religion/ID must be kept completely out of science classrooms, because, we’re told, it will lead to all sorts of cheapening of science, of establishment of religion, etc, yet if someone claims that studies of only evolution will lead to atheism, the slippery slope fallacy bell is clanged.
No, the reason why religion must be kept out of science class is because it has absolutely nothing to do with science. If the subject being taught is science, why should you have to be required to teach something that has absolutely nothing to do with science? What sense could that possibly make?
Please, do this for me. Tell me how religion could possibly be integrated into science. Seriously, tell me how. Tell me how science is possibly to work if it were to incorporate supernaturalistic hypotheses. Seriously, explain it to me, in detail. A hypothesis needs to be testable, so how are we supposed to test a supernaturalistic hypothesis? I am damned serious here, brother! Because incorporating religion into science requires us to work with supernaturalistic hypotheses, so if we cannot possibly deal with (ie, test) supernaturalistic hypotheses, then how could we possibly ever incorporate religion into science? Serious question. Absolutely demands an answer. Nobody has yet offered one. Can you?
Also, we know from experience that evolution does not lead to atheism, but rather creationism does. Eg, Ray Baird's creationism classes in Livermore, Calif, 1980, wherein the students were all required by the creationist materials (though never ever by the regular science materials) to decide, then and there (oh, how many of us haven't been cornered by fundamentalists proselytizers with the exact same fervent religious demand) between the conveniently unnamed Creator and "godless evolution". The smart students ended up choosing atheism because they found creationism so ridiculous, and hence also relgion for requiring them to believe such ridiculous things. Did I neglect to mention that these were 5th and 6th grade students? And that the officially established educational standards is that the students are required to understand the concepts, but are not compelled to belief in them. Of course, the purpose of creationist materials are to compel belief, quite contrary to established educational standards.
In the meantime, we have learned that about 80% of the children raised on creationism leave the faith. In droves. Nothing fails like failure, eh?
When one side has more political clout than the other, free passes for double standards seem to come easily.
So who is it who has the political clout? Creationists, because they keep getting their dang fool state laws passed. So what does that have to do with the truth? Obviously nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 05-12-2011 9:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 108 (615445)
05-13-2011 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Trae
05-13-2011 3:08 AM


Theodoric has asked for you to support this claim. I’d be surprised if you could. You realize in these suits that the plaintiffs are suing the government and the religious organizations pushing these challenges are also well founded? Where do you think all this evo money is coming from?
A plaintiff suing the government in a civil rights case and winning is allowed to recover the legal costs. So in a sense the plaintiffs' lawyers in Kitzmiller v. Dover did end up being paid with public money. And this will continue so long as creationists continue to get governmental bodies to fight their losing battles for them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Trae, posted 05-13-2011 3:08 AM Trae has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Theodoric, posted 05-13-2011 9:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 71 of 108 (615460)
05-13-2011 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Dr Adequate
05-13-2011 3:52 AM


A plaintiff suing the government in a civil rights case and winning is allowed to recover the legal costs. So in a sense the plaintiffs' lawyers in Kitzmiller v. Dover did end up being paid with public money. And this will continue so long as creationists continue to get governmental bodies to fight their losing battles for them.
Correct, but that was not what marc9000's assertion implied.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-13-2011 3:52 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 72 of 108 (615478)
05-13-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by marc9000
05-12-2011 9:27 PM


There is a controversy regarding evolution among the general public, and the general public is who the schools are for.
I agree. The citizens of Louisiana should be able to decide how their taxes are spent with relation to public schooling and what is taught in those public schools, as long as what is taught does not violate the Constitutional rights of the students. To be quite frank, I do not view removal of evolution from the science curriculum to be a violation of a student's Constitutional rights. Teaching creationism would be a violation, but that is a separate topic.
I really do not think that the fervor, at a fundamental level, over removing evolution has to do with Constitutional rights. It has to do with superstition replacing reason. Over the last five hundred to a thousand years we have slowly progressed down a path leading away from superstition towards reason. This new law in Louisiana is a backwards step on this path. Rejecting scientific conclusions based solely on our emotional responses runs counter to the progress that our species has made over the last several centuries.
Science can seamlessly transcend into philosophy (worldviews), and if common ancestor evolution is the only game in town in science classrooms, then there’s nothing that keeps Genesis is wrong from being the topic of the day in science classrooms, and parents have a right to object to it.
I really doubt that you can find "Genesis is wrong" in any science textbook, nor does any science teacher push that. There are still a few biblically based geocentrists around, so do we not allow heliocentrism to be taught because geocentrism says that the bible is wrong? How far do we take it?
It is not science teachers that are teaching "evolution disproves the bible". It is creationists that are teaching this.
An anti-evolution law doesn’t only have to be about promoting religion, it can also be about lessening the promotion of the religion of atheism, which also violates the constitution.
Teaching evolution does not promote atheism. There are millions of theists who accept the theory. Atheism is not promoted in science class, no matter how much you try to pretend that it is.
It’s always interesting how religion/ID must be kept completely out of science classrooms, because, we’re told, it will lead to all sorts of cheapening of science, of establishment of religion, etc, yet if someone claims that studies of only evolution will lead to atheism, the slippery slope fallacy bell is clanged.
If creationists would stop teaching children that christianity is false if evolution is true then there wouldn't be a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by marc9000, posted 05-12-2011 9:27 PM marc9000 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-13-2011 9:49 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 76 by dwise1, posted 05-14-2011 3:14 AM Taq has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 73 of 108 (615505)
05-13-2011 4:49 PM


Question for Marc
Apropos of nothing but my own curiosity, and a desire to try to see things from your viewpoint - somehow you seem to miss the fact that you get ROFLstomped every time you come here - hypothetically, if the rest of us were to nominate one of our number to be your sole interlocutor, who do you think we'd pick?

  
menes777
Member (Idle past 4319 days)
Posts: 36
From: Wichita, KS, USA
Joined: 01-25-2010


Message 74 of 108 (615506)
05-13-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Tram law
05-11-2011 7:03 PM


Re: Evidence
Sorry Tram I sometimes don't get on this board for a few days.
I don't need any evidence to know that religion is divisive. Religion should be kept in Sunday school and the teaching of science kept in school (something we both agree on). Right now, whether most people like it or not, evolution has the science behind it. It has the facts and it has the support of the scientific community. Now whether this right or wrong, no one can deny that fact.
If you have kids and they are learning about evolution in school there is nothing stopping churches from having their own creation lessons to teach the controversy. But keep that out of the schools.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Tram law, posted 05-11-2011 7:03 PM Tram law has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 75 of 108 (615523)
05-13-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Taq
05-13-2011 12:08 PM


Taq writes:
marc9000 writes:
There is a controversy regarding evolution among the general public, and the general public is who the schools are for.
I agree. The citizens of Louisiana should be able to decide how their taxes are spent with relation to public schooling and what is taught in those public schools, as long as what is taught does not violate the Constitutional rights of the students. To be quite frank, I do not view removal of evolution from the science curriculum to be a violation of a student's Constitutional rights. Teaching creationism would be a violation, but that is a separate topic.
Well, it might not be un-Constitutional to remove evolution from a school district's science curriculum, just as it probably wouldn't be un-Constitutional to remove algebra from their math curriculum. It would certainly be doing them a disservice though, wouldn't it?
The religious right has for years been taking advantage of the fact that most voters don't really pay attention to the names at the bottom of the ballot for apparently minor local offices like school boards. Thus they've been able to elect mobs of fellow anti-science ignoramuses into positions in which they can attack teaching anything that doesn't agree with their stunted religious world view. Our educational standards have continued to sink as a result.

Your beliefs do not effect reality and evidently reality does not effect your beliefs.
-Theodoric
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Taq, posted 05-13-2011 12:08 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024