Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   You are hereby appointed Commissioner of the Dept. of Education for Tennessee
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 1 of 26 (390916)
03-22-2007 3:14 PM


Your first task, should you decide to accept this appointment, is to respond to the following inquiries from the state legislature:
quote:
(1) Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?
Understand that this question does not ask that the Creator be given a name. To name the Creator is a matter of faith. The question simply asks whether the Universe has been created or has merely happened by random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences.
Further understand that this question asks that the lastest advances in multiple scientific disciplines - such as physics, astronomy, molecular biology, DNA studies, physiology, paleontology, mathematics, and statistics - be considered, rather than relying solely on descriptive and hypothetical suppositions.
If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes," please answer Question 2:
(2) Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?
If the answer to Question 1 is "The question cannot be proved or disproved," please answer Question 3:
(3) Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Surprme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?
If the answer to Question 1 is "No" please accept the General Assembly's admiration for being able to decide conclusively a question that has long perplexed and occupied the attention of scientists, philosophers, theologians, educators, and others.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/SR0017.pdf
In addressing these questions, bear in mind that you are in a public office and that your response may well have political ramifications. In other words, among other things, it wouldn't be a good idea to call the legislature idiots, or for your response to suggest that you think the questions are stupid.
As an interesting aside, the Attorney General was asked to give an opinion about the constitutionality of the resolution proposing these questions. In concluding that it did not, the AG's office made this rather frank observation: "the resolution clearly appears to constitute a rhetorical device designed to advocate the teaching of creationism as an alternative to the theory of evolution."
Misc Topics, if you please.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 03-22-2007 3:45 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 4 by truthlover, posted 03-22-2007 4:19 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 5 by Doddy, posted 03-23-2007 4:14 AM subbie has not replied
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-13-2007 5:12 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-13-2007 6:29 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 12-13-2007 7:00 PM subbie has not replied
 Message 14 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 10:59 AM subbie has not replied
 Message 25 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-18-2007 2:15 AM subbie has not replied

  
AdminTL
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 26 (390921)
03-22-2007 3:38 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 26 (390925)
03-22-2007 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
03-22-2007 3:14 PM


The easy questions are the best.
If I were Commissioner of Education, I would answer "No" and accept the General Assembly's admiration.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-22-2007 3:14 PM subbie has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 4 of 26 (390933)
03-22-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
03-22-2007 3:14 PM


I'm a resident of TN, so I'll give this a shot.
(1) Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?
"The question cannot be proved or disproved"
Thus, I skip question two per instructions.
(3) Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Surprme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?
1. It is the purpose of the school system to teach science. Whether God created anything or not, the school system's job is to teach the principles and laws that govern the universe. These principles and laws are discovered by scientific study. The school system teaches both the scientific method and what the scientific method has discovered.
2. Creationism is no more than belief in God. The school system does not teach belief in God for two reasons. One, it cannot be proven or disproven. Two, it is forbidden by the constitution.
3a. There are many forms of creationism. If young earth creationism is at question, then the answer is that this can be disproven by science. The earth was not created, by God or anyone else, six thousand years ago. It is much, much older.
3b. If the system of belief known as "Intelligent Design" is at question, then what's being asked is whether we would teach that there are some systems in nature that are irreducibly complex. If there are irreducibly complex systems that did not evolve, then the scientific method will be the way we will discover this. We teach the scientific method, so if irreducibly complex systems exist, we will teach them. So far, no systems have proven to be irreducibly complex.
4. As a final note, there is a sense in which we already are teaching both intelligent design and a creator. We are looking at the creation, leaving alone the unproven and unprovable idea of who or what created it, and we are studying, one, what it was like as far back in the past as we are able to determine, and two, how it got from the past to the present. Thus, all the scientific evidence for or against a personal intelligent designer *is* being presented, because we are presenting all the scientific evidence and the most reasonable and accepted conclusions drawn from that evidence, as well as describing controversies where legitimate controversies exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-22-2007 3:14 PM subbie has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 5 of 26 (391018)
03-23-2007 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
03-22-2007 3:14 PM


I'll have a go.
quote:
(1) Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?
Probably not, but I can't tell you for sure. So I guess I skip question 2.
quote:
(3) Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Surprme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?
Because the hypothesis of a creator (or, for that matter, many creators) is not the only thing that can't be proven 100%. It would be setting a bad precedent, in that all forms of science would have to be equalled with other pseudoscience and nonsense (just have a look at wikipedia's list of pseudoscientific theories. Many of those would have to be taught, because many can't be conclusively proven false.
So, the poor Tennessee students will be at a severe disadvantage compared to students of other states, because they wasted so much time on uncorroborated science.

"And, lo, a great beast did stand before me, having seven heads, and on each head were there seven mouths, and in each mouth were there seventy times seven teeth. For truly there were seven times seven times seven times seventy teeth, meaning there were. . . okay, carry the three, adding twenty. . . plus that extra tooth on the third mouth of the sixth head. . . Well, there were indeed a great many teeth" - The Revelation of St. Bryce the Long-Winded
Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-22-2007 3:14 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AreWeNotMen?, posted 12-13-2007 4:08 PM Doddy has not replied

  
AreWeNotMen?
Junior Member (Idle past 5945 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 12-12-2007


Message 6 of 26 (440541)
12-13-2007 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Doddy
03-23-2007 4:14 AM


****Taking it as read that I end up having to answer question 3****
The constitution of the USA does not forbid the teaching of creationism in schools, it does however forbid favouring any single religion within a public institution - this presents a significant, but not insurmountable, problem for the teaching of the biblical version of creation.
The obvious solution therefore is to devote equal curriculum time to all religons and philosophies that espouse their own particular version of creation (according to wikipedia there are at least 60 such creation stories Creation myth - Wikipedia ) with the remaining 50% of curriculum time spent teaching evolutionary biology.
Evidently this may have to happen at both the expense of the taxpayers (i.e. purchase of additional text books - one for each version of creation) - and the expense of the rest of the school curriculum (much if not all of which will be required to be cancelled in order to make room).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Doddy, posted 03-23-2007 4:14 AM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 12-14-2007 1:55 PM AreWeNotMen? has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 26 (440563)
12-13-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
03-22-2007 3:14 PM


My response
Fuck you! Get me outta this state.
wait... got any moonshine?

Or something like this.
Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?
So you guys are saying that god created things like... oh wait, I mean "a Creator" made things like the HIV through puposeful, intelligent design!?
What an asshole!
... and you guys worship this asshole!?
mmmmm, asshole worship

But seriously,
Is this for real?
That is insane.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-22-2007 3:14 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 10:15 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 26 (440575)
12-13-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
03-22-2007 3:14 PM


I'll take a different tack ...
(1) Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?
As I am a Deist, I believe that there is, or was, a creator. However I am not sure that human life is necessarily a final result or a necessary one, rather that intelligent life is the purpose.
As my answer is a qualified "yes" I will answer both the following questions:
(2) Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?
The question here, is where alternative concepts should be discussed in a public school environment.
If we are talking about science class, then we need to teach scientific truth, fact and the theories that help us understand them. This would hold for all sciences being taught in the schools. Scientific truth and fact and scientific theories are easy to identify as they involve the scientific method, predictions and testing, and most importantly falsifiability: they can be shown to be false.
If we are not talking about science classes, then we can talk about philosophy and comparative religion. I think this would be a valuable addition to any school program, as we can discuss • methods of discerning truth, • what we use to decide whether a concept is valid, • logic and the ability to form valid sound arguments (or determine when an argument involves logical fallacies), and • compare different concepts of creation that are known to man and how valid or sound their concepts are. We can study the issue of different creation theories from a scientific approach.
We can also discuss the history of religion in the US and the importance of different beliefs in forming basic American concepts and values, religions such as christianity and deism. We can discuss the experience that the founding fathers had with theocracies and the reasons that inspired them to form a more perfect union that allowed for equal freedom for all beliefs. We can also discuss the influence of native americans on helping form basic American concepts and values, such as equality and democracy.
I firmly believe that American kids should be taught these elements of philosophy, religion and american history, and enable them to discern truth from falsehood and apply critical thinking to the learning process.
(3) Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Surprme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?
As discussed in the answer to (2) above, the inclusion of various concepts in the teaching of biological\life sciences would rest solely on the litmus test of being scientific truths and theories, that they would qualify as science, and not where those ideas came from. This would mean that any concept that was derived from observation of life no matter what the source, whether it was fundamental christian creationism, deism, native beliefs, or any other belief, that applies to the development of life on earth and which meets the criteria of being scientific can be taught.
In closing, I would like to say that I welcome the opportunity to discuss these controversial elements of education and how the Tennessee public schools can teach children the truth and remain within the boundaries set by the Federal Government. I am proud to be an American and of the role my personal faith has played in the formation of this special, this unique form of government that guarantees religious freedom.
Thank you, I remain
RAZD
the RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
Edited by RAZD, : clarity

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-22-2007 3:14 PM subbie has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 9 of 26 (440583)
12-13-2007 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
03-22-2007 3:14 PM


subbie writes:
In other words, among other things, it wouldn't be a good idea to call the legislature idiots, or for your response to suggest that you think the questions are stupid.
So you want a made-up, phoney-baloney political answer, not the right answer.

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-22-2007 3:14 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-14-2007 10:14 AM ringo has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 26 (440726)
12-14-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ringo
12-13-2007 7:00 PM


So you want a made-up, phoney-baloney political answer, not the right answer.
How else could you get into a public office?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 12-13-2007 7:00 PM ringo has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 11 of 26 (440777)
12-14-2007 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AreWeNotMen?
12-13-2007 4:08 PM


try this for creation stories
Equal time would mean teaching
* other versions of creationism from other denominations of Christianity (including young-earth, old-earth, day-age, gap theory, geocentrism, and flat earth). All have equal basis for being taught, since they are all based on exactly the same Bible. All are mutually incompatible (DYG 2000; Watchtower 1985, 186; Morris 1984, 215-247).
* other versions of scientific creationism from other religions. Claims have been made for Muslim, Hindu, and Native American versions of creationism.
The only legal precedent favoring creationism in the United States in the last fifty years was an Interior Department decision finding, on the basis of native creation and flood myths, that 9400-year-old Kennewick Man was associated with present-day Native American tribes (Chatters 2001, 266).
* creation traditions from other religions and cultures, including, but not limited to, the Aaragon, Abenaki, Acoma, Ainu, Aleut, Amunge, Angevin, Anishinabek, Anvik-Shageluk, Apache, Arapaho, Ararapivka, Arikara, Armenian, Arrernte, Ashkenazim, Assiniboine, Athabascan, Athena, Aztec, Babylonian, Balinese, Bannock, Bantu, Basque, Blackfoot, Blood, Bosnian, Breton, Brul, Bundjalung, Burns Paiute, Caddo, Cahuilla, Catalan, Cayuga, Cayuse, Celt, Chehalis, Chelan, Cherokee, Chewella, Cheyenne, Chickasaw, Chinook, Chippewa, Chirachaua, Choctaw, Chukchi, Coeur d'Alene, Columbia River, Colville, Comanche, Congolese, Concow, Coquille, Cow Creek, Cowlitz, Cree, Creek, Croat, Crow, Crow Creek, Cumbres, Curonian, Cushite, Cut Head, Da'an, Devon, Dihai-Kutchin, Diyari, Dogon, Duwamish, Egyptian, Elwha, Eritrean, Eskimo, Esrolvuli, Eta, Even, Evenk, Flathead, Fijian, Fox, Fuegan, Gaul, Gooniyandi, Gond, Govi Basin Mongolian, Grand Ronde, Gros Ventre, Haida, Han, Haranding, Havasupai, Hendriki, Heortling, Hidatsa, Hindi, Hmong, HoChunk, Hoh, Hoopa, Hopi, Hunkpapa, Hutu, Ik-kil-lin, Inca, Innu, Intsi Dindjich, Inuit, Iroquois, Isleta, Itchali, Itelemen, It-ka-lya-ruin, Itkpe'lit, Itku'dlin, Jicarilla Apache, Jotvingian, Kaiyuhkhotana, Kalapuya, Kalispel, Kamchandal, Kansa, Karuk, Katshikotin, Kaurna, Kaw, Kazahk, Ketschetnaer, Khanti, Khoi-San, Khymer, Kickapoo, Kiowa, Kirghiz, Kitchin-Kutchin, Klamath, Knaiakhotana, K'nyaw, Koch-Rajbongshi, Kolshina, Kono, Kootenai, Koyukukhotana, !Kung, Kurd, La Jolla, Lac Courte D'Oreille, Lac Du Flambeau, Laguna, Lake, Lakota, Lao, Latgalian, Leech Lake Chippewa, Lemmi, Lower Brul, Lower Yanktonai, Lowland Lummi, Lummi, Malawi, Makah, Mandan, Maori, Maricopan, Martinez, Mayan, Mazatec, Mednofski, Menominee, Meryam Mir, Mesa Grande, Mescalero Apache, Metlakatla, Miniconjou, Mission, Moallalla, Modoc, Mohawk, Mojave, Morongo, Muckleshoot, Murrinh-Patha, Nadruvian, Nagorno-Karabakh, Na-Kotchpo-tschig-Kouttchin, Nambe, Namib, Natche'-Kutehin, Navajo, Nes Pelem, Neyetse-kutchi, Nez Perce, Ngiyampaa, Nisqualli, Nnatsit-Kutchin, Nomelackie, Nooksack, Norman, Norse, Northern Cheyenne, Nyungar, Oglala, Ogorvalte, Ojibway, Okanagon, Okinawan, Olmec, Omaha, Oneida, Onondaga, Ordovices, Orlanthi, Osage, Osetto, O-til'-tin, Otoe, Paakantyi, Paiute, Pala Mission, Papago, Pawnee, Pazyryk, Pechango, Penan, Piegan, Pima, Pitt River, Ponca, Potowatomie, Prussian, Pueblo, Puyallup, Qiang, Quileute, Quinault, Red Cliff Chippewa, Red Lake Chippewa, Redwood, Rincon, Sac, Saisiyat, Sakuddeis, Salish, Salt River, Samish, Samoan, Samogitian, San Carlos Apache, San Idlefonso, San Juan, San Poil, Santa Clara, Sartar, Sauk-Suiattle, Selonian, Semigolian, Seminole, Senecan, Sephardim, Serano, Serb, Shasta, Shawnee, Shiite, Shinnecock, Shoalwater Bay, Shoshone, Sikh, Siletz, Silures, Sinhalese, Sioux, Siskiyou, Sisseton, Siuslaw, Skalvian, S'Klallam, Skokomish, Skyomish, Slovene, Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Soboba, Southern Cheyenne, Spokane, Squaxin Island, Steilacoom, Stillaquamish, Stockbridge, Sunni, Suquamish, Swinomish, Tadjik, Takhayuna, Tala, Talastari, Tamil, Tanaina, Taos, Tarim, Tasman, Tatar, Tesuque, Tlingit, Toltec, Tpe-ttckie-dhidie-Kouttchin, Tranjik-Kutchin, Truk, Tukkutih-Kutchin, Tulalip, Tungus, Turtle Mountain, Tuscarora, Turk, Turkmen, Tutsi, Ugalakmiut, Uintah, Umatilla, Umpqua, Uncompagre, U-nung'un, Upper Skagit, Ute, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Viking, Vunta-Kutchin, Wahpeton, Walla Walla, Wasco, Wembawemba, White Mountain Apache, Wichita, Wik-ungkan, Winnebago, Wiradjuri, Wylackie, Xhosa, Yahi, Yakama, Yakima, Yakut, Yanamamo, Yankton Sioux, Yellowknife, Yindjibarnd, Youkon Louchioux, Yukaghir, Yukonikhotana, Yullit, Yuma, Zjen-ta-Kouttchin, and Zulu. (from Leipzig, n.d.)
* other ideas for the origin of life and the universe, such as
o solipsism
o Last Thursdayism, the unfalsifiable view that the universe and everything in it was created last Thursday with only the appearance of earlier history
o multiple designers (Hoppe 2004)
o Raelianism or other extraterrestrial involvement
o creation by time travellers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AreWeNotMen?, posted 12-13-2007 4:08 PM AreWeNotMen? has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 12-14-2007 7:14 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 26 (440839)
12-14-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by bluescat48
12-14-2007 1:55 PM


You forgot CROCTHOR (always in caps), god of smelly cheese, the microwave and saturday afternoons.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bluescat48, posted 12-14-2007 1:55 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Volunteer
Junior Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 21
From: Tennessee
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 13 of 26 (441368)
12-17-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by New Cat's Eye
12-13-2007 5:12 PM


Re: My response
I am impressed with such an intelligent argument. You have won me over.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-13-2007 5:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2007 11:14 AM Volunteer has replied

  
Volunteer
Junior Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 21
From: Tennessee
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 14 of 26 (441375)
12-17-2007 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by subbie
03-22-2007 3:14 PM


The answer to question number one is no. As for question number three, the courts have mandated a separation of church and state. However, I personally believe that education is a kind of continuing dialogue,and a dialogue assumes ... different points of view.
Aside from the above questions, I would like to relate my personal experience in the Tennessee public schools. I was a high school student in the 1950's when it was illegal to mention evolution in the schools. I was so intrigued by this that I read everything I could find in the public library on the subject. (forbidden fruit appeals to high school age students) In my opinion the courts are helping to create an interest in the creation theory with today's students.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by subbie, posted 03-22-2007 3:14 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Chiroptera, posted 12-17-2007 12:38 PM Volunteer has replied
 Message 26 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-18-2007 10:55 AM Volunteer has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 26 (441377)
12-17-2007 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Volunteer
12-17-2007 10:15 AM


Re: My response
I am impressed with such an intelligent argument. You have won me over.
Really!? Wow, that's great news.
I guess that means you can cut out the PRATT now, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 10:15 AM Volunteer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Volunteer, posted 12-17-2007 11:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024