Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)

Please don't post more or less naked links.Find the meat of the article and quote it here for those who are less interested in the detail, need their interest peaked or are just plain lazy.ABEThis has already been supplied elsewhere also.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

Exactly! Why isn't there a theology class/elective in schools (instead of history- it's like living in the past LOL). Not only would it prevent indoctrination (or at least lower it), it would also both encourage kids to make their own choices as well as encouraging research and free thought.However, this (theoretical) class would have to come with a big disclaimer saying: WE'RE NOT TEACHING ANYTHING TO YOU KIDS! YOU GET THE FACTS AND THEN YOU CHOOSE!Also, there would have to be weekly debates :-) (i like debates)

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen RobertsI'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

Hi Teapots&unicorns, and welcome to the fray. It's been tried. FUNDIEs (Fundamentalists Under Numerous Delusions Involving Evolution) don't like it for the same reason they don't like evolution in science class - it doesn't teach only their religion. Evangelicals complained, and had the class removed from the curriculum. So much for "both sides" eh?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

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

too bad. I personally think that religion is a completely subjective choice to be made after viewing the facts but, after all, I'm just a blasphemous athiest.

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen RobertsI'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

Gosh, I'm shocked to hear that , I mean your name, your icon, your signature ... I had no clue! So you have made a subjective choice that there is/are absolutely no god/s after viewing the facts? Interesting.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

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

Sorry, should have put that better. I think that, while viewing the facts (at least with the supernatural), we all see them through our own lenses, and so we make subjective decisions based on objective facts.EX. Chocolate ice cream triggers sweet taste buds. I like sweet foods. Therefore, chocolate is better than non-sweet flavors (are there any?).EX2. The Sun gives light. Light is good (for me). Therefore, the sun is good.EX3. Religion can give people hope through acceptance. I like hope. Therefore, I should accept it. (But which one?..........)Of course, people can see through lenses not of their own making- this is where indoctrination comes in.....Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Resetting "signature" to smaller font size.

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

​

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

​

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

Thanks, Teapots&unicorns. Yes, all of our sensing of objective reality is filtered by our senses. Blue is a popular color because of the way our eyes see blue.How we fit all our experiences together into a unified understanding of reality is called our world-view, even though not everything can be explained. Or give them the impression they know the answer to the unknowns, or it may be left over from some evolutionary benefit (fearless warriors get rewarded in afterlife) to the population, or it may be a side effect of a thinking brain. Or there just may be something that is out there and is immune to our testing and objective evaluations.All we can say, really, is that what we know of reality, is what we know of reality. Salt. Sugars and salts provide energy and minerals.I like green, dark green, but I don't like pink or pastels. I can't tell you why, though, I just find that this is what I prefer.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

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

Good points.

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

​

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

​

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

Edited by Admin, : Hide spam.

Actually, in the wild, wild land of Finland (with a state religion of Evangelical Lutheranism, despite which it's highly secular and non-fundie-ruled for the most) you must take either religious education in school, or "ethics and morals".The RE class is apparently poor at best, and the "ethics and morals" class (called something like "elama katselmus") is apparently far better and actually *useful*.Unfortunately, the fundies are powerful enough that if you belong to the church, you *have* to take RE.Sad, really.

Similarly, for many years Thwaites and Awbrey taught a true "two-model approach" class, at San Diego State University if I recall correctly. They gave half the lectures and the other half were given by leading creationists, mostly the big guns from the then-nearby Institute for Creation Research (ICR). It was in one such class that Duane Gish personally witnessed them conclusively debunk his bombadier-beetle claim (the chemicals that he claimed to explode spontaneously when mixed together in fact do not explode) and he had to retract that claim publicly, only to continue to use it anyway. The administration finally forced them to discontinue the class because of strong opposition and protests from the campus fundamentalist Christian population.They used to publish the notes from that class. I'm not sure whether they're still available.

Hello all,New guy on the site. I thought I'd chime in on this one.I work for a private Christian school. Now, our school is not devoted to any sect of Christianity and welcomes all Christians--actually, it welcomes anyone who wishes to attend who can pass the standard testing.Our school has required religious studies classes, which I'm sure you all expected. But let me inform you of the science classes.Our school is built around the foundation of scholarship. Parents may want their children to attend for the Christian environment, but they also know that we will provide them with the education to give them the best chance of success in the real world.Hence, Evolutionary Theory is taught precisely as science has described it. There is no Intelligent Design or Creationism taught in science class. Religious Studies do cover the basics of other belief systems, but not in so much detail or "intolerance" as to criticize such beliefs.Because of this strict curriculum and its stringent course load, our students have been successful. We have now placed students in almost every Ivy League University and recently had an acceptance to MIT.I believe in this forethought because our children should be given the best chance to succeed in life. They can decide other matters on their own.Thanks for listening.

Welcome, and good post.I wish more schools did as well.

---

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

I'd leave the church.Edited by bluescat48, : goofup

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Copied here as per Adminnemooseus' request: Bill Thwaites and Frank Awbrey at San Diego State University. Having just pulled out my copy of the class notes (was for sale from the bookstore), the copyright is 1981. They gave half the lectures and leading creationists, mainly from the then-nearby Institute for Creation Research (ICR), gave the other half. The Christian clubs on campus hated that class and kept protesting and applying pressure until the administration finally cancelled it.BTW, that was the class where Duane Gish's bombadier beetle claim was disproven in public and in his presence, so he had to admit publically that they were wrong (he blamed somebody else's mistranslation from a German article). However, both he and other creationists continued to use that false claim.

---

PS
Other (in)famous "balanced-treatment" classes include Ray Baird's 5th-grade class in Livermore, Calif, in 1981. It was documented in the PBS documentary, Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom, KPBS-TV, airing 7 July 1982, and Barry Price devoted an entire chapter to it in his book, The Creation Science Controversy (Sydney, Australia: Millenium Books, 1990).From Price's book, edited for brevity:

quote:

---

Finger's son Eric took the unit in 1979. On the first page of Eric's notes for the class is a statement of the Genesis account of creation. According to Eric, his teacher emphasized the mutual exclusiveness of the two models. "He said that either both were wrong, or one, but not both, could be right," Eric says.

​

Eric says that at the end of the unit, the teacher conducted an anonymous vote in which the students had to choose between evolution and creationism. According to Eric, six students out of a class of about 30 voted for evolution; the rest voted for creationism. The teacher presented a tally of the votes to the class.

​

"Most of those for evolution were among the gifted students," Eric says, who is himself among the gifted students. "I thought a lot of the others were maybe influenced by how Mr. Baird presented it. I don't know if that's true, but it could be."

​

Eric and the rest of the gifted students were given extra assignments in the class: They were required to view filmstrips over again in the library.

​

Those filmstrips were blatantly religious, according to Sheila Karlson, another of the mothers. "One of them started out by saying, and this is almost a direct quotation, that 'Either the Bible is true or evolution is true. You must make a decision.' It goes on from there to give this very distorted picture of evolution and this glowing picture of creation.

​

. . .

​

The protesting parents ... say Baird's course was slanted to creationism and his presentation of the issue conformed to the ICR's teachings, in particular its doctrine that the choice between creationism and evolution is a choice between God and atheism. The parents also contend that Baird was fully aware of the content of the materials, some of which had been in his classroom since last year. (The Independent, 7 January 1981)

​

The point overlooked by both Baird and parents is that these materials or their equivalents from the ICR are the only ones he could have used. They are designed and published for schools and without them there would have been no course. He would have been doing no more than standing up in the front of the class voicing his own opinion.

​

There is more than a little doubt that Baird gave equal time to evolution and creationism.

​

"I think it's true he gave more time to evolution, says one parent. "He spent 40% of the time telling the kids why creationism is good and the other 60% telling them why evolution is bad."

​

Another parent, whose child observed Baird teaching this subject three years ago, relates that while Baird succeeded in winning some converts to the creationist view, other students, including her own child, were so appalled that they completely rejected religion in their own lives. According to this mother, all the teacher really accomplished was to polarize the class into two camps, the believers and the nonbelievers. (The Independent, 7 January 1981)

​

One of the mothers writes:

quote:

---

The most dangerous information to the scientific creationists was the fact that the gifted students could see how bad the science was and that they were voting evolutionism which was, in the context of the course, the same as voting atheism. Some of the gifted students voted evolutionism because they could see the fallacy of the either-or approach. Some actually, in anger, did give up religious belief. (Finger, 1988)

---

---

From the PBS show, JP Hunt, one of Baird's students said:

quote:

---

Someone that I know has become an atheist because of this class, because the creationist theory was so stupid, he thought. Well, if religion requires me to believe this, then I don't want to have any part of it.

---

There's also Roger DeHart's high school class. The Discovery Institute tried to make him a poster child of discrimination against ID. From an email from a parent of one of his students:

quote:

---

{deHart} had been teaching creationism for 11 years before the aclu was called in and broke the news in the papers. The reason this happened was DH developed a teaching technique out of his arrogance and self-righteousness, and demonstrates his Achille's Heal. (spelling?)

​

When he presented his creationist portion of his class, if a student would point out it was creationism and stand up to him, he singled that person out and made the next two weeks hell for the student. Basically, he used the student to put a face on the false evolution science and got the whole class laughing at the poor person. It was the students who were so laughed at, who approached the aclu.

​

When the news hit the newspaper, I went to see a like-minded friend to see what he thought. He told me, I should talk to his daughter, she hated DH's guts. He said she stood up to him and for 2 weeks DH "mocked and humiliated" her.

​

Right after that, I contacted the aclu. I was talking to the woman in charge of this situation and she told me a story of the first student to approach them about DH. The aclu woman said the student stood up to DH and for 2 weeks he led the class in " mocking and humiliating" the student.

​

I said, I guess you talked to my friend, Jeremy?. She said, who's Jeremy? This student had a single mother and the child was a young man.

​

Two sources, didn't know each other both used the words, "mocked and humiliated". That is not a coincidence. We found a 3rd student who say it's true.

​

Basically, DH is a mean SOB, he's got God in his wallet.

---

Not only would he himself mock and humiliate the student, but he would lead the class in mocking and humiliating him/her and would even stage a "debate" which pitted the entire class against that student.So much for creationists' claims that they want the students to question what's being taught.

---

PPS
While looking for something else, I found the site that had tracked the Roger DeHart case in Burlington-Edison High School. Their page is still at ScienceormythAt the time (2002), I also read a CNN transcript on the case (still up at CNN Transcript - CNN Newsstand: Hackers Shut Down Several Internet Sites; Bush Wins Delaware Primary; McCain and Bush Exchanging Attacks in South Carolina - February 8, 2000, with the DeHart story starting about 2/3 of the way down the page). In a 2002 email to a British parent encountering creationist activities over there, I first presented the Ray Baird case and then the DeHart case, to which I provided this quote from that transcript:

quote:

---

COLLINS: But former student Emma Height (ph) says she was troubled by DeHart's class. She says he made them choose either evolution or intelligent design, and then defend their decision in an essay.
EMMA HEIGHT, FORMER STUDENT: A couple kids around me turned to me and said, well, I'm pretty confused. I believe in evolution, and you know, I think there's probably some evidence out there, but I believe in God, but I have to choose which one. I have to choose, you know, between God and science. And that really was the turning point for me.

---

The point I was making was that in 20 years, their methods and tactics had not changed. And I was specifically pointing out their persistent goal of compelling students to adopt their beliefs as a contrast to the actual goal of education, which I provided in this quote:

quote:

---

State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences, adopted 13 Jan 1989 [emphasized in original]:
"Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. A dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding."
(Science Framework for California Public Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve, 1990, pg 206)

---

Since the goal of teaching creationism is to compel belief, it is therefore inconsistent with the goal of education.