Arizona State Superintendent puts Creationist on panel to review standards on teaching of Evolution

TL : DR
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opi...ew-cookie&mc_cid=190f4a9dd9&mc_eid=22979bf1c7

Arizona State Superintendednt Diane Douglas picked creationist Joseph Kezele as 1 member of a panel to "review Arizona’s standards on how to teach evolution in science class:"



The Superintendent is sympathetic to Creationists



-

Kezele is a creationist and beleives that Dinos were on the Ark and earth is 6000 years old


https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/creationist-helped-review-arizona-evolution-curriculum-10820376

-
Teach creationism in history , religion or humanities class, but not as Science. There are many creationist stores, why should the school only teach the Abrahamic one. Why don't they include Native American creationist stories too.
We damned well know the answer to that question, don't we
 
TheDunningKrugerKid talking about science is like Joseph Frietzl talking about parenting.
 
They should teach it as "this is what we think happened". Because nobody knows. If it's not being taught as fact, since it's not one, then there shouldn't be an issue.

Let the parents teach their kids religion. School should teach science.
 
They should teach it as "this is what we think happened". Because nobody knows. If it's not being taught as fact, since it's not one, then there shouldn't be an issue.

Let the parents teach their kids religion. School should teach science.
We don't waste our time reminding kids that we only 'think' Julius Caesar was murdered so why would we make special disclaimer for a theory that is much better supported?
 
We don't waste our time reminding kids that we only 'think' Julius Caesar was murdered so why would we make special disclaimer for a theory that is much better supported?

(Macro)Evolution being better supported is an opinion many would disagree with. But what is fact is that Julius Ceaser being murdered is much more widely accepted with 0 debate or controversy over the issue. That's probably why no one takes the time to point competing theories regarding Julius Ceasers death...because there are none.

The majority of the world believes in some kind of a creation story, that is supported by science, thus it would make sense to point that out in science class.
 
(Macro)Evolution being better supported is an opinion many would disagree with. But what is fact is that Julius Ceaser being murdered is much more widely accepted with 0 debate or controversy over the issue. That's probably why no one takes the time to point competing theories regarding Julius Ceasers death...because there are none.

The majority of the world believes in some kind of a creation story, that is supported by science, thus it would make sense to point that out in science class.

It's not an opinion. Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean that you can just call it a subjective issue.

Not that anyone would expect more from the person that said that evolution is about the dumbest thing mankind has ever come up with.
 
Last edited:
It's not an opinion. Just because someone doesn't want it to be true doesn't mean that they can just call it a subjective issue.

Not that anyone would expect more from the person that said that evolution is about the dumbest thing mankind has ever come up with.

If course Squarechoke, that goes without saying. What should also go without saying is that just because someone wants something to be true doesn't mean they can just call it an objective issue.
 
If course Squarechoke, that goes without saying. What should also go without saying is that just because someone wants something to be true doesn't mean they can just call it an objective issue.

Good point, seeing how religious people do tend to call the content in their holy books "truth" without it being supported by evidence.
 
The majority of the world believes in some kind of a creation story, that is supported by science, thus it would make sense to point that out in science class.
Supported by science: wrong
Majority of the world believes in a creation story: great, point it out in history/anthropology/world religions class
 
Last edited:
I don't agree 100% with this but I agree with a lot of it.

I'm just more along the lines of everyone having representation. Thats the point of a board. To allow the ideas deemed worthy by a majority and to disallow those deemed unfit by the majority.

To tell people they simply can't be part of the process because of what they believe is bigotry.
You and the kid there can believe whatever you want. Just keep it out of the school science curriculum. How hard is that? Creationism is effectively believing in a magic event. By definition, there's nothing scientific about that. It has no place.
 
Well this seems to be a pointless conversation

Of course it is, as you're consistently treating science as an equivalent to religion. Your basis is that the extremely diverse scientific community would in some way hold a coherent agenda to the same degree as the religious people that want to see their world view be right.

Evolution isn't the prevailing theory because everyone wants it to be that way, it's because there just is far more evidence for that than any other hypothesis. We've arrived at the theory through the scientific method, which includes trying to falsify what has been established to see if it holds up. The creationist world view is from before there were any relevant research that could grasp of what life is made up, and the explanation is pretty much just "it's magic" from the people that don't try to consolidate the scientific and religious world views, like Francis Collins. The religious people have taken an explanation out of thin air, before we knew hardly anything about the subject, and established it as "truth". It's not very strange that the scientific evidence for such a claim is missing.
 
My position is that shit science is shit science. Doesn't matter where it comes from. It doesn't have to be published in a well respected journal to be true either, but it certainly lends to the credibility.

No, not conspiracy aside because you are using the exact same old rhetoric of bullshit conspiracy of prosecution. Journals are international. Brazil, Englad, US, Spain, Germany, Scandinavia so on. As someone who lives in perhaps the least corrupt country in the world, and as someone who have been a part of research studies and spent countless hours on reading literature, I can tell you for a fact that we don't have any "mainstream agenda" and corrupt influence crippling our sciences here. Still, no quality evidence for creation to be found.

To reiterate, it's the people who revolutionize that win the prizes. Make a solid case for creationism and you will win the nobel prize.

You cannot argue sense into people like him because anything that does not align with his Dogma he just dismisses as a Liberal agenda. All science is now a marxist liberal agenda. Why? Because they learned a few buzzwords that they don't really understand, but they feel so good to toss around.
 
And people can show that the sun is small, local, and orbits the earth through math and studying the sun rays. I would fully expect you to reject such a notion and assert that people cannot show the sun to be small and local but that's like...your opinion man.
<{1-1}><{1-1}><{1-1}><{1-1}><{1-1}><{1-1}><{1-1}><{1-1}><{1-1}><{1-1}>
Also, looking at cooling temperatures does not "prove" anything. You can use it as circumstantial evidence to support your theory but then people like me would just argue that you are assuming a fixed rate of cooling and of temperature through out billions of years that you haven't actually established. Therefore your theory is not proven by simply looking at cooling temperatures. That is called a leap in logic.

The problem with blindly accepting the scientific communities assertions is that you end up accepting their leaps in logic right along with it. And instead of teaching kids how to explore, ask questions, reconsider, and discover you end up creating indoctrinated drones that never ask questions or reconsider.
 
Back
Top