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

[franklinstower]

I think its about time Christians get some representation in our schools science curriculum.

Evolution is not anti christian in any way unless you take a fundamentalist approach to the bible but then you cant say that's "Christian" without qualifying that it is just one version of Christian......

Many Christians from the earliest times did not take genesis literally...... or the story of Noahs' Ark either for that matter.

 

[MicroBrew]

I don't have a problem exploring and learning about Hindu based scientific research and experimentation. Do you?

What do you mean by "Hindu based" ? I am referring to claims made by Hindus on religious grounds and based on myths, that are not historically accurate nor scientifically sound. For example: a nonsensical and unscientific claim made by some Hindus is that there was an ancient nuclear explosion in the area of the Indus Valley region. A scientifically sound discovery or invention by Hindus is the numeral system and the zero.

And what is your opinion on teaching , in Arizona schools ,Hindu myths on creation / origin of life , alongside Abrahamic creationism ? And what about teaching the kids in Arizona Native American creation myths?

And while we are at it, why don't we teach the Scientologist explanation for creation and the belief among some that our whole existence is an elaborate computer simulation.

 

[MicroBrew]

Lol at thinking an ark could hold a T-rex

The creationists never even knew about dinosaurs and what they looked like before science educated the world about fossils and dinosaurs. So creationists do not believe in science except when it suits them.

 

[Swing]

according to the process that is science, experimentation must be falsifiable. how could a person DISPROVE god pulling the universe out of his top hat? if it cannot be disproven, then whats the point in attempting empirical research with it?



thats great, but this is a philosophy class. a very important set of activities that all people should learn to do, but this is not science. that doesnt make it any less valuable. its like saying literature is not math.

Parents already get a pretty big say in what classes their kids take. I could live with the compromise of requiring public schools to offer a theology class that does whatever it wants with creationism (including trying to prove it scientifically), and then parents who want to promote that could insist that their children be enrolled in it.

Leave it out of STEM, though. Creationists seem to think the point of introducing students to the theory of evolution is to convince them that Adam and Eve aren't real, when it's actually introduced to prepare students to pursue biology and such if it interests them.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Parents already get a pretty big say in what classes their kids take. I could live with the compromise of requiring public schools to offer a theology class that does whatever it wants with creationism (including trying to prove it scientifically), and then parents who want to promote that could insist that their children be enrolled in it.

the problem would be taxpayers. is it right to compel believers of other faiths, or nonbelievers, to financially support a class and teacher that are different?

if the class did not favor one specific religion, then yea, i think that would be good and legal. most public high schools have such a class as an elective, or include those same topics in their history courses.

 

[Swing]

the problem would be taxpayers. is it right to compel believers of other faiths, or nonbelievers, to financially support a class and teacher that are different?

if the class did not favor one specific religion, then yea, i think that would be good and legal. most public high schools have such a class as an elective, or include those same topics in their history courses.

I don't really disagree, but I'm guessing creationists who are funding biology classes through taxes erroneously feel like this argument cuts both ways. Hence the asinine suggestion by some of them that the theory of evolution needs to be emphasized as just one explanation for life as we know it.

So hypothetically speaking, I'd be willing to throw them a bone in exchange for not mucking up science courses.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because there isn't scientific evidence to back it up, but let's not conflate "being taught together" as "getting equal representation in the classroom." Histrionics don't win you any points.

Should we also teach the flat earth theory to students? Some people believe that and there's about as much evidence for it as there is for creationism.

 

[sub_thug]

Should we also teach the flat earth theory to students? Some people believe that and there's about as much evidence for it as there is for creationism.

No. I also said that I don't think creationism should be taught in school in the same post you quoted.

 

[Islam Imamate]

No. I also said that I don't think creationism should be taught in school in the same post you quoted.

Okay fair enough so let me rephrase it.

Would teaching flat earth theory alongside the established theories of astronomy be roughly equivalent to doing the same for creationism? Do you think it'd have a negative effect on science education?

 

[M3t4tr0n]

If they represent a large enough faction of the population, then yes. Absolutely their opinion should be given consideration.

In the states, we don't censor people we don't agree with. Thats the point of a "board." This isn't one person making the decision.

Even lizards? You would trust them?

 

[BJJ_Rage]

I think it should be up to local communities. We are already teaching our kids that we evolved from ape like creatures which is about as real as muhammad and winged horses.

Also, I'm not suggesting we teach the theological aspects of the Bible but rather the scientific, archeological, and physiological evidence that supports the alternative and much more widely held version of history and the origin of life. That being creation.

the scientific, archeological and physiological evidences that the world was created by big daddy on the sky? claims that came from stone age men? ok....

 

[sub_thug]

Okay fair enough so let me rephrase it.

Would teaching flat earth theory alongside the established theories of astronomy be roughly equivalent to doing the same for creationism? Do you think it'd have a negative effect on science education?

I see where you are going with this. Allow me to clarify my position: The individuals out there stating that carbon dating is weak science, that the earth is 6000 years old, and all that stuff are wrong, and verifiably so. That stuff can be actively disproven by science. I do not believe in creationism, and I don't think that it belongs in a science classroom because it doesn't address questions using the scientific method. I do not believe that there was divine intervention thousands of years ago that started humankind, nor do I believe that abiogenesis is based on bad science. I think that abiogenesis is indeed what happened a few million years ago. That is my position, and I want that to be understood very clearly. Now, to say in a science classroom that some people disagree with abiognesis due to religious reasons is fine, and that is indeed a fact. It is true that some people believe wacky things. You don't need to go any further into it than that, as those become the topics of theological classes. Never does it become essential to deviate from the facts in addressing evolution versus creationism.

The reason I don't think that the flat earth analogy works is the same reason that we can leave the hatred of carbon dating, men riding dinosaurs, etc. out of the science classroom: We can verify with certainty that this is not true.

 

[curryjunkie]

Anyone who believes in the ark doesn’t belong anywhere near education.

fixed

 

[2DUM2TAP]

I said scientific research not religion. I don't have a problem exploring and learning about scientific research conducted by Hindus, do you?

Scientific research conducted by Hindus.... In other words.... science conducted by scientists who happen to be Hindu.

This is the problem.... when your doing science you need to remove all bias. This creationism bullshit starts with a conclusion and tries to work backwards to find supporting evidence instead of being drawn to a conclusion from evidence gathered. It's a very shitty way to try and do science.

 

[Seano]

Even lizards? You would trust them?

If lizards made up a calcuable % of the population, then yes. They also have a right to express their opinion without fear of censorship.

 

[nac386]

If they represent a large enough faction of the population, then yes. Absolutely their opinion should be given consideration.

In the states, we don't censor people we don't agree with. Thats the point of a "board." This isn't one person making the decision.

This guy should be part of the board, and his opinion should be heard, and if any of his opinion falls in line with the accepted science then his opinion should influence the review just like everyone else's opinion.

But we don't put unscientific information into science books just because someone's religion believes it to be true. We do not teach religious principles, we teach scientifically backed information. As long as everyone is on the same page with regards to that, then there won't be any problems with this situation.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Lol at thinking an ark could hold a T-rex

Noah is the original dr.grant

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

If they represent a large enough faction of the population, then yes. Absolutely their opinion should be given consideration.

In the states, we don't censor people we don't agree with. Thats the point of a "board." This isn't one person making the decision.

I'm sure you would feel the same about a public high school health class curriculum teaching that gender is just a social construct and people can be born the wrong gender. As long as a board approves it.

 

[nac386]

By the way, just in case anybody didn't know, they do teach about religion in public schools. World Religions is a unit for all middle schoolers in the state of Maryland and they learn the background of all the common religions.

So it's not like public schools are not allowed to teach about religion, they are just not allowed to teach religion because it's entirely based in faith.

 

[Squarechoke]

Religion teaches people to accept things as true without any viable evidence, which creates irrational people, so I'd want such people as far from the field of education (and as possible.

Of course it's certainly possible for a religious person to provide proper education, but someone that believes there's scientific evidence that proves creation clearly has no grasp of logic whatsoever.