The battle for the teaching of Evolution in schools heats up

[LomU]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...2444_2005mar13

Personally, I think Creationism has no place in a science class or in a public school [except perhaps in an historical sense showing how thought of our origins has evolved(lol)].

Seperation of Church and State and all that jazz applies here I think. I don't understand why christians who feel their children are missing out, don't just send their children to sunday school or something. Why must they force their religous beliefs on the rest of us?

However, considering a great majority of Americans believe in Creationism, perhaps a seperate class for those wishing to take it should be offered? Although we then go down the slippery slope of then having to offer Islamic/Hindu/insert religion here/ Creationism to our schools aswell, and the logistics of having to implement this would be troublesome.

A crappy situation indeed, where everyone will get angry, and noone will end up happy about how this concludes. Yay for religion.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think Creationism has no place in a science class or in a public school [except perhaps in an historical sense showing how thought of our origins has evolved(lol)].

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make you right.

[ QUOTE ]
Seperation of Church and State and all that jazz applies here I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. To quote the Constitution...

[ QUOTE ]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly there is a point made in the Constitution to STOP CONGRESS from respecting an establishment of religion AND prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In this case, it's not Congress, its schools. So, schools should be able to handle the matter as they see fit. However, many ignornant people think that the first Amendment means there cannot be any religion in school or that people have free speech in school.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why christians who feel their children are missing out, don't just send their children to sunday school or something. Why must they force their religous beliefs on the rest of us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why must you force your beliefs on Christians? The argument works both ways. Why can't people be taught what their community wants to teach them? So long as the community is being responsible with their desired curriculum (as monitored by the STATE, not the FEDERAL government). Why must aethism be forced upon people?

[ QUOTE ]
However, considering a great majority of Americans believe in Creationism, perhaps a seperate class for those wishing to take it should be offered?Although we then go down the slippery slope of then having to offer Islamic/Hindu/insert religion here/ Creationism to our schools aswell, and the logistics of having to implement this would be troublesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the Supreme Court seperate != equal. Why can't we teach all of our children about all the major religions? Perhaps give people a perspective on how people throughout the world get their values (or lack thereof as evidence by liberals).

[ QUOTE ]
A crappy situation indeed, where everyone will get angry, and noone will end up happy about how this concludes. Yay for religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that equality is a myth. I am talking about equality in terms of happiness. There seems to be this belief held by many fools that all people should be equally happy. This cannot be. Some people are just going to be upset despite all logic (like that fool in California who doesn't want his child to hear "under God" in the pledge). I believe, to borrow from the left's nemesis Rush Limbaugh, that the only way to make peoples emotional states equal is to make everyone equally UNHAPPY.

How is this for a solution. Get the Federal Government OUT of education all together. Have the states run their own educational systems, preferrably by granting those powers to the local municipalities. That way everyone DOESN'T learn the same liberal revisionist bull [censored], more people have differnt educational backgrounds, and innovation through variation is possible.

[HDPM]

No way. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious belief. In science class you teach science. Criticism of the science is fine. But not criticism on the basis of religion. Religion isn't science and doesn't belong in science class. Comparative religion in a social studies class is fine, but that is different than teaching that religious views have anything at all to do with science.

[andyfox]

Touche!

Bravo!

What he said!

[jaxmike]

obviously you cant read. i never said it should be in a science class.

[HDPM]

[ QUOTE ]
obviously you cant read. i never said it should be in a science class.

[/ QUOTE ]


Some days I read better than others. I know you don't pay attention to case law or the amendments to the constitution after the 10th, so I won't address all your beliefs about the application of the 1st amendment. I will just say that teaching creationism as any sort of truth is religious training. Religious training isn't allowed in public schools. I know you don't agree with that and may not even believe it. But religious training isn't allowed in public schools even if they are funded by a sovereign state and not the federal government. Really. Also notice I said religious beliefs could be discussed in a comparative religion class. I.E. Some Muslims mutilate their daughters based on their beliefs, some religions like animal sacrifice, some Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old etc.... In teaching that the belief exists, you don't teach the belief itself. Creationists want to teach the belief of creationism as if it has some rational basis or objective truth. That isn't and should not be allowed in public schools. If it is allowed the courts made a mistake because it is wrong.


And yes, teaching it damages the minds of the children. yeah, I said it. Can you read that?


Edited to substitute "creationism" where I accidentally put "evolution." Maybe I can't read after all.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Some days I read better than others. I know you don't pay attention to case law or the amendments to the constitution after the 10th, so I won't address all your beliefs about the application of the 1st amendment. I will just say that teaching creationism as any sort of truth is religious training. Religious training isn't allowed in public schools.I know you don't agree with that and may not even believe it. But religious training isn't allowed in public schools even if they are funded by a sovereign state and not the federal government. Really.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally and completely wrong. There is NOTHING that says there cannot be any religious training in public schools EXCEPT activist judged legislating illegally from the bench.


[ QUOTE ]
Also notice I said religious beliefs could be discussed in a comparative religion class. I.E. Some Muslims mutilate their daughters based on their beliefs, some religions like animal sacrifice, some Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old etc.... In teaching that the belief exists, you don't teach the belief itself. Creationists want to teach the belief of creationism as if it has some rational basis or objective truth. That isn't and should not be allowed in public schools. If it is allowed the courts made a mistake because it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not wrong. It might seem wrong to you, but that doesn't make it so.


[ QUOTE ]
And yes, teaching it damages the minds of the children. yeah, I said it. Can you read that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and it further convinces me that I am right.


[ QUOTE ]
Edited to substitute "creationism" where I accidentally put "evolution." Maybe I can't read after all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps.

[lastchance]

You are calling evolution "liberal revisionist bull." However your opinions on the things being taught in our public schools, evolution is not "liberal revisionist bull." Evolution, specifically, natural selection is a scientific theory that explains how beings can and will change over the years as compared to their surroundings.

We cannot disprove creationism, but to be a scientific theory, you have to prove it. There is no reason to believe in Creationism other than to affirm your original belief in a God. There are no observations that natural selection doesn't explain that Creationism does.

[andyfox]

"We cannot disprove creationism."

What are the tenets of creationism? If one is that the world is only a few thousand (or tens of thousands of) years old, that's been disproved.

I wonder if astrology had been clever enough to give itself an -ism at the end, it would still be thought of as a science.

[lastchance]

I believe Creationism is this: Life was not created randomly, but instead, a being created life on earth.

Pretty hard to disprove. There's nothing that this explains that natural selection doesn't, and there are things natural selection explains that creationism doesn't.