User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 27

  1. #1
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default 2011 and Creationism, 7 states introduce new legislation

    http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2...nism-classroom

    9 Bills That Would Put Creationism in the Classroom

    — By Josh Harkinson, Wed Mar. 23, 2011 3:00 AM PDT

    State governments are grappling with massive budget deficits, overburdened social programs, and mountains of deferred spending. But never mind all that. For some conservative lawmakers, it's the perfect time to legislate the promotion of creationism in the classroom. In the first three months of 2011, nine creationism-related bills have been introduced in seven states—that's more than in any year in recent memory:

    1. Texas

    Legislation: HB 2454 would ban discrimination against creationists, for instance, biology professors who believe in intelligent design. Defending his bill, Texas state Rep. Bill Zedler told Mother Jones, "When was the last time we’ve seen someone go into a windstorm or a tornado or any other kind of natural disaster, and say, 'Guess what? That windstorm just created a watch'?"

    Status: Referred to Higher Education Committee.

    2. Kentucky

    Legislation: The Kentucky Science Education and Intellectual Freedom Act (HB 169) would have allowed teachers to use "other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner." Kentucky already authorizes public schools to teach "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." The state is home to the world-renowned Creation Museum and it may soon build the Ark Encounter, the world's first creationist theme park.

    Status: Died in committee.

    3. Florida

    Legislation: SB 1854 would amend Florida law to require a "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution." In 2009, Florida state Sen. Stephen Wise, the bill's sponsor, rhetorically asked a Tampa radio host: "Why do we still have apes if we came from them?"

    Status: Referred to Senate Committee on Education Pre-K-12, which Wise chairs.

    4. Tennessee

    Legislation: HB 368 and SB 893 would require educators to "assist teachers to find effective ways to present the science curriculum as it addresses scientific controversies." The bills list four "controversies" ripe for pedagogical tinkering: biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. Modeled on Louisiana's Science Education Act (which became law in 2008), the bills are believed to have a good shot at passing. Steven Newton of the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching evolution in public schools, worries that the legislation "will allow teachers to bring this culture war into the classroom in a way that is going to leave students very confused about what science is and isn't."

    Status: HB 368 was passed by the House General Subcommittee on Education on March 16.

    5. Oklahoma

    Legislation: The Sooner State kicked off its creationism legislation season early with the January 19 pre-filing of SB 554, a bill that would have ensured that teachers could present "relevant scientific information" about "controversial topics in the sciences" including "biological origins of life and biological evolution." It also would have required Oklahoma to adopt science standards echoing those passed by in 2009 by the Texas state board of education. "Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings is incomplete and unacceptable," wrote the bill's sponsor, state Sen. Josh Brecheen, in the Durant Daily Democrat. A second bill introduced in February, the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act, resembled Louisiana's Science Education Act.

    Status: Both bills died in committee.

    6. New Mexico

    Legislation: HB 302, another bill modeled on Louisiana's Science Education Act. Sponsor Kent Cravens, a state senator from Albuquerque, told the Santa Fe New Mexican that the bill wasn't anti-Darwinian, but rather was "intended to give the teacher the ability to disclose that there may be another way to think about this, whatever subject they are talking about."

    Status: Died in committee.

    7. Missouri

    Legislation: HB 195 would permit teachers "to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution." Missouri is the site of the newly opened Creation Museum of the Ozarks.

    Status: Not yet referred to a committee.
    Some of these quotes are priceless. What do you guys think about all this? As a biologist, this advocation of creationism in public institutions of learning is particularly amusing, to me, but there is a seed a worry, because these are very real legislators toying with very real policies.

  2. #2
    Superwoman Red Herring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,647

    Default

    My condolences.
    The good life is one inspired by love and guided by knowledge. Neither love without knowledge, nor knowledge without love can produce a good life. - Bertrand Russell
    A herring's blog
    Johari / Nohari

  3. #3
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    This is a shame and I think will harm belief and believers in the long run, even cultural Christians or other fellow travellers could be harmed by this.

  4. #4
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default



    Except to put things in perspective, only one bill was actually passed (so far), and that one (#4) could be totally fine depending how it's interpreted, since it's very vague here. It could easily be interpreted to mean "teachers can address the *layperson* controversy about evolution when they teach it, if they so choose". Nothing wrong with that, since most students are aware of the controversy anyway, might as well help them understand why some religious people get in an uproar about it. It also seems like it's aimed at teachers (perhaps information about how to deal with the "controversy" if students bring it up) rather than directly changing the curriculum.

    If it's interpreted to mean that teachers have to suggest that creationism vs. evolution is a subject of debate within the scientific community (which is likely the real purpose considering the state it was passed in), of course that's a completely different situation.
    -end of thread-

  5. #5
    78% me Eruca's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    INxx
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    941

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    This is a shame and I think will harm belief and believers in the long run, even cultural Christians or other fellow travellers could be harmed by this.
    If by "harm" you mean "not support the beliefs of", then yes.

    But if you mean "harm" as in "make suffer", then no.

    The loss of these bills does not harm a hair on any religious person's head, nor is its purpose to turn people against religion. Evolution is the best theory science has to explain matters, so it should be taught in SCIENCE classes.

    I have wondered though, don't schools in America have religious education lessons? I had them when I was in high school in the UK.
    I hope I'm wrong, but I believe that he is a fraud, and I think despite all of his rhetoric about being a champion of the working class, it will turn out to be hollow -- Bernie Sanders on Trump

  6. #6
    Klingon Warrior Princess Patches's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    5,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Some of these quotes are priceless. What do you guys think about all this? As a biologist, this advocation of creationism in public institutions of learning is particularly amusing, to me, but there is a seed a worry, because these are very real legislators toying with very real policies.
    I find it bothersome. My high school biology class had to include both creation and evolution. I remember very vividly my Bio teacher saying, "I'm going to present to you both the story of creation, as well as the theory of evolution. You will be expected to understand both, to be able to answer questions based on both on an exam. You may choose for yourself what you believe in, but you will be expected to understand both." I sat there wondering why I was being tested on bible verses in a Biology class.

    It's absurd. A biology class is where science is taught. If you also would like your children to be taught the story of creation - do it at home, or at church. What about the other religions? Christianity isn't the only religion with a story of creation. What about the Buddhist story of creation? What about the Hindu story of creation? Hell, even various denominations of Christians don't agree on a single story. Are our biology teachers expected to explain those of other religions, too?
    “Everybody has a secret world inside of them. All of the people of the world, I mean everybody. No matter how dull and boring they are on the outside, inside
    them they've all got unimaginable, magnificent, wonderful, stupid, amazing worlds. Not just one world. Hundreds of them. Thousands maybe.” -Neil Gaiman

    ~

  7. #7
    Senior Member Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Randomnity View Post


    Except to put things in perspective, only one bill was actually passed (so far), and that one (#4) could be totally fine depending how it's interpreted, since it's very vague here. It could easily be interpreted to mean "teachers can address the *layperson* controversy about evolution when they teach it, if they so choose". Nothing wrong with that, since most students are aware of the controversy anyway, might as well help them understand why some religious people get in an uproar about it. It also seems like it's aimed at teachers (perhaps information about how to deal with the "controversy" if students bring it up) rather than directly changing the curriculum.

    If it's interpreted to mean that teachers have to suggest that creationism vs. evolution is a subject of *scientific* controversy, of course that's a completely different situation.
    No doubt, the spectrum in which this movement operates is respectable. One must "test the waters" if you will, before attempting to implement a genuine, well-constructed "BIG LIE". The systematic dismantling of the scientific process is a feat worthy of legend, and it is something that I feel very strongly about. It is the work of a genius sociopath, or of a truly fanatic believer. In either case, I respect the tenacity with which these legislators fight to discredit such a fundamental and largely explicable phenomenon in the universe. I do, however, take great offense towards the implementation of what is, by any measure of definition, a non-scientific curriculum over an established, scientific explanation of the living world. I feel that, given enough repetition, and given similar tenacity over a long enough period of time, one's interpretation of reality can, in fact, become distorted.

    The scientific and non-scientific exist independently, with a real barrier between them. What this story represents to me is a systematic dismantling of the wall between reality and fiction. It is one thing to question the consensus of the scientific community, this is done every minute of every hour of every day, but to a distinctly separate end. We do not admit evidence to be considered and evaluated without first demonstrating that the data is derived using the scientific method. This is what separates creationism from science, and it is why this story is troubling. We do not promote ignorance to expand our knowledge of the universe, and it is immoral to strip the capacity for individuals to apply reason and knowledge for the sake of satisfying a base of the electorate.

    I very much view this issue under the context of a discernible dichotomy between reality and fantasy, but we can go further. We have a choice between believing something demonstrable through evidence and reason, or rejecting this (and all of the nuggets of wisdom that coincide with our progress being made, even on this very day, toward understanding the phenomenon of evolution) in favor of a fantasy. This is the anti-Enlightenment, and it is growing, rather than shrinking. I feel very strongly about this subject.

  8. #8
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Oh, I agree completely. Just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt, which is most likely not deserved.

    Back when I learned it for the first time in high school, the teacher said something like "this is a controversial topic, but you're expected to know about evolution for this class. You can believe what you want", which was fine. We didn't learn anything about creationism of course. In university we didn't really discuss the controversy side of things (at least with regard to creationism), since that's not really an interesting debate in the scientific community ("evolution is the most valid scientific theory that we have to explain human origins, and should be taught in science classes!" "well yeah, obviously")
    -end of thread-

  9. #9
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    I think its absurd and detrimental to overall scientific understanding among students (such as obfuscating the definition of a scientific theory as well as minimizing the fundamental importance and usefulness of evolutionary theory), but I also think the backlash is excessive and overblown (I remember a recent thread I started where a poster actually compared this issue to the advocation of executing apostates from Islam); most students that are interested in science are not going to be deterred by such legislation.

  10. #10
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    It makes me wonder if other great powers enacted such regressive and ignorant policies as they began their era of decay...

    It shows that the average mind is both simpler and less open than I thought.

Similar Threads

  1. An example of the working of type as defined by the "Hero" and "Parent" ego states
    By Eric B in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-18-2016, 07:13 PM
  2. INFJ hails and well mets (but not New York Mets)
    By comicsgurl in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-28-2008, 02:04 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-13-2008, 07:05 PM
  4. Dawkins and Evolution, a discussion (moved to new thread)
    By hereandnow in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 11:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO