Creationism to be taught in Biology calsses, Wisconsin.

[sidwill]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/index.html

Snip>
GRANTSBURG, Wisconsin (AP) -- School officials have revised the science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.
Snip>

It begins.

Now they have a "mandate" and the dummification of our nation accelerates.

[billyoc]

1. Why stop there?

I always thought that spontaneous generation never got the attention that it deserved either! :crazy:

[Socialist Dem]

2. "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory,"

Fine with me as long as they include other theroies such as the "Santa Claus" theory, the "Big Fart" theory, and the ever popular "Drunk god trying to win a bet" theory.

[pnorman]

15. Maybe that's not so bad an idea after all.

If they want to teach "science", based on the Book of Genesis, then the whole fucking Bible will then become subject to searching inquiry. That might be a good opportunity to bring Thomas Paine into that discussion (Mark Twain too!).

pnorman

[blueblitzkrieg]

3. Religious fanatics are ruining this country.

I remember reading about a textbook company in Texas, who under pressure from Republicans, did not include any reference to dinosaurs in a textbook because it might challenge a student's assumptions about God.

Let's keep the kids ignorant so they can grow up to be loyal Republicans someday. *sigh*

[Peak_Oil]

62. Why do they hate science?

I don't understand.

[TheFarseer]

4. and then they wonder why we are falling behind in science

I don't think it's because we aren't "holding the teachers acountable" Or that we need more bullshit tests to take time away from learning. Of course if they used the time they were going to use to teach *creationism* to give bullshit tests, maybe the kids would come out ahead. I've said it a million times, if you want your kids to get religion in school, send them to a private religious school. It's not that hard.

edited because I said evolution instead of creationism, my bad

[Deja Q]

5. Does Genesis state that the Earth is flat?

:shrug:

It sure as hell was written during the time that humans thought it was flat.

[DuaneBidoux]

63. Genesis doesn't but another chapter (don't remember which) does.

[BiggJawn]

6. My sleepy eyes...I thought it read "Cretinism to be taught..."

And then I thought "Eh, what's the difference?"

I hope they teach the Greek creation myth, too. Some of that shit Zeus was supposed to have done...:evilgrin:

Bush has a "Mandate", this is no surprise.

Welcome to flat-earth Murka, the only land in the universe where you can use your Zippo-lighter-sized Cell-phone camera to take a picture of your magical 9-11 teddy bear in FDNY uniform that is keeping your neighbour's kid safe in Faluja....

[sidwill]

7. I just posted this on anothe site

The response?

"So they teach both theories--big deal"

Creationism is not a "theory" it is meant to be accepted as fact, without question.

Scary stupid.

[NYC Liberal]

17. Tell them it isn't a SCIENTIFIC theory,

but a religious one. Therefore, it does not belong in a SCIENCE class.

[sam sarrha]

18. I told them they were letting the Christian Talaban into the schools and

once in they would not leave

and that I actually read the book

[BiggJawn]

21. Ask any Fundy...

And they will tell you in no uncertain terms "Theory? Boy, The Creation story is FACT! That's GAWD's Holy WORD you're disputin' there. GAWD said it, I believe it, and that SETTLES it!"

And it has no basis in Science. Why not champion a "theory" that Winnie-the-Pooh created Heaven and Earth from the leavings in the bottom of his hunny-pot? Has about as much basis in Science as "And GAWD shook the Earth from the end of his dick after pissing the Milky Way across the firmament..."

[NYC Liberal]

24. Robin Williams:

But what about the Big Bang, evolution, isn't possible that it happened that way?

Fundie: "No, God just went *click*"

[BiggJawn]

32. That's some Universal Remote Gawd's got there, ain't it?

:-)

[NYC Liberal]

66. Can we ask God to rewind, so we can destroy

Bush before he ever got near an elected office?

;)

[ClintonTyree]

8. WTF?

Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of JUST ONE SCIENTIFIC THEORY," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin."

Since when has religion become a Science? Science can be proved. Myth cannot.

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. This is why we need to pay attention to not only the big races --,

president, congress, state senate, governor -- but the little ones too. The far right has been hijacking school board across the county for 20 years, banning evolution, sex ed. Recently it's been the trying to equate sound scientific thought with superstitious rants.

Whenever you see someone running for school board, make this a litmus test. Find out just what they believe about 'creation science' -- now there's an oxymoron -- and base your vote on that.

When I was a kid, some time ago, no one could make me participate in led prayers, or even to include 'under god' in the pledge. Those are largely red herrings. What matters is curriculum.

[July]

10. I'd be pulling my kids out before going along w/this. nt

[NYC Liberal]

11. You must admit..

Republicans DO make you question evolution.

[Mr_Spock]

22. So true

This is crazy & funny at the same time. This is the "overstepping" that will get them into trouble here. Let them do this stuff, let them do more crazy things - we can sit by and watch as they ride themselves out of existence on a rail. They are so self-destructive, it's hilarious!

[immoderate]

27. Science makes you question evolution...

But evolution comes up with the right answers.

The problem is that you can't question Creationism.

--IMM

[Rush1184]

77. Good point...

How did a species with such low intelligence manage to not only last till now, but actually thrive?

[Ann Arbor Dem]

12. Joni Burgin thinks that creationism is a scientific theory?

It's a "theory" but not a scientific theory. She should be removed from her post as superintendent. What a bunch of malarkey.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. Maybe it's for the best.

This country doesn't deserve to be a superpower anymore, and there is no faster way to end a country's superpower status than to destroy its scientific and technological base. If this country wants to destroy itself, I'm not going to get in its way.

I don't yet have children, but when I do, I will probably just homeschool them myself in science.

[NYC Liberal]

14. EMAIL JONI BURGIN!

[e-mail]

[sam sarrha]

16. I have the Book and it is BIZARRE !!! NOT Science..Fucking Crap.. if

you found a watch in primordial forest unknown to technology... The assumption is that someone had to make the watch.. and it follows that therefore god had to make the complex universe
*the Law of Mass Action= if all the elements necessary for something to happen are present ..then it will probably happen.

[Mr_Spock]

19. Creationism isn't a scientific theory.

I wonder if making the kids see this bizarre theory is going to be good or bad?

[sam sarrha]

23. it is going to make a lot of ignorant voting christian extreemists

[WLKjr]

20. This is the way it should be taught

I live out here in Ohio and graduated just a year or so ago. In my biology class, this is how the teacher taught it.

He explained both theories, the religious aspect and that what he was about to talk about was not ment to offend anyone and those who did not wish to stay and listen could leave the room at anytime. Then he professed what he personally believed but then said as a scientist he has to be aware of all possibilities and trust in science. He then Talked about creationism. Then he explained Darwinism. Then, to an interesting twist, talked about the possibility of both theories coexisting but not in the way everyone wants to believe. THAT ALONE made me think, and it is sort of what I believe.


Teach both, explain both, just don't take 1 side

[sam sarrha]

26. Science is Science... the other belongs in Sunday school..PERIOD

[Book Lover]

41. Did your teacher also

explain other-than-Judeo-Christian creation myths? Can you see that you were exposed to one and only one religious viewpoint that was then conflated to equate a scientific theorem?

Did you go to a public high school?

[WLKjr]

54. Actually yes, I did, and yes he did

I was just naming the ones I remembered for sure off the top of my head, but yes, he did talk about other theories too.

[Book Lover]

64. Which ones?

Seems that predominant myth paradigm is the one you remembered.

[WLKjr]

68. Here are a few that I found in some of my notes that I uncovered

panspermia-(my writting is a little messy and such but I make out that it said something about seeding or accidental seeding and about some british scientists talking about it)


also something about terraforming,


keep in mind, this wasn't just a 1 day 30 minute discussion. It was actaully talked about and studied for I think 2 weeks judging by my notes.

[immoderate]

42. When I taught science, I taught science

There were students who, let's say, requested that I give equal time to Creation. I explained to them that science is based on challenging theories and the premises they are built on.

The premises of Creationism can not be challenged by anyone who wants to keep his job. Furthermore it ignores the basic premise upon which all science if founded. Simply put, the laws of the universe are comprehensible and consistent. Once you insert a magic being, whose motives are unfathomable, you have left science.

Once you make these assertions, you have left the realm of science.

--IMM

[pansypoo53219]

25. sorry. i don't think EITHER should be taught

both are FAITH BASED. neither can be tested or copied.
evolution is still a THEORY.
creationism is faith.

why is either neccessary. just teach fucking FACTS.

[sam sarrha]

28. The facts are that the DNA follows the evolution of change..

Evolution is a fact.. the 'theory' of how it works is in question..

actually evolution usually only happens during stress on a population..

[immoderate]

30. You misunderstand what a scientific theory is...

Gravity, atoms, electrons, evolution are theories. Noone has ever SEEN an electron.

A theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. When they cannot explain an observation, they are discarded. There are no FACTS in science. There are theories that are accepted because they are consistent with reality.

There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. No evidence for creation. Ignorance is not a valid argument here.

--IMM

[sam sarrha]

34. example, a flock of birds got blown off course up to an area that was

heavily forested..dense thickets. there was plentiful food so the birds stayed.

within 6 generations the birds lost the ability of flight. They adapted.. the facts. the theory is that the wings will be a deterrent to ground feeding and escaping predators and will eventually be atrophied.

[American liberal]

43. now I'm confused

You called gravity a "theory," but it's a law "the law of gravity." But Einstein discovered the theory of relativity.

Please excuse my ignorance, but I thought laws of science were irrefutable and based on the scientific method, whereas theories (e.g., theory of evolution, chaos theory ) were still works in progress.

Regardless, creationism has no place in public school curricula.

[Book Lover]

44. Try this difference

Use two different terms: theorem and theory (true scientists and mathematicians are kicking me; I can tell). "Theory" is used very loosely and leads to the confusion you're describing.


"I have a theory; Joe stole the money from his mother's pocketbook"

"Darwin's theorem describing evolution is structured thus:..."

[immoderate]

52. Theories, laws, rules in science

are valid when they explain the phenomena they are directed at. The theory of relativity has been validated by many observations. Calling a theory a law is a colloquialization of a concept. I would guess that something is a law when it is obvious to any observer.

The atomic theory states that matter is composed of atoms. There is not much to dispute that. The conceptualization of the atom has changed somewhat with the discovery of sub-atomic particles.

I think the law of gravity is "What goes up must come down." We know this is not exactly true. There are other aspects of gravity which are not so defined as its wave nature and whether there is a particle aspect, the "graviton," which has so far been undetected. These "theories" exist because they are consistent with observed phenomena, and they are consistent with what is known about cosmology in general, and there is no evidence to contradict them.

You can avoid confusion by thinking that a theory and a law are the same thing. After all laws have been rescinded, have they not?

--IMM

[kitkatrose]

36. Do you know what a scientific theory is?

Scientific theories are about as high as you can get in science, they're not just educated guesses. If it didn't have proof, gobs of it, it wouldn't be a theory. Please go back to a biology class and learn your terminology.

[KittyWampus]

29. Intelligent Design Theory. Once Again The Left Misses The Boat & Are Left

wondering why everyone else is so "stoopid"... instead of considering the possiblity maybe it's not just everyone else but OURSELVES>

Look, Creationism AS ESPOUSED BY FUNDIES is indeed a world view with nothing more than factless beliefs to back it up.

HOWEVER, Intelligent Design Theory is in fact both a world view AND has factual evidence which backs it up.

YES, Fundies distor Intelligent Design Theory to bulster their versin of Creationism... but that doesn't mean that IDT is groundless or unworthy of being taught.

Again, if you think all ID Theorists are fundies wanting to rationalize their dogma... you are WRONG.

The Left needs to understand WHAT ID actually SAYS and POSITS.

There are many well respected Physicists who are working on ID.

If we pushed to have ID, AS IT'S TAUGHT BY SCIENTISTS, taught in schools it would completely undermine the Fundies.

[immoderate]

31. Intelligent Design is warmed over Creationism

It has been debunked by scientists. but that doesn't stop the wishful thinkers. ID is a new catechism, that is, an explanation that is designed to affirm a hypothesis.

--IMM

[KittyWampus]

33. You Are Totally Wrong... And Obviously Failed To Read My Post

there are cutting edge physicists who posit IDT.

You are indicative of those on the Left who are bigotted against any scientific theory that doesn't posit the Material World as the only Reality.

Again, Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism and was NOT put forth by Fundies.

You do NOT know what you are talking about.

[sam sarrha]

35. I have ACTUALLY read and OWN the Creationism book.. it is Fundamental

extremism and Bible Thumping Talaban Christian Propaganda to be taught to our children regardless of their parents wishes.

[KittyWampus]

45. I Specifically Said NOT CREATIONISM.

[kitkatrose]

37. Who's on the defense for ID?

And what are there credentials. I'll admit that evolution isn't my forte but, I don't recall anybody creditable (is that a word?) standing up for it, and I went to school in the south. Thanks. :hi:

[KittyWampus]

49. Here Are Some Contributors:

The following are contributors to the movie "What The Bleep Do We Know. Check out the website www.whatthebleepdoweknow.com

I have a library of books from well know scientists who posit Conciousness as the Universal Substance.... who question the notion that Life developed from Gross Matter. etc.

Rather than post books, I am for now, in the interest of brevity and using different methods, citing this movie.

PHYSICISTS

William Tiller, Ph.D.
Amit Goswami
John Hagelin, Ph.D.
Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D.
Dr. David Albert

NEUROLOGISTS, ANESTHESIOLOGISTS & PHYSICIANS

Dr. Masaru Emoto
Stuart Hameroff M.D.
Dr. Jeffrey Satinover
Andrew B. Newberg, M.D.
Dr. Daniel Monti
Dr. Joseph Dispenza

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

Dr. Candace Pert

SPIRITUAL TEACHERS, MYSTICS AND SCHOLARS

Ramtha
Dr. Miceal Ledwith

[immoderate]

65. The film may be very entertaining, but so is "Shrek"

If this is where you go for science, then that explains your misconceptions of what science is.

There are some very good scientists who hold spiritual beliefs. They may believe in gods, angels, devils, demons, karma, and leprechauns. The fact that a scientist holds such beliefs does not make it scientific.

If the point of the movie is that ignorance abounds. I can buy that.

The "fact" is that modern biology IS evolution. And you can't do any meaningful work in the field if you ignore that. Try studying the course of the flu virus. It's ability to evade efforts to combat it is just as much "proof" of intelligent design as anything else.

--IMM

[KittyWampus]

73. You Are Full Of Prejudice Then. Fred Alan Wolfe Is Respected

tell you what, read one of his books, then we can have an intelligent discussion.

Until then, you are full of hot air.

[immoderate]

38. Maybe you don't know what I know

There was a link here the other day (I can't find it now, but I'm looking) that ripped the basic premise apart.

The fact that you cite physicists, and not biologists at least leaves this open to arguments of reductionism, the error of trying to explain the principles of one science by using the premises of another.

Intelligent design is hogwash. Your inability to characterize me accurately parallels your misunderstanding of the scientific method.

--IMM

[KittyWampus]

48. You Have No Idea What Intelligent Design Actually Is & Base Your

ASSUMPTIONS on erroneous, imcomplete and biase information.

[immoderate]

53. Once again you are telling me what I know

And you have no basis for this. How do you know what I've studies? You just pull it out of your butt.

If I agreed with you then I'd be educated?

How about some evidence, either that I am uneducated, or that the cockamamie theory of Intelligent Design has some basis?

Are you then ignorant of the Raelists, who "prove" that extraterrestrials were a necessary part of human development?

Where is this "intelligence"? Show us some evidence.

--IMM

(Edited for inexcusable grammatical error.)

[immoderate]

39. Furthermore I DID read your post.

And it is nonsense.

You are indicative of those on the Left who are bigotted against any scientific theory that doesn't posit the Material World as the only Reality.

What scientific theory is based on something other than the "Material World"? How do you measure these things if they are not based on the material world? You can stare as intensely as you want at your naval, but that is not doing science.

I am sure you can find physicists to wax elequent about all sorts of things, but then they are out of their area of expertise. (As you are.)

--IMM

[KittyWampus]

46. Psychology, Economic Theory & Marketing, For Instance.

[immoderate]

55. You are proving my point.

These are social sciences and despite being in another category, describe behaviors which exist in the real world. Psychology most resembles the model of physical sciences because some of its tenets can be tested in the laboratory. Economics, a science? There are many economists who would challenge that.

And if marketing were a science, you would have a hard time saying its not related to the material universe.

--IMM

[Mr_Spock]

56. Those are "inexact sciences" and are fraught with errors

That is a completely ridiculous response - can't you do better than that?

[KittyWampus]

74. Excuse ME? Ridiculous? Those Areas All Use Scientific Method

[Mr_Spock]

76. You're over your head here.

Stop trying to pretend you understand this "science" and what is derived from "mathematical probability" vs "hard science".

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. The problem with intelligent design is that it presupposes

intelligent design. In other words, it takes facts and makes them fit the underlying hypothesis, rather than building a hypothesis from the facts.

Rather like * declaring that Iraq had WMDs and then taking all the available facts and picking the ones that supported his presupposed conclusion.

It is the opposite of science, just as * intelligence is the opposite of intelligence.

[seaj11]

60. Good point.

[immoderate]

69. Modus ponendo ponen

or "affirming the consequent" is the logical fallacy by which you use the conclusion to prove the hypothesis.

--IMM

[KittyWampus]

75. As Does YOUR Version. Please Indicate WHERE Dogmatic Science

has proven that Materialism is the a priori condition in Life.

Answer, NEVER.

And it never will.

So Materialistic Science has no more of a foundation in its assumptions then Intelligent Design.

[seaj11]

59. That physicists work with it

(and, you imply, approve of/support it) says nothing. Evolutionary scientists used to believe that Native Americans, Middle Easterns, anyone who wasn't white, was a less evolved form of Homo sapiens. Profession and reputation alone don't make one right.

[Robert Oak]

40. have these kids design *'s let's go to Mars project

It will work great.

when they can't do the math they will say "we have faith" point
their rocket in that direction and fire.

ship off 1M bibles to Mars before any scientific tests

[The Flaming Red Head]

47. They already took Darwin and Evolution out of my Biology course

I'm surprised that they're not teaching the book of Genesis. It gets awkward when we get to the part about the age of certain things. I mean how can you teach it without teaching it. It's weird science.

[immoderate]

67. If you are in a public school

they are probably outside the law. Most states define the topics that must be taught in a biology course. You can't understand biology without eveolution.

I would get in touch with authorities and demand that the proper course of study be taught.

--IMM

[Poor Richard Lex]

51. Hawking's Book - Big Bang Theory

he stated that is conclusions did not point away from a superior intellect controlling the forces of nature, but rather pointed to some sort of design because the complexity of the universe can not be explained by merely looking at the physical means by which it developed. The chances of it happening by chance are very slim.

Somehow I don't think that these textbooks are going to take such an enlightened view.

[immoderate]

57. How do you explain snow flakes?

They are each unique, and possess properties such as symmetry. That might imply a design intelligence to some.

Hawking is speculating out of his field here. Note that he recently recanted some of the things that he posed within his field.

--IMM

[MsMagnificent]

58. We are Devo

Mark Mothersbaugh (sic?) was right

Who could possibly guess, in the 3rd millennium, that we're backsliding back down into the middle age mentality.

Next up: The Auto-da-Fe

Then the Plagues -- why do I have this horrid feeling that HIV was just a little plate of hors d'oeuvres?

[DuaneBidoux]

61. A BLUE STATE NO LESS? We're really fucked now

[ComerPerro]

70. People like that are so pathetic. Creationism is not science

Not even close.

And, to me, it doesn't make any sense to discuss a religious view of biology in a science class. Why would you say that?

What about other sciences too?

"Well, here is a model of the solar system. And here is scientific evidence of the solar system. This is a diagram of our universe, with star maps that prove the existence of our universe and that track the movement of all heavenly bodies. However, state law requires that I tell you that the Bible states that the earth is the center of the known universe, with the sun, moon, planets and stars revolving around it."

[Cyrix]

71. Although I don't agree with this

So long as this is at a high school (or even middle school to a lesser degree) level ONLY it shouldn't be too bad. By that time most people have already established for themselves whether or not they believe in gods. More a waste of time and disrespect to the constitution than anything else.

Now if they are doing it in elementary school...

[RaleighNCDUer]

78. And at what age is it appropriate to teach myth as fact? n/t

[cassiepriam]

72. The beginning of the Second Dark Ages.........

We are now going back-wards on every dimension we can measure.