Creationism being reintroduced in schools

by pettygrudger 7 Replies latest jw friends

  • pettygrudger
    pettygrudger

    ATLANTA, Georgia (CNN) -- A suburban Atlanta school board Thursday night voted unanimously to allow teachers to introduce students to different views about the origins of life.

    The Cobb County Board of Education, the state's second-largest school board, approved the policy change after limited discussion, calling it a "necessary element of providing a balanced education."

    The board's vote drew cheers from some and expressions of dismay from others in the packed meeting room.

    "This supposed victory [by proponents of alternate theories] was shallow, very shallow," said Jeffrey Selman. Selman and other opponents believe the new policy is a step toward introducing religion -- in particular, creationism -- in public schools. "We're going to be watching this very closely."

    The adopted policy, however, included language intended to clarify the board's position that its action is not an endorsement of one particular theory over another.

    "It is the intent of the Cobb County Board of Education that this policy not be interpreted to restrict the teaching of evolution; to promote or require the teaching of creationism; or to discriminate for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, religion in general or non-religion," a portion of the policy said.

    The board's decision pleased Michael Gray, a Cobb high school junior.

    "I had to do a term paper about evolution and there were just things that I could disprove or have alternate reasons for," Gray told The Associated Press. "I want my brother and sister to be given the option and not told it's the absolute truth."

    Religion in school?

    A lawsuit, filed last month by Selman and the American Civil Liberties Union, prompted the board to reconsider its policy.

    Selman, who has a son in Cobb schools, sued the system because some middle and high school science textbooks include a disclaimer telling students that evolution is a theory and not a fact. He argued that the disclaimer was a step toward introducing religion in schools, which is unconstitutional.

    FACT BOX
    New policy
    "It is the educational philosophy of the Cobb County School District to provide a broad based curriculum; therefore, the Cobb County School District believes that discussion of disputed views of academic subjects is a necessary element of providing a balanced education, including the study of the origin of the species. This subject remains an area of intense interest, research and discussion among scholars. As a result, the study of this subject shall be handled in accordance with this policy and with objectivity and good judgment on the part of teachers, taking into account the age and maturity level of their students.

    "The purpose of this policy is to foster critical thinking among students, to allow academic freedom consistent with legal requirements, to promote tolerance and acceptance of diversity of opinion, and to ensure a posture of neutrality toward religion. It is the intent of the Cobb County Board of Education that this policy not be interpreted to restrict the teaching of evolution; to promote or require the teaching of creationism; or to discriminate for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, religion in general or non-religion."
    Source: Cobb County Board of Education

    Some educators agreed. "This is an intrusion of theological views into the classroom," said Wyatt Anderson, dean of the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Georgia. "What our students need to learn ... is science."

    Cobb school officials took another look at the policy and discussed amending it to include other theories, said board member Lindsey Tippins.

    The new policy, he said, drops a provision barring the district from teaching views contrary to "family values," which he said had been struck down by the courts.

    "We're just cleaning up an old policy," Tippins said, who added that officials don't want to force religious thought on students.

    Larry Taylor, who has three children in the Cobb County schools, said he doesn't advocate creationism but believes evolution should not be presented as the only acceptable theory.

    "Evolution has not been proven," said Taylor, who joined the debate over what should be taught in Cobb schools after reading about the ACLU lawsuit. "There are a growing number of scientists who are skeptical about Darwinism."

    The debate of teaching about the origin of species is not limited to suburban Georgia. Ohio educators and parents are split over teaching "intelligent design," which theorizes that life was designed by a higher power.

    In Kansas last year, the state Board of Education voted to restore the theory of evolution to its curriculum, which had been removed in a controversial vote two years earlier.

  • Cygnus
    Cygnus

    : "Evolution has not been proven," said Taylor, who joined the debate over what should be taught in Cobb schools after reading about the ACLU lawsuit. "There are a growing number of scientists who are skeptical about Darwinism."

    ACK! Double ACK! Triple ACK!

    Cygnus, of the Who_Cares_If_Evolution_Is_True_Or_Not_Just_Don't_Be_An_Idiot_Class

  • Jesus Christ
    Jesus Christ

    Jeez, one of you humans gets a good idea (that would of course be Darwin) and idiots who think they're acting on my behalf get all huffy about it. Then again, the fact that these people seem to have so much clout seems to go against the thought that its a survival of the fittest.

    Then again, Darwinism does not mean evolution. Darwin calls for a slow, steady, rate of evolution while not taking into account the punctuated equilbriam approach that jives much better with large extenction events followed by the widespread flourishment of new species.

  • crownboy
    crownboy

    Well, hopefully this will be shot down in the supreme court when it gets there.

    If creationist want to teach religious myths in school, do it in religion or philosophy class. They want the "rubber stamp" of seriousness that putting a topic under the name of science usually garners. They'll have to earn it the old fashioned way by showing objective proof that the Genesis story is true (because by creationism, they don't mean the Hindu version ).

    For a good discussion of this topic see: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=36837&site=3

  • robbydobbs
    robbydobbs

    Crownboy, your proof that evolution is more then just a hypothesis is ?

    Also define hypothesis and theory, please.

    You seem to be an intelligent being. Evolution cannot and has never been proven in an uncontrolled enviroment.

    The testing would have to be done in an uncontrolled enviroment, unlike todays so called evolutionary controlled testing.

    After all, evolution does teach that order came from chaos, and not the other way around, because if it did that would signify intellegent design.

    We cant have open and honest discussion in a learning enviroment can we, after all that would mean the kids were being taught how to think instead of what to think.

    Science is Big Brother.

  • ballistic
    ballistic

    I dont't know how it works in the US, but here in the UK we have something called the "national curriculum" which sets in stone what is taught to the whole country including evolution.

  • expatbrit
    expatbrit

    From the American Atheist magazine, a good article:

    Creationists Evolving Better Camouflage

    Frank Zindler

    There is no better way to observe evolution in action than to study creationists. The evolutionary changes they have undergone in their quest for power are an illuminating illustration of selection of behavioral mutations that increase fitness in the struggle for survival. Originally, of course, the creationists controlled all the schools of the western world and were the dominating ideology in science itself. With the discovery of natural selection by Darwin and Wallace, however, they began a losing battle with an ever-advancing science of biology. Rather quickly, the creationists were defeated and had to retreat to the safety of religious schools and even many religious schools rejected wild-type creationism in favor of variably scientific versions of evolutionary theory.

    Although defeated in the halls of science, the creationists evolved a strategy to regain power. They succeeded in getting evolution science outlawed in various states and launched a faith-based campaign of terrorism against public-school teachers who dared to teach science where it was still legal. Ultimately, the courts struck down all the antievolution laws, and the creationists had to wait for a mutation that could once again help them compete with science.

    Since creationism was clearly understood by the courts to be a form of religion, it had to evolve some protective coloration that would allow it to masquerade as science. Voil! Creation Science appeared, and creation scientists promptly demanded equal time with evolutionary science in the public schools. After some success, Creation Science also was evicted by the courts from the public schools when it was shown that the Science part of Creation Science was just religion in camouflage. A macromutation was needed if creation warriors were to evade the radar of the courts.

    A stealth mutation was what saved the day, resulting in the appearance of what is innocently termed Intelligent Design Theory by creationists and Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) by scientists. Except for the obvious fact that intelligent design implies the existence of an intelligent designer of the sort that needs to be capitalized, the religious essence of the new creationism is extremely well camouflaged. Keeping the courts ever in sight, IDC missionaries avoid any claims that are obviously religious, hewing to the minimalist position that the immense complexity of living things compels the inference of design. While they will admit that the designer of living systems may well be a god, they disingenuously suggest that he could also be some sort of extraterrestrial superintelligence. Of course, none of the IDC lobbyists believe that for even a millisecond, but they think it will give a secular veneer to their claims of the scientific nature of their theory. Whats a little lie, if its for Jesus?

    The camouflage evolved by the IDC ideologues is devilishly deceptive i.e., effective. In order to slip past judicial secularity check-points more convincingly, they have gone way beyond just trying to make their religion look like science. To increase the effectiveness of their disguise, they try to make science look like religion! They assail the naturalistic bias of establishment science and claim that naturalism is an established religion. By redefining both science and religion, the purveyors of IDC seek to gain acceptance in the courts, having failed to gain acceptance in the refereed journals that publish real science.

    The pseudophilosophical attack on science itself has confused many public officials, and even some scientists have been uncertain how to deal with the challenge. Fortunately, IDC involves a fundamental fallacy of informal logic, and it is not necessary to get stuck in Tar Baby-like metaphysical arguments to show that IDC cannot possibly be an alternative science.

    Real science must always explain the unknown in terms of the known. IDC, by contrast, explains the unknown in terms of the even more unknown. Old-time logicians called this fallacy ignotum per ignotius the unknown by means of the more unknown. In appealing to supernatural intellects, IDC advocates appeal to something far less known (indeed, unknowable) than the biological and chemical phenomena they seek to explain. Explanations in science must deal with natural not supernatural processes, since natural processes are the only kind of which we can have knowledge. It is this very practical reason not an Atheistic bias which forces scientists to exclude the supernatural in the conduct of their research.

    When Benjamin Franklin explained lightning in terms of electricity, he was explaining the unknown in terms of phenomena known from his own experiments. The IDC equivalents of his day, however, explained lightning as the wrath of Jehovah something of which they could not possibly have had any knowledge. They committed the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius. Because Franklin had explained the unknown in terms of the known, he could expect that lightning might be drawn to metal points in the way that static electric discharges behaved in his laboratory. This enabled the invention of the lightning rod and the saving of untold lives and incalculable amounts of property since 1752. The IDC advocates of his day, however, could only call him a wicked infidel for thwarting the will of God and blame his wicked iron points for provoking the earthquake that devastated Boston, where lightning rods had become common. Like their modern equivalents, they could offer nothing of utility to humankind and served only to retard human progress.



    Copyright 1996 - 2002 by American Atheists.

  • LucidSky
    LucidSky

    robbydobbs

    Evolution cannot and has never been proven in an uncontrolled enviroment.

    The fact that speciation (creation of new species through existing ones) occurs pretty much proves evolution. Although it does not prove what scale that can go to.

    After all, evolution does teach that order came from chaos, and not the other way around, because if it did that would signify intellegent design.

    Whose to say you cannot have both intelligent design and evolution?

    Science is Big Brother.

    I take it you're opposed to learning knowledge?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit