Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

[LittleNipper]

According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?

Edit:
I can't post a link right now because I don't have enough posts however a simple google search will provide you with enough sources.

I personally feel that the science behind the theory of creation should be taught, as a means to demonstrate to students that the theories of uniformitarianism and evolution, are not cut and dry truth. There are problems and issues. There is no reason that a person of faith needs to accept secular theories as entirely factual while subjecting only their own faith to scrutiny. It seems to me a wonderful thing when an education encourages students to wonder and not just memorize and accept select material mandated by a government.

 

[LittleNipper]

All religious scripture should be offered in the humanities classrooms in high schools, yes, but not as alternative to evolution.

The proof systems are different.

It should be taught as an alternative especially since scripture is much more plausible than evolution. If two "proof" systems are needed, so be it. To imply that evolution type of creation is more acceptable or more provable than creation by God is just plain silly!

What a silly statement by you.

Nope, as the School Board President, I along with the School Board, made very sure that evolution was in the science classroom, and the ID and creationist material was kept at the First Baptist church.

We supported the move to introduce comparative religions and Bible into our humanities classrooms.

My question to you is, what determines what is scientific truth and what is science fiction? I attended public school, and I can tell you that at that time among the things explained was that the Moon had emerged out of the Pacific Ocean and the scientific proof of this was that it is still moving away from the earth at a measurable rate. I was also explained that the giraffe ended up with a long neck because its ancestors kept trying to reach the leaves higher and higher on trees, and those with short necks starved and died off... Neither of these "scientific" opinions are held now. And yet this was once taught to students well into the 1960's. It seems to me, if evolutionary/uniformitarian theory can be presented in error, that scientific theory surrounding the likelihood of a young earth and a worldwide flood of epic proportions can also be explained. What you are then doing, as an educator, is allowing the student to ponder and perhaps encourage them to do their own research as they mature. Scientific research is very far from cut and dry. And you, as an educator should be cognizant of the harm that can be instilled, if students are influenced to believe that everything they hear in school (or anywhere for that matter) is without error or beyond evaluation.

 

[Seawytch]

All religious scripture should be offered in the humanities classrooms in high schools, yes, but not as alternative to evolution.

The proof systems are different.

It should be taught as an alternative especially since scripture is much more plausible than evolution. If two "proof" systems are needed, so be it. To imply that evolution type of creation is more acceptable or more provable than creation by God is just plain silly!

Another alternative is teaching the origins of the universe as explained in the Koran.

The Koran, the Torah, the writings of early Native Americans...

How about in science class we just teach science?

 

[Seawytch]

It should be taught as an alternative especially since scripture is much more plausible than evolution. If two "proof" systems are needed, so be it. To imply that evolution type of creation is more acceptable or more provable than creation by God is just plain silly!

What a silly statement by you.

Nope, as the School Board President, I along with the School Board, made very sure that evolution was in the science classroom, and the ID and creationist material was kept at the First Baptist church.

We supported the move to introduce comparative religions and Bible into our humanities classrooms.

My question to you is, what determines what is scientific truth and what is science fiction? I attended public school and I can tell you that at that time among the things taught was that the Moon had emerged out of the Pacific Ocean and the scientific proof of this was that it is still moving away from the earth at a measurable rate. I was also taught that the giraffe ended up with a long neck because its ancestors kept trying to reach the leaves higher and higher on trees, and those with short necks starved and died off... Neither of these "scientific" opinions are held now. And yet this was once taught to students well into the 1960's. It seems to me if evolutionary/uniformitarian theory can be presented in error, that scientific theory surrounding the likelihood of a young earth and a worldwide flood of epic proportions can also be explained. What you are then doing, as an educator, is allowing the student to ponder and perhaps encourage them to do their own research as they mature. Scientific research is very far from cut and dry. And you, as an educator, should be cognizant of the harm that can be instilled if students are influenced to believe that everything they hear in school (or anywhere for that matter) is without error or beyond evaluation.

Fiction:

 

[NYcarbineer]

if you consider land creatures to be mammals - then yes

Were the dinosaurs mammals? Are you mentally retarded?

it is you who are retarded

and never have heard about pterodactylus

What do you gain by being intentionally stupid?

The earliest mammals predated the pterosaurs.

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

This thread clearly demonstrates the reason for the separation of church and state, and the reason for faith beliefs in liberal arts classes and evolution in science classes.

 

[LittleNipper]

It should be taught as an alternative especially since scripture is much more plausible than evolution. If two "proof" systems are needed, so be it. To imply that evolution type of creation is more acceptable or more provable than creation by God is just plain silly!

Another alternative is teaching the origins of the universe as explained in the Koran.

The Koran, the Torah, the writings of early Native Americans...

How about in science class we just teach science?

The Nazis believed that the theory of evolution PROVED that "Germans are" the superior race. So, because there are confusing views of evolution, then by your own train of thought, evolution should not be taught. The FACT is that the Torah contains the Genesis epic and Moslems accept the Creation story. But again, there are plausible scientific studies that demonstrate the validity of a young earth, the error surrounding radiation & carbon dating, and the growing support for an epic global Flood ---- not the least of which is fossil forming and plate tectonics. How about we simply leave evolutionary and uniformitarian opinion out of science class, also?

 

[Seawytch]

Another alternative is teaching the origins of the universe as explained in the Koran.

The Koran, the Torah, the writings of early Native Americans...

How about in science class we just teach science?

The Nazis believed that the theory of evolution PROVED that "Germans are" the superior race. So, because there are confusing views of evolution, then by your own train of thought, evolution should not be taught. The FACT is that the Torah contains the Genesis epic and Moslems accept the Creation story. But again, there are plausible scientific studies that demonstrate the validity of a young earth, the error surrounding radiation & carbon dating, and the growing support for an epic global Flood ---- not the least of which is fossil forming and plate tectonics. How about we simply leave evolutionary and uniformitarian opinion out of science class, also?

Religion and creationism stories in school is fine...in a comparative religion or humanities class...not in a science class.

 

[Esmeralda]

According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?

Edit:
I can't post a link right now because I don't have enough posts however a simple google search will provide you with enough sources.

I think schools that teach creationism as science are doing a great disservice to their students. If these kids are going to go to mainstream colleges and universities, or work in a field or for a company that isn't fundamentalist Christian, they are going to have problems. If they are going to spend their lives in working and living in a fundamentalist Christian world, and if they are going to a fundamentalist Christian college, then it doesn't matter. If their parents want them to be ignorant, if they want to live their lives in ignorance, what can you do?

 

[Surfer]

Anyone who defends creationism is just being silly and rejects science.Most are republicans it seems...no surprise.

Not true. The best surgeons are Christians and Republicans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No plausible scientific studies exist about the emergence of a young earth or invalidate radiation & carbon dating, and the support for an epic global Flood is decreasing

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

First, let's begin with a sold evidentiary link that this is so.

And if you google "Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism" a host of links, asserting from Governor Perry to the Huffington post and motherjones that, indeed, more public schools are teaching fundamental creationism.

If that is being done in liberal arts or humanities classrooms, good.

If that is being done in the science classroom, very poor.

These ideas have been scientifically invalidated. They should not be taught as fact anywhere. At the very most they should be presented in philosophy courses and then the scientific evidence invalidating them should also be presented.

This is why it's called a "theory", much the same as evolution and their inability to produce a missing link to justify it as fact.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What no one has posted is that creationism is being taught in the science classroom in Texas schools is the point.

Wasn't it not the left that pushed to promote the "Fairness Doctrine"? This was based upon this need to present both sides of an issue, to allow the individual the ability to formulate an opinion based on ALL the information presented. How does that Fairness Doctrine look now?

 

[Freewill]

No plausible scientific studies exist about the emergence of a young earth or invalidate radiation & carbon dating, and the support for an epic global Flood is decreasing

Better tell the Smithsonian.

Evidence for a Flood

Unfortunately, the evidence for this diaspora is a good deal less solid than the evidence for the flood itself. Linguists have long known how to reconstruct ancient languages by looking at words that have survived in the descendants of those languages today. The date of an event like the split-up of the Indo-European languages can then be estimated by comparing those words with artifacts found in excavations — a language probably won't have a word for "wheel," for example, unless it actually uses wheeled vehicles. "It is unlikely that the Indo-European languages split up before 3500 B.C. (that is, 2,000 years after the Black Sea flood)," says University of Chicago linguist Bill Darden, basing his conclusion on this sort of argument. If he and his colleagues are right, then the diaspora part of the flood story will be just another beautiful theory shot down by ugly facts.

Walter Pitman accepts that there is controversy on this part of his thesis, but can't resist one final irreverent geologist's observation: "When you look at the settlements those people built," he says, "not one of them is less than 150 feet above sea level!"


Read more: Evidence for a Flood | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: [MENTION=25239]smith[/MENTION]sonianMag on Twitter

 

[JakeStarkey]

From the link above: "Unfortunately, the evidence for this diaspora is a good deal less solid than the evidence for the flood itself. Linguists have long known how to reconstruct ancient languages by looking at words that have survived in the descendants of those languages today. The date of an event like the split-up of the Indo-European languages can then be estimated by comparing those words with artifacts found in excavations — a language probably won't have a word for "wheel," for example, unless it actually uses wheeled vehicles. "It is unlikely that the Indo-European languages split up before 3500 B.C. (that is, 2,000 years after the Black Sea flood)," says University of Chicago linguist Bill Darden, basing his conclusion on this sort of argument. If he and his colleagues are right, then the diaspora part of the flood story will be just another beautiful theory shot down by ugly facts.

Read more: Evidence for a Flood | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine
Follow us: [MENTION=25239]smith[/MENTION]sonianMag on Twitter

Local floods, sure. Regional floods, perhaps. Worldwide flood with Noah's Ark bobbing along, nope, no proof scientifically for that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What no one has posted is that creationism is being taught in the science classroom in Texas schools is the point.

Wasn't it not the left that pushed to promote the "Fairness Doctrine"? This was based upon this need to present both sides of an issue, to allow the individual the ability to formulate an opinion based on ALL the information presented. How does that Fairness Doctrine look now?

A creation myth is not the 'other side of the story'. Creationism is an old explanation for how life came about etc.,

that has been replaced by more scientifically sound theory.

Besides, when did the Right embrace the fairness doctrine?

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, the far right hates the fairness doctrine, so ever suggested it from the right is simply being silly.

Two, evolution is about science, creationism is about cultural and myth explanations: they are not the same thing, cannot be measured by the same criteria, and they respectively belong in the science and humanities classrooms only.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One, the far right hates the fairness doctrine, so ever suggested it from the right is simply being silly.

Two, evolution is about science, creationism is about cultural and myth explanations: they are not the same thing, cannot be measured by the same criteria, and they respectively belong in the science and humanities classrooms only.

'Fairness' would be giving equal weight to every creation 'theory', from the Biblical, to the Iroquois, to the Bantu,

and on and on and on. I seriously doubt that is the Texan objective.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Certainly it is not for my GOP colleagues far to the reactionary right.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

One, the far right hates the fairness doctrine, so ever suggested it from the right is simply being silly.

Two, evolution is about science, creationism is about cultural and myth explanations: they are not the same thing, cannot be measured by the same criteria, and they respectively belong in the science and humanities classrooms only.

They both discuss their "belief" of how life began, with their own point of view. The fact that the left desires to only express one point of view to swallow (evolution), without offering equal say addressing those issues which support against such a unproven "theory", speaks against their position that it's the CONSERVATIVES who needs to embrace the Fairness Doctrine. Again they are two different points of view that had yet to be proven as fact, which is why it's called a THEORY. The point was also to show just how laughable this concept of the Fairness Doctrine, proposed by the left, really is.