Creationism comes to school

And yet, there is a ray of hope that not everyone is mad...an editorial in today's paper (not the one cited in the initial post, but the other paper) said about including ID in the official school curiculum, "...it's a case of religious zeal playing with taxpayers money, and it's just plain wrong."
 
BillHoyt said:
Would that that were true. One only need look at the politicization of science to see the consequences of ignorance. Developing new stem cell lines is verbotten in the U.S. because of religious belief.
Click to expand...

...and thus are they prevented from progress. Drat. Then I have to take comfort in 'this too shall pass'. (And no one go pointing out that that may mean it will get worse)
 
pupdog said:
You might have thought that such idiocy only was extant in some third world country, like Arkansas, but it's been spreading.
Click to expand...

Just thought I'd point out that Arkansas has never allowed ID or creationsism in the classroom.

Some schools have put their "only a theory" stickers in the books, but it hasn't (to my knowledge) been challenged in the court system yet.

Kansas was the primary source of this...the first to us the stickers and to allow creationism to be taught (if I recall correctly).
 
Can I just be controversial and suggest that;

I don't see a problem with lessons on ID in schools, providing they are in the context of religious/philosophical education on belief based systems.

I'd far rather young people were introduced to it (and other religious theory) in an open context where it can be challenged, discussed and debated.
 
About Benguin's point--

But this is exactly the problem. The IDiots insist that their view be taught as science in science class. And digging deeper into the Wedge's (the ID movement's self-description) motivations, they're really not interested in contributing to science with scientific studies--they want to replace methodological naturalism with what they call theistic science, an oxymoronic endeavor that includes the supernatural as part of its basis. Because of this, they will never be satisfied with their material being presented merely as a religious view; they want it (eventually) presented as the One-and-Only-Truth. I agree that ID (and other forms of Creationism) are valid topics for courses in philosophy, religion, sociology, and so forth. How much time is devoted to these subjects in public schools?
 
pupdog said:
About Benguin's point--

But this is exactly the problem. The IDiots insist that their view be taught as science in science class. And digging deeper into the Wedge's (the ID movement's self-description) motivations, they're really not interested in contributing to science with scientific studies--they want to replace methodological naturalism with what they call theistic science, an oxymoronic endeavor that includes the supernatural as part of its basis. Because of this, they will never be satisfied with their material being presented merely as a religious view; they want it (eventually) presented as the One-and-Only-Truth. I agree that ID (and other forms of Creationism) are valid topics for courses in philosophy, religion, sociology, and so forth. How much time is devoted to these subjects in public schools?
Click to expand...

Oh yes, I realise that ... I was trying to defray their false dichotemy a bit. Not that there is much point, as they don't want a compromise that accomodates them, they want to supplant proper education and brainwash the next generation of drones.

I still would have liked to have talked about irreducable complexity at school rather than having to dust of creaky annals of knowledge and try and remember exactly why something I know is cobblers is cobblers.
 
Calling a dog a duck, does not make it a duck.

ID is not a science. It has none of the characteristics of a science and performs none of the actions of a science.

If it belongs anywhere in education, it should not be among science disciplines.

Those people at Dover do not seem to have the sense they were born with.
 
H3LL said:
Those people at Dover do not seem to have the sense they were born with.
Click to expand...

The fundy ministers beat it out of them. The fundy ministers wish to beat sense out of the culture as a whole.

I used to take Rambling Onward's elitist view. I reckoned that the stupider they got, the brighter I would seem. It didn't take long to recognize that it isn't just a question of relative intelligence or know-somethings vs know-nothings. The real danger is that the know-nothings will gain control or try to gain control. Centuries ago, religious strictures absolutely held back science. You simply could not ask certain questions. Corpses could not be dissected. The Sun revolved around the earth, and, no, the bishop will not look into that instrument of the devil you call the telescope.

The growth of fundamentalism in the world is inherently dangerous. We can see the danger from fundy Islam's deliberate attempts to keep an uneducated population and Bush's restrictions on stem cell research and various boards of ed sowing confusion by inserting ID into a science curriculum. We cannot afford to have the Luddites at the helm of our culture.
 
BillHoyt said:
and, no, the bishop will not look into that instrument of the devil you call the telescope.
Click to expand...

Okay, I am a pedant. Everyone can safely ignore the rest of this post.

The ability to make clear glass and shape it into lenses was one of the great developments of the middle ages, along with such things as the development of the papermill and the printing press, and the innovation of the button. The church in the middle ages did not universally suppress the advance of science and in many cases funded the preservation and teaching of that knowledge.
 
RamblingOnwards said:
The church in the middle ages did not universally suppress the advance of science and in many cases funded the preservation and teaching of that knowledge.
Click to expand...

Provided the knowledge acquired did not contradict any teachings of the religion. Which is precisely what we're seeing in this drive to teach ID in schools--you can teach all the science you want, up to the point that you start bringing up evidence of things contrary to one particular interpretation of one particular religion.
 
Of cource they were interrested in the printing press, they wanted to mass produce bibles.;)
 
AWPrime said:
Of cource they were interrested in the printing press, they wanted to mass produce bibles.;)
Click to expand...

Are you crazy? The church most certainly did NOT want to mass produce the bible. Guttenberg's printing of the bible was highly subversive. Only the church could access the bible and had the wherewithall to interpret it. Heck, they even claimed if you weren't properly prepared, reading the bible could make you go mad.

The printing press was bad because it usurped the church's monopoly on the bible.
 
pgwenthold said:
Are you crazy? The church most certainly did NOT want to mass produce the bible. Guttenberg's printing of the bible was highly subversive. Only the church could access the bible and had the wherewithall to interpret it. Heck, they even claimed if you weren't properly prepared, reading the bible could make you go mad.

The printing press was bad because it usurped the church's monopoly on the bible.
Click to expand...

Didn't it form the basis of Luther's reformation? So one church loved it, the other lot, not so keen.
 
RamblingOnwards said:
Okay, I am a pedant. Everyone can safely ignore the rest of this post.

The ability to make clear glass and shape it into lenses was one of the great developments of the middle ages, along with such things as the development of the papermill and the printing press, and the innovation of the button. The church in the middle ages did not universally suppress the advance of science and in many cases funded the preservation and teaching of that knowledge.
Click to expand...
R/O,

My referrant was Galileo's run-ins with the Bishop of Fiesole and, ultimately, Cardinal Bellamin.
 
Benguin said:
Didn't it form the basis of Luther's reformation? So one church loved it, the other lot, not so keen.
Click to expand...

The other lot weren't so keen on translating the bible either...
 
richardm said:
... There are a couple of state schools in the UK where this is an issue, though. They're part-funded by some chap called Reg Vardy, who is a fundamentalist garage owner. I mean, Christian.

Now, I think I'm right in saying that they are indeed state schools - these special City Technology Colleges. Not a very happy state of affairs.
Click to expand...
Yes there are three schools in the chain but it does not teach creationism rather
The Foundation became embroiled in this controversy, not because it sought to debar from its schools students of any particular religious persuasion, but because it encourages an academic and inquisitive approach to spiritual matters including, amongst others, creation and the origins of life on earth.
Click to expand...
It merely encourages an academic and inquisitive approach when accepting every word of the bible to be true.

The schools are not exclusively for Christians students but
Whilst every school must establish its own identity and seek to meet the specific local needs and contexts of its own area, each model will share Emmanuel College’s drive for personal-best achievement for all students, irrespective of ability, within a caring and committed environment driven by Biblical Christian Principles and based on the example of Christ Himself
Click to expand...
It is made clear that all non Christians will burn in Hell.

And these three are the only the start

The vision of the Foundation's Board is for a total of seven schools
Click to expand...
Certainly two of the schools are
wholly funded by the DfES
Click to expand...
which in plain English means our taxes pay for it.

But that is not a problem because
the Chief Inspector of Schools declared himself satisfied with Emmanuel’s curriculum and the Prime Minister supported the College
Click to expand...

I don't mind Peter Vardy setting up his indoctrination establishments but I would prefer him to pay for them.

He is currently getting a platform for his mad ideas (He is a young earth creationist) and I pay for it :(
 
From BillHoyt:
The real danger is that the know-nothings will gain control or try to gain control.
Click to expand...
Just for example, see here

And if that's not bad enough, consider national politics.
 
Don't they have christian schools the way they do around here?

They teach all this lovely ID and creationism and absolutely no evolution in their schools. There's even a christian high school and college to boot. No christian around here ever has to hear about evolution except the anti-evolution claims (moon dust, etc.) in their schools.

Leave the public schools alone. You want your l'il fundies to learn ID etc. there is church, home schooling, and christian schools. Why do they have to push things further and invade public schools? Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom