Creationism in school
- Thread starter Warge
- Start date
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
It's a critical issue in America. There is a concerted effort by the relgious right to hijack America's education system as mean to use the public schools to promote faith at the expense of scientific fact.
When last I checked, the First Amendment frowns on this.
When last I checked, the First Amendment frowns on this.
Last edited:
Miss Anthrope
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 3,575
From the article:
I'd like to see that list of 700 and see what type of "scientists" signed on.
What debate? There is no scientific debate. There are only religionists pushing their agenda, ala Mark's link above.
I'd like to see that list of 700 and see what type of "scientists" signed on.
What debate? There is no scientific debate. There are only religionists pushing their agenda, ala Mark's link above.
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
Talk Origins has a very good rebuke to these sort of lists.
What I've always found disturbing about the Wedge Document is it's blatant agenda: First they will attempt to attack evolutionary theory as inherently "atheist," then once the people have rejected "Darwinism" they will attack other "materialistic" sciences that cast doubt on religious dogma, and finally they go for the theocratic coup de grace by attempting to convert as many uneducated people to Christianity as they can.
That's pretty damn insidious. And people wonder why I despise the religious right so much.
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
In the Dover court case, the judge really scolded the people pushing their obviously religious agenda. They were being duplicitous, lying to win their case. It is obvious that these guys think they have truth by divine revelation, so they think their ends justify any means.
It's funny that people who consider themselves more moral than the rest of us, have no qualms about lying and intentionally causing confusion rather than actually seeking the truth.
It's funny that people who consider themselves more moral than the rest of us, have no qualms about lying and intentionally causing confusion rather than actually seeking the truth.
jezzedout
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 52
Well said Joe.
What is really terrible is that it is hard to tell if they are lying to save their religion - or if they simply do not know they are wrong. This kind of evil and/or ingnorance needs to be eliminated.
Monza
Alta Viro
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,307
It is so frustrating to continually hear the claim that ID is simply an alternative theory to the science of Darwinian evolution. It is ironic that by making this argument, one exposes a lack of science education. At the heart of this irony is the ignorance of the definition of a scientific theory.
Achán hiNidráne
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,974
I was just about to bring up fuelair's point. I don't think that most Creationists are lying about what they believe. They honestly think that the earth WAS created in six days, or that the alleged "irreducible complexity" the eye proves a creator, or that Noah's flood cut out the Grand Canyon, etc. To them, the Wedge strategy, their takeover of many American school boards, and their handling of Dover is not only perfectly legal, but completely moral as well.
It's that absolute certainty that makes them all the more frightening. They are willing to ignore science and evidence that prove evolution. What ELSE are they willing to ignore because their God, through their priests and ministers, tells them to? Human Rights, perhaps? We've seen that they are also capable of ignoring human suffering when it's convenient to their religion. (i.e. Terry Shiavo, preaching against condom use in AIDS-infected Africa, their claims that disasters are God's punishment for our "sins," their embrace of Millennialism, etc.)
It's easy to ascribe "evil," cynical motives (e.g. money, power) to people we disagree with. However, most of the time, honest belief is far more likely cause for fundamentalism zeal than evil ends. That said, history has shown us that the greatest of humanities "evil" is usually done in the name of righteousness.
Last edited:
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
Mark, I know what you mean but, if you read the transcript of the Dover case, the lying was not so high-minded. The judge caught the school board members in a lie about who was funding the purchase of the creationist textbooks. The board member who had fronted the check denied doing so and he got caught. IIRC, this was the only provable lie in the trial. I'm not saying that others didn't lie in offering disingenous testimony but, it's much easier to catch someone in a lie about trivial matters than it is to catch them lying over high-falutin' scientiic theory.
Still, it was plain to the judge that the creationsist side was trying to conceal the truth of the matter in every way conceivable. These people are shameless. I can't conceive how they could have rationalized their behavior as anything approaching moral. I firmly believe that entities such as the Discovery Institute aim to control everyday life in the USA and nothing short of that will satisfy them. Their morality extends up to and no further than whatever question confronts them where a lie would be much more beneficial to this aim than the truth.
Here's a transcript PDF Warning.
One problem in Australia is, unfortunately there is no enshrined separation between church and state. For example, the (I think it's still only proposed) proposed Citizenship test claims Australia is founded on "Judeo-Christian tradition" Source. Much of the Kitzmiller decision focuses on the first amendment violation.
As to the "Are they lying or merely misguided?" Well, I believe the rank-and-file creationists are just misguided. Someone like Henry Morris (head of the Institute for Creation Research) is obviously lying. To give an example of this, he still states in debates that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, and he still uses the old "The Earth's magnetic field = a young earth" argument even though he has been disproved in many debates.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Why are they teaching Cosmology in high school? And if said textbook includes as part of evolution "how the Universe came to be" then I'd recommend rejecting it and getting one that teaches Biology.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
The history of the universe is not an unreasonable topic and can be a useful way to introduce the fundimental properties of various types of matter.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Good point, and I think some basic Cosmology should be included in Physics class. It shouldn't be part of Biology though and now that I've reread the quote from the OP, it appears to me that it was based on a misunderstanding of what evolution means.
That link doesn't work for me.
Regarding the separation of church and state, we do have a section in our constitution pertaining to that:
Australian Constitution said:
That, however is all. And it doesn't apply to the states - only Federal government. I certainly hope that nobody tries any funny business...
frank462
Philosophical Taoist
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 302
As a polytheist I object to just teaching the christian story of creation. At the very least, the Top 10 creation stories should be taught.
For the details visit: The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
click on the Start Here link at the top of the story.
* just kidding about being a polytheist *
.
For the details visit: The Top 10 Intelligent Designs (or Creation Myths)
click on the Start Here link at the top of the story.
* just kidding about being a polytheist *
.
Last edited:
slyjoe
Illuminator
That link doesn't work for me.
Regarding the separation of church and state, we do have a section in our constitution pertaining to that:
That, however is all. And it doesn't apply to the states - only Federal government. I certainly hope that nobody tries any funny business...
In the US, state's have tried this crap, and it usually ends up in the Supreme Court. At least in the US, the constitution "trumps" local or state laws (except when the federal courts say it can't). It is not like that in Australia?
ETA: Try this link, right here! http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/index.php?page=dover
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 27,766
That link doesn't work for me.
It seemed to have extra characters on it. How about this link to a PDF of the Dover transcript.
It's probably easier to google "Dover school board" and maybe "Intelligent Design" or words such as that and read news accounts of what happened and what the judge said.
Yes, not only do they intentionally lie, as in Dover, but also in the many arguments where they repeat what might have been "honest" misstatements of fact the first 10 times they were corrected. I don't believe ID spokesmen are honest in many of the arguments they make.
Even their adopting the name "Intelligent Design" happened after everyone realized that "Creation Science" is not science but an attempt at teaching specific religious viewpoints in public schools. In their Pandas & People text book, they literally did a find and replace to put the words "Intelligent Design" or "design" instead of "creation".
I believe it is only naive ignorance among those followers who get their "science" education from these kind of preachers. They are the best argument for keeping religious indoctrination out of public schools.
Last edited:
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Apart from the other suggestions, you might try "NCSE+Dover+transcript" and see if they have a copy in HTML rather than .pdf. Euginie Scott is hot for a woman of a certain age btw.
One thing that has disappointed me about our justice system is that the science behind standard Biology and Geology hasn't really been able to go head to head with Creationism on the merits of the evidence. Unfortunately that's been the case since Scopes, and has continued to be the case through Epperson, Edwards and Kitzmuller. Not to say that some tete-a-tete of the "science" involved hasn't been discussed in any of those cases, but I'm just hoping for some judge at some point to allow the trial to go beyond the 1st Amendment and actually look at what each side is claiming.
Kitzmuller has been the best so far, but I would love to see a legal evisceration of C/ID in court.