Creationism in public school?

Rocker5150 · Post by **Rocker5150** » 2005-04-26 07:47am

I'm reading about this lawsuit that is being 'threatened' by the Thomas Moore Law Center against the Gull Lake Public Schools (Michigan), and can't believe the idiocy. They are suing because the school system told two junior high teachers they could not teach creationism. A parent had complained because of the material brought home by his daughter...some even said the Grand Canyon was formed in one year due to Noah's flood! Everyone knows about the opposition to evolution, but just thinking that a science class in a public school would teach such foolishness is frightening.

What I want to know is how does this happen in the first place? Is there laughter in the class when the teacher says it took such a short time to carve the canyon? There would have been in my seventh grade class twenty years ago! I can remember learning about basic geology, astronomy, etc. in elementary school....maybe fifth grade. I'm far from a scientist and can't help but wonder what they must think about this kind of loonacy. If it drives me crazy, those actually in the field must just boil over!

What are they going to try teaching next.....the geocentric model??

-Kevin

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-04-26 07:50am

The problem is, a lot of people believe in that chunk of bullshit. The students, the teachers, and the parents.

In the parts where that's actually happening, that is. So you could say a chunk of America, JesusLand, is stuck in prehistoric times.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-04-26 08:16am

Shroom Man 777 wrote:The problem is, a lot of people believe in that chunk of bullshit. The students, the teachers, and the parents.

In the parts where that's actually happening, that is. So you could say a chunk of America, JesusLand, is stuck in prehistoric times.

bronze age. they were bronze age times.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-04-26 08:24am

So...no dino-riding Jesus?

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2005-04-26 08:28am

sure. he rides into jeresuelum on a triceraptops, and the roman centurians are the spitters from jurassic park.

didnt you know that? says right in the bible, they spat on him.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-04-26 10:09am

Oooh! Oooh! I know that one! Then he smeared some mud on his eyes to neutralize the venom! YEAH!

Anyway, to sum this thread up: People are stupid. And the people in the field aren't boiling over, I think they're scared shitless. And rightfully so.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2005-04-26 10:30am

Would it be possible to get a link to this article? It's all hear-say for now...

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-04-26 10:33am

Perhaps this is what he's referring to?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-26 11:45am

Do we even need to verify it? The story is far too believable to seriously question, if you're at all familiar with the state of education and creationism in the US.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 12:10pm

Darth Wong wrote:Do we even need to verify it? The story is far too believable to seriously question, if you're at all familiar with the state of education and creationism in the US.

I am simultaneously proud of, and shameful of my country...

Is it really truly wrong for me to want to commit genocide against these people?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 12:11pm

Jesus christ teaching creationism in science classes has been ruled illegal by the SCOTUS at least once... hell I think it has been twice.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-04-26 12:12pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I am simultaneously proud of, and shameful of my country...

Is it really truly wrong for me to want to commit genocide against these people?

I don't know, but I know I had similar thoughts myself when reading these threads ... or our occasional member falling victim to fundies right in our faces.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2005-04-26 12:30pm

Darth Wong wrote:Do we even need to verify it? The story is far too believable to seriously question, if you're at all familiar with the state of education and creationism in the US.

The phrase "too good to be true" comes to mind. I just make it a habit to ask for evidence, is all.

Braedley · Post by **Braedley** » 2005-04-26 12:43pm

Let me point out that this is NOT creationalism, but a comprimise by some (more religious) scientists between evolution and creation. As I understand it, they still believe in evolution, but also believe that it was directed by the Hand of God (or Allah, or some other superior being as the case may be), as pure chance alone can not account for human intellect (for instance). More people are closer to this "fence" between evolution and creationalism than you may care to addmit, and is a major bridge between science and religion. However, since it does have religious aspects, there is no place for it in todays schools.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-26 12:49pm

Braedley wrote:Let me point out that this is NOT creationalism, but a comprimise by some (more religious) scientists between evolution and creation. As I understand it, they still believe in evolution, but also believe that it was directed by the Hand of God (or Allah, or some other superior being as the case may be), as pure chance alone can not account for human intellect (for instance). More people are closer to this "fence" between evolution and creationalism than you may care to addmit, and is a major bridge between science and religion. However, since it does have religious aspects, there is no place for it in todays schools.

More importantly, it bears not even a passing resemblance to a legitimate scientific hypothesis. The public only thinks well of it for two reasons:

The Golden Mean fallacy
Massive, widespread ignorance of the scientific method

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-04-26 01:04pm

Braedley wrote:Let me point out that this is NOT creationalism,

Defination of creationism, Creation by a Divine being…

Braedley wrote:but a comprimise by some (more religious) scientists between evolution and creation.

No ‘Scientist I know ever ‘compromises between Scien and religion, as I know, there is none.

Braedley wrote:As I understand it, they still believe in evolution, but also believe that it was directed by the Hand of God (or Allah, or some other superior being as the case may be), as pure chance alone can not account for human intellect (for instance).

Lets see, So your saying Science cannot account for the creation of humankind without help from a devine being, gee, the sounds a lot like, I don’t know… CREATIONISM???

Braedley wrote:More people are closer to this "fence" between evolution and creationalism than you may care to addmit, and is a major bridge between science and religion.

There is no ‘bridge’ between Science and religion, only a method to water down Science by leaking parts of it too religion…

Braedley wrote:However, since it does have religious aspects, there is no place for it in todays schools.

At last! Something we can agree on!!!

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-04-26 01:04pm

Braedley wrote:Let me point out that this is NOT creationalism, but a comprimise by some (more religious) scientists between evolution and creation. As I understand it, they still believe in evolution, but also believe that it was directed by the Hand of God (or Allah, or some other superior being as the case may be), as pure chance alone can not account for human intellect (for instance). More people are closer to this "fence" between evolution and creationalism than you may care to addmit, and is a major bridge between science and religion. However, since it does have religious aspects, there is no place for it in todays schools.

It isn't Creationism, it's Creationism in a clown suit. The trouble is that any theory making reference to an intelligent designer/divine will/intelligent guider violates the logical principle of parsimony. It is an extraneous term which contributes nothing of merit. If A + B = C and A + B + G = C, then we can eject the G term.

We can demonstrate, and have demonstrated through repeated observations of the fossil record, as well as well-documented instances of micro-evolution, that the only hand guiding evolution is the blind hand of natural selection and environmental pressures. You do not need a god in there at all.

And yes, this is a prime example of Golden Mean fallacy, where the creationists will try to claim that evolution with God's guiding hand is an acceptable compromise between scientific evolution, and pure Creationism. However, the Creationists have repeatedly demonstrated their intent to gradually nudge that mean further and further towards their cause.

In the schools, there is no place for gods in science. To claim otherwise demonstrates ignorance.

aten_vs_ra · Post by **aten_vs_ra** » 2005-04-26 01:23pm

Co-incidentally, I gave my persuasive speech for Oral Communications this morning on Unintelligent Design Theory. It was oddly well recieved, considering I live in a podunk town full of Bible Thumpers. The girl after me gave one saying why we need prayer in schools. I swear I was grinding my teeth and trying my hardest not to scream while she gave it.

Anyway, I believe my argument went as follows. IDer's failed in the scientific arena, so they want to indoctrinate your gullible children. ID is not a theory because it relies on irreducable complexity, hubris, and false dillemmas. It isn't even a proper theory because you can't make predictions with it. Also God is redundent.

I then went on to argue that if we teach proper scientific thinking we won't have dumbasses actually spending $99.95 for overnight weight loss, hair growth, and other pseudo-science. I also painted a picture of how the rest of the world makes us look like utter retards in science education.

My professor is a Methodist minister, and I still got a 100 on it.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2005-04-26 01:52pm

Braedley wrote:Let me point out that this is NOT creationalism, but a comprimise by some (more religious) scientists between evolution and creation. As I understand it, they still believe in evolution, but also believe that it was directed by the Hand of God (or Allah, or some other superior being as the case may be), as pure chance alone can not account for human intellect (for instance). More people are closer to this "fence" between evolution and creationalism than you may care to addmit, and is a major bridge between science and religion. However, since it does have religious aspects, there is no place for it in todays schools.

Oh and that whole, violating multiple scientific principles thing...

Braedley · Post by **Braedley** » 2005-04-26 01:58pm

Did I once say I was a creationist, or that I belived in ID? No. I was only playing the devil's advocate to encourage further discussion on the subject. I'm a strong proponent for evolution, but that doesn't mean there's no room for God in my life. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. What is there to live for if there is no one to great you after you cease to be physically alive? All of you should ask yourself that question. Science still trumps religion in my life, but it doesn't mean I don't believe in God.

In any case, I still stick to my previous statement that religion has no place our schools.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-04-26 02:02pm

*reads above post*
Braedley? I take back all the snide comments I made, your an ok guy with statments like that.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-04-26 02:06pm

aten_vs_ra wrote:Co-incidentally, I gave my persuasive speech for Oral Communications this morning on Unintelligent Design Theory. It was oddly well recieved, considering I live in a podunk town full of Bible Thumpers. The girl after me gave one saying why we need prayer in schools. I swear I was grinding my teeth and trying my hardest not to scream while she gave it.

Anyway, I believe my argument went as follows. IDer's failed in the scientific arena, so they want to indoctrinate your gullible children. ID is not a theory because it relies on irreducable complexity, hubris, and false dillemmas. It isn't even a proper theory because you can't make predictions with it. Also God is redundent.

I then went on to argue that if we teach proper scientific thinking we won't have dumbasses actually spending $99.95 for overnight weight loss, hair growth, and other pseudo-science. I also painted a picture of how the rest of the world makes us look like utter retards in science education.

My professor is a Methodist minister, and I still got a 100 on it.

Just because people are religious doesn't mean they're stupid. Occam's Razor was composed as a way of demonstrating that believing in god HAD to be taken as faith.

Executor32 · Post by **Executor32** » 2005-04-26 02:33pm

Enforcer Talen wrote:sure. he rides into jeresuelum on a triceraptops, and the roman centurians are the spitters from jurassic park.

didnt you know that? says right in the bible, they spat on him.

No, the Romans are obviously Rulon shock troops, led by Rasp and Hammerhead.

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-04-26 02:40pm

What is there to live for if there is no one to great you after you cease to be physically alive? All of you should ask yourself that question.

So because I don't believe in your imaginary friend and accept him as my superior, I have no compass, and therefore no reason to exist? How about making my own reason instead of waiting in vain to hear it from something that doesn't exist? Why should I seek guidance from such a nonexistent being, anyway?

When I die, I die. There's nothing to take place afterward where someone would be "greeting" me. How is that supposed to change how I live my life?

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2005-04-26 02:46pm

What is there to live for if there is no one to great you after you cease to be physically alive?

Live to make the world a better place for those you leave behind. And enjoy yourself along the way.