Creationism in schools...

[Agnes Selby]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/fight-to-st ... 1wn1l.html

[Teresa B]

Thanks for posting, Agnes. (Sigh) Here we go again in Tennessee. I guess Scopes didn't get through to the proponents of this idiocy. The following is an excerpt, and pretty much says it all.

Bo Watson, a Republican senator who sponsored the bill, said: ''The idea behind this bill is that students should be encouraged to challenge current scientific thought and theory.''

It would be just plain tiresome to continue to deal with these dolts, if it weren't that they want to teach kids to "challenge" bona fide science with religious arguments.

Teresa

[Agnes Selby]

Teresa, it was a shock to me to read the article in the Herald this morning.
As we jut about ape all American trends, I hope we will give a miss to
this one.

[lennygoran]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/fight-to-st ... 1wn1l.html

Agnes, hope this doesn't reach NY or NJ!

"If passed, Tennessee would become the second state after Louisiana to let teachers challenge the accepted science on evolution and climate change."

We got Tebow in our area now. Regards, Len

[RebLem]

Thanks for posting, Agnes. (Sigh) Here we go again in Tennessee. I guess Scopes didn't get through to the proponents of this idiocy. The following is an excerpt, and pretty much says it all.
Bo Watson, a Republican senator who sponsored the bill, said: ''The idea behind this bill is that students should be encouraged to challenge current scientific thought and theory.''
It would be just plain tiresome to continue to deal with these dolts, if it weren't that they want to teach kids to "challenge" bona fide science with religious arguments. Teresa

"Current" scientific thought? Evolutionary theory has been central to the biological sciences for over a century and a half, since, in fact, right around the time we did away with slavery. I wonder if Bo Watson thinks of the abolition of slavery as part of "current social thought and theory," as if this, too, might pass.

[living_stradivarius]

http://www.smh.com.au/world/fight-to-st ... 1wn1l.html

Agnes, hope this doesn't reach NY or NJ!

Jeremy Lin NY Knicks

[Agnes Selby]

Lenny, I hope the idea does not spread to NJ but I recall
there was some talk in a Pennsylvania school some time
ago about Creationism being taught exclusively at one school.
I can't quite recall the story. If you remember it, please refresh my
memory.

[living_stradivarius]

I don't even know what it means to "teach Creationism" in schools. Is there even a curriculum?

[Agnes Selby]

I guess it would be the Bible, Strad. However, we do not have
it in Sydney schools. Yet!

[BWV 1080]

the bible does not get taught, as courts have ruled that illegal. Rather its the nebulous concept of "intelligent design" and faux-skepticism about the claims of evolution

[Proton]

Lysenko would approve.

[living_stradivarius]

the bible does not get taught, as courts have ruled that illegal. Rather its the nebulous concept of "intelligent design" and faux-skepticism about the claims of evolution

I have yet to see an actual curriculum.

[lennygoran]

Lenny, I hope the idea does not spread to NJ but I recall
there was some talk in a Pennsylvania school some time
ago about Creationism being taught exclusively at one school.
I can't quite recall the story. If you remember it, please refresh my
memory.

Agnes wonder if this is the case?

December 20, 2005
Judge Bars 'Intelligent Design' From Pa. Classes
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

HARRISBURG, PA., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled today that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a religious idea that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, Judge John E. Jones III dealt a stinging rebuke to advocates of teaching intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools.

The judge found that intelligent design is not science, and that the only way its proponents can claim it is, is by changing the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

Eleven parents in Dover, Pa., sued their school board a year ago when the board voted that ninth grade biology students should be read a brief statement saying there are "gaps in the theory" of evolution and that intelligent design is another explanation they should examine. The case is Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover.

The six-week trial in federal district court in Harrisburg gave intelligent design the most thorough academic and legal airing it has had since the movement's inception about 15 years ago. The judge heard evidence from scientists in the forefront of the design movement, as well as scientists and other experts who are critics.

Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been originated by an intelligent source - without ever defining the identity of that source. But the judge said the evidence in the trial strongly proved that intelligent design is "creationism relabeled." The Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism, which relies on the Biblical account of the creation of life, cannot be taught as science in a public school.

In his opinion, the judge said he found the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, very persuasive. She had presented evidence that the authors of an intelligent design textbook, "Of Pandas and People, merely removed the word "creationism" from an earlier edition and substituted it with "intelligent design" after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1987.

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism," Judge Jones wrote.

"We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," he said. "The writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity."

The lead defense lawyer for the school board, Richard Thompson, said it was "silly" for the judge to have issued such a sweeping judgment on intelligent design in a case that he said merely involved a "one minute statement" being read to students.

"A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid," said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm that says it promotes Christian values. "It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that."

Opponents of intelligent design were delighted by the decision, but said it would not put an end to intelligent design or the efforts to teach it because it is only an opinion from one federal district court.

Eugenie Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education, an advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that promotes teaching evolution, said, "I predict that another school board down the line will try to bring intelligent design into the curriculum than the Dover group did, and they'll be a lot smarter about concealing their religious intent."

Even after courts ruled against teaching creationism and creation science, she said, "For several years afterward, school districts were still contemplating teaching creation science."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/scien ... nted=print

Regards, Len

[RebLem]

Lenny, I hope the idea does not spread to NJ but I recall
there was some talk in a Pennsylvania school some time
ago about Creationism being taught exclusively at one school.
I can't quite recall the story. If you remember it, please refresh my
memory.

An even fuller discussion of the Dover, PA case than that presented by lenny can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District
Judge John E Jones III, a conservative Republican judge appointed to the bench from which he made his ruling by George W Bush in 2002, even said that a number of the witnesses for the ID advocates were serial perjurers and ought to be prosecuted for same.

[John F]

Lenny, I hope the idea does not spread to NJ but I recall there was some talk in a Pennsylvania school some time ago about Creationism being taught exclusively at one school.
I can't quite recall the story. If you remember it, please refresh my memory.

You've already been given the answer, but you might be interested in the detailed article in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District

Creationism, aka "intelligent design," was not actually taught at this school. Biology teachers were required to read a statement that while a Creationist book was available to students for reference, "The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part... As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments." This was seen as an opening wedge that could lead to intelligent design being taught in the school, but the court case prevented that from happening.

[Mark Harwood]

I have friends & family who happen to believe the Biblical account of Creation. Fine folks all. I don't see any way in which this belief has blighted their lives or those of the people around them.
People believe some stuff that looks seriously weird to me but doesn't seem to do any harm.
So I wonder why this issue gets some CMG people so hot under the collar.

[John F]

Your friends and family, and you, are free to believe whatever you like, however untrue it may be. No problem with that. The problem arises when children are taught religious doctrine in state-supported schools under the pretext that it is science. In the U.K., where the Church of England is established as the religion of the state, this muddling of scientific knowledge and religious myth may be acceptable, legally if not intellectually. Not in the United States.

[living_stradivarius]

"A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid," said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm that says it promotes Christian values. "It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that."

And they aren't on his side.

[John F]

"A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid," said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm that says it promotes Christian values. "It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that."

And they aren't on his side.

Actually, scientists have determined it, and it was scientists - real scientists, not the tame "scientists" whom the Creationists can get to testify for them - who provided the factual basis for the Kitzmiller decision.

[Mark Harwood]

Your friends and family, and you, are free to believe whatever you like, however untrue it may be. No problem with that. The problem arises when children are taught religious doctrine in state-supported schools under the pretext that it is science. In the U.K., where the Church of England is established as the religion of the state, this muddling of scientific knowledge and religious myth may be acceptable, legally if not intellectually. Not in the United States.

I see. Teaching non-science under the pretext that it is science does seem like they're taking liberties.

[Teresa B]

Your friends and family, and you, are free to believe whatever you like, however untrue it may be. No problem with that. The problem arises when children are taught religious doctrine in state-supported schools under the pretext that it is science. In the U.K., where the Church of England is established as the religion of the state, this muddling of scientific knowledge and religious myth may be acceptable, legally if not intellectually. Not in the United States.

I see. Teaching non-science under the pretext that it is science does seem like they're taking liberties.

Yep, that's the issue. If it were just a matter of religious schools teaching Creationism, or Creationism being taught in a Biblical Lit class, or something, it would be fine. It's just that it is being touted as a valid "scientific" alternative to real evolutionary theory in science classes.

And although it may not matter that much to many school kids, there are of course some who are planning a career in science--and having a sound background in the basics of biology is of prime importance to them.

Teresa

[Agnes Selby]

Thank you all for the illuminating answers. Indeed, it was the
case I was remembering, Lenny and Rob. Thank you for reminding me.

Strad, have you seen the film "Inherit the Wind"? Therein lie many answers.

Regards,
Agnes.

[living_stradivarius]

Strad, have you seen the film "Inherit the Wind"? Therein lie many answers.

Yes, and back in grade school in NY no less. Glad we had that.

Looks like this is emerging in Queensland too, though it is to be taught in history courses under "controversies". We'll see.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/quee ... 5872896736

[Agnes Selby]

Strad, it was tried in one Sydney high school too a few years ago.
All the students failed in biology in their High School Certificate State exam.
It has now become part of their religious class and not their science class.