Creationism to be taught in Wisconsin Schools

[Raziaar]

Well, I'm christian, I believe in creationism. But I don't think any religious stuff should be taught in normal public schools. Kids need to find their religion elsewhere, not have it forced upon them in school.


EDIT: Interesting link on tons of the different views of creationism, not all christianity based.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

 

[gh0st]

My view is, if you want to learn creationism, go to church, not school.

well said!

Oh yes, I'm certainly going to believe a site that's called "EvolutionDeceit" and purports that one of the REAL ideological roots of terrorism is Darwinism. I can't catch a whiff of bias in that!

this attitude is getting irritating. when are you going to learn that EVERYBODY, every SINGLE PERSON in the world has a bias? everyone has an agenda, everyone cares about one thing more than another. some are left, some are right, some are in the middle. theres no perfect human who has no bias, because that person would literally be a robot and lose the essence of humanity. yes, this website has an agenda. big ****ing deal. read what it says, if you disagree with it great, its a free country. dont disenfranchise someones opinion as "biased" simply because it isnt your own.

wow .. even bushists here are evolutionists

i'm not an "evolutionist" im a realist.

 

[Raziaar]

people who believe in creationism (while not dumbasses) are severely stupid. im christian

Thanks for calling me stupid. :upstare:

 

[gh0st]

Thanks for calling me stupid. :upstare:

you believe in the adam and eve story?

 

[Neutrino]

But what gives you the right to say that evolution is right and everything else is false. This is no better than the religious fanatics that think they are 100% right and everyone else is wrong. We are still a very religious society, you can argue that evolution is anti-religion so because of this I think you need to teach creationism to keep things fair. Obviously it all depends on how that creationism is taught and since I don't know how it will be taught I can't really defend it. Anyone have any links to the lesson plan or anything similar for this?

Somebody probably already responded to this, but oh well.

I think you some what misunderstand the difference between evolution and creationism. Evolution is a scientifc theory just like any other. It's no different than teaching physics in school.

Creationism on the other hand is purely a religious belief. It has no evidence to back it up and it contains so many internal and external contradictions it's not even funny. Teaching creationism in schools is no different than teaching christianity in schools. It's presence in public schools is a violation of the seperation of church and state, which is there for reason.

Also, if a school teaches creationism, there is no valid argument why they shouldn't also teach satanism. But of course people don't like that do they? Frankly, it is a very narrow minded person that thinks this is a good thing.

 

[Raziaar]

you believe in the adam and eve story?

Yes.

10charlimit

 

[Neutrino]

Yes.

10charlimit

And that the Earth is 10,000 years old? That the dinosaurs never existed? That all the animals on Earth were put on Noah's Ark? That all of physics, biology, paleontology, botany, and chemistry are wrong?

 

[gh0st]

Yes.

10charlimit

you know... as a fellow christian your faith is your own business, so who am i to judge. i personally dont believe in that story... but if you do, good!

And that the Earth is 10,000 years old? That the dinosaurs never existed? That all the animals on Earth were put on Noah's Ark? That all of physics, biology, paleontology, botany, and chemistry are wrong?

somethings are unexplainable. i do my best to be a logical christian (i am, i enjoy science a lot and am into that community). some people just have the faith you and i do not.

 

[Raziaar]

And that the Earth is 10,000 years old? That the dinosaurs never existed? That all the animals on Earth were put on Noah's Ark? That all of physics, biology, paleontology, botany, and chemistry are wrong?

Dinosaurs and romans co-existed peacefully until Rome got greedy. It was a big ass boat!

heh.

Seriously though, this is a thread to talk about creationism being taught in schools, not belittle and debase peoples beliefs.

 

[Neutrino]

somethings are unexplainable. i do my best to be a logical christian (i am, i enjoy science a lot and am into that community). some people just have the faith you and i do not.

I have no real problem with that. I guess I was just trying to point out that it is an entirely religioius belief, not based on science, which has no place in schools.

Seriously though, this is a thread to talk about creationism being taught in schools, not belittle and debase peoples beliefs.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to belittle your or anyone else's beliefs. As I said to gh0st, I was just trying to further make the point that creationism has no place next to science in schools. Science and creationsim are not mutually acceptable ideas.

 

[gh0st]

I have no real problem with that. I guess I was just trying to point out that it is an entirely religioius belief, not based on science, which has no place in schools.

i agree there

 

[Raziaar]

I'm sorry, I did not mean to belittle your or anyone else's beliefs. As I said to gh0st, I was just trying to further make the point that creationism has no place next to science in schools. Science and creationsim are not mutually acceptable ideas.

And if you read above, I don't believe creationism should be taught in schools either. Nothing religious should be unless its a... well, a religious school, like catholic school or something.

 

[Neutrino]

And if you read above, I don't believe creationism should be taught in schools either. Nothing religious should be unless its a... well, a religious school, like catholic school or something.

Ya, sorry about that, I shouldn't have made that original post a response to your post. It should have just been a general statement.

 

[Absinthe]

yes, and he knows it has no factual bases because he read the book ..

oops .. he didn't read it, he pre-judged it.
ofcourse, it's a known fact that anything against his religion is inevitably false, so no need to waste his time and read any scintific refutation, becuase his belife is based on arrogance, not facts.

1.) I do not practice a religion. Hasan, learn what you're talking about.

2.) The site has already made its bias overtly clear to me, and one of it's boldest statements (one that I could refute for days on end) is that Darwinism is the root of Terrorism. If it's overlying principles and arguments are flawed and/or biased, then what's to have me believe that anything else it says is credible?

this attitude is getting irritating. when are you going to learn that EVERYBODY, every SINGLE PERSON in the world has a bias? everyone has an agenda, everyone cares about one thing more than another. some are left, some are right, some are in the middle. theres no perfect human who has no bias, because that person would literally be a robot and lose the essence of humanity. yes, this website has an agenda. big ****ing deal. read what it says, if you disagree with it great, its a free country. dont disenfranchise someones opinion as "biased" simply because it isnt your own.

Read above.

I can accept a level of bias because I realize that no source is devoid of it. Thus, I tend to gather my information from a variety of sources. But if you expect me to believe one source which is, by all means, fanatical in its argumentation, then I'm sorry to disappoint you.

That's my reasoning. If you disagree with it, "big ****ing deal". "It's a free a country".

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I think the point is that there is a difference between inherent bias, and bias for bias' sake.

 

[blahblahblah]

And that the Earth is 10,000 years old? That the dinosaurs never existed? That all the animals on Earth were put on Noah's Ark? That all of physics, biology, paleontology, botany, and chemistry are wrong?

Have you ever heard a Christian Biology Professor give a lecture on evolution and creationsim? They have a rather interesting/convincing explanation. Don't ask me to explain it, because I can't even pronounce half of the words they use.

I find it funny that atheists already know what creationism is without even cracking open a bible or even researching the subject area. I'm not saying I want to start a debate, but do you proper research on what educated Christians think about the subject area. I had to take classes about evolution, you should take classes about creationsim as well if you want to develop a proper idea of creationsim.

 

[Neutrino]

Have you ever heard a Christian Biology Professor give a lecture on evolution and creationsim? They have a rather interesting/convincing explanation. Don't ask me to explain it, because I can't even pronounce half of the words they use.

I find it funny that atheists already know what creationism is without even cracking open a bible or even researching the subject area. I'm not saying I want to start a debate, but do you proper research on what educated Christians think about the subject area. I had to take classes about evolution, you should take classes about creationsim as well if you want to develop a proper idea of creationsim.

How do you know I've never read any of the Bible? How do you know that I haven't researched the subject? Also, what exactly do you mean by creationism? Do you merely mean the idea that God created life, or the literal interpretation of the Bible that includes things like the Earth being 10,000 years old?

The bottom line is that creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious belief. People are more than free to believe it, but religious beliefs have no place in schools. Otherwise you have to teach every religious belief there is. You can't just pick and choose.

 

[blahblahblah]

How do you know I've never read any of the Bible? How do you know that I haven't researched the subject?

The bottom line is that creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious belief. People are more than free to believe it, but religious beliefs have no place in schools. Otherwise you have to teach every religious belief there is. You can't just pick and choose.

You haven't seen creationsim argued from a scientific standpoint, have you?

 

[Neutrino]

You haven't seen creationsim argued from a scientific standpoint, have you?

I've read people try to do it. I'm not saying that it is absolutely false, I'm just saying that it does not fit the criteria of a scientific theory. That's it.

Also, as I asked above what do you mean by creationism? Just so we're clear here.

 

[blahblahblah]

I've read people try.

Did those people have doctorates in their fields?

 

[Lil' Timmy]

i do my best to be a logical christian

best of luck with that...

 

[Absinthe]

There is no such thing as a creationist scientist. Creationism argued from a scientific standpoint is flawed science.

With science, you have a hypothesis that you supply evidence for. This hypothesis is then attacked from all angles in order to see if it even holds up. This is how science determines what is factual.

Creationists start off with a conclusion. This conclusion, to them, is true and irrefutable. It can be nothing less, otherwise the legitimacy of their beliefs are jeapordized.
These people then attempt to "fill in" the investigation part afterwards. That is very flawed science. That's not to say that some of their arguments are true. They should, however, be looked at with a VERY skeptical eye.

 

[Neutrino]

Did those people have doctorates in their fields?

Some. But see my question above please.

 

[blahblahblah]

There is no such thing as a creationist scientist. Creationism argued from a scientific standpoint is flawed science.

With science, you have a hypothesis that you supply evidence for. This hypothesis is then attacked from all angles in order to see if it even holds up. This is how science determines what is factual.

Creationists start off with a conclusion. This conclusion, to them, is true and irrefutable. It can be nothing less, otherwise the legitimacy of their beliefs are jeapordized.
These people then attempt to "fill in" the investigation part afterwards. That is very flawed science. That's not to say that some of their arguments are true. They should, however, be looked at with a VERY skeptical eye.

I'm no scientist, but when I do research, you must draw your hypothesis before you collect the facts.

I'm done with this topic. I don't feel like getting in the middle of a 10 way forum insult/debat/argument session.

 

[Neutrino]

I'm no scientist, but when I do research, you must draw your hypothesis before you collect the facts.

There is a difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion.

I'm done with this topic. I don't feel like getting in the middle of a 10 way forum insult/debat/argument session.

Ok, but I'm not trying to insult your beliefs or anyone elses. But I will argue with anyone who claims those beliefs are anything other than beliefs.

 

[Kangy]

Heh.

To be fair, some kind of basic creationism would be plausible, such as God placing a few organisms down or something.

But I still doubt it.

 

[cronholio]

Did anyone in this thread actually read the article? All it says is that the schoolboard revised the curriculum to allow for the teaching of other theories of origin to be taught. It doesn't specificy creationism, it doesn't rule out other religious studies, it doesn't eliminate evolution. It just broadens the scope of what can be taught.

Those of you who think that religion has no place in science have obviously never taken a University level Anthropology class. Understanding what people believe(d) religiously is fundamental to studying the origin of mankind.

 

[Neutrino]

Did anyone in this thread actually read the article? All it says is that the schoolboard revised the curriculum to allow for the teaching of other theories of origin to be taught. It doesn't specificy creationism, it doesn't rule out other religious studies, it doesn't eliminate evolution. It just broadens the scope of what can be taught.

Yes, I read it.

The city’s school board has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

I realize it might include other things as well, but it's most likely going to be used mostly for creationism.

Those of you who think that religion has no place in science have obviously never taken a University level Anthropology class. Understanding what people believe(d) religiously is fundamental to studying the origin of mankind.

That is something completely different. The study of religion itself is not the same thing as the teaching a specific religious belief.

The basic probelm is this:

School board members believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum “should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory,” said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

What other scientific theories? Creationsim nor any other religious "origin" ideas are scientific theories. Now if there was a valid and alternative scientific theory to evolution and the origin of life than absolutely it should be taught. But in fact, if that were true it would have already been incorporated into evolutionary theory. That's how theories work. They are flexible and can change with the addition of new data.

But anyway, teaching creationsim or any other reigious origin story is fundamentally no different than teaching kids that heaven and hell exist and that they should accept Jesus as their savior. That stuff is fine in church, but it has no place in public schools.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I don't feel like getting in the middle of a 10 way forum insult/debat/argument session.

best of luck with all that...

 

[hasan]

Creationism on the other hand is purely a religious belief. It has no evidence to back it up

This is not ture. There is plenty of evidence that creatures could not have evolved and must have been created.

unless you mean the story of Adam and Eve, then we can only knwo about this through what God tells us, and not through any direct scintific finding.
But that's not what they are trying to teach in Wisconsin, is it?

If you don't like the title of Evolution Deciet, try this one:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/
It's from the same author(s), but more advanced, unlike the evolution deciet, which is more aimed at the intermediate.

I don't want to start a debate on evolution, I just want people to stop claiming that evolution is a proven fact and/or claim that there is no evidence for creation.

and about the bias thing .. what do you mean by bias? the book is about refuting darwinism, what do you want it to say? darwin was a cool guy?
If you must .. you can skip the introduction thing about ideologies .. but please don't skip "to be free from prejeduice"
Also, the book backs up its claims with evidence, so there is no reason for you to say "it's bias, so I'm not gonna read it". If I would do the same, I would tell myself "the people in this thread are bias against creation! look they call it nonsense! therefore, they have no credibity and I won't bother replying".

 

[Sprafa]

The Pope accepts evolution and the Big Bang.....

hasan, I checked that page, I could de-bunk most of the arguments there myself. Just about 90% of it refers to old Darwin's points, that are absolutely revised today. It's true it touches a lot of unexplained points, but the whole point of the theory is that it's fundamentally right, as proof show, but it still has a lot of things to explain.

 

[Kangy]

I don't want to start a debate on evolution, I just want people to stop claiming that evolution is a proven fact and/or claim that there is no evidence for creation.

Ooh, go on, show me one shred of definitive proof for creationism that isn't biased from the start, and I'll give you an e-cookie.

 

[Absinthe]

This is not ture. There is plenty of evidence that creatures could not have evolved and must have been created.

Examples?

and about the bias thing .. what do you mean by bias? the book is about refuting darwinism, what do you want it to say? darwin was a cool guy?

Did I say it was just because it was biased? I said that I doubt its credibility due to its flawed overt arguments.

If you must .. you can skip the introduction thing about ideologies .. but please don't skip "to be free from prejeduice"
Also, the book backs up its claims with evidence, so there is no reason for you to say "it's bias, so I'm not gonna read it". If I would do the same, I would tell myself "the people in this thread are bias against creation! look they call it nonsense! therefore, they have no credibity and I won't bother replying".

I never said that Creationism was nonsense. I personally think it is, but I never argued that. All I said was that Creationism serves no place on a school curriculum unless it relegated some kind of class studying religion. It should not be taught alongside or opposite of evolution because it cannot be studied as a science.

In any case, I've started reading through that site and have already found flaws/gaps. It has a large tendency to say things along the lines of "Darwin believed blahblahblah... However, this was later disproven. So with that out of the way..." without ever bringing up how it was disproven.
It also has a misunderstanding of Darwinism. The website thinks that Darwinism is the natural and direct passing-on of mutations to offspring. This is wrong. Darwinism is based on gene pool alterations and the frequency of alleles.

So the site is refuting something. Just not Darwinism.

 

[Gray Fox]

But people doesn't anybody here read WIRED, there was an article in it about this, and they are not teaching creatonism exactly or atleast they are not putting it before the people that make the decissions to wat to teach in exactly that way, what they call it is intelligent design, it seems that they have found evidence in certain molecules that evolution can't explain and are now claiming that id should be also thaught. Most scientist consider it just another creatonism theory(IMO it is), they say that the theorie is only that popular because it doesn't go in to straight facts, many scientist also don't like it because it doesn't give anwsers but only says cause darwinism can't explain this (yet) then id should also be taught, but it self doesn't give also any explenation, it just tries to imply reasonable doubt, and also they say many sites like those hasan gave and what id uses, give examples out of contex and use many complex words unnecessairly. The reason it is beeing taught is because it pretends only that an intelllingent beeing created us and it doesn't mention god in any way(but lest be hinest it is jus tcreatonism in discize), furthermore to see if a theory should be taught there is a system where 2 people that defend one point discuss it with 2 folks that defend the other in front of the decission makers, they have done that and id came trough, but scientist say this way is wrong, cause it gives people the impression that as many people are as for id as there are for evolution, when in fact it is like 1000 to one, but because the people who make the decissions think that both sides are equallly big they see 2 people defending one point and 2 the other, they think too themselfes, well this should be givin a chance too, while in real life you would have 2000 evo's against 2 id defenders debating. And like I said id use exaples taken out of contex and big words that mean little to inpress people.

 

[Ennui]

best of luck with that...

laughing my ****ING ASS OFF

 

[StardogChampion]

How long does it take to teach "God created the heavens and the Earth, then on the 7th day he rested".

 

[yadalogo]

God created the internet!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No, Al Gore created the internet!

Whether he's god or not is open to debate.