Texas voting on science textbooks for public schools - evolution vs. creation

[nmoira]

Sometimes yes. I do not think people should change their opinion. I only mean there are times when a discussion should stop. 

 

If there were a table of 6 friends all of them talking about a heated topic. 5 of them all agreed with each other and the other one disagreed. Even in respectful disagreement that one person is going to get overwhelmed, frustrated and inevitably it will lead to some sort of melt down. I think it's hard for anyone to take that kind of pressure. 

 

The argument that says " the person can just leave, or the person can just not go online" is not something I agree with because I think we should be better than that. We should show restraint and not continue to bombard the person. 

 

I am only saying that if it seems a thread is going one sided maybe it would be wise to shut it down. 

 

Or maybe one could choose the leave the community table rather than asking everyone else to cease conversing? Pour oneself a glass of wine and go read in the corner?

[Violet Crown]

Nancy Ann,

 

I want to take seriously your mention of feeling depressed since this thread started. It is a completely normal and understandable human reaction to become anxious and depressed when one feels opposed by one's community, even if it's an ad hoc and temporary kind of "community" like a forum thread. It doesn't matter if you "ought" to feel ganged up on or not; you do, and it's a crummy feeling. I'm sorry.

 

Take a break from this thread. Seriously. You're certainly right, there are undoubtedly people who share your opinions who aren't posting. You've spoken up for yourself and for them. Nobody thinks badly of you for having spoken up; nobody is going to think badly of you for being done speaking up. And absolutely nobody here wants your children's mom to feel anxious or angry or depressed over an internet forum.

 

I may disagree with you about evolution, but if you were here in my living room, I'd get you a cup of tea, and I think we'd have a lot in common to talk about. :)

[Nancy Ann]

Or maybe one could choose the leave the community table rather than asking everyone else to cease conversing? Pour oneself a glass of wine and go read in the corner?

 

Yes, and that would show the wisdom of the person pouring themselves a glass of wine and the lack of compassion and kindness for the others left at the table. 

[Nancy Ann]

Nancy Ann,

 

I want to take seriously your mention of feeling depressed since this thread started. It is a completely normal and understandable human reaction to become anxious and depressed when one feels opposed by one's community, even if it's an ad hoc and temporary kind of "community" like a forum thread. It doesn't matter if you "ought" to feel ganged up on or not; you do, and it's a crummy feeling. I'm sorry.

 

Take a break from this thread. Seriously. You're certainly right, there are undoubtedly people who share your opinions who aren't posting. You've spoken up for yourself and for them. Nobody thinks badly of you for having spoken up; nobody is going to think badly of you for being done speaking up. And absolutely nobody here wants your children's mom to feel anxious or angry or depressed over an internet forum.

 

I may disagree with you about evolution, but if you were here in my living room, I'd get you a cup of tea, and I think we'd have a lot in common to talk about. :)

 

Thank you very much for you kindness and you are totally right. 

 

However, is it not the definition of insanity to keep doing the same thing hoping for a different outcome! :)

[BrookValley.]

It's 'one sided' because the majority disagree with you. And that's ok.

 

No one is bullying you.

 

There is no good reason to shut this thread down. Discussions (respectful ones, at that) should not be stopped because people disagree. That's ludicrous.

[nmoira]

Yes, and that would show the wisdom of the person pouring themselves a glass of wine and the lack of compassion and kindness for the others left at the table. 

 

Nancy, the difference is that this is not a dinner party with invited guests and we are not your family. This is a communal table, and very different than your analogy. You chose to come to this conversation. You can choose when to retire from it. ETA: We are under no obligation to accommodate you.

[WishboneDawn]

I agree to a point. However, when something portrayed as "mainstream science" or coming from "evolutionist" clearly isn't, I think it's absolutely fair to note.

Agreed.

[Mrs Mungo]

Sometimes yes.

 

I do not think people should change their opinion. I also do not expect everyone to have my opinion. It is very obvious that all of you have not comprehended my post. I only mean there are times when a discussion should stop.

Well then? Stop. Step out.

 

If there were a table of 6 friends all of them talking about a heated topic. 5 of them all agreed with each other and the other one disagreed. Even in respectful disagreement that one person is going to get overwhelmed, frustrated and inevitably it will lead to some sort of melt down. I think it's hard for anyone to take that kind of pressure. 

 

The argument that says " the person can just leave, or the person can just not go online" is not something I agree with because I think we should be better than that. We should show restraint and not continue to bombard the person.

 

I am only saying that if it seems a thread is going one sided maybe it would be wise to shut it down.

People are all sharing *their own* perspectives in writing. Nobody is present to talk over or argue without a break or any of that. I have the same opinion as albeto about teaching creationism in science class. But, our perspectives and reasons are completely different. She's an atheist, and I'm a Christian. We're not arguing ONE SIDE. People who are feeling overwhelmed can take a break, step out of the thread, stop answering. You are in control of your online experience.

[Guest submarines]

Nancy Ann,

 

I want to take seriously your mention of feeling depressed since this thread started. It is a completely normal and understandable human reaction to become anxious and depressed when one feels opposed by one's community, even if it's an ad hoc and temporary kind of "community" like a forum thread. It doesn't matter if you "ought" to feel ganged up on or not; you do, and it's a crummy feeling. I'm sorry.

 

Take a break from this thread. Seriously. You're certainly right, there are undoubtedly people who share your opinions who aren't posting. You've spoken up for yourself and for them. Nobody thinks badly of you for having spoken up; nobody is going to think badly of you for being done speaking up. And absolutely nobody here wants your children's mom to feel anxious or angry or depressed over an internet forum.

 

I may disagree with you about evolution, but if you were here in my living room, I'd get you a cup of tea, and I think we'd have a lot in common to talk about. :)

:iagree:

 

This thread is a disagreement of ideas, and an interesting discussion. I'm sorry if you feel frustrated and depressed. I think it is admirable to stand up for one's beliefs, and you've done so in a respectful way. 

 

A discussion between friends around a table, where 5 friends share a different opinion and it is 5 "against" 1, is very different from an on-line discussion. I don't think that on-line discussions should share the same model. A forum discussion is by definition is more impersonal, but it doesn't mean that people are mean or bullies. 

 

Good for you for speaking up.  :grouphug:

[Mergath]

Wow, lots of interesting posts. I have nothing to add other than to the poster who is convinced that since humans and viruses share some DNA (and RNA) humans must come from viruses. Since viruses act as DNA and RNA vectors all the time for all species, even as we speak, viral DNA and RNA can enter a species, and proliferate providing conditions are favorable, at any time in a species' history. It does not mean humans are necessarily derivatives of viruses. For example, if we were to crunch up the corpses of HIV infected people and test their RNA, we would find HIV RNA as a component of the human RNA and DNA. This is not a separate group of RNA, but rather a definite intertwining of the human. Yet, I cannot make the claim that humans are descendants of HIV. I can also not make the claim that they are not descendants for that matter. It really tells me nothing.

 

Fortunately, many are working with viral vectors now in hopes to understand the natural phenomena and ability of viruses to become a part of a species. By tagging viruses with important protein coding DNA, we are able to begin to fight many diseases never before possible. It is the most exciting part of medicine right now, in my opinion.

 

No one has claimed that humans came from viruses.  My point about DNA and viruses was that humans and our genetic code aren't unchanging over time, the way you'd expect if we were specifically engineered by a deity who doesn't use evolution.

[nmoira]

No one has claimed that humans came from viruses.  My point about DNA and viruses was that humans and our genetic code aren't unchanging over time, the way you'd expect if we were specifically engineered by a deity who doesn't use evolution.

 

And then there's these little guys:

 

Bdelloids Surviving on Borrowed DNA

 

 

Now, a study published online today in PLOS Genetics hints at how the bdelloids do it. A new genetic analysis shows that roughly 10% of the bdelloids' active genes were pilfered from other species, such as fungi, bacteria, and plants. These foreign genes have endowed bdelloids with talents that no other animal can boast, which could help explain their ability to shrug off extreme conditions of aridity. Ultimately, the bdelloids' appropriation of foreign genes may hold the key to their success despite celibacy, which usually results in a species's extinction.

 

The bdelloid is a "genetic mosaic. It takes pieces of DNA from all over the place," says study author Alan Tunnacliffe, a molecular biologist at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. "Its biochemistry is a mosaic in the same way. It's a real mishmash of activities."

 

 

[Mergath]

Bullies never think they are bullies and usually blame everything on the other person, just as you did. 

 

I expect the thread to be shut down.

 

Just because respectful disagreement is common does not make it right or good. 

 

And if no one ever disagreed, respectfully or otherwise, a good number of us would be British subjects starving in a debtor's prison.  South Africa would still have apartheid, the Arab Spring never would have happened, and Nazis would probably rule the world.

 

I really can't get on board with the idea that any kind of disagreement is wrong.

[[email protected]]

Please go back to discussing the ideas, rather than discussing each other's reactions to the discussion of the ideas.

 

That makes sense, doesn't it?

 

Moderator

[Carrie12345]

Unfortunately way too many, judging by my Sunday School classes. I used to be able to count on third-graders at least having heard of 7 Days of Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and David and Goliath. For a while, most of them had videos of Prince of Egypt at home, and were excited to learn that the Bible had done a version of their favorite Disney. Now? Cultural illiteracy has made the Old Testament a complete mystery to most of them, and the stories are an excitingly new part of their long slog toward Confirmation and the blessed release from religious education that follows.

 

However, if you restricted your question to "How many kids from families that care what their kids are taught, I think your answer will be much closer to zero.

That's very interesting to me. My assumption would be that the parents of those children are likely religious in name only, which is a statement in and of itself.

Even in my home, where religion wasn't really discussed outside of church, I spent every Sunday in the morning service, followed by Sunday School from age 5, and knew all of the standard child-level stories.

 

If a parent isn't terribly interested in their child's Sunday School education, I can't imagine why they'd want that instruction in their science classroom. Clearly, the only purpose would be to evangelize. Which is illegal in public schools.

[Mergath]

My dd just finished watching The Croods for her movie night, and one of the boys was riding around on a prehistoric four-legged whale.  :lol:   Given the discussion today, that cracked me up.  

 

Here you go, irrefutable proof: http://media.aintitcool.com/media/uploads/2013/croods1_large.jpg

 

:P

[swimmermom3]

I have a dumb question. Please feel free to pm me so as not derail the conversation.

 

Why is it so important to have Creationism viewed and taught as science?  Would it lend greater validity to one's faith? Are there other faiths that seek to have their creation story treated as science?

 

If I am to trust Wikipedia (this is the one part where I am not serious), just under half of the US population believes in Creationism. If the winds were to change and and Texas was one of many, if not all states to teach creationism in their science books, what would the effect be in the global science picture?  I know we have several scientists on the board and would be curious as to your response, not a Doomsday one, but a genuine reflection. Would it open up dialogue and generate more research or would we fade out of the global science picture?

[Mrs Mungo]

If I am to trust Wikipedia (this is the one part where I am not serious), just under half of the US population believes in Creationism.

But, that doesn't mean they all believe in young earth *or* that they think it should be taught in schools. I think God made everything. I think evolution is how He made everything. Not to nitpick, just felt a need to point out that the beliefs or wording are not universal. Does that make sense?

 

Eta: and I don't think it should be taught in school. I don't think we need to clog up science class with every creation story out there.

[NicAnn]

But, that doesn't mean they all believe in young earth *or* that they think it should be taught in schools. I think God made everything. I think evolution is how He made everything. Not to nitpick, just felt a need to point out that the beliefs or wording are not universal. Does that make sense?

Exactly. Me too. A growing population of Christians believe in the creation through evolution idea. There simply is too much information out there to ignore evolution.

[Ipsey]

Here's the most important thing to remember in this discussion.

 

For one side, the science is essentially meaningless. Even if every scientist in the world accepted evolution, True Believers would not. It's likely SaddleMama and Nancy Ann would still believe in "Biblical Young Earth Creationism" even if every Christian scientist on the planet. abandoned YEC (many have already done so, of course, but that's beside the point). Really, it's pointless to discuss the science. For the believer, science is merely a nice little tack-on (and why it's often so poor) to the belief.

 

If we had no evolutionary evidence at all, the Believer would believe in Creationism.

If we had piles of evolutionary evidence accepted by scholars of myriad science fields from all over the world, the Believer would believe in Creationism.

Nothing can affect the Belief--because it is "already True"

 

The science is completely moot. What's real is the Bible, and whatever runs contrary to the belief system is spiritual deception, misunderstanding, darkness or unwillingness of sinful people to believe. Therefore, the overwhelming science (and, yes, evolutionary science completely overwhelms the YEC pseudoscience in every field from genetics to immunology to virology to molecular biology, geobiology, and they all point to evolution) doesn't matter.

 

The fact that Believers even employ what they see as science is still meaningless. What matters is Genesis.

 

Why science is even brought up at all by YEC is misdirection.

 

 

[Free]

If there were a table of 6 friends all of them talking about a heated topic. 5 of them all agreed with each other and the other one disagreed. Even in respectful disagreement that one person is going to get overwhelmed, frustrated and inevitably it will lead to some sort of melt down. I think it's hard for anyone to take that kind of pressure. 

 

The argument that says " the person can just leave, or the person can just not go online" is not something I agree with because I think we should be better than that. We should show restraint and not continue to bombard the person. 

 

I am only saying that if it seems a thread is going one sided maybe it would be wise to shut it down. 

 

I agree that some internet discussions can be very hard and upsetting. I have been there, I understand. It is best to step away when that happens.

 

But such hard discussions present a tremendous opportunity for exploring new ideas. An opportunity that is generally not available in a face to face discussion among friends. I, for one, am truly grateful for this opportunity and would be saddened if we had to start censoring discussions that are respectful just because something was said that made one or two or even several people uncomfortable. Examining the source of that discomfort can turn out to be a catalyst for change and growth. That has certainly been my experience.

[zoobie]

I agree, Ipsey. Debating evolution vs. creationism has never made sense to me. It's akin to debating who's the best US President, and one side is arguing for Abe Lincoln while the other side has Jed Bartlett.

[Barb_]

I'm going to ask one last time, though I'm not expecting an answer from proponents of including information about Creation in a science class. This is the question that vexes me.

 

How many kids make it to middle school or high school never having been exposed to their family's creation myth/story of choice? Or, if from a secular family, are unaware of at least one story? *For whose benefit and for what purpose* is information about creationism to be included in a science curriculum?

 

Hopefully to convince others who remain as of yet, unindoctrinated.

[Barb_]

Clearly, the only purpose would be to evangelize. Which is illegal in public schools.

 

Bingo.

[marlowefamily]

From a different perspective, I'm proud of Texas for re-opening the question of how public schools should handle teaching material that is controversial.  For too long, I think, American society has believed that public schools are a neutral place...that hasn't worked out, and I think we're finding out that it hasn't been true.  Public schools have been forcing a lowest common denominator for knowledge/values and teaching a vapid culture onto kids under the guise of neutrality.  So much so that the very premise about whether the American citizenry is still educated enough to properly run a first world democratic republic is a fair question.  Our politicians, businesses, and government reflect the decay of us as a people.  How to fix it?  I don't know....perhaps not with changing the science curriculum of schools, but at least Texas realizes there is a problem here that won't be solved if we just hire more teachers, create more textbooks with more of the same useless knowledge, and send more $ to be wasted in a broken system.

[Mrs Mungo]

From a different perspective, I'm proud of Texas for re-opening the question of how public schools should handle teaching material that is controversial. For too long, I think, American society has believed that public schools are a neutral place...that hasn't worked out, and I think we're finding out that it hasn't been true. Public schools have been forcing a lowest common denominator for knowledge/values and teaching a vapid culture onto kids under the guise of neutrality. So much so that the very premise about whether the American citizenry is still educated enough to properly run an first world democratic republic is a fair question. Our politicians, businesses, and government reflect the decay of us as a people. How to fix it? I don't know....perhaps not with changing the science curriculum of schools, but at least Texas realizes there is a problem here that won't be solved if we just hire more teachers, create more textbooks with more of the same useless knowledge, and send more $ to be wasted in a broken system.

Have you researched education in other countries? Have you ever lived in another country and talked to locals about their education? You seem to be implying that religious instruction would be beneficial, but the educational superiority of other countries who *do not* inject religion into their curricula negates that train of thought, IMO.

[redsquirrel]

From a different perspective, I'm proud of Texas for re-opening the question of how public schools should handle teaching material that is controversial.  For too long, I think, American society has believed that public schools are a neutral place...that hasn't worked out, and I think we're finding out that it hasn't been true.  Public schools have been forcing a lowest common denominator for knowledge/values and teaching a vapid culture onto kids under the guise of neutrality.  So much so that the very premise about whether the American citizenry is still educated enough to properly run a first world democratic republic is a fair question.  Our politicians, businesses, and government reflect the decay of us as a people.  How to fix it?  I don't know....perhaps not with changing the science curriculum of schools, but at least Texas realizes there is a problem here that won't be solved if we just hire more teachers, create more textbooks with more of the same useless knowledge, and send more $ to be wasted in a broken system.

 

And teaching a Christian creation myth in science class would help with that.... how?

[marlowefamily]

Mrs Mungo - I don't have the pleasure of being as widely traveled as I would like, but I've certainly lived and worked in numerous melting pots for various cultures.  I'm not suggesting so much that the fix for public schools is a solid injection of religion, as much as that we as a society have lost our way and part of the reason has been due to the insistence of creating religious free, culture free, value free, and controversy free environments within our schools and public settings.  By agreeing to get along, too often we're just agreeing to put off the argument to a later date and not agree on anything.   Historically, I think what made America successful was a combination of western values/common law, willingness to argue and tolerate about beliefs and important matters outside of the material sphere, an open mind to science/all forms of discovery and hard work, a strong uniformly religious and educated population, and a society that was very welcome to families, entrepreneurs, and those who wanted to be self-reliant.  I worry that we've almost done a 180 from that point..... and I see this reversal most magnified in our public schools. 

 

That said, I'll teach my kids evolution in detail at home...but I'll also tell them that it might not be complete and is just one theory and doesn't necessarily conflict with other beliefs.  I'll also ask them to think about the societal impact of a culture that believes in evolution but not religion.

[redsquirrel]

 a strong uniformly religious and educated population,

 

When has the USA had a "uniformly religious and educated population"? What time period are you talking about?

[Onceuponatime]

Mrs Mungo - I don't have the pleasure of being as widely traveled as I would like, but I've certainly lived and worked in numerous melting pots for various cultures.  I'm not suggesting so much that the fix for public schools is a solid injection of religion, as much as that we as a society have lost our way and part of the reason has been due to the insistence of creating religious free, culture free, value free, and controversy free environments within our schools and public settings.  By agreeing to get along, too often we're just agreeing to put off the argument to a later date and not agree on anything.   Historically, I think what made America successful was a combination of western values/common law, willingness to argue and tolerate about beliefs and important matters outside of the material sphere, an open mind to science/all forms of discovery and hard work, a strong uniformly religious and educated population, and a society that was very welcome to families, entrepreneurs, and those who wanted to be self-reliant.  I worry that we've almost done a 180 from that point..... and I see this reversal most magnified in our public schools. 

 

That said, I'll teach my kids evolution in detail at home...but I'll also tell them that it might not be complete and is just one theory and doesn't necessarily conflict with other beliefs.  I'll also ask them to think about the societal impact of a culture that believes in evolution but not religion.

 

Some people would say that America was made successful by western willingness to trample on the values, laws, culture, and religious beliefs of indigenous peoples.

 

Will you teach your children about the societal impact of  culture that puts religion above compassion for humanity?

[Mrs Mungo]

Mrs Mungo - I don't have the pleasure of being as widely traveled as I would like, but I've certainly lived and worked in numerous melting pots for various cultures. I'm not suggesting so much that the fix for public schools is a solid injection of religion, as much as that we as a society have lost our way and part of the reason has been due to the insistence of creating religious free, culture free, value free, and controversy free environments within our schools and public settings.

I am really unsure what you mean by this. You see no values, culture or controversy in our school system? You would like to see more values and culture? If so, *whose* culture and values do you believe should be more represented?

 

 

By agreeing to get along, too often we're just agreeing to put off the argument to a later date and not agree on anything.

Again, I am afraid that I don't know what this means.

 

Historically, I think what made America successful was a combination of western values/common law,

Which "western values" do you believe were reflected in our system at one time that are no longer reflected there?

 

willingness to argue and tolerate about beliefs and important matters outside of the material sphere,

Personally, I think our society is much more tolerant of various religious beliefs than it once was. Or is your complaint that our society is more diverse and less homogenous?

 

an open mind to science/all forms of discovery and hard work,

In what way do you believe rejecting science in favor of religion accomlishes this goal?

 

a strong uniformly religious and educated population,

Again...it is sounding more like you are sad about losing a previously artificially homogenous society in which power was maintained by white (mostly Protestant) men at the expense of others through systematic discrimination and racism. I know you aren't saying that outright, but this is not my first rodeo.

 

and a society that was very welcome to families, entrepreneurs, and those who wanted to be self-reliant. I worry that we've almost done a 180 from that point..... and I see this reversal most magnified in our public schools.

In what way do you believe society in the US is friendly to neither families nor entrepreneurs?

 

That said, I'll teach my kids evolution in detail at home...but I'll also tell them that it might not be complete and is just one theory and doesn't necessarily conflict with other beliefs. I'll also ask them to think about the societal impact of a culture that believes in evolution but not religion.

Or when a society believes in religion at the expense of science? I can think of some pretty bad examples on that end too.

[Barb_]

I accidentally resurrected a thread while on an evolution rabbit trail.  I think it's worth reposting here: http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/345246-the-unscientific-american-watches-a-mammal-walk-into-the-water-and-grow-fins/

[StaceyinLA]

Can't be any worse than the Louisiana common core including stories about pimps and mobstaz.

[Joanne]

From a different perspective, I'm proud of Texas for re-opening the question of how public schools should handle teaching material that is controversial.  For too long, I think, American society has believed that public schools are a neutral place...that hasn't worked out, and I think we're finding out that it hasn't been true.  Public schools have been forcing a lowest common denominator for knowledge/values and teaching a vapid culture onto kids under the guise of neutrality.  So much so that the very premise about whether the American citizenry is still educated enough to properly run a first world democratic republic is a fair question.  Our politicians, businesses, and government reflect the decay of us as a people.  How to fix it?  I don't know....perhaps not with changing the science curriculum of schools, but at least Texas realizes there is a problem here that won't be solved if we just hire more teachers, create more textbooks with more of the same useless knowledge, and send more $ to be wasted in a broken system.

 

There is no real *content* to this post. It's a broad brush criticism of contemporary culture and education but it doens't really say anything concrete or tangible or quantifiable or "real."

[Corraleno]

I'm not suggesting so much that the fix for public schools is a solid injection of religion, as much as that we as a society have lost our way and part of the reason has been due to the insistence of creating religious free, culture free, value free, and controversy free environments within our schools and public settings.  By agreeing to get along, too often we're just agreeing to put off the argument to a later date and not agree on anything.   Historically, I think what made America successful was a combination of western values/common law, willingness to argue and tolerate about beliefs and important matters outside of the material sphere, an open mind to science/all forms of discovery and hard work, a strong uniformly religious and educated population, and a society that was very welcome to families, entrepreneurs, and those who wanted to be self-reliant.  I worry that we've almost done a 180 from that point..... and I see this reversal most magnified in our public schools. 

 

That said, I'll teach my kids evolution in detail at home...but I'll also tell them that it might not be complete and is just one theory and doesn't necessarily conflict with other beliefs.  I'll also ask them to think about the societal impact of a culture that believes in evolution but not religion.

 

Gosh, so many false dichotomies...

 

It is possible to teach American culture and values without inserting Christian religious teaching in public schools.

 

It is possible to believe in both evolution and religion — in fact, most people do.

 

It is possible to be "welcoming to families" without insisting on excluding certain types of families on religious grounds.

 

It is possible to encourage entrepreneurship and self-reliance without giving businesses carte blanche to screw people and destroy the enviroment, or force people who are facing hard times to fend for themselves.

 

I also think it's really counter-productive to frame the problem with American education as "Christians vs the evil secular-humanist government," as seems to be the case so often these days. Since we ALL agree that the system stinks, maybe we should be trying to find ways that work for everyone, instead of blaming it on a "lack of Christian values."

 

Jackie

[Mrs Mungo]

 

There is no real *content* to this post. It's a broad brush criticism of contemporary culture and education but it doens't really say anything concrete or tangible or quantifiable or "real."

Words are supposed to *mean something*?!

[Mrs Mungo]

It is possible to be "welcoming to families" without insisting on excluding certain types of families on religious grounds.

AH! Of course, I didn't pick up on that bit of double-speak.

[Mergath]

Mrs Mungo - I don't have the pleasure of being as widely traveled as I would like, but I've certainly lived and worked in numerous melting pots for various cultures.  I'm not suggesting so much that the fix for public schools is a solid injection of religion, as much as that we as a society have lost our way and part of the reason has been due to the insistence of creating religious free, culture free, value free, and controversy free environments within our schools and public settings.  By agreeing to get along, too often we're just agreeing to put off the argument to a later date and not agree on anything.   Historically, I think what made America successful was a combination of western values/common law, willingness to argue and tolerate about beliefs and important matters outside of the material sphere, an open mind to science/all forms of discovery and hard work, a strong uniformly religious and educated population, and a society that was very welcome to families, entrepreneurs, and those who wanted to be self-reliant.  I worry that we've almost done a 180 from that point..... and I see this reversal most magnified in our public schools. 

 

That said, I'll teach my kids evolution in detail at home...but I'll also tell them that it might not be complete and is just one theory and doesn't necessarily conflict with other beliefs.  I'll also ask them to think about the societal impact of a culture that believes in evolution but not religion.

 

Translation: "Gee, was it ever nice when us white Christian males were in charge."

 

The problem with that is that this golden era when everything was perfect and shiny and atheists didn't wander the streets never existed.  It's a myth.  Society had the same problems back when everyone was so wonderfully cultured and religious (well, everyone who mattered, right?) as it does now.  Crime, poverty, too many people with too little education.  The only difference is that we've gotten worse at hiding it.

 

The only thing that will change if the country forces this one narrow viewpoint into the schools is that there will be many more homeschoolers, because a lot of us don't want our kids learning your brand of "western values."  

[albeto.]

I have a dumb question. Please feel free to pm me so as not derail the conversation.

 

Why is it so important to have Creationism viewed and taught as science?  Would it lend greater validity to one's faith? Are there other faiths that seek to have their creation story treated as science?

 

 

It's not a dumb question at all, and is at the heart of this debate. I can share with you one reason, offered by Ken Ham, creator of Answers in Genesis.

 

I’ve had many people say to me over the years that it doesn’t matter if God created over millions of years—just as long as God did it. My answer is always the same: “It is not what God said He did!†Even though this organization doesn’t believe in Darwinian evolution per se, its leaders do believe God created (in much the same order as evolutionists discuss the evolution of life) over millions of years. They can try to modify things all they want, but what they are doing is compromising man’s ideas of millions of years with the Bible and reinterpreting the clear text of Scripture, thus undermining the authority of the Word of God. They do believe in evolution—it’s just that they just don’t accept the naturalistic neo-Darwinian view but modify their beliefs to suit their purposes of having God create but over millions of years.

 

This is one of the reasons the church is losing its effectiveness in the culture and why we are losing two thirds of our generations from the church. I encourage you to read the two books: Already Gone and Already Compromised. Both of these essential resources deal with the compromise with evolution and millions of years in the church (including Christian schools) and the terrible consequences of such compromise.

 

Surely this is his opinion, and won't be shared by everyone, but he is an influential and outspoken advocate of Creationism. I interpreted Nancy Ann's previous comment to reflect this general idea (I feel I should clarify that this is my interpretation of Nancy Ann's post, and I'm not intending to speak for her):

 

 

Anyway, I just want to share this bible verse with other Christians who are reading this thread and may feel discouraged or upset and maybe even second guessing themselves and their faith. I have been in some dark places and I know how these sorts of threads can do that to people because it's happened to me often. God is real, God is good and God is the creator of this beautiful world. 

 

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 1 Corinthians 3:18-19 KJV)

 

It is my understanding that fighting for creationism in schools is inspired in part because there is a greater benefit for society if the faith is preserved (everything from natural disasters to crime and violence has been blamed on decreasing numbers of the faithful, examples are numerous). It should be noted this idea should not be confused with the idea that preserving religious beliefs is the ONLY reason to advocate for creationism, but ONE reason, and a significant one, for many, as witnessed in public policy and representatives of government that create public policy. A few examples:

 

 

• Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior
•  Republican Christian extremists have introduced bill after bill in states like Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and elsewhere in an effort to force schools to teach the Biblical story of creation in science class, even though there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support creationism whatsoever....

But a radio ad for the Creationism Museum in Kentucky operated by Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham blew a major hole in the creationism effort on Thursday. Ham admitted that there is ZERO scientific evidence to support creationism, although he still contends that the Bible is evidence enough to force people to learn about it.

• Last January, a Republican state representative in Missouri, introduced a bill that would require that intelligent design and "destiny" get the same educational treatment and textbook space in Missouri schools as the theory of evolution.

[Mergath]

Can't be any worse than the Louisiana common core including stories about pimps and mobstaz.

 

And thank you for that, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the ongoing topic at hand.

[nmoira]

I just wanted to thank the Moderator du jour for taking a delicate hand in editing comments in this thread and for taking the time to give an explanation of the changes.

 

Thank you!

[ChrisB]

The concept of free will is increasingly being rejected under the weight of evidence to the contrary.

 

I know this was from a while ago in the thread, but it struck me as I was reading through...

 

There seem to be two significant consequences to this, if it were true.

 

First, if there is no free will, we cannot fault the creationist for her views, because, well, she wasn't free to choose them.

 

Secondly, if there is no free will, why bother trying to convince someone either that they are wrong or you are right? Again, we aren't free to choose them, so attempts to persuade seem rather pointless.

 

In other words, the very fact that this conversation is even being had suffices to demonstrate that we have free will, doesn't it?

[albeto.]

First, if there is no free will, we cannot fault the creationist for her views, because, well, she wasn't free to choose them.

Conditioning works differently for different people due to different internal and external variables. Some people really cannot see past the views in which they have been conditioned to believe. Others change their beliefs without much difficulty. Many of the details that would be useful for predicting this outcome still elude us.

 

Secondly, if there is no free will, why bother trying to convince someone either that they are wrong or you are right? Again, we aren't free to choose them, so attempts to persuade seem rather pointless.

Not all beliefs are equally adhered to. My belief that beets are nothing more than purple glop of dirt may change if someone ever sneaks a tasty bite my way. My belief that my husband is genuinely a good guy would be significantly more difficult to change.

 

In other words, the very fact that this conversation is even being had suffices to demonstrate that we have free will, doesn't it?

It's not quite as simple as that. You might think of it as a spectrum, rather than an on/off switch. Some people are more resistant to the same manipulation techniques that work well for others.

[Mrs Mungo]

Can't be any worse than the Louisiana common core including stories about pimps and mobstaz.

What the heck are you talking about? We have already covered the fact that there are no *required* pieces of literature involved with common core in threads that actually have to do with the common core.

[albeto.]

Mrs Mungo - I don't have the pleasure of being as widely traveled as I would like, but I've certainly lived and worked in numerous melting pots for various cultures.  I'm not suggesting so much that the fix for public schools is a solid injection of religion, as much as that we as a society have lost our way and part of the reason has been due to the insistence of creating religious free, culture free, value free, and controversy free environments within our schools and public settings.  By agreeing to get along, too often we're just agreeing to put off the argument to a later date and not agree on anything.

Part of scientific literacy is knowing the correlation does not equal causation. On the surface these variables may appear to be the cause of modern challenges, but each one of these ideas has been quite thoroughly debunked. 

 

Historically, I think what made America successful was a combination of western values/common law, willingness to argue and tolerate about beliefs and important matters outside of the material sphere, an open mind to science/all forms of discovery and hard work, a strong uniformly religious and educated population, and a society that was very welcome to families, entrepreneurs, and those who wanted to be self-reliant.  I worry that we've almost done a 180 from that point..... and I see this reversal most magnified in our public schools.

 

Quite separate from the fact that historically what made America successful was a combination of stealing resource-rich land from one race, forcing another race to do much of the labor needed to bring profits to land owners, unrestricted labor demands from men, women, and children, and harsh punishment (formally and informally) for those who disrupted the status quo, none of this is relevant to the fact that evolution is scientific fact and the creation story of Genesis is not.

 

[swimmermom3]

 

 

 

It's not a dumb question at all, and is at the heart of this debate. I can share with you one reason, offered by Ken Ham, creator of Answers in Genesis.

 

 

Surely this is his opinion, and won't be shared by everyone, but he is an influential and outspoken advocate of Creationism. I interpreted Nancy Ann's previous comment to reflect this general idea (I feel I should clarify that this is my interpretation of Nancy Ann's post, and I'm not intending to speak for her):

 

 

 

It is my understanding that fighting for creationism in schools is inspired in part because there is a greater benefit for society if the faith is preserved (everything from natural disasters to crime and violence has been blamed on decreasing numbers of the faithful, examples are numerous). It should be noted this idea should not be confused with the idea that preserving religious beliefs is the ONLY reason to advocate for creationism, but ONE reason, and a significant one, for many, as witnessed in public policy and representatives of government that create public policy. A few examples:

 

 

• Georgia Rep. Paul Broun said in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior
•  Republican Christian extremists have introduced bill after bill in states like Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and elsewhere in an effort to force schools to teach the Biblical story of creation in science class, even though there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support creationism whatsoever....

But a radio ad for the Creationism Museum in Kentucky operated by Answers in Genesis President Ken Ham blew a major hole in the creationism effort on Thursday. Ham admitted that there is ZERO scientific evidence to support creationism, although he still contends that the Bible is evidence enough to force people to learn about it.

• Last January, a Republican state representative in Missouri, introduced a bill that would require that intelligent design and "destiny" get the same educational treatment and textbook space in Missouri schools as the theory of evolution.

 

 

Thank you very much for taking the time to put this answer together. This is the type of information that I was looking for.

 

 

[Corraleno]

What the heck are you talking about? We have already covered the fact that there are no *required* pieces of literature involved with common core in threads that actually have to do with the common core.

 

It's not even a piece of literature — she's referencing a SINGLE sentence in a SINGLE worksheet in a Louisiana classroom that included a SINGLE reference to a rap group named Speedknot Mobstaz, who had a song called Po-Pimp. Which of course led to dozens of nutjob blogsters posting that "Common Core is teaching our children about pimps and mobsterz!!!" as well as lots of articulate, well-reasoned blog comments about how the government indoctrination academies are dumbing down our schools "to accommodate the black race" (actual quote).

 

Jackie

[Mrs Mungo]

as well as lots of articulate, well-reasoned blog comments about how the government indoctrination academies are dumbing down our schools "to accommodate the black race" (actual quote).

I thought I couldn't be shocked at this point in my Internet career, but my jaw *actually dropped* at this.

[Ipsey]

Can't be any worse than the Louisiana common core including stories about pimps and mobstaz.

 

 

What, precisely, do you think kids were taught about pimps and mobsters? Have you read the worksheet?

 

Here's a link where I read it. 

 

http://www.infowars.com/fourth-graders-taught-about-pimps-and-mobstaz-in-louisiana/

 

Wow, talk about overreaction! 

 

And, what would I do if my kids asked me what pimps and mobsters were? I'd say, "They're criminals." And we'd follow up with discussing how not all songs, books, movies etc. are guides for how to live life.

 

Then, we'd talk about the Twist! :)  Can you identify the theme of this worksheet?

 

That wasn't so hard.

 

ETA: Stay out of the comments. I wish I had been able to find a clearer link somewhere else, but . . . That place is hate-central, as I would have expected, honestly. :(

[ChrisB]

It's not quite as simple as that. You might think of it as a spectrum, rather than an on/off switch. Some people are more resistant to the same manipulation techniques that work well for others.

 

Sure, but to acknowledge that we can be conditioned doesn't change the fact that we still possess the ability to *choose*, i.e. that we possess free will.

 

Acknowledgement that we have free will doesn't mean that it's unfettered, without any limitations whatsoever, etc. I'd certainly agree that we can be impacted by both external and internal stimulii in ways that we are often unaware. But the conclusion does not follow that we cannot make up our own mind. The fact that we can persuade and be persuaded indicates -- ironically -- that we are free to choose between one idea and another.

[Ipsey]

Sure, but to acknowledge that we can be conditioned doesn't change the fact that we still possess the ability to *choose*, i.e. that we possess free will.

 

Acknowledgement that we have free will doesn't mean that it's unfettered, without any limitations whatsoever, etc. I'd certainly agree that we can be impacted by both external and internal stimulii in ways that we are often unaware. But the conclusion does not follow that we cannot make up our own mind.

 

Maybe a new thread on free will is in order.