25 replies to this topic

[Imaginarynumber1]

usnews.msnbc.msn.com said:

Activists were waging a last-minute battle Thursday to scuttle a bill that they say would gut science education in Tennessee by allowing public schools to cast doubt on widely-accepted scientific principles, including biological evolution and climate change."What it does is bring the political controversy into the classroom, where there is no scientific controversy," said Larisa DeSantis, who teaches in the Department of Earth and Environment at Vanderbilt University."It’s scary, as a parent and as an educator. Read more...

-sigh- Will it never end with these stupid politicians?
I will say it only once for clarity;
THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY OVER EVOLUTION IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

[libstaK]

I have to say dubbing this new legislation as "the monkey bill" has me rotflmao.  um, for reasons that fundamental creationists (who think it is a subject for the science room) would probably frown upon .

[bulveye]

But global warming is only a theory. There have been ice ages and long very cold spells in the UK that seem semi-random. We only see the 4 seasons, but what happens if there are longer ones we have fallen out of touch with. And the whole carbon dating of fossils seems a little bit dodgy. Like, if one rock was in a cave and one on a hill in the sun 12 hours a day then they give of the same carbon print?!?!

[Michelle]

Imaginarynumber1, on 06 April 2012 - 01:46 AM, said:

-sigh- Will it never end with these stupid politicians?
I will say it only once for clarity;
THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY OVER EVOLUTION IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

It is my understanding that this would only allow students to question the teachers about the conflict between evolution and creationism. When I was in school, studying evolution, our teachers were not allowed to answer questions of a religious nature at all. They informed us that it was something we would have to consult our parents or clergy about. This seems to enable a more open dialogue which they could talk more freely about in the classroom.

[tapirmusic]

Sorry, I stopped paying attention as soon as I read the word "activists"...

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Michelle, on 06 April 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:

It is my understanding that this would only allow students to question the teachers about the conflict between evolution and creationism. When I was in school, studying evolution, our teachers were not allowed to answer questions of a religious nature at all. They informed us that it was something we would have to consult our parents or clergy about. This seems to enable a more open dialogue which they could talk more freely about in the classroom.

even in a Catholic school where we do teach evolution in the science lessons we don't touch upon creationism in science, that's fodder for Religious Education. We're actually told to say things like "we'll talk about that later" and keep on the subject at hand.

[cormac mac airt]

bulveye, on 06 April 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

But global warming is only a theory. There have been ice ages and long very cold spells in the UK that seem semi-random. We only see the 4 seasons, but what happens if there are longer ones we have fallen out of touch with. And the whole carbon dating of fossils seems a little bit dodgy. Like, if one rock was in a cave and one on a hill in the sun 12 hours a day then they give of the same carbon print?!?!

Carbon 14 doesn't date rock.  

cormac

[Copasetic]

Michelle, on 06 April 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:

It is my understanding that this would only allow students to question the teachers about the conflict between evolution and creationism. When I was in school, studying evolution, our teachers were not allowed to answer questions of a religious nature at all. They informed us that it was something we would have to consult our parents or clergy about. This seems to enable a more open dialogue which they could talk more freely about in the classroom.

Its a stealth creationist bill meant to encourage and protect creationist teachers trying to pass off creationism as science.

[Paracelse]

Wearer of Hats, on 06 April 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

even in a Catholic school where we do teach evolution in the science lessons we don't touch upon creationism in science, that's fodder for Religious Education. We're actually told to say things like "we'll talk about that later" and keep on the subject at hand.

Technically Vatican believes in evolution and not on creationnism, methink it was the dude before Jeanpolski who passed the law, not the one that died within weeks but the one before that.

[Paracelse]

Although I'm not entirely convinced that evolution as it is thought today is entirely true, I don't believe at all in creationism.  First there are two different version of creation.  In the first, Adam and Lilith were created at the same time but Lilith didn't want to lay below Adam and rebelled, she was casted out of Eden and become the bride of God before  rebelling against God also and becoming a beast of some sort.  Second we have the story everyone knows Eve created out of a rib.

In evolution theory, we see cavemen learning over the past 10 000 years struggling over a fire and killing beast, then built some pyramids, and learn the use of metal etc... to end with a speed of light technological advances we see today.  At the same time as machines advances humanity is "devolving" as a whole.  In hellenic times human were remembering entire books by rote now we google and wikipidia things instead of remembering.  How many of you can still built a home (current knowledge 150 years ago) built a chair or even simply kill an animaml and skin him?  In advance technological society, education becomes on sided.  If you're a computer analyst you prolly won't have to learn who was Socrates or John Marshall (OK it's some form of extreme when it comes to Socrates).
What I am trying to say is that society is closer to "Idiocracy" than we thing and if a manmade or natural desaster would occur our civilisation would be send back to the Stoneage in no time flat.

[Cradle of Fish]

No Paracelse, there are hundreds of creation stories, if youre going to talk about one in a classroom you have to talk about them all. The sun god laying an egg which hatched the world is equally as valid as six days and adam and eve.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Michelle, on 06 April 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:

It is my understanding that this would only allow students to question the teachers about the conflict between evolution and creationism. When I was in school, studying evolution, our teachers were not allowed to answer questions of a religious nature at all. They informed us that it was something we would have to consult our parents or clergy about. This seems to enable a more open dialogue which they could talk more freely about in the classroom.

Disclaimer: I'm drunk.

This is my point. THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN EVOLUTIONARY SCIENCE AND CREATIONISM. They are not even comparable. One is an accepted scientific fact with only the finer mechanisms being debated, while the other is a religious interpretation of how things came to be. If they want to teach creationism in school, fine. Whatever. But teach it in a comparative religion class where it belongs, not in a science class. Do they teach Norse creation myth in science? Egyptian? Native American? Shinto? Hindu? Ect. If you want to teach Christian creation myth (as we all know creationism is) as science you have to teach them all. Seeing as not one of them is science, however, YOU CANNOT TEACH IT AS SCIENCE. End of story.

That would be the same as the government (publicly funded schools) endorsing one religion over another. There is an...ummm...amendment? I think.... to the....... constitution? (I think that's what they call it.) And this amendment doesn't allow the government to endorse one religion over another. Hmmm... Looks like the federal government prevents the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools. What does that mean? It means, NO CREATIONISM IN SCIENCE CLASSES YOU #$%^ING IDIOTS!!!!

[Paracelse]

Cradle of Fish, on 06 April 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

No Paracelse, there are hundreds of creation stories, if youre going to talk about one in a classroom you have to talk about them all. The sun god laying an egg which hatched the world is equally as valid as six days and adam and eve.

I knew about the others but in Tennessee there can be only one

[Lilly]

Science is science. Religious teachings are religious teachings. They are two completely different concepts that can not be reasonably merged. Some people know this, others do not.

I tend to agree with what Copasetic said:

Quote

Its a stealth creationist bill meant to encourage and protect creationist teachers trying to pass off creationism as science.

[FurthurBB]

Michelle, on 06 April 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:

It is my understanding that this would only allow students to question the teachers about the conflict between evolution and creationism. When I was in school, studying evolution, our teachers were not allowed to answer questions of a religious nature at all. They informed us that it was something we would have to consult our parents or clergy about. This seems to enable a more open dialogue which they could talk more freely about in the classroom.

Anything supernatural is outside of what science deals with.  Other than saying science studies the natural world and since supernatural things are by definition outside of the natural world, nothing else should be said.