Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ted hughes

Creationism can be taught as Science

78 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ted hughes
Posted (edited)

A bill to allow Christian beliefs to be taught in Arkansas classrooms easily passed the state House Wednesday. House Bill 1701 now heads to the Senate side for a vote.

The bill will allow kindergarten through 12th grade teachers to teach students about the Christian theory of creationism, which claims that a divine being conjured the universe and all things in it in six days. The bill specifies that creationism can be taught not only in religion and philosophy classes, but “as a theory of how the Earth came to exist.”

As with so many pieces of legislation churning out of the Arkansas Capitol this session, if HB 1701 passes, a quick court challenge on this blatant mixing of church and state is all but inevitable. The United States Supreme Court already considered this issue in 1987 and ruled in no uncertain terms that teaching creationism in public school classrooms is unconstitutional. But blatant unconstitutionality hasn’t dissuaded Arkansas lawmakers so far this session. One Senate bill that passed recently, for example, declared all federal gun laws null and void within our state’s borders, in clear opposition to the Supremacy Clause that says federal laws take precedence over state laws.

Rep. Mary Bentley (R-Perryville), sponsor of House Bill 1701 “TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW THE EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OPEN–ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS,” said she put forth the bill at the request of science teachers in her district.

“There are phenomena in our nature that evolution cannot explain,” Bentley said. She emphasized that science teachers may teach creationism under this bill, but they don’t have to.

“Why would we do this when the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it’s illegal to do that,” asked Rep. Deborah Ferguson (D-West Memphis). Ferguson pointed out that Arkansas has been down this road before in 1982 when state lawmakers tried to force creationism into the state’s curriculum. U.S. District Judge William Overton put a stop to it with his ruling in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.

Bentley told Ferguson she believes the Supreme Court might rule differently this time.

The creationism in schools bill passed the House with a vote split strictly along party lines, with 72 yeahs from Republicans, 21 nays from Democrats, and seven not voting. Creationism can be taught as science in Arkansas classrooms, lawmakers say - Arkansas Times (arktimes.com)

Edited by ted hughes
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem

Creationism is in no way, shape or form scientific.

"Goddidit" is such a useless thing to teach children.

What a bunch of morons.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occupational Hubris

By it's very defnition, it cannot be taught as science, no matter how much the Arkansas legislature begs for the evangelical vote. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occupational Hubris
Quote

“There are phenomena in our nature that evolution cannot explain,”

I would LOVE to see her best examples of what she believes evolution cannot explain. If she is like most creationists, which it's safe to assume she is, it's like matter which evolution does not even seek or claim to explain, such as the origin of life, or some other oft debunked creationist rigmarole.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
9 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Creationism is in no way, shape or form scientific.

"Goddidit" is such a useless thing to teach children.

What a bunch of morons.

That's not totally true. Science does have a form of creationism, although it's radically different from the religious kind, and involves no deity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occupational Hubris
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, zep73 said:

That's not totally true. Science does have a form of creationism, although it's radically different from the religious kind, and involves no deity.

eehh... i'd say science has a cosmology, rather than creationism.

Edited by Occupational Hubris
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
Posted (edited)

There goes the neighborhood. I can only guess the teachers qualifications for the job. The dumbing down has begun in earnest. Say hello to the future Republicans. And I'm a spiritualist who believes there's no place in schools for this. Talk about stamping on the kids free will. Indoctrination anyone?

Edited by Hankenhunter
Spelling
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occupational Hubris
1 minute ago, Hankenhunter said:

There goes the neighborhood. I can only guess the teachers qualifications for the job. The dumbing down has begu in earnest. Say hello to the future Republicans. And I'm a spiritualist who believes there's no place in schools for this. Talk about stamping on the kids free will. Indoctrination anyone?

Science teaches one to think critically. They can't have that if they want the GQP to stay in power. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
9 minutes ago, Occupational Hubris said:

eehh... i'd say science has a cosmology, rather than creationism.

I'll give you a hint from popular fiction:

There is no spoon!

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
7 minutes ago, zep73 said:

That's not totally true. Science does have a form of creationism, although it's radically different from the religious kind, and involves no deity.

Creationism invokes a deity/supernatural force of some sort. If something was created that is blatantly specifying that it had a creator.

And specifically in this case :

35 minutes ago, ted hughes said:

The bill will allow kindergarten through 12th grade teachers to teach students about the Christian theory of creationism, which claims that a divine being conjured the universe and all things in it in six days.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Creationism invokes a deity/supernatural force of some sort. If something was created that is blatantly specifying that it had a creator.

Or maybe just a Start button :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
16 minutes ago, Occupational Hubris said:

I would LOVE to see her best examples of what she believes evolution cannot explain. If she is like most creationists, which it's safe to assume she is, it's like matter which evolution does not even seek or claim to explain, such as the origin of life, or some other oft debunked creationist rigmarole.

I'm no creationist, but I have a question: Where does information come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resume
Posted (edited)
Quote

“There are phenomena in our nature that evolution cannot explain,” Bentley said.

Again, unexplained doesn't mean unexplainable.  This is just more god of the gaps bull ****

Edited by Resume
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occupational Hubris
23 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I'll give you a hint from popular fiction:

There is no spoon!

I'm with the small group of people that though the matrix movies were terrible. I also think the idea that we live in a simulation is, at this point, untestable, and therefore of no serious consideration. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
8 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Or maybe just a Start button :ph34r:

While I understand what you're not so subtly referring to, and I respect your opinion, I would want creationism taught in public school as much as I would want the simulation hypothesis to be taught in this manner.

This is supposedly aimed at kids as young as kindergartners.

I think that is ridiculous.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
2 minutes ago, Occupational Hubris said:

I'm with the small group of people that though the matrix movies were terrible. I also think the idea that we live in a simulation is, at this point, untestable, and therefore of no serious consideration. 

Maybe it's already been tested, but the result have not been recognised, because they came from non-related areas.

Anyhow, I'm not interested in a simulation discussion, so I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occupational Hubris
20 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

I'm no creationist, but I have a question: Where does information come from?

All the information in the visible universe came into being approx 13.8 billion years ago, There are any number of ideas for what came before, if anything. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
4 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

While I understand what you're not so subtly referring to, and I respect your opinion, I would want creationism taught in public school as much as I would want the simulation hypothesis to be taught in this manner.

This is supposedly aimed at kids as young as kindergartners.

I think that is ridiculous.

I agree. I was just objecting to a false claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
22 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

I'm no creationist, but I have a question: Where does information come from?

In my opinion, information is a concept, not really a thing. Like numbers.

It takes a mind to collate the input.

If there were no minds everything else would still exist, but nothing to describe, analyze or define it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scudbuster

Creationism as science......oh gawd no, stop the madness.....!

Get The F Out of Here.jpeg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
1 minute ago, zep73 said:

I agree. I was just objecting to a false claim.

Which you did poorly. You say there is a scientific equivalent of creationism.

I disagree.

The simulation hypothesis, in my opinion, is not scientific.

You've said you're not interested in the discussion(and it is only tangential to the OP) so I guess we just have to agree to disagree at this moment.

Til next time. :)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

The simulation hypothesis, in my opinion, is not scientific.

Yeah, we just have to agree to disagree.

See ya :)

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
12 minutes ago, Occupational Hubris said:

All the information in the visible universe came into being approx 13.8 billion years ago, There are any number of ideas for what came before, if anything. 

How? Magic? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SeekTruth
10 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

In my opinion, information is a concept, not really a thing. Like numbers.

It takes a mind to collate the input.

If there were no minds everything else would still exist, but nothing to describe, analyze or define it.

Thanks. Just to make sure we're on the same page, I was thinking more specifically of biological information: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-biological/

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Occupational Hubris
5 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Which you did poorly. You say there is a scientific equivalent of creationism.

I disagree.

The simulation hypothesis, in my opinion, is not scientific.

You've said you're not interested in the discussion(and it is only tangential to the OP) so I guess we just have to agree to disagree at this moment.

Til next time. :)

I agree that information is rather abstract. I look at it in the scientific sense. Information is the resolution of uncertainly. The fewest number of yes/no questions that will explain a given system. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.