quote:

---

GRANTSBURG, Wisconsin (AP) -- School officials have revised the science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

Members of Grantsburg's school board 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.

Last month, when the board examined its science curriculum, language was added calling for "various models/theories" of origin to be incorporated.

The decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy. It follows a letter sent previously by 43 deans at Wisconsin public universities.

---

quote:

---

Geez. I thought Wisconsin was supposed to be one of the progressive states.

---

University towns like Madison are fairly progressive and Milwaukee had a socialist mayor throughout the 1950's (Frank Zeidler).

But there are some that just want to remove all references to evolution from the cirriculum altogether. These people are dangerous to scientific progess.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Geez. I thought Wisconsin was supposed to be one of the progressive states.

---

You can't judge places like that.

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Well, I am opposed to teaching evolution as absolute truth. And if they wanna include alternative theories, such as Intelligent Design, that is fine but again as long as it is not taught as absolute truth.

---

Schools are under no obligation to give all ideas equal time, attention and credibility. Shall we give equal time to the idea that earth is flat, because some people believe that? Should holocaust denial be give equal time in a study of Nazi genocide? Sure, such ideas should be mentioned in schools, by way of explaining why some people might believe them, and how the evidence shows that they are wrong.

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: Albireo ]

I can't say I agree with you Gir, Creationism in a science class is like Planet of the Apes in History class.

Creationism flies in the face of science - it's not an opposing scientific viewpoint, like arguments about the Big Bang or whatever, it is contrary to all scientific proof and antithesis to the scientific method.

By all means mention it in religion class, but if you explore it seriously in a science class it will contradict everything they're learning.

So, to recap:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

Evolution, but no mention of ID = dishonest, but not the end of the world, as churches will pick up the slack

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Well, I am opposed to teaching evolution as absolute truth. And if they wanna include alternative theories, such as Intelligent Design, that is fine but again as long as it is not taught as absolute truth.

---

I don't think any scientific theory is ever proclaimed to be absolute truth. All scientific theories are tentative and approximate. And subject to re-evaluation and possible rejection if the evidence warrants it (like geocentrism and phlogiston theory have been).

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Well, I am opposed to teaching evolution as absolute truth. And if they wanna include alternative theories, such as Intelligent Design, that is fine but again as long as it is not taught as absolute truth.

---

The problem with this kind of opinion, Gir, is that it confuses two very different definitions of the word 'theory'.

A 'theory' in everyday English, is what a scientist would call a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an idea of how the world operates that generates testable implications, ie, an idea that you can test against the real world to see if it holds true. This is one step down from a scientific theory, which is defined as a hypothesis that has experimental evidence to back it up or 'prove' it.

Intelligent design is, at best, a HYPOTHESIS. It's never been satisfactorily investigated using scientific methods. Evolution is a THEORY: it generates testable implications that have been verified both by laboratory experiment and by observation in nature.

quote:

---

And if they wanna include alternative theories, such as Intelligent Design, that is fine but again as long as it is not taught as absolute truth.

---

What if, just for fun, none of the alternative theories mentioned the Christian cosmololgy?

For example, they could study evolution, and perhaps the Navajo belief that the world began as a black island floating in the mist, surrounded by four different coloured clouds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:

You can't judge places like that.

Remember, Larry Spencer is from Saskatchewan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
You misspelt "Missouri"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:
Actually, Larry Spencer is from Missouri and moved to Canada in his early 30s.

---

quote:

---

The decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy. It follows a letter sent previously by 43 deans at Wisconsin public universities.

---

Wait one goddamned minute everybody! If these school board twerps are saying that evolution is just a theory, then they are either lying or just plain nuts.

While there are lots of different theories on evolution, as to why it takes place and how it happens, there is no doubt with the tons of empiric evidence out there that evolution is a fact.

It happens all around us and we see it every day. Things change and adjust in nature constantly. Things adapt and modify, while some things die out and make room for new things. It's a fact of life, and all schools of science, as well as any sane reasonable school of thought, recognize it.

It's just like there are all kinds of theories as to why, or even how, the earth revolves around the sun, and the moon revolves around the earth, but no one disputes that that's actually what's going on.

Conversely, "creationism" isn't even a theory. It's a twisted perversion of the myths of the Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis, that provide the basis for life values to be used for a vicious self-serving political agenda.

Any decent religious scholar or practitioner--0and I have talked with many--will tell you that the bible is written in symbolism and metaphors by people who were trying to interpret visions, which they believed were divinely inspired, to spell out a powerful code of ethics and value system for people.

That's why the myths, fables and legends of the bible don't correspond very well to practical reality, but the values and morals definitely do--and that's what important basis of its message.

In other words, a real Christian, Moslem or Jew (the three religions based on the bible) couldn't care less whether there actually was a piece of real estate someplace known as the Garden of Eden. What's important is the symbolism of the garden and the values it represented and the life lessons to be learned from its story.

It's not practical earth science, and it never was intended to be. Twisting into some literal interpretation was the key way the churches of the feudal dark ages and the colonialist era used to terrorize people, suppress free thought and keep them in line.

The corporate "Christian right" in the US is trying to do the same thing today. Pushing the philosophical basis of the bible as earth science is not only an insult to people, science and free thought, but an insult to biblical values themselves, and whoever does this, as far as I'm concerned, should condemned as a heretic.

For the record, I'm not opposed to teaching religious studies or even allowing prayer in public schools (provided all types of prayers are allowed). I even go as far as endorsing the possibility that what is seen as supernatural today could just undiscovered science and fact, just like what is technology today could have been seen as mysticism centuries ago.

But these should be discussed and taught as what they are: religious studies, not practical earth science since that is not what they are about, and saying they are is dishonest and an attack on free thought.

It's interesting to note the "Christian right" that tries to push its narrow biblical interpretations as science and shove it down people's throats doesn't seem to be encumbered by any of the biblical values, such as the Ten Commandments, The Golden Rule and the practices of compassion, love thy neighbour (regardless of who thy neighbour is), forgiving sins and transgressions and, most importantly, judge not lest ye be judged.

Nope. Not them. They are ready to kill, main, torture, slander, imprison and deport anybody who isn't exactly like them, doesn't swear total allegiance to the US government and blindly follow the dictates of Corporate America.

I beleive the literal creationists are wrong. But I still want their theory taught objectively. This means acknowledging that ID could be right in some ways, but also identifying the holes and inconsistencies in their theories.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Now would someone please explain who the heck Larry Spencer is?

---

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
(but there are plenty more like him still there).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Okay...

I beleive the literal creationists are wrong. But I still want their theory taught objectively. This means acknowledging that ID could be right in some ways, but also identifying the holes and inconsistencies in their theories.

Oh and I am taking a philosophy of science course right now, so that might be part of why I don't like words like "valid", "proven", and "fact" in the contexts they have been used in this thread. There is no proof that modern species simply evolved via random mutations without any help from an intelligent designer. There is loads of evidence to support an evolutionary model, but the question of a designer is as yet unanswered by sound science. But just because there is a lot of support for a theory, it does not mean that we should not look at the criticisms. And skdadl is right about the infleucne of creationism on historical science.

---

In what ways could ID be right, Gir?

And you're wrong, there's ample proof that modern species evolved from random mutations. What you're maybe not considering is that the random mutations are then selected in an non-random way i.e. natural selection.

I suggest you spend some time reading this site;

quote:

---

Geez. I thought Wisconsin was supposed to be one of the progressive states.

---

Actually, if I recall a map that someone posted somewhere showing the breakdown of voting by county in the US correctly, it showed a striking difference between large urban centres (which went to Kerry) and rural areas.

So, while Madison and Milwaukee went "blue" the rest of Wisconsin went "red". This pattern held throughout most of the US. I was struck that Austin, TX went blue, and then nothing north of that 'till Chicago.

Anyway, back to question at hand. I cannot beleive that, in this day and age, people are still debating whether evolution should be taught alone or as part of a rainbow of theories. Boggling.

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: Tommy Shanks ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
Some people are as stubborn as the day is long.

---

Yeah, but the days are getting shorter, for another seven weeks or so.

[ 08 November 2004: Message edited by: Contrarian ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
If myths of creation from around the world are presented as entirely equal (equal devotion of time, and an examination of the underlying values supported by the mythos), I have less of an issue with this decision. Comparative religious studies are desperately needed in the US, and if the only way of exposing students to it is to sneak it into the science curriculum, so be it.

---

In the beginning, Gord had a bad cold. Gord sneezed. Because there were no kleenex or anything else, the sneeze just basically travelled here there and everywhere, and became the universe.