[TEXAS] these are the people sitting on the Board of Education

Ugh, this is why people from the NE link us with the Old South/Bible Belt crowd. There is the relatively educated group of people in the cities like Dallas and Houston and then people like these from the country who have a powerful voice in the state's key govt institutions

 

In creationism, isn't the basis of the argument that the World and Universe were created to be inhabited by man and animal. Aren't you then assuming the world would have a certain distinct age, a certain geological structure, a certain fossil structure to it no matter when in the timeline it was created. So the argument of creationism, despite its "creation vs. evolution" media battle, is not really non-scientific but in believing the "Genesis" story and man's lineage as stated, someone can only assume a certain age. Isn't it her right to argue that if it's her belief. The majority of evolutional theory isn't non-biblical but biological evolution is a theory and specie to specie changes is where the theory falls apart for creationists. Man was put on this earth for a specific reason with a specific set of traits that though some may be tall and some short(tongue in check), they did not start off as monkeys. There are groups that focus on the science of creationism, http://www.icr.org/, but obviously these arguments fall apart in the scientific community because they can not prove or theorize a creator. For someone of faith these arguments are compelling. Regardless, for the majority of us it is inconsequential how old the earth is and if both theories were taught what affect would that really have on the average student.

 

Most of the rest of the country, and the world, is laughing at Texas. Again.

 

You have a right to be stupid. You do not have the right to force others to be stupid. If you are on the board of education, you have an obligation to not advocate stupidity.

Regardless, if you are stupid, expect to be mocked mercilessly.

 

It would make the average student r****ded, is what it would do. It would make the average American student below average, compared to the rest of the students of the industrialized world. By an 11 to 3 margin, the Texas B of E (which controls, de facto, standards for textbooks for much of the nation) fostered a "teach the controversy" approach to basic astronomy.

Little Johnny, when asked how old the universe is on his final, writes, "47 years." His final is covered in red ink. He complains, "But teacher, I really really believe the world's only 47 years old! According to the state board of education, it therefore is! Don't we just have competing theories?"

America: our public education system ranks in the top 50 worldwide, by a hair, and slipping fast!

 

To follow up on aghast's point it would affect the average student a lot. Scientific theories don't exist in a vacuum and just saying that in your daily doings the age of the Earth doesn't matter that much is like saying that in your daily doings it is inconsequential who discovered the Americas.

While you might not think about such issues daily they do have an impact on how you perceive the World and depending on such views a host of other things willl or won't make sense. For instance if you accept a young Earth viewpoint that isn't just incompatible with Evolution that is also incompatible with plate tectonics, climate cycles and astronomy. Reading about how Mars might've had surface water millions of years ago will make no sense since its if God created Earth 6,000 years ago why is Mars older?

You can't just present two ideas as diametrically opposed, yet fundamental, such as how old the Earth is and present them as being qualitatively the same without at that point having to challenge a whole host of other things.

 

This is brilliance.

It is inconsequential for me in everyday life to know the Pythagorean theorem. Pythagorea is what happens in the bathroom the morning after I chug a bottle of Saigon Snake Wine.

I don't go around looking for right triangles. Much less trying to calculate their dimensions.

I mean Hypoten-moose? Whaaa? Some sort of large mammal? More like Hypoten-useless.

Accordingly why don't we teach kids that A³ + B³ = C³ - it's pretty close to the original formulation so I don't see what the big deal is and they is never going to use it anyways.

 

Uh, this is from that Barbara something-gill's website. I...don't.....believe....it.....

 

I still scan D&D periodically, but I don't have much spare time for it anymore. However, I feel compelled to agree (gasp!) with SWTsig -- this position is ... excessive.

The Bible is an enigma, no question. Parts of it are literal and parts are figurative. Figuring out which is which is left entirely to us an individuals, although there is some solid evidence for which is which.

Texas may well be 6,000 years old, but I just don't think those "years" are the same as we calculate today. In Genesis there is the figurative (IMO) story that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. Personally, I don't doubt it, but I don't believe those "days" were 24-hour ones. Each "day" may have lasted millions or billions of years. It is interesting that the account starts out with a "void."

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Science shows that that Earth was highly volcanic and largely molten with comets likely bringing water with each collision, concepts the early peoples could not comprehend. Hence, the information was conveyed in a way they could understand.

Anyway, before I get carried away with examples, I am trying to make one point clear -- science and religion can and should co-exist. Whereas no one will ever convince me that God did not orchestrate the creation and governance of the universe, I cannot accept the crazy creationist rejection of provable science. But that's just me.

 

I think her position is clearly correct, legally sound, and I could win this case in a court of law.

Signed,

William Jennings Bryan

 

Science and religion should definitely not coexist in a public school classroom.

 

You don't think alternate ideas should be taught? Not necessarily spend lots of time on it, but shouldn't part of the lesson plan include other theories?

 

Other scientific theories, sure. However, religion does not produce scientific theories, so no.

 

Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Creation is not a scientific theory. These have no place in a science classroom.

Other scientific theories can be taught. Things that are not scientific theories should never be paraded as if they were.

 

So, you don't think a lesson plan could be reasonably written that touches on the fact that millions upon millions of people believe that God created the universe? I am not saying to teach Creationism in public school science classes, but do you think it should be ignored altogether?

 

Alternatively, I would demand it include every religious creation theory.

Start with the Okanaga Indian Earth Mother, move onto the Egyptian mother goddess Nut, don't forget Devi Shakti, Kali, Coatlicue....

 

That should be done outside of science class. There is plenty of room for such discussions in classes that touch on history and culture.

 

I have no issue with teaching it in a social studies class. But it ain't science.

And the amount of people who believe something means NOTHING. Absolutely NOTHING.