New year brings new attacks on evolution in schools

[hyphenate]

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45840321/ns/technology_and_science-science/

New year brings new attacks on evolution in schools
Legislative actions in New Hampshire and Indiana beset widely accepted theory

The new year is bringing new controversy over teaching evolution in public schools, with two bills in New Hampshire seeking to require teachers to teach the theory more as philosophy than science.

..Meanwhile, an Indiana state senator has introduced a bill that would allow school boards to require the teaching of creationism.

New Hampshire House Bill 1148 would "require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism."

The second proposal in the New Hampshire House, HB 1457, does not mention evolution specifically but would "require science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire [sic] results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes."

Innovation can indeed overturn old ideas, but the theory of evolution is too well-established to be tossed out like yesterday's garbage, scientists say.

[Lefta Dissenter]

1. subject line says it all

attacking the evolution in schools. Yes, we want to destroy the public school system and dumb down our children so they become compliant little automatons who have to work 60-hour weeks for little pay. Inquisitive minds cause trouble!

This is very sad.

[Solly Mack]

2. Damn

"...require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory..."

Uh...uh...

[RegieRocker]

3. Neither should be taught in grade school.

Everything should be discussed as a possibility from then on.

[GoneOffShore]

5. Neither? As in Creationism, which is not a scientific theory?

Or evolution, which is?

I'm a tad confused by your post.

[RegieRocker]

6. Nada, none, zilch, zero = neither

And you understand every complex aspect of evolution and creationism but not "neither"? Hmmm.

[cleanhippie]

13. Can you provide just a single example of scientific evidence for creationism?

Can you? Just a single example of scientific evidence for creationism.

[Ichingcarpenter]

16. He's checking his banana theory

and will get back to you.

I had science students in sixth grade that had no problem
studying real science.

[GoneOffShore]

25. All quiet on the banana theory front.

But then a serious reply was never expected.

[REP]

27. Creationism isn't that complex; "a god did it!" is the deus ex machina, so to speak, of Creationism

Or rather, "MY god did it!" is the core belief of all flavors of Creationism.

[backscatter712]

30. What, you don't believe the ancient god Atum masturbated and ejaculated the universe?

SACRILEGE!!!

[RainDog]

7. I disagree

the entire field of biology rests on evolutionary theory.

Creationism relies upon a book has never been approved as a science textbook. ever.

You're basically saying that we should bring fiction into science classroom and teach those stories as fact. That's a ridiculous statement.

[hyphenate]

9. Are you suggesting that both creationism and evolution

be taught in the same "science" class?

I think you aren't understanding the current argument about evolution and creationism, because there is an enormous difference between them. One of them, evolution, is science. The other is a belief, and definitely NOT a science.

They are not even the same thing in any other way shape or form. And both should NOT be taught in a SCIENCE class. Only one is science.

I have no qualms about teaching creationism in a Philosophy class. That's perfectly acceptable. But treating creationism in any other way, in a public school, is not only disgusting, but completely abhorrent to any intelligent person.

Public school is PUBLIC school. The Xtians can teach creationism any fucking way they choose to in a parochial setting. But this is where the SEPARATION of church and state comes in: public schools are NOT religious based--they are secular. And that's why they need to remain secular.

The US is already falling behind many other countries in this world because of rotten grades in sciences and mathematics. We don't need to fall any further behind. By stupid people trying to teach back-assed and idiotics in the form of passing off creationism as "science," this will become a third world nation sooner than the next generation comes to adulthood.

No--creationism and evolution should NOT be both taught together in school--they should be treated as the difference between fiction and non-fiction, science versus batshit-craziness--absolute opposites which can never be reconciled because they shouldn't even be considered in the same thought process.

As far as teaching them in elementary school versus high school, I think that some things need to be taught earlier, and while I don't know exactly when they should be touched upon, critical thinking is something which does need to be taught earlier. Without critical thinking skills, our kids just aren't given the ability to use logic and the ability to question what they are being taught. Without this ability, kids will simply accept the words of their elders and teachers and forget to ask questions. And it appears especially necessary that this is wrong, considering all the whackadoodles out there teaching shit like creationism to our future generation.

[RegieRocker]

10. You know very little about evolution. It is way too complex for any one person to

to fully understand. For anyone to think they do makes them just as much a wackyvdoodle as those you claim who are. So don't make a xxxx xxx statement like "i suppose you do" because you need to reread "any one person" . As far as I am concerned you're all wackydoodles. Both sides believe in hearsay.

[cleanhippie]

14. It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Wow, dude, just wow.

[GoneOffShore]

17. "Both sides believe in hearsay." Really?

You really think that?

Wow, just wow.

Only one camp, the Creationist/ID(iot) camp does that. They've built their entire house of cards on the shaky table of myth. Might as well say that it's turtles, all the way down.

[RegieRocker]

31. Suffering from the same ailment as some creationists, some evolutionists top them

with their adolescent name calling and a complete mental block of the fact they don't know jack about evolution. Heresay. Science states it is fact so it must be true. Oh wait some of it is still theory. So is creationism. A theory. Most Christians and other religions believe in evolution. God created it. Religious freedom also is a protection from an assault on ones religion. Leave their kids alone. That is the "keep out of grade schools and neither should be taught" point. And NO, public schools is not a "OK to attack religion free for all". It is not a place for either to promote their agenda. Yep keep both out of schools period. Grades 1 through 12. Now go ahead and think I don't believe in the least bit any part of evolution. It reveals the truth of what I have stated.

[GoneOffShore]

37. Evolution is a scientific theory - Creationism is religion.

Evolution as religion?

Really?

Again, Wow, just wow.

There is no truth in anything you've stated.

[TransitJohn]

67. I don't think you know what a theory is.

Start here:

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

talkorigins

[RainDog]

21. I studied bioanthropology and genetics

with some very good scholars whose work is published in international journals of note.

They pretty well understood a lot about evolution and are involved, to this day, in testing hypotheses about various aspects of primate evolution or sequencing DNA.

Even tho I am not a scientist, they passed along information to me to help me understand the issue.

Your post, on the other hand, demonstrates incompetence to comment on this issue.

[RegieRocker]

41. You should arrange another session ypur ignorance on the matter is astounding.

[RainDog]

49. LOL

bye, Regie.

you're not worth the time or effort.

stay stupid, bro

[RegieRocker]

51. stay tunneled visioned.

[justiceischeap]

24. Um, they had these pictures when I was in school

and it showed how evolution worked... I recall getting "it." The fact that you're against teaching science in a science class because it's "hard" means that they shouldn't even have science classes because for some kids, science (and math) is hard and won't ever get it.

I find this picture very illuminating when it comes to evolution:



This one too:

[A HERETIC I AM]

62. The top picture you provide reminded me of a speech given by Richard Dawkins at ...

Randolph-Macon Womens College in Lynchburg, VA., right up the road from Falwell's Liberty University.

Here's a 1 hour, 10 minute Youtube of the event;

At one point he wonderfully illustrates the scale of time demonstrated in your graphic.

He stretches out his arm and says essentially "Consider the entire length of time the Earth has been here as the distance from the center of my necktie to the tip of my middle finger. Most of the distance to near the middle of my forearm is the time it took for bacteria and other single celled organisms to appear. Higher forms of life don't begin to appear until almost my wrist. The entire time of the dinosaurs is my wrist to the middle of my palm.

The entirety of human existence - all of recorded history - amounts to the dust created with the single swipe of a nail file on my fingernail."

[REP]

28. Science as hearsay - or did you mean heresy?

[backscatter712]

29. Oh gimme a break.

One person is perfectly capable of reading Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. That same person is also capable of visiting the natural history museum and looking at the fossilized dinosaur bones. He's also capable of reading a few basic college biology textbooks, looking up evidence online, and getting a pretty good idea of how evolution works. Maybe not down to every last base pair of DNA, but he can understand perfectly well the principles of mutation, of natural selection, and evolutionary adaptation to the environment. The guys with the PhDs and the expensive lab equipment can get the dirty details about DNA base pairs, publish their research, subject it to peer-review, and give us a knowledge base on which the rest of us can have some confidence.

[Aerows]

38. That is quite the statement there

So are you telling me that a person who has studied biology in college to the Doctorate level is whackydoodle because they believe in the science of evolution? How about a person that just studied biology to the Bachelor's level?

Evolution is NOT hearsay. It is well-documented with EVIDENCE to support evolutionary theory. Creationism has no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that some supreme being brought the Earth into being.

And that brings me to the next point, even if you are going to teach creationism, which version are you going to teach? Just about every religion has their own ideas about it.

[hyphenate]

40. I don't have to be a biologist to understand

evolution. It's not that difficult to see evolution at work every single day, every day of the year. And creationism doesn't require much thought at all--actually, it's quite simple: stupid or willfully ignorant people like to imagine a "hands-on" god coming up with the intricacy of a human being and "publishing" his work.

The bibble has been written over centuries of time, always coming up with new translations, and new revelations, but never, in any era before the middle of the 19th century, claiming that it is infallible and inerrant, and needs to be accepted whole cloth. There is a presumption that somehow a book of parables and fairy tales was "written" by "god" and that it is sacrilege to ignore that.

The truth is, most of the people in the world never READ the bibble--it was passed by oral tradition down through the ages, and one interpretation was as good as the next. Even after the Nicene Creed was established, the interpretations of the bibblical text were made by many religious leaders solely to pacify their own parishes and sects and protect their own jobs and influence.

If you want to make believe that both evolution and creationism are too complex to understand, you can go ahead and do that. That's your preogative, but I don't believe it myself. I look at Xtianity pretty much the same way I look at other mythologies, because that's what it was intended for.

Evolution is actually frightfully easy to understand. Of course, I am not a biologist, but I have studied other branches of science over the years, and I am confident that I comprehend enough of it to discuss it with someone who works in biology every day in a manner beyond a blithering idiot's fashion.

You have no idea about my qualifications to even discuss the topic--I rarely make judgements on those I speak to online: I do not assume that they are smarter, or stupider, than myself. I think that anyone who does try to frame others in a less favorable light is not only arrogant, but utterly ignorant of the manner of social netiquette.

Most of us are on the internet to correspond with others and gain different perspectives on concerns and issues which are important to each of us. The amount of information is staggering here, and for anyone with a strong desire to learn and comprehend, it is a treasure trove of opinions, facts and viewpoints that range from accepted views to heretical views.

I was raised as a Catholic, so I am not only familiar with the Xtian perspective, but I was forced to live with it for the first half of my life. After that, I was free to make up my own mind on those beliefs, and I chose not to go ahead with what I felt was pure BS. Especially when I knew many others who had gone through the same things I had gone through.

I am certainly not ignorant, but I think that those who choose to accuse someone of ignorance are doing so out of their own ignorance, and their lack of insight in the matter at hand.

Further, it is severely bad behavior to make derogatory comments about someone who is, in essence, a total stranger, and only ruins your own credibility and reputation as someone who refuses to listen to opinions other than their own.

[RegieRocker]

61. You had better focus your attention elsewhere because my response was a re-attack at those

who attacked first. So your "it is severely bad behavior" is nothing but b.s. My whole point was that it isn't good to attack a person for their beliefs. I made it real clear that both should not be taught in schools "NEITHER". I would prefer it that way. If you have one you should have the other. So go spin somewhere else.

[Politicalboi]

76. Dinosaur bones are "hearsay"

Compared to a book that was written by man, and could all be lies. IMO religion is the hearsay, and has no place in public schools.

[obamanut2012]

12. Than I guess we shouldn't teach gravity, either

Or that the Moon Landings happened.

[RegieRocker]

42. The law of gavity is on its way out soon to be replaced

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 02:15 AM - Edit history (1)

but you don't know that. No surprise.

The problem with the fraud known as modern, academically accepted science, is not merely that credit has not been given for these prior discoveries. Far more devastating is that, in the modern formulation of notions similar to those that Weber had derived far earlier, there is no lawful derivation. We fly, rather, by the seat of our pants, hoping to reach the destination intact.

—Laurence Hecht

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html

[MattBaggins]

15. Um no

I want my children to compete in a modern world of science.

Please stay out of school curriculum's if you actually believe what you wrote.

[JoePhilly]

22. You afraid kids will learn how seedless oranges are created?

Or how a virus becomes resistant to antibiotics?

Personally, I welcome the teaching of Creationism in schools ... that would be the fastest way to put it to death.

[Ohio Joe]

23. WTF?

You want religious dogma taught as if it could be real? Seriously fucked up.

[backscatter712]

26. Ah, the mainstream-media model...

"My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge!"

And this flawed paradigm is why the media has "discussions" where NASA scientists are given equal time with Flat-Earthers, with the anchors shrugging their shoulders and declaring "It's a controversy!"

But the real facts are that modern evolution is as close to correct as the evidence we have can lead us, while creationism is nothing but a backwards fucking Bronze Age fairy tale. It's not a controversy, except in the eyes of brain-damaged religious fanatics.

And I would want my kids taught accurate science from a young age.

[RegieRocker]

32. Evolution is a twisted fucked up idea that doesnt prove anything but only to morons.

Aging is evolution. Everything evolves so the f*ck what. It means nothing. Both sides believe in man made dancing fairy tales. What a crock of crap.

[backscatter712]

33. Why don't you take a college biology class and try again... n/t

[Aerows]

39. My thoughts exactly

And for someone to believe that "aging" has anything to do with evolution, well, that tells you just how much they know about evolution right there.

[RegieRocker]

43. and evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life. That shows how much you know.

They both can exist together. But you don't want your kids taught creationism. They don't want their kids taught evolution without creationism. From my perspective as an agnostic they are a far better class of people. And I take serious offense when they are called names. What ever their religion of choice might be. So go pray to your evolution / aetheist self.

[RainDog]

46. evolution doesn't argue first causes

that's not what the science of evolution is about. you're talking about physics... how did time begin. that has nothing to do with evolution.

creationism, on the other hand, argues that a god created humans w/o the evolutionary passage from single cell organisms to multi-cellular specialization over a time span that is far longer than the one acceptable to creationists - young earth creationists teach children to believe the universe is thousands of years old, rather than billions.

it's simple stupidity. there is no branch of science that supports this b.s. and yet religious fundies want this taught as an alternative to every other branch of science.

so, your response here demonstrates that you don't even know the issue that you're trying to argue about.

[Aerows]

52. Agreed

I can't even believe someone is arguing this on a message board at all, let alone one for Democrats.

It's like arguing that gravity doesn't exist, or that the universe rotates around planet Earth. Good grief.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

72. gravity is being replaced. He informed us of this upthread. Seriously.

I think he's maybe referring to gravity waves, or possibly the GUT, but what he actually said is that gravity is slated to be replaced. You should buy up all the spare gravity you can get your hands on in your area--it's going to be worth lots of money soon.

[Aerows]

47. Don't shove beliefs on me

When I merely stated facts that had nothing to do with what I "believe" in. If you want to make this an "I believe in science" vs. "I believe in religion" argument, I won't stop you.

I don't need to do so.

[Aerows]

48. Wow

That was extremely defensive. Assuming I believe a certain way, putting all of it's faults on the people who believe that way also, entrenching and declaring the person offering an opinion a "non-believer".

Black and white views much?

[PVnRT]

58. You're an "agnostic"? lulz

An agnostic who supports creationist fairy tale bullshit being taught in public schools. Uh huh. Sure.

[RegieRocker]

60. I support neither being taught in schools. Learn to read.

[DimmerCritic]

68. Regie my friend...

Would you make it a general principle that any topic of education - in any subject - that offends some group of parents should not be taught in public schools?

[hyphenate]

69. If that were the case

Nothing would be taught in school, period. Someone someplace would argue that 2+2=3, that London was not the center of Great Britain, that pigs flied, that ethylene glycol wasn't poisonous, and that the US was a dictatorship.

Oh, wait....that last one might not be very far off the mark......

[RainDog]

35. are you joking?

or are you really this stupid?

if you would like to learn about the overwhelming evidence for evolution that has been demonstrated in physics, geology, biology, horticulture (which you should maybe care about?), archeology, medicine and in real time displays in species with very short life spans, I would be happy to lead you to some sources to help you overcome your overwhelming ignorance.

otherwise, I'm sad to say that you're just an embarrassment to yourself.

[arbusto_baboso]

44. You make all sorts of pronouncements and back them up with nothing.

Maybe YOU are the uninformed, uneducated one here. Ever think of that? Oh NO, it just couldn't be YOU, it has to be EVERYONE ELSE that's wrong.

Feh.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

71. disregard my earlier question. You display a complete lack of knowledge r.e. evolution

Again is not evolution, by the way.

[2ndAmForComputers]

75. Kicking this thread because of THIS particular post. Wow.

Oh, and... screencapping it just in case.

[PVnRT]

57. Wow, I didn't think we had many IDers here at DU

I suppose now you'll tell us it's "just a theory" without any understanding of what the word "theory" means. If you even bother to respond to anything else in this thread, which I doubt.

[RegieRocker]

63. Albert Einstein

"The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious. It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavor in art and science. He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is."

[RegieRocker]

64. and before you go there and....

Albert Einstein's religious views have been studied due to his sometimes apparently ambiguous statements and writings on the subject. He believed in the God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal God, a belief which he criticized. He also called himself an agnostic, and criticized atheism, preferring he said "an attitude of humility." Something that is seriously lacking in many "humility".



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_religious_views

[RainDog]

74. atheism is not the issue here

Einstein did not reject evolution as the best available scientific understanding of his time.

you are playing games by pretending that, if you quote Einstein, your statements are valid when he had NOTHING to say about equating religious myth and science as the same subjects.

there are scientists who believe in god across disciplines. that has nothing to do with whether evolutionary theory and creationism are equally valid as subjects for a science class.

it is not a lack of humility to note when something is wrong b/c there is no evidence to back it up.

creationists have no evidence for their belief. it's not a scientific theory. it's religion and such beliefs belong within that context.

I don't care if someone believes in astrology, creationism, alchemy, the four humors... the list of things that were the explanations of things before humans had the means to test them... but simply because someone believes something is not grounds to teach the same in a science classroom.

Newton was a big believer in alchemy. He was a product of his time. That doesn't mean that Newton validates alchemy. It means he was a human who existed within a particular time with a particular frame of reference.

Creationism also is a belief "of its time" and there is no reason to include it in any science classroom other than to discount it as implausible.

[TransitJohn]

66. Bullshit.

Science belongs in schools, starting in elementary. Creationism belongs in churches.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

70. your reasoning?

Why should evolution not be taught in primary school?

[grantcart]

77. Reallly and which of the two creation stories in the Bible should be taught?

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Meanwhile, in Kansas, all is well.

We fought this battle and won

[piratefish08]

11. Flying Spaghetti Monster applauds your effort!

[Archae]

8. This is typical of creationists.

They never can get anywhere with their crackpot ideas scientifically, so they go political.

[brooklynite]

18. Is this a serious attack?

Or are these the sort of bills that ideologues file with no hope of ever coming up for a vote?

[hyphenate]

19. I'm not sure.

The one that bothers me is the NH one. New Englanders are usually pretty down on the whole fundie thing, so I am amazed that they've infiltrated government there. It's sad. I'm sure some attempts aren't exactly going anywhere, but some might have some traction.

[killbotfactory]

20. How dare schools teach science in science classes.

outrageous.

[RainDog]

36. why are you posting creationist b.s. here? n/t

[Quartermass]

45. The sad thing is

Evolution IS a theory.

In science a theory is a body of facts.

[backscatter712]

50. And you gotta love how the fundies redefine the vocabulary...

so they can go howling and screeching in their fundie churches "Evolution is just a theory!", not understanding that scientists use the term "theory" in a completely different way than how the fundies are using it.

[Liquorice]

53. They tried that silly nonsense here in Georgia a few years ago and

Jimmy Carter came out against them so strongly that it took the wind right out of their sails. They eventually lost, and I haven't heard a thing about it since.

I hope they lose in New Hampshire and Indiana too. It really hurts the kids and the state's reputation when this kind of political BS disguised as "protecting the children" goes on.

[aikoaiko]

54. This is a good example of why I pony up for a secular private school for my boy.

keep the wacky politicians out of the classroom.

[RainDog]

55. but for those who cannot afford private school

they are then put at a disadvantage as the religious right tries to create a servant class of illiterates.

honestly, I don't think that someone should be allowed to hold public office in the U.S. if they are so functionally illiterate about science that they can put forth any bill that attempts to place religion and science on the same agenda.

we wouldn't elect someone to public office who couldn't read or write and wanted to force illiteracy on American students because we would assume those pols lack the basic educational foundation to serve in their positions - we don't do this b/c of any law against it - it's just that our standard for public office is such that we expect our politicians not to be idiots b/c that's bad for this nation - to be governed by idiots.

James Watson got his PhD Indiana U. and Dow Chemical endows the U. big time there b/c the prez is also a graduate. Eli Lilly surely doesn't want a bunch of scientifically functionally illiterate people making up the work force... this will go nowhere.

The Dover case surely put this to rest.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

so you have to wonder why such idiots are wasting taxpayer money with this bullshit. I would like for religious groups who put pols up to such bullshit to have to pay for nuisance suits since this issue has been decided beyond doubt. Now they're just blowing smoke out the asses of politicians who pander to them to get into office. It's disgusting.

[aikoaiko]

56. I'm not abandoning the public school kids.

I vote for decent board members and work on teacher education in a round about way.


You ask why are politicians wasting taxpayer money this way. The answer is simple -- its not their money and it gets them reelected by appeasing social conservatives even it alienates fiscal conservatives.

[RainDog]

59. I understand. it's not you, singular

it's the idea that people who attend public schools are forced to put up with these attacks from people who are not competent to comment upon the subject they want to diminish by their belief that unsupported myth and supported scientific, evidence-based theory have the same standing in education.

[B Calm]

65. Evolution is Satan's religion. . That

is what is on the 10 foot sign the neighbor down the road has out in his yard. . Anyone travelling up or down four lane Indiana route 41 can enjoy reading it.. Just a few miles north of I-74.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

73. Fine, but the states that teach ID should not have their schools accredited

If a state votes to teach "intelligent design", that state's students should not be accepted at institutions of higher learning without first taking and passing a remedial science course. Those new laws would be repealed in record time if universities did this.