posted
I've been surrounded by high levels of conservative Christian right-wing views for the past several days, so here's my chance to let off some steam. Don't hurt me.
The following is a story from the local paper that literally left me speechless.
CONSERVATIVES ELIMINATING EVOLUTION THEORY IN MANY STATES' SCHOOLS by Hanna Rosin
For biology teacher Al Frisby, teaching evolution to the many studends who take the Bible literally is like "banging his face against a brick wall." More than a third of his students at his suburban high school in Shawnee Mission, Kan., wrote in a final evaluation last year that they did not believe a single thing their teacher had to say on the subject.
The challenge Frisby faces is apt to get tougher next year. On Wednesday, a majority of the Kansas Board of Education may vote to pass a new statewide science curriculum for kindergarten through 12th grade that wipes out virtually all mention of evolution and related concepts: natural selection, common ancestors, and the origins of the universe.
The new curriculum will not explicitly prohibit the teaching of evolution. But its exclusion will severely undermine such efforts when they come under attack from students, parents, principals, or local school boards in a state where fights over evolution are as commonplace as cornfields.
If the conservative majority on the school board prevails as expected, it will mark the most decisive victory in recent years for the creationist movement: Christians who read the book of Genesis literally and believe that God created human beings and animals fully formed.
"This is the most explicit censorship of evolution I have ever seen," said Molleen Matsumara of the National Center for Science Education.
In the past two decades, creationists have undergone their own process of evolution. After a series of court decisions from 1968 to 1987 barred the movement's efforts to have biblical creationism taught in the schools, activists changed their strategy. They began to focus instead on attacking evolution as an unproven theory, picking apart such basic building blocks as fossil records and geological dating.
National organizations dedicated to "scientific creationism" published books and videos and magazines designed to educate students on how to resist what they described as the "conspiricy" of evolution.
The movement's success has been evident in the past five years. In dozens of states, religious conservatives on school boards and legislatures have been chipping away at what scientists consider a bedrock concept of biology:
In the last four years, school boards in seven states - Arizona, Alabama, Illinois, New Mexico, Texas, Kansas, and Nebraska - have tried to remove evolution from state science standards or water down the concepts, with varying degrees of success.
State legislatures in both Georgia and Ohio have bills pending that require all educators who teach evolution to also teach evidence inconsistent with it.
In 1995, Alabama passed a law mandating that all biology books used in public schools bear a sticker describing evolution as a "controversial theory...No one was present when life first appeared. Therefore any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory and not a fact."
In 1996, the legislature in Tennessee, home of the famous 1925 Scopes trial over the teaching of evolution, considered (though ultimately rejected) a bill allowing public school teachers to be fired if they taught evolution as "fact" rather than "theory."
In 1997, the Texas Board of Education proposed replacing all biology books in the state with new ones that did not mention evolution. The move was considered to signal a national trend because Texas is the second largest purchaser of textbooks after California. The proposal failed by a slim majority.
------------------ "We took a small flight, in the middle of the night, from one tiny place to another." -- Ben Folds Five
posted
Looks like we need another Clarence Darrow to argue for John Scopes.
Those with a short attention span can watch "Inherit the Wind" (1960) which is a damn good movie in it's own right. It also contains the following repartee:
Matthew Harrison Brady: We must not abandon faith! Faith is the most important thing!
Henry Drummond: Then why did God plague us with the capacity to think? Mr. Brady, why do you deny the one thing that sets above the other animals? What other merit have we? The elephant is larger, the horse stronger and swifter, the butterfly more beautiful, the mosquito more prolific, even the sponge is more durable. Or does a sponge think?
Matthew Harrison Brady: I don't know. I'm a man, not a sponge!
Henry Drummond: Do you think a sponge thinks?
Matthew Harrison Brady: If the Lord wishes a sponge to think, it thinks!
Henry Drummond: Does a man have the same privilege as a sponge?
Matthew Harrison Brady: Of course!
Henry Drummond: Then this man wishes to have the same privilege of a sponge, he wishes to think!
------------------ You can't go wrong with cocktail weenies! They taste as good as they look, and they come with this delicious red sauce. It looks like ketchup. It tastes like ketchup. But brother, it ain't ketchup! ~Homer Simpson
Orion Syndicate
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Member # 25
posted
This is unbelievable! It's censorship gone mad! IMHO, the whole point of an education is so that people can use what they learn and then think about it, not just accept it blindly as the truth. It seems that this creation ideology is being forcefed to students with no room to think.
Personally, as a believer in creation and evolution, I think that there is a common ground because creationists believe that god created the universe, and scientists have shown the evolution side. Can't it be possible that god created evolution? Both sides are just so stuck in their corners and adamant, that they will not consider other possible alternatives - that they may BOTH be right.
------------------ Do business with us, or we'll ruin you.
[This message has been edited by Orion Syndicate (edited August 10, 1999).]
posted
In my opinion, if you're teaching one in a public education system, you must teach the other. I had a teacher that taught evolution as utter fact and that annoyed me to no end.
(Not because of my beliefs at all, but because of how annoying intentional misinformation and lies are.)
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited August 10, 1999).]
posted
Yeah, right. And in Health class, they should have to teach the "Stork Theory" of how babies are made, alongside the "Sex Theory." It's got as much validity as Creationism compared to Evolution.
What a load of utter crap "Creation Science" is. True, we don't have all the mechanisms behind evolution worked out precisely. So? I don't know exactly how my CAR runs, either, but I know it has something to do with gas, not fairies.
------------------ "When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
posted
Actually we know exactly how a car runs, a better example is we don't know exactly why fire burns (we really don't how fire burns), but we know it does burn.
------------------ HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )
posted
Evolution isn't fact. Neither is creation. They're both theories. On every other subject I'm taught the major theories. I fail to see why it should be so different.
And "stork" isn't a theory.
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
[This message has been edited by Elim Garak (edited August 10, 1999).]
Dani
Naboo Handmaiden Ex-Part-Time Admin
Member # 57
posted
Personally, I don't see how they can deny that life existing on earth has changed since Biblical times. It has. I do beleive in creation, but I also beleive that we have "evolved" to some degree or another since creation. (I think this theory is called "Intelligent Design", correct me if I'm wrong.) I'm not going to try and convince you that what I beleive is right, I just CANNOT understand how they can totally reject the fact that both man and beast are in a constant state of change...
------------------ "You're just about as useful as .JPGs to Helen Keller."
posted
Okay, evolution is a fact, that's true. But evolving from another species or whatever that theory's called isn't. Dani has a point. You cannot deny that evolution happens, but to say that we evolved from something else is not necessarily true. That's all I'm saying. Each theory has its own validity.
------------------ Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
posted
*Pities Sol and hands him a copy of Discover*
------------------ "I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Picard to Data, "In Theory"
posted
Creationism isn't a theory. A theory is a conclusion based on plausible hypotheses based on known facts and observation, and experimentation.
Creationism is a "just so" story. A Fable. A made-up explanation for things which were not understood at the time.
There are no known facts which support Creationism, it is not supported by any scientific experimentation, it has no bases in biology, chemistry, physics, or any other science, and is certainly not supported by observation (when was the last time you saw a species "pop" into existence?). It's an "uneducated guess."
------------------ "When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"
posted
First, well said. Let me sum it up with a little quote.
'Blind faith is the crutch of fools'.
Sounds to me like they are moving from some form of thoughtful faith to utterly blind faith. Any ideas on why this is happening? (Or is it time for a purge of sorts?).
------------------ "Diplomacy is the art of Internationalising an issue to your advantage"
------------------ Josh: I think they're getting to know each other a bit too well, if you catch my drift. Me: Oh, I agree. I think they're spending too much time together, that is of course, if you catch my drift. Asher: I think he's *ucking her, and he's cheating on his wife, and he's risking his marriage, and if his wife finds out about it she'll leave him and take their son, and his life will be ruined. If you catch my drift...
posted
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - A. Einstein
Science deals with the what and how...Religion deals with the why. People insist that one is greater than the other, while I believe that BOTH are equally important. As mankind learns and grows, we seek a purpose. We base our lives on what we know, and what we believe in.
------------------ Signature Note: The Signature feature is currently enabled by this bulletin board's administrator. You may use UBB Code in this field, but not HTML. The UBB Code Image tag is not permitted, however.
posted
I didn't post my feelings, mostly because I needed to ice my fingers after typing that and trying to hold the paper up at the same time.
First of all the idea of evolution vs. creation is a misnomer, created mainly for propaganda. In both instances the planet was "created." The real argument is evolution vs spontaneous appearence. The evidence is much more in favor of the former than the latter.
But that's almost besides the point. There is a group out there called the "Association of Biblical Astronomers" or the "Biblical Association of Astronomers" or somesuch. Their central belief? That Copernicus was a wicked Satan worshipper and that the Earth does indeed (as "proved" in the Bible) stand at the center of the universe. Now, just like the "Creation Science Institute," they have real scientists writing real papers that claim to support this idea. So, should geocentrism get equal time in Astronomy classes?
I don't blame religion in general, though, or Christianity in particular. That's only the means these people use. The source of the problem is that most people are just plain ignorant when it comes to basic scientific concepts. Michael Reagan, for one, believes that science is based on blind acceptance of the statements of others. That is, in fact, the polar opposite of what science actually is. But the idea of science being "just another faith system" is in our society like a cancer.
Postscript:
Of course, it is possible to have an irrational faith in "science" as a monolithic entity. But this usually falls into the category of "personality cult." For instance, there were people convinced that Einstein was wrong because he seemingly contradicted Newton. The difference between that and actual science is that Einstein's theories, radical as they were, were accepted after just a short while, following independant verification.
And then there's the whole issue of faith in the concept of rationalism as a whole, but I'll let Kant and Hume battle that one out.
------------------ "We took a small flight, in the middle of the night, from one tiny place to another." -- Ben Folds Five
Printer-friendly view of this topic
