I told you so...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...volution_debate
Wisconsin City Allows Teaching Creationism
Sun Nov 7, 9:11 AM ET Top Stories - AP
GRANTSBURG, Wis. - The city's school board has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.
School board members 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.
"Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public funds," said Don Waller, a botanist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Wisconsin law mandates that evolution be taught, but school districts are free to create their own curricular standards, said Joe Donovan, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction.
There have been scattered efforts around the nation for other school boards to adopt similar measures. Last month the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania voted to require the teaching of alternative theories to evolution, including "intelligent design" — the idea that life is too complex to have developed without a creator.
The state education board in Kansas was heavily criticized in 1999 when it deleted most references to evolution. The decision was reversed in 2001.
In March, the Ohio Board of Education narrowly approved a lesson plan that some critics contended opens the door to teaching creationism.
Full Version: More "Morality" in Action
Perhaps of even greater concern:
Imagine a large state insisting that Greek mythology be included in texts as an equal alternative to the Bible in religious colleges. I might not have a problem with that, but I think Creationists (who are generally Fundamentalists) would.
QUOTE
If the text book publishers cannot easily sell books with a strong emphasis on evolution to larger markets like Texas, then they are unlikely to go to the trouble of publishing two versions. What this means is that there will be only one version - the one with less emphasis on evolution and which sells well. So it doesn't matter where creationists become successful in their efforts, because in the long run, they may end up affecting everyone.
Under the guise of increasing freedom to teach alternative theories, they effectively enforce the teaching of unsupported theories to everyone.Imagine a large state insisting that Greek mythology be included in texts as an equal alternative to the Bible in religious colleges. I might not have a problem with that, but I think Creationists (who are generally Fundamentalists) would.
I agree with you sportnlife. If you open the door to one, you have to open the door to all.
We need to keep the Sunday school topics in Sunday school, or at home. There is a place for faith and spirituality in education, but this is soooo NOT it; if and when faith can be present in schools, it needs to be done ethically and in a balanced manner. Fundamentalists and Creationists are pushing a particular "religious" agenda.
We soooo need to be careful of this, or those of us who are Jewish, agnostic, atheist, or who simply believe in the value of a separation between Church and State, are going to find one specific kind of God all over the place in schools, and safe/safer-sex education, Gay Straight Alliances, and certain kinds of books (Harry Potter, anyone?) will all be pushed out.
We soooo need to be careful of this, or those of us who are Jewish, agnostic, atheist, or who simply believe in the value of a separation between Church and State, are going to find one specific kind of God all over the place in schools, and safe/safer-sex education, Gay Straight Alliances, and certain kinds of books (Harry Potter, anyone?) will all be pushed out.
I have no problem teaching the theory of evolution in school. As long as it's taught just as that-a theory.
The problem with creationism is that it can never be proved emperically-you have to take it on faith.
Glad I grew up before all these special interests found out that they can influence what goes into the text I used.
The problem with creationism is that it can never be proved emperically-you have to take it on faith.
Glad I grew up before all these special interests found out that they can influence what goes into the text I used.
You should read Lies My Teacher Taught Me, but Jim Llewelyn
This topic got me to remember a very good bumpersticker from a few years back. Remember a sticker that said, "the moral majority is neither"??
Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of trying to place their 'beliefs' in the class room. I think we should all go back to the way it was a long time ago-just the 3 Rs-without the segregation.
I wanted to make sure I threw the bit about segregation in there before someone accused me of wanting to go back to separate but equal.
I wanted to make sure I threw the bit about segregation in there before someone accused me of wanting to go back to separate but equal.
Another take...
Georgia Evolution Case Heads to Court
Sun Nov 7, 6:30 PM ET U.S. National - AP
ATLANTA - School officials in suburban Cobb County go to court Monday to defend themselves against a lawsuit accusing the district of promoting religion by requiring that science textbooks warn students evolution is "a theory, not a fact."
The trial in U.S. District Court is expected to last four days.
The lawsuit argues that the disclaimer restricts the teaching of evolution, promotes the teaching of creationism and discriminates against particular religions.
County school officials said their warning, in the form of stickers inserted in science books, simply encourages students to keep an open mind.
The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
The lawsuit was filed by six parents and the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"I'm a strong advocate for the separation of church and state," said one of the parents, Jeffrey Selman. "I have no problem with anybody's religious beliefs. I just want an adequate educational system."
The school board adopted the disclaimer after three science texts it adopted in 2002 were criticized by some parents for presenting evolution as fact. More than 2,000 people signed a petition opposing the biology texts because they did not discuss alternative theories, including creationism.
A lawyer for Cobb County schools, Linwood Gunn, said he expects the disclaimer will hold up in court.
He said the stickers "improve the curriculum while also promoting an attitude of tolerance for those that have different religious beliefs."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution.
In April, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper refused to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the school district's disclaimers could have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.
The judge applied a test handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. In order to get the lawsuit dismissed, the school board had to show that the disclaimer was adopted with a secular purpose, that its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and that it does not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.
Cooper said the school board satisfied him only on the first issue.
Georgia Evolution Case Heads to Court
Sun Nov 7, 6:30 PM ET U.S. National - AP
ATLANTA - School officials in suburban Cobb County go to court Monday to defend themselves against a lawsuit accusing the district of promoting religion by requiring that science textbooks warn students evolution is "a theory, not a fact."
The trial in U.S. District Court is expected to last four days.
The lawsuit argues that the disclaimer restricts the teaching of evolution, promotes the teaching of creationism and discriminates against particular religions.
County school officials said their warning, in the form of stickers inserted in science books, simply encourages students to keep an open mind.
The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
The lawsuit was filed by six parents and the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.
"I'm a strong advocate for the separation of church and state," said one of the parents, Jeffrey Selman. "I have no problem with anybody's religious beliefs. I just want an adequate educational system."
The school board adopted the disclaimer after three science texts it adopted in 2002 were criticized by some parents for presenting evolution as fact. More than 2,000 people signed a petition opposing the biology texts because they did not discuss alternative theories, including creationism.
A lawyer for Cobb County schools, Linwood Gunn, said he expects the disclaimer will hold up in court.
He said the stickers "improve the curriculum while also promoting an attitude of tolerance for those that have different religious beliefs."
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution.
In April, U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper refused to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the school district's disclaimers could have the effect of advancing or inhibiting religion.
The judge applied a test handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. In order to get the lawsuit dismissed, the school board had to show that the disclaimer was adopted with a secular purpose, that its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and that it does not result in an excessive entanglement of government with religion.
Cooper said the school board satisfied him only on the first issue.
QUOTE
auNsoccer
I have no problem teaching the theory of evolution in school. As long as it's taught just as that-a theory.
The word \"theory\" has a stricter meaning in the sciences than it has in general use.I have no problem teaching the theory of evolution in school. As long as it's taught just as that-a theory.
Skeptic's Dictionary - Science
QUOTE
A scientific theory is a unified set of principles, knowledge, and methods for explaining the behavior of some specified range of empirical phenomena. Scientific theories attempt to understand the world of observation and sense experience. They attempt to explain how the natural world works.
A scientific theory must have some logical consequences we can test against empirical facts by making predictions based on the theory. The exact nature of the relationship of a scientific theory making predictions and being tested is something about which philosophers widely disagree, however (Kourany 1997).
It is true that some scientific theories, when they are first developed and proposed, are often little more than guesses based on limited information. On the other hand, mature and well-developed scientific theories systematically organize knowledge and allow us to explain and predict wide ranges of empirical events. In either case, however, one characteristic must be present for the theory to be scientific. The distinguishing feature of scientific theories is that they are \"capable of being tested by experience\" (Popper, 40).
To be able to test a theory by experience means to be able to predict certain observable or measurable consequences from the theory. For example, from a theory about how physical bodies move in relation to one another, one predicts that a pendulum ought to follow a certain pattern of behavior. One then sets up a pendulum and tests the hypothesis that pendulums behave in the way predicted by the theory. If they do, then the theory is confirmed. If pendulums do not behave in the way predicted by the theory, then the theory is falsified. (This assumes that the predicted behavior for the pendulum was correctly deduced from your theory and that your experiment was conducted properly.)
The fact that a theory passed an empirical test does not prove the theory, however. The greater the number of severe tests a theory has passed, the greater its degree of confirmation and the more reasonable it is to accept it. However, to confirm is not the same as to prove logically or mathematically. No scientific theory can be proved with absolute certainty.
....
To the uninformed public, facts contrast with theories. Non-scientists commonly use the term 'theory' to refer to a speculation or guess based on limited information or knowledge. However, when we refer to a scientific theory, we are not referring to a speculation or guess, but to a systematic explanation of some range of empirical phenomena.
....
The many links provide elaboration.A scientific theory must have some logical consequences we can test against empirical facts by making predictions based on the theory. The exact nature of the relationship of a scientific theory making predictions and being tested is something about which philosophers widely disagree, however (Kourany 1997).
It is true that some scientific theories, when they are first developed and proposed, are often little more than guesses based on limited information. On the other hand, mature and well-developed scientific theories systematically organize knowledge and allow us to explain and predict wide ranges of empirical events. In either case, however, one characteristic must be present for the theory to be scientific. The distinguishing feature of scientific theories is that they are \"capable of being tested by experience\" (Popper, 40).
To be able to test a theory by experience means to be able to predict certain observable or measurable consequences from the theory. For example, from a theory about how physical bodies move in relation to one another, one predicts that a pendulum ought to follow a certain pattern of behavior. One then sets up a pendulum and tests the hypothesis that pendulums behave in the way predicted by the theory. If they do, then the theory is confirmed. If pendulums do not behave in the way predicted by the theory, then the theory is falsified. (This assumes that the predicted behavior for the pendulum was correctly deduced from your theory and that your experiment was conducted properly.)
The fact that a theory passed an empirical test does not prove the theory, however. The greater the number of severe tests a theory has passed, the greater its degree of confirmation and the more reasonable it is to accept it. However, to confirm is not the same as to prove logically or mathematically. No scientific theory can be proved with absolute certainty.
....
To the uninformed public, facts contrast with theories. Non-scientists commonly use the term 'theory' to refer to a speculation or guess based on limited information or knowledge. However, when we refer to a scientific theory, we are not referring to a speculation or guess, but to a systematic explanation of some range of empirical phenomena.
....
Google for \\"theory scientific definition\\"
Stephen Jay Gould, \\"Evolution as Fact and Theory\\"
QUOTE
The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution. First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word \"theory\" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that \"scientific creationism\" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called \"newspeak.\"
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 creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is \"only\" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less 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 do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
By contrast, the only backing for creationism is "my pappy done told me."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 creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is \"only\" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less 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 do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
[ November 08, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: twin58 ]
Having a science background I must say AMEN to that 
Loosely, I have always thought of a theory as a proven hypothesis. It is like when someone says, "I don't believe in conspiracy theories". The person thinks they are dismissing them. They are actually saying that they do not believe in a proven rational hypothesis of conspiracy. More often that not, I think they are just plain (negative adjective). The person expounds upon their own theory or debates with "how do you know that". I reply, "The number of electrons in the outer shell of the atoms involved". We could juxtapose entropy to establish which is more likely "evolution" or "creationism". At this point the zealot usually says, "God could have created us through evolution". I wonder if they are crossing the Rubicon or drowning in it?
Loosely, I have always thought of a theory as a proven hypothesis. It is like when someone says, "I don't believe in conspiracy theories". The person thinks they are dismissing them. They are actually saying that they do not believe in a proven rational hypothesis of conspiracy. More often that not, I think they are just plain (negative adjective). The person expounds upon their own theory or debates with "how do you know that". I reply, "The number of electrons in the outer shell of the atoms involved". We could juxtapose entropy to establish which is more likely "evolution" or "creationism". At this point the zealot usually says, "God could have created us through evolution". I wonder if they are crossing the Rubicon or drowning in it?
AuNSoccer, do you equate the "theory" of creationism with scientific theories that explain why bridges don't collapse when constructed properly, or why airplanes fly, or how children are brought into the world, or why we can transmit information in digital format via the Internet? Are they the same? Should they be taught as the same? If they are, wouldn't we all just do better by signing our own death warrants?
QUOTE
auNsoccer:
I agree with you sportnlife. If you open the door to one, you have to open the door to all.
I'm not so sure you do auNsoccer. Evolution, like all science theories is proposed as a theory that is testable from it's very beginning. So-called theories like creationism assume that they are not ultimately testable and can never be rejected. They are taken on faith. I consider myself a person of faith. But I have faith in my ability to decide.
I agree with you sportnlife. If you open the door to one, you have to open the door to all.
I have to say that through my exposure to various sciences while in college & after, there is a general consensus among scientists that evolution is fact. For that matter, if one does not believe in evolution, then dozens of scientific fields--geology, oceanography, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, botany, organic chemistry, etc., etc., etc.--are all based on a lie. There's plenty of empirical evidence in support of Darwinian evolution, & none in support of biblical creationism.
Why is it that we are the only country in the world that has this problem?
Why is it that we are the only country in the world that has this problem?
QUOTE
BillyBones:
Why is it that we are the only country in the world that has this problem?
Nah, I think you'd find some countries like Iran and Taliban-governed Afghanistan would agree with these Georgia folks.
Why is it that we are the only country in the world that has this problem?
QUOTE]Originally posted by BillyBones:
Why is it that we are the only country in the world that has this problem? [/QUOTE]
That's what the rest of the world is asking.
(that should ratchet up PF's blood pressure)
Why is it that we are the only country in the world that has this problem? [/QUOTE]
That's what the rest of the world is asking.
(that should ratchet up PF's blood pressure)
QUOTE
Lksimcoe:
(that should ratchet up PF's blood pressure)
Nah, PF's much more content now that we are in wedded bliss..... (that should ratchet up PF's blood pressure)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.