Eleven Fla Counties forbid teaching of Evolution

Have yet to be directed to the Biblical passage where Jesus tells someone they are going to hell or condems another religion, but oddly enough ............ :roll:

It most likely is taken loosely from one of the Ten Commandments, Thou Shalt not place any other Gods before me.

Interesting choice of words, refering to "Gods," since God, by definition, is The Supreme Power. I think the translation of the word, God, in this case, most likely relates to other religions. Just my guess, and I'm far from being an expert on the Bible.

Y'all are talking about religiosity and dogma and the letter of the law. SJ, you and I have talked many-a time on Jesus' feelings toward that. The only people he showed anger toward were the religious leaders. He called them a brood of vipers. He also said that it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown in the river than to cause an one of his children to stumble...

IMO big jump from "don't believe in or worship any additional deities" to "anyone who doesn't believe in me is going to hell and is inferior".

NoHall, can you define "stumble," as intended? Without first stumbling, many cannot learn.

scooterbug, I think you make a good point. Lately, we've been talking a bunch of poliTRICKS. Trying to analyze the Bible, can be very similar. Politicians may point out the agreeable things in a Bill for which they voted. The kicker is that there are often some conflicting elements to a Bill, so each side gets to promote the reasons why they voted for it, or agin it. The Bible, coming to us in translated and edited versions, leaves us searching for intent in each verse. It is as easy to pull one verse out of context, yet still quote the Bible as a source for believe the way you do. Three people will likely have three different interpretations for one verse, and people will pick and choose something with which they agree or disagree, to prove or validate their own beliefs, very much the way politicians do.

NoHall, can you define "stumble," as intended? Without first stumbling, many cannot learn.

scooterbug, I think you make a good point. Lately, we've been talking a bunch of poliTRICKS. Trying to analyze the Bible, can be very similar. Politicians may point out the agreeable things in a Bill for which they voted. The kicker is that there are often some conflicting elements to a Bill, so each side gets to promote the reasons why they voted for it, or agin it. The Bible, coming to us in translated and edited versions, leaves us searching for intent in each verse. It is as easy to pull one verse out of context, yet still quote the Bible as a source for believe the way you do. Three people will likely have three different interpretations for one verse, and people will pick and choose something with which they agree or disagree, to prove or validate their own beliefs, very much the way politicians do.

By confusing matters of the heart and relational spirituality with politics, religiosity, and condemnation...judging others...picking specks out of others' eyes, and whacking them with the planks in our own eyes...failing to offer grace and love to one another without regard for cultural, ethnic, or religious background (remember he stories of loving Samaritans, and whores, and gentiles, and Roman soldiers, and tax collectors?)

this is turning into a real religious discussion! you know, I have recently read a few bible stories to spidey. we read a lot every day, so I figured it was time to start on some bible stories so he'll have some general knowledge of bible stuff. I have a few children's bible story books. I swear, some of these stories are just not right for a 5 year old. even the ones that have been written for children! I have stopped right in the middle of a story and closed the book.:shock:

this is turning into a real religious discussion! you know, I have recently read a few bible stories to spidey. we read a lot every day, so I figured it was time to start on some bible stories so he'll have some general knowledge of bible stuff. I have a few children's bible story books. I swear, some of these stories are just not right for a 5 year old. even the ones that have been written for children! I have stopped right in the middle of a story and closed the book.:shock:

Even gorier than Grimm's Fairy Tales!

Even gorier than Grimm's Fairy Tales!

by far.

we just started reading grimm's. at least I can say, "hey this is all make believe..." but, I wasn't sure about the story we read the other night when the king had to cut off the heads of his twins with a sword in order to save someone else, and then after he did the deed, the twins heads and lives were magically restored. sound vaguely familiar?

I guess you can help a child understand the bible in similar terms - its a story from long ago, meant to teach us about God, etc. obviously I'm in over my head..:roll:

Tootsie, good for you! Yes, the Bible is filled with troubling stories, many of which may have to be filtered for a five year old. I cannot recall any Grimm's Fairy Tails off the top of my head, but I remember some scary nursery rhymes, like Humpty Dumpty and Rock-a-Bye Baby.

I'm curious to hear more about the creationism which they are teaching in the science class. How much do they go into the religious aspect, and, is it Christian-based? Tootsie just shared how difficult it may be to share Bible stories with a young child. Maybe the schools could help out with exposure of children to religion. Rather than keeping religion out of the classroom in gov't schools, maybe our children would have a better understanding of God, if the schools actually taught religion, not one religion, but all of the major worldly religions. For it to work, the class would have to be a balanced class, discussing the history, similarities and differences of religions.

Tootsie, good for you! Yes, the Bible is filled with troubling stories, many of which may have to be filtered for a five year old. I cannot recall any Grimm's Fairy Tails off the top of my head, but I remember some scary nursery rhymes, like Humpty Dumpty and Rock-a-Bye Baby.

I'm curious to hear more about the creationism which they are teaching in the science class. How much do they go into the religious aspect, and, is it Christian-based? Tootsie just shared how difficult it may be to share Bible stories with a young child. Maybe the schools could help out with exposure of children to religion. Rather than keeping religion out of the classroom in gov't schools, maybe our children would have a better understanding of God, if the schools actually taught religion, not one religion, but all of the major worldly religions. For it to work, the class would have to be a balanced class, discussing the history, similarities and differences of religions.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are two different ideas. Strict creationists teach that the world has four corners (and is therefore flat) and that it is only a few thousand years old. It is based on the misinterpretation of the King James Version of the Bible, which has a few misinterpretations in its translations, anyway.

The teachers I know who teach Intelligent Design do not throw science out of the window. All proven scientific facts/laws are taught, and neither the Big Bang nor evolutionary traits within species are thrown out the window. They just don't teach that it happened all by chance. The Bang was created. If creatures crawled out of the primordial ooze to evolve into whatever, the original creature and the ooze was created.

Every good religion teacher I've had teaches comparative religion.

Tootsie, good for you! Yes, the Bible is filled with troubling stories, many of which may have to be filtered for a five year old. I cannot recall any Grimm's Fairy Tails off the top of my head, but I remember some scary nursery rhymes, like Humpty Dumpty and Rock-a-Bye Baby.

I'm curious to hear more about the creationism which they are teaching in the science class. How much do they go into the religious aspect, and, is it Christian-based? Tootsie just shared how difficult it may be to share Bible stories with a young child. Maybe the schools could help out with exposure of children to religion. Rather than keeping religion out of the classroom in gov't schools, maybe our children would have a better understanding of God, if the schools actually taught religion, not one religion, but all of the major worldly religions. For it to work, the class would have to be a balanced class, discussing the history, similarities and differences of religions.

Here's a start:
What do Creation Scientists Believe?

Scientists who call themselves "creation scientists" are professionals, typically with advanced degrees from major universities, who are generally involved in the same types of work as the average scientist. The difference is that creation scientists have a "world-view", or "model" for their science which is based on the belief that an intelligent designer ("God") exists who created our universe and the natural things in it. The creation events were one-time events and are not taking place today. A large subset of creation scientists could be called "Biblical creationists", who take the first eleven chapters of the Bible to be real history, including the creation of all things in six 24-hour days, the existence of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman, the unnatural introduction of "death" into the perfect creation because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and the occurence of a world-wide flood (Noah's flood) which destroyed most life and greatly affected the processes operating on the earth. Most creation scientists believe that the earth is "young" (on the order of ten thousand years), but this is a secondary issue. Biblical creationists believe that the Bible and true science are in full harmony with each other - there is no need to "check your brain at the door" when entering a church.
A major goal of creation science is to point out the weakness of evolutionary theory, because basically there are only two alternatives for how we got here, and if naturalistic processes are incapable of the task, then special creation must be the correct answer. On the positive side, creation scientists are developing alternative models and theories in many areas to help our understanding of how the universe works. It should be noted that much of day to day scientific activity is not heavily influenced by either evolutionary or creation assumptions, but much scientific energy has been wasted over the last century in the search for evolutionary evidences and experimental proofs, which have been unsuccessful so far and will continue to be. How much further might we be in some areas of scientific understanding if a model of special creation had been the working hypothesis?

Tootsie, good for you! Yes, the Bible is filled with troubling stories, many of which may have to be filtered for a five year old. I cannot recall any Grimm's Fairy Tails off the top of my head, but I remember some scary nursery rhymes, like Humpty Dumpty and Rock-a-Bye Baby.

I'm curious to hear more about the creationism which they are teaching in the science class. How much do they go into the religious aspect, and, is it Christian-based? Tootsie just shared how difficult it may be to share Bible stories with a young child. Maybe the schools could help out with exposure of children to religion. Rather than keeping religion out of the classroom in gov't schools, maybe our children would have a better understanding of God, if the schools actually taught religion, not one religion, but all of the major worldly religions. For it to work, the class would have to be a balanced class, discussing the history, similarities and differences of religions.

as a parent, I would rather be the one to expose my child to a personal religion (of course), but would hope that any good school will present the cultures and religions of the world as part of a an excellent overal education.

Leading up to the holidays (this past fall), spidey's montessori Primary Class (ages 3-6) all learned a good deal about traditions and celebrations associated with christmas (around the world), hanukkah, and kwanza, through reading books/discussion, arts and crafts, and songs. I am thrilled that he is already exposed and knows of these traditions. though there will be much more to learn in the years to come. its a great start though, IMO.

I don't know what public school offers in this regard, but I shall be finding out all too soon, I imagine. I'm not worried about it though. I will make sure he learns about world culture (including religion) - its so important to have a realistic perspective outside your own culture/religion. how many people (grown people!) think that their way is the best or only way? why? its all they know.

SteeleMama, thanks for the lengthy explanation. Your last question is one to which we won't know the answer. I keep coming back to theory. It seems that Creationism is still only a theory, just as Evolution is a theory. What if neither are correct? I personally have no problem with teaching theories in the classroom, but I think if the subject is, "How was the Universe Created?," ALL applicable theories should be discussed, not just one. If we teach kids that we don't have all the answers, maybe kids will grow without limits and discover new theories, or actually offer proofs to one. Limits are such heavy weights to place on children.

SteeleMama, thanks for the lengthy explanation. Your last question is one to which we won't know the answer. I keep coming back to theory. It seems that Creationism is still only a theory, just as Evolution is a theory. What if neither are correct? I personally have no problem with teaching theories in the classroom, but I think if the subject is, "How was the Universe Created?," ALL applicable theories should be discussed, not just one. If we teach kids that we don't have all the answers, maybe kids will grow without limits and discover new theories, or actually offer proofs to one. Limits are such heavy weights to place on children.

First let me clarify...I did not write that. Just copied it. That was the first thing I found that was short enough to post. I think the study of creation science is very interesting and most people don't ever hear that side...really. They may hear the Biblical account but not the scientic evidence. I do think both theories and all theories should be taught, since they are just that...theories. There are some outstanding creation scientist who I have heard speak years ago. They are very intelligent and convincing! Lots to think about for sure.

SteeleMama, thanks for the lengthy explanation. Your last question is one to which we won't know the answer. I keep coming back to theory. It seems that Creationism is still only a theory, just as Evolution is a theory. What if neither are correct? I personally have no problem with teaching theories in the classroom, but I think if the subject is, "How was the Universe Created?," ALL applicable theories should be discussed, not just one. If we teach kids that we don't have all the answers, maybe kids will grow without limits and discover new theories, or actually offer proofs to one. Limits are such heavy weights to place on children.

I see what you are saying here SJ. but, if you refer back to the first part of this thread, you will see TFT and other posts referring to the difference between scientific theory of evolution and a certain religion's IDEA of the science of creation. Sorry, I don't believe in a science teacher presenting christian ideas, not even (and especially) Intelligent Design. Yes, discussion should certainly touch on other IDEAS pertaining to creation - we want our kids to know they are out there, but when in science class, teach science. ID is only a religious idea and not a scientific theory.

Science is truth. I believe that your religion, whatever it may be, can certainly work around it as you see fit, outside the classroom.


ADDRESS TO THE PONTIFICAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCESPope John Paul II Truth cannot be subject to negotiation
"The man of science knows perfectly, from the point of view of his knowledge, that truth cannot be subject to negotiation, cannot be obscured or abandoned to free conventions or agreements between groups of power, societies, or States", the Holy Father said to those taking part in the plenary session of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, whom he received in audience on Monday, 13 November. Among other things, the Pope reflected on the meeting's theme, "Science and the future of mankind", and on the humanistic dimension of science. Here is a translation of his address, which was given in Italian.
(excerpt)

The man of science knows perfectly, from the point of view of his knowledge, that truth cannot be subject to negotiation, cannot be obscured or abandoned to free conventions or agreements between groups of power, societies, or States. Therefore, because of the ideal of service to truth, he feels a special responsibility in relation to the advancement of mankind, not understood in generic or ideal terms, but as the advancement of the whole man and of everything that is authentically human.

and article: Intelligent Design belittles God, Vatican director says
By Mark Lombard
1/30/2006
Catholic Online
http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=18503&section=Cathcom

I have a BIG HUGE problem with a public school teaching any religious "theories".

You can preach against/refute a non-secular curriculum all you want in YOUR home or church, but religious beliefs have NO place in the classroom unless the thing being studied is a religion or its effect on a topic.

I agree that learning the basic ideas and beliefs of major world religions is a great idea (especially since most of my knowledge of Islam comes from 8th grade Social Studies ), but there is a big difference between learning about a culture and its religion and FORCING your religious beliefs on others.

Please bear in mind that not everyone is Christian, and even if they are (as that label is quite inclusive) they do not necessarily belong to the same church or have the same beliefs as you.

I have a BIG HUGE problem with a public school teaching any religious "theories".

You can preach against/refute a non-secular curriculum all you want in YOUR home or church, but religious beliefs have NO place in the classroom unless the thing being studied is a religion or its effect on a topic.

I agree that learning the basic ideas and beliefs of major world religions is a great idea (especially since most of my knowledge of Islam comes from 8th grade Social Studies ), but there is a big difference between learning about a culture and its religion and FORCING your religious beliefs on others.

Please bear in mind that not everyone is Christian, and even if they are (as that label is quite inclusive) they do not necessarily belong to the same church or have the same beliefs as you.

Creationism is part of science just as much as evolution is part of science. The scientific evidences of creation should be taught just as the scientic evidences of evolution are taught. I'm not saying teach the Bible.

SM: I think what scooter and I are both saying, is please teach science and science only. period.

I doubt a science teacher is well qualified to teach ID or scientific creationism (this is not a scientific theory, but is one of dozens of creation stories based on biblcal stuff and certain belief systems and mixing it all up with a little science here and there... i.e., the world was created only 10,000 years ago).

If a teacher is going to present ID or christian (scientific) creationism, I wonder which of the hundreds of significantly different creation stories he or she will teach? it is my understanding that there are literally hundreds of different creation stories from the religions of the world, and at least a dozen christian-based, to draw from. These are all based on religous (or other) beliefs. They are stories about what a particular group believes.

I think a really great science teacher will tell her students all about the above alternate belief systems pertaining to creation and evolution. I think most parents would go totally bezerk - because these creation stories are many, and the minority of them are actually christian. they will be begging to just teach the science, please. and its really too bad.

Is the state going to legislate which stories will be presented in schools in place of scientific evolution? how will they decide which stories are the correct ones? are we going to cut out science from our curriculum altogether?

or shall we just leave biblical/creation stories to our churches and families, as we have always done? good lord, if a public school teacher tried to teach me something based on a christian/protestant belief system, my parents would have died. Catholics generally believe in respect for pure science (a fairly recent tribute to science).

SM: I think what scooter and I are both saying, is please teach science and science only. period.

I doubt a science teacher is well qualified to teach ID or scientific creationism (this is not a scientific theory, but is one of dozens of creation stories based on biblcal stuff and certain belief systems and mixing it all up with a little science here and there... i.e., the world was created only 10,000 years ago).

If a teacher is going to present ID or christian (scientific) creationism, I wonder which of the hundreds of significantly different creation stories he or she will teach? it is my understanding that there are literally hundreds of different creation stories from the religions of the world, and at least a dozen christian-based, to draw from. These are all based on religous (or other) beliefs. They are stories about what a particular group believes.

I think a really great science teacher will tell her students all about the above alternate belief systems pertaining to creation and evolution. I think most parents would go totally bezerk - because these creation stories are many, and the minority of them are actually christian. they will be begging to just teach the science, please. and its really too bad.

Is the state going to legislate which stories will be presented in schools in place of scientific evolution? how will they decide which stories are the correct ones? are we going to cut out science from our curriculum altogether?

or shall we just leave biblical/creation stories to our churches and families, as we have always done? good lord, if a public school teacher tried to teach me something based on a christian/protestant belief system, my parents would have died. Catholics generally believe in respect for pure science (a fairly recent tribute to science).

I guess there is the conflict.....to me, evolution is no more pure science than Greek mythlology. But I have no problem disagreeing agreeably!

I guess there is the conflict.....to me, evolution is no more pure science than Greek mythlology. But I have no problem disagreeing agreeably!

wow. I guess I have not fully realized that some people do not accept evolution as a science based on scientific evidence and fact. I always thought of science as not being subject to negotiation. it is not a democracy.

My understanding is that the science of evolution is both theory and fact. I have not considered that it could be taken as otherwise. hmmmm... interesting.

The Theory of Evolution will certainly get even more interesting with all of the genetic research being studied, today. There are plenty of facts in the Theory of Evolution, otherwise, it would be as abstract as Greek Mythology.

I think the Natural Selection aspects of the Theory of Evolution is getting extremely interesting in this day and age. With body part implants, replacement surgery, life-extending medicines and surgical procedures, we are finding that the weekest are not being killed off naturally, and the strong are not the only survivors. That will eventually throw a kink into the chain as we manipulate nature. I guess it also plays a roll in the Adaptation section of Evolution, as we adapt to increased technology and discoveries. It goes in contrast to adapting to our environment in some ways, IMO.

SM: I think what scooter and I are both saying, is please teach science and science only. period.

I doubt a science teacher is well qualified to teach ID or scientific creationism (this is not a scientific theory, but is one of dozens of creation stories based on biblcal stuff and certain belief systems and mixing it all up with a little science here and there... i.e., the world was created only 10,000 years ago).

I have known lots of science teachers--including the head of the science department at one college--who are qualified to teach ID.

If a teacher is going to present ID or christian (scientific) creationism, I wonder which of the hundreds of significantly different creation stories he or she will teach? it is my understanding that there are literally hundreds of different creation stories from the religions of the world, and at least a dozen christian-based, to draw from. These are all based on religous (or other) beliefs. They are stories about what a particular group believes.

I think a really great science teacher will tell her students all about the above alternate belief systems pertaining to creation and evolution. I think most parents would go totally bezerk - because these creation stories are many, and the minority of them are actually christian. they will be begging to just teach the science, please. and its really too bad.

Is the state going to legislate which stories will be presented in schools in place of scientific evolution? how will they decide which stories are the correct ones? are we going to cut out science from our curriculum altogether?

or shall we just leave biblical/creation stories to our churches and families, as we have always done? good lord, if a public school teacher tried to teach me something based on a christian/protestant belief system, my parents would have died. Catholics generally believe in respect for pure science (a fairly recent tribute to science).

I think that the disconnect here is in the understanding of ID. You talk about "creation stories." That's not part of ID, as I have come to understand it from the science teachers who embrace it.

Their ideas of how the universe came to be are identical to many non-Christian scientists. As I said in another post, an ID teacher gets to the big bang and doesn't dispute the evidence of it; he simply asks what "banged."

So did Einstein, for that matter. (Pardon the pun.)

wow. I guess I have not fully realized that some people do not accept evolution as a science based on scientific evidence and fact. I always thought of science as not being subject to negotiation. it is not a democracy.

My understanding is that the science of evolution is both theory and fact. I have not considered that it could be taken as otherwise. hmmmm... interesting.

I personally have trouble with the complete theory of evolution. I believe that species adapt and evolve within themselves--humans are getting taller, for instance--but I do not believe that we have sufficient evidence to believe that humans evolved from apes. There is no missing link, and that part is as much a fairy tale to me as a giant spider with the world on its back. The theory stretches the credibility of what has been factually proven. (By the time Darwin died, he had recanted the theory about the apes.) Quite honestly, ID's theory makes more sense to me logically.

I have no problem with a teacher who teaches the facts--the proven laws of science. I also have no problem with a teacher who presents the theories, saying, "Here is what we have evidence for; this is true. Here is what we don't know. Here are some ideas about what we think may have happened, and here is evidence or lack thereof for those theories." That teacher will teach my child to think critically, and I'm all for it.

Modern civilization is redefining the skills/strengths we need to survive, but IMO we are still adapting to our environment, albeit one we have artificially created.

On a tangent, I am firmly convinced that personal injury lawyers are messing with natural selection and thus weakening the herd with all of the idiotic warning labels and court cases.

Then I read the Darwin award nominees and am somewhat relieved that for the TRULY stupid natural selection will always exist.

ID and evangelical Christianity are way too intimately connected for me to be comfortable with anybody being able to successfully teach the concept in public school without a Christian slant.

I personally have trouble with the complete theory of evolution. I believe that species adapt and evolve within themselves--humans are getting taller, for instance--but I do not believe that we have sufficient evidence to believe that humans evolved from apes. There is no missing link, and that part is as much a fairy tale to me as a giant spider with the world on its back. The theory stretches the credibility of what has been factually proven. (By the time Darwin died, he had recanted the theory about the apes.) Quite honestly, ID's theory makes more sense to me logically.

I don't necessarily believe that my greatx800 grandma was a chimp, but I do believe there is common ancestry and science has proven there is a great deal of similarity in our DNA - 95% or so.

If you don't believe in evolution, how do you explain all of the various fossils we have found? Homo habilis, neanderthal, etc.