Eleven Fla Counties forbid teaching of Evolution

[Teresa]

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

 

[scooterbug44]

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.

 

[steele mama]

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.

 

[Teresa]

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).

 

[steele mama]

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!

 

[Teresa]

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.

 

[Smiling JOe]

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.

 

[NoHall]

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.

 

[scooterbug44]

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.

 

[Jdarg]

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.