Creationism education bills

[penultimatestraw 473]

Critically analyzing evolution is a reasonable exercise, but I don't see how some of this stuff doesn't violate separation of church and state:

 

My link

 

State governments are grappling with massive budget deficits, overburdened social programs, and mountains of deferred spending. But never mind all that. For some conservative lawmakers, it's the perfect time to legislate the promotion of creationism in the classroom. In the first three months of 2011, nine creationism-related bills have been introduced in seven states—that's more than in any year in recent memory

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Bunch of dumbfocks.

 

My legislator (TN) so far has proposed a bill making following the Sharia a felony, and another advocating the formation of a separate currency for the State of Tennessee.

 

Democracy is awesome.

[jerryskids 5,206]

Critically analyzing evolution is a reasonable exercise, but I don't see how some of this stuff doesn't violate separation of church and state:

 

My link

 

 

 

I personally think the subject makes for a great metaphysical discussion, and I generally favor anything that makes kids actually think. Of course, some will respond that it doesn't belong in a science class, and others will rightfully point out that there are hidden agendas. On the surface, to me anyway, the wording used to describe the bills (especially if you take out the wacko comments by legislators) don't sound that bad.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution.

 

HTH

[penultimatestraw 473]

Separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution.

 

HTH

Thanks, though I don't recall mentioning the Constitution...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Thanks, though I don't recall mentioning the Constitution...

 

 

Exactly how does "Separation of Church and State" get "violated"?

[penultimatestraw 473]

Exactly how does "Separation of Church and State" get "violated"?

Aren't you big into semantics?

 

1vi·o·late verb \ˈvī-ə-ˌlāt\

transitive verb

1: break, disregard <violate the law>

2: to do harm to the person or especially the chastity of; specifically : rape 2

 

HTH

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Aren't you big into semantics?

 

 

 

HTH

 

Semantics?

 

The entire premise of your thread rests on this violating "separation of church and state". :overhead:

[mobb_deep 917]

kids don't pay attention in school anyways. might as well teach them some fake sh!t to see who's even awake.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Semantics?

 

The entire premise of your thread rests on this violating "separation of church and state". :overhead:

 

Yes, discussion of religious topics in public school like creationism and intelligent design (what one must presume are the alternatives to the theory of evolution, though not explicitly stated as such) violates separation of church and state. This concept, though not explicitly written in the Constitution (as you so helpfully reminded me) has been upheld in the courts as consistent with the first amendment. I know you want to argue semantics or plead ignorance to hidden agendas, but I would like to withdraw from this pissing match.

[redtodd 7]

I'd be cool with this so long as they also cover the Lord of the Rings, too.

[MedStudent 56]

Great, chinese kids will be learning about atoms while our kids are wasting 2 years of science class reading different religious stories about Creation.

 

Dad: "What did you learn at school today Junior?"

 

Junior: "Let me tell ya dad, before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion. From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu's navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu's servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord's command. Vishnu spoke to his servant: 'It is time to begin.' Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: 'Create the world.' A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies. The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move. The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma's creation"

 

Dad: "Wanna go play catch"

 

Junior: "No, i wanna go stick a dot on my forehead and chant to Brahma"

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution.

 

HTH

 

Yes actually, it is. Its called the Establishment Clause.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

read up dumbfock.

[Voltaire 4,559]

Normally I agree with conservatives on education policy, but I seldom agree with evilgelcals on anything. They want everybody to be as stoopid and head-up-their ass as they are.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Yes actually, it is. Its called the Establishment Clause.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

read up dumbfock.

 

Here is the full text of the 1st Amendment:

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Where are the words "Separation of Church and State" in there? Read up and tell us, Dumbfuck.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Here is the full text of the 1st Amendment:

 

 

 

Where are the words "Separation of Church and State" in there? Read up and tell us, Dumbfuck.

 

It isn't in there verbatim. You actually have to THINK. See, if Church and State were not separate, that would, in effect, be respecting an establishment of religion. You see, inherently, when the State wields power for a religious end, it establishes that religion over others (or lack of others.)

 

I'm sure you'll disagree, being a dumbfock and all, but fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court does agree since they came up with the phrase.

[FeelingMN 273]

I personally think the subject makes for a great metaphysical discussion, and I generally favor anything that makes kids actually think. Of course, some will respond that it doesn't belong in a science class, and others will rightfully point out that there are hidden agendas. On the surface, to me anyway, the wording used to describe the bills (especially if you take out the wacko comments by legislators) don't sound that bad.

 

I think this would be a cool college course....or like an AP course in HS.

 

There's just no way you can incorporate Intelligent Design into a HS Biology course....and if students have aspirations for a profession in any of the life sciences, they're gonna need to be at least somewhat acquainted with the concept of evolution.

 

Maybe parents should take it upon themselves to teach their kids about creationism/intelligent design if it's that important to them.

 

[The Next Generation 10]

Maybe parents should take it upon themselves to teach their kids about creationism/intelligent design if it's that important to them.

 

 

[jerryskids 5,206]

I think this would be a cool college course....or like an AP course in HS.

 

There's just no way you can incorporate Intelligent Design into a HS Biology course....and if students have aspirations for a profession in any of the life sciences, they're gonna need to be at least somewhat acquainted with the concept of evolution.

 

Maybe parents should take it upon themselves to teach their kids about creationism/intelligent design if it's that important to them.

 

 

I never said that intelligent design should be taught to the exclusion of evolution. Also, evolution and the creation of life are two different things.

 

The truth is, we don't know how life started. If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I could think of a lot of ways to discuss this topic productively with students, none of which would be implemented, because the school system focks up everything it touches.

[MDC 5,891]

More proof that evangelical christians are the American Taliban.

[MDC 5,891]

I never said that intelligent design should be taught to the exclusion of evolution. Also, evolution and the creation of life are two different things.

 

The truth is, we don't know how life started. If we did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I could think of a lot of ways to discuss this topic productively with students, none of which would be implemented, because the school system focks up everything it touches.

 

The theory of creationism is a valid topic of discussion for a philosophy course but it has nothing to do with science.

[jerryskids 5,206]

The theory of creationism is a valid topic of discussion for a philosophy course but it has nothing to do with science.

 

OK. What should we teach a science class about the creation of life?

[Strike 3,975]

OK. What should we teach a science class about the creation of life?

 

To use a condom?

[MDC 5,891]

OK. What should we teach a science class about the creation of life?

 

We shouldn't be teaching anything about the origin of life in science class because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

 

[FeelingMN 273]

OK. What should we teach a science class about the creation of life?

 

Primordial soup....prokaryotes.....eukaryotes....RNA.....DNA....yadda yadda yadda.

 

I read a book by Fritjof Capra: Hidden Connections and in it he explains current scientific thinking about the beginnings of life.

 

There are lots of scientific ideas of how life began...and they should be taught in science class....especially considering every 5 year old who has church going parents has already been exposed to the idea of creationsism.

 

To use a condom?

 

[KSB2424 3,083]

We shouldn't be teaching anything about the origin of life in science class because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

 

So, sould the Big Bang Theory be taught in science class or Philosophy?

 

To jerrys point, if you come to the chapter in science class that discusses the origin of life, Big Bang, and other ideas/theories/hypothesis. Would that not be the most relevant time to also bring up opposing common veiwpoints/ideas/theories? Create discussion, and let the individual decide. Seems rather pratical to me.

[FeelingMN 273]

We shouldn't be teaching anything about the origin of life in science class because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

 

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/origsoflife_04

 

Seems appropriate in a science class.

 

[MDC 5,891]

So, sould the Big Bang Theory be taught in science class or Philosophy?

 

If there's scientific evidence for something or if the question at least lends itself to the scientific process, it's probably science.

 

"Is there a God?" and "Did he create the world with magic?" are not questions that can be studied by the scientific theory, therefore they are not science.

[MedStudent 56]

I never said that intelligent design should be taught to the exclusion of evolution.

 

Intelligent design is just christian creationism trying to disguise itself as non-religious. So, lets cut the bull. If you want to teach about Christian Creationism then you need to teach about every religious creation myth. Otherwise you would be violating the 1st Amendment. This would just take away time from learning useful things.

 

I think the kids are better served by reading good old American stories like "Huckleberry Finn" and "The grapes of Wrath" than wasting their time reading religious stories.

[MedStudent 56]

So, sould the Big Bang Theory be taught in science class or Philosophy?

 

 

That is a theory based on facts. Intelligent Design uses supernatural explanations. The scientific community rejects supernatural explanations in favor of natural explanations.

 

US Courts have also ruled that Intelligent Design is not science.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Moving the discussion on Creationism from a science class to a philosophy class is a joke. Those who use the mythical Constitutional "separation of church and state" never argue it is being discussed in the wrong class, they don't want it discussed at all.

[BudBro 117]

Great, chinese kids will be learning about atoms while our kids are wasting 2 years of science class reading different religious stories about Creation.

 

this point is well taken. i, too, would rather have the curriculum based upon useful science that will enable our kids to be competitive in the marketplace of technologies. big bang is no less speculative than divine creation. if we're going to speculate, let's teach them how to trade stocks and commodities.

[KSB2424 3,083]

That is a theory based on facts.

A factual theory is no longer a threory. That's like saying a woman is half pregnant.

 

A theory is a hypothesis that uses multiple facts in culmination to try and guess at something. i.e. Fact#1. Most vegetables grow from non wood bearing plants. Fact #2. Most fruits grow from trees. Therefore based on these facts I have a theory that a tomato is a vegetable. My theory would be wrong.

 

Just because the theory uses factual items to help it guess at something, doesn't mean the subsequent theory has or ever will be proven true.

 

But you knew this already.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

Moving the discussion on Creationism from a science class to a philosophy class is a joke. Those who use the mythical Constitutional "separation of church and state" never argue it is being discussed in the wrong class, they don't want it discussed at all.

 

First of all, quit talking about thy "mythical constitutional separation." You just sound even stupider than usual.

 

Linky

 

As you can see, the phrase was coined by Jefferson in 1802, and has been adopted by the Supreme Court in 1878, and upheld half a dozen times since. The phrase is, like it or not, law. And of course, anyone but the most politically myopic nitwit can see that it is pretty obvious to any rational interpretation of the establishment clause.

 

And yes, we don't want it taught in schools period. Schools are there to teach facts. Period. God knows there is enough sh!t American kids are behind everyone else on to not need to worry about fairy tale time.

 

If you want your kids to learn creationism, there are several million tax-free churches in this country. Pick one, go, and stfu.

[Frank M 181]

A factual theory is no longer a threory. That's like saying a woman is half pregnant.

 

A theory is a hypothesis that uses multiple facts in culmination to try and guess at something. i.e. Fact#1. Most vegetables grow from non wood bearing plants. Fact #2. Most fruits grow from trees. Therefore based on these facts I have a theory that a tomato is a vegetable. My theory would be wrong.

 

Just because the theory uses factual items to help it guess at something, doesn't mean the subsequent theory has or ever will be proven true.

 

But you knew this already.

 

Linky

 

Hypothesis versus Theory versus Fact

 

Hypothesis:

 

• A tentative explanation or idea about how things work
• A hypothesis guides you in further work to get a better answer

Example of a hypothesis: "The moon is made of cheese" (note: this is the kind of hypothesis my wife would come up with). How could we test this hypothesis?

 

• Construct a rocket to go to the moon and return with samples
• Make a cheese pizza substituting the moon samples for the cheese
• Ask people (e.g. graduate students. No, wait, they aren't real people…) to eat the pizza and see if they can tell any difference from pizza made with real cheese^TM (from Wisconsin)
• Most likely conclusion: Hey, this pizza tastes like dirt

New hypothesis (altered to include additional information from above experiment): The moon is not made of cheese, but is made of dirt, sort of like the Earth

 

Theory:

 

• A theory is an explanation of the general principles of certain phenomena with considerable facts to support it
• A theory remains valid only if every new piece of information supports it
• If a single piece of available information does not support a theory, then the theory (as proposed) is disproved

 

Fact:

 

• An indisputable truth

Example:

 

• It is a fact that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, an explosion equivalent to about 15 million tons of TNT occurred.
• It is a theory that this explosion was due to a natural, extra-terrestrial phenomenon and not to an activity associated with man.
• One hypothesis is that a comet collided with the Earth (a competing hypothesis is that a small black hole collided with the Earth)

 

Evolution fits into the category of theory. Creationism is a hypothesis that cannot be tested, and as such, is not a theory and cannot be considered as a scientific alternative.

 

How ridiculous would it be, in a science class, to say "There is a hypothesis that the world and everything in it were divinely created from nothingness by God. We cannot test this hypothesis, but we're going to give it equal time to evolution, a hypothesis that has survived enough rigorous testing to be deemed a theory."

[Drizzay 645]

What "version" of creationism do they plan on teaching? I thought there is more than one.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

First of all, quit talking about thy "mythical constitutional separation." You just sound even stupider than usual.

 

Linky

 

As you can see, the phrase was coined by Jefferson in 1802, and has been adopted by the Supreme Court in 1878, and upheld half a dozen times since. The phrase is, like it or not, law. And of course, anyone but the most politically myopic nitwit can see that it is pretty obvious to any rational interpretation of the establishment clause.

 

And yes, we don't want it taught in schools period. Schools are there to teach facts. Period. God knows there is enough sh!t American kids are behind everyone else on to not need to worry about fairy tale time.

 

If you want your kids to learn creationism, there are several million tax-free churches in this country. Pick one, go, and stfu.

 

 

First you said "separation of church and state" was in the Constitution, then you said the Supreme Court came up with it, now you are saying Tjomas Jefferson came up with it.

 

You are all over the place on this. Pick a story and stick to it.

[MDC 5,891]

Pick a story and stick to it.

 

Says the guy who was leaving forever, until he welched.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

First you said "separation of church and state" was in the Constitution, then you said the Supreme Court came up with it, now you are saying Tjomas Jefferson came up with it.

 

You are all over the place on this. Pick a story and stick to it.

 

No you drooling mongoloid, I never said that the phrase "separation of church and state" was in the constitution. In fact, I said earlier that it is not, verbatim. However, that is what the establishment clause means, and the phrase itself has been ensconced in constitutional law for 130 years or so.

 

How exactly do you think that church and state should be united? Which church? You do see, don't you, that anytime government and church unite, they are, by default, establishing that church, in direct contravention of the first amendment?

 

God you're dumb.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

No you drooling mongoloid, I never said that the phrase "separation of church and state" was in the constitution. In fact, I said earlier that it is not, verbatim. However, that is what the establishment clause means, and the phrase itself has been ensconced in constitutional law for 130 years or so.

 

How exactly do you think that church and state should be united? Which church? You do see, don't you, that anytime government and church unite, they are, by default, establishing that church, in direct contravention of the first amendment?

 

God you're dumb.

 

 

Where did I say I wanted the church and state united?