Bush's Creationism in schools remarks (1 Viewer)

[Riewe]

I guess that we still don't have the answer to how it all started. We may know what happened afterwards (evolution), but that very first instant is still unknown, so this study is definitely worthwhile.

 

[braindrainedAsh]

Hey has anyone read about this, it's even on wikipedia!

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

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

 

[heybraham]

Thats why it shouldn't be part of the science course. Religious education fine, but keep it out of science.

some of my friends like COMPLETELY beleive in science. they treat it like a religion, its disturbing perhaps dangerous, they block out all religion in the quest for the 'truth'. the best solution is to reignite the debate between science and religion (personally i don't believe science and religion really contradict each other, they only serve to support each other)

 

[Rafy]

Hey has anyone read about this, it's even on wikipedia!

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

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

hahaha......Makes a powerful point that.

 

[Meldrum]

Hey has anyone read about this, it's even on wikipedia!

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

http://www.venganza.org/index.htm

Geez I love Wiki.

It's teh secks.

 

[Rafy]

There will be a story on Intellegent design in australian education on the 7.30 report tonight. If your interested in this debate, could be interesting viewing.

 

[Wesnat]

It's funny that, when I was in High School (a Catholic one at that), we had Catholic Studies lessons, and the teachers and students always interpreted the creation story as simply a wonderful interpretation of the world's origins. The point was made that God created the world. But none of us actually thought of the creation story as a series of actual events occuring at the beginning of time.

So, no, I don't believe the creation story, but I do believe the message behind it. In fact, we're never encouraged (let alone forced) to believe it at school; the teachers always said "believe whatever you want, what matters is the point behind it".

I do believe that teaching creationism as a part of science is rather silly, particularly in public schools, where cultures, beliefs, and values may clash. I think George Bush took the idea of science and religion being more compatible than people think a bit too far...

 

[Rafy]

its on now, ABC.

looks to sum up the entire issue.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Yeh I caught it, makes my blood boil everytime

One of the anti-intelligent design guys read out some of Paley's writings. That's what people don't understand -- it is an argument hundreds of years old that David Hume and others killed off indefinitely.

 

[Raginsheep]

Didn't see it, anyone care to post up a summary of what was said?

 

[Generator]

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1449597.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2005/s1447202.htm (another report on the issue from last Friday's PM programme)

 

[Raginsheep]

Do I think it should be a replacement for teaching the origins of mankind in a scientific sense? I most certainly don't think it should be at all. In fact, I would be quite concerned if it were to replace it. Do I think that parents in schools should have the opportunity, if they wish to, for students also to be exposed to this and to be taught about it? Yes, I think that's fine.

I don't often agree with him but this is probably one of the most intelligent things I've heard comming from him.

If it is all just a chaotic assemblance, there is no reason to expect any rationality out there but if it in fact is the product of a mind then you can go out and science becomes this enormous wonderful, puzzle-solving project in which you can expect to find rationality, and beauty and comprehensibility right at the foundation of things.

I thought the whole point of intelligent was that life and its mechanisms was so complex that it was incomprehensible by us humans other than saying "God understands".

You see, that's the impossible, because how can the created understand the creator?

And thats the whole reason why Intelligent Design should not be taught as a scientific theory. Science, by its nature, demands that everything around us understandable or will be understanble eventually.

 

[gerhard]

Its hard to teach it in schools because its a delicate issue. If you teach students evolution and then say, some christians believe all this but there is no scientific evidence at all for this, then youll insult a huge bunch of people. If you teach it like creationism is a valid scientific argument, then society should probably pretty much give up the discipline of science altogether

soo classic

 

[Xayma]

August 31, 2005
Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Correction Appended

In a finding that is likely to intensify the debate over what to teach students about the origins of life, a poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.

The poll found that 42 percent of respondents held strict creationist views, agreeing that "living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time."

In contrast, 48 percent said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was "guided by a supreme being," and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism.

The poll was conducted July 7-17 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. The questions about evolution were asked of 2,000 people. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.

John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."

"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.

Eugenie C. Scott, the director of the National Center for Science Education and a prominent defender of evolution, said the findings were not surprising because "Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind of argument."

"In fact, it's the strongest thing that creationists have got going for them because their science is dismal," Ms. Scott said. "But they do have American culture on their side."

This year, the National Center for Science Education has tracked 70 new controversies over evolution in 26 states, some in school districts, others in the state legislatures.

President Bush joined the debate on Aug. 2, telling reporters that both evolution and the theory of intelligent design should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, took the same position a few weeks later.

Intelligent design, a descendant of creationism, is the belief that life is so intricate that only a supreme being could have designed it.

The poll showed 41 percent of respondents wanted parents to have the primary say over how evolution is taught, compared with 28 percent who said teachers and scientists should decide and 21 percent who said school boards should. Asked whether they believed creationism should be taught instead of evolution, 38 percent were in favor, and 49 percent were opposed.

More of those who believe in creationism said they were "very certain" of their views (63 percent), compared with those who believe in evolution (32 percent).

The poll also asked about religion and politics, government financing of religious charities, and gay men and lesbians in the military. Most of these questions were asked of a smaller pool of 1,000 respondents, and the margin of error was 2.5 percentage points, Pew researchers said.

The public's impression of the Democratic Party has changed in the last year, the survey found. Only 29 percent of respondents said they viewed Democrats as being "friendly toward religion," down from 40 percent in August of 2004. Meanwhile, 55 percent said the Republican Party was friendly toward religion.

Luis E. Lugo, the director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said: "I think this is a continuation of the Republican Party's very successful use of the values issue in the 2004 election, and the Democrats not being able up until now to answer that successfully. Some of the more visible leaders, such as Howard Dean and others, have reinforced that image of a secular party. Of course, if you look at the Democratic Party, there's a large religious constituency there."

Survey respondents agreed in nearly equal numbers that nonreligious liberals had "too much control" over the Democratic Party (44 percent), and that religious conservatives had too much control over the Republican Party (45 percent).

On religion-based charities, two-thirds of respondents favored allowing churches and houses of worship to apply for government financing to provide social services. But support for such financing declined from 75 percent in early 2001, when Mr. Bush rolled out his religion-based initiative.

On gay men and lesbians in the military, 58 percent of those polled said they should be allowed to serve openly, a modest increase from 1994, when 52 percent agreed. Strong opposition has fallen in that time, to 15 percent from 26 percent in 1994.

Goodstein, L. 2005, 'Teaching of Creationism Is Endorsed in New Survey', New York Times, August 31, [Online], Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html? [01/09/05]

 

[Generator]

School to make evolution optional

Teaching a religious concept that is untested within the field of science as a valid scientific theory? Only out in the Hills...

 

[Raginsheep]

If it wasn't so disappointingly stupid, it'd be funny.

Surely some one realises the difference between science and religion out there.

 

[gerhard]

imagine being a science teacher at pacific hills.

i bet all the other teachers would give you greasy looks as you walked the corridors, scared about what knowledge they might give the kids next.

 

[iambored]

however i coulndt agree move with what Susan Spath says at the end of the article. Its not the other side. It is just one ALternative view.

I don't even agree with what she says, it's a science class. Teach creationism in religion, teach it in philosophy but not in science when there is no scientific basis for it, it's isn't an alternate view to be taught in science classes unless there is evidence.

 

[spell check]

teaching creationism in science is about as useful as teaching that people can come back from the dead as a science topic because it says it happened in the bible

 

[Beaky]

Perhaps the addition of Creationism in the high school syllabus would spawn a generation to see how "unscientific" it actually is causing the movement more harm than good?