Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"In a post at its blog dated August 15, 2011, the Texas Freedom Network observed, "Here's the head-exploding part for the creationists. Not only does the final version of Holt not include creationist arguments against evolution, but they also include language explicitly affirming Darwin's theories," adding, "With Holt's materials finalized, we can now say with certainty that all of the materials approved from the nine publishers are in line with fact-based science and free of creationist attacks seeking to undermine science."
As a Texas HS science teacher, this is a most welcome and quite unexpected development.
What is so offensive about the creationist perspective? Why are HS science teachers like yourself so worked up about creation getting into science textbooks? Can you explain the big bang? Were you there to see it happen? If empiricism is the end-all for science, how do you know that happened? When was empiricism observed? How do you explain the litany of problems that Darwin's theories have brought about in recent years? How do you explain irreducible complexity...the evolution of DNA...the cross of one species into the next, especially when none of that has ever been observed in nature?
What is so offensive about the creationist perspective? Why are HS science teachers like yourself so worked up about creation getting into science textbooks? Can you explain the big bang? Were you there to see it happen? If empiricism is the end-all for science, how do you know that happened? When was empiricism observed? How do you explain the litany of problems that Darwin's theories have brought about in recent years? How do you explain irreducible complexity...the evolution of DNA...the cross of one species into the next, especially when none of that has ever been observed in nature?
It's unconstitutional when presented in a science class as science. However, I can't see why it would be offensive being discussed in Creation literature class, where you could really dissect all the different creation stories. It would be a pretty interesting section of the Classics genre.
What is so offensive about the creationist perspective? Why are HS science teachers like yourself so worked up about creation getting into science textbooks? Can you explain the big bang? Were you there to see it happen? If empiricism is the end-all for science, how do you know that happened? When was empiricism observed? How do you explain the litany of problems that Darwin's theories have brought about in recent years? How do you explain irreducible complexity...the evolution of DNA...the cross of one species into the next, especially when none of that has ever been observed in nature?
Because creationism is not science it is religion. Only science should be taught in science class. It is literally that simple.
Everything else you stated from the creationism to the IR is NOT science. And FYI speciation has absolutely been observed.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,782,175 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by nyyfanatic85
What is so offensive about the creationist perspective? Why are HS science teachers like yourself so worked up about creation getting into science textbooks? Can you explain the big bang? Were you there to see it happen? If empiricism is the end-all for science, how do you know that happened? When was empiricism observed? How do you explain the litany of problems that Darwin's theories have brought about in recent years? How do you explain irreducible complexity...the evolution of DNA...the cross of one species into the next, especially when none of that has ever been observed in nature?
I'm all for personal faith and trying to live in accordance with the teachings of Christ, but it's a mistake and a disservice to the students of Texas to allow dogma and a literal interpretation of the bible to stand alongside science in basic science curriculae. I have no problem with science being excluded on on the Sabbath of choice or its equivalent for the same kids, the problem is when adults try to inject their politics into what should be an objective survey of the principles of scientific disciplines.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A victory for rationality
