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.
But you are talking about literature class, they are talking about no having those in science class. Most folks are only concerned with science class.
Nah, believe me, parents and others who complain (from all sides) will have an axe to grind about ANY class. I once had an evangelical parent complain that I taught Greco-Roman mythology. She said I was promoting "false gods" and the only metaphor/ancient civilization studies her kid needed of that type were found in the Bible. Heh, I basically told her to stuff it in a nice, Christian way.
The Jehovah Witness parents were a problem, too. They had a huge problem with science and they even questioned me fiercely about my lessons around Christmas. (I usually had the students read Dickens and I taught them how to make Victorian Christmas cards and write their own sonnets to put inside the cards.) I got off pretty easy as I could prove the academic value and assure them we weren't "celebrating Christmas" in class; the science teachers had a tougher time.
But my main point is that teaching should be multi-disciplinary. I told the science teachers that I cover Creationism academically, so if they get questions in class and aren't comfortable with it, they can send the kids to me. I worked a lot with the history teachers, too, and we tried to align lessons when possible.
Palin's comments, and others like them, aren't the least bit problematic. In fact, they're quite practical in public schools since you get kids of all sorts of backgrounds and they do ask questions. If you're prepared, you can address them easily without any discomfiture.
Evolution, Natural Selection, Mutation, Genetics, etc etc can all be tested and tested and tested and verified and tested again, and documented by mountains of evidence gathered over decades of research and scientific scrutiny.
But that isn't entirely true, and I'll give you a perfect example. For decades we've been told that Neanderthals couldn't speak, and never co-existed with Homo Sapiens, in part because Homo Sapiens killed off of the few remaining Neanderthal groups.
It was assumed that Neanderthals could not speak because they did not have a Hyoid Bone, a very small and very fragile bone that anchors the muscles in the throat to the back of the tongue and allows the tongue to be used to form sounds.
I believe 1986 was the year a French-Israeli team makes a spectacular find in a cave system recovering two sets of completely intact Neanderthal remains (6 bodies in total). All six bodies had Hyoid Bones, and to the worst fears of the "Neanderthals can't talk" paradigm, the bodies yielded valuable DNA that showed they also had the FPS3 Gene (I think I got it right), the gene that allows speech.
In addition to smashing the "Neanderthals can't talk" myth, it also smashed the myth that Neanderathals didn't co-exist with Homo Sapiens, since both groups (Homo Sapien remains were found too) occupied the cave at alternate times over a 10,000 year period.
In spite of the overwhelming evidence, Discovery Channel still airs the propaganda/disinformation program where the idiot anthropologist claims Neanderthals can't talk and hilariously tries to mimic their vocal communications.
Assuming archaeologists and anthropologists are wrong about the familial activities of Neanderthals, it would take several hundred thousand years to spread those mutations through a population.
If one offspring of a Neanderthal mutates and has a Hyoid Bone, it isn't like a magic wand is waved and all Neanderthals born after that date have a Hyoid Bone.
That's where evolution fails. It can surely demonstrate how a mutation might spread through a population of Fruit Flies, but not through a population of humanoids, unless you're claiming that the reproductive rates of Fruit Flies and humanoids are the same. It would have taken several hundred thousand years to spread through the Neanderthal population, which is unfortunate, since they were around less far less than that.
Well apparently Democrat National Committee Chairman, who claimed just yesterday that the Democrats possess a "newfound zeal for religion" hasn't read this or other threads in these forums where so many of Barack Obama's supporters have put their anti-Christian bigotry on full display! All Sarah Palin is doing is advocating that creationism and evolution be taught together in our public schools.
Quote:
In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:
"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.
Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.
"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.
There you go! Where's the controversy? the scandal? Once upon a time, Galileo was persecuted for daring to assert that maybe the Earth isn't at the center of the universe. And now some public school teachers are being persecuted for daring to assert that maybe evolution isn't a settled scientific fact--that maybe other forces can explain our existence. Oh, the horror of having any kind of discussion or debate in our public schools that might challenge the notion that men and apes came from one common ancestor! Can someone say fascism here?
So keep up the good work, everyone! I'm sure Karl Rove is grinning from ear to ear at the way you all are trying to make the rest of us out to be Neanderthal Dark Ages Spanish Inquisition types for simply wanting creationism, intelligent design and evolution to be co-equals at the public school table.
Sarah Palin created this controversy by explicit statements supporting the Alaska Republican Party's platform education plank:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaska Republican Party
On education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."
If Palin no longer believes in this "equal representation" of science vs pseudo-science religious mythology, she has had two years to express her change of position. She has NOT done so. Nor has she stated that she does NOT personally believe in Creationism. In fact, she has refused to directly answer whether she believes in evolution.
Since Palin has had ample opportunity to clear up the controversy, one might conclude that:
(1) she sticks by her original support of teaching Creationism in public schools --- or ---
(2) her position was actually a political one intended to conform to the extremist views of the right wing establishment
So much for the Palin "maverick" myth.
Last edited by freeXSvegas; 09-01-2008 at 02:51 AM..
Who is going to teach our children about the flying Spaghetti Monster anyway?
Haha. Exactly. It all breaks down pretty simply: Creationism, while some people consider it to be a viable option, is made up, unproven, unscientific, a fairy tale, a myth, a speculation, a legend, a fantasy. Evolution, on the other hand, is not made up, provable, scientific.
Creationism shouldn't be taught in science class any more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster Story, the Jolly Green Giant Theory, the Tale of the Purple Sparkle Unicorn, or the truth about Santa Claus should be.
I'm agnostic, but when I was in college, I took a class on Buddhism, Taoism and Shintoism. It was one of the most interesting lectures I took during my college career, even though I didn't believe in any of the religions being studied. I'm all for people learning about and even seeking out alternative views. However, our grade-school children should not be learning about Creationism in science class. It's not science...it's conjecture, and it has no place in our children's science curriculum.
Case nameTammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.
Citations 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)
Holding Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Wow. Does Wikipedia now trump the actual Supreme Court? The Supreme Court's holding is not even close to saying that
"Teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional because it attempts to advance a particular religion."
THAT LANGUAGE IS NO WHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE OPINION
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.
