LAT
Does creationism have a place at a public school?
On Tuesday, I was in Phillips’ classroom during his lunch break when Adams walked in, and a spirited discussion began.
“We’re allowing students to exercise their rights on campus,” said Adams, who later told me she challenged evolution as a young student and still believes “it’s good for students to look at different versions of how man came to be.”
“I believe they have a right” to exist, Phillips said. “But … when students are taught that science is a bunch of malarkey, and when people are trying to indoctrinate them with something that’s not true,” it’s a disservice to students and a hindrance to science teachers.
Adams said there’s a gay-lesbian club on campus, and she supports that, too.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
You misspelled “correct.”
Capitalist Hog on December 9, 2012 at 4:21 PM
We’ve already lost the battle re: science classes only covering the ‘real, tangible, and testable,’ since AGW is now being taught as orthodoxy in science class.
Good Solid B-Plus on December 9, 2012 at 4:22 PM
The Big Bang is not an example of origins.
There was already forces and matter acting in some way that caused the Big Bang. What about before the Big Bang. What the nature of the environment that surrounded the Big Bang?..what forces were acting on what substance and what were their origin?
What there was is little more than hypothetical guesses that cannot be held to scientific method for obvious reasons.
I agree with your last statement. The problem is that one is taught as having been held to scientific method, making it more valid. It has not been held to any scientific method, as it cannot be.
They should be both be presented as belief systems.
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 4:22 PM
No great scientists throughout history, not to mention merely good ones, have been creationists as well?
Your shallow bigotry makes you sound really stupid – not that me pointing this out to you will affect you in the manner it should!
Anti-Control on December 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM
If the ability to reproduce or survive is based on consistently rising environmental requirements that you be able to jump high, in a few mIllenia you might find the human body has indeed altered in such a way that dizzying heights could be reached. Could never make it to Venus though. Atmospheres, oxygen, gravity, all that. Plus any species with a female who’s that hard to please in order to mate with would eventually die out because sometimes, b****es can just be TOO high maintenance and demanding to worry about pleasing any longer.
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 4:26 PM
This statement is signed by hundreds of scientists.
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:28 PM
http://creation.com/universe-had-a-beginning
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:32 PM
Agreed. Big bang and creationism are both belief systems or “ideas” with little to no evidence, proof, testability.
Evolution though? Yeah, it’s all the things those two ideas are not. So no, creationism should not be taught alongside it as equal or an acceptable alternative to evolution.
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 4:34 PM
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:34 PM
http://creation.com/defining-terms
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:36 PM
People like the “Good” Lt argue no differently than the obnoxious and arrogant AGW fascists, who are too dumb to understand why they get mocked and derided for their self-declared commitment to “scientific purity”.
They are (bad) jokes who hurt their causes.
Anti-Control on December 9, 2012 at 4:38 PM
http://creation.com/don-t-fall-for-the-bait-and-switch
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:38 PM
Louis Pasteur and Gregor Mendel were creationists. It didn’t prevent them from being great scientists.
Rose on December 9, 2012 at 4:38 PM
I see what you did.
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:39 PM
Your ignorance is showing. Antibiotics aren’t given for viral infections. You are talking about BACTERIA that develop resistances to antibiotics. Until you evolutionists can explain to me how a bacterium or a virus morph into a multi-celled organism, I’m calling BS on your theory of MACRO-evolution.
JannyMae on December 9, 2012 at 4:40 PM
http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 4:40 PM
So let’s just go hog wild then, huh?! Why not?
“Hey kids, Due to our new “science curriculum” standards, rather than study Darwin’s provable theories and the huge, complicated, difficult at times to comprehend, centuries long swath of information pertaining to the studious efforts of those who’ve come before us, you’ll now be allowed to just answer questions about the book of genesis instead and go on about your life. It’s a great day for education kids. Soak it up.”
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 4:41 PM
It wasn’t my intent to suggest the big bang theory is proven. But merely the best scientific theory ATM. I personally believe that if God created the Universe, he would do it through science not magic and our universe being created with a big bang doesn’t seem all that far fetched.
“The Mind of God” by Paul Davies. A book that pursues this line of thinking is a fun read.
filetandrelease on December 9, 2012 at 4:49 PM
Replace virus with bacteria and the premise is sound.
filetandrelease on December 9, 2012 at 4:56 PM
I can live with that, but the difference in concept should be clearly explained to students. It is not, and more often used to discredit anything to do with religion in general.
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 5:06 PM
I was trying to cite that without seeming confrontational. I failed.
You’re one of the “good” guys. And by that I mean you have an open mind.
Davies’ book is on my “want to read” list.
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 5:07 PM
See, look at that! Solutions!
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 5:08 PM
I’m not so sure.
Bacteria don’t “develop resistance”. The ineffectiveness to a particular antibiotic is already there. Either the application of the antibiotic would have killed the entire population of bacteria..in which case there would be none left to ‘develop’ anything, or some bacteria already existing in the colony had a preexisting resistance to the antibiotic.
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 5:11 PM
You are correct. No new information (DNA) is generated.
davidk on December 9, 2012 at 5:20 PM
Here’s an are where I’ll disagree with you. In order for an organic organism to have a sort of pre-made resistance stored away to a inorganic or constructed substance would require knowledge of the future and what it will come into contact with upon it’s creation. Sure, easy place to say, “well that’s god.” But in reality, it seems to be that coming into contact with substances and surviving it can alter or change succeeding generations of genomes.
I could never have ever been around the cold or flu viruses my entire life. When I came into contact with it most likely I’m definitely gonna get sick. But after that I go and work at an elementary school as a teacher and am around it constantly. I will build resistance even though my body had previously never been exposed to it and was easily succeptable at first.
I disagree with you, that resistances expressed were already contained in organisms genes in the first place. That would require the prescience of an omnipotent being out to make sure the flu never goes away. Never!!!
“I’ll show those humans and their prideful medicines!”
Last bits a joke.
Genuine on December 9, 2012 at 5:38 PM
Why is that?
How is it that you could claim to never been exposed it the cold or flu? You would have to lived in a sterile bubble.
That said, whether cold virus of bacterial infection, your immune system is fighting it off as best it can being aided by the evolution of the laboratory and evolving knowledge of the scientists gaining new information, and not the virus or bacteria.
Funny stuff.:)
Mimzey on December 9, 2012 at 5:55 PM
Okay, but the Bible told us about Jericho long before its ruins were discovered. The same with Pontius Pilate. The first proof of his existence was found in the 1960s. It wasn’t just a fairy tale.
It’s obvious that the world wasn’t built in 6 days, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t truth in the Genesis. The problem for us is that it’s told in a metaphorical language that we don’t understand any more, because we have become too materialistic.
Don’t make the same mistake as the guy who said, “The Italians are stupid. I don’t understand a word they say.”
Gelsomina on December 9, 2012 at 8:04 PM
There is no scientific explanation for the Big Bang.
Gelsomina on December 9, 2012 at 8:16 PM
The theory of evolution is in a huge part a way to explain the origins of the earth and all living and non-living things that we find today. Creation science attempts to explain the same thing. In that context they absolutely belong in the same discussion.
For the portions of science where there is observable evidence for or against one of the two theories, it is absolutely legitimate, in a SCIENCE CLASS to discuss whether the theory, whether Creation or evolution, adequately explains the scientific evidence.
And of course there is stringent disagreement between Creation scientists and evolution-believing scientists on the interpretation of the evidence. A Creationist may scientifically observe layers of earth and what bones are found where and conclude that Noah’s flood would be a perfect explanation for how what we find today came to be. An evolution-believing scientist will look at the same evidence and will ignore data that doesn’t fit the evolutionary model of geologic layers of earth, even though the layers are not even in the same order as shown in the current public school textbooks. It is entirely legitimate for anyone, Creationist or not, to be able to hear in a SCIENCE classroom the SCIENTIFIC evidence that a Creation scientist has pointed out.
Creationists are not asking to teach theology in a science class. They are just asking to be allowed to make SCIENTIFIC arguments in support of their theory in a science class. How is that not legitimate?
Why should evolution be a holy grail that can not be challenged with scientific evidence, no matter the motivation of the person doing the challenging.
willamettevalley on December 9, 2012 at 8:44 PM
Why is it obvious that the earth wasn’t created in 6 days? That certainly isn’t true for anyone who believes in a powerful God who would be capable of creating the earth any way He wished.
willamettevalley on December 9, 2012 at 8:46 PM
What do any of the dogmatic evolutionist here have to say about the numerous examples of scientific evidence presented in a talk like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOvyuNxlovE – he really gets going on scientific evidence at about 13 min. 10 sec.) that prove the earth could not be millions or billions of years old?
On the other side of things, I’ve never seen evolutionists even bother to address any of these issues, or present evidence like this for their side. Evolutionists kept getting whooped by Creationists in debates, so they stopped doing debates. Instead, they just make claims and engage in a cleansing campaign against anyone that disagrees with them, acting like they are flat-earthers who allow theology to trump science, and they treat even previously well-respected scientists as heretics and refuse to allow them to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and then turn around and say those scientists are loony because they don’t have any recent peer-reviewed work.
Especially for all those here who recognize this phenomenon in the global warming debate, how can you be so blind to the same thing happening in the evolution/Creation debate?!
willamettevalley on December 9, 2012 at 11:06 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3