Jump to content

Home

Georgia wants to remove "evolution" from the curricula


SkinWalker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by InsaneSith

I think everyone in that state should be beaten for making such a big deal out of a f**king school class, it's 36weeks, get over it. -_-

 

Hey, I'm one of those students! Yes, our state sucks, at least on the standpoint of education and in comparison to the rest of the nation. What are we, last in average SAT score (1024 I think it is)? Pretty pathetic if you ask me. And I actually have one of these physics books with a sticker: it's on the inside cover, and when I first saw it state that evolution is only a theory and is not meant to be espoused as truth in the text, I immediately pencilled in "Hell no! It's true!". You know, just to inform whomever is the honored recipient of my textbook in the future :D. I really don't see why there has to be such a grand hubbub about the whole matter...see, this is one of the reasons I do not like organized religion: there is always a conflict with some aspect of the state or science, ALWAYS! Since I've had to suffer through sunday school practically my entire life (I'm an atheist now, GG Catholicism) I've heard the BS junk about the creation story being a metaphor, that the "seven days" should not necessarily be read explicitly as "seven days," but as however long - millenia, hundreds of years, whatever - as was necessary to create everything. To me, though, this just furthers my belief that nothing should be based on anything stated in the Bible, ESPECIALLY the Old Testament. We all know that the Old Testament is...well, "old" and thereby contains some "old-fashioned" ideas (see Leviticus), and isn't Genesis the first chapter in the Bible?

 

Alright, to try to clear up what I think, as I'm not really sure of the significance of what I just said: it is most unfortunate for organized religions, or at least Christianity/Catholicism, that there is such a division of thinking among the believers. Some think homosexuals should be damned, some do not. Some support the death penalty, some do not. Some believe in evolution, some (sadly) do not. There is always a split or an exception involved in every major issue. How can a religion be of any good if, clearly, so many different interpretations of the book that defines its fundamentals exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by ImmolatedYoda

How can a religion be of any good if, clearly, so many different interpretations of the book that defines its fundamentals exist?

 

Speaking of "BS". Is that your way of saying that EVERYONE that believes in evolution believes in all the same theories and ideas? Because I can assure that is not the case. So if we apply your school of thought to the subject of evolution, can we not also determine that it can't be "any good if, clearly," there are "so many different interpretations" ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SkinWalker:

Bleh. Go have a fag.
You may think that your rebellious colonial definition of the word "fag" has pwned me, but know that the word "have" can also mean "defeat in combat" in the UK.

 

Thus it could be said that you're inciting me to commit homophobic violence upon a random gay person.

 

ImmolatedYoda:

Some believe in evolution, some (sadly) do not.
Don't start talking "belief" as regards evolution mate, you'll play right into the religious nuts' hands. Science isn't about belief, it's about constantly refining theories that haven't been disproven yet. That's its beauty, and that's what separates it from religion. In science there should be no truth, nor any dogma. If only all scientists remembered that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spider AL

SkinWalker:

You may think that your rebellious colonial definition of the word "fag" has pwned me, but know that the word "have" can also mean "defeat in combat" in the UK.

 

Thus it could be said that you're inciting me to commit homophobic violence upon a random gay person.

 

Actually, I was just making a linguistic joke. You did note the :D ?

 

You do have a sense of humor, right Spidey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spider AL

I don't know about you, but I found my response rather witty. Maybe it's true, you damned rebels don't get but half of our wonderful British sense of humour.

 

Funny, I actually got the wit in your humour. Does that mean I'm turning Brit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CapNColostomy

Speaking of "BS". Is that your way of saying that EVERYONE that believes in evolution believes in all the same theories and ideas?

 

I don't know about believe in the sense that evolution is comparable to a "belief system" like xianity, but for those that accept the facts of evolution... yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I actually got the wit in your humour. Does that mean I'm turning Brit?
Obviously. Soon you'll enter stage II, the symptoms of which are: Starting to smoke a pipe, buying a castle or two to live in, whacking the servants around the head with your cane if they drop your crumpets,.. and usually substantial genital growth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spider AL

blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah, ...and usually substantial genital growth.

 

Hot digity damn! Sign me up to drink some tea and blow on a fag!(wait, that joke has been done before in this thread...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spider AL

SkinWalker:

You may think that your rebellious colonial definition of the word "fag" has pwned me, but know that the word "have" can also mean "defeat in combat" in the UK.

 

Thus it could be said that you're inciting me to commit homophobic violence upon a random gay person.

 

HAVE AT YOU!!

 

ImmolatedYoda:

Don't start talking "belief" as regards evolution mate, you'll play right into the religious nuts' hands. Science isn't about belief, it's about constantly refining theories that haven't been disproven yet. That's its beauty, and that's what separates it from religion. In science there should be no truth, nor any dogma. If only all scientists remembered that.

 

Well okay then, to me it is belief, and if that's your determination for whether something is "believed" or not (that it hasn't been disproven), then why do religious people say that they "believe?" Religion as a whole hasn't been disproven, much like it can't be proven; the same with science. The grand majority of people just don't care enough to refine their usage of the word "believe" because to them, what they "believe" is true. I'm sure you could apply this stance on "believing" to other subjects; however, none come to mind immediately. Maybe I shouldn't have gone to bed at 4 last night...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HAVE AT YOU!!
Ruffian! I shall dispatch you with my straight left, forthwith.

 

Religion as a whole hasn't been disproven, much like it can't be proven; the same with science.
Ah, but science SHOULD be based upon evidence. I mean, take evolution: it's a theory that fits certain facts.

 

Religion doesn't try to fit facts at all. It is merely dogma. In many cases, it's spiritually fulfilling, and therefore good. But while religion can be a method of understanding the hearts of others and one's own heart, it's not a reliable method of understanding the processes of the physical world.

 

Thus, one can apply the concept of "belief" to religion, but not to science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution vs. Creationism Update

 

"Officials in Georgia have mandated that schools continue to use the word evolution when teaching science. However, as a compromise, dinosaurs are now called 'Jesus horses'." -- Jimmy Fallon, Saturday Night Live, 21 Feb 04

 

The Dover Area School Board voted to add “Intelligent Design Theory” to the district’s biology curriculum Monday evening just two weeks after Supt. Richard Nilsen assured former board member Lonnie Langione that wouldn’t happen.

 

The new wording in the curriculum states: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught.”

 

The problem with that, of course, is that there are no other theories of evolution. It consistently happens that the meaning of "theory" is distorted by the creation nutters. To the point that the lay-person becomes confused.

 

A "theory" in the realm of science is different from a theory in colloquial speech. To the lay-person, a "theory" is simply an idea or concept, but to the scientist, a theory is a tested set of hypotheses that haven't been disproven or falsified and represent the current truth as it is known. It's a set of propositions which summarize, organize, and explain a variety of known facts

 

"Intelligent Design" is not a theory. It has not been tested. At best, its a speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think that religion SHOULD be taught in the public schools.

 

At the university level, students can choose to take classes about a variety of religious traditions and religious topics. They are taught in an ACADEMIC (that is, non-sectarian) way, so it is as unbiased as possible. People are free to have and discuss their own opinions but required to maintain objectivity in teaching.

 

Since religion is a way of life for the majority of the people on this planet and shows no signs of going away, and despite secularism, there is a need for tolerance and understanding.

 

Yes, some people feel that all religion is a blight on humanity and must be suppressed, but using a page out of these folk's own rhetorical book, trying to hush something up often has the effect of simply pushing it into the hands of extremists and dabblers who'll just make it worse. Get it out in the open so people can make their own informed decisions.

 

In Germany I've read that in fact at their equivalent of High School you can choose to take one of three subjects (in addition to the regular curriculum): Catholicism, Protestantism, or Ethics, depending on your background (based on the demographics of the country).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, personally I consider the idea of religions being taught in schools to be about as useful a concept as a degree in "batman". Which someone actually got, recently. :¬:

 

Surely our houses of learning are meant to prepare people for the practical/intellectual... secular side of life, (whether they succeed or not is neither here nor there,) so how can they justify "teaching" people about something that is so personal and spiritual in nature?

 

In classes on christianity, do they merely read from the bible? :confused: And if they add the history of christianity through the ages into the mix, surely that's better taught in a specialist class on religious history? Or a course in theology? And how could they possibly remove bias when the subject concerned preaches absolute truths? No, it's unworkable and pointless IMO. All it'll produce is better-informed religious zealots, or better-informed atheists. We already have the latter, we don't want the former. Part of the charm of religious nuts is that most of them haven't bothered to learn as much about the history of their respective order as many atheists have.

 

Yes, some people feel that all religion is a blight on humanity and must be suppressed,
Not I, for one. I merely hold that those who do not temper their religious fervour with the qualities logic and reason, which God gave us mind you, are not fit to decide how our societies should be run.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much in agreement with Kurgan, with one small exception. I don't think it should be religious classes taught from the perspective of single religions, but rather as a means of educating students on world religions.

 

This, I think, is a great failing in modern society: we bury our heads in the sands of our own belief systems without considering that other worldviews exist that have, to their followers, as equal standing as our own.

 

If high school kids were taught the basics of world religions from the standpoint that "this is what people believe in other regions and this is why they act/dress/speak/etc the way they do," then tolerance and understanding of one-another is the next, natural step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps only as part of a Social Studies class, but there are no separate classes set aside for World Religion as a subject. The topic should come up in Social Studies, but I would think that this will be the choice of the individual teacher.

 

If I were a Social Studies teacher, this would certainly be high up on my list as would other cultural curricula.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Kurgan

Yes, some people feel that all religion is a blight on humanity and must be suppressed, but using a page out of these folk's own rhetorical book, trying to hush something up often has the effect of simply pushing it into the hands of extremists and dabblers who'll just make it worse. Get it out in the open so people can make their own informed decisions.

 

Agreed. For the most part. I think, however, that religion in some nations has a tendancy to dominate the governing of the nation, which in turn affects the world stage. Saudi Arabia's use of Islam to restrict the status of women and their equality in business, education, etc. is an example. Other Islamic countries have found a balance between democracy and religion and women have more equality, so the hope is that Saudi Arabia follows suit.

 

Cultural norms given the excuse of religion also have an adverse affect on societies: the practice of Female Genital Mutilation in East African nations is an example. There is no law or specific religious text that requires this, but yet it exists through tradition and is justified by citing Islam and national tradition. I won't get into the details of FGM, suffice it to say, if you aren't knowlegeable of it, that the procedure amounts to torture of children.

 

I offer these examples since we can look more easily out of our own cultures than we can look in. But if we adopt an etic view of U.S. culture, that is to say, if we step out and look in without the lens of our own biases, there is a similarity to Saudi Arabia and Sudan.

 

The population appears to make secular choices based on religious belief. Scientific exploration and discovery are acceptable when it gives us things like better cellphones, automobiles, weapons, computers, etc., However, when the same methodology is perceived to threaten biblical doctrine, then those who refuse to, or haven't been offered the opportunity, to be educated take a contrary stand in support of a vocal minority in their religion.

 

I'm only going to use the Creation v. Evolution agenda as an example here, since this is the topic. But it also seems apparent to me that the statistics on belief are significant in this nation. Someone posted them already, but it is true that a majority of Americans think that humanity began with Adam and Eve; that Noah saved the animal kingdom of an entire planet in a boat; that creation took 6 days.

 

This kind of ignorance (not intended to be the derogatory sense of the word) requires a counter from those that can do so. Otherwise, there will always be an elitist class willing to take advantage of the ignorant class by appealing to their ignorance.

 

Appealing to their belief systems. Appealing to the religious conservatives of the nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Perhaps only as part of a Social Studies class, but there are no separate classes set aside for World Religion as a subject. The topic should come up in Social Studies, but I would think that this will be the choice of the individual teacher.

 

Uhhh....not true. As I mentioned, my school offered World Religions and I went to an ass backwards high school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

PBS station pulls plug on documentary

 

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) -- The PBS television station in Albuquerque pulled a documentary on evolution after discovering it was funded by evangelical Christian groups.

The show,"Unlocking the Mystery of Life," challenges Darwin’s theory of evolution. It had mistakenly been slated to air Friday night, in a time slot reserved for the science show"Nova."

 

Plenty of outrage can be found on the pro-creation/ID side of the argument: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/blogs/csc.php

 

"refusing to air a program supporting the less popular point of view looks like a close cousin to censorship."

 

One of the outspoken against the decision was Rebecca Keller, who attempts to come off in the interviews with reporters as a concerned scientist, but in reality, she's a devout creationist/ID supporter: • Science Education in Public Schools: Science in the classroom - What do we teach the children? (Biophysical Chemist and Author of Real Science 4-Kids, Rebecca Keller, PhD)

 

Here's a link to the facts surrounding the whole ordeal that New Mexican PBS viewers are dealing with: http://www.nmsr.org/knmeisok.htm

 

And a quote from that:

NMSR members Dave Thomas and Kim Johnson agreed to appear on the half-hour show "In Focus," which would have aired on Friday, Jan. 7th at 8:30 PM, but Joe Renick and Mike Kent of IDnet-NM refused to participate in the panel discussion, dismissing it as an "unproductive use of time."

 

Why do the IDers complain about "unprecedented censorship," and yet refuse to participate in an open discussion of these same ideas? I think the reason is the playing field, pure and simple. The "Unlocking" video has been very carefully crafted to look scientific, not religious. It avoids any substantive discussion, and is simply an ID propaganda vehicle. (Some Christian groups market the video as "the most impressive evangelistic tool ever made!")

 

 

Conclusion: Chalk up a few points to the fact of Evolution! Creationist nutjobs finally lose a few inches of ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by idel

This is the first I've heard of anything like this (being from Scotland and all) and all I can do is shake my head.

 

Seriously, what the hell is going on over there!?

 

I know... i've been having the same problem. Its hard to carry out a sane argument when you thought the issue had been settled decades ago. Obviously the US is just a bit behind :D

 

Kidding!!

 

----------------

 

Personally I think that the misunderstanding of the word Theory is at the route of 80% of all the problems. Maybe they need to call it something else so that non scientists GET it.

 

--------------------

 

In the UK we have Religious Studies classes as part of most schools (might well be in the national curriculum) up to about the age of 14 or 16 (can't remember.

But it is taught from an educational point of view, not a religious one. We learned all about Christain History, Catholics, Protestants, Splits, Etc... Then about Islam, then about Seeks and Hinduism, then Buddism... One term devoted to each religion from what i remember.

 

Frankly I'm amazed everyone doesn't get something like that, its no wonder middle america is so insular if they never learn about any other way of life.

 

-----------------

 

MSNBC reports that a judge in Atlanta, GA has ruled that a sticker placed on all textbooks in Cobb County stating that 'Evolution is a theory, not a fact,' is unconstitutional, and ordered that all stickers be removed."

 

http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/6822028/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...