"Arkansas Bill Lets Teachers Promote Creationism and Intelligent Design in Science Class"

[Skwim]

You just want to subject kids to the Skwim World!
When niggled by those who disagree you pick out typos like 'fr' ....? Is that the depth of your debating skill, Skwim?

When you correct an 'us' to a 'we' in a post, this tells me that you've lost the plot within your thread, lost the debate.

Boy, I didn't expect to get such a delightful response. You're almost too easy. In any case . . . .

Your position is so totally biased and prejudiced that your ideas about subjecting kids to information is bad. The idea that a kid is pulled one way in a deeply religuious household and then pulled another at school is .... frankly..... disgusting. It's a kind of mental bullying.

Shhhhh! That's enough silliness now. Time to get serious or Skwim is going to stop talking to you---and don't pretend you don't care
'cause we both know better.

Now.,..... try and understand that to present various ideas to a child as THEORIES and give that child the opportunity to research, investigate, experiment and discover for themselves, discussing their findings as a class, is the modern method of objective delivery.

Okay. *serious face* back to the issue at hand, introducing creationism into science curriculum. It's already been pointed out that this is no less asinine than introducing astrology into science classes. That you don't think so immediately tells us that you're obviously ignorant of both science and creationism, which means that whatever you have to say about the issue, no matter what the point, is inconsequential and not worth listening to.

So . . . . . . .have a good day O B.

PS...... please don't highlight my typos. that just shows a level of disability discrimination in yourself.

Awe shucks, you really do care about me after all. Come here and let me give you a big Skwim hug.


.

 

[oldbadger]

I kinda understand what you mean. Thinking of my experience, children who attend strictly secular schools, as I did, tend to develop a rational attitude and a sort of unconscious anti-theism very prematurely. In fact the number of atheists among teenagers is growing constantly in my country, because they receive a very rational education at school, and this increases the generational gap, and a lack of mutual understanding with their parents.
The first time that I heard the word Creationism was in this forum, actually. Because at school talking about Creation was considered inappropriate and irrational.
By the way, I still think that children are supposed to receive a secular education, also because religion should be a personal private choice, and not something other people inculcated in you.

Fair enough......
As a Deist, I agree with you that subjects like religion etc etc should be extra-curricula unless the subject is 'religious education', but in Arkansas where the population is circa 4/5 Christian and a % of that believing strongly in Genesis, and faced with a Bill that seeks to combine Genesis with Evolution both as theories I don't think that a hard-mouthed attitude from the Lesson-Plan writers and the teaching deliverers is going to be helpful, if the Bill is passed.

And so my proposal that schools can find ways of benefiting this situation, if it happens, is met with a fairly abrupt response from some members who clearly don't like the idea of INVESTIGATION AND OBJECTIVE RESEARCH by children...... a term I've used so much in this thread that it might actually be remembered by some hardliners!

Education should not be subjective if at all possible. Education should be about objective delivery. That way the kids have a chance of arriving at their own conclusions.

And there should not be examination after these lessons, only lesson-assessments to arrive at a 'result'.

I can think of one training plan which cannot be objective, but there are not many.

 

[oldbadger]

Boy, I didn't expect to get such a delightful response. You're almost too easy. In any case . . . .

Shhhhh! That's enough silliness now. Time to get serious or Skwim is going to stop talking to you---and don't pretend you don't care
'cause we both know better.


Okay. *serious face* back to the issue at hand, introducing creationism into science curriculum. It's already been pointed out that this is no less asinine than introducing astrology into science classes. That you don't think so immediately tells us that you're obviously ignorant of both science and creationism, which means that whatever you have to say about the issue, no matter what the point, is inconsequential and not worth listening to.

So . . . . . . .have a good day O B.


Awe shucks, you really do care about me after all. Come here and let me give you a big Skwim hug.


.

That alright, Skwim...... I just hope you learned something from all this?

 

[whirlingmerc]

To cultivate critical thinking, it would be reasonable for children to hear the problems with macro evolution, long ages, dines to birds... but what we see are cow to whale, dog to porpoise dogmatism. And the fraudulent diagrams of haekel's embryos in many high school, college and med school texts various ways up to recent.

Would it be wrong to say 'why is there significant amounts of C14 in Cambrian diamond claimed 300 million or so years old since the half life of a few thousand years should preclude that?' An alternative view is that the world is not as old as claimed

Would it be wrong to say 'zircons are among the oldest things on earth and have Uranium, lead and helium but the lead suggests years in the Billions and the helium amounts suggests thousands and perhaps there is more going on than at first glance?

Would it be wrong to ask 'The universe is claimed 13 billion light years mainly because of assumptions about quasars red and therefore being far away. We see galaxies and quasars in paris even with signs of matter bridges between both and so... could quasars be red because they are intrinsically red and not as far away"

Would it be wrong to say some claim reptiles/dinos became birds and yet the bellows lungs of reptiles are significantly different than the jet engine continuous flow like lungs of birds making going from one to another in a series of small changes impossible

By the way... bird are claimed to come from dinosaurs like TRex that are ... wait for it... T Rex is lizard hipped... while plump little triceratops and its cosign stegosaurus are well ... wait for it.... bird hipped. Go figure.

Perhaps a one sided uncritical view is wrong
"I believe in evolution because of dinosaur bones and can think for myself' Hillary Clinton's view is perhaps too uncritical in her arguing agains students be told evidence critical of popular evolutionary thought

Need I bring up Nebraska man. A tooth of an extinct pig referred to by the press during the scopes trial to ridicule creationists?


quote
In 1922, paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, an ardent evolutionist, was shown a single tooth found in Nebraska by geologist Harold Cook. After examining it, Osborn declared it belonged to an early ape-man, whom he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii in Cook’s honor. Popularly, it became known as “Nebraska Man.”
....
However, further excavations at Cook’s site revealed that the tooth belonged neither to ape nor man, but to a peccary, a close relative of the pig.

Read more at Time magazine’s new ape-man
unquote

 

[Jose Fly]

You cannot subject Arkansas to 'tell' its kids to accept the Jose Fly perception of the world.. If Arkansas wants to present Genesis to kids as a theory (read the Bill Jose) then it can.

No it can't actually. Even if the bill were to be signed into law it would quickly get shot down in court as unconstitutional. The federal court system (including the Supreme Court) has consistently ruled that teaching creationism in science class is a violation of church/state separation.

One way of 'making a difference' to a kid's mindset is NOT to TELL it anything, Jose. Have you ever tried to TELL a group of kids anything? Did it work?

Yeah, all the time. I've helped coach my kid's sports teams and we tell them the rules of the game, how to play, what to do, how to practice, etc., pretty much every time we're around them.

It's fristrating, trying explain to you that a fundamentalist religious household is going to do subject its kids to fundy beliefs. You want those same kids to go to school and listen to a teacher subjecting them to something different. Now, think about it..... what will happen? ???

A variety of things will happen. Some kids will just outright reject what they're being taught and never learn the material, some will learn it but not believe it, and others will understand it and realize that the facts of the world just don't line up with some of their religious beliefs.

But if those same kids come to a school where the Lesson Plan presents various theories (not established facts, Jose, theories!) and asks the kids to INVESTIGATE do you think that this might be one way of giving them an opportunity to look at theories OBJECTIVELY?

No. You're going to get the same set of results as above, likely with more ending up in the "reject the facts" camp than before. Why? Because if you just leave it up to the kids, those raised in households where they've been told that evolution is an atheistic plot to turn people away from God are never going to actually bother to look at or consider the facts. It's no different than the behavior of several of the creationists in this forum. When given the choice, most will choose to remain ignorant. A good teacher will at least expose them to the facts, which is more than they'll do if left to their own devices.

Also, if you're going to comment on science and science education, at least learn the basics. The whole "it's a theory not a fact" thing is one of the more ignorant things creationists say.

Your idea about TEACHING ESTABLISHED FACTS is just not an objective method of education.

You don't get it.... I can see that. Your idea of education is ..... all subjective. Dreadful..... for kids, and education.

Then we'll just disagree on that.

 

[metis]

Need I bring up Nebraska man. A tooth of an extinct pig referred to by the press during the scopes trial to ridicule creationists?

But the equivalent would be to use Christian pastors who have molested children as an example of Christian teachings. People in all walks of life periodically make mistakes, intentional or not.

There's far more evidence that life has evolved over billions of years than there is for Jesus walking this Earth, and yet the vast majority of us don't deny the latter.

 

[whirlingmerc]

But the equivalent would be to use Christian pastors who have molested children as an example of Christian teachings. People in all walks of life periodically make mistakes, intentional or not.

There's far more evidence that life has evolved over billions of years than there is for Jesus walking this Earth, and yet the vast majority of us don't deny the latter.

Or monkey's with teeth ground down to look human and stained to look old, then put under lock and key so they could not be examined but stood as iconic proof of ape to man evolution? AKA Piltdown man. hmmmm?

quoted
Or take the Piltdown Man. It was declared an ape-man, 500,000 years old, and validated by many of Britain’s leading scientists, including Grafton Elliot Smith, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith and British Museum geologist Arthur Smith Woodward. At the time the discovery was announced (1912), the New York Times ran this headline: “Darwin Theory Proved True.” For the next four decades, Piltdown Man was evolution’s greatest showcase, featured in textbooks and encyclopedias.

But what did the Piltdown Man actually consist of? A very recent orangutan jaw, which had been stained to look old, with its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skull bone, also stained to create an appearance of age.

Read more at Time magazine’s new ape-man
Unquote

The point is there has been much going on pretending to be in the name of science going unchallenged and an ability to question and use critical thinking in schools would be a good thing

 

[metis]

Or monkey's with teeth ground down to look human and stained to look old, then put under lock and key so they could not be examined but stood as iconic proof of ape to man evolution? AKA Piltdown man. hmmmm?

quote
Or take the Piltdown Man. It was declared an ape-man, 500,000 years old, and validated by many of Britain’s leading scientists, including Grafton Elliot Smith, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith and British Museum geologist Arthur Smith Woodward. At the time the discovery was announced (1912), the New York Times ran this headline: “Darwin Theory Proved True.” For the next four decades, Piltdown Man was evolution’s greatest showcase, featured in textbooks and encyclopedias.

But what did the Piltdown Man actually consist of? A very recent orangutan jaw, which had been stained to look old, with its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skull bone, also stained to create an appearance of age.

Read more at Time magazine’s new ape-man
Unquote

I'm very familiar with this and I covered this in my anthropology class as well as "Nebraska Man".

A scandal like Piltdown could never happen again since the procedures that have been in place for decades now have it that any interested scientist must have access to any find.

BTW, the forgery was discovered by another scientist.

Now, do you want to post about the many dishonest Christian preachers? My guess is probably not-- nor am I interested as such because I don't believe every person walking Earth is totally honest, nor do I believe any of them are inerrant.

In science, it's the evidence, not the scientists, that is most important. And in theology, it's the teachings, not the preachers, that are most important, right?

 

[oldbadger]

No it can't actually. Even if the bill were to be signed into law it would quickly get shot down in court as unconstitutional.

Ha ha! What a laugh!.... LOL...
So, knowing that the Bill can never be made, you've wasted all this time posting waffle up about it? What a joke!
Whilst I have doubted that it could be made, I never presumed that Arkansas definitely could not make this Bill.

Yeah, all the time. I've helped coach my kid's sports teams and we tell them the rules of the game, how to play, what to do, how to practice, etc., pretty much every time we're around them.

Oh..... so they would never have needed a referee in their matches, then....

A variety of things will happen. Some kids will just outright reject........ some will learn it but not believe.. .......................... others will......realize that the facts of the world just don't line up with some of their religious beliefs.

....what? In Arkansas? So none of the kids will ever believe in Genesis.... in Arkansas?
I like you..... you make me smile.

The whole "it's a theory not a fact" thing is one of the more ignorant things creationists say.

Scientists quote theories all the time!
The more things you write, the sillier they get. LOL!

Then we'll just disagree on that.

Subjective education is ineffective. Go on a teacher's intro-course and learn the basics.

 

[Jose Fly]

The point is there has been much going on pretending to be in the name of science going unchallenged and an ability to question and use critical thinking in schools would be a good thing

What do you mean, "much"? Piltdown Man was a century ago, yet creationists cite it so frequently you'd think it just happened last month. If evolutionary biology is so rife with fraud, why do creationists have to keep citing a 100 year old case?

 

[idav]

"House Bill 2050, a bill just filed in the Arkansas State House, would “allow public school teachers to teach creationism and intelligent design as theories alongside the teaching of the origins of the earth and the theory of evolution.”

Which is a fancy way of saying that science teachers should be allowed to preach Christianity in addition to educating students on topics of actual value.

That’s literally all it says, in utter defiance (or complete ignorance) of the Supreme Court’s ruling against the teaching of Creationism and a federal court’s ruling against Intelligent Design — both of which were seen as illegally advancing religion instead of teaching credible science.

Besides the fact that both concepts have no basis in evidence or reason, this is also a Republican’s attempt to dismantle science education from the outside. The sponsor, State Rep. Mary Bentley,

is a graduate of Harding College, a Church of Christ-affiliated school.

"I'm dumb beyond belief"
​

Notice that the bill doesn’t even bother giving lip service to the creation myths of any non-Christian religion. It’s all about advancing Christianity, which means it has nothing to do with science. At best, Bentley is just ignorant of what science is. Give her time and she’ll want to give teachers the option of promoting astrology, alchemy, and homeopathy, too.

For now, the legislation is in committee. But it’s a bill that should be stopped immediately.
source​

One can only hope the Arkansas State Senate will see how idiotic the bill is; although, sometimes stupid can be quite amusing. So maybe an affirmation by the Senate will prove entertaining.

.

At least some of these folks have some sense? However some tried to get this passed.
Arkansas panel rejects health care religious objections bill

But they seem to be on a roll trying to pass religous based laws.
Ark. legislation would prevent amending birth certificate to change sex listed

They seem to be on some sort of war path with secular law.
Arkansas lawmaker backs off transgender 'bathroom bill' plan

Sorry if this is a bit off topic but all this anti-science pro-certain-religion law stuff being suggested from this state is a bit concerning to me.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm very familiar with this and I covered this in my anthropology class as well as "Nebraska Man".

A scandal like Piltdown could never happen again since the procedures that have been in place for decades now have it that any interested scientist must have access to any find.

BTW, the forgery was discovered by another scientist.

Now, do you want to post about the many dishonest Christian preachers? My guess is probably not-- nor am I interested as such because I don't believe every person walking Earth is totally honest, nor do I believe any of them are inerrant.

In science, it's the evidence, not the scientists, that is most important. And in theology, it's the teachings, not the preachers, that are most important, right?

If the Bill is made Act, there's a job for you in Arkansas, delivering Genesis Theory together with Evolution Theory to children in Public Schools!
Think of the long hols.....

 

[Jose Fly]

So, knowing that the Bill can never be made, you've wasted all this time posting waffle up about it? What a joke!
Whilst I have doubted that it could be made, I never presumed that Arkansas definitely could not make this Bill.

If you feel this has been a waste of time, you should drop out.

Oh..... so they would never have needed a referee in their matches, then.

You're contradicting your own point. According to your approach, we shouldn't even have refs; we should just let the kids "figure the rules out themselves", right?

....what? In Arkansas? So none of the kids will ever believe in Genesis.... in Arkansas?

Pay better attention. I specifically said some of the kids will outright reject the biology they're being taught and stick with their fundamentalist beliefs.

Scientists quote theories all the time!
The more things you write, the sillier they get. LOL!

You misunderstand. When you say "it's a theory, not a fact" you're operating under the misconception that in science, an idea graduates from a theory to a fact. Actually, in science a theory is the pinnacle of achievement for an idea. A theory is a hypothesis that has been repeatedly confirmed and explains a large set of data. IOW, theories don't become facts, they explain facts. In this case, evolution is a fact (because we see it happen). The theory of evolution is an explanation of how evolution occurs (e.g., the mechanisms that cause it and the pathways it has taken).

Subjective education is ineffective. Go on a teacher's intro-course and learn the basics.

I agree. Subjective education, where anything and everything goes, is terrible.

 

[idav]

If the Bill is made Act, there's a job for you in Arkansas, delivering Genesis Theory together with Evolution Theory to children in Public Schools!
Think of the long hols.....

Just think how dangerous just a general religious studies course could be. No they have to pass things to try and promote one particular viewpoint, what are they afraid of I wonder.

 

[whirlingmerc]

What do you mean, "much"? Piltdown Man was a century ago, yet creationists cite it so frequently you'd think it just happened last month. If evolutionary biology is so rife with fraud, why do creationists have to keep citing a 100 year old case?

And let's not forget Haekle's embryo charts way earlier than that and known to be fraud... but lasted much longer in high school, college and med school books and even infuenced the thinking of the likes of the late Carl Sagan who looked at folds in the skin of fetus and erroneously leaped to the conclusion they were vestigial gills

You will still find bad information galore in museums accepted uncritically

see https://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1/

 

[Jose Fly]

And let's not forget Haekle's embryo charts way earlier than that and known to be fraud... but lasted much longer in high school, college and med school books and even infuenced the thinking of the likes of the late Carl Sagan who looked at folds in the skin of fetus and erroneously leaped to the conclusion they were vestigial gills

Yeah, again well over a century old. And as far as textbooks, one of the more widely-used books has used photos to make the point for 20 years now.

So again, you'd think if evolutionary biology was rife with fraud and hoaxes, creationists wouldn't have to keep citing examples that happened over a century ago.

 

[Skwim]

At least some of these folks have some sense? However some tried to get this passed.
Arkansas panel rejects health care religious objections bill

But they seem to be on a roll trying to pass religous based laws.
Ark. legislation would prevent amending birth certificate to change sex listed

They seem to be on some sort of war path with secular law.
Arkansas lawmaker backs off transgender 'bathroom bill' plan

Sorry if this is a bit off topic but all this anti-science pro-certain-religion law stuff being suggested from this state is a bit concerning to me.

And I agree. Thanks for pointing out these other issues.

.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, again well over a century old. And as far as textbooks, one of the more widely-used books has used photos to make the point for 20 years now.

So again, you'd think if evolutionary biology was rife with fraud and hoaxes, creationists wouldn't have to keep citing examples that happened over a century ago.

Picking away at historical mis-steps (the ad hominem approach) is all they really have.
They can't assail it with well reasoned technical arguments.
And they have no testability to even make ID a scientific alternative.
So even hundreds of years in the future, we'll still hear about Piltdown Man disproving evolution.

 

[whirlingmerc]

There are a treasure trove of one sided problems with how evolution is taught today
take the peppered moth for example

Start with light and dark.... end with light and dark... therefore evolution is true.... well.. maybe not
Not the way to teach critical thinking

 

[Skwim]

The point is there has been much going on pretending to be in the name of science going unchallenged

Okay give us examples of this, "much ... pretending."

and an ability to question and use critical thinking in schools would be a good thing

Which is fine, but science classes are not the place to do it. There's just too much science stuff to learn in the allotted time without cluttering it up with religious claims posing as science.

Need to pit creationism against evolution, then do it in your Sunday schools.

.
.