Creationist shenanigans part 439

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: punchkin
As the behavior of fundies has proven, and as the Kitzmiller decision amply explores, fundies will attempt to dodge the law on this issue whenever possible. Their tactics have included labelling creationism as something else and presenting it as science. It is not beyond them to push creationism back into public-school classrooms under the guise of "comparative religion education", when their aim is of course to promote Christianity, unconstitutional all the way.

I completely agree, I don't doubt that the fundies have tried just that, and will try it again. Just because someone might try to do something related that is unconstitutional doesn't make teaching about the bible in other ways unconstitutional though.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Trying to push creationism onto people through the PUBLIC school system is wrong.

/thread.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Do you know how to read?

1. The establishment clause - do you have any clue what it is about?

2. eh? but what does? I was saying nothing more that they have just as much right to sit on the board as anyone else. Do you disagree? You think people should be disqualified because they don't think exactly like you?

What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." do you not understand? If pushing Answers in Genesis in a public school science classroom isn't 'respecting an establishment of religion', I don't know what is.

Yep, I guess you don't. Maybe you should have paid attention during civics class when you were in Junior High.
The school board and Congress are two entirely seperate entities.

Global warming has nothing to do with this issue. NOTHING

Yes it does. It's another religion that has no part in our schools. MMGW is a religion followed by many but that doesn't mean we should put it in our curriculum - just like I don't believe we should have creationism in our curriculum.

You see, the problem isn't your end goal - it's how you are trying to support your argument. Using the Establisment clause is not what you should be using.

2. So you don't think a carpet installer should be able to sit on a school board? Who the hell gets to decide the "qualifications"? You? :laugh: Oh wait, that's right, the voters get to decide if a candidate is qualified enough.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The school board and Congress are two entirely separate entities.

The requirements of the Establishment Clause are imposed on the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in basically equivalent measure as the federal government. In addition, any state action may implicate the clause, not just passing a law.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Link.

People who oppose the teaching of evolution in science classes are ignorant, scientifically illiterate, & disrespectful of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, they also sit on school boards, probably mostly where education is most needed. Fortunately, they are not intelligent. Expect to see this email in the court record when the ACLU sues Taylor County for pushing the breathtaking inanity.

The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

Plus IMO, they have just as much right to sit on school boards as those who wish to cram their global warming religion down our kids throats or even those who seek to push their "tolerance" religion(read: tolerance as long as it fits their views)

So I guess as much as I dislike those who wish to ban evolution theory discussion in school and/or push the creationism theory - they have just as much right to sit on the school board as the other people who have agendas.

It's this kind of intellectual ambiguity that is the most dangerous...creationists, as dumb as they are, having nothing on people like you. You don't oppose stupid ideas or things that aren't supported by the facts, you oppose ANY idea that you personally don't like. The theory of man made global warming isn't a religion, it's science based on rigorous study and analysis. You might not like the conclusions, but that doesn't make the facts wrong. The fact that some people have embraced the idea a little too enthusiastically doesn't give you the right to try to exclude the science behind it from the classroom.

The ONLY standard that should apply in the science classroom is whether or not something is SCIENCE. Creationism is not science. Some of the more fanatical ideas about global warming aren't science. Evolution is science...as is the scientific study of global climate change. Don't like it? Feel free to preach your bullshit on the street corner...let's leave politics out of science once and for all. And unfortunately, that means your ideological opposition to science doesn't mean fuck all unless you can back it up with facts. You and the creationists don't like science, feel free to find some better science. But bitching and moaning isn't the way to go.

Pssstttt - no where did I say creationism should be taught. If you would have been able to read instead of letting your knee hit you between the eyes... you'd have noticed the OP was suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to sit on the school board because of XXX. If he wants to exclude XXX then why don't we exclude YYY? Who gets to decide who is excluded?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
-snip-

That's utter bullshit! As this nation was being founded, Thomas Jefferson said that "A well-informed citizenry" is essential to the proper functioning of democracy, which has been the driving reasoning behind public funding for education, including education in the sciences. It specifically does NOT include spreading the unscientific dogma of any specific religious group.

Creationism itself in the broader sense isn't the dogma of any specific religious group. Muslims, Jews, Baptists, Presbyterians, Wiccans, Druids, Satanics etc all believe in Creationism.


Allowing one religion to pimp their own pablum of myths and superstitions under the guise of education only promotes continued ignorance and cultural division. It does nothing to prepare students either to continue their education at the university level or to participate in public affairs as "informed citizens."

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Try avoiding straw man arguments. Nobody in this thread has advocated teaching creationism as a science or that it be applied as any sort of standard in the public education system.

The poster child who WAS left behind is attacking MY reading comprehension skills??? :roll: BUAHAHahahaha!!! :laugh:

Which "nobdody" didn't advocate teaching creationism in the school district, and what "straw man" did you have in your simple mind? The article at the OP's link specifically states:

January 13, 2008
Taylor County, Florida School Board Creationist Mark Southerland Speaks!

As mentioned on January 10, the school board of Taylor County, Florida passed a resolution opposing new science education standards that include the explicit teaching of evolutionary biology.

Are you too memory and mouse challenged to remember the first page of this thread where I posted this from their mission statement? :shocked:

Our message

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a ?millions of years old? earth (and even older universe).

Their ooga booga denial of reality continues:

AiG teaches that ?facts? don?t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren?t separate sets of ?evidences? for evolution and creation?we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible?the ?history book of the universe??provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the ?evidence? confirms the biblical account.

For an elaboration of AiG?s presuppositional thrust check out our Get Answers section?for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world?s geology, anthropology, and astronomy.

On another page linked from the OP's article:

I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin?this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah?s day).

These people are simple minded whack jobs. They're welcome to wallow in their own ignorance, and you have the right to wallow with them, but their mystery oil and Kool Aid have no place in public education.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The school board and Congress are two entirely separate entities.

The requirements of the Establishment Clause are imposed on the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in basically equivalent measure as the federal government. In addition, any state action may implicate the clause, not just passing a law.

And school boards are still not the "state". But then again, even if you could stretch the establishment clause all the way down to the school board(which you can't), including creationism in the curriculum isn't really "establishing" anything.
So once again - quit trying to claim creationism somehow establishes a religion. It would require a gross distortion of the Establishment clause to get down to the school board AND support the claim that including it "establishes" it.

Now just to be redundantly clear(since so many here have reading problems) - I do not support including creationism in public schools.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And school boards are still not the "state".

In the context of Constitutional principles, "the state" refers to government, in general, not just the Federal government, not just the government of THE states.

So once again - quit trying to claim creationism somehow establishes a religion.

Creationism is the creature of religion. Specifically, it is the creature of fundamentalist christian dogma, and it's only purpose is as a piss poor attempt to substitute their dogma for real, demonstrable knowledge that challenges their fairy tale.

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The school board and Congress are two entirely separate entities.

The requirements of the Establishment Clause are imposed on the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in basically equivalent measure as the federal government. In addition, any state action may implicate the clause, not just passing a law.

And school boards are still not the "state". But then again, even if you could stretch the establishment clause all the way down to the school board(which you can't), including creationism in the curriculum isn't really "establishing" anything.
So once again - quit trying to claim creationism somehow establishes a religion. It would require a gross distortion of the Establishment clause to get down to the school board AND support the claim that including it "establishes" it.

Now just to be redundantly clear(since so many here have reading problems) - I do not support including creationism in public schools.

The actions of the public school system are state action. Sorry for being unclear on that. It does seem like a big stretch but nothing unusual in constitutional law.

Including creationism in the curriculum of a public or publicly funded school can very well be a violation of the Establishment Clause. See Kitzmiller for just one example. It depends on how it's done.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Try avoiding straw man arguments. Nobody in this thread has advocated teaching creationism as a science or that it be applied as any sort of standard in the public education system.

The poster child who WAS left behind is attacking MY reading comprehension skills??? :roll: BUAHAHahahaha!!! :laugh:

Which "nobdody" didn't advocate teaching creationism in the school district, and what "straw man" did you have in your simple mind? The article at the OP's link specifically states:

January 13, 2008
Taylor County, Florida School Board Creationist Mark Southerland Speaks!

As mentioned on January 10, the school board of Taylor County, Florida passed a resolution opposing new science education standards that include the explicit teaching of evolutionary biology.

Are you too memory and mouse challenged to remember the first page of this thread where I posted this from their mission statement? :shocked:

Our message

Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively. We focus particularly on providing answers to questions surrounding the book of Genesis, as it is the most-attacked book of the Bible. We also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a ?millions of years old? earth (and even older universe).

Their ooga booga denial of reality continues:

AiG teaches that ?facts? don?t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren?t separate sets of ?evidences? for evolution and creation?we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study. The Bible?the ?history book of the universe??provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the ?evidence? confirms the biblical account.

For an elaboration of AiG?s presuppositional thrust check out our Get Answers section?for example, learn how the Bible offers the best explanation of the world?s geology, anthropology, and astronomy.

On another page linked from the OP's article:

I understand that the Bible is a revelation from our infinite Creator, and it is self-authenticating and self-attesting. I must interpret Scripture with Scripture, not impose ideas from the outside! When I take the plain words of the Bible, it is obvious there was no death, bloodshed, disease or suffering of humans or animals before sin. God instituted death and bloodshed because of sin?this is foundational to the Gospel. Therefore, one cannot allow a fossil record of millions of years of death, bloodshed, disease and suffering before sin (which is why the fossil record makes much more sense as the graveyard of the flood of Noah?s day).

These people are simple minded whack jobs. They're welcome to wallow in their own ignorance, and you have the right to wallow with them, but their mystery oil and Kool Aid have no place in public education.

Actually, they have every right to try and pimp their mystery oil and kool-aid. They have every right to protest. They have every right to attempt to implement the changes they desire and the right to subsequently get smacked down by the courts.

But it's a bad habit of simple-minded whack jobs to tell others exactly what they should and should not do, or have no right to do. It's something simple-minded whack jobs of all persuations have in common. Normal people understand that though and don't get all twisted-sistered about it.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And school boards are still not the "state".

In the context of Constitutional principles, "the state" refers to government, in general, not just the Federal government, not just the government of THE states.

So once again - quit trying to claim creationism somehow establishes a religion.

Creationism is the creature of religion. Specifically, it is the creature of fundamentalist christian dogma, and it's only purpose is as a piss poor attempt to substitute their dogma for real, demonstrable knowledge that challenges their fairy tale.

So how exactly do you people figure that school boards fit into "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...."

Uh putting creationism in does not establish a religion. There are many religions that believe in creationism so it's quite far from "establishing" a religion. In fact, I know many people who are not "religious" at all who believe that things were created - not just appeared. But hey, just because atheists don't believe in creationism doesn't mean it's "establishment".
Now before you let your BDS get the best of you, I've already stated, I don't think it should be put in the curriculum. Sheesh.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The school board and Congress are two entirely separate entities.

The requirements of the Establishment Clause are imposed on the states via the Fourteenth Amendment in basically equivalent measure as the federal government. In addition, any state action may implicate the clause, not just passing a law.

And school boards are still not the "state". But then again, even if you could stretch the establishment clause all the way down to the school board(which you can't), including creationism in the curriculum isn't really "establishing" anything.
So once again - quit trying to claim creationism somehow establishes a religion. It would require a gross distortion of the Establishment clause to get down to the school board AND support the claim that including it "establishes" it.

Now just to be redundantly clear(since so many here have reading problems) - I do not support including creationism in public schools.

The actions of the public school system are state action. Sorry for being unclear on that. It does seem like a big stretch but nothing unusual in constitutional law.

Including creationism in the curriculum of a public or publicly funded school can very well be a violation of the Establishment Clause. See Kitzmiller for just one example. It depends on how it's done.

The OP was talking about a school board - not the public school system broadly - thus my questioning. Are you suggesting that the actions of a single school board constitutes a "state action"? or rising to the level of Congress? Uhh... don't think so bud.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

The OP was talking about a school board - not the public school system broadly - thus my questioning. Are you suggesting that the actions of a single school board constitutes a "state action"?

Yes. The board is a legal creature of the legislative process and has legal authority over the curriculum of schools in their district. By definition, that includes them as part of "the state."

Why are you trying to make excuses for them using their authority to impose their religious bullshit on the curriculum of a secular educational system? :roll:

 

[punchkin]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
The OP was talking about a school board - not the public school system broadly - thus my questioning. Are you suggesting that the actions of a single school board constitutes a "state action"? or rising to the level of Congress? Uhh... don't think so bud.

You need to read up. I'm being as nice as possible here, but you obviously know next to nothing of very broad topics in this area. You certainly should not be sneering at people for supposedly not attending civics class when you know so little yourself.

Start with the Kitzmiller decision. It's entertaining and you can easily read it tonight.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Link.

People who oppose the teaching of evolution in science classes are ignorant, scientifically illiterate, & disrespectful of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, they also sit on school boards, probably mostly where education is most needed. Fortunately, they are not intelligent. Expect to see this email in the court record when the ACLU sues Taylor County for pushing the breathtaking inanity.

The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

Plus IMO, they have just as much right to sit on school boards as those who wish to cram their global warming religion down our kids throats or even those who seek to push their "tolerance" religion(read: tolerance as long as it fits their views)

So I guess as much as I dislike those who wish to ban evolution theory discussion in school and/or push the creationism theory - they have just as much right to sit on the school board as the other people who have agendas.

I wholly disagree. Public school systems are an extension of the government. Therefore the public school system is under the same prohibitions as the government with respect to aligning with religion. Schools CANNOT in any way support anything religious in nature. Period.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Link.

People who oppose the teaching of evolution in science classes are ignorant, scientifically illiterate, & disrespectful of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, they also sit on school boards, probably mostly where education is most needed. Fortunately, they are not intelligent. Expect to see this email in the court record when the ACLU sues Taylor County for pushing the breathtaking inanity.

The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

Plus IMO, they have just as much right to sit on school boards as those who wish to cram their global warming religion down our kids throats or even those who seek to push their "tolerance" religion(read: tolerance as long as it fits their views)

So I guess as much as I dislike those who wish to ban evolution theory discussion in school and/or push the creationism theory - they have just as much right to sit on the school board as the other people who have agendas.

I wholly disagree. Public school systems are an extension of the government. Therefore the public school system is under the same prohibitions as the government with respect to aligning with religion. Schools CANNOT in any way support anything religious in nature. Period.

Why must creationism include religion? There are really only two "theories" as to the universe-created or big boomed (or some variation). Why shouldnt BOTH be taught? If one is taught without the other, is it not brainwashing of sorts? What happened to letting young adults make up their own mind?

The funny thing? One isnt any more proven than the other, but only one is right

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Link.

People who oppose the teaching of evolution in science classes are ignorant, scientifically illiterate, & disrespectful of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, they also sit on school boards, probably mostly where education is most needed. Fortunately, they are not intelligent. Expect to see this email in the court record when the ACLU sues Taylor County for pushing the breathtaking inanity.

The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

Plus IMO, they have just as much right to sit on school boards as those who wish to cram their global warming religion down our kids throats or even those who seek to push their "tolerance" religion(read: tolerance as long as it fits their views)

So I guess as much as I dislike those who wish to ban evolution theory discussion in school and/or push the creationism theory - they have just as much right to sit on the school board as the other people who have agendas.

I wholly disagree. Public school systems are an extension of the government. Therefore the public school system is under the same prohibitions as the government with respect to aligning with religion. Schools CANNOT in any way support anything religious in nature. Period.

Why must creationism include religion? There are really only two "theories" as to the universe-created or big boomed (or some variation). Why shouldnt BOTH be taught? If one is taught without the other, is it not brainwashing of sorts? What happened to letting young adults make up their own mind?

The funny thing? One isnt any more proven than the other, but only one is right

BS. There is no equivalence between the 2.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Link.

People who oppose the teaching of evolution in science classes are ignorant, scientifically illiterate, & disrespectful of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, they also sit on school boards, probably mostly where education is most needed. Fortunately, they are not intelligent. Expect to see this email in the court record when the ACLU sues Taylor County for pushing the breathtaking inanity.

The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

Plus IMO, they have just as much right to sit on school boards as those who wish to cram their global warming religion down our kids throats or even those who seek to push their "tolerance" religion(read: tolerance as long as it fits their views)

So I guess as much as I dislike those who wish to ban evolution theory discussion in school and/or push the creationism theory - they have just as much right to sit on the school board as the other people who have agendas.

I wholly disagree. Public school systems are an extension of the government. Therefore the public school system is under the same prohibitions as the government with respect to aligning with religion. Schools CANNOT in any way support anything religious in nature. Period.

Why must creationism include religion? There are really only two "theories" as to the universe-created or big boomed (or some variation). Why shouldnt BOTH be taught? If one is taught without the other, is it not brainwashing of sorts? What happened to letting young adults make up their own mind?

The funny thing? One isnt any more proven than the other, but only one is right

BS. There is no equivalence between the 2.

Did I say equivalence? I said those are the only two theories. Why not teach both? Dont put words in my mouth.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Why must creationism include religion?

I repeat... Creationism is the creature of religion. Specifically, it is the creature of fundamentalist christian dogma, and it's only purpose is as a piss poor attempt to substitute their dogma for real, demonstrable knowledge that challenges their fairy tale.

There are really only two "theories" as to the universe-created or big boomed (or some variation).

NO! Between evolution and creationism, only evolution meets the criteria of a scientific theory.

the·o·ry

n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
   
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
   
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
   
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
   
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
   
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The first of these definitions describes a scientific theory. It isn't until you get to the last, least relevant of these definitions that you even come close to the word as it applies to creationism.

It takes only ONE inconsistancy between a scientific theory and observable facts to disprove it.

Got even one? I didn't think so. :roll:

Why shouldnt BOTH be taught?

Because evolution is the only current explanation of the origins of biological diversity that doesn't fail the criteria of a valid theory. Creationism fails dismally. It does nothing to "to explain a group of facts or phenomena," in any rational manner, it can't be tested even once, let alone repeatedly, and it's useless as tits on a boar to "make predictions about natural phenomena."

If one is taught without the other, is it not brainwashing of sorts?

No. Brain washing would be presenting evolution and creationism to students as co-equal concepts when they are not. Evolution is a valid scientific theory. Creationism is dogmatic religious mystery oil.

What happened to letting young adults make up their own mind?

Educators are authority figures, and their words are intended to inform and influence their students. Their job is to teach students how to evaluate facts and apply critical thinking to reach valid understanding of the universe we inhabit. Mandating that science teachers must present unsupportable bullshit like creationism as co-equal to a valid scientific theory is inconsistant with that mission.

In the OP's Florida case, the school board of Taylor County, Florida went further than that. They explicitly opposed standards for science education that include the explicit teaching of evolutionary biology. That's not just stupid; it's criminal.

It would be altogether fitting and just if the Taylor County, Florida school board became future recipients of Darwin awards. :laugh:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I repeat... Creationism is the creature of religion. Specifically, it is the creature of fundamentalist christian dogma, and it's only purpose is as a piss poor attempt to substitute their dogma for real, demonstrable knowledge that challenges their fairy tale.

Says who...you? Please.

Originally posted by: Harvey
NO! Between evolution and creationism, only evolution meets the criteria of a scientific theory.

So, theories need to be "scentific" in order to be theories? I know you arent very intellectual, but you're wrong. Plenty of intellects theorize on matters other than "scientific" evidence.

Originally posted by: Harvey
It takes only ONE inconsistancy between a scientific theory and observable facts to disprove it.

Only one? LOL So what you're saying is, everything science knows at this moment in time is fact? WTF? There's scientific inconsistancies between the three major theories as to how type 1 diabetes is developed, and they change almost annually. Does that mean they are all wrong and diabetes doesnt exist?

Originally posted by: Harvey
No. Brain washing would be presenting evolution and creationism to students as co-equal concepts when they are not.

Youre an idiot Harv. Here..lemme try the cut and paste from dictionay that you like to use:
*brain·wash·ing/breyn-wosh-ing, -waw-shing]
"any method of controlled systematic indoctrination, esp. one based on repetition or confusion: brainwashing by TV commercials. "

See the word repetition? See the "systematic indoctration"? Presenting only ONE side over and over and over with no alternatives is the very definition. LOL Choice? Please.

Originally posted by: Harvey
Educators are authority figures, and their words are intended to inform and influence their students. Their job is to teach students how to evaluate facts and apply critical thinking to reach valid understanding of the universe we inhabit.

You only have it half right. An educator's job is ALSO to provide facts. For example, when teaching about Christopher Columbus's landing in America, they dont teach critial thinking here. They teach what happened. No critical thinking involved.

Originally posted by: Harvey
Mandating that science teachers must present unsupportable bullshit like creationism as co-equal to a valid scientific theory is inconsistant with that mission

Unsupportable? Says who? You? Some anti-creationism website somewhere? Gimme a break. Your closed mind obviously doesnt allow anything other than what you WANT to believe, to be true. You scour teh interweb to support your theories when they are just that.

Put your big boy pants on sometime. You might learn something.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
So, theories need to be "scentific" in order to be theories?

Uhhhhhh, they do to be taught in a science classroom.

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Unsupportable? Says who? You? Some anti-creationism website somewhere?

Thanks for the laugh. Yeah, the only place you'll find systematic, detailed, & logical writings on why creationism is unsupportable as a scientific theory are on websites.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Link.

People who oppose the teaching of evolution in science classes are ignorant, scientifically illiterate, & disrespectful of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, they also sit on school boards, probably mostly where education is most needed. Fortunately, they are not intelligent. Expect to see this email in the court record when the ACLU sues Taylor County for pushing the breathtaking inanity.

The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

Plus IMO, they have just as much right to sit on school boards as those who wish to cram their global warming religion down our kids throats or even those who seek to push their "tolerance" religion(read: tolerance as long as it fits their views)

So I guess as much as I dislike those who wish to ban evolution theory discussion in school and/or push the creationism theory - they have just as much right to sit on the school board as the other people who have agendas.

I wholly disagree. Public school systems are an extension of the government. Therefore the public school system is under the same prohibitions as the government with respect to aligning with religion. Schools CANNOT in any way support anything religious in nature. Period.

Why must creationism include religion? There are really only two "theories" as to the universe-created or big boomed (or some variation). Why shouldnt BOTH be taught? If one is taught without the other, is it not brainwashing of sorts? What happened to letting young adults make up their own mind?

The funny thing? One isnt any more proven than the other, but only one is right

I've never heard a theory of creationism that didn't embrace some sort of religion...unless you include alien seeding as a form of creationism (which merely leads us to question who created them). Because of that there can be no allowed inclusion of that in a public school setting.

Why not offer both? Because there is ZERO scientific/reasonable/logical support for religious based creationism. Zero. There is only unanswered questions about the other theory which religions hope casts enough derision to convince the sheeple to keep tithing. Mind you, I am not an atheist, but I still believe this to be true.

One absolutely 100% is more proven than the other. One is an actual scientific theory, one is a load of utter mythical horseshit with no basis whatsoever. Period.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Creationism has nothing to do with reality. You can believe whatever you want about whatever part of reality you can't or don't want to understand, and you can even corrupt your kids' minds with that rot, but ooga booga mystery oil religious dogma has no place in science courses in public education.

<3 <3 <3

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Link.

People who oppose the teaching of evolution in science classes are ignorant, scientifically illiterate, & disrespectful of the Establishment Clause. Unfortunately, they also sit on school boards, probably mostly where education is most needed. Fortunately, they are not intelligent. Expect to see this email in the court record when the ACLU sues Taylor County for pushing the breathtaking inanity.

The establishment clause has nothing to do with this subject.

Plus IMO, they have just as much right to sit on school boards as those who wish to cram their global warming religion down our kids throats or even those who seek to push their "tolerance" religion(read: tolerance as long as it fits their views)

So I guess as much as I dislike those who wish to ban evolution theory discussion in school and/or push the creationism theory - they have just as much right to sit on the school board as the other people who have agendas.

I wholly disagree. Public school systems are an extension of the government. Therefore the public school system is under the same prohibitions as the government with respect to aligning with religion. Schools CANNOT in any way support anything religious in nature. Period.

Why must creationism include religion? There are really only two "theories" as to the universe-created or big boomed (or some variation). Why shouldnt BOTH be taught? If one is taught without the other, is it not brainwashing of sorts? What happened to letting young adults make up their own mind?

The funny thing? One isnt any more proven than the other, but only one is right

BS. There is no equivalence between the 2.

Did I say equivalence? I said those are the only two theories. Why not teach both? Dont put words in my mouth.

Not that word, but yes, you did.