View Full Version : The 5 States That Banned Evolution In Classrooms.
BELOW ARE THE FIVE STATES THAT HAVE BANNED EVOLUTION FROM THE CLASSROOM, IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
“Currently five states _ Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi and Oklahoma _ have no references to evolution in their state school curriculums, according to the National Center for Science Education.”
http://wsbradio.com/common/ap/2004/01/30/D80DC4GO0.html
http://www.natcenscied.org/
-----------------------------
THREE MORE States are currently preparing there court cases to do the
same thing!
It is expected that these States will win their cases as well, as the ACLU seems to be focused on having a single way to say The Pledge. (A
topic that was put to bed some 40 years ago, with 2 accepted ways to say The Pledge).
I wonder if GWB's Education Plan should be called:
"All Children Left 2,000 Years Behind!"
Fliption
Mar7-04, 10:16 AM
Should there be a separate forum for political/personal agendas? I don't think the metaphysics/epistemology forum is the proper place.
yes, i think this borderlines politics...
have fun with this one zero :)
phatmonky
Mar7-04, 11:49 AM
ridiculous. All major theories should be discussed, including creationism (if you think creationism is the bible's words at face value, don't waste your time responding to this). Our country is supposed to bring ALL ideas, not NO ideas.
Yes, ideally, all ideas should be discussed, but not all ideas are equal, nor do we have time to discuss all ideas. Shall we talk of the fairy hypothesis? Or the Santa Claus conjecture? The paradox of the leprecauns?
Creationism is not a theory. It is somewhat ironic that one of their attacks is that "evolution is just a theory".
What do you think creationism is?
quartodeciman
Mar7-04, 12:44 PM
Much of this seems like a scheme to avoid trouble by eliminating the 'e' word, while teaching the same thing under different names. The Georgia state superintendant of schools has proposed exactly that- teach biology, etc. just like before, just call e******** by some other name. That way they can tell christian conservative parents that e******** is not in the curriculum. Ha!
Another tactical scheme is to preface textbooks and other materials with a stickered disclaimer that discussions of the origin and development of life and the universe has the status of theory. That isn't exactly wrong. It is just that these particular subjects are singled out for this distinction. Other subjects do not require this qualification.
Originally posted by phatmonky
ridiculous. All major theories should be discussed, including creationism (if you think creationism is the bible's words at face value, don't waste your time responding to this). Our country is supposed to bring ALL ideas, not NO ideas. The problem is, there is no "theory of creationism", in the scientific sense. Therefore, it has no place in a science class...if there is a comparative religion class, they can discuss it there.
Originally posted by Kerrie
yes, i think this borderlines politics...
have fun with this one zero :) Sometimes I hate you so much...[!:)]
Originally posted by Zero
Sometimes I hate you so much...[!:)]
simmer down, i am sure there will be one of these threads you get to transfer to me sometime...
as far as the topic at hand, i can sort of understand why evolution was banned...i don't think it was for the fact of what they want to teach, but more that they don't want to interfere what (religious) parents desire their children to know...
this actually brings a good idea for a topic in the political forum...hmmm[6)]
Originally posted by Kerrie
simmer down, i am sure there will be one of these threads you get to transfer to me sometime...
as far as the topic at hand, i can sort of understand why evolution was banned...i don't think it was for the fact of what they want to teach, but more that they don't want to interfere what (religious) parents desire their children to know...
this actually brings a good idea for a topic in the political forum...hmmm[6)] I don't know what you are thinking, but DON'T!![6)]
Yah, seperation of church and state is supposed to work both ways. [:)]
Has anybody here read the collections of essays by Stephen Jay Gould which are published in book form? Any thoughts on Gould's point of view about education, politics, etc? I haven't read any of his stuff in the last few years, but I remember him as being able to deliver some withering attacks on the idea that Creationism ought to be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
Originally posted by Kerrie
as far as the topic at hand, i can sort of understand why evolution was banned...i don't think it was for the fact of what they want to teach, but more that they don't want to interfere what (religious) parents desire their children to know... That brings up the question...Should the curriculum in public schools be dictated by religion? Because that is what is happening.
If a parent's religion disagrees with something on the curriculum, this is where they have the right to teach *their* children *their* beliefs. They can tell their children that evolution is a theory they do not believe in and the reasons why. Banning evolution for everyone just so these few don't have to explain to their children why they don't believe in it is the wrong thing to do.
Banning evolution for everyone just so these few don't have to explain to their children why they don't believe in it is the wrong thing to do.
I used to think so to, but seperation of church and state doesn't just mean that we should keep "silly" religous ideas out of the government, it also means that the government should refrain from affirming or undermining religous beliefs.
Trying to look at it objectively, I can't see any compelling reason to override the seperation of church and state rule here. Given all the other science that could be taught instead, it seems that arguments in favor of keeping evolution in schools are more or less based on the idea of science being "superior" to religion in some manner.
And I don't mean just the arguments that go like "We need evolution in our schools to dispel those silly religous ideas kids get from their parents"; I also mean the arguments that are along the lines of "This is science, it shouldn't have to tiptoe around anything! A few religous nuts shouldn't keep us from teaching any science we want".
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I used to think so to, but seperation of church and state doesn't just mean that we should keep "silly" religous ideas out of the government, it also means that the government should refrain from affirming or undermining religous beliefs.
Trying to look at it objectively, I can't see any compelling reason to override the seperation of church and state rule here. Given all the other science that could be taught instead, it seems that arguments in favor of keeping evolution in schools are more or less based on the idea of science being "superior" to religion in some manner.
And I don't mean just the arguments that go like "We need evolution in our schools to dispel those silly religous ideas kids get from their parents"; I also mean the arguments that are along the lines of "This is science, it shouldn't have to tiptoe around anything! A few religous nuts shouldn't keep us from teaching any science we want". Well, it isn't the government's job to support religion...if it can't prop itself up, too bad. Evolution is good science, and popular opinion and fundamentalism can't change that. Shall we also teach that women are subordinate to men, because otherwise certain religions will be undermined?
When replacing evolution with some other topic causes women to be enslaved, you might have an argument.
selfAdjoint
Mar7-04, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
When replacing evolution with some other topic causes women to be enslaved, you might have an argument.
Have you looked into Levitcus?
Bystander
Mar7-04, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
(snip)refrain from affirming or undermining religous beliefs.
(snip)
Human sacrifice? Cannibalism? Don't think so --- the qualification, " ... so long as the religion, its tenets, and practice are not prejudicial to public order, blah -blah -blah ...," ain't included specifically in The Constitution, but don't count on that oversight (deliberate, or accidental) as a legal shelter for nonsense.
Originally posted by Hurkyl
I used to think so to, but seperation of church and state doesn't just mean that we should keep "silly" religous ideas out of the government, it also means that the government should refrain from affirming or undermining religous beliefs.
Trying to look at it objectively, I can't see any compelling reason to override the seperation of church and state rule here. Given all the other science that could be taught instead, it seems that arguments in favor of keeping evolution in schools are more or less based on the idea of science being "superior" to religion in some manner.
And I don't mean just the arguments that go like "We need evolution in our schools to dispel those silly religous ideas kids get from their parents"; I also mean the arguments that are along the lines of "This is science, it shouldn't have to tiptoe around anything! A few religous nuts shouldn't keep us from teaching any science we want".
so, should history also not be taught in schools, since it also undermines the bible?
i mean, maybe we should just get rid of school altogether, since learning to ask questions and think for yourself undermines the acceptance unseen deities on faith.
if we refuse to teach anything that undermines or affirms religion in schools, then how do we decide which religion not to undermine, or can we simply not undermine any religion, past or present, ever?
i imagine that if you cannot say anything that could undermine any religion that ever existed, there would be very few things that you actually could say
" ... so long as the religion, its tenets, and practice are not prejudicial to public order, blah -blah -blah ...,"
And we're not talking about catering to religion at the expense of public order. (At least I'm not; you, Zero and Lethe seem to be)
so, should history also not be taught in schools, since it also undermines the bible?
I've never heard that one before; how's it work?
Originally posted by Evo
That brings up the question...Should the curriculum in public schools be dictated by religion? Because that is what is happening.
here is why i got my idea for the moral america thread in this forum...what basis do we set our guidelines on?
it also means that the government should refrain from affirming or undermining religous beliefs.
Ok folks. What we need to do is to set up a religion which will be undermined if creationism is taught. I'll post the details later, and we can send the petition to the white house eventually.
Who wants in?
An example prayer:
"Oh great Einstein, who dwelt in heaven, hallowed be thy name. I plee thee strikest down those infidels who profane your name. We await you time of judgement, where all creationists, young earthists, etherists, clairvoyants, homophobes, racists, dictators and presidents called George W Bush shall be consumed - yea, consumed! - by the almighting cleansing black hole from the sky. We know it, for it has been seen by Feynman your prophet, and thy glory is great! Long shall your rulers stretch, and light clocks tick.
Amen."
Hurkyl, what needs to be done to make something officially a religion?
For the record, I am against creationism being taught in schools (for the same church vs state rationale)
Originally posted by FZ+
Ok folks. What we need to do is to set up a religion which will be undermined if creationism is taught. I'll post the details later, and we can send the petition to the white house eventually.
Who wants in?And we won't have to pay taxes!! [:D]
Originally posted by Kerrie
here is why i got my idea for the moral america thread in this forum...what basis do we set our guidelines on? We base science education on the best data science has to offer. If we cater to a small religious minority, we can't teach basic elements of biology, physics, and geology.
I understand that the former Taliban government of Afghanistan was not real big on separation of church and state.
[:(]
I've never heard that one before; how's it work? [/B]
the bible is not historical. several things in the bible are contradictory with historical evidence.
therefore, teaching history may undermine the bible, and so we should consider not teaching history in schools, as well as science and sexual health.
russ_watters
Mar8-04, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Hurkyl
When replacing evolution with some other topic causes women to be enslaved, you might have an argument. Evolution is the single most important biological theory of all time. If it isn't taught in school, there is no point in teaching any biology at all.
edit: While we're at it, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and geology also directly contradict the literal creation story. We'll need to remove all science from our schools.
Aah what a shame - they're removing a word from the syllabus!! Next thing you know, they'll be censoring NODDY books - Oh wait, they've done that already!!!!!!!! [g)]
And while we're on this topic (I'm sure by now, you've realised that I think that the proposal is really stupid) what's going to happen if a little kid does a speech on the WWE wrestlers and has to refer to "Evolution?"
[:D] [:D] [:D] [:D] [:D] [:D]
Originally posted by russ_watters
Evolution is the single most important biological theory of all time. If it isn't taught in school, there is no point in teaching any biology at all.
edit: While we're at it, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and geology also directly contradict the literal creation story. We'll need to remove all science from our schools. Don't forget removing a bunch of history...nobody seemed to experience a worldwide flood, for instance.
Originally posted by Evo
And we won't have to pay taxes!! [:D]
I am actually quite serious on this. If the law offers such a collossal loophole for irrational beliefs, simply due to the label of "religion", it's high time this is exploited for a good cause. Seriously - declare universities as churches teaching science on the side. Why not?
russ_watters
Mar8-04, 08:53 AM
Three of the guys I work with have religious exemptions from Social Security...
megashawn
Mar8-04, 06:44 PM
Thats actually a pretty good idea FZ. I'm not quite sure how you would go about setting it up. I know pot smokers can join a group called www.thc-ministries.org (I think thats the addy, if not, just search for "thc ministry"). Anyhow, I imagine you would go about setting it up similar to the way these people have done.
You'd probably need an ordained minister, probably a few licenses or something. It would probably be rather difficult to implement, but would be worth the trouble.
But you know, states banning evolution doesn't suprise me much. I'm pretty freshly out of high school, and, for the most part public schools are geared to mass producing factory workers. Understanding evolution doesn't help you push buttons better, or inspect products on an assembly line, or cook an order of frys better then the next guy.
Infact, you don't need to understand it to be a good american. Also, a person who understands evolution likely has a questioning nature about them. People like to question things generally do not make very good employees.
The entire education system is garbage, IMO. I suppose it is better then none at all, atleast they do teach basic maths and what not. Personally, I wouldn't have minded learning about electronic fundamentals and physics back in high school. Sure, we may have speant 2 weeks a year on physics, but that was about it.
In some schools, one only needs 2 science classes to graduate. My former school considered physical education as a science. What a joke.
Originally posted by russ_watters
edit: While we're at it, astronomy, chemistry, physics, and geology also directly contradict the literal creation story. We'll need to remove all science from our schools.
good point russ...where does the "consideration" for other's beliefs begin to interfere with other's desire to continue the path of the discovery of our natural world? besides, science classes was what made school worth it!
Bystander
Mar9-04, 01:40 AM
Okay, anyone recall/know where the Xtian Scientists (faith healing, the lord works in mysterious ways types) vs. Supreme Court(? maybe just federal district courts) stand? Few years back (30 or 40) courts were ordering medical treatment for minor children of XS parents, and I can't say I've bothered to keep track of this particular religion vs. government squabble --- but, it's pretty much the same thing --- intervention for the kids' sakes --- face it, mom and dad are lost causes, but the kids do deserve some chance at something besides backwards lives.
russ_watters
Mar9-04, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Bystander
Okay, anyone recall/know where the Xtian Scientists (faith healing, the lord works in mysterious ways types) vs. Supreme Court(? maybe just federal district courts) stand? Few years back (30 or 40) courts were ordering medical treatment for minor children of XS parents, and I can't say I've bothered to keep track of this particular religion vs. government squabble --- but, it's pretty much the same thing --- intervention for the kids' sakes --- face it, mom and dad are lost causes, but the kids do deserve some chance at something besides backwards lives. The 3 guys I work with I mentioned before belong to one of those church's (there are several in Philly). The largest is called "Faith Tabernacle." Google it (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=faith+tabernacle+child+abuse). Its worse than Christian Scientist and some of the stories are pretty sick (like a kid with a tumor 1/3 the size of his head).
For a while there was a specific religious exemption in federal child abuse laws, but that was largely superfluous (no need to arrest for child abuse when you can arrest for murder) and it was eventually struck down. Still, many states allow you to argue religion in your defense and we all know how fickle juries can be.
Bystander
Mar9-04, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by russ_watters
For a while there was a specific religious exemption in federal child abuse laws, but that was largely superfluous (no need to arrest for child abuse when you can arrest for murder) and it was eventually struck down. Still, many states allow you to argue religion in your defense and we all know how fickle juries can be.
Well, shoot --- thought there might still be a precedent standing for the kids. That vs. the number of cases adjudicated in favor of "preservation of cultural heritage," and there's no way to stifle the creation noise --- precedent is on their side. Unless Zero is willing to give a little to get a little --- willing to pitch ebonics and kwanza to shut up the nuts from the other extreme?
Originally posted by Bystander
Well, shoot --- thought there might still be a precedent standing for the kids. That vs. the number of cases adjudicated in favor of "preservation of cultural heritage," and there's no way to stifle the creation noise --- precedent is on their side. Unless Zero is willing to give a little to get a little --- willing to pitch ebonics and kwanza to shut up the nuts from the other extreme? What the hell are you talking about?
Chemicalsuperfreak
Mar10-04, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Bystander
Well, shoot --- thought there might still be a precedent standing for the kids. That vs. the number of cases adjudicated in favor of "preservation of cultural heritage," and there's no way to stifle the creation noise --- precedent is on their side. Unless Zero is willing to give a little to get a little --- willing to pitch ebonics and kwanza to shut up the nuts from the other extreme?
You're comparing African American Vernacular English and a holiday to pseudoscience?
Pergatory
Mar10-04, 06:47 PM
I think we'd be better off drafting an amendment that dictates any theory from any school of thought may be taught in public school, as long as anything that has not been proven must be proposed as such. The fact that it is not proven can not be excluded. (IE, a school can't run around telling everyone that creationism is true, only that creationism is believed.)
Think about it. If a school tends to lean toward an extreme, the school's reputation will draw attention and the school can govern itself accordingly. If the local populace believes what is being taught, then by all means let them teach it! If that's not the case, they will need to correct the situation, or they will become less popular. As long as the students understand it is a belief and not necessarily a truth, what harm can be done? Nature has its own method for developing a system, it's called survival of the fittest!
A system should be no more complicated than is necessary. Let them teach what they want, let us force no exclusion and no inclusion. I also think the Pledge should be done away with altogether. A child from a foreign country should be able to learn English, and walk into one of our classrooms and sit down and learn. Forced pledges teach only one thing: talk is cheap.
selfAdjoint
Mar10-04, 07:58 PM
I think we'd be better off drafting an amendment that dictates any theory from any school of thought may be taught in public school, as long as anything that has not been proven must be proposed as such.
There goes physics. Or did you think that any physical theory from Newton to superstrings has ever been proved? All they ever get is accumulations of evidence for and absences of evidence against. And on that scale evolution is as strongly supported as much of physics.
The criterion should not be, to highlight anything that hasn't been "proved", but to highlight anything that has definitely been falsified, like YE creationism.
Ironically the e******** word has been mentioned in my school in Florida. It and the D******** (Social version) comes up quite frequently in American History. While I did not learn of it directly through a biology class it came indirectly through history. Fortunately the subject of history cannot be altered by a reactionary elite.
If I remember correctly the first situation like this occuring is the Scopes Trial in Tennessee, 1925. John T. Scopes, a biology teacher, was indicted for teaching e********. William Jennings Bryan, a self proclaimed bible expert and prosecutor of the case, was cornered and made foolish by Scopes' defender, Clarence Darrow. Scopes only recieved a $100 fine as a verdict.
This issue has been going on for quite some time. Its like we are taking a step back in time before separation of church and state. We might as well go back to not learning anything at all and clubbing eachother with large sacks of heavy doorknobs. Grunt. Grunt.
Originally posted by treat2
“Currently five states _ Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi and Oklahoma _ have no references to evolution in their state school curriculums, according to the National Center for Science Education.”
Seems like every state has some bad history on this topic. Just in 2004...
In March, the Ohio state school board voted for their "Critical Analysis of Evolution" which is an optional set of lessons (contains some of "intelligent design theory") for schools to use in teaching science for a new graduation test.
In March, the Alabama House Education Committee passed a bill that would provide teachers and instructors at public institutions "the affirmative right and freedom to present scientific, historical, theoretical, or evidentiary information pertaining to alternative theories or points of view on the subject of origins," and protection from penalties for teaching alternatives.
This year, Missouri, Minnesota, & California had some similar debates going on.
I wonder if GWB's Education Plan should be called:
"All Children Left 2,000 Years Behind!"
LOL - thanks, I needed that
Yep, Bush believes that both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools (but he prefers to let local/state school boards decide).
Anyone know what Kerry believes?
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.