The 5 States That Banned Evolution In Classrooms.

[treat2]

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]

Should there be a separate forum for political/personal agendas? I don't think the metaphysics/epistemology forum is the proper place.

 

[Kerrie]

yes, i think this borderlines politics...

have fun with this one zero :)

 

[member 5645]

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.

 

[FZ+]

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]

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.

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Kerrie
yes, i think this borderlines politics...

have fun with this one zero :)

Sometimes I hate you so much...

 

[Kerrie]

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

 

[Zero]

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

I don't know what you are thinking, but DON'T!

 

[Hurkyl]

Yah, separation of church and state is supposed to work both ways.

 

[Janitor]

Not to go off on a tangent, but--

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Hurkyl]

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 separation of church and state doesn't just mean that we should keep "silly" religious ideas out of the government, it also means that the government should refrain from affirming or undermining religious beliefs.

Trying to look at it objectively, I can't see any compelling reason to override the separation 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 religious 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 religious nuts shouldn't keep us from teaching any science we want".

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I used to think so to, but separation 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 separation 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?

 

[Hurkyl]

When replacing evolution with some other topic causes women to be enslaved, you might have an argument.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
(snip)refrain from affirming or undermining religious 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.

 

[lethe]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I used to think so to, but separation of church and state doesn't just mean that we should keep "silly" religious ideas out of the government, it also means that the government should refrain from affirming or undermining religious beliefs.

Trying to look at it objectively, I can't see any compelling reason to override the separation 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 religious 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 religious 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

 

[Hurkyl]

" ... 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?

 

[Kerrie]

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?

 

[FZ+]

it also means that the government should refrain from affirming or undermining religious 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?

 

[Hurkyl]

For the record, I am against creationism being taught in schools (for the same church vs state rationale)

 

[Evo]

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!

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[Janitor]

I understand that the former Taliban government of Afghanistan was not real big on separation of church and state.

 

[lethe]

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]

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.

 

[Shahil]

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!

And while we're on this topic (I'm sure by now, you've realized 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?"

 

[Zero]

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.