Arkansas more backwords than I thought

[tsg]

That's the crux of the issue. We can't really get a very good idea of the political climate there from the news article. It certainly implies, given that those being hushed aren't bypassing the school officials and going higher up the education administration foodchain, that the issue is wider spread than a given school system.

I'd certainly like to think that Darat is correct in that this is not a mainstream standing in that state, but the cynic in me has its doubts.

It's apparently mainstream enough that the voters in Arkansas elected a governor who either a) believes the same thing, or b) knows that enough people believe the same thing to warrant pretending that he does also; and that the teachers aren't even allowed to say "evolution" or state the age of the earth in real numbers for fear of backlash from the community. This is more than just a vocal minority. If this isn't the mainstream view in Arkansas, then the mainstream ought to get off their collective asses and do something about it. If the stereotype bothers them, they should stop living up to it.

 

[brodski]

I'd certainly like to think that Darat is correct in that this is not a mainstream standing in that state, but the cynic in me has its doubts.

Um, Darat was saying that creationism was not widespread in Europe. I don't think he was offering much hope for USAians.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Um, Darat was saying that creationism was not widespread in Europe. I don't think he was offering much hope for USAians.

Hrm, quite true.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Concur.

Strongly concur, but also regarding the US. This is a relatively small problem and people who get all paranoid about the new imminent religious police state brought about by creation science in textbooks in some states need to put their tinfoil hats away.

Anyone have any stats on what percentage of children in the US are taught as a matter of curriculum in public schools that God created the world in seven days (or any form of creationism)? And how many of those kids believe it, and believe it for a significant period of time?

I just think that the whole religion in public schools debate is just another wedge issue created by politicians for the purpose of carving out some extra votes and that it is of no large and lasting consequence, atheist apocalyptic hyperbole on the state of education notwithstanding.

I mean, we have kids that graduate functionally illiterate, can't balance a checkbook, don't know a thing about computers and can't even begin to speak a foreign language but we're concerned about whether or not they can pray in school on their own time or whether they hear about creation science or 5 paragraphs about it appears in textbooks.

Bigger fish to fry, people. Bigger fish.

 

[tsg]

Anyone have any stats on what percentage of children in the US are taught as a matter of curriculum in public schools that God created the world in seven days (or any form of creationism)? And how many of those kids believe it, and believe it for a significant period of time?

Completely and utterly missing the point. Promoting religion (and therefore creationism) in public schools is in direct violation of the US Constitution. End of story. There is no question here. The First Amendment was created not only to keep government out of religion, but religion out of government.

I mean, we have kids that graduate functionally illiterate, can't balance a checkbook, don't know a thing about computers and can't even begin to speak a foreign language

and haven't learned anything about US History, apparently.

Bigger fish to fry, people. Bigger fish.

It's the very first idea in the first freaking amendment. There ain't no bigger fish.

 

[CFLarsen]

Strongly concur, but also regarding the US. This is a relatively small problem and people who get all paranoid about the new imminent religious police state brought about by creation science in textbooks in some states need to put their tinfoil hats away.

Not only is it a case of a constitutional violation as tsg pointed out, it is a question of whether or not science should form the basis of how we see the world, or it should be a specific religion's dogma.

If you don't need science to explain how species came to be, then you don't need any science at all. Biology cannot be explained without evolution. If you can substitute biology text books with the Bible, you have to substitute all other textbooks on any science subject.

We do not give equal time to religious dogma in a science class. It's that simple.

Anyone have any stats on what percentage of children in the US are taught as a matter of curriculum in public schools that God created the world in seven days (or any form of creationism)? And how many of those kids believe it, and believe it for a significant period of time?

Don't you think you should have found that data, before you announce that this is a "relatively small problem"?

I just think that the whole religion in public schools debate is just another wedge issue created by politicians for the purpose of carving out some extra votes and that it is of no large and lasting consequence, atheist apocalyptic hyperbole on the state of education notwithstanding.

I just think that you need to wake up and learn a bit about how Creationists have tried to enforce their own religious views on all Americans. This is not something that is created by politicians, but by religious fundamentalists.

Try this introduction.

I mean, we have kids that graduate functionally illiterate, can't balance a checkbook, don't know a thing about computers and can't even begin to speak a foreign language but we're concerned about whether or not they can pray in school on their own time or whether they hear about creation science or 5 paragraphs about it appears in textbooks.

Bigger fish to fry, people. Bigger fish.

You think being able to balance a checkbook is more important than knowing how the Universe works? Really?

 

[valis]

It's apparently mainstream enough that the voters in Arkansas elected a governor who either a) believes the same thing, or b) knows that enough people believe the same thing to warrant pretending that he does also; and that the teachers aren't even allowed to say "evolution" or state the age of the earth in real numbers for fear of backlash from the community. This is more than just a vocal minority. If this isn't the mainstream view in Arkansas, then the mainstream ought to get off their collective asses and do something about it. If the stereotype bothers them, they should stop living up to it.

And the American people twice voted a Arkansas Governor President. And much of the educated superior world loved him.

And don't forget, Wal Mart has made it possible for Everyone Everywhere to shop at a dingy Arkansas five and dime.

 

[hurdygurdy]

Just out of curiosity, is the evolution an issue in any European countries?

Not here in Spain, where (catholic) religion is taught in schools but also evolution. ID and creationism are viewed here, and probably in the rest of Europe too, as something hilarious.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Completely and utterly missing the point. Promoting religion (and therefore creationism) in public schools is in direct violation of the US Constitution.

I'm not disagreeing with you on that but you are missing MY point. You're reading what I'm writing but hearing what you're thinking. Keep reading.

End of story. There is no question here. The First Amendment was created not only to keep government out of religion, but religion out of government.

No, the first amendment was created to keep government from establishing a religion, not to keep religion out of the government. The fact that you think this tells me you've done very little study on the Constitution and the founding fathers.

and haven't learned anything about US History, apparently.

That's funny, I was thinking the same thing. Maybe you should read Jefferson and Madison.

It's the very first idea in the first freaking amendment. There ain't no bigger fish.

You're trying to equate some kids in some states reading textbooks that have "creation science" in them with the loss of the entire First Amendment. I suggest you relax. The fact that you are getting all worked up about this just goes to prove my contention that this is a wedge issue. You think there's no bigger issue in the US today? How about preventing attacks from foreign terrorists in US territory. I consider that one pretty important too, and so do a lot of other people.

My point is that there are bigger issues, not only in our education policy, but in our politics in general. You seem to think there aren't. I think that's tunnel vision. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Don't forget, I'm on your side here, I just think there are bigger problems to deal with.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Not only is it a case of a constitutional violation as tsg pointed out, it is a question of whether or not science should form the basis of how we see the world, or it should be a specific religion's dogma.

I'm not disagreeing with you there. My contention is you have to choose the hill you want to die on and this is not on the top of my list of hills.

If you don't need science to explain how species came to be, then you don't need any science at all. Biology cannot be explained without evolution. If you can substitute biology text books with the Bible, you have to substitute all other textbooks on any science subject.

We do not give equal time to religious dogma in a science class. It's that simple.

I understand that. You're preaching to the choir and you're patronizing me. Don't do it.

Don't you think you should have found that data, before you announce that this is a "relatively small problem"?

Don't you think you should find some data before you start saying that it's not a small problem? Now you're playing debate tactics here, and debates don't reach conclusions.

I just think that you need to wake up and learn a bit about how Creationists have tried to enforce their own religious views on all Americans. This is not something that is created by politicians, but by religious fundamentalists.

Try this introduction.

You think being able to balance a checkbook is more important than knowing how the Universe works? Really?

Did I say it was more important? No, of course I didn't, and you're trying to reduce my argument to absurdity by quoting my out of context. Stop it.

My point was that the educational system in this country has more serious problems than whether or not there are some paragraphs in a science textbook that talk about ID or creation science, balanced with the scientific truth of evolution, when only a relatively small number of kids in some states will even read it, let alone believe it.

You're welcome to "die on this hill" so to speak, and I think we'll win this one eventually, but my priorities are different for education. The hill I'm going to die on is making sure kids are not functionally illiterate when they graduate. Also, I'm not going to fall into the trap of demonizing the other side of this issue like some people on this board have done in the past, sounding like a bunch of fascists themselves (if you've done this, you know who you are). It's unproductive and IMO, this is just another in a long line of wedge issues to get folks to vote for certain people that they would not vote for ordinarily. That's important to me too. I'm not going to end up voting for certain people who want to keep this sort of nonsense out of our science classes when many of their other policies in other areas are harmful, IMO.

Big picture.

Anyway, I'm done defending what my priorities are for a better country when in reality, we are in agreement here, just in disagreement as to the degree of importance we place on it.

 

[tsg]

No, the first amendment was created to keep government from establishing a religion, not to keep religion out of the government. The fact that you think this tells me you've done very little study on the Constitution and the founding fathers.

Absolutely, flat out, and unquestionably wrong. The founding fathers were well aware what happens when religion gets involved in government. Why do you think it's the very first thing listed in the Bill of Rights?

You're trying to equate some kids in some states reading textbooks that have "creation science" in them with the loss of the entire First Amendment.

I'm saying that government sponsored promotion of religion in a public school science class is in direct violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agrees with me. That it isn't the entire First Amendment that's at risk doesn't make it not important.

I suggest you relax.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson.

The fact that you are getting all worked up about this just goes to prove my contention that this is a wedge issue. You think there's no bigger issue in the US today? How about preventing attacks from foreign terrorists in US territory. I consider that one pretty important too, and so do a lot of other people.

We are talking about government sponsored promotion of religion in a public school science class in direct opposition of the ideals this country was founded upon. These ideals are what make this country a place I want to live and worth protecting. Otherwise, I'd just move somewhere that wasn't under attack. I mean, really, exactly what is it we're trying to protect from terrorism? Lives? We could save lots of lives by just giving in to their demands.

Don't forget, I'm on your side here, I just think there are bigger problems to deal with.

If we're not concerned with protecting our freedoms from predators in our own country, there's no point of protecting them from foreign invaders.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You know, the pseudointellectual elitism on this board is really starting to get to me.

Just because you're a skeptic and an atheist doesn't mean you're better than other people, it just means you know something that they don't. But it's always easier to ridicule and group people than it is to try to change them, isn't it?

The level of discussion here has really gone down hill in the last year, IMO. I don't know, maybe I need to just start putting more of the skeptical bigots on ignore and take the bad with the good.

And there is a lot of good here.

Making fun of believers could be a reaction to the feeling of extreme helplessness and despair that we feel when reading about problems like the one described in the article. Sure, it doesn't help to ridicule others. But, what else is there to be done? There are already people out there, trying to educate the ignorant, but they repeatedly thwarted by those they are trying to help. At least humor, however malicious and misguided it might be, provides an outlet for the frustration we all feel.

 

[juryjone]

IMO, this is just another in a long line of wedge issues to get folks to vote for certain people that they would not vote for ordinarily. That's important to me too. I'm not going to end up voting for certain people who want to keep this sort of nonsense out of our science classes when many of their other policies in other areas are harmful, IMO.

I'm beginning to agree that we shouldn't keep this nonsense out of science classes. Kids should be taught what science is - reproducible, predictive, evidentiary. Intelligent design is the anti-science, an example of something that purports to be science, but is not.

But the article listed in the OP is not about Arkansas forcing ID to be taught. It's about censoring real science - evolution. It's about the failure of elected officials to take a stand one way or the other, to stand for science or against it. Instead we limit what's taught and bar our children from knowledge that is as certain as the sun rising and setting.

It doesn't stop at evolution, either. It has already included geology, and will soon include astronomy, chemistry, etc. I don't want to be accused of seeing the slippery slope, but where does it all end? When will our science classes be reduced to only the simplest concepts that don't have any way of offending some fringe group?

I also want to say that this issue is one thing that frustrates me about local governance of schools. This issue is a hydra - once you cut one head off, as was done in Dover, then it springs up again, in identical fashion, in many other places. And does this cause people to stand up and vote against those local school boards? Not until you have an expensive suit brought against the board, as happened in Dover. It may be my cynicism, but I think in Dover more people voted with their pocketbook than with their love of science.

 

[Red Siegfried]

Making fun of believers could be a reaction to the feeling of extreme helplessness and despair that we feel when reading about problems like the one described in the article. Sure, it doesn't help to ridicule others. But, what else is there to be done? There are already people out there, trying to educate the ignorant, but they repeatedly thwarted by those they are trying to help. At least humor, however malicious and misguided it might be, provides an outlet for the frustration we all feel.

I can see where you're coming from there. I plead guilty of doing the same thing on occasion. It's just that sometimes it seems that it gets downright vicious and I find that sad. I happen to think Americans have a lot more in common and a lot more common interest than we do things that make us different or things that we are at odds on.

 

[Red Siegfried]

I'm beginning to agree that we shouldn't keep this nonsense out of science classes. Kids should be taught what science is - reproducible, predictive, evidentiary. Intelligent design is the anti-science, an example of something that purports to be science, but is not.

That's a good idea. If they want to discuss ID, let's discuss ID and then also discuss evolution and then, more importantly, talk about the difference between pseudoscientific dogma and real science. After all, the fundies are just demanding equal time, right? They never said anything about the context we have to put it in, which means that we can discuss ID and keep them happy while explaining how wrong it is. Maybe it would be a good object lesson.

But I just don't know if that would work. Ideally, I don't think the discussion of ANY topic should be verbotten in public school, but the problem with that is that different people have different ideas on the definition of "discussion" and "indoctrination" as well as having different agendas that will determine into which context they will put these discussions. So then we get back to square one, some people teaching creationism and some teaching evolution, which is not what we want here. The goal is to make sure kids aren't being taught scientific falsehoods as truth.

Clarification: I said DISCUSS ID, not teach it as fact.

Further clarification to my last post: When I said "this sort of nonsense" I was referring to ID and creation science. Just wanted to be clear there.

 

[Red Siegfried]

I also want to say that this issue is one thing that frustrates me about local governance of schools. This issue is a hydra - once you cut one head off, as was done in Dover, then it springs up again, in identical fashion, in many other places. And does this cause people to stand up and vote against those local school boards? Not until you have an expensive suit brought against the board, as happened in Dover. It may be my cynicism, but I think in Dover more people voted with their pocketbook than with their love of science.

And who gets rich over these lawsuits? Not the evolutionists, not the scientists, just the lawyers. You see why I keep harping on about "wedge issues?" I think this issue is exploited, not only by lawyers, but by politicians as well. And I just don't want to play it because I think there are more important problems that we need to solve first as a country.

Figuring out a way to make the legal system a level playing field for rich and poor alike without impeding anyone's rights is one of those issues. Now, pardon me while I ride off to tilt at windmills.

But that's my opinion. For those who consider the school battle to be more important than I do, I will respectfully disagree, but more power to you if you can make a positive change on this front.

 

[emperorchaos]

Can I ask you, Red, where you attended school?

 

[Red Siegfried]

Both highschool and college in Wisconsin in the public school system. All things considered, I turned out okay (I hope). And in case you were wondering, yes, creationism (that was before they called in creation science) was discussed in advanced biology, but it was part of a unit on the scientific method and the history of science for about a week at the beginning of the semester, if I remember correctly. Our teacher had no problem saying he thought it was bunk, but we were free to believe what we wanted as long as we remembered the class was about science and not the Bible. Also, if I remember right, our textbook mentioned creationism too but only as a passing mention "Some people believe but the scope of this textbook is scientific theory ...." or something like that.

I kind of wish that's how it would be discussed everywhere.

At that point in my life I was Christian, and believed in God, but I didn't think that the world was created by God in seven days. I figured evolution made too much sense to discount so I just assumed that not everything in the Bible was true and maybe evolution was the way God made life the way it is today. Pretty much everyone I know personally who is Christian and whose thoughts I know on this topic kind of thinks that (pretty much, the in-laws are still very much Bible literalists). Now I'm definitely atheist and don't buy into anything other than well tested naturalistic explanations on how the universe works, or at the very minimum a really reasonable hypothesis on how those things work.

 

[emperorchaos]

Wow, my school didn't have any mention of Creationism in it. But we conveniently skip over the chapter on evolution.

That aside, I did go to a really good school for my area. We were #1 in the state for standardized testing of public schools 11 years running when I graduated.

I was mostly just curious. It seems to me that ID has mostly become a southern issue, particularly in the bible belt. This was the case a few years back in a small city near Atlanta, GA.

The one thing I know I like about Wisconsin (the one time I visited the state as I drove through to Minnesota) is the fact they have milk product vending machines at the interstate rest stops. If there is some local belief that you shouldn't drink the milk from them, don't tell me. I enjoyed my chocolate milk.

 

[valis]

Making fun of believers could be a reaction to the feeling of extreme helplessness and despair that we feel when reading about problems like the one described in the article. Sure, it doesn't help to ridicule others. But, what else is there to be done? There are already people out there, trying to educate the ignorant, but they repeatedly thwarted by those they are trying to help. At least humor, however malicious and misguided it might be, provides an outlet for the frustration we all feel.

Please don't worry yourself. We deserve to be ridiculed. After all you are 'Bright' and we are 'Dim'.