• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Creationism in Oklahoma Schools?

EvilSmurf

Graduate Poster
E
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
1,552
Don't know if this has been brought up already:
Link
The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.
Click to expand...
 
Simply disgusting. A disgrace to a great nation.

Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.
Click to expand...
Exactly. In doing this, the schools essentially tell students that evidence doesn't matter, and that if you don't like an aspect of the world you live in, you're free to go into denial mode and replace reality with fantasy. Evidence is evidence, however. We know that the Earth is billions of years old. We know it's round and orbits the Sun. We know evolution is real. If a student comes into a school with a really wacky religion, he should be taught that he's wrong so he can move on. It may sound brutal, but it really is that bloody simple.
 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
The USA the newest third world nation.
Click to expand...

Oh cut that crap out. Save your insipid, anti-American B.S. for Politics. :mad:

--------------------------

I think Mr. McNeely delves into slippery slope strawman territory in that third paragraph, though it's still technically correct. The rest of the editorial is excellent and kudos to The Edmond Sun for running it.

In case you didn't take the link, it's House Bill 2211. You can check the progress on the Oklahoma legislatures website.
 
That's precisely the sort of slippery slope/straw man argument that I had qualms about the third paragraph of the editorial, but simultaneously am really concerned about because of this legislation. I think we evolution supporters would be better served by pointing out less drastic examples of how this legislation might effect the education system in Oklahoma which is moribund as it is without it.

"Moon hoax", Holocaust denial and 9/11 "truth" might be more salient and acceptable as objections to the utter subjectification of education in Oklahoma than silly comments like yours Merv.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
That's precisely the sort of slippery slope/straw man argument that I had qualms about the third paragraph of the editorial, but simultaneously am really concerned about because of this legislation. I think we evolution supporters would be better served by pointing out less drastic examples of how this legislation might effect the education system in Oklahoma which is moribund as it is without it.

"Moon hoax", Holocaust denial and 9/11 "truth" might be more salient and acceptable as objections to the utter subjectification of education in Oklahoma than silly comments like yours Merv.
Click to expand...

If the statute actually does allow a student to get A's for expressing creationism I wouldn't call my "argument" a strawman or a slippery slope. It is just reductio ad absurdum (and may I say hilarious). I don't expect students to be allowed to reconstruct American History but the statute as described in the article would actually allow it, right?

That being said, I wouldn't be such a smart*** if were having a serious debate with the state legislature.
 
Sunni Man said:
Yes, real theory!
Click to expand...

My apologies if you were just looking for a laugh here, but do you actually know what the word "theory" means? It doesn't mean "wild guess" or "baseless idea", which is what you appear to be implying here.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Q: Who was the first President of the United States?

A: I have faith it was Jesus.

A+

Why stop at science?
Click to expand...

Hey, I like that. Can I apply it to my bank account?

This isn't a bad check; I have faith that there's a quarter million in my checking account. And if it's not in there right now, I have faith that the Lord will provide it in the fullness of time.
 
Dr H said:
Hey, I like that. Can I apply it to my bank account?

This isn't a bad check; I have faith that there's a quarter million in my checking account. And if it's not in there right now, I have faith that the Lord will provide it in the fullness of time.
Click to expand...

It only works if you live in Oklahoma.
 
I remember I had a teacher who believed on God.

Suddendly, the topic of creationism popped out. A friend of mine asks her: "But teacher, what about all those stories of Adam and Eve, Noah, Jonah, and all the others in the Bible?"

She answers: "Those are HISTORICAL FACTS that were written BY THE WORD OF GOD" (Note: She pretty much talked in caps when she tried to put emphasis on something).

So I stand up and tell her: "If you take the Bible as historical facts, then you are saying that the Earth is not only 6000 years old, but a guy on an Ark which was physically impossible to float carried billions of species during 40 days under an intense rain?"

She looks at me with a face that said "Yeah, so?". I decided to bite my tongue or I'd get angry and I'd end with a big discussion against my teacher.
 
*snip*

Pato2747 said:
So I stand up and tell her: "If you take the Bible as historical facts, then you are saying that the Earth is not only 6000 years old, but a guy on an Ark which was physically impossible to float carried billions of species during 40 days under an intense rain?"

She looks at me with a face that said "Yeah, so?". I decided to bite my tongue or I'd get angry and I'd end with a big discussion against my teacher.
Click to expand...


I figured you could have simply said, "Oh, so you're an idiot. Thanks for clearing that up," and sat down again.

:p
 
I decided to bite my tongue or I'd get angry and I'd end with a big discussion against my teacher.
Click to expand...
Good idea. I've had arguments with teachers and they never produce anything good. You just build mutual resentment.

If the statute actually does allow a student to get A's for expressing creationism I wouldn't call my "argument" a strawman or a slippery slope. It is just reductio ad absurdum (and may I say hilarious). I don't expect students to be allowed to reconstruct American History but the statute as described in the article would actually allow it, right?
Click to expand...
But then again, why not, from a logical standpoint? I realize this is a slippery slope and that it won't happen, but if students are allowed to throw science out the window, why not history?

Student: 'I don't believe Hitler massacred six million Jews because I don't think G_D would allow such a thing.'
Teacher: 'Very good, Tom! A+!'

Student: While liberal commies claim 'Under God was added in the fifties, I believe it was laid down by our Founding Fathers in 1810, as they were, after all, believing Christians who founded the US as a Christian nation.
Teacher: Great answer, Tori! 90!
Student: Why not a 100?
Teacher: Well, the US was not founded in 1810.
Student: Oh, sorry... ack, no, waitaminute, it's my religious belief that it was founded in 1810!
Teacher: 100, then! Good job, girl!

Geez.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Good idea. I've had arguments with teachers and they never produce anything good. You just build mutual resentment.

But then again, why not, from a logical standpoint? I realize this is a slippery slope and that it won't happen, but if students are allowed to throw science out the window, why not history?

Student: 'I don't believe Hitler massacred six million Jews because I don't think G_D would allow such a thing.'
Teacher: 'Very good, Tom! A+!'

Student: While liberal commies claim 'Under God was added in the fifties, I believe it was laid down by our Founding Fathers in 1810, as they were, after all, believing Christians who founded the US as a Christian nation.
Teacher: Great answer, Tori! 90!
Student: Why not a 100?
Teacher: Well, the US was not founded in 1810.
Student: Oh, sorry... ack, no, waitaminute, it's my religious belief that it was founded in 1810!
Teacher: 100, then! Good job, girl!

Geez.
Click to expand...

Heh...I like how "under God" actually predates the pledge.
 
Last edited:
Don't believe everything you read...

Contrary to the information given in the Edmond Sun article, the Bill 2211 does not actually call for 'rewarding' students for their religious beliefs. Here is the exact wording from this part of the bill:

"Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work."

This seems pretty clear to me and was conveniently left out of the "news" article that was posted.

Caducio
 
Caducio said:
Contrary to the information given in the Edmond Sun article, the Bill 2211 does not actually call for 'rewarding' students for their religious beliefs. Here is the exact wording from this part of the bill:

"Students shall not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work."

This seems pretty clear to me and was conveniently left out of the "news" article that was posted.

Caducio
Click to expand...

I suspected as much. It was still fun to give the strawman a good kick in the bales.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom