Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

[distraff]

According to the Reading and Writing and Religion II a report by the Texas Freedom Network, many Texas children are being taught creationism including the myth that the earth is only 6,000 years old. So what do you think of this development? What should we do about it? Should creationism be taught in schools?

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/how-texas-public-schools-still-teach-creationism

[jillian]

and we wonder we're like number 25 internationally in the sciences....

[Matty]

and we wonder we're like number 25 internationally in the sciences....




Are you sitting here telling us you don't believe in God Jillian? Really?

[jillian]

Are you sitting here telling us you don't believe in God Jillian? Really?

i do.

but the earth isn't 6,000 years old and creationism isn't science.

i don't confuse religion with science. it's a bad idea.

[Adelaide]

Creationism should be explained in history class or world religion class.

[Chris]

It's not exactly a new development. :-)

While creationism shouldn't be taught as science, I'm OK, if the community desires it, with it being taught.

Science needs to be taught as science, modern science, not medieval authoritarian inductive science, but science as falsification, as tentative, incomplete, probabilistic.

[GrassrootsConservative]

and we wonder we're like number 25 internationally in the sciences....

Gotta get big government Liberal loons out of the school systems if we want to fix that.

Can't have our children being taught that gays and pedophiles have mental disorders and didn't choose to be the way that they are.

When I was in school I was taught to build a rocket. None of that anymore. Wonder why? :rollseyes:

Christianity has always been part of the school systems. Kids are just now starting to fail.

Tell me what part of your brain thinks that Christianity is the problem? America used to have scientifically brilliant children.

Extra credit if you can right yourself now and tell me what the real problem is and give me a quick brainstormed idea of how we can fix it. :laugh:

[distraff]

It's not exactly a new development. :-)

While creationism shouldn't be taught as science, I'm OK, if the community desires it, with it being taught.

Science needs to be taught as science, modern science, not medieval authoritarian inductive science, but science as falsification, as tentative, incomplete, probabilistic.

I don't think that creationism should be taught as fact, but as an idea that has been falsified. People in general are not very informed so they should not be determining what gets taught as fact. The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution so it is evolution that should be taught as fact not creationism.

[countryboy]

I don't think that creationism should be taught as fact, but as an idea that has been falsified. People in general are not very informed so they should not be determining what gets taught as fact. The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution so it is evolution that should be taught as fact not creationism.
Careful, your bias is showing.

[distraff]

Gotta get big government Liberal loons out of the school systems if we want to fix that.

Can't have our children being taught that gays and pedophiles have mental disorders and didn't choose to be the way that they are.

A mental disorder implies that their judgment is somehow impaired and that their functioning in normal society has been reduced. In fact I know several gay people and they do just fine in society.


When I was in school I was taught to build a rocket. None of that anymore. Wonder why? :rollseyes:

Christianity has always been part of the school systems. Kids are just now starting to fail.

Tell me what part of your brain thinks that Christianity is the problem? America used to have scientifically brilliant children.

Extra credit if you can right yourself now and tell me what the real problem is and give me a quick brainstormed idea of how we can fix it. :laugh:

How do you know that teaching kids about Christianity in public schools helps them be smart, or that not teaching them Christianity makes them dumber? I just don't see the connection here.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Careful, your bias is showing.

He's showing more than that.

Look at this brilliant contradiction:

Sentence 1:

I don't think that creationism should be taught as fact, but as an idea that has been falsified.

Sentence 2:

People in general are not very informed so they should not be determining what gets taught as fact

[GrassrootsConservative]

A mental disorder implies that their judgment is somehow impaired and that their functioning in normal society has been reduced. In fact I know several gay people and they do just fine in society.


Exactly. So you admit to that specific narrative being one of falsity. Thank you. They choose to be gay. It's not an illness or disease or something out of their control.



How do you know that teaching kids about Christianity in public schools helps them be smart, or that not teaching them Christianity makes them dumber? I just don't see the connection here.

I don't. All I'm saying is that you can't blame Christianity because Christianity has been a part of school systems since America's beginning, and during the time when America was producing scientifically brilliant children, as I referred to them.

Do you think Christianity is a new thing in schools?

[Chris]

I don't think that creationism should be taught as fact, but as an idea that has been falsified. People in general are not very informed so they should not be determining what gets taught as fact. The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution so it is evolution that should be taught as fact not creationism.


Well, creationism in general cannot be falsified, so while it is not science, I see no problem teaching it, as adelaide said. I mean when you consider 75-80% are believers, it's part of the American heritage.


I have a bigger problem with the misconceptions of science I hear from people who have supposedly been taught what it is.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Why is this so important? It's not as if we were going to create life anywhere and need to know how to do it. And despite the fantasies of the anti-theists, Creationists aren't going to look for supernatural solutions to other scientific problems. A Creationist chemist may pray after he's failed, but he's not going to ask God to solve his science problems for him first by some miracle.

Really, anti-theists act like some jealous religion wanting to attack every single belief of its sectarian competitors.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Creationism should be explained in history class or world religion class.



And Global Warming should be explained in political science class or economics class.

[Chris]

And Global Warming should be explained in political science class or economics class.



Good one!! lol

[Adelaide]

And Global Warming should be explained in political science class or economics class.

The only time I was taught global warming in high school was in World Issues, a history/political science course. I have no problem with that at a high school level.

Edit: And it was taught as subjective. Almost everything in that class was.

Second edit: It was also briefly covered in Canadian geography, thinking back.

[jillian]

And Global Warming should be explained in political science class or economics class.

no...


again...why we are where we are in the sciences relative to other countries...

[jillian]

Gotta get big government Liberal loons out of the school systems if we want to fix that.

Can't have our children being taught that gays and pedophiles have mental disorders and didn't choose to be the way that they are.

When I was in school I was taught to build a rocket. None of that anymore. Wonder why? :rollseyes:

Christianity has always been part of the school systems. Kids are just now starting to fail.

Tell me what part of your brain thinks that Christianity is the problem? America used to have scientifically brilliant children.

Extra credit if you can right yourself now and tell me what the real problem is and give me a quick brainstormed idea of how we can fix it. :laugh:

they should still be teaching how to make a rocket...

and a volcano...

where are you getting the idea that i think christians shouldn't be part of the educational system? that's silly.

but you can't replace science with faith...

*that* is even more silly.

[Mister D]

no...


again...why we are where we are in the sciences relative to other countries...

It's a demographic issue. Whites and Asians do well. The rest not so well thus our lower ranking. I know you don't like hearing that...

[Mister D]

and we wonder we're like number 25 internationally in the sciences....

I don't. :smiley:

[Mister D]

Gotta get big government Liberal loons out of the school systems if we want to fix that.

Can't have our children being taught that gays and pedophiles have mental disorders and didn't choose to be the way that they are.

When I was in school I was taught to build a rocket. None of that anymore. Wonder why? :rollseyes:

Christianity has always been part of the school systems. Kids are just now starting to fail.

Tell me what part of your brain thinks that Christianity is the problem? America used to have scientifically brilliant children.

Extra credit if you can right yourself now and tell me what the real problem is and give me a quick brainstormed idea of how we can fix it. :laugh:

Yes, our drop in ranking is remarkably coincidental with demographic change but Jillian likes to blame the groups she hates .

[Chloe]

And Global Warming should be explained in political science class or economics class.

Global warming could apply to political science, economics, environmental science, chemistry, biology, physical science, marine science, and probably many others.

[jillian]

Global warming could apply to political science, economics, environmental science, chemistry, biology, physical science, marine science, and probably many others.

he's implying it isn't science... like creationism isn't science.

[Chloe]

he's implying it isn't science... like creationism isn't science.

Oh, well global warming is much more relatable to science than creationism is relatable to science in my opinion.

[jillian]

Oh, well global warming is much more relatable to science than creationism is relatable to science in my opinion.

you're correct. but it's not really a matter of opinion.. it's a matter of science. :)

[distraff]

Careful, your bias is showing.

Would I be accused of bias if I said the same thing about flat-earth theories?

[Mister D]

Would I be accused of bias if I said the same thing about flat-earth theories?

Most, if not all, Western intellectuals have believed the Earth was spherical since around the 4th Century BC.

[distraff]

He's showing more than that.

Look at this brilliant contradiction:

Sentence 1:


Sentence 2:

Actually not a contradiction. I am not dictating science curriculum, I only have views of what they should be. It should be the scientific community that dictates scientific curriculum.

[patrickt]

I have a problem when beliefs are taught as fact. That would include creationism and communism. I grew up understanding creationism but it never made sense to me. Neither did communism. I was quite irritated when my son in junior high asked me if it was true that the only compassionate system was communism. So we spent a week considering Stalin and Mao. I explained to my son the bizarre nature of liberal compassion.

If schools would teach our children to read and write well and to do math through algebra I'd be quite happy. They prefer teaching crap that can't be measured.

A few years ago I saw a study that said math scores between charter schools and public schools were comparable once adjusted for race. I figured 2+2=4 for some kids and 2+2=5 or 3 or 4 for others.

[countryboy]

Would I be accused of bias if I said the same thing about flat-earth theories?
Why is it libs always seem to come up with the lamest analogies. Flat earth theories have obviously been disproved. The theory of evolution is a collection of wild assumptions which has yet to be observably proven. No amount of liberal foot stomping and proclaiming it to be fact will change that.

[Chris]

Why is it libs always seem to come up with the lamest analogies. Flat earth theories have obviously been disproved. The theory of evolution is a collection of wild assumptions which has yet to be observably proven. No amount of liberal foot stomping and proclaiming it to be fact will change that.



See, now there's the trouble, science doesn't prove things. Evolutionary theory, for example, is a set of explanations for the fact of evolution and has not been falsified. That's what science does, it doesn't prove things.

[countryboy]

See, now there's the trouble, science doesn't prove things. Evolutionary theory, for example, is a set of explanations for the fact of evolution and has not been falsified. That's what science does, it doesn't prove things.
Although, science can prove things. We know the Earth is round (spherical), from direct observation. Evolution assumes too much.

[zelmo1234]

I don't think that creationism should be taught as fact, but as an idea that has been falsified. People in general are not very informed so they should not be determining what gets taught as fact. The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution so it is evolution that should be taught as fact not creationism.

Science is based on theory, and the use of experiment to product fact!

Evolution, it taught as fact? that is as much of a problem as Creationism being taught as fact!

For example there is not one record of a missing link, not one of any species? And Yet one would think in the fossil record there would be millions of them as it takes millions of years to change into something else.

The words have been changed because what is usually taught as science is intelligent design? And of course this has issues as well.

The correct path in my opinion? why not teach evolution as a theory, and intelligent design as a theory in the same class and spark discussion and debate that minght actually make our kids think?

[countryboy]

Science is based on theory, and the use of experiment to product fact!

Evolution, it taught as fact? that is as much of a problem as Creationism being taught as fact!

For example there is not one record of a missing link, not one of any species? And Yet one would think in the fossil record there would be millions of them as it takes millions of years to change into something else.

The words have been changed because what is usually taught as science is intelligent design? And of course this has issues as well.

The correct path in my opinion? why not teach evolution as a theory, and intelligent design as a theory in the same class and spark discussion and debate that minght actually make our kids think?

Whoa whoa whoa.....make our kids think? Are you crazy!? That might hinder the indoctrination process.

[Chloe]

Science is based on theory, and the use of experiment to product fact!

Evolution, it taught as fact? that is as much of a problem as Creationism being taught as fact!

For example there is not one record of a missing link, not one of any species? And Yet one would think in the fossil record there would be millions of them as it takes millions of years to change into something else.

The words have been changed because what is usually taught as science is intelligent design? And of course this has issues as well.

The correct path in my opinion? why not teach evolution as a theory, and intelligent design as a theory in the same class and spark discussion and debate that minght actually make our kids think?

To Answer your last question the reason why I don't think that's a good idea is because intelligent design is based on religious belief and nothing more. You can't prove intelligent design no matter how hard you try. You can't prove a link or anything when it comes to intelligent design. It's just assumption based on religious belief, and so with regards to intelligent design it fits better in a religious studies class moreso than in a science class.

Evolution on the other hand can be researched and tested and connected and even proven. Theory's based on physical science and biology can ultimately be proven but religious theory can never truly be proven through science, study, testing or anything like that...it's just belief.

Religion shouldn't be taught in science class. Evolution is much more closely connected to science than creation ever can be and so therefor creation shouldn't be taught as a true scientific alternative to evolution in my opinion.

[patrickt]

All schools teach a lot of nonsense and it's up to parents to correct that which needs correction. I had to teach my children that grammar was important, the Holocaust by the Nazis did occur, and that President Lincoln freed no slaves in the U.S.

It's not going to change. On the topic of creationism, I'm an atheist and my wife, years after we were married, because a fundamentalist Christian. I did not proselytize with my children but I did tell them I'd answer any questions concerning religion that they asked me. One of my children is a Christian and one is an atheist.

I would like to see a link to a source for the statement that public schools in Texas teach that the earth is 6,000 years old. I know statements like that give liberals a tingling Chris Mathews leg but I'm doubtful.

[KC]

It's a demographic issue. Whites and Asians do well. The rest not so well thus our lower ranking. I know you don't like hearing that...

http://www.vdare.com/images/121910_ss002.jpg

[BB-35]

and we wonder we're like number 25 internationally in the sciences....

People like YOU.

[jillian]

People like YOU.

no. i did just fine. thanks.

but thanks for the "input".

[Chloe]

People like YOU.

She didn't deserve that comment. We aren't exactly setting the bar for science in our schools right now and she was just pointing that out. I don't think it's necessarily because of creation being taught in science class but it does make the point that when a grade school science class uses religious belief as an explanation for the creation of Earth and life on Earth instead of explaining it through a focus on physics, time, and biology for that explanation then it can and probably does hurt our education and intelligence on the matter if it is widespread enough.

[jillian]

She didn't deserve that comment. We aren't exactly setting the bar for science in our schools right now and she was just pointing that out. I don't think it's necessarily because of creation being taught in science class but it does make the point that when a grade school science class uses religious belief as an explanation for the creation of Earth and life on Earth instead of explaining it through a focus on physics, time, and biology for that explanation then it can and probably does hurt our education and intelligence on the matter if it is widespread enough.

at some point the kids from these schools aren't gong to be able to get into any legitimate college because their education is so flawed.

[Chloe]

at some point the kids from these schools aren't gong to be able to get into any legitimate college because their education is so flawed.

Well I mean at the end of the day you are going to have two types of students competing for a spot at a good university. It's either the person that understands physics and the general concepts of how the Earth was formed and how life evolved into what it is today vs the person that just says that God did it in seven days. I understand that it is faith and that it helps tie up loose ends for a lot of people but it's just not science. I'm sorry.

[Chris]

Although, science can prove things. We know the Earth is round (spherical), from direct observation. Evolution assumes too much.



Science does not prove things. That the earth is round is a fact, as you say observable. But that's not science, science explains why the earth is round, that it cannot prove.

[Chris]

To Answer your last question the reason why I don't think that's a good idea is because intelligent design is based on religious belief and nothing more. You can't prove intelligent design no matter how hard you try. You can't prove a link or anything when it comes to intelligent design. It's just assumption based on religious belief, and so with regards to intelligent design it fits better in a religious studies class moreso than in a science class.

Evolution on the other hand can be researched and tested and connected and even proven. Theory's based on physical science and biology can ultimately be proven but religious theory can never truly be proven through science, study, testing or anything like that...it's just belief.

Religion shouldn't be taught in science class. Evolution is much more closely connected to science than creation ever can be and so therefor creation shouldn't be taught as a true scientific alternative to evolution in my opinion.



Actually, it cannot be proven. That went out the door when Hume exposed the problem of induction. Popper solved it with the notion of falsification. It has to do with black swans.

[Chris]

at some point the kids from these schools aren't gong to be able to get into any legitimate college because their education is so flawed.

Thanks to you progressives, that is true.

[Chloe]

Actually, it cannot be proven. That went out the door when Hume exposed the problem of induction. Popper solved it with the notion of falsification. It has to do with black swans.

I have no idea what you're talking about i'm sorry

[Chloe]

Thanks to you progressives, that is true.

You can't put blame on one ideology. I'm sure that this is a problem that started a long time ago and has involved all political ideologies at some point.

[Chris]

I have no idea what you're talking about i'm sorry

Sorry. The history of science goes through 3 rough phases. The initial phase was the authoritarian phase, if an expert said it was true it was true because the expert said so, Round about the age of enlightenment science change to where it was believe you could prove something by making enough experimental observations, iow by induction. This was of course an improvement over the previous phase, but it too ran into a problem. All throughout history it had been observed that swans were white, no one had seen anything else, thus science concluded, syllogistically, all swans are white. Then someone discovered a black swan, off in Australia somewhere. David Hume, a Scottish philosopher, argued but this is true of all science, for you cannot say of anything with certainty that your next observation will be the same as all that came before. This is called the problem of induction. It ended the second phase of science. It took some time to resolve this problem and begin the third phase in the history of science. This was done by Karl Popper, another philosopher. He reasoned that rather than prove something was true what science was about was proving something was false. A scientist makes observations and from them formulates a hypothesis, a prediction, and then seeks observations that prove it wrong. If falsified the theory is abandoned or revised, and the process starts again. After a while, if a hypothesis is not falsified, it is accepted by the scientific community, it becomes a theory, a paradigm. But as Thomas Kuhn showed, even paradigm undergoes revolutions. So there you have it, science doesn't prove things, it falsifies things.

Popper also used falsification as the line of demarcation between science and pseudoscience. An hypothesis or theory is scientific if and only if it can be falsified. Part of the measure of whether a hypothesis is scientific is it states exactly how it can be falsified. Pseudo-science cannot be falsified.

OK, so on topic, evolutionary theory is scientific because it could be falsified. Creationism is not a science because it cannot be falsified.

Chloe, was that clearer? It's hard to explain these things in a single post.

[Chris]

You can't put blame on one ideology. I'm sure that this is a problem that started a long time ago and has involved all political ideologies at some point.


Sure you can. Progressives are largely responsible for our modern failing education system. Granted it was popularized as an effort to indoctrinate patriotism during the Cold War. But it was largely designed by progressives. They mean well, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[BB-35]

She didn't deserve that comment. We aren't exactly setting the bar for science in our schools right now and she was just pointing that out. I don't think it's necessarily because of creation being taught in science class but it does make the point that when a grade school science class uses religious belief as an explanation for the creation of Earth and life on Earth instead of explaining it through a focus on physics, time, and biology for that explanation then it can and probably does hurt our education and intelligence on the matter if it is widespread enough.

Ahh,but she can infer that it was people like ME,right?

We're not the ones who are removing competetiveness in order to be 'fair'

We're not the ones lowering the standards of success...


At some point you have to take a hard look at things and decide,if you want to be BETTER or FAIR.

Besides,who died and left HER arbiter of flawed education?

[Libhater]

Are some people here saying that they prefer to have our children taught the phony junk science that an Al Gore peddles, or are there some (which would be the majority of Christians in America--approx. 72%) that prefer our children be taught creationism?

[patrickt]

no. i did just fine. thanks.

but thanks for the "input".

Jillian got a perfect score on self-esteem.

Does someone have a link showing that even one public school in Texas is teaching that the earth if no more than 6,000 years old?

[Chris]

Jillian got a perfect score on self-esteem.

Does someone have a link showing that even one public school in Texas is teaching that the earth if no more than 6,000 years old?



Always a good question.

The answer is no.

A couple years back Governor Perry claimed we do: Fact check: Does Texas teach creationism in public schools? Is it constitutional? (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/08/18/7410377-fact-check-does-texas-teach-creationism-in-public-schools-is-it-constitutional?lite). "Clay Robison, a spokesman for the Texas State Teachers Association, the state’s teachers’ union, says, “It is not part of the recognized official state curriculum.”" Perry was pandering.

Earlier this year an alarm went out: Creationism once again threatens Texas schools (http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/creationism-once-again-threatens-texas-schools/). Turned out it was a law said you can't discriminate against teachers/students beliefs, which is already in our state constitution. Crying wolf.

That doesn't mean, as the first link goes on to say, that creationism doesn't come up in the natural course of things, say a student asking about it.

[Chloe]

Are some people here saying that they prefer to have our children taught the phony junk science that an Al Gore peddles, or are there some (which would be the majority of Christians in America--approx. 72%) that prefer our children be taught creationism?

No, I don't think that anybody is saying that kids should be taught phony junk science that Al Gore peddles. They, including myself, are simply saying that teaching kids that the earth is in fact billions of years old, formed over time by a series of events, mixed with the combination of physics and chemistry, helped to create the world and universe that we live in. Teaching genesis is not science, it's faith. Just because people prefer creation be taught does not mean that it should be taught in public schools nor does it mean that it will make them more educated.

Now obviously people are free to believe what they want and if they believe that God created the process for everything around us including evolution, how the earth was formed, and so on then that's fine and reasonable, but it's still not science, it's faith. That's all I am really saying about it.

[Agravan]

No one is teaching Creationism in school. This is just more liberal Christian bashing bullshit.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Well I mean at the end of the day you are going to have two types of students competing for a spot at a good university. It's either the person that understands physics and the general concepts of how the Earth was formed and how life evolved into what it is today vs the person that just says that God did it in seven days. I understand that it is faith and that it helps tie up loose ends for a lot of people but it's just not science. I'm sorry.

Under the class-biased indentured servitude of the college-education fraud, the only two types that compete are the children of the rich, who get a comfortable allowance, and no-talent Mamas' Boys who do school work without pay and live like 15-year-olds because they are afraid to grow up. Being a Creationist disqualifies you from neither type.

[jillian]

Well I mean at the end of the day you are going to have two types of students competing for a spot at a good university. It's either the person that understands physics and the general concepts of how the Earth was formed and how life evolved into what it is today vs the person that just says that God did it in seven days. I understand that it is faith and that it helps tie up loose ends for a lot of people but it's just not science. I'm sorry.

i agree. thing is though, it isn't science. and we should stop being polite about it not being science. we can't compete as a nation if our "students" think the world is 6000 years old.

[jillian]

No one is teaching Creationism in school. This is just more liberal Christian bashing bullshit.

okie dokie... you must be right... all christians (the majority in this country) are being victimized.

:cuckoo:

[Mister D]

i agree. thing is though, it isn't science. and we should stop being polite about it not being science. we can't compete as a nation if our "students" think the world is 6000 years old.

Certain demographic groups compete quite well. Others don't.