RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creationism
View related threads:
(in this forum
| in all forums)
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 7/21/2008 1:39:55 AM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 504
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: swan42
The concept of academic freedom, as understood by colleges and universities,
has not been granted to primary or secondary schools.
In public K-12, local school boards determine curriculum (subordinate to state government) and are also restricted by the U.S. Constitution.
There is no reason that teaching opposing sides of the issue should somehow violate the constitution. If it somehow does (which it doesn't), then changing the constitution is in order.
Yes there is! And you know it! The opposition to the theory of evolution is religious based. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the government from promoting religion in public schools. Creationism is religion, and it is only creationists that oppose the valid science currently taught in public schools, and their opposition is based upon their religious beliefs.
The Establishment Clause is there to protect our Freedom of Religion. The elected officials (along with everybody else) are free to practice their religion as they see fit. They are not free to use their positions to promote their religion.
What you're saying is false and you know better -- If you don't know better, you should!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 7/21/2008 1:58:15 AM
|
|
|
swan42
Posts: 347
Joined: 5/3/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
There is no reason that teaching opposing sides of the issue should somehow violate the constitution. If it somehow does (which it doesn't), then changing the constitution is in order.
Not if my vote is worth something.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 7/22/2008 1:23:11 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1379
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Yes there is! And you know it! The opposition to the theory of evolution is religious based. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the government from promoting religion in public schools. Creationism is religion, and it is only creationists that oppose the valid science currently taught in public schools, and their opposition is based upon their religious beliefs.
Teaching one side of the issue and only one side of the issue is religiously based. If one teaches that which is consistent with naturalism and only that which is consistent with naturalism, that's religiously based (it's based on the religion of naturalism). Teaching the pros and cons of all sides is neutral.
quote:
The Establishment Clause is there to protect our Freedom of Religion. The elected officials (along with everybody else) are free to practice their religion as they see fit. They are not free to use their positions to promote their religion.
Again, teaching only that which is consistent with naturalism promotes the religion of naturalism. Teaching all sides promotes nothing.
quote:
What you're saying is false and you know better -- If you don't know better, you should!
What I am saying is true, and I'm confident enough with the notion that it's true to advocate that both my arguments and your arguments be presented to students such that everyone (including students) can decide what to believe. You know that what your saying is false and you know it so much so that you want your views funded with tax dollars and you want my refutations censored because you know that evolution falls apart without tax dollars and it falls apart in the face of scrutiny. If you think my position and arguments are bad then you should have no problems with students being presented with both sides, because if my arguments are fallacious, students should have no problems taking your position after being exposed to the pros and cons of both sides. The problem is that you know better. You know your arguments fall apart in the face of scrutiny and students will realize this.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 7/22/2008 1:32:16 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 7/22/2008 1:24:11 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1379
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: swan42
Not if my vote is worth something.
Everybody's vote is worth something, not just yours. I encourage everyone to vote for academic freedom so that all sides can be fairly introduced to students.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Many High School Biology Teachers Still Teach Creat... - 7/22/2008 4:14:30 AM
|
|
|
BVZ
Posts: 360
Joined: 11/2/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Yes there is! And you know it! The opposition to the theory of evolution is religious based. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the government from promoting religion in public schools. Creationism is religion, and it is only creationists that oppose the valid science currently taught in public schools, and their opposition is based upon their religious beliefs.
Teaching one side of the issue and only one side of the issue is religiously based. If one teaches that which is consistent with naturalism and only that which is consistent with naturalism, that's religiously based (it's based on the religion of naturalism). Teaching the pros and cons of all sides is neutral.
Do you know why the flying spagetthi monster was created? Perhaps you should take a look.
It was created to prove that you don't support your own position. Do you think the pro's and con's of the FSM should be taught?
quote:
quote:
The Establishment Clause is there to protect our Freedom of Religion. The elected officials (along with everybody else) are free to practice their religion as they see fit. They are not free to use their positions to promote their religion.
Again, teaching only that which is consistent with naturalism promotes the religion of naturalism. Teaching all sides promotes nothing.
First of all, naturalism is not religion, by definition. In order for something to be a religion, parts of what you should believe you should believe on faith alone. Since NOTHING in science can be based on faith alone, it is not a religion. Are you seriously having trouble understanding this?
quote:
quote:
What you're saying is false and you know better -- If you don't know better, you should!
What I am saying is true, and I'm confident enough with the notion that it's true to advocate that both my arguments and your arguments be presented to students such that everyone (including students) can decide what to believe. You know that what your saying is false and you know it so much so that you want your views funded with tax dollars and you want my refutations censored because you know that evolution falls apart without tax dollars and it falls apart in the face of scrutiny.
Tax dollars are used to achieve a certain goal. Where tax dollars are used to fund research in the field of biology, it is used to find cures for diseases etc. Since creationism is not capable of actually producing anything useful to a state, why should the state use tax dollars to fund it?
quote:
If you think my position and arguments are bad then you should have no problems with students being presented with both sides, because if my arguments are fallacious, students should have no problems taking your position after being exposed to the pros and cons of both sides.
Why? They have already been shown to be bad. Why should the students do it again? The only reason you would want students to make that kind of decision AFTER it has been made ALREADY by people who KNOW A LOT MORE, is BECAUSE THE STUDENTS KNOW A LOT LESS. What does that say about your confidence in your own position? Not a lot. If you want people who are uneducated (they are still being educated) to make that decision, it kind of sais a lot you know.
quote:
The problem is that you know better. You know your arguments fall apart in the face of scrutiny and students will realize this.
If they don't fall apart when scrutinised by people who understand biology well enough TO APPLY IT IN ACTUAL APPLICATIONS, why would it fall apart when scrutinised by students, who are STILL LEARNING ABOUT IT?
You are not making sense.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
