Raw Story: Four states considering laws that challenge the teaching of evolution

[Predicto]

Oh, yeah, I forgot Focus on the Family was based out of Colorado Springs.

But surely towns like Boulder and Denver balance that out.

Mostly, although they are also balanced out by conservative Mormons in the state.

In any case, it still means that Colorado Springs gets to elect its socially conservative representatives to the state Legislature, where they get to introduce bills like this. The real question is whether the bills pass into law or not. In Colorado, probably not. Oklahoma? Not so sure.

[twa]

I don't get it.

Denier of science...be gone with you
you will get the discussion we want to give you

[pjfootballer]

I don't understand why they can't introduce both sides. I mean what's wrong with a teacher saying:

"Some people believe that the earth started with a big bang and evelution of humans started later on and

Some people believe in creationism in that God created the earth."

Is it because it will offend someone? Wording it correctly is not pushing your beliefs on someone, but introducing two possible explainations.

[No_Pressure]

I had a biology professor who was also a devout Catholic. On the first day of class he said this:

"There is no clash between religion and scientific theory because they're about two different things. Science is about the search for truth and religion is about faith and philosophy. We're not trying to prove the existence of god, and using religion as a basis for scientific discussion is completely unscientific. There is no reason why any man or woman who is deeply religious cannot also be deeply committed to science. For me, I see science as a way to examine how the world of god works. There is no reason why things such as evolution cannot be provided for by creation, and the same goes with the big bang and the creation of the universe, galaxy, solar system, and planet. We have theories on how it happened but not necessarily the philosophic "why" which is the realm of guessing and faith until we have a reliable theory to test which could either prove or disprove the existence of some being which created everything. The typical religious people who are afraid of science are afraid that they're going to be proven wrong, or they take the bible- a work of man and not god, as a literal and accurate description of everything when it isn't. There isn't any shame in being wrong, in fact if god doesn't exist, it becomes even more imperative that we have science and knowledge to keep us going, because there isn't any mystical safety net looking out for us in those circumstances."

It was the start of a great semester. Made me almost wish I majored in biology.

[757SeanTaylor21]

Well how can science and faith go hand in hand when one discredits the other? I don't wanna get too involved since there are other threads about this debate but science can never prove that there is or there isn't a God so when it boils down to it, evolution being taught in schools is one spec of the problem. Evolution is a direct contradiction to what the Word says so its only natural that kids being taught that would steer away.

Ps: science can never prove half the divine things I've encountered..only try to explain what possibly hAppened. Just like evolution.

[Predicto]

Colorado is not a Republican State. Montana is not really either. I believe that currently, they have a Democratic Governor and both Senators from Montana are Democrats. I don't know that you can say this is just GOP.

Regardless, why do you see this, for those of you who might, as a situation in which the GOP is threatened? It would seem to me that those who feel threatened would be those who oppose. So far as I can tell, none of these States are trying to displace the current with the later. It sounds as if they would like both to be taught. That seems like it would create debate and or discussion, which IMO, could only be a good thing. If one is found to be faulty, then the other will surely become more widely accepted.

There was a time in this country when Scientific Theory was not taught and not accepted. Had this country not allowed Scientific theory to be taught, where would it be today? How can you turn around and be against the reverse? Science is the benefactor of allowing for discussion on this issue.

I don't get it.

Because creationism is not a "scientific theory" and does not use scientific principles to reach its conclusions. Teaching creationism as a viable theory in a science class directly undermines students' understanding of how to apply actual scientific principles. It would be like teaching "ain't" as an alternative theory of writing in English class, or "2+2 equals banana" as an alternative method of calculation in a math class, or teaching "pyramid power" as an alternative energy theory in physics class.

Religion is a matter of personal belief, but it isn't science. The fact that there is a blatant religious agenda behind pushing "creation science" is just the icing on the cake.

---------- Post added February-1st-2013 at 01:47 PM ----------

I don't understand why they can't introduce both sides. I mean what's wrong with a teacher saying:

"Some people believe that the earth started with a big bang and evelution of humans started later on and

Some people believe in creationism in that God created the earth."

Is it because it will offend someone? Wording it correctly is not pushing your beliefs on someone, but introducing two possible explainations.

It is because it isn't science. It belongs in philosophy or religion classes.

[Buford]

Can they also force the Colleges in those places to accept in-state students?

[Predicto]

Well how can science and faith go hand in hand when one discredits the other? I don't wanna get too involved since there are other threads about this debate but science can never prove that there is or there isn't a God so when it boils down to it, evolution being taught in schools is one spec of the problem. Evolution is a direct contradiction to what the Word says so its only natural that kids being taught that would steer away.

Ps: science can never prove half the divine things I've encountered..only try to explain what possibly hAppened. Just like evolution.

Science does not try to prove whether or not there is a God.

[DjTj]

Science says there is no such thing of a God.

Science can neither prove nor disprove God.

Op says faith before facts..says when did evolution become a fact?

But certain scientific facts can disprove certain theories. For example, Young Earth creationism is simply inconsistent with scientific facts and evidence. The facts are that we share a DNA structure with almost all other living things on the earth, and the fossil record supports evolution through the centuries.

Regardless, why do you see this, for those of you who might, as a situation in which the GOP is threatened? It would seem to me that those who feel threatened would be those who oppose. So far as I can tell, none of these States are trying to displace the current with the later. It sounds as if they would like both to be taught. That seems like it would create debate and or discussion, which IMO, could only be a good thing. If one is found to be faulty, then the other will surely become more widely accepted.

Evolution has already become widely accepted. Why bother teaching theories that is not supported by the facts, when we have a theory that is supported by the facts?

Should we teach Aristotelian physics when we know that it makes incorrect predictions for how the world works while Newtownian (and relativistic) physics makes correction predictions? Should we teach our kids that Pluto is a planet even though we've now classified it as no longer a planet (since it is smaller than several other asteroids orbiting the sun). Should we teach that the earth is flat and that it is the center of the universe?

There is a limited amount of time to teach science in schools. Shouldn't we spend it teaching kids the theories that are widely accepted, instead of the theories that have been rejected?

---------- Post added February-1st-2013 at 02:56 PM ----------

Well how can science and faith go hand in hand when one discredits the other? I don't wanna get too involved since there are other threads about this debate but science can never prove that there is or there isn't a God so when it boils down to it, evolution being taught in schools is one spec of the problem. Evolution is a direct contradiction to what the Word says so its only natural that kids being taught that would steer away.

How does evolution directly contradict the Bible? Early Jews and Christians did not have a literal understanding of Genesis, and the young earth timeline is relatively new creation.

I don't see a conflict between the Bible and the theory of evolution. Francis Collins has answered this question many times:

Let's talk a little more about the current controversy over evolution. Some Christians will say: "Look, you can't pick and choose the parts of the Holy Scripture that you want to take literally. And so, if you're going to call into question the literalness of some parts, you inherently call into question the literal truth of it all." So how do you, as a scientist and a Christian, respond to that line of reasoning?

It's a good question. And certainly, as a believer, I would be the last one to argue that we can basically dilute and water down the Bible any old way we want to, to make ourselves feel better. That's certainly not a good approach to faith, lest one end up with something that doesn't resemble the great truths of the faith at all. But let's admit that down through the centuries, serious believers - long before there was any On the Origin of Species to threaten their perspective - had a great deal of difficulty understanding what some parts of the Old Testament, particularly Genesis, were really all about. The whole area of hermeneutics - the effort to try to read Scripture in a way that represents, as best one can, what the real meaning was intended to be - requires more sophistication than simply saying the most literal interpretation of every verse has to be correct.

One can look at Genesis 1-2, for instance, and see that there is not just one but two stories of the creation of humanity, and those stories do not quite agree with each other. That alone ought to be reason enough to argue that the literal interpretation of every verse, in isolation from the rest of the Bible, can't really be correct. Otherwise, the Bible is contradicting itself.

I take great comfort looking back through time, particularly at the writings of Augustine, who was obsessed by trying to understand Genesis and wrote no less than five books about it. Augustine ultimately concluded that no human being really was going to be able to interpret the meaning of the creation story. Certainly Augustine would have argued that the current ultra-literal interpretations that lead to young earth creationism are not required by the text, and would have warned that such a rigid interpretation, regardless of what other evidence comes to the scene, could potentially be quite dangerous to the faith, in that it would make believers out to be narrow-minded and potentially subject to ridicule. And in a certain way, that warning has come true with the battles we're having right now.

If Augustine, who was one of the most thoughtful, original thinkers about biblical interpretation that we've ever had, was unable to figure out what Genesis meant 1,600 years ago, why should we today insist that we know what it means, particularly when the interpretation chosen contradicts a wide variety of data that God has given us the chance to discover through science.

http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-...s-Collins.aspx

[Buford]

Can they also force the Colleges in those places to accept in-state students?

[DjTj]

I don't understand why they can't introduce both sides. I mean what's wrong with a teacher saying:

"Some people believe that the earth started with a big bang and evelution of humans started later on and

Some people believe in creationism in that God created the earth."

Is it because it will offend someone? Wording it correctly is not pushing your beliefs on someone, but introducing two possible explainations.

Some people believe the moon landing was staged. Some people believe the government crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center. Some people believe that we are all living in a computer simulation and are enslaved by machines. How many competing theories do we need to present to our children?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Because creationism is not a "scientific theory" and does not use scientific principles to reach its conclusions. Teaching creationism as a viable theory in a science class directly undermines students' understanding of how to apply actual scientific principles. It would be like teaching "ain't" as an alternative theory of writing in English class, or "2+2 equals banana" as an alternative method of calculation in a math class, or teaching "pyramid power" as an alternative energy theory in physics class.

Religion is a matter of personal belief, but it isn't science. The fact that there is a blatant religious agenda behind pushing "creation science" is just the icing on the cake

Does the article stipulate that the bills are advocating teaching creationism in Science Courses? I confess, I did not read that. If that is the case, then I can see why it might be problematic. However, if that is not the case, then I still do not see the issue. There is no law that says you can only teach Scientific Theory.

[greenspandan]

I don't understand why they can't introduce both sides. I mean what's wrong with a teacher saying:

"Some people believe that the earth started with a big bang and evelution of humans started later on and

Some people believe in creationism in that God created the earth."

Is it because it will offend someone? Wording it correctly is not pushing your beliefs on someone, but introducing two possible explainations.

it's not because anyone would be offended.

framing religious belief and scientific conclusions as being in opposition to each other shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is. science is not a body of accepted facts. it is a process of creating a functional description of the world through falsifiable mechanisms of testing, observation, deduction, etc. The reason Creationism (or Intelligent Design if you like) has no place in a science classroom is because it cannot be subjected to any sort of scientific process or inquiry. it's not scientific. it's a belief. there's nothing of value science can say about it, since science is based on the idea of falsifiability. religious theories belongs in a class where metaphysics is an appropriate part of the curriculum.

Bringing up Intelligent Design in a science classroom is like bringing up Hamlet in a course on auto mechanics. It doesn't mean the teacher hates Shakespeare just because they'd rather be talking about differentials and mufflers and timing belts.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Evolution has already become widely accepted. Why bother teaching theories that is not supported by the facts, when we have a theory that is supported by the facts?

Should we teach Aristotelian physics when we know that it makes incorrect predictions for how the world works while Newtownian (and relativistic) physics makes correction predictions? Should we teach our kids that Pluto is a planet even though we've now classified it as no longer a planet (since it is smaller than several other asteroids orbiting the sun). Should we teach that the earth is flat and that it is the center of the universe?

There is a limited amount of time to teach science in schools. Shouldn't we spend it teaching kids the theories that are widely accepted, instead of the theories that have been rejected?

---------- Post added February-1st-2013 at 02:56 PM ----------

How does evolution directly contradict the Bible? Early Jews and Christians did not have a literal understanding of Genesis, and the young earth timeline is relatively new creation.

I don't see a conflict between the Bible and the theory of evolution. Francis Collins has answered this question many times: http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-...s-Collins.aspx

If this approach had been taken when creationism was the accepted theory, and lets not kid ourselves here, it was an accepted theory at one point, then Science or Evolution would have never been taught.

Further, it is not my place to tell parents or anybody else, how to use their time. That has to be evaluated by local society and then moved upon. If a State elects to use their time in this way, that is their decision. It is not for me to tell Colorado or Oklahoma or Montana or wherever else, how they should be spending their tax dollars. They have no business telling me how to do it and I, in turn, should not be making those decisions for them.

[Predicto]

it's not because anyone would be offended.

framing religious belief and scientific conclusions as being in opposition to each other shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is. science is not a body of accepted facts. it is a process of creating a functional description of the world through falsifiable mechanisms of testing, observation, deduction, etc. The reason Creationism (or Intelligent Design if you like) has no place in a science classroom is because it cannot be subjected to any sort of scientific process or inquiry. it's not scientific. it's a belief. there's nothing of value science can say about it, since science is based on the idea of falsifiability. religious theories belongs in a class where metaphysics is an appropriate part of the curriculum.

Bringing up Intelligent Design in a science classroom is like bringing up Hamlet in a course on auto mechanics. It doesn't mean the teacher hates Shakespeare just because they'd rather be talking about differentials and mufflers and timing belts.

You said it better than I did.

The key point is - science class teaches how to apply scientific principles to natural problems. Creationism does not apply those same principles. It applies a supernatural, faith based structure. Teaching it in science class not only wastes time, but it actively undermines a student's understanding of how the scientific method is applied.