Creationism again stalks the classroom

[Buster's Uncle]

Creationism again stalks the classroom
By Michael Hiltzik  January 21, 2014, 4:47 p.m.



Texas Gov. Rick Perry: His state's kids won't be competing with your kids. (Michael Justus/AP / January 21, 2014)



In a sane world, the ringing denunciation of intelligent design and creationist "science" delivered by a federal judge in 2005 would have eradicated these concepts from the schoolroom.

District Judge John E. Jones III of Harrisburg, Pa., ruled then that "intelligent design" is not science, "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," and therefore is unconstitutional as a subject to be taught in a public school.

Yet the creationists keep at it. A recent report, written for Slate.com by the indefatigable and implausibly youthful Zack Kopplin, involves a network of charter schools with an enrollment of 17,000 students in Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana and an incredible haul of $82.6 million a year in state, local and federal funds.

As Kopplin reports, the biology workbook assigned to students in the schools operated by Responsive Education Solutions is shot through with creationist propaganda. Among its assertions: "Evolution — which is, after all, an unproved theory — has been treated as fact. It has reached the level of dogma, widely accepted, but unproven and changing school of thought that is treated as though it were fact."

Its section on "The Origin of Life" asserts: "There are only two ways that life could have begun: "1 - Spontaneous generation - random chemical processes formed the first cell. 2 - Supernatural intervention created the first cell."

As for the first living cell, the text blithers on, scientists "can only hypothesize what it might have been like." Thus it craftily attempts to undermine the scientific method. On the other hand, it says, "for many, supernatural creation (either by God or some other supernatural power) of the first cell is a more plausible explanation."

One way to react to a school system that places "supernatural intervention" on the same scientific plane as a natural process, however dopily described, is with relief that these 17,000 children won't be equipped to compete in the real world with our kids. Life in modern America is hard enough, so there's something Darwinian indeed about saddling all those kids with the burden of a 16th-century education.

Another way is to express dismay that taxpayer funds, including money paid by federal taxpayers, is going to this sort of effort.

In a reply to the Slate article posted in the Arkansas Times, Responsive Education Chief Executive Chuck Cook maintained that "the curriculum was simply providing examples of competing theories on the origin of life." He states, "Our science curriculum does examine all sides of the scientific evidence relating to the theory of evolution — both for and against — just as we are required to do by the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Biology."

Jones took the measure of this "we're only teaching both sides" attack on evolution. In the case before him, a disclaimer read to school pupils in Dover, Pa., at the outset of their study of evolution, "while encouraging students to keep an open mind and explore alternatives to evolution ... offers no scientific alternative; instead, the only alternative offered is an inherently religious one."

Same here: The choice offered the schools' students is between evolution, which is chock full of uncertainties according to the text, or the supernatural.

Textbook publishers and responsible parents have finally started pushing back against Texas textbook standards, which because of the state's economic heft threatened to spread unscientific pap throughout the biology curricula of public schools nationwide.

Just last November, the Texas Board of Education approved high school texts from 14 publishers that had refused to water down their treatment of evolution. "None of those textbooks call into question the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution and climate change science," the watchdog group Texas Freedom Network reported.

But as the charter school case shows, creationism still has a way of sneaking in the back door. It's still not safe for parents to let down their guard. And it's high time that federal education officials took a closer look at what's being done with our money.


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-creationism-20140121,0,7617205.story#ixzz2r9sUGHA6

[Geo]

 

[Buster's Uncle]

I had to go tell Mylochka about that caption.

[Geo]

I had to go tell Mylochka about that caption.

That took you 3 hours? (the time between yout two posts in this thread)

[gwillybj]

Believe it or not, some creationists play 4x games and read the forums.

[Mart]

One of the thing, that is very interesting to me, is that according to Bible, people were living around 900 years before the flood. And when I read or listen to the reasoning, it all make sense. The thing is, that we do not really know what the Biblical Deluge was. Creationists have a theory and it is very realistic. And I will tell one more thing. In my opinion, we approach technological development when our civilization could reverse the flood. And then, it might be possible, that human life span would return to 900 years. Sounds impossible? Not for me anymore.

[Geo]

One of the thing, that is very interesting to me, is that according to Bible, people were living around 900 years before the flood. And when I read or listen to the reasoning, it all make sense. The thing is, that we do not really know what the Biblical Deluge was. Creationists have a theory and it is very realistic. And I will tell one more thing. In my opinion, we approach technological development when our civilization could reverse the flood. And then, it might be possible, that human life span would return to 900 years. Sounds impossible? Not for me anymore.

My take is the floodgates won't be able to coop with humans living for 9 centuries.

Believe it or not, some creationists play 4x games and read the forums.

Well, I guess they view the news, discovery channel, and other results of scientific wonders as well.

[Buster's Uncle]

I had to go tell Mylochka about that caption.

That took you 3 hours? (the time between yout two posts in this thread)

No, I ran and told her before I finished posting the article.

[gwillybj]

Believe it or not, some creationists play 4x games and read the forums.

Well, I guess they view the news, discovery channel, and other results of scientific wonders as well.

That statment is correct. Creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. I thoroughly enjoy viewing and reading scientific material and seeing how true are the words of Psalm 19:1 (The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and the work of his hands the expanse is telling.) and 139:14 (I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware.).

[Buster's Uncle]

Would you agree, then, that a matter of religious faith has no place being taught in a classroom run by the government?

[gwillybj]

Would you agree, then, that a matter of religious faith has no place being taught in a classroom run by the government?

Yes, I do agree with that as stated.
Also the reverse: The government has no place dictating the curriculum in a classroom that receives no government funding.

[Buster's Uncle]

The government has a real problem with understanding that.

[Yitzi]

Believe it or not, some creationists play 4x games and read the forums.

Creationism is ok; I used to be a creationist, until I encountered what I feel to be an adequate way to reconcile the Bible with the theory of evolution.  But pretending that it's science is not ok.

Would you agree, then, that a matter of religious faith has no place being taught in a classroom run by the government?

Yes, I do agree with that as stated.
Also the reverse: The government has no place dictating the curriculum in a classroom that receives no government funding.

Agreed with both, and I'd add a third part: If there is the demand for it, there should be schools with classes that teach religious faith (and are not funded by the government) and classes that are funded by the government (and teach nonreligious subjects.)  After all, why should taxpayers who need to give their kids a religious education be unable to benefit from school taxes on the nonreligious subjects?

[Geo]

Agreed with both, and I'd add a third part: If there is the demand for it, there should be schools with classes that teach religious faith (and are not funded by the government) and classes that are funded by the government (and teach nonreligious subjects.)  After all, why should taxpayers who need to give their kids a religious education be unable to benefit from school taxes on the nonreligious subjects?

The problem may be that the religiously minded parents don't really want their children to hear 'scientific' lectures?

[Yitzi]

Agreed with both, and I'd add a third part: If there is the demand for it, there should be schools with classes that teach religious faith (and are not funded by the government) and classes that are funded by the government (and teach nonreligious subjects.)  After all, why should taxpayers who need to give their kids a religious education be unable to benefit from school taxes on the nonreligious subjects?

The problem may be that the religiously minded parents don't really want their children to hear 'scientific' lectures?

In some cases, that may be true, but I'm speaking of those where it isn't (which includes my own community): Parents who want their kids to learn real science, but also want their kids to learn the religion.