How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II

[Spock]

Again, I agree, but Constitutional issues are Federal issues. There is some room at the state level for modifications.

This just in:
Groups Balk at Teaching Intelligent Design
October 29, 2005 1:06 AM EDT
TOPEKA, Kan. - Two national groups say the state can't use their copyrighted material in proposed science standards that critics contend promote creationism.

The National Academy of Sciences and National Science Teachers Association called the proposed standards misleading and objected to language - sought by intelligent-design advocates - suggesting some evolutionary theory isn't solid.

"To say that evolution is sort of on the ropes is unfair to the students of Kansas," said Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the teachers' association.

The State Board of Education is set to vote Nov. 8 on whether to adopt the new standards, which must be updated periodically under Kansas law. Current standards treat evolution as a well-established theory that is crucial to understanding science.

Six of the board's 10 members have shown support for the proposed standards, saying they want to give students a more balanced view of evolution.

The standards are used to develop student achievement tests but don't mandate how science is taught.

[Insidious Rex]

Kansas again... Is there something in the water there?

[Spock]

...ah, a smile from a post by IR is a rare and wonderful thing.

[Count Comfect]

Spock - constitutional issues apply to the states as well (and have been taken to apply to local government too), from the 14th Amendment "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive a person of life, liberty or propery, without due process of the law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

And one of those privileges and immunities is that of not having any church established (from Amendment 1)

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Spock - constitutional issues apply to the states as well (and have been taken to apply to local government too), from the 14th Amendment "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive a person of life, liberty or propery, without due process of the law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

And one of those privileges and immunities is that of not having any church established (from Amendment 1)

Well, I understand completely what you have quoted but fail to see how that applies. There are no depravations nor establishment in this.

[Count Comfect]

There is an establishment. As I've been pointing out, government employees presenting one religious viewpoint (creationism) is an establishment, constitutionally speaking.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

There is an establishment. As I've been pointing out, government employees presenting one religious viewpoint (creationism) is an establishment, constitutionally speaking.

if teaching someone a teaching a theory is an "establishment" where does that leave evolution all these years.... quite an established religion huh

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

There is an establishment. As I've been pointing out, government employees presenting one religious viewpoint (creationism) is an establishment, constitutionally speaking.

From the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[

First, what is done is Kansas, as I understand it, is not to teach one theory as fact, but to present both side by side. So far as I know, the theory of the evolution is the only theory related to such matters that is taught as dogmatic truth in state-sponsored schools.

Second, in relation to the text above, so far as I know the Kansas case does not involve Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion.

[Spock]

YES!!! Finally somebody gets it.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

First, what is done is Kansas, as I understand it, is not to teach one theory as fact, but to present both side by side. So far as I know, the theory of the evolution is the only theory related to such matters that is taught as dogmatic truth in state-sponsored schools.

but it implies, if you teach it in science class, that creationism is a scientific theory, which it is not

it would be like teaching about Tolkien's world in a history class and claiming that it's a possible alternate history

[Rían]

Gwai?!

*falls over in a faint*

How ya doing?!

Originally Posted by count

There is an establishment. As I've been pointing out, government employees presenting one religious viewpoint (creationism) is an establishment, constitutionally speaking.

Y'know, Count, I just read this and thought of something - teachers are not FEDERAL government employees, nor are they members of Congress passing laws. See, to me, a big part of this falls into the category of STATE rights and preferences.

[Count Comfect]

That's why I quoted the Fourteenth Amendment
Guys, I'm quite capable of reading. The First Amendment does indeed refer to Congress. However, it is by now an established Supreme Court precedent that one of the major effects of the Fourteenth Amendment (indeed, THE major effect) is that it applies formerly federal restrictions to the states. Establishment of religion is one of those. That is why, for instance, states can no longer take your land without due process or just compensation - which they could before the Fourteenth Amendment. Or why state and local officials have to give Miranda warnings - which they wouldn't have, before the Fourteenth Amendment.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but it implies, if you teach it in science class, that creationism is a scientific theory, which it is not

it would be like teaching about Tolkien's world in a history class and claiming that it's a possible alternate history

I love that comparison!! Good one.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

but it implies, if you teach it in science class, that creationism is a scientific theory, which it is not

it would be like teaching about Tolkien's world in a history class and claiming that it's a possible alternate history

what you refuse to accept is that creation and ID are no more scientific or UNscientific than evolution. they both have A LOT of variables and unknowables,and, unobservable aspects that all of you say ARE scientific.

but don't get discouraged or nothing, keep on having an opinion and everything.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

That is why, for instance, states can no longer take your land without due process or just compensation - which they could before the Fourteenth Amendment. Or why state and local officials have to give Miranda warnings - which they wouldn't have, before the Fourteenth Amendment.

1. Just recently there was a story about states taking property without just compensation. I'll try to find it.

2. Miranda was decided by court decision based upon the 14th amendment. It didn't come into existence with the passage of the 14th amendment as your post implies.

[Count Comfect]

rohirrim - you continually assert "that creation and ID are no more scientific or UNscientific than evolution" yet you do not provide evidence of how this is true - by contrast, there are many many posts in this thread that provide examples of how evolution is scientific in specific ways that ID and especially creation are not.

Spock - Miranda rights came into existence as soon as the 14th amendment was ratified. HOWEVER, the court did not hear a case on the topic until Miranda v. Arizona, as you correctly point out, and therefore the rights were not enforced until then. However, as Miranda was decided entirely on the basis of 14th amendment application to the states, the right, however unenforced, came into being with the 14th amendment.

The court does not make proactive law. It can only react, by ruling on a case brought to trial and appealed. That is why Miranda rights were not acknowledged until Miranda v. Arizona was decided - no case of that nature had come to the court before. The rights come into being when the law the case is decided on comes into being - but are not necessarily enforced until the court case is decided, which comes later. In the case of creation-science, the 14th amendment, and the 1st amendment, there are already court case precedents, however, so I can safely say the rights exist.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

That's why I quoted the Fourteenth Amendment
Guys, I'm quite capable of reading. The First Amendment does indeed refer to Congress. However, it is by now an established Supreme Court precedent that one of the major effects of the Fourteenth Amendment (indeed, THE major effect) is that it applies formerly federal restrictions to the states. Establishment of religion is one of those. That is why, for instance, states can no longer take your land without due process or just compensation - which they could before the Fourteenth Amendment. Or why state and local officials have to give Miranda warnings - which they wouldn't have, before the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sorry, Count, I haven't been keeping up on this thread - the third time has just been too much for me

But I still think that too much federal control is just ... scary ...

And I've listed scientific aspects of both creationism and ID before. IMO I think there ARE valid scientific aspects of both. And in the opinion of a growing group of people, including scientists, too. And darn it, I'm tired of being ridiculed esp. by the people who tend to go on about how a majority shouldn't override a minority - oh, sorry, only on THEIR minority positions

[Count Comfect]

I agree that too much federal control can be scary. However, that doesn't change the current state of the nation's laws. They can be scary (check out what the CIA used to be able to do before the mid-1990s), but they are there.

Yes, Rian, you have presented some evidence (most of which I feel has been refuted, but if you don't, that is, regardless of my agreement, your right) about the scientific aspects of those theories. I do not feel, however, that rohirrim has, which is why I was asking rohirrim. I, of course, remain convinced that those are not scientific, for the same reasons are have been expounded in this thread multiple times - primarily their lack of any testable assertions whatsoever that are not merely "evolution won't work." Evolution may not be 100% testable (I'm not enough of a fool to say that you can test directly what happened a couple billion years ago) but it Does make testable assertions (such as those about DNA that IR has posted about, or the experiments with early-earth atmospheres and amino acids that I posted about way upthread) and those assertions have this tendency of proving to be correct - and, amazingly enough, when they aren't, we change the theory. That's where punctuated equilibria came in, for instance.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Spock - Miranda rights...... as you correctly point out,

That really says all there is to say on that subject.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

so I can safely say the rights exist.

please don't give a sermon to the choir, I'm more aware than you percieve

Oh, goody, we agree.

As for the rest, as Tessar would say, OFF TOPIC

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

what you refuse to accept is that creation and ID are no more scientific or UNscientific than evolution. they both have A LOT of variables and unknowables,and, unobservable aspects that all of you say ARE scientific.

i refuse to accept it because creationism and ID are UNscientific... variables and unknowables are fine in scientific theories, but you can not base a scientific theory on a completely fabricated cause (i.e. a creator)

the theory of evolution is based on things we know exist... time and change from generation to generation... what scientists imply may be wrong, but it is scientific to imply from causes we know exist

it is not scientific to imply from causes we have absolutely no way of knowing exist

remember, science is about how you approach a theory, not whether it is right or wrong

and to stay "on topic"

if something is not science it is wrong, and arguably unlawful, to teach it in "science" class in a public institution... this is why creationism was shot down and they tried to change tactics via ID... but changing "god" to "an intelligent designer" does not change the fundamental problem with the approach

please remember, i am not arguing against religion being taught... i think it is essential for our children to learn about all the major religions in the world, especially in light of current events... i just don't want it to be taught as something it is not... this does more harm than good to both the believers and the non-believers