How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Jonathon

A Chinese guy put together some bones and feathers because he knew he'd be paid well by paleontologists for his "fossil". It was a fraud and no evolutionist actually believes this guy's "dino bird" have really existed.

This is an interesting analogy
The bible is just a mix of different books. Take the new testament for instance. Initially there were many texts about Jesus's life. A group of Christians later decided which texts were to be included in the bible and which were to be thrown out. What if some of these texts were "dino bones" and some were "feathers"? . Just something to tickle your mind

I think if you were a woman and a Christian, you would be glad that a group of knowledgeable Christian leaders had taken care which books were to be accepted and which weren't. Otherwise you might have to believe what Jesus said in the Gospel of Thomas, that women would have to be transformed into men before they could enter heaven .

There are definitely reasons for those Christian leaders choosing those books that they did and declaring them authoritative. If you have specific problems with the process they used, please bring them up in another thread. It's off-topic (shrugs).

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think it was IRex who said something like it seems like the genetic issues are the strongest support of creationism

i said genetics support creationism? was i drunk at the time?

Mutations are mostly neutral, or if not neutral, the vast majority are harmful.

oh no not this old argument again. havent we been over the "harmful mutations" thing three or four times by now? your great evindence for creationism fails to take into account that environments constantly change and thats why genetic mutations can at any given time be the right mechanism for evolution. not for staying the same for ever.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

i said genetics support creationism? was i drunk at the time?

No, I meant that your summary of what I thought was that the area of genetics is the strongest support of creationism.

oh no not this old argument again. havent we been over the "harmful mutations" thing three or four times by now? your great evindence for creationism fails to take into account that environments constantly change and thats why genetic mutations can at any given time be the right mechanism for evolution. not for staying the same for ever.

No, it doesn't fail to account for changing environment. The environment can change, and those who survive better pass on their particular set of genes. This blends in just fine with creationism. But mutations that we classify as harmful are generally harmful no matter what the environment is. I have a niece who died from a mutation, and it didn't matter WHAT the environment was. Evolution requires beneficial mutations, and personally, I don't see evidence of that happening in a manner sufficient to support the theory. Instead, I see the opposite - that mutations tend to cancel out by the ingenious design of getting genes from both parents, and the vast majority of mutations are neutral, and those that aren't neutral are harmful, and even those that are harmful tend to get cancelled out thru the adding of the other parent's genetic material. And IMO, all of that supports creationism - that living beings produce offspring after their own kind, and any variation is already present in the genetic material (as opposed to generated by beneficial mutation) and is selected for thru environmental pressures.

[Sister Golden Hair]

BUMP!

Found this article on AOL news and thought I would post it.


Teacher Told to Stop Teaching Creationism
By BOB LOWRY, AP

ROANOKE, Va. (June 10) - For 15 years, in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling, Larry Booher taught creationism in his high school biology class. He even compiled a textbook of sorts and passed out copies in three-ring binders.
The school superintendent didn't know what was going on. Neither did the school board president. Then, they got an anonymous tip.

Booher has agreed to revise his lesson plan, though he maintained that he handed out the book, titled "Creation Battles Evolution," to his Biology 2 students only as a voluntary, extra-credit option.

"He told the students, 'You may read this. You don't have to. It has some Bible references in it,"' said Alan Lee, superintendent of Washington County schools. "This teacher felt like he wasn't doing anything wrong."

The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism, the belief that God created the universe as explained in the Bible, is a religious belief - not science - and may not be taught in public schools along with evolution.

"Creationism is not biology and has no place in a biology class," said Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. "What makes it wrong is not the theory of creationism, but the teaching of creationism as part of a science class."

Lee said Booher's compilation drew on sources ranging from the Internet to scholarly papers and quotations from scientists and scholars critical of evolution or evidence supporting it.

Lee said the material was never presented to the school board or to his office for approval. He declined to say what punishment - if any - Booher would face, calling it a personnel matter.

Elizabeth Lowe, chairwoman of the school board, said she had heard "not a word" about Booher's book in her 11 years in office.

Lee described Booher, 48, as "one of the finest science teachers I've ever been around" and said Booher would return to the classroom in the fall since he agreed to stop distributing the creationism materials.

"He must teach evolution exclusively - observable scientific fact, not beliefs or religion," Lee said. "I fully believe he will comply. He just stepped over the line."

Calls to Booher's home were met with hang-ups Thursday. He told The Roanoke Times he regretted handing out the material.

"I can't change my classroom into a Sunday school class," he told the newspaper. "It's not like I tried to make it a secret. If administrators knew, fine. If they didn't, I didn't make an issue of it."

Booher's source book, which he distributed at his own expense to classes ranging from 25 to 40 students, included nine chapters with titles such as "In the beginning" and "Evidence for a young Earth."

As news of Booher's source book surfaced this week, Lee said he has had no complaints from parents.

"I'm not surprised," he said. "People in this area tend to be very religious. They likely didn't see it as anything that wasn't appropriate."


06/10/05 09:49 EDT

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

BUMP!

Found this article on AOL news and thought I would post it.


Teacher Told to Stop Teaching Creationism
By BOB LOWRY, AP

ROANOKE, Va. (June 10) - For 15 years, in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling, Larry Booher taught creationism in his high school biology class. He even compiled a textbook of sorts and passed out copies in three-ring binders.
The school superintendent didn't know what was going on. Neither did the school board president. Then, they got an anonymous tip.

Booher has agreed to revise his lesson plan, though he maintained that he handed out the book, titled "Creation Battles Evolution," to his Biology 2 students only as a voluntary, extra-credit option.

"He told the students, 'You may read this. You don't have to. It has some Bible references in it,"' said Alan Lee, superintendent of Washington County schools. "This teacher felt like he wasn't doing anything wrong."

The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism, the belief that God created the universe as explained in the Bible, is a religious belief - not science - and may not be taught in public schools along with evolution.

"Creationism is not biology and has no place in a biology class," said Kent Willis, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia. "What makes it wrong is not the theory of creationism, but the teaching of creationism as part of a science class."

Lee said Booher's compilation drew on sources ranging from the Internet to scholarly papers and quotations from scientists and scholars critical of evolution or evidence supporting it.

Lee said the material was never presented to the school board or to his office for approval. He declined to say what punishment - if any - Booher would face, calling it a personnel matter.

Elizabeth Lowe, chairwoman of the school board, said she had heard "not a word" about Booher's book in her 11 years in office.

Lee described Booher, 48, as "one of the finest science teachers I've ever been around" and said Booher would return to the classroom in the fall since he agreed to stop distributing the creationism materials.

"He must teach evolution exclusively - observable scientific fact, not beliefs or religion," Lee said. "I fully believe he will comply. He just stepped over the line."

Calls to Booher's home were met with hang-ups Thursday. He told The Roanoke Times he regretted handing out the material.

"I can't change my classroom into a Sunday school class," he told the newspaper. "It's not like I tried to make it a secret. If administrators knew, fine. If they didn't, I didn't make an issue of it."

Booher's source book, which he distributed at his own expense to classes ranging from 25 to 40 students, included nine chapters with titles such as "In the beginning" and "Evidence for a young Earth."

As news of Booher's source book surfaced this week, Lee said he has had no complaints from parents.

"I'm not surprised," he said. "People in this area tend to be very religious. They likely didn't see it as anything that wasn't appropriate."


06/10/05 09:49 EDT

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press

We need an all cristain nation...

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by me9996

We need an all cristain nation...

what a peculiar thing to say

do you mean you would be happy to expel from america anyone that was not a WASP?

that is extremely narrow-minded, and a view I would only expect a few hundred years ago, especially in the so-called land of the free

[Rían]

Hmm, I"ll have to look up that ruling ...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

ROANOKE, Va. (June 10) - For 15 years, in defiance of a Supreme Court ruling, Larry Booher taught creationism in his high school biology class. He even compiled a textbook of sorts and passed out copies in three-ring binders. [...] Booher's source book, which he distributed at his own expense to classes ranging from 25 to 40 students, included nine chapters with titles such as "In the beginning" and "Evidence for a young Earth." [...] As news of Booher's source book surfaced this week, Lee said he has had no complaints from parents.

Interestingly that he went along with it for 15 years and never had a complaint about it. Must have been a really religious area...

Although it's nice he distributed the books on his own expense and not school money.

[Count Comfect]

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/edwards.html

Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987. It actually explicitly does NOT prevent a teacher from teaching creation science. Rather, it struck down a law that required that either BOTH creationism and evolution be taught, or NEITHER. The ruling was that the law was enacted to "no secular purpose" because teachers could already choose to teach creation science if they felt it had scientific merit. So this guy teaching it would be a whole new case, probably depending mostly on whether he's photocopying the Bible or photocopying actual scientific evidence. Interesting to see what happens.

[me9996]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

what a peculiar thing to say

do you mean you would be happy to expel from america anyone that was not a WASP?

that is extremely narrow-minded, and a view I would only expect a few hundred years ago, especially in the so-called land of the free

No I meen convert evryone or a contry in another place entirely composed of cristains, with cristain law.

[HOBBIT]

*gouges out own eyeballs*

[Fat middle]

Is the Supreme Court a court for all states or is it just the supreme court of that state? Sorry for my ignorance, but I find it contradictory with something I read in a Spanish newspaper a couple of weeks ago.

It said that in one state (I believe it was NY) it was being debated to allow teaching Intelligent Design along with Evolutionism at schools. Further on it said that in a number of states teaching Creationism was also allowed.

Is this possible? I mean, it's difficult to understand that it's allowed if the Supreme Court has ruled against it...

[HOBBIT]

Each state has a supreme court, then there is a supreme court for the United States in Wshington D.C.

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

Each state has a supreme court, then there is a supreme court for the United States in Wshington D.C.

Thanks I suppose then that the Supreme Court mentioned by SGH was the Supreme Court of that state.

Another question regarding to that article: it seems that in the USA the Supreme Coorts are who determine what is science and what is not science:

The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that creationism, the belief that God created the universe as explained in the Bible, is a religious belief - not science - and may not be taught in public schools along with evolution.

Well, perhaps this should go in the "Truth" thread, but it's curious that the status of law is above the status of science because it makes science more dependant on political issues than on facts and objetive truth.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by me9996

No I meen convert evryone or a contry in another place entirely composed of cristains, with cristain law.

well that is even worse, not just forcing them to leave, but forcing them to stay and change their religious beliefs to suit your own, you know the germans, circa 1933-1945, began to do that type of thing...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...w/edwards.html

Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987. It actually explicitly does NOT prevent a teacher from teaching creation science. Rather, it struck down a law that required that either BOTH creationism and evolution be taught, or NEITHER. The ruling was that the law was enacted to "no secular purpose" because teachers could already choose to teach creation science if they felt it had scientific merit. So this guy teaching it would be a whole new case, probably depending mostly on whether he's photocopying the Bible or photocopying actual scientific evidence. Interesting to see what happens.

Thank you, Count! That's a HUGE difference from what the article said!

[Butterbeer]

well surely in a free society if you make laws on this, it should be both or none: let people make up their own minds...

(this does of course work on the assumption that the society in question IS free in any worthwhile sense)


when lawyers define science its not a good thing, same with morality and also ... immortal one (me9996 - hey how you doing btw?) i do tend to agree with LCOU : is it not a true chistian pre-cept to value others and respect beleifs? His analogy to the Nazis does seem fair, at least in theory... and in context between beleifs and their imposed usage ...

I don't think it is ever intended as a restrictive controlled enviroment that you beleive in the soul or in god? Is this not the, in real terms, defining attribute to (among others) chrisitanity? It is the true belief not the state or otherwise asserted EDICT that counts.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

well that is even worse, not just forcing them to leave, but forcing them to stay and change their religious beliefs to suit your own, you know the germans, circa 1933-1945, began to do that type of thing...

And theres this Bin Laden guy whos essentially doing the same thing as well. By any means necessary... in the name of the true god...

[Rían]

Is me9996 saying that a country should be made up of Christians and have Christian laws? If so, I don't see how that's possible You can't force beliefs... Even if you start with all Christians, they'll have kids, and the kids will choose their own ways as they grow up.

And Beery - IMO, it's definintely a true Christian precept to value others, but if by "respect beliefs" you mean saying something like "oh, that could be true for you that God doesn't exist and true for me that God does exist", then I don't see that as a precept.

[Butterbeer]

who's 'beery'?

if you are refeering to me - then no i didn't mean that - in fact you pretty much agree with me if i understood it correctly

my perspective is that TRUE beleif should be respected always - forcing belief or constraining freedom to beleive or nominal uinthinking lip-service to beleif is counter-productive and simply wrong IMHO


i do not in any way curtail or not wish people to have freedom not to beleive either in any religion or to beleive but not necessarily adhere to any given rigid human-led religions (in terms of additional text and religious moral societal add-ons) with their many faults ( and virtues too let me add) - to me the true faith of the key precepts of religion make much more spiritual sense than ALL the dogma of most organised religion in terms of every wriiten or unwritten law - etc etc BUT i never intended thatstaement to be interpreted as a precept : and in that sense i think you are right


just to be clear! ( i hope - i mayhave to read that back again as i was typing so fast )

but i do not know who you were replying to: if it was me : why do you call me 'beery'?

concerned and confused, BB