How is creationism still taught in American primary school biology classes?

[Leoreth]

Lisa, in this thread we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

 

[GoodGame]

So, questions for you:

1) What is the current situation of teaching intelligent design in America?
2) What would you prefer as the "correct curriculum" in regards to this?

ID isn't taught at all in a public university, as far as I know.

I agree that it is fair for ID to be taught in a private religious schools as one is allowed to teach by their religion, but ID shouldn't be seriously considered to be scientific curriculum at other schools, including public school.
ID is a sociological/philosophical curriculum striving (and failing) for scientific recognition, in my opinion.

I google this respectable position on the topic, which i think explains the issue better than I could: http://www.cornell.edu/president/announcement_2005_1021.cfm

Spoiler :

What about including "I.D." in public policy discourse? After all, it is an important view of the world shared by many Americans. Many religiously-based views enter the public arena and inform our policy debates, and they should. Religiously-derived arguments, in my view, must bear two burdens: they must be clearly identified as such, that is, as propositions of faith; and, in acknowledging that others do not share these propositions of faith, they must be supported by other arguments.

When religion moves beyond the private realm and into the public square, it must do so with great care; otherwise, it creates serious potential dangers to the civic polity and to religion itself. That is why James Madison, the author of the First Amendment, was at such pains throughout his long public life to separate church and state. In 1785, when his fellow Virginian Patrick Henry proposed that a small tax be imposed to support the churches of the Commonwealth for the avowed secular purpose of improving the general morals of society, Madison responded with his "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments," the single most influential document in American history on the subject of the separation of church and state.

Madison maintained (in article #1) that "we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." He allowed (in article #8) that "Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries." But he stressed, "A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it...will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another." And he declared that (in article #5) "... the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world; the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."

In essence, Madison argued that government must be extremely cautious in employing religion as an instrument of civil policy. "I.D." is a religious belief masquerading as a secular idea. It is neither clearly identified as a proposition of faith nor supported by other rationally-based arguments. As we have seen all too often in human history, and as we see in many countries today, religion can be a source of persecution and repression. As Pascal, the great French philosopher, said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." 13

I wouldn't agree that supporting ID is supporting repression, not would I agree that repressing ID is supporting freedom, but I completely agree that ID is not a scientific proposition of any merit, but a proposition designed to redistribute a theological concept (creationism) as an observable hypothesis. It avoids the issue of creationism being a unfalsifiable hypothesis by saying that no natural process exists that could shape nature. It basically says that the eyeball is too complicated for evolution to have put it there, that therefore eyeballs were placed by intelligent beings. That's akin to saying that anything that science is not advanced enough to make a verifiable claim about, must have been placed by gods, aliens, or boogie men which is basically the anti-thesis of science.

"Suppose GOD is launched from Cape Canaveral. How high is the escape velocity, and how much oxygen and hydrogen would GOD need to carry to reach it, assuming they are reacting at 100% efficiency?"

Your science can't understand this. Surely this "GOD" was placed in orbit by some intelligent designer. /jk

 

[Joecoolyo]

Lisa, in this thread we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

Great reference

 

[Mango Elephant]

I said "spouting off nonsense". Talking about a pep rally doesn't really fall under that category, unless you're saying that the students should have been showing off their school spirit by flapping their arms and flying around the school.

But you've denounced (and I quote from what you say later in that post) "going off on a tangent that doesn't concern the curriculum you are supposed to be teaching". You say it's a "big deal", and as my English teacher does not teach about pep rallies, it seems like you should have a problem with her.

The big deal is that you're

2. making your students think that you're an idiot
3. making yourself a far less effective teacher (mostly because of 3)

The second isn't necessarily true, especially if one's students are creationists themselves. Even if everyone in the class was vehemently anti-creationist, there are so many more things that would stake a teacher as an idiot, or not an idiot. I think creationism is really stupid. I would think less of my teacher for being one, but there are things that are a lot more important, and so the creationist bit really gets outshined.

Would you rather an English teacher who is incredibly liberal, is okay with abortion, gay marriage, is atheist, but lacks articulation and can't get students to listen to him or get his students to understand his subject, or

An English teacher who is very conservative, is a creationist, hates abortion, is homophobic, doesn't like Christians, but is very articulate about his subject and is very knowledgeable about his subject?

I'd rather the second, and I hope most people would, too.

The point is that not everyone has the knowledge that we have.Some students (my brother as an example) don't know Shakespeare from Nero.So if you have a teacher that started off on these tangents then some of the students would be dumb enough to "buy it" and then you have those students telling other students...or even if its stays only inside a few students...wait a few years and they will show their ignorance either on the internet or in the workplace...both aren't fun and isn't the point of education...

Preaching creationism is not the same thing as saying "I'm a creationist!" I can tell the dumbest child, "my favorite color is yellow", but they won't go around chanting how great a color yellow is.

Oh, yes it is. Both are claims that not only lack evidence to support them, but are completely contradicted by evidence that exists. The only difference between them is that YEC has a community behind it dedicated to obfuscating these simple facts.

Your third sentence is exactly why your first sentence is false. One has a gathering and the other doesn't. Being with a group of (non-threatening) wackos is obviously a lot more acceptable and understandable than being a standalone wacko.

 

[warpus]

But you've denounced (and I quote from what you say later in that post) "going off on a tangent that doesn't concern the curriculum you are supposed to be teaching". You say it's a "big deal", and as my English teacher does not teach about pep rallies, it seems like you should have a problem with her.

My problem with it hinged on 2 points: 1. That it was off-topic to the subject being taught in the classroom and 2. That it made the teacher look like a fool

Would you rather an English teacher who is incredibly liberal, is okay with abortion, gay marriage, is atheist, but lacks articulation and can't get students to listen to him or get his students to understand his subject, or

An English teacher who is very conservative, is a creationist, hates abortion, is homophobic, doesn't like Christians, but is very articulate about his subject and is very knowledgeable about his subject?

I don't really care about the teacher's political and/or crazy views. Just don't make yourself look crazy in front of your students.. That's really my only point here: That painting yourself as an idiot would mean that your students' faith in you as a teacher would decline and thus your effectiveness as a teacher would be compromised.

If you believe something silly that's relevant to the subject you're teaching? That's a bit different and could be acceptable.. it depends

 

[Mango Elephant]

Your first point isn't exactly true, because as you said, you wouldn't have a problem with a teacher talking about a pep rally, which is off-topic.

I understood your second point, and addressed it. I am as liberal as they come and I wouldn't mind a conservative teacher, and if my teacher were a creationist, I would think it stupid of them but I certainly wouldn't disregard what they say only for that reason. Like I said, articulation is more important that politics.

 

[warpus]

Your first point isn't exactly true, because as you said, you wouldn't have a problem with a teacher talking about a pep rally, which is off-topic.

I understood your second point, and addressed it. I am as liberal as they come and I wouldn't mind a conservative teacher, and if my teacher were a creationist, I would think it stupid of them but I certainly wouldn't disregard what they say only for that reason. Like I said, articulation is more important that politics.

It seems rather tedious to explain again, but.. either one of the points by themselves can be alright. Put together is what I'm against.

It's not a question of politics; has nothing to do with it really.

There's no reason to share your wacky theories about the moon landings in Chemistry class, for example. You think they were faked? That's fine, but there's no reason to tell your chemistry class. It will make you less effective as a teacher. Why? Because students can be quite intelligent and some will leave the class thinking you're an idiot. Not only that, some students will wonder why you said what you said in the first place - do you have an agenda? Are you going to be going on silly tangents again? Do you know what the hell you are doing?