Are the creationists going to win?

[David Gould]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/index.html

I know this is only one tiny district in the whole of the United States. I know that the Supreme Court strikes these things down now and then, and I know that things change as new commissioners come into these areas. But is science starting to lose the battle against having creationism taught in science classes?

 

[Lioness816]

Is the idea of science not to come to the truth of a matter? Why should it be win or lose?

 

[Event Horizon]

I know this is only one tiny district in the whole of the United States. I know that the Supreme Court strikes these things down now and then, and I know that things change as new commissioners come into these areas. But is science starting to lose the battle against having creationism taught in science classes?

I'm sure the lawyers will step in and defend science. If not, then education will reach a new low there and there will be another wave of creationists who know nothing of evolution but try to prove it false.

 

[Tomk80]

It wouldn't surprise if it would, unfortunately. The point is that creationists are much more organized in their attacks. Scientists are often not politcally inclined, and just want to do their research without bothering with some 'theories' which aren't even under discussion in scientific circles. It becomes more and more important to rally the scientists to actually educate the public.

 

[David Gould]

Is the idea of science not to come to the truth of a matter? Why should it be win or lose?

Science comes to the best available explanation - it has nothing to do with 'truth', whatever that is - and then that best available explanation is taught to students, and evolution is the best available explanation for what we see.

Students do not get taught competing explanations and then decide which is true - they do not have the knowledge and skills required to do this. That is why they are being educated, after all.

The battle over having creationism in schools is a political fight, not a scientific one.

 

[Deano23768]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/11/06/evolution.schools.ap/index.html

I know this is only one tiny district in the whole of the United States. I know that the Supreme Court strikes these things down now and then, and I know that things change as new commissioners come into these areas. But is science starting to lose the battle against having creationism taught in science classes?

yeahhhhhhhhhh Wisconsan - Lets hope every other district opens the doors to creationism.

 

[Deano23768]

Science comes to the best available explanation - it has nothing to do with 'truth', whatever that is - and then that best available explanation is taught to students, and evolution is the best available explanation for what we see.

Students do not get taught competing explanations and then decide which is true - they do not have the knowledge and skills required to do this. That is why they are being educated, after all.

The battle over having creationism in schools is a political fight, not a scientific one.

Educated? or indoctrinated?

 

[David Gould]

Educated? or indoctrinated?

No, we let the churches handle the indoctrination.

 

[Event Horizon]

yeahhhhhhhhhh Wisconsan - Lets hope every other district opens the doors to creationism.

Many districts and states have opened and closed their doors before. This is nothing new and the doors in that district will close soon. People won't stand by and watch the education of children be dictated by yec theology that has been refuted so long ago. Schools have only gotten more secular as time goes by and this type of thing won't happen many more times.

 

[And-U-Say]

It becomes more and more important to rally the scientists to actually educate the public.

I wish it were about science and education. Its not, its about politics, control, and willful ignorance. You can't educate a public that does not want to be educated.

If they win, ignorance will only be a tiny part of the bigger problem. The creationists have shown us a peak into the world they plan to unleash if given the chance. Bigotry, destruction of knowledge and art, supression, inquisitions, and a new holocaust. If we lose, we lose big time.

 

[David Gould]

Many districts and states have opened and closed their doors before. This is nothing new and the doors in that district will close soon. People won't stand by and watch the education of children be dictated by yec theology that has been refuted so long ago. Schools have only gotten more secular as time goes by and this type of thing won't happen many more times.

Are you sure? It seems to me that the creationist movement at grass roots level is way more powerful than science is there. Yes, the science has huge protections at law. But the continual challenge to these protections have the potential to expose weaknesses in the law that can then be exploited to force creationism into schools. This is especially true when it is the local people who vote in the education commissioners, and the education commissioners who set curriculum. It is politics at work here, not science, and that is the problem.

I honestly hope you are correct, though.

 

[Lioness816]

Science comes to the best available explanation - it has nothing to do with 'truth', whatever that is - and then that best available explanation is taught to students, and evolution is the best available explanation for what we see.

Students do not get taught competing explanations and then decide which is true - they do not have the knowledge and skills required to do this. That is why they are being educated, after all.

The battle over having creationism in schools is a political fight, not a scientific one.

If science is showing inaccurate results of science, should that be in the class?
Or, let me try to reword that... If there are two scientists and one comes to one "best explanation" and another comes to another "best explanation" which should be taught?

 

[David Gould]

If science is showing inaccurate results of science, should that be in the class?

Of course. But creationists cannot demonstrate any, so no problem there.

Or, let me try to reword that... If there are two scientists and one comes to one "best explanation" and another comes to another "best explanation" which should be taught?

If 99.999 per cent of biologists say that evolution is the best explanation, should we teach the 397 crackpot theories of the remaining .001 per cent?

 

[Arikay]

There is a chance they could win, as many school board members aren't versed in science or in evolution, and are often more worried about politics than getting our children better educations.

I doubt the win would be for long. If creationists do win, there will be a backlash from the educated when many realize they need to do more things political.

I find all of it very sad, as these people who are supposed to be giving our kids good educations show they should go back to high school and retake science classes before they start screwing with them.

 

[Arikay]

I fully support the teaching of mutliple valid theories on one topic.
since creationism is Not a valid theory and has been disproven, and since none of their evidence against evolution stands up to scrutiny, to teach creationism as a true and valid theory, or to teach their evidence against evolution as true and valid is to LIE to our students.

 

[Event Horizon]

Are you sure? It seems to me that the creationist movement at grass roots level is way more powerful than science is there. Yes, the science has huge protections at law. But the continual challenge to these protections have the potential to expose weaknesses in the law that can then be exploited to force creationism into schools. This is especially true when it is the local people who vote in the education commissioners, and the education commissioners who set curriculum. It is politics at work here, not science, and that is the problem.

I honestly hope you are correct, though.

The belief that the earth is 6k is decreasing as education and technology spread throughout the planet. Creationism may still be big in some places now but it is only a matter of time. For it to actually die out, however, will take quite a while. I mean, there are still geocentrists around.

 

[David Gould]

The belief that the earth is 6k is decreasing as education and technology spread throughout the planet. Creationism may still be big in some places now but it is only a matter of time. For it to actually die out, however, will take quite a while. I mean, there are still geocentrists around.

In the USA, for example, the percentage of the population who believe in creationism has not really changed in the last 30 years, although this probably has to do with higher birth rates in rural areas than a lack of inroads of science into the population.

It may well be a matter of time. But that time can be delayed significantly, with potential disastrous consequences. As an example, one of the reasons for the failure of Soviet agriculture was the adoption of Lamarckism - a falsified theory - for political reasons. While I would doubt anything so serious happening in the USA - profit is a big motivator - it could damage the US economy in more subtle ways. And damage to the US economy is usually bad for everyone else.

 

[Lioness816]

Of course. But creationists cannot demonstrate any, so no problem there.


If 99.999 per cent of biologists say that evolution is the best explanation, should we teach the 397 crackpot theories of the remaining .001 per cent?

If a scientist proves against evolution and towards creation than why is that wrong?

It takes only one to prove the truth or should I say "best explanation" it may take many a long time to follow. When science first started to show reason for evolution it was but a few. Over time others believed. If some of the same scientists who believed in evolution came to conclusions "through science" that evolution is not the "best explanation" than what?

 

[Brahe]

Students do not get taught competing explanations and then decide which is true - they do not have the knowledge and skills required to do this. That is why they are being educated, after all.

The battle over having creationism in schools is a political fight, not a scientific one.

Educated? or indoctrinated?

Deano, why are you making posts that don't address the posts which you quote? Why are your posts little more than inflammatory one-liners? Are you going to attempt to support your insinuations, or do you merely hope to attract the attention of a moderator to "clean up?"

 

[David Gould]

If a scientist proves against evolution and towards creation than why is that wrong?

It takes only one to prove the truth or should I say "best explanation" it may take many a long time to follow. When science first started to show reason for evolution it was but a few. Over time others believed. If some of the same scientists who believed in evolution came to conclusions "through science" that evolution is not the "best explanation" than what?

If creationism became the theory accepted by a consensus of the scientific community as the best explanation then it should be taught. Until then, it shouldn't be. Simple, really.