Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is more to this that meets the eye.It's pronounced "R-Kansas".
(Not really, it pronounced "R-Can-Saw" while regular Kansas is pronounced "Can-zass".)
Since most cultures have creation stories, I think you are just grasping. And you can learn about all kinds of religions in college, so why not start in high school, and understand that the predominant view of the world down through history has always included a creator. I daresay the view that there isn't one is very much a minority view in the history of the world.The bill says "creationism" explicitly. IDists worked really hard to separate ID from creationism, to no avail.
Hey, man. Let's just open the flood gates. Teach it all. Satanism is a legit religion, too ya know. Ironically, their creation story aligns pretty well with science, so...
Cool!HB1701 - TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW THE EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OPEN-ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS.
It now goes to the Senate.
Although the bill does not make creationism mandatory, it is still unconstitutional to teach creationism in science classes.
Arkansas should know this from McLean v. Arkansas and the more encompassing Edwards v. Aguillard.
This is to start in kindergarten.Since most cultures have creation stories, I think you are just grasping. And you can learn about all kinds of religions in college, so why not start in high school, and understand that the predominant view of the world down through history has always included a creator. I daresay the view that there isn't one is very much a minority view in the history of the world.
Still is, nothing to do with teaching biblical creationism. Being it's Arkansas, I seriously doubt that the class will be an even-handed survey of world creation stories--more likely indoctrination in Evangelical doctrine.Since most cultures have creation stories, I think you are just grasping. And you can learn about all kinds of religions in college, so why not start in high school, and understand that the predominant view of the world down through history has always included a creator. I daresay the view that there isn't one is very much a minority view in the history of the world.
Yeah, that would be as much of a mistake as teaching them that science is a lie and the world is only 6000 years old.Even better. Indoctrinating kids to believe they are just smart chimps is no doubt a leading cause of depression by the time they reach the teen years.
Theories are taught in science classes, origin myths are taught as cultural history. You are right that there is no problem teaching cultural history, but that is not what this bill is about as some poor school district will find out.Teaching Creationism or, more precisely, teaching "Creation science" has been ruled unconstitutional in several courts, but teaching of the existence of some alternate theories concerning the origin of the universe--turtles included--is not. Many elementary and secondary schools teach about the culture of pre-Columbian peoples, for example.
Something they should have learned in science class is that to formally be considered a theory, a proposition has to have reasonable amount of confirming evidence.Origin myths are also theories. (and that's the wording used in the title of HB1730)
Oh, and I would hate to have to teach that class. Have any of you ever taught in a high school? I have never seen a creationist argument that a class of reasonably smart AP biology students couldn't make mincemeat of.Theories are taught in science classes, origin myths are taught as cultural history. You are right that there is no problem teaching cultural history, but that is not what this bill is about as some poor school district will find out.
see
Epperson v. Arkansas - Wikipedia
Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia
Here's a test I made up:Oh, and I would hate to have to teach that class. Have any of you ever taught in a high school? I have never seen a creationist argument that a class of reasonably smart AP biology students couldn't make mincemeat of.
Which is basically the problem, the persons, and you apparently, who wrote this bill do not understand the difference between the colloquial use of the word theory and its meaning in the sciences and as it has been understood as law when referring to the teaching of science in the US.Origin myths are also theories. (and that's the wording used in the title of HB1701)
Of course I do, but the point is that the bill apparently has been crafted in order to avoid the reasons for the failure of earlier attempts in the courts.Which is basically the problem, the persons, and you apparently, who wrote this bill do not understand the difference between the colloquial use of the word theory and its meaning in the sciences and as it has been understood as law when referring to the teaching of science in the US.
Actually, it is particularly poorly crafted for that purpose. There has never been an impediment to teaching cultural accounts of origin ideas. In that sense the proposed law is pointless. However Creationism has the specific meaning that life is the result of the actions of a divine being. This already runs into first amendment issues as to which creationism to teach. Theory however as used in the sciences as opposed to colloquially is understood to be a part of methodological naturalism where possible supernatural influences are not considered. The combination of the two in this short sentence is guaranteed to create legal hassles as it immediately pits two different educational objectives against each other, both of which have already had their appropriate spheres of influence adjudicated.Of course I do, but the point is that the bill apparently has been crafted in order to avoid the reasons for the failure of earlier attempts in the courts.
It is probably possible to reveal to students what other people think accounts for the origin of the universe without attempting to "prove" them as if they were science. "Creation science" so-called, had attempted in the past to show a supposedly scientific basis for a direct act of creation by some superior intelligence, i.e. God.
Yeah they are religious theories.Origin myths are also theories. (and that's the wording used in the title of HB1701)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?