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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's a test I made up:
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.
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.
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.
Yeah they are religious theories.
