Chicago Area "science" teacher caught red-handed teaching creationism

[Brak]

That's an idea. If they want to "teach the controversy" in biology, surely they can't object to their children being educated on both sides of the magic controversy.

Something tells me they'd object.

Pretty much. Obviously the religiously agnostic thing to do is to teach both Intelligent Design and Evolution and advance neither more than the other as truth. Hold two essay questions on an exam: What is ID, and what is the ToE? How long could that take?

It amazes me the irony how atheism thumpers think they have the moral high ground in cramming atheism down our kids' throats. Sorry to say, Christianity has no corner on Intelligent Design--almost all religions believe in it. And in most districts, atheists do not form the majority of the tax base. Teach them both, and if you don't like it, pull your kids out of public schools and put them in parochial atheist-only schools, and you pay the double property tax and private school tuition. ...There are, um, plenty of affordable atheist-only private schools in your area to choose from, aren't there?

 

[laconicstudent]

Pretty much. Obviously the religiously agnostic thing to do is to teach both Intelligent Design and Evolution and advance neither more than the other as truth. Hold two essay questions on an exam: What is ID, and what is the ToE? How long could that take?

It amazes me the irony how atheism thumpers think they have the moral high ground in cramming atheism down our kids' throats. Sorry to say, Christianity has no corner on Intelligent Design--almost all religions believe in it. And in most districts, atheists do not form the majority of the tax base. Teach them both, and if you don't like it, pull your kids out of public schools and put them in parochial atheist-only schools, and you pay the double property tax and private school tuition. ...There are, um, plenty of affordable atheist-only private schools in your area to choose from, aren't there?

Certainly, but only so long as you support us teaching Goetia along with regular psychology in social studies classes.

Surely its unfair to present Psychological Science as holding the truth when it could just as easily be infernal, demonic forces conjured by a child's enemies. We should equip our critically thinking youth with an unbiased worldview, don't you think?

 

[Awesome_Frog]

Pretty much. Obviously the religiously agnostic thing to do is to teach both Intelligent Design and Evolution

No, until scientists behind ID can show evidence, and testable models its not by any means on the same footing. Read my posts on the last page to get my full explanation.

and advance neither more than the other as truth. Hold two essay questions on an exam: What is ID, and what is the ToE? How long could that take?

Its not a matter of how long, but the application. This is not a stab at religion. Its a matter of application and teaching students how to actually apply a theory and showing what evidence we do have. ID barely qualifies as a hypothesis, so until a model can be demonstrated, no dice.

It amazes me the irony how atheism thumpers think they have the moral high ground in cramming atheism down our kids' throats.

This is not a cramming of Atheism down your or any one's throats. Its the proper application of the scientific method.
ID design is not thrown out because its religious, its thrown out because there are no testable models and most ID "scientists" disagree on what exactly ID even is.

Sorry to say, Christianity has no corner on Intelligent Design--almost all religions believe in it.

It dose not matter which religion is applying ID.

And in most districts, atheists do not form the majority of the tax base.

The Majority of any group has nothing to do with how the scientific method works. ID should remain in social studies until it gets its act together and creates a functional and testable model.

 

[yasic]

Pretty much. Obviously the religiously agnostic thing to do is to teach both Intelligent Design and Evolution and advance neither more than the other as truth. Hold two essay questions on an exam: What is ID, and what is the ToE? How long could that take?

It amazes me the irony how atheism thumpers think they have the moral high ground in cramming atheism down our kids' throats. Sorry to say, Christianity has no corner on Intelligent Design--almost all religions believe in it. And in most districts, atheists do not form the majority of the tax base. Teach them both, and if you don't like it, pull your kids out of public schools and put them in parochial atheist-only schools, and you pay the double property tax and private school tuition. ...There are, um, plenty of affordable atheist-only private schools in your area to choose from, aren't there?

In terms of earth sciences in middle school, in addition to teaching about scientific volcanic activity, the religiously agnostic thing to do would be to teach it along with the notion that people may have angered a volcano god, and advance neither more than the other as the truth. Hold two essay questions on the exam. Don't you agree?

If not, are we not forcing an atheistic viewpoint on the students?


Edit: Beaten to it.

 

[Wolseley]

It would help for you to understand the basics of the theory before you argue against it. Just a suggestion.

Pssst; when you say things like "until a cat evolves into a dog" or "until a whale evolves into a fish" or "until a banana evolves into a diplodocus" or "until a fly evolves into an elephant", it shows the entire world that you know nothing about the fact of evolution (allele shift frequency) and the theory (the notion of how and why allele shift frequency exists) of evolution.

Its also quite hilarious that Wosely is harping on Darwin, when the majority of the modern theory of Evolution happened post Darwin.

Ah cain't hep it....Ah is jes' a iggerint, uneddicated hick.

Oh, and Frog---you left out two letters of my name. Do try to improve your spelling and word recognition, won't you?

Teaching magic in science class is bad mmmmk.

Yeah, like teaching that a dark spot on the outside of a lizard's skin can magically transmogrify into an eyeball. Hocus-pocus, abracadabra.

Pretty much. Obviously the religiously agnostic thing to do is to teach both Intelligent Design and Evolution and advance neither more than the other as truth.

I agree, but try that and see how far you get with the disciples of Darwin. They'll do everything up and including burning crosses on your lawn. Even trying to point out the inconsistencies and flaws in evolution, the places where it goes in direct defiance of established scientific laws, sets them off into a mouth-foaming, eye-twitching, purple-faced, shuddering-with-rage spasm of incontrollable lunacy.

Teach them both, and if you don't like it, pull your kids out of public schools and put them in parochial atheist-only schools, and you pay the double property tax and private school tuition.

Oh, now, now, now!!! That's supposed to be their line! We're not supposed to use it on them! We're supposed to be the ones who are out of the mainstream, enlightened, rational line of thought, here, so it's supposed to be us who pull our kids out of pubic schools and ensconse them in private schools where they will only be taught the "correct" way of thinking. Don't you know that?

 

[Gishin]

I say we teach sex education and the wonders of stork delivery and not try to push one or the other as truth. Let the children decide, teach the controversy!

 

[Psudopod]

Yeah, like teaching that a dark spot on the outside of a lizard's skin can magically transmogrify into an eyeball. Hocus-pocus, abracadabra.

Show me anywhere where that is taught.

 

[DaisyDay]

Ah cain't hep it....Ah is jes' a iggerint, uneddicated hick.

That or you're just trying to wind people up by deliberately spouting PRATTs that even you know are nonsense. I'm not altogether sure which it is.

Yeah, like teaching that a dark spot on the outside of a lizard's skin can magically transmogrify into an eyeball. Hocus-pocus, abracadabra.

Another silly, deliberate misstatement (or your self-assessment was correct).

I agree, but try that and see how far you get with the disciples of Darwin. They'll do everything up and including burning crosses on your lawn. Even trying to point out the inconsistencies and flaws in evolution, the places where it goes in direct defiance of established scientific laws, sets them off into a mouth-foaming, eye-twitching, purple-faced, shuddering-with-rage spasm of incontrollable lunacy.

IIt's odd that you just make up ridiculous, almost psychedelic, certainly paranoid, stuff like that - another (weird) attempt at goading, I guess.

Oh, now, now, now!!! That's supposed to be their line! We're not supposed to use it on them! We're supposed to be the ones who are out of the mainstream, enlightened, rational line of thought, here, so it's supposed to be us who pull our kids out of pubic schools and ensconse [or ensconce] them in private schools where they will only be taught the "correct" way of thinking. Don't you know that?

You're doing a fair imitation of what you say you're supposed to be.

 

[TerranceL]

Yeah, like teaching that a dark spot on the outside of a lizard's skin can magically transmogrify into an eyeball. Hocus-pocus, abracadabra.

This is the problem with creationist, they don't know a damn thing about evolution but wow are they sure it doesn't happen.

 

[Belk]

This is the problem with creationist, they don't know a damn thing about evolution but wow are they sure it doesn't happen.

Kind of makes sense if you think about it. Most people upon seeing the vast amounts of evidence for evolution become convinced by it. It is mostly those who steadfastly remain ignorant of the evidence that argue against it.

 

[Corey]

What kind of scientific meeting includes drinking three or four beers?

Uh...clearly you've been around social psychologists...

 

[Isambard]

Pretty much. Obviously the religiously agnostic thing to do is to teach both Intelligent Design and Evolution and advance neither more than the other as truth. Hold two essay questions on an exam: What is ID, and what is the ToE? How long could that take?

It amazes me the irony how atheism thumpers think they have the moral high ground in cramming atheism down our kids' throats. Sorry to say, Christianity has no corner on Intelligent Design--almost all religions believe in it. And in most districts, atheists do not form the majority of the tax base. Teach them both, and if you don't like it, pull your kids out of public schools and put them in parochial atheist-only schools, and you pay the double property tax and private school tuition. ...There are, um, plenty of affordable atheist-only private schools in your area to choose from, aren't there?

Too bad for you that the majority of those supporting ToE are christians. Wanna try again with another PRATT?

 

[JustMeSee]

Ah cain't hep it....Ah is jes' a iggerint, uneddicated hick.

I didn't suggest any such thing. I just think it is more effective in debate to argue against ToE using what it claims.

It is kind of like saying, "Eve was created before Adam from a tree branch, then Adam was created from Eve's ear lobe". This would be a glaring sign that a person doesn't know the first thing about Genesis.

 

[Maren]

This is the problem with creationist, they don't know a damn thing about evolution but wow are they sure it doesn't happen.

Yep, kind of like how a banana is God's perfect fruit: God's perfect fruit This despite the fact the bananas we eat didn't develop naturally (but rather were bred/cultivated by man to get the varieties we eat today). Wild bananas are nothing like the fruit sold in supermarkets.