So let me see if I understand the scientific standard you are proposing:
On 15 September 2007, a chondritic meteor crashed near the village of Carancas in southeastern Peru near Lake Titicaca, leaving a water-filled hole and spewing gases across the surrounding area. Many residents became ill, apparently from the noxious gases shortly after the impact.
Impact event - Wikipedia
I didn't know this. In what part of the curriculum is humanism taught? (Our school system is more different from yours than I had appreciated.)
Crikey. Arkansassanians really want their kids to grow up to be economically disadvantaged.HB1701 House Vote - Arkansas State Legislature
Creationism bill passed in Arkansas House, headed to Senate
==== the result
Creationism bill narrowly defeated in Arkansas | National Center for Science Education
"Arkansas's House Bill 1701 (PDF), sponsored by Mary Bentley (R-District 73), was narrowly defeated, on a 3-3 vote, in the Senate Education Committee on April 21, 2021. If enacted, the bill would have allowed teachers in the state's public and open-enrollment charter schools to "teach creationism as a theory of how the earth came to exist."
"House Bill 1701 passed the House of Representatives on a 72-21 vote on April 7, 2021, after passing the House Education Committee on a voice vote on April 6, 2021"
====================== My POV as a creationist ============
Given that:
1. Creation has a particular doctrine on "origins" that explains how all life we see today got on Earth at all major levels from plants to humans.
Creation Science relates to "observations in nature" that evaluate intelligent design as well as studying short-term geochronometers found in nature.
2. Creationists know that Evolution (at the level of evolutionism) has its own competing doctrine on "origins" that includes a story about how all life we see today got on Earth at all major levels from plants to humans.
Evolution vs Evolutionism example from wikipedia
Evolution - Wikipedia
>> I call this "Evolution": -- as observed science fact
quote from wikipedia:
“Evolution: Change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation.[3] Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population”
>> I call this part "Evolutionism" – the doctrine on origins believed by atheists – in direct opposition to Creationism. A story that explains how all the diverse life on earth seen today - came about.
quote from wikipedia:
“It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organization, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules."
======================
My suggestion is that both of these religious views be left out of the science classroom - and just the actual science part should be taught.
So let me see if I understand the scientific standard you are proposing:
No explanation for a process that takes longer than can be scientifically documented by direct observation in real time should be considered valid.
Is that right?
That is why I said 'the thrust of evolutionary science' and not 'evolutionary science as it is currently expressed'. I do understand that science will always be provisional. Indeed evolutionary science has been repeatedly modified and may one day be abandoned for a better hypothesis. This has all been said here a dozen times at least.
But enough of the nit-picking! Let's hear it for Arkansas! Let's have the rationale for creationism!
What is in it for children's understanding of the physical and biological sciences?
No one’s has answered me and it’s possibly the most pertinent questions thus far (not to blow my own trumpet)..
Specifically what scientific evidence supports creationism? What research do it’s supporters find most compelling? You need to teach something in a science class, what would such a curriculum include?
"Saltations" isn't a word I am familiar with.
.
Almost every single biologist considers macroevolution a scientific fact. So you are misunderstanding something about what makes scientific fact.....If you can find a scientist to refute this statement; I'll consider the credibility of your statement.
It's not unfairly cynical if the American constitution really does forbid religious education. .
In the public schools, one can teach about religion, as in history or social science. But religious instruction is forbidden*.
In science classes, science is to be taught. The legal status is that 'creationism' and Intelligent Design cannot be taught as science in science class. However, teachers in very religious areas often do so anyway, since nobody complains. Or at the very least, they often downplay the evolution content.
[*There are a few weird asterisks, such as some states have 'released time' programs where during the school day, students can be released for religious instruction, but it must happen off-campus and without public funds. Frog-faced heathen children just have to stay locked up in school, since it's part of the school day.]
There's already court precedent that would likely strike that down if it got sent up the chain to a higher court.
Some school districts had tried in the past to make creationism as part of the curriculum by re-branding as "intelligent design"
A federal court (under a Bush appointed judge) shot it down - despite being a conservative and appointed by a conservative president.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia
There's already been a supreme court decision on a similar case, stating that teaching creationism fails to pass "The Lemon Test"
Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia
Which Justice Brennan quantified with:
- The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
- The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and
- The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion.
Almost every single biologist considers macroevolution a scientific fact. So you are misunderstanding something about what makes scientific fact.
The part you are misunderstanding is that observation includes observation of evidence of past events.
I heard a lot about students not being allowed to pray at school or have bible studies.It does not allow the government to establish a federally mandated denomination (so avoiding the European model at the time) or to in anyway interfere with freedom of religion.
Wow quite the effort you made there. Will go through it over lunch soon.So then you might find this interesting -- #226
I try to avoid presenting logical arguments to plants.
I heard a lot about students not being allowed to pray at school or have bible studies.
is this true or is it propaganda?
That’s sounds a little more believable.Largely propaganda.
In the public schools, prayers organized by the school are illegal. Individual students praying before tests or meals have every right to do so. Student led clubs for Bible study are allowed as long as they meet other rules for such groups.
Students who are disruptive through praying or proselytizing can be punished.
There have been some cases where schools have taken bibles away from students and things like that. Those are violations of student rights and school districts are generally quick to remedy these things when they happen.
One guy losing faith in his position isnt that interesting to me, even he's coming around toward seeing things my way.QUESTION1 :would it be of interest to you to have the reference for that meeting so as to share it with Creationists who say that evolutionism is a religious belief that has an opposing doctrine on origin to Creation – and the Creationist model is the one that is the best most reasonable conclusion for the origins question?
People want to protect their intellectual turf. Even scientists behave that way. But scientists will come around to a different view before too long when the evidence starts to proliferate.QUESTION2: Would it surprise you to learn that Creationists don’t want Evolutionists to know about those statements much less to quote them in a discussion with Creationists since the people they would be quoting are still Creationists and not evolutionists, and those people don't want evolutionists to see anything helpful to them in what was said (since nobody in that meeting believed in evolution) ?
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?