Michigan Anti-Evolution Bill

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Evo said:
Why don't we teach about the tooth fairy and how she "intelligently" leaves pennies under little kids pillows?

For the same reason we shouldn't teach ID: you can falsify the tooth fairy leaving money under the pillows of little kids.

This ad hominem argument obscures what science really is just as much as ID does. It says that shared beliefs -- in this case the belief that tooth fairy does not exist -- become facts. They don't. Shared beliefs remain beliefs.

It also does not say what science really does -- falsify -- and what it is capable of falsifying: statements about the physical universe that can be tested within the universe.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Keep an eye on Minnesota. Our governor (conservative hand picked by bush) and the state house recently scrapped the state standards and are in the process of re-writting them. The commissioner of education (conservative hand picked by governor) has several ties to creationist organizations and has new committee (hand picked by commissionaer of education) to re-write the science standards. The commissioner is recommending that the "consider" ID when they do this and the evolution/creation/ID standards will be left up to local districts to decide what to teach (at least that is the impression I am getting).

Thankfully, at least in the metro areas, I don't think the school boards and local leadership will consider ID but there are many outstate schools who might.

lucaspa, call your old acquaintences and get the professionals to take a peak at what is going on in Minnesota and to write letters here to the curriculum committee and legislature - please. :help:
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
ikester7579 said:
Seems to me that science is a little afraid of losing ground in the schools. This is a free country the last I looked. So whats wrong with having a choice? Or has science suddenly became fact and cannot be challenged?

Science has ALWAYS dealt with fact and some facts cannot be challenged. For instance, you cannot challenge that the earth is NOT flat, can you?

The problem is that freedom has limits. Your freedom of speech does not cover lies. We have laws against perjury, slander, and libel -- all are different forms of lying. Christians don't have the freedom to lie, either. Remember the 9th Commandment.

Saying that ID is a VALID scientific theory is a lie. Just like saying flat earth is a valid scientific theory is a lie. Both are falsified theories. Therefore you don't have the freedom to commit perjury (or false witness if you believe in the Bible).

There is also the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. There is no secular reason to teach a falsified scientific theory as tho it is valid. The ONLY reason to do so is to promote a particular form of religion. Therefore the Michigan bill is designed to promote a particular religion, and that is forbidden by the Constitution.

Science, with all it claims with it's fantastic theories. should welcome this. After all it should be easy to disprove anything else.

It is easy to disprove ID. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

However, we don't have the luxury of time to teach every falsified theory as valid and then teach how it has been falsified. Simply isn't enough classroom time.

As for science welcoming it, just how many times do we have to re-purchase the same real estate? Time is also precious to us, and we have better ways of spending our time than re-falsifying a theory that has been falsified thousands of times before.

Just come up with more theories. And more theories to back up those theories until you have a mountain of them.

Theories don't work this way. Theories have to accord with the physical universe. They cannot simply be out there as valid without the support of data.

What is it that science is so afraid of? A God that does not exist(according to science). And if you say science never said that, then what's the problem?

You are right, science emphatically does NOT say God does not exist. Science is agnostic toward all forms of deity.

Science is not "afraid", but rather does not want to see untruth marketed as truth. Why would we want that? Why would YOU want that?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
worship4ever said:
You know, a couple scientist's were in the presence of God, and they said "Look, we figured out how to create humans without you." God looking at their ignorance said, "well, by all means, go ahead, show me." So the scientist's bent down to grap some soil and God said "Hey, make your own soil" I thought it was humorous.

It's a misrepresentation of science.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
notto said:
lucaspa, call your old acquaintences and get the professionals to take a peak at what is going on in Minnesota and to write letters here to the curriculum committee and legislature - please. :help:

Let's both alert the NCSE so it can mobilize the public (scientific, lay, and religious) in Minnesota to the danger.
 
Upvote 0

gehenna

~::wandering::~
Jul 21, 2003
73
2
Visit site
✟205.00
*A michigander!*

I can see the validity of presenting different theories to science classes, but I do think that in a place where teachers can't hand out Bibles, it's silly to expect students to consider creationism a valid theory. If they won't present concrete information, just offer theories and have students pick one, then why teach the subject at all?
 
Upvote 0

DGB454

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2003
129
0
57
Mich
Visit site
✟7,749.00
Faith
Christian
I'm hearing a lot about the lack of proof of a creator.I don't have a problem with that. I am also hearing a lot about the disproof of ID. I have no problem with that either.

If you take the creator (I know ID isn't the same as a creator) out of the picture what are you left with?
A universe that started from nothing and created itself from nothing?
Which sounds more absurd?
I don't believe I have ever heard a satisfactory explination of how the universe managed to create itself. Is there one out there?

Back on topic. It's up to the state and the people living in it what they want to teach in their schools isn't it?
 
Upvote 0

ElElohe

A humble Resistentialist
Jun 27, 2003
1,012
28
46
Siloam Springs, AR
Visit site
✟8,822.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
goat37 said:
I was just reading through other posts and articles and came across this one.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2003/MI/741_proposed_legislation_requires__7_25_2003.asp

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-4946


I never thought an entire state could be this follish.

"(a) In the science standards, all references to "evolution" and "how species change through time" shall be modified to indicate that this is an unproven theory by adding the phrase "All students will explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".
(b) In the science standards for middle and high school, all references to "evolution" and "natural selection" shall be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding the phrase "Describe how life may be the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".
(c) In the science standards for middle and high school, all references to "evolution" and "natural selection" shall be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding the phrase "Explain the competing theories of evolution and natural selection based on random mutation and the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator.".


If this bill passes, I will lose all faith I have in state legislature.

I'm not even going to join this conversation, as it is very easy to predict whereabouts it will go.

Oh, and this is not the first state to try this by the way.
 
Upvote 0

ElElohe

A humble Resistentialist
Jun 27, 2003
1,012
28
46
Siloam Springs, AR
Visit site
✟8,822.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
DGB454 said:
I'm hearing a lot about the lack of proof of a creator.I don't have a problem with that. I am also hearing a lot about the disproof of ID. I have no problem with that either.

If you take the creator (I know ID isn't the same as a creator) out of the picture what are you left with?
A universe that started from nothing and created itself from nothing?
Which sounds more absurd?
I don't believe I have ever heard a satisfactory explination of how the universe managed to create itself. Is there one out there?

Back on topic. It's up to the state and the people living in it what they want to teach in their schools isn't it?

*breaking my own rule*

Yes, it is up the state to decide on their education system.

And you are asking a question science poo-poos because they cannot prove it. No one can or did observe the creation of the universe from nothing.

It is far less absurd to believe in intelligent design than to believe that nothing exploded, or whatever it did, in the big bang and now we and everything else in the Universe is here. Come from all of nothing.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ElElohe

A humble Resistentialist
Jun 27, 2003
1,012
28
46
Siloam Springs, AR
Visit site
✟8,822.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
gehenna said:
*A michigander!*

I can see the validity of presenting different theories to science classes, but I do think that in a place where teachers can't hand out Bibles, it's silly to expect students to consider creationism a valid theory. If they won't present concrete information, just offer theories and have students pick one, then why teach the subject at all?

Bibles and Bible classes are not illegal in public school. Nor is the Koran, as California has proven since 9/11. Nor is religion, as you would see if you took a history class. A lot of religions have writings associated with them and they are oft referred to in schools.

You'd see the same in a philosophy class I'd guess.

However, needless to say, Christianity is the religion that is bashed and thrown out with much more vigor than the others. Although the sympathetic teaching of Islam in CA did receive a lot of negative publicity as well.

And if people want to interpret seperation of church and state as the Supreme Court has, they should have received such negative publicity. But should they not teach Islam? No. But should they have a REQUIRED class sympathetic to Islam? No.
 
Upvote 0

ElElohe

A humble Resistentialist
Jun 27, 2003
1,012
28
46
Siloam Springs, AR
Visit site
✟8,822.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
gehenna said:
*A michigander!*

I can see the validity of presenting different theories to science classes, but I do think that in a place where teachers can't hand out Bibles, it's silly to expect students to consider creationism a valid theory. If they won't present concrete information, just offer theories and have students pick one, then why teach the subject at all?

And I wouldn't have a problem with all of the theories being taught, given equal time as the teacher can afford, presented each with the evidence claimed by their supporters--myself being convinced of Creation. Let the students be taught to think for themselves through the theories.

Logic and generally, critical thinking, is lacking in the education system to an abominable degree.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
DGB454 said:
I'm hearing a lot about the lack of proof of a creator.I don't have a problem with that. I am also hearing a lot about the disproof of ID. I have no problem with that either.

If you take the creator (I know ID isn't the same as a creator) out of the picture what are you left with?
A universe that started from nothing and created itself from nothing?
Which sounds more absurd?
I don't believe I have ever heard a satisfactory explination of how the universe managed to create itself. Is there one out there?

There are several out there. See my thread "First Cause". You see, now you are not talking ID but rather slipping into the atheism vs theism debate. And science class is NO place to have that argument.

Back on topic. It's up to the state and the people living in it what they want to teach in their schools isn't it?

Yes. However, in order to compare students from different states for college admission there are things like the SAT and ACT that test student knowledge that will be needed to do college-level work. Since nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, wasting class time teaching a falsified theory -- ID -- as valid will give the Minnesota kids a disadvantage.

However, even as you bring up the point, you have to ask yourself: do I want ANY kids being taught untruth as truth? If Minnesota wanted to teach that pi = 3.0 (as stated in a literal Bible), would you think that was permissible or would you object on ethical grounds?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
ElElohe said:
And I wouldn't have a problem with all of the theories being taught, given equal time as the teacher can afford, presented each with the evidence claimed by their supporters--myself being convinced of Creation. Let the students be taught to think for themselves through the theories.

Logic and generally, critical thinking, is lacking in the education system to an abominable degree.

Having kids "presented each with the evidence claimed by their supporters" misses how science is done. Theories are FALSIFIED. Once data is found that cannot be there if the theory is true, then we know that the theory is false, because true statements can't have false consequences.

What you are advocating is hiding data from the students, just like creationists hide data from you: the data that falsified the theory. ANY and EVERY theory has "evidence for" it. You can ALWAYS find "evidence for" ANY theory. What really counts is the evidence AGAINST the theory. And that is just the evidence you would withold from students.

Now, ElElhoe, I know I've told you this before, but let me try again:

Creation is NOT creationISM. BOTH creationism and evolution are explanations of HOW Creation happened. Creation did not happen by creationism. God simply didn't create that way. God created by evolution. The evidence in God's Creation, put there by God, shows this conclusively. Why would you want anything else taught to kids?
 
Upvote 0

DGB454

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2003
129
0
57
Mich
Visit site
✟7,749.00
Faith
Christian
lucaspa said:
There are several out there. See my thread "First Cause". You see, now you are not talking ID but rather slipping into the atheism vs theism debate. And science class is NO place to have that argument.



Yes. However, in order to compare students from different states for college admission there are things like the SAT and ACT that test student knowledge that will be needed to do college-level work. Since nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, wasting class time teaching a falsified theory -- ID -- as valid will give the Minnesota kids a disadvantage.

However, even as you bring up the point, you have to ask yourself: do I want ANY kids being taught untruth as truth? If Minnesota wanted to teach that pi = 3.0 (as stated in a literal Bible), would you think that was permissible or would you object on ethical grounds?
I'm not following you on some of your post. There are several what?

Could you do me a favor and give me a link to First cause? I don't see it in this part of the forum.

Ok, disreguarding ID what would be wrong with teaching the Creator theory?

Again, it is still up to the state and the people living there what they want there kids to learn. Reguardless of whether it gives them an advantage or a disadvantage on the on these tests. I honestly doubt that teaching a child only evolution will give him much of an advantage if any on a ACT or SAT. I have done those test myself and scored rather well and that was long before I even entertained the thought of evolution in man.

Anyway thanks in advance for putting in the link on your next post.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
DGB454 said:
I'm not following you on some of your post. There are several what?

Could you do me a favor and give me a link to First cause? I don't see it in this part of the forum.

There are several possible ways to get a universe without it being created by a deity. I bumped up the thread so it is on the current page now.

Ok, disreguarding ID what would be wrong with teaching the Creator theory?

What is the Creator theory? If it is just that a deity created, then that is not part of science. If it is a particular HOW a deity created -- such as formation from dirt of the first 2 humans -- then all those HOW theories except evolution have been falsified.

Again, it is still up to the state and the people living there what they want there kids to learn.

You are arguing Constitutional Law. I am discussing ethics. Am I supposed to walk away from having used care salesmen con people because it happens in the next state? Should I keep quiet if another state wishes to teach that pi = 3.0 and not worry about the type of engineers that will be turned out and whether the bridges in that state work if I drive on them?

The universe is the same for people living in Minnesota (where I went to undergraduat and graduate schools), Ohio (where I was born and raised), and New York (where I live now). Gravity operates the same. Optics operates the same. Organisms are based on cells (Cell Theory) in each state. So, why would you permit people to tell lies about the universe under the guise that "it is up to the state"?

They say it takes a village to raise a child. Should I walk away from a proper education for the children in Minnesota because the adults are mistaken? Aren't we supposed to stand up and protect children, wherever they may be? Or do you wash your hands of child slavery and abuse because it happens someplace else where the adults have decided it is OK?

I notice it is also up to the state to decide which drugs to allow, yet the Bush Administration landed on Oregon for allowing marijuana to be used as an analgesic. So there is more than a little inconsistency here among the people making the argument that it "is up to the state". It appears that what is allowed to the state are what conservatives WANT to be allowed to the state, but anything the conservatives do NOT want to happen can't be allowed to the state.

I honestly doubt that teaching a child only evolution will give him much of an advantage if any on a ACT or SAT.

You didn't read what I said. I said wasting class time on falsified theories will give them a DISadvantage on the tests because they will have less time to be taught evolution.

I have done those test myself and scored rather well and that was long before I even entertained the thought of evolution in man.

How many years ago? My daughter just took the advanced SAT for biology. She said it was all based on evolution.
 
Upvote 0

DGB454

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2003
129
0
57
Mich
Visit site
✟7,749.00
Faith
Christian
lucaspa said:
There are several possible ways to get a universe without it being created by a deity. I bumped up the thread so it is on the current page now..

Thanks for bumping it up. Looks like the traditional non-answer answer that I always get. Not that I can give a better one but it does seem like when the answer is not cut and dry the first thing to get thrown out is the one with God. (no accountability that way I guess)



What is the Creator theory? If it is just that a deity created, then that is not part of science. If it is a particular HOW a deity created -- such as formation from dirt of the first 2 humans -- then all those HOW theories except evolution have been falsified.


This one.

2. Deity. A God or Gods created the universe.



You are arguing Constitutional Law. I am discussing ethics. Am I supposed to walk away from having used care salesmen con people because it happens in the next state? Should I keep quiet if another state wishes to teach that pi = 3.0 and not worry about the type of engineers that will be turned out and whether the bridges in that state work if I drive on them?

The universe is the same for people living in Minnesota (where I went to undergraduat and graduate schools), Ohio (where I was born and raised), and New York (where I live now). Gravity operates the same. Optics operates the same. Organisms are based on cells (Cell Theory) in each state. So, why would you permit people to tell lies about the universe under the guise that "it is up to the state"?

They say it takes a village to raise a child. Should I walk away from a proper education for the children in Minnesota because the adults are mistaken? Aren't we supposed to stand up and protect children, wherever they may be? Or do you wash your hands of child slavery and abuse because it happens someplace else where the adults have decided it is OK?

I notice it is also up to the state to decide which drugs to allow, yet the Bush Administration landed on Oregon for allowing marijuana to be used as an analgesic. So there is more than a little inconsistency here among the people making the argument that it "is up to the state". It appears that what is allowed to the state are what conservatives WANT to be allowed to the state, but anything the conservatives do NOT want to happen can't be allowed to the state.

Ok don't get your panties all in a bunch. I don't recall saying anything about child abuse or labor or drugs. If you feel it's your duty to protect every child in the world then you are a better man than me. I feel it's my duty to protect mine and try to help those I can help. If children learning that there may be a creator in science class somehow contributes to child abuse or someone in Oregon doing drugs then maybe I should rethink my position.



You didn't read what I said. I said wasting class time on falsified theories will give them a DISadvantage on the tests because they will have less time to be taught evolution.

What is the falsified theory? A Creator?



How many years ago? My daughter just took the advanced SAT for biology. She said it was all based on evolution.

It was a few years ago. When I took it it was also all based on evolution. Just because I didn't believe in it then (notice I said then)doesn't mean I didn't get it. I have the uncanny ability to learn more than one thing and retain it for extended periods of time. I'm guessing the kids today don't have that same ability. If they did then I would think teaching more than 1 thing to them wouldn't be such a huge problem. Maybe they have evolved into having less memory capacity.
Weird huh?


PS. After re-reading this post it just hit me that appears like I'm being a bit of a smart alec. Hmmm....

Later
 
Upvote 0

Cantuar

Forever England
Jul 15, 2002
1,085
4
69
Visit site
✟8,889.00
Faith
Agnostic
Ok, disreguarding ID what would be wrong with teaching the Creator theory?

This one.

2. Deity. A God or Gods created the universe.

A theory is an explanation of observed phenomena that's testable and falsifiable and that's based on the laws of nature. How can you use the scientific method to test the theory that God created the universe? What test could you come up with to falsify the presence or the actions of God?

Edited to say - before Prof blows a gasket, by "the actions of God," I don't mean specific actions such as "the universe was created 6000 years ago," I mean actions of a deity in general.
 
Upvote 0

Siliconaut

Not to be confused with the other Norman Hartnell
@BGB:
Looks like the traditional non-answer answer that I always get.

Umm... what non-answer? Do you honestly wish to debate the fact that science does not and doesn't need to tackle the existance of a creator? A creator cannot be tested or falsified by scientific means, so it's like you're asking mathematics to answer the question if lime green is a pretty colour. :)

2. Deity. A God or Gods created the universe.
That's not a question for science. It's philosophy. Science simply cannot give you the answer if there's a creator or not, but it *can* tell you quite a lot about *how* he went about molding the universe.

If you feel it's your duty to protect every child in the world then you are a better man than me. I feel it's my duty to protect mine and try to help those I can help. If children learning that there may be a creator in science class somehow contributes to child abuse or someone in Oregon doing drugs then maybe I should rethink my position.
I agree with lucaspa here - it IS important what kind of knowledge engineers, scientists, doctors, policemen, construction workers and other people have. Teaching falsified theories (notice: we're talking about CREATION*ISM* here, not CREATION) will give them not just a disadvantage, it will also make it more likely that they commit blunders which will adversely influence the lives of many.

No amount of wild ranting will change the facts. Creationism is debunked, dead, falsified by the facts, and should be taught only as an example for a dropped scientific theory.

What is the falsified theory? A Creator?
Of course not. What were you reading? Creationism is falsified, as a creator is simply outside the realm of science. You can't fix the plumbing with a scalpel - inappropriate use of tools won't get you results.

I have the uncanny ability to learn more than one thing and retain it for extended periods of time. I'm guessing the kids today don't have that same ability. If they did then I would think teaching more than 1 thing to them wouldn't be such a huge problem. Maybe they have evolved into having less memory capacity.
I reckon we don't beat 'em enough nowadays.

Fun aside: Teaching them the theory of gravity was "just a theory" and presenting the theory of "things always fall downwards" (which is a gross misrepresentation, outright lie and not in concordance with observation) as an equally valid explanation will not give you good engineers, no matter how small their cranial capacity. :/
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DGB454

Senior Member
Jun 27, 2003
129
0
57
Mich
Visit site
✟7,749.00
Faith
Christian
Siliconaut said:
@BGB: [/color][/font]
Umm... what non-answer? Do you honestly wish to debate the fact that science does not and doesn't need to tackle the existance of a creator? A creator cannot be tested or falsified by scientific means, so it's like you're asking mathematics to answer the question if lime green is a pretty colour. :)
I honestly don't want to debate anything. I don't need science to tell me there is a creator. It can't and I know that.

That's not a question for science. It's philosophy. Science simply cannot give you the answer if there's a creator or not, but it *can* tell you quite a lot about *how* he went about molding the universe.
He who? The Creator? So science can tell me how the Creator molded the universe but it's not allowed for the teaching of the Creator in science class? Actually that answer came directly from lucaspa.
I agree with lucaspa here - it IS important what kind of knowledge engineers, scientists, doctors, policemen, construction workers and other people have. Teaching falsified theories (notice: we're talking about CREATION*ISM* here, not CREATION) will give them not just a disadvantage, it will also make it more likely that they commit blunders which will adversely influence the lives of many.
Were talking teaching a Creator in science. Not building bridges with lego's 102.
No amount of wild ranting will change the facts. Creationism is debunked, dead, falsified by the facts, and should be taught only as an example for a dropped scientific theory.

What are you reading? I have been saying Creator not Creationism.

I reckon we don't beat 'em enough nowadays.

:confused:

Fun aside: Teaching them the theory of gravity was "just a theory" and presenting the theory of "things always fall downwards" (which is a gross misrepresentation, outright lie and not in concordance with observation) as an equally valid explanation will not give you good engineers, no matter how small their cranial capacity. :/

Again....I am talking Creator not Creationism....Is anyone hearing me out there?
 
Upvote 0