Palin for teaching creationism in schools ..

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would have thought it obvious that I am referring to your assertion that science teachers should be allowed to address creationism and ID outside the context of science in a science classroom. I never attributed you as a believer in either.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You claimed to be a 'liberal secularist' and liberal secularism involves fiscal policy and your fiscal views are conservative which most definitely rules you out of being liberal. Liberal secularists generally maintain that creationism and ID should be kept out of science classrooms completely. You might be a 'conservative secularist' more commonly known as a 'secular conservative' but so far you don't appear very 'secular'.

Both 'liberal secularism' and 'secular conservatism' clearly separate religion from politics and science as opposed to 'liberal fundamentalism' and 'conservative fundamentalism' which combine their religious beliefs 'Christianity', 'Astrology', 'Environmentalism ' with their political beliefs conservative or liberal.

Overheal

Im constantly baffled why they cant just accept that God intelligently designed Evolution as a process of life.

brendansmith

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Otacon

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't see anyone having any issue with Creationism being discussed in a classroom, so long as it does not, in any way, start being taught alongside science. I know most of us understand the difference between Creationism and Science, however, children do not.

IMO we have a responsibility to teach children in a way that is science-based, fact-based, allowing for them to join the workforce as educated individuals. Science should be taught in schools. Creationism should be taught in the Church.

bonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good question.

What if another kid beside them insists that they're both wrong and the earth and the universe are infinite in age, and that man has existed on earth in his current form for millions of years (i.e. the Hindu view of creationism) ???

What if a third kid then decides that they don't hold to any religious view, but believe that the world is a computer simulation, which was only turned on minutes ago, but with a persistent "back story" to artificially create memory?

Is the third kid's view less or more worthy of debate because its not religiously based? Are the second and third kids' views less worthy because they're not Christian?

Can a teacher decide that some student is trolling, and making up a belief for whatever reason, or has *every* idea to be taken seriously?

Should the teacher not simply explain that such stances are not scientific and therefore have no place in the science classroom, perhaps also suggesting that the class should discuss (at a later date) what science is and is not, seperate from any "hotbed" issues?

It's utterly anti-intellectual to try to make sure a priori that certain kinds of discussions do not take place.

You are creating a false distinction between the taking place of discussions, and where those discussions take place. The US system says that religious topics are not for school...not that they are not for anywhere. They do not prohibit the faith vs science issue, merely say that school is not the forum for it.

Do we really want judges and politicians deciding what teachers can and cannot teach?

I want school boards to make that decision, and I want them to make it in line with what is legal. Would you have an objection to an inner-city teacher deciding to teach his kids how to jack cars, or pimp for hookers? Or perhaps a white supremacist teacher deciding to teach his all-white class about the evils of the black man? Maybe a sexist male teaching his class that women should be kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?

The question of intelligent design—did the universe and life just evolve randomly, or was there some form of intelligence behind it all—is an interesting philosophical thing to debate, at very least, even if it is in no way a scientific question.

Exactly. It is no no way a scientific question, and therefore has no place in the science classroom.

Personally, I believe a science teacher should be allowed to teach why Creationism / ID is not science...but they should not be allowed to open some sort of debate in the science classroom between such a point of view and the scientific perspective.

I don't see the point in declaring it off-limits just to please the hard-line secularists who bristle at the very mention of the word "God."

Ascribing irrational fear as the reason for suport of a position you don't agree with...it adds so much to your argument.

bonkey

Otacon wrote: »

I can't see anyone having any issue with Creationism being discussed in a classroom,

Depends on the classroom

Do I think it should be discussed in (say) mathematics? No, I don't?
Economics? Also no. Geography? Nu-uh.

Science? No. Its no more scientific then it is mathematic, economic or geographic.

You find the subject that its suitable to, and I'll have no issue that it should be allowed for discussion there.

Otacon

Otacon wrote: »

...so long as it does not, in any way, start being taught alongside science. I know most of us understand the difference between Creationism and Science, however, children do not.

bonkey wrote: »

Depends on the classroom

Do I think it should be discussed in (say) mathematics? No, I don't?
Economics? Also no. Geography? Nu-uh.

Science? No. Its no more scientific then it is mathematic, economic or geographic.

You find the subject that its suitable to, and I'll have no issue that it should be allowed for discussion there.

OK, you should really read all of the sentence and the entire post to get the meaning and a clearer understanding of my stance.

I said I was for discussion in the classroom and it not being a science class. I am opposed to it being taught. I hope you can see the difference.

sink

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ok, but you must recognise that calling yourself a Liberal these days and most will identify you as a new-Liberal which is very different from classical Liberalism. Today classical Liberalism has evolved into minarchist Libertarianism which seems closer to your political beliefs than new-liberalism, so why don't you call yourself a libertarian and avoid confusion?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Agreed, I just got confused when you claimed to be a Liberal.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That seems like a reasonable position. It depends on how you define a careful, respectful, and professional way. In a science classroom imo that can only be from the scientific perspective which would be along the lines of 'Creationism is not a scientific theory and is not supported by scientific evidence, evolution does not rule out a creators hand in shaping life on earth nor does it support it. Evolution is accepted as fact in biological sciences and this rules out a literal interpretation of creation in the bible'. If a teacher brings in their own personal beliefs on creationism that moves the class away from science and children will get confused about whether or not creationism is science.

My main concern surrounding creationism is that proponents purposely obfuscate what science is and attempt to educate children that creationism is science when it has no scientific basis. This lessens societies scientific literacy which is bad enough already. Scientific literacy is essential for everyone in a democratic society as science impacts politics everyday and citizens are required to make decisions which impact policy towards science.

toiletduck

Overheal wrote: »

Im constantly baffled why they cant just accept that God intelligently designed Evolution as a process of life.

It conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's essentially what it comes down to for these people.

bonkey

Otacon wrote: »

OK, you should really read all of the sentence and the entire post to get the meaning and a clearer understanding of my stance.

I did, thanks. I may have misunderstood what you meant, but I didn't misinterpret what you said.

I said I was for discussion in the classroom and it not being a science class.

You said it was fine for discussion in the classroom, as long as it was not taught alongside science.

The implication of this is that discussion in the science classroom may be fine by you.

If thats what you were implying, then I didn't misundertand you. If its not what you were implying, then I think we've both misunderstood each other.

The point I was making is that while I agree it can be discussed in the classroom, I would be much more stringent in terms of which class is suitable for discussing it in. From my perspective, the science classroom is no more a suitable venue for such a discussion then the geography class.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

toiletduck wrote: »

It conflicts with a literal interpretation of the Bible. That's essentially what it comes down to for these people.

I never read through and never tried to interpret the Bible so forgive me, how does this conflict with the literal interpretation?

sink

Overheal wrote: »

I never read through and never tried to interpret the Bible so forgive me, how does this conflict with the literal interpretation?

The literal interpretation of the bible is that man was created out of nothing in one day and woman was created in one day from the rib of man. This took place approximately 6000-10000 years ago. All other creatures were also created instantly around the same time. Snakes also talk!

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Overheal wrote:

Im constantly baffled why they cant just accept that God intelligently designed Evolution as a process of life.

It wouldn't say much for their faith if people started back-tracking on thousands of years of their long-held beliefs just to stick with the times.

In saying that, it also doesn't say much for their intelligence if they continue spouting crap in the face of what is essentially certain scientific fact.

toiletduck

Overheal wrote:

I never read through and never tried to interpret the Bible so forgive me, how does this conflict with the literal interpretation?

Read the thread here

bonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Its nothing to do with my logical faculties.

You asked if judges should be allowed decide what teachers can and cannot teach. You suggested that it is wrong that they do so. I merely chose examples where I was certain you'd have no issue with the law holding teachers to task for choosing to exercise academic freedom in teaching.

It seems impossible to argue for a reasonable position on the issue when people respond with such inane analogies.

I am reminded of the story of the man who asks a woman if she would sleep with him for a million dollars, and she agrees. He then asks if she would sleep with him for twenty dollars, to which she expresses outrage and asks what kind of woman he thinks she is. "Madam", he replies, "we have already established that. Now we are merely negotiating price".

We've established that you fully support that teachers be prevented from teaching certain subjects. Now we are merely negotiating price.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Academic freedom really only come into play at third level (when students are mature enough not to be easily influenced by a 'teacher'), and even then absolute professionalism and integrity is always expected among academic peers.

You will not find a professor of science who will preach creationism to students. You'd be hard pushed to find a lecturer who would.

Before third level, I think some level of protection must be in place to stop children being maniupulated. School is primarily a place of academic learning, and to be frank, creationism doesn't command much respect in academic circles.

Hobbes

Sean_K wrote: »

Before third level, I think some level of protection must be in place to stop children being maniupulated.

Thats why a lot of creationist kids get home schooled. There used to a law in place in America that allowed social workers to examine the children being home schooled but Bush + PHC helped stop that from happening.

bonkey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Creationism in America also does not qualify as a "subject". If I put were to suggest that my "subjects" be allowed as counter-points in a discussion...would you accept that? Do you think a teacher should respectfully allow students to argue a racist or sexist standpoint? Should they be allowed debate the merits of religious intolerance?

If I rephrase it that way, then neither of us are talking about subjects...merely about allowing the right to discuss "the two sides" of some issue...does that make it better? If so, do you really think I can't come up with some (even more) extreme examples to show that you'll accept that there are limits as to what should be reasonably allowed for debate?

There is an obvious distinction between teaching students illegal activities such as prostituting themselves and stealing cars, and teaching them about pre- and post-Darwinian understandings of the origin of life.

As I've already pointed out, we're still just discussing price.

You've agreed that teachers should not be permitted freedom to teach what they will under the guise that it is "academic freedom".

You've now restated that position to pitch at a vaguer concept - that of "established scholarly standards".

Perhaps the most definitive established scholarly standard in the US is that students will have the freedom to receive an education free from religion - that theological debates will not be allowed to intrude on their education. The Establishment clause of the First Amendment gives them this right.

The proposal to allow Creationism into the classroom for discussion or debate is a direct contradiction of that edict. It gives proponents of it a free reign to pitch the theological argument of Fundamental Christianity against that of science.

If you have a science teacher who believes in Creationism, then they can pitch the "debate" very much to the detriment of the education they are supposed to be teaching.
If you have a science teacher who is very anti-Fundamentalist Christian, then you run the risk of student-teacher conflagration with accusations of intolerance. Either which way, you breach the so-called Establishment Clause.

Freedom from religious debate is an established scholarly standard at the level of schooling in question. Most of the controversy stems from the fact that its a poorly-held standard. The remainder stems from attempts to further undermine it.