Slashdot Mirror

If that is your claim, then what is the harm in teaching both theories?

I don't care if creationism is taught, where it belongs in a philosophy, religion, mythology or other class but it does not belong in a science class. And if it's going to be taught in other classes then other creation mythologies should be taught alongside it. Such as the The Navajo Creation Story and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And creationism is no more scientifically discontinuous than evolution is.

Evolution is a scientific theory but creationism IS NOT. And Intelligent Design is just an attempt to sneak creationism into the science class.

Falcon

I have no problem teacher religion in school, in a philosophy, humanities, or religion class but the only tyme in belongs in a science class is when explaining how religion repressed science. And if you're going to teach "God" in philosophy class be sure to also teach Buddhism, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Hinduism, Jainism, and all the other religions. Fair play is fair play. If you're going to teach Genesis, also teach The Navajo Creation Story, Apache Creation Story, and other creation stories.

allow me to introduce you to the geography of the 26,000 square mile Navajo Nation

As a matter of probability, as a matter of history, as a matter of precidence, ID is emminantly more probably than a Darwinian Evolution.

ID is not science and therefore should not be taught in science classes. Evolution on the other hand is science and belongs there. I wouldn't mind having ID taught in public schools however as part of a philosophy curriculum. If so though then other beliefs of the origin of life need to be taught as well. Such as the Apache Creation Story, Navajo Creation Story, and the Zuni Creation Cycle.

This post may seem a little off-topic, but so does its parent, and I feel the insert a few hard facts.

I have worked as an archaeologist in the Desert Southwest and southern Mexico for eight years and I am aware of no firm evidence whatsoever for Aztecs encroaching directly into the traditional lands of the Navajo. There is some evidence that people living at the site of Paquime traded copper and exotic birds with groups from Mesoamerica, but these folks probably lived on or near the Pacific Coast, in what are now the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit. A chronology of Navajo settlement in the Southwest mentions the Aztec, but under a separate timeline. Finally, a curriculum guide from a comparative civilizations class designed to be taught in Navajo schools makes no mention of these alleged Aztec slavers.

From all I have read (and I apologize for not having time to re-create the bibliography here), there were forms of slavery among many Native American groups in North America, including the Aztecs. However, slavery, as conceived by Native Americans, was very different from that imposed by Europeans. Most of the time, war captives were involved. In some cases, as was observed among the 18th century Creek of present-day Georgia, slaves ended up being treated more as outcasts than outright slaves. Some were even adopted into the families of the men who captured them. A similar observation was made regarding indigenous Afreican slavery.

As for celestial observation towers, etc., yes, they were everywhere, among many cultures. But again turning to archaeological evidence, it seems that most were developed indepently by different groups for different purposes.

While there is nothing wrong with being impressed by the accomplishments of Native Americans prior to European colonization for their own sake, don't make the mistake of superimposing models of European civilizational development on these societies. Prehistoric native groups in North America followed very different paths and we owe it to their descendents to appreciate their history on its own terms. We sell everyone short if we have to impose false parallels with European history in order to be impressed.

I think we actually agree. Neither is science! So if they're going to speculate to students about how life came into being, might as well mention that God could be as good a reason as comet (which just moves the problem off planet). But maybe I'm missing the point about the whole school controversy.

The controversy is that supporters of ID are trying to take over the teaching of science with mumbo jumbo. Saying evolution can't explain complex organisms and that some Intelligent Designer is needed isn't science. If the people who want to teach this then they can teach it in a philosophy or comparative religion class. If they want to teach that though then they need to teach other views as well. Here's one I like, The Navajo Creation Story. Or how about the Zuni Creation Cycle.

Of course the accidental picture was the one that became famous.

For those that aren't making the connection, the famous photo and a number of others taken at the time are here. There was a stamp made of it too. And it was made into a statue for the Marine Corps War Memorial.

Allegedly!?!