Slashdot Mirror
Map of Publicly-Funded Creationism Teaching
Capt.Albatross writes "At Slate, Chris Kirk presents a map of schools in the USA that both receive public funding and teach creationism. It also shows public schools in those states where they are allowed to teach creationism (without necessarily implying that creationism is taught in all public schools of those states). There is a brief outline of the regulations in those states where this occurs, but the amounts involved are not discussed."
For all the trash that gets talked about Texas in this regard, it barely registers here, and only for some sort of "Responsive Ed charter school" that a Texan might explain better - sounds like it's not the normal school system.
Louisiana and Tennessee OTOH - ouch!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
on presumably a flat earth
More what?
Stoning of adulterers?
Slavery?
Animal sacrifice?
Other things Bronze Age religion requires?
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
Unfortunately, the US's first major "nation building" failure might be said to have occurred after the civil war... We defeated the insurgency; but never really managed to rebuild a functional society in the southern provinces. If subsequent events are any guide, we may just suck at dealing with religious zealots with shitty human rights records.
Just can't let the 'I hate Christians' thing go can you?
It's not a "I hate Christians" thing. It's a "I hate dishonesty" thing. If you're teaching something in a class that claims to be a science class, then you are supposed to be teaching the scientific method (the core of "science") and things that have been learned and proven using the scientific method. Instead, if you are teaching creationism, you are not only teaching something that does not stand up to the scientific method, but you are also teaching that things that have been very well proven using the scientific method are wrong. This is dishonest. If you want to teach creationism or any other aspect of any other religion, that's great, just be sure to label the class "theology" and not something related to science.
How would you feel if, instead of something that Christians came up with, they were teaching Scientology as if it were fact? Do you think teaching that humans on earth came from the evil lord Xenu belongs in a science class? Regardless of which aspects of which religions are right or wrong, it belongs in a theology class, not a science class. Or, to make another analogy, should a school be teaching about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in a math class? Regardless of whether what they're teaching is right or wrong, that topic belongs in a history class, not a math class.
It's not hate to want factually incorrect, archaic, dropped-from-the-mainstream facets of Christianity removed from public education in Tennessee and Louisiana.
Only the literalist interpretation of the Bible demands such teachings, but such followers are caught between their own sense of reason and their own faith. Those followers feel if they bend on this, and say the Bible is not perfect, it is the same as denying their entire faith. Most versions of Christianity no longer hold such literal interpretations, so based on the map, it may be a Baptist thing?
I believe GP's point was that the more theories there are, the better - and I agree. Hell, let's chuck all the 'theories' in there, right down to the last turtle.
I'll explain:
While the Earth is a whole hell of a lot lot older than ~6,000 orbits, it does provide one benefit: You get to force students to think outside the box. Show them what crap science looks like. Towards that end, we really ought to force the little rugrats to think - long and hard; the earlier, the better. Meanwhile, maybe as a reaction, this will spur the school boards to bring back a few things that have been missing from public schools for way the hell too long: Logic, Rhetoric, Scientific Methodology, Critical Thinking, and (actual) Debate. I learned all of this in Catholic school around 6-8th grades, whereas most public high schools don't even bother (let alone at the lower grades). Basically, I want to see this Creationism stunt force the schools into teaching kids to question everything they're told, and more importantly, giving them the tools to actually do it.
Let's face it - nowadays, kids are basically taught to do what they're told in matters that are critical (e.g. civics, science), but to be overly-creative in superfluous matters (art, sex, etc). Maybe in a perverse way, this push for creationism, such as it is, will reverse the slide.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
No but my liver does. Always knew the damn thing was evil.
Nearly half of all Americans believe that humans were placed on earth in their current form, magically by the hand of God Himself, with no evolutionary changes or modifications every occurring. And the number is rising.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/218...
Do you want to know what brings about the biblical apocalypse? Ignorance of the natural world in which we live. Buckle your seatbelts, because the ignorant are starting to drive this bus we call civilization, and the last stop is not utopia.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I can't wait until "The joy of sect" becomes mandatory reading in high schools.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
Throwing invalid and in many cases demonstrably false claims at students who don't have the background to see the invalidity is ludicrous. I mean, why single science out? Why not teach Holocaust denial in history class? After all, wouldn't that challenge students too? Perhaps you could also teach 2+2=5 and French verb conjugation in English class.
Schools are supposed to teach science, like any other subject, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Teaching students that somehow just because someone calls some nonsense claim a "theory" is not teaching at all.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
See, this is why we need good science education. You don't even know what science IS. Its aim is not to "prove things without a doubt."
Why just 3 theories? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the Universe being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? Those "theories" are just a plausible as your Christian or your Simulation theories.
Evolution, on the other hand, makes testable predictions, something none of your other "theories" can claim, which makes then not theories at all in the scientific sense.
I suggest you go back to Grade 9 science class. You obviously need a refresher.
There's actually more logical evidence and less holes in the theory at the universe is a giant simulation.
Righto, matey. GIve me some testable predictions of your Simulation theory.
Evolution? We predict that organisms will change in response to changing conditions and we have observed it in action with the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prediction followed by confirmation.
Your turn.
Further, a longitudinal study comparing Montessori and public schools shows that a large amount of our social pathologies can be traced back to pedagogical methods used by public schools.
Not only that, a cross-cultural neo-Darwinian study showed that a substantial number of semi-literate subpar I.Q. holders believe that multi-syllabic language tokens show utility in promoting an argument.
I suppose that explains your post?
Evolutionists want to teach evolution because they don't like religion.
No, that's wrong. Evolutionists want evolution taught because it is the best explanation was have for observed and verified facts.
people still pick up a fossil and say "nope, this must be the sole explanation."
No, they pick up a fossil and say "this must be the sole explanation that does not rely on introducing multiple additional non-testable hypotheses". I know you're upset that scientists won't simply wave their hands and say "God did it" in response to anything we don't understand, but that's not really how the scientific method works. Technically, we haven't actually proven that the entire universe isn't actually the complex masturbatory fantasy of a pimply 13-year-old superintelligent extradimensional being, but we don't feel guilty about discounting that explanation when we're trying to figure out how modern life forms originated. If we didn't apply this parsimonious approach to scientific investigation, we'd still be using candles and horses and enjoying a 25% infant mortality rate.
Pointing out that some nasty people believe nasty things is not the same thing as saying "And another theory is that no Jews were killed by the Nazis, and those who claim it is are members of Jewish conspiracy to enslave God-fearing Aryans."
The same goes for saying "And another theory is that God created humans 6,000 years ago, and it's just as legitimate as the claim that we evolved from a common ancestor billions of years ago."
Creationism isn't a theory, not in the scientific sense, so teaching it as a legitimate theory is teaching children a falsehood.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
So why do we get so uptight about a few people wanting us to believe...
I have no problem with people believing whatever fantasies float their boat. I have a huge problem with their wanting to force said fantasies on kids under the guise of teaching science. As the post below said, teaching creationism in science class = child molestation.
/* kids are basically taught to do what they're told in matters that are critical (e.g. civics, science), but to be overly-creative in superfluous matters (art, sex, etc). */
First, art and sex are not superfluous. If they are, you need to reassess your life's priorities.
But more importantly, Art, Music, and Drama departments are usually on the "hit list" when schools go looking at their budgets, deciding what to cut. I WISH we were encouraging more kids to be overly-creative in those so-called superfluous matters, because those art kids end up being the philosophers of your generation. If you haven't noticed, Art, Music, Literature, Drama are all bastions of "liberal democratic thought" and are thus on the chopping block, just like STEM. Both foster unfavorable "group think."
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
"disproves"
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Sorry but why is creationism something that shouldn't be taught?
Creationism should not be taught in science class because it is not science.
It can be taught in a class on mythology. Or comparative religion. Just not in a science class.
Has it been disproven?
It's not science, so it's neither provable nor disprovable. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Great Green Arkleseizure or ancient Egyption creation myths. Should those be taught in science class?
As such it's still valid to teach it as a possibility
No, it's not. Science class is for teaching scientific theories, not creation myths.
Once you start banning ideas and theories from being taught you go down the path of censorship and book banning.
So it's OK to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Green Arkleseizure, etc? Or are you one of those steekin' censors?