…and this is a 
The miseducation committee of the Indiana legislature recently approved a bill to allow the teaching of creationism in the schools, and now the Indianapolis newspaper approves, with the usual tepid and illegitimate arguments.
Much would depend on how teachers handle the origins of life in a biology or science class.
No, it doesn't. A bill that inserts garbage into the curriculum is a bill that inserts garbage; it doesn't matter if you think it could be used to make a lovely collage, or as an exercise in recycling, it's still garbage. And if you trust teachers to do their job, let them do it without boneheaded cretins in the legislature telling them how.
And there is no provision in the bill that states creationism must be taught as a science subject.
Let me guess: it would be OK to teach it as "philosophy". How much disrespect are you willing to give to that field? It's bad philosophy, too. What disciplines is Indiana willing to poison with nonsense? Be specific. English? History? I know — how about relegating creationism to the football team.
Courts have ruled that using the Bible as an educational tool is permissible. We see nothing that would change that here, and note the bill stresses "theories" on the origins of life.
Uh-oh. I know what's coming next. I cringe in anticipation.
The march down the slippery slope occurs when theories are presented as facts.
YEEEAAARGH. HULK SMASH!
Scientific theories are explanatory frameworks for integrating a body of facts. Evolutionary theory, cell theory, germ theory, quantum theory, electromagnetic theory, transition state theory, the theory of relativity — these are all theories, and they also represent accurate and useful descriptions of how the universe works. They should be and are taught as facts, provisional explanations that have been tested and evaluated and found successful. "Theory" means something very specific and powerful to a scientist — there is no creation theory to be taught or used, and especially, no creation story that has survived any scientific test.
This bill could act as a safeguard against an educator mentioning creationism, and then possibly getting sued for promoting religion in the classroom. The American Civil Liberties Union has jumped into the fray and says this bill is unconstitutional, and that courts have overturned similar bills from other states.
This makes no sense. Yes, if a teacher peddles creationism in the classroom, they are using a state-supported, public facility to promote a purely religious idea. If a legislator peddles creationism in a bill, they are using the resources of goverment to promote a sectarian religious idea. This is wrong whether it's a teacher or a state rep doing it, it is unconstitutional, and most importantly, it is bad science being used to corrupt education.
Certainly, there is much empirical scientific evidence to support evolution, and some pretty good philosophical arguments to support creationism. It's unfortunate, though, that the latter has to be tagged as a science.
"Pretty good philosophical arguments for creationism"? Name one. Most philosophers are cleverer than that.
We think a thorough education exposes students to different theories, and if schools have done a good job of developing a student's critical thinking skills, there is no harm done.
Oh, great. This is going to be fun. So if they've learned how to fall safely in gym class, I can punch little kids in the nose, and no harm done. If they've learned basic logic in grade school, we can do a crappy job teaching them trigonometry and calculus — they'll be able to derive them for themselves, and no harm will be done. If they've learned playground safety rules, we can turn them loose with random chemicals in the chemistry lab, and no harm done.
This moron is basically saying that if most of the kids' education is decently done, then they can afford to throw a few state-mandated lies at them. Once upon a time, I thought the goal was to excel and provide the best education possible; in Indiana, the dream is a school system that is less than half shitty.
(Also on FtB)
Comments
Posted by: cschonegg
|
January 28, 2012 3:41 PM
Actually, the Star Press is a Muncie paper. If you want the Indianapolis paper, you want the plain old Star (www.indystar.com). Though I'm not sure why anyone would voluntarily read either one, having lived in both Muncie and Indy I can say that the Indianapolis paper is at least a little better.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 28, 2012 3:58 PM
The comments on the article are encouraging. Most of them ask why religious myth is to be taught in place of science and similar questions.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlBWEpnD0LjELxL2GcdU3WQJyQqmBPHA9o
|
January 28, 2012 6:16 PM
Poor Indiana.
Still... I learned a lot about web design at the site "webpages that suck". The subtitle was learn good design by looking at bad design.
You could use evolution in a class on the philosophy of science as an example of an idea that is not science. It would be a nice opportunity to discuss the ideas of Karl Popper that the distinctive property of a scientific theory is that it can be falsified.
As long as evolution proponents claim that God also created fossils and is willing to do everything to fool innocent scientists into thinking evolution is right and make it look like the earth is older than 4000 years, evolution is a beautiful example of an idea you cannot disprove and it thus scientifically useless.
The problem that remains is that there are apparently so many closed-minded people in Indiana. People who are willing to believe an old book so much and prefer to have the same opinion as their family and friends irrespective of the evidence.
Posted by: Herman Cummings
|
January 28, 2012 6:20 PM
The evolution theory is an irrational falsehood, zealously embraced by atheists, that is a phony conclusion of the 600+ million year fossil record. There is no “valid supporting data” for evolution. In a court of law, or in a public forum, the same evidence that evolutionists would use to try to “prove” the validity of that theory, I would utilize to reveal the truth of Genesis. In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality. For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared. The only “common ancestor” that humans and primates share is God Himself.
Current Creationism has refused to teach the truth of the Genesis text, and either teaches foolishness (young Earth), or false doctrines (non-literal reading of the text). Creationists thoughtlessly try to prove “Creationism”, rather than seeking and teaching the truth of Genesis. How can an untruth, ever prove another lie, to be in error? You can’t do it. That is why Creationism fails. It essentially is also a lie, and should be discarded, even by Bible believers.
The correct opposing view to evolution is the "Observations of Moses", which conveys the truth of Genesis chapter one.
Those that imply that God used evolution are infidels at worse, or clowns at best, that refuse to learn the truth of Genesis. The truth has been available for more than 18 years. Such a discussion is currently silly, and shows stubbornness against learning the truth of God's Word.
There are no "creation stories" in Genesis. In fact, about all of theology and creationism have no idea what Moses was writing about. You can't simply take an advanced book of math or science, and try to read from it on your own without personal instruction.
For example, Genesis declares that mankind has been on this Earth, in his present likeness, for more than 60 million years. The "male and female" in Genesis chapter one was not "Adam & Eve". Has modern science discovered that yet?
Herman Cummings
ephraim7@ao
Posted by: d.b.densmore
|
January 28, 2012 6:36 PM
That's not even a good word salad, more like a word turd.
People who organize their lives around ancient myths are to be pitied.
Posted by: dagard
|
January 28, 2012 7:00 PM
That's it. I'm moving to Indiana, getting my certification to teach, and am going to teach that aliens created life on Earth.
It's just as valid as an invisible sky man doing it. It's a theory, right?
Sure, I'll get some pushback from those who think the Invisible Pink Unicorn (may Her Holy hooves never be shod) is who created life, but, c'mon now, that's just ridiculous. And I don't want to think about what the Pastafarians will do to me.
But they're all equally valid theories, right?
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 28, 2012 7:10 PM
Let me translate Mr Cummings' mental diarrhea:Posted by: Stanton
|
January 28, 2012 7:21 PM
May you simmer in marinara for that blasphemy.Posted by: skeptical_hippo
|
January 28, 2012 7:53 PM
I'm a local. The Star Press is out of Muncie -- not that Indy is not conservative too, but I think to think we're not quite that bad. To understand the area you have to realize that the Church of God (Anderson) is headquartered not far from Muncie and pretty much owns that chunk of Indiana. The Anderson public schools actually pull children out of school for bible study and get away with it. I am not making this up -- I have friends who are just about blacklisted in the community for complaining about it.
Personally, I think this bill has a lot more to do with upcoming primaries than with any real belief that it will be passed without being struck down by the courts. I think even Hoosier creationists aren't stupid enough to think this thing is viable. We have a situation in the state right now where there's a Tea Party backlash against moderate Republicans, so Republican elected officials are eager to move as far to the right as possible before the primaries. That's my read on the situation, anyway.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 28, 2012 7:53 PM
What about Genesis chapter two...?
If so, it's wrong by a factor of 300 if you don't accept the Neandertalers as "his present likeness".
But how do you get that date from Genesis in the first place?
*eyeroll* You don't even need science to notice that Adam & Eve aren't mentioned in chapter 1, only in chapter 2.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 28, 2012 8:23 PM
The name "Herman Cummings" looked familiar, and sure enough, Google shows that he's been dropping by here for years, and leaving creationist blather about how smart he is, and how dumb everyone who isn't him is. He rarely engages responders, except to blather more about how dumb they are and how smart he is.
Classification: Narcissist kook OEC seagull.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
January 28, 2012 8:54 PM
Come to think of it, it's wrong by a factor of nearly as much even if you do.
Unless "his present likeness" includes plesiadapiforms.
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 28, 2012 9:06 PM
What about including Purgatorius?Posted by: Owlmirror
|
January 28, 2012 9:07 PM
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was "Eeek!"
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
January 28, 2012 9:45 PM
HC, still no evidence presented (only presupposed in your delusional mind) for your imaginary creator and that the babble isn't a book of mythology/fiction. Funny how creationists always forget the important stuff. No deity, no inerrant babble (always presupposed that they are true), no creation by biblical mythology. In fact, no godbot/creobot has ever shown conclusive physical evidence for their imaginary deity, just inane pseudo evidence that presupposes the conclusion.
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 28, 2012 9:53 PM
Don't forget admonishments and threats if one does not automatically agree.Posted by: kamizushi
|
January 28, 2012 10:59 PM
I used to only facepalm when I heard it but it gets worst with time. Now, every time I hear the "It's just a theory" argument, I feel like hitting my head on the wall until I discover which of the two breaks first.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/Z3lEQQU9sfPXMFLlgeFpId0LuGQA.bz8bDp6M_zQ7NOSLKs-#a4b77
|
January 29, 2012 8:21 AM
As I understand it, most bible historians now think it highly unlikely that Moses actually existed.
Mr Cummings may of course be in possession of some evidence to the contrary. If so perhaps he might be willing to share it with us?
Posted by: vitomama
|
January 29, 2012 8:41 AM
Thank you so much, Mr. Cummings!
"In order to believe in evolution, you have to purposely ignore certain facts of reality. For example, when you see illustrations of primates being pictured as evolving into humans, it can be shown in a court of law that such a premise is impossible, because certain human and primate traits are different, and could not have ever been shared."
Finally I understand now that I've been listening to those silly scientists instead of "a court of law". But I think you've got me on the right track now. (Thought I saw a primate in a court of law once, but I must've been mistaken.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
January 29, 2012 10:52 AM
Herman Cummings #4
Mr. Cummings is onto something here. Chimpanzees have prehensile toes, humans do not. New World monkeys have tails, humans do not. Orangutangs only say "Ook!,"* humans have a somewhat wider vocabulary.
When you can come up with an orangutang who can say "eek" or "awk", then you evolutionists might have a point.
*As shown in the extensive writings of the eminent orangutangologist, Sir pTerry.
Posted by: Stanton
|
January 29, 2012 12:31 PM
And yet, in courts of law, evolution has been demonstrated to be science, and creationism demonstrated to be religiously motivated anti-science propaganda.Go figure.
Posted by: James_Evans
|
January 29, 2012 1:09 PM
The same tired, repeatedly and successfully refuted creationism arguments revisited in every state...
Over.
And.
Over.
And.
Over.
AGAIN.
This is mostly what defenders of shrinking federal government and expanding state powers want. If they can't peddle their Bronze Age bullshit in one state, they'll move to the next and try again, and keep trying, until the cancer starts growing somewhere, and metastasizes into surrounding states.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
January 29, 2012 2:09 PM
Probably not a primate – probably not even a placental in the strict sense. That was only discovered in 2007; there's not a lot you can do with isolated teeth.
Posted by: generationalist
|
January 29, 2012 2:10 PM
We have to keep in mind that the Wedge document was always intended as a very long term - strategy - with the intentional goal of destroying science education in the US. Every few months we see a new tactic or even old tactics reintroduced into state and local legislation. Many of us rally against these attacks as we become aware of them. Every time we rally the creationists have already been hawking, planning and pimping the latest strategies in their weekly sunday services to gawd. They do this - in the presence of our federal, state and local representatives. The creationists are very pro-active in their schemes to remove science from public US class rooms. How do we counter what borders on being state sanctioned terrorism (as in you will burn in hell if you allow your children to learn science).
Here is some food for thought. In the early formation of our country people would actually get up and leave church services just to go to the post office and shoot the breeze. That was a normal practice at least until congress eliminated sunday mail delivery in 1912.
Source: http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/02/19/sunday-mail-service-in-a-christian-nation-book-notes-divided-by-god.htm
Seven day mail delivery started in 1810 and the attack against sunday mail delivery started to take shape in 1828. That means the attack on sunday mail delivery continued for 84 years until the dogmatic assault succeeded in ending the weekly walkout on church services.
What is a simple, non-violent, proactive approach to get people to walk out of church services again? A nonprofit, free, weekly - Science Lab sunday?
Posted by: james.schmittler
|
January 30, 2012 8:23 AM
I live in Indiana (until tomorrow). Luckily, I'm moving to Minnesota, where I hear people are allowed to think critically. Unfortunately, this isn't news for me. When I was in high school, we had a teacher that had to teach evolution, but thought it was a load of crap. So on the test you were allowed to write any bible verse for any answer and he would count it right. You didn't even have to get the bible verse correct.
Welcome to the bible belt...
Posted by: Jottritter
|
January 30, 2012 7:13 PM
What's fascinating (and also horrifying) is that the energy behind the relentless attempts to attack Evolutionary theory and to force Creationism on the public school system derives from a fear to which many Creationists will not even admit: that the Bible (the Babble), once it is claimed to be the literal word of God, cannot be allowed to be proven inerrant, lest the whole structure come crashing down: No 6-day creation- No Adam and Eve; No Adam and Eve: no apple and no "original sin"; No original sin- no need for the "blood-atonement" of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. As one Christian apologist put it, "Without the resurrection, there is no Christianity." Therefore they are helplessly bound to defend any and all nonsense in the Babble, whether it pertains to Evolution, or even common sense, or not.