Freethought & Rationalism Archive

S2Focus · 06-13-2003, 07:55 PM

Read all about it here

lpetrich · 06-13-2003, 08:29 PM

It might be fun to think of how to advertise evolution with a horse ride, given that equids have a very good fossil record. Perhaps:

A Well-Preserved Pedigree for 55 Million Years.

Roland98 · 06-13-2003, 09:06 PM

Wasn't the language for that amendment not included in the final law, or am I thinking of a different one? NCSE did have an article on it at one time--but I'm too damn lazy to look right now.

NonHomogenized · 06-13-2003, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Smith said the amendment states that "where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

I agree completely. We should present all the scientific evidence.
Of course, that only supports evolution...

Roma · 06-14-2003, 10:19 AM

I've always wondered this, and I promise I'm not being sarcastic here.

Can somebody please, please explain to me what exactly these people mean when they say they want to "teach creationism"? How does that work? Do they mean teach the stuff on ICR and AiG? Or if they teach it "alongside evolution", do they get done teaching the science behind evolution and then at the end of class say, "Oh yeah, there's also a theory that says the earth is only 6,000 years old and everything was made by God. Class dismissed."?

Again, I'm not being a smart-ass here, I'm honestly curious as to what exactly is on the agenda for a science class teaching creationism.

-Roma

Spaz · 06-14-2003, 10:54 AM

It probably wouldn't be that bad in a class where the teacher actually teaches and isn't one of the pro-6 day idiots. They would bascially be showing the children that creationism is scientifically impossible.

Coragyps · 06-14-2003, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Again, I'm not being a smart-ass here, I'm honestly curious as to what exactly is on the agenda for a science class teaching creationism.

I've asked the question on a couple of fora: "Which flavor of creationism do you teach? Cheyenne? !Kung? Maori? Hmong?

No one ever answers.

Minnesota · 06-14-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

I've asked the question on a couple of fora: "Which flavor of creationism do you teach? Cheyenne? !Kung? Maori? Hmong?

Excellent question; rhetorical of course, but it does put their position in perspective.

hezekiah jones · 06-14-2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Roma
Can somebody please, please explain to me what exactly these people mean when they say they want to "teach creationism"?

They can't use the word "creationism" anymore, because it's had its ass kicked out of every legal venue in the country.

These days the more forward-thinking creationists wish to "teach the controversy," which, as far as I can tell, is an entirely fabricated controversy manufactured from a deliberate misreading of the scientific literature.

I think most regular posters here will agree with this.

hezekiah jones · 06-14-2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Roland98
Wasn't the language for that amendment not included in the final law, or am I thinking of a different one?

Nope, that's the one. The linked story cleverly refers to the Santorum language as part of a "Conference Report." In fact the language was removed from the bill in the conference committee.

P.S. lpetrich's idea is a great one!
P.P.S. Just about everything this bozo says in this article is wrong.

06-13-2003, 07:55 PM	#1
S2Focus Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: 1162 easy freeway minutes from the new ICR in TX Posts: 896	Horse's ass plans a roadtrip to promote the Santorum amendment Read all about it here

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-13-2003, 08:29 PM	#2
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	It might be fun to think of how to advertise evolution with a horse ride, given that equids have a very good fossil record. Perhaps: A Well-Preserved Pedigree for 55 Million Years.

06-13-2003, 09:06 PM	#3
Roland98 Contributor Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Gilead Posts: 11,186	Wasn't the language for that amendment not included in the final law, or am I thinking of a different one? NCSE did have an article on it at one time--but I'm too damn lazy to look right now.

06-14-2003, 10:19 AM	#5
Roma Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 66	I've always wondered this, and I promise I'm not being sarcastic here. Can somebody please, please explain to me what exactly these people mean when they say they want to "teach creationism"? How does that work? Do they mean teach the stuff on ICR and AiG? Or if they teach it "alongside evolution", do they get done teaching the science behind evolution and then at the end of class say, "Oh yeah, there's also a theory that says the earth is only 6,000 years old and everything was made by God. Class dismissed."? Again, I'm not being a smart-ass here, I'm honestly curious as to what exactly is on the agenda for a science class teaching creationism. -Roma

06-14-2003, 10:54 AM	#6
Spaz Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: 6th Circle of Hell Posts: 1,093	It probably wouldn't be that bad in a class where the teacher actually teaches and isn't one of the pro-6 day idiots. They would bascially be showing the children that creationism is scientifically impossible.

06-14-2003, 03:49 PM	#9
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Originally posted by Roma Can somebody please, please explain to me what exactly these people mean when they say they want to "teach creationism"? They can't use the word "creationism" anymore, because it's had its ass kicked out of every legal venue in the country. These days the more forward-thinking creationists wish to "teach the controversy," which, as far as I can tell, is an entirely fabricated controversy manufactured from a deliberate misreading of the scientific literature. I think most regular posters here will agree with this.

06-14-2003, 03:54 PM	#10
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	Originally posted by Roland98 Wasn't the language for that amendment not included in the final law, or am I thinking of a different one? Nope, that's the one. The linked story cleverly refers to the Santorum language as part of a "Conference Report." In fact the language was removed from the bill in the conference committee. P.S. lpetrich's idea is a great one! P.P.S. Just about everything this bozo says in this article is wrong.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.