Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law.

[Oddball]

The last word is this: neither evolutionists nor IDers nor creationists will have any say in the feds making their cherished dreams come true with a federal-mandated curriculum for any subject. We ar not like the French with a national program for subjects etc.

Thus, evolution will continue in the science classroom and ID/creationism will continue in the liberal arts or humanities classroom.

The hardcore nonbelievers and believers will not succeed, because the great mainstream of America think both groups are goony on the subject.

The first thing that Fake Malarkey has said, in the nearly four years of his presence here, that has made any sense whatsoever.

Blind squirrel meets acorn.

 

[rdean]

https: // petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-creationism-and-intelligent-design-science-classroom-federal-law/pNY6mCBg

Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law.

Since Darwin's groundbreaking theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, scientists all around the world have found monumental amounts of evidence in favor of the theory, now treated as scientific fact by 99.9% of all scientists.

However, even after 150 years after the establishment of evolution, some schools across the US are "teaching the controversy," including Creationism and Intelligent Design. Both of these so-called "theories" have no basis in scientific fact, and have absolutely zero evidence pointing towards these conjectures. These types of loopholes in our education are partially to blame for our dangerously low student performances in math and science.

Therefore, we petition the Obama Adminstration to ban the teachings of these conjectures that contradict Evolution.

Please sign and promote via FaceBook, Twitter etc.

I thought science was open minded not close minded. Since they can't prove origins nor prove there is no God why would they rule out a possibility without proof.

They don't even consider spiritual beings. It's not brought up because it isn't part of science. Every time a right winger opens their mouth, they show off their ignorance.

When you look at all the success of scientists and compare it the "nothing" the right wing brings to the table, all you can say is "Are you kidding me?"

 

[BarryDesborough]

https: // petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-creationism-and-intelligent-design-science-classroom-federal-law/pNY6mCBg

Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law.

Since Darwin's groundbreaking theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, scientists all around the world have found monumental amounts of evidence in favor of the theory, now treated as scientific fact by 99.9% of all scientists.

However, even after 150 years after the establishment of evolution, some schools across the US are "teaching the controversy," including Creationism and Intelligent Design. Both of these so-called "theories" have no basis in scientific fact, and have absolutely zero evidence pointing towards these conjectures. These types of loopholes in our education are partially to blame for our dangerously low student performances in math and science.

Therefore, we petition the Obama Adminstration to ban the teachings of these conjectures that contradict Evolution.

Please sign and promote via FaceBook, Twitter etc.

I thought science was open minded not close minded. Since they can't prove origins nor prove there is no God why would they rule out a possibility without proof.

Who are "they", and why do you think "they" are interested in God?

 

[BarryDesborough]

Or, both Evolution & Big Bang Theory, and Creationism & Intelligent Design can be elective classes in public school systems?

how would creationism be taught without blurring the line between church and state.?

Creationism should be taught, among other religious ideas, IMO. Education is about equipping people with the means of understanding the world around them. In America and in countries with a strong Moslem influence, creation is a significant factor. But it should be taught in a way that educates people about it, rather than indoctrinating them in it. The same goes for science.

 

[PratchettFan]

Why do we want to teach our children science?

Apart from the obvious, materialistic and mundane reasons, what might we hope to impart to our children, even if they never go into science and science-related careers?

We are all surrounded by people wanting us to believe what they are telling us. From the relatively trivial, such as the astrology pages and the claims of fringe medicine, through the clamour of the advertising industry and the appeals of politicians, right up to the ranting of the fanatic and the outright (one could almost say honest) fraud of the con man - at least the con artist is not interested in leaving us with permanent illusions. All these people, for their own motives, want us to persuade us to believe what they have to say, sometimes in the belief that they are doing it for our own benefit. But we require the means of evaluating what they have to say for ourselves.

How then, are we to equip our children with the critical faculties required for this sort of evaluation? Good scholarship is a feature of all subjects when they are taught well, but science is the epitome of subjects in which the appeal to authority, "Take my word for it", has no final say. Neither is the final say granted to the armchair philosopher, the clever rhetorician, the appealer to emotion or the snake-oil salesman. Instead, we demand, "Show me!"

Unfortunately, it's not so simple in practice. No school student can test the entire contents of the science curriculum. We have to ensure that the scientific method, with its peer-review process and its principles of repeatability, falsifiability, parsimony and consilience has been applied to what is being taught. We have to be able to know that our scientists and science teachers are faithful to these methods. Only then are our teachers able to impart the heart of science - the attitude of "Show me!" Only then can our children be equipped to reflexively raise an eyebrow to claims such as, "This crystal energy will heal you", "You can trust me with your vote", and "This is the sure way to Paradise."

Which is why I have no problem with creationism. It is an excellent example of a theory which does not work.

Yes, it is good to teach pseudo-science as an example of what science is not. But that's not what the petition is concerned with.

The petition is about imposing a particular doctrine. That is why I am in opposition to it. I don't think the schools should be telling students what to think, I prefer they teach them how to think. I see no problem introducing creationism in a science class so long as the scientific method is applied. Banning it only gives it more weight.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Which is why I have no problem with creationism. It is an excellent example of a theory which does not work.

Yes, it is good to teach pseudo-science as an example of what science is not. But that's not what the petition is concerned with.

The petition is about imposing a particular doctrine. That is why I am in opposition to it. I don't think the schools should be telling students what to think, I prefer they teach them how to think. I see no problem introducing creationism in a science class so long as the scientific method is applied. Banning it only gives it more weight.

In what way do you think science is a "doctrine"?

 

[PratchettFan]

Yes, it is good to teach pseudo-science as an example of what science is not. But that's not what the petition is concerned with.

The petition is about imposing a particular doctrine. That is why I am in opposition to it. I don't think the schools should be telling students what to think, I prefer they teach them how to think. I see no problem introducing creationism in a science class so long as the scientific method is applied. Banning it only gives it more weight.

In what way do you think science is a "doctrine"?

You aren't talking about science. Science is a process, a method for looking at the universe. You are talking about holding out a theory as a doctrine and banning an opposing approach. Not refuting it, banning it. I prefer that decision be made by the student, not the federal government. I prefer you, as the teacher, show the student how to use the process, not simply have them accept the theory. That is the difference between religion and science. Religion is about accepting, science is about questioning.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The last word is this: neither evolutionists nor IDers nor creationists will have any say in the feds making their cherished dreams come true with a federal-mandated curriculum for any subject. We ar not like the French with a national program for subjects etc.

Thus, evolution will continue in the science classroom and ID/creationism will continue in the liberal arts or humanities classroom.

The hardcore nonbelievers and believers will not succeed, because the great mainstream of America think both groups are goony on the subject.

The first thing that Fake Malarkey has said, in the nearly four years of his presence here, that has made any sense whatsoever. Blind squirrel meets acorn.

Better get those eyeglasse on, Blind Squirrel.

 

[BarryDesborough]

The petition is about imposing a particular doctrine. That is why I am in opposition to it. I don't think the schools should be telling students what to think, I prefer they teach them how to think. I see no problem introducing creationism in a science class so long as the scientific method is applied. Banning it only gives it more weight.

In what way do you think science is a "doctrine"?

You aren't talking about science. Science is a process, a method for looking at the universe. You are talking about holding out a theory as a doctrine and banning an opposing approach. Not refuting it, banning it. I prefer that decision be made by the student, not the federal government. I prefer you, as the teacher, show the student how to use the process, not simply have them accept the theory. That is the difference between religion and science. Religion is about accepting, science is about questioning.

I'm talking about science, and the teaching of science. There is no scientific "opposing approach".

 

[rdean]

https: // petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-creationism-and-intelligent-design-science-classroom-federal-law/pNY6mCBg

Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law.

Please sign and promote via FaceBook, Twitter etc.

I thought science was open minded not close minded. Since they can't prove origins nor prove there is no God why would they rule out a possibility without proof.

They don't even consider spiritual beings. It's not brought up because it isn't part of science. Every time a right winger opens their mouth, they show off their ignorance.

When you look at all the success of scientists and compare it the "nothing" the right wing brings to the table, all you can say is "Are you kidding me?"

Still waiting for all the right wing scientific achievements. Show us the science. What do you have? Put it all out on the table.

 

[PratchettFan]

In what way do you think science is a "doctrine"?

You aren't talking about science. Science is a process, a method for looking at the universe. You are talking about holding out a theory as a doctrine and banning an opposing approach. Not refuting it, banning it. I prefer that decision be made by the student, not the federal government. I prefer you, as the teacher, show the student how to use the process, not simply have them accept the theory. That is the difference between religion and science. Religion is about accepting, science is about questioning.

I'm talking about science, and the teaching of science. There is no scientific "opposing approach".

Science makes a lousy religion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Science is about empirical evidence and replication.

Religion is about faith.

The feds cannot be involved in how these are taught in the classroom.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The last word is this: neither evolutionists nor IDers nor creationists will have any say in the feds making their cherished dreams come true with a federal-mandated curriculum for any subject. We ar not like the French with a national program for subjects etc.

Thus, evolution will continue in the science classroom and ID/creationism will continue in the liberal arts or humanities classroom.

The hardcore nonbelievers and believers will not succeed, because the great mainstream of America think both groups are goony on the subject.

He included your group and you thanked him lol.

 

[PratchettFan]

The last word is this: neither evolutionists nor IDers nor creationists will have any say in the feds making their cherished dreams come true with a federal-mandated curriculum for any subject. We ar not like the French with a national program for subjects etc.

Thus, evolution will continue in the science classroom and ID/creationism will continue in the liberal arts or humanities classroom.

The hardcore nonbelievers and believers will not succeed, because the great mainstream of America think both groups are goony on the subject.

He included your group and you thanked him lol.

Yes. That was admirable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

https: // petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-creationism-and-intelligent-design-science-classroom-federal-law/pNY6mCBg

Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law.

Please sign and promote via FaceBook, Twitter etc.

I thought science was open minded not close minded. Since they can't prove origins nor prove there is no God why would they rule out a possibility without proof.

They don't even consider spiritual beings. It's not brought up because it isn't part of science. Every time a right winger opens their mouth, they show off their ignorance.

When you look at all the success of scientists and compare it the "nothing" the right wing brings to the table, all you can say is "Are you kidding me?"

Successful scientists were once creationists. They have not proven naturalism and they have not proven God does not exist so why eliminate possibilities. That is not true science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

https: // petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/ban-creationism-and-intelligent-design-science-classroom-federal-law/pNY6mCBg

Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law.

Please sign and promote via FaceBook, Twitter etc.

I thought science was open minded not close minded. Since they can't prove origins nor prove there is no God why would they rule out a possibility without proof.

Who are "they", and why do you think "they" are interested in God?

The heads over the science curriculum.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I thought science was open minded not close minded. Since they can't prove origins nor prove there is no God why would they rule out a possibility without proof.

They don't even consider spiritual beings. It's not brought up because it isn't part of science. Every time a right winger opens their mouth, they show off their ignorance.

When you look at all the success of scientists and compare it the "nothing" the right wing brings to the table, all you can say is "Are you kidding me?"

Still waiting for all the right wing scientific achievements. Show us the science. What do you have? Put it all out on the table.

You're what is wrong with this country instead of meeting in the middle your thinking only divides us and makes the country weaker.

 

[Hollie]

I thought science was open minded not close minded. Since they can't prove origins nor prove there is no God why would they rule out a possibility without proof.

Who are "they", and why do you think "they" are interested in God?

The heads over the science curriculum.

Yet more co-conspirators involved in your imagined global conspiracy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Who are "they", and why do you think "they" are interested in God?

The heads over the science curriculum.

Yet more co-conspirators involved in your imagined global conspiracy.

Just in case you have not caught on yet but I have been ignoring your posts for a reason.

 

[Nosmo King]

I think not. I would prefer our schools graduate students capable of thinking for themselves than locking them into particular doctrines.

Couldn't the Genesis myth be taught in philosophy and evolution be taught in science class?