Bill Allowing The Teaching Of Creationism In Public School Science Classes Is Passed In Arkansas House 72-21

[Miles]

.




A bill to allow Christian beliefs to be taught in Arkansas classrooms easily passed the state House Wednesday. House Bill 1701 now heads to the Senate side for a vote.

The bill will allow kindergarten through 12th grade teachers to teach students about the Christian theory of creationism, which claims that a divine being conjured the universe and all things in it in six days. The bill specifies that creationism can be taught not only in religion and philosophy classes, but “as a theory of how the Earth came to exist.”

As with so many pieces of legislation churning out of the Arkansas Capitol this session, if HB 1701 passes, a quick court challenge on this blatant mixing of church and state is all but inevitable. The United States Supreme Court already considered this issue in 1987 and ruled in no uncertain terms that teaching creationism in public school classrooms is unconstitutional. But blatant unconstitutionality hasn’t dissuaded Arkansas lawmakers so far this session. One Senate bill that passed recently, for example, declared all federal gun laws null and void within our state’s borders, in clear opposition to the Supremacy Clause that says federal laws take precedence over state laws.

Rep. Mary Bentley (R-Perryville), sponsor of House Bill 1701 “TO ALLOW CREATIONISM AS A THEORY OF HOW THE EARTH CAME TO EXIST TO BE TAUGHT IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH GRADE TWELVE CLASSES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND OPEN–ENROLLMENT PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS,” said she put forth the bill at the request of science teachers in her district.

“There are phenomena in our nature that evolution cannot explain,” Bentley said. She emphasized that science teachers may teach creationism under this bill, but they don’t have to.
source



Stupid beyond belief, but what's your opinion?

.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #198]

OK, except that the laws of physics do not describe what characteristics the thing or person which created this universe has to have.

Do you have a reason why you believe the statement above or are you just making a personal statement about your beliefs of the cosmos? Thanks for sharing.

I'm sure that if you could demonstrate otherwise you would have done so. Your response therefore speaks for itself.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to brunumb in post #198]

OK, except that the laws of physics do not describe what characteristics the thing or person which created this universe has to have.

Do you have a reason why you believe the statement above or are you just making a personal statement about your beliefs of the cosmos? Thanks for sharing.

As for me, I ain't met me not the first one to show a sentient entity ever had a hand in the creation of the universe.

What you got?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

My opinion is that this would be absolutely fine IF it is treated as a hypothesis and then the class must do research on any supporting evidence. In other words, present creationism as a claim (not observed fact) and see what observable evidence can be found to support it - if any. Likewise, present other hypotheses and do the same thing. In other words, do real science.

However, simply presenting religious propaganda as science should be strictly forbidden since it is not science. The science classroom should never be treated as a church.

While this might be any interesting exercise, my objection is, as you point out, in no way does creationism come close to having anything to do with science. Plus, it takes away valuable time that could be better spent on teaching actual science. Far too much science information and far too little time to present it.


.

What is wrong with being honest to our children? what is wrong with letting them see that there are a multitude of opinions and beliefs?

A truly valuable education would include more philosophy, encourage children to think for themselves, explain the different ways of evaluating the truth of what others tell them? teach them to be independent confident thinkers and decision makers rather than machines that just record an official "truth"?

Really the fuss that evolutionists make about this is incredible, like a child's very life depends upon them believing some authority, that their life depends on not tolerating dissenting opinions.

We're slowly reverting back to the middle ages and earlier, to an officialdom that decides what truth is, the modern day evolution/atheist doctrine has far more in common with the Catholic church of Galileo's time than many seem to grasp.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Talking of teaching, official truth and so on, I encourage the open minded among us to enjoy this fascinating talk about this very subject (the introduction by the host has been skipped for brevity)

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

My opinion is that this would be absolutely fine IF it is treated as a hypothesis and then the class must do research on any supporting evidence. In other words, present creationism as a claim (not observed fact) and see what observable evidence can be found to support it - if any. Likewise, present other hypotheses and do the same thing. In other words, do real science.

However, simply presenting religious propaganda as science should be strictly forbidden since it is not science. The science classroom should never be treated as a church.

While this might be any interesting exercise, my objection is, as you point out, in no way does creationism come close to having anything to do with science. Plus, it takes away valuable time that could be better spent on teaching actual science. Far too much science information and far too little time to present it.


.

What is wrong with being honest to our children? what is wrong with letting them see that there are a multitude of opinions and beliefs?

But these multitudes of opinions and beliefs are not on par with evolution. Evolution is not considered to be an opinion or belief. It's considered to be a scientific fact. Now when creationism, or whatever else, attains the distinction of being a scientific fact it can be allowed into the science classroom. Until then: -DO NOT ENTER-


.................................................................................. SIMPLE AS THAT





,

[Difflugia]

Really the fuss that evolutionists make about this is incredible, like a child's very life depends upon them believing some authority, that their life depends on not tolerating dissenting opinions.

You're just trying to argue that teaching children things that are wrong isn't that bad, so we should allow it. When your main argument is "it could be worse," you're probably on the wrong side of the argument.

We're slowly reverting back to the middle ages and earlier, to an officialdom that decides what truth is, the modern day evolution/atheist doctrine has far more in common with the Catholic church of Galileo's time than many seem to grasp.

Considering that your argument is to allow religious dogma to be presented as science, your argument is more than a little ironic.

[brunumb]

What is wrong with being honest to our children? what is wrong with letting them see that there are a multitude of opinions and beliefs?

A truly valuable education would include more philosophy, encourage children to think for themselves, explain the different ways of evaluating the truth of what others tell them? teach them to be independent confident thinkers and decision makers rather than machines that just record an official "truth"?

Creationism is not science and should not be taught as such by including it in the science curriculum. Within science, what is taught is our current understanding of adaptation and speciation based on an accumulation of evidence.

How would you feel if it was proposed that evolution be taught as an alternative to creation in religious studies classes?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

My opinion is that this would be absolutely fine IF it is treated as a hypothesis and then the class must do research on any supporting evidence. In other words, present creationism as a claim (not observed fact) and see what observable evidence can be found to support it - if any. Likewise, present other hypotheses and do the same thing. In other words, do real science.

However, simply presenting religious propaganda as science should be strictly forbidden since it is not science. The science classroom should never be treated as a church.

While this might be any interesting exercise, my objection is, as you point out, in no way does creationism come close to having anything to do with science. Plus, it takes away valuable time that could be better spent on teaching actual science. Far too much science information and far too little time to present it.


.

What is wrong with being honest to our children? what is wrong with letting them see that there are a multitude of opinions and beliefs?

A truly valuable education would include more philosophy, encourage children to think for themselves, explain the different ways of evaluating the truth of what others tell them? teach them to be independent confident thinkers and decision makers rather than machines that just record an official "truth"?

Really the fuss that evolutionists make about this is incredible, like a child's very life depends upon them believing some authority, that their life depends on not tolerating dissenting opinions.

We're slowly reverting back to the middle ages and earlier, to an officialdom that decides what truth is, the modern day evolution/atheist doctrine has far more in common with the Catholic church of Galileo's time than many seem to grasp.

Says this while most religious people(ex: Christians) are brainwashing, indoctrinating very young minds with one story that of the parents religion(ex: Christianity).
Stories of magical Eden garden, global floods, hell, Samson, Moses, Jonah, miracles healings, resurrections, exorcisms, talking donkey.

Q: Do you criticize Christians too for their unvaluable “education” and for them not encouraging children to think for themselves?

Although I think philosophy and logic is important ID hypothesis is not scientific and should not be put on the same level with science.
One cannot test the hypothesis, make empirical experiments to show its true or false, make predictions and then test those predictions, falsify the hypothesis.
ID proponents do not care of open peer review, open scrutiny but only care about defending a dying thing: theism.

[Sherlock Holmes]

But these multitudes of opinions and beliefs are not on par with evolution.

Well right there is an opinion, your opinion, the very thing you disparage below!

Evolution is not considered to be an opinion or belief. It's considered to be a scientific fact.

Well it is most certainly not regarded as a "fact" by me or by plenty of other people, including "scientists", chemists, biochemists, molecular biologists, mathematicians, etc etc etc...

Now when creationism, or whatever else, attains the distinction of being a scientific fact it can be allowed into the science classroom. Until then: -DO NOT ENTER-

How well you demonstrate my case for me!

Scientific theories are not facts, hypotheses are not facts.

No other theory or hypotheses in the sciences gets elevated to the ludicrous status of a "fact" so right there, with your own post you prove the very thing I claimed, evolution is revered, eulogized, dare I say even worshipped by the loyal devoted adherents, the ever watchful devotees, the defenders of the faith, ready to pounce on anyone who dares to question the dogma - sorry - facts.

I will not allow the lie that the theory of evolution is a fact, to go unchallenged, under no circumstances can anyone who cares about science and truth sit silently while fools like Dawkins, Hitchens and Krauss merrily peddle this lie, this is not about education it's plain old indoctrination.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Really the fuss that evolutionists make about this is incredible, like a child's very life depends upon them believing some authority, that their life depends on not tolerating dissenting opinions.

You're just trying to argue that teaching children things that are wrong isn't that bad, so we should allow it. When your main argument is "it could be worse," you're probably on the wrong side of the argument.

We're slowly reverting back to the middle ages and earlier, to an officialdom that decides what truth is, the modern day evolution/atheist doctrine has far more in common with the Catholic church of Galileo's time than many seem to grasp.

Considering that your argument is to allow religious dogma to be presented as science, your argument is more than a little ironic.

Questioning the claims of evolutionists is not religious dogma, it is questioning the claims of evolutionists, the fact that you need to mischaracterize this in order to then discredit it speaks volumes.

It is no different and no less legitimate than questioning the claims of any scientist on any suggested process deemed to operate in nature.

Your philosophy is that it's fine to question scientists just not evolutionists and that is the real threat to the freedom of thought.