Creation Science Institute to Teach Texas Teachers

G

GT WT

1,000+ Posts
The Link

The Texas Higher Education Board will decide whether online line courses offered by creationist group can be used by Texas science teachers to meet continuing education requirements.

God bless my poor Texas

texasflag.gif
 
I just have one thing to say about this, should they start allowing ******** like that to be taught as science:

Thank GOD my daughter is graduating from HS.

How could anyone with a modicum of intelligence believe in that creationist crap?

And before anyone rails on me for being "Godless" or something equally stupid, I am happily secure in my Christian faith without having to believe in some Old Testament fairy tale written to impress and awe a bunch of uneducated nomads two or three thousand years ago.
 
I know this is anecdotal and I don't have poll information or anything, but most medical doctors that I know believe in that Old Testament fairy tale as you put it.
What they believe about it though is that is is a Hebrew poem that tells us about who created, and NOT necessarily about HOW God created. Maybe that is the point you were trying to make jmatt. I just think that knowing it is a poem and NOT a science text doesn't mean thinking people don't still believe it.

Also, I didn't read the article, but I don't believe that Creatism or ID ought to be taught in schools, but I do believe that teachers ought to say that science doesn't even attempt to answer the 'God question.' To me that is enough.
 
As has been said many times on this board, I don't see why Creationism and Science can't co-exist. I know nothing of this new 'institute' but I would be very weary of it.

I have no problem with the way science is taught in school today, as long as people aren't persecuted for saying that they disagree with some of the points. Concerning how the universe was formed and how this planet came to be, Nobody's got it 100% right yet, so why persecute each other for it? If people disagree, let them and move on with life.
 
sorry, if I was unclear. I meant mainly in biology classes, but in general. Each science class should clearly state the a priori assumptions. These include looking ONLY at that physical/natural world, and not even attempting to answer any questions with regards to the supernatural. That is what I meant. I didn't mean this institute people, but teachers.
 
People don't really care about education. They say they do, but if that were true we would have public school as good as the rest of the western world.
Anyway, on to creationism, whoever shouts loudest wins.
 
Intelligent Design is the alter ego of the attempt by some scientists to use science to disprove God. They're the exact same thing, and it should not surprise anyone that like begets like.

As for the claim that science is simple- that's simply not true. Science is complicated, uncertain, full of personal vendettas and pet theories and ultimately rests on the faith assertion that what we observe can be rationally interpreted with lasting paradigms. The main problem with Creationism (ID is Creationism, so I mean both) is that it forces scientists into a bunker mentality that forgoes the teaching of the complexity of science in order to convey the strength of the core arguments.
The famous tactic of Creationists is to jump on uncertainties in evolutionary theory to suggest wild and unscientific explanations. This in turn results in an effort by scientists to cover these gaps in understanding up so that the basic point gets across in the midst of staunch opposition. Theropods and I had a long discussion wherein he advocated a Law of Evolution and I opposed it. His position (as I understand it) is that making Evolution a scientific law would do much good in convincing people of the wealth of evidence that backs it. I disagree with his position because doing so forces biology to codify explanations and tenets which should be left open.
That debate topic is played out in education, particularly middle school biology. I firmly believe that the uncertainties of science must be taught from day one because they are the essence of science- the continual refining of explanations based on observable evidence. The process is imperfect, messy, prone to error and colored by personalities. Obscuring that reality does a disservice to the process of science because the process is strong enough to enhance human understanding in spite of its shortcomings.
 
If people want to lobby for a class in religion, I'm all for it-teach the tenets of different religions, in an academic setting.
If they want to make Texas a laughing stock in the eyes of the nation, like Kansas, by inserting religion into science classes, that is outrageous. It is wrong.
 
Maduro
Science is not a faith assertion, ******** to that.

We merely observe that on observation, science is the best option we know of so far to arrive at usefully accurate interpretations and explanations of objective reality, and that we are reasonable in pursuing this approach in favor of other approaches (like religion) that have been clearly much less successful.

Again, this is hardly a faith assertion. Now you know, if you cared to.
 
I remember Dr. Ken Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, showed a cartoon that had two foreign science students in a lab, and the caption was,
"Intelligent Design found unlikely support among one group..."
Students: "Oh yes America, we'd like very much for you to teach your students ID, we want their jobs."

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top