Just saw this on the New York Times. A school district has set up an "equal balance" requirement for creationism.

http://nytimes.com/2002/08/23/education/23EVOL.html
(needs registration)

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

It's kind of strange to see things like these to happen in the most advanced nation in the world.

This is an absolute non-sense. It been a while since I started to suspect that the educational system, subjected to the bad influences of the cultural relativism, are undergoing severe detachment from reality. And this is happening all over the world.

Say it loud: I'm a scientist and i'm proud.

Arm a scientist, an arm prowd

<a name="20020823.5:36"> page 20020823.5:36 aka & A 1 <pre>
?11hr kM KM/Hr _blite 4.2 e 18 kTonn !boom Gg( 9)
?day ?+4 _shake e 24 #Rh.ictar !rattle (12)
?14 3/4d?+9 _wiew e 30 #Tp.actor !wtcht (15)
?yr ?+16 _sheen e 36 #Sf.un !flue2 (18)
</pre>
Watch it [5:39 A.M.] Math hour you know || 4got the preME's again [darn]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-08-23 09:48 ]</font>

Current theory states that after "first cause," the universe expands. Recently, theory suggests the universe is still expanding. Prophetically, this means that at some point, the universe will expand to a point in which it can't continue. The most recent data indicates it will then be entropically 0.

I can describe the current state of science as it relates to all and everything as:

First Cause = Something from Nothing
Expansionism = Nothing from Something

Not hard to understand why someone might want to throw the theory of God in there, perhaps to counter all the scientific mumbo-jumbo.

I sometimes must acknowledge to my peers that Science is in business to put itself out of business.

DJ


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited for clarity and secularism by: DJ on 2002-08-23 14:21 ]</font>


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-08-23 14:36 ]</font>

No... That doesn't follow. The universe could quite easily expand forever. That's completely compatible with extant theory and observation.

Silas

Great, this debate again. I suppose this is some new trend in state or local school boards. On the same subject, it sounds like the Kansas BOE is going to be bringing up the issue again, so we'll see August '99, Part II.


-Adam

I think he is talking about heat death, not a end of expansion

__________________
The universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine.
J. B. S. Haldane

I just can't but wonder how many of these board members, when they are sick, go to a faith healer rather than to a doctor.

The point of the news article in question is that the Cobb County School Board voted to have both creationism and evolution taught in their schools. Shouldn't we be happy that evolution's going to be taught, instead of boo-ing and hiss-ing about the creationism aspect?

P.S. Here's the exact same NYT article, but at a site that doesn't require registration.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...3/MN104288.DTL




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jigsaw on 2002-08-23 22:39 ]</font>

No we shouldn't be happy that junk science is taught along side of science. It would be absolutely acceptable if creationism were a viable scientific theory but it isn't.

Do you think children who attend those schools will have equal access to education? Not if they happen to be placed in a class where a poorly trained science teacher is trying to teach each 'theory' as if they were 'equal'.

On to my soapbox, the world needs enlightenment! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

As I have posted before and no doubtedly will again, genetic research has opened the doors of bioscience to a whole new level of discovery. Evolution is a fact, the process can be reproduced, even creating life from inorganic beginnings is close to being accomplished.

You can call the whole body of knowledge a 'theory' if that language suits the situation, but there is no more debate among the genetic scientists about the overall process. There will, of course, be fine tuning of specifics, there may be a few 'way out of the mainstreamers' who 'say it ain't so', as there seems to be in all sciences, but the process of evolution is NOT in doubt.

Anyone who wants to argue this fact cannot do so without an education in genetics. Once you have that education, you cannot dispute evolution.

One big problem is the general public is not yet in the loop, (unless as individuals they have made an effort to get there). In the next decade or two, the knowledge only genetic researchers have now will filter down into the public domaine. We will all see the incredible benefits, (or maybe disasters), and come to appreciate, (or maybe dread), the advances bioscience has made in genetic research.

It would seem likely, the acceptance of evolution is taking the same route as acceptance of a round Earth, a heliocentered solar system, plate tectonics, the germ theory of disease, and many other revelations have taken, (not necessarily in that order and not necessarily with the same degree of difficulty to effect the change in beliefs).

Imagine if you were an oceanographer and were aware of the research in plate tectonics in the 50's. As the information about moving crustal plates began to filter out to the public, you would likely have heard discussions between people who for whatever reason didn't believe it was a valid theory. You would know there was a whole body of evidence the people you heard discussing the theory had not yet seen.

Well, hopefully you get the picture.

What these school board actions say to me is never 'don't get involved' or you might have a more radical minority controling aspects of your life. (If the majority's against you, that's a harder battle.) It also says to me that scientists need to be involved in education outside of university and work settings.

And she steps off the box to see how her message was received.....

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

I wouldn't object much to creationism taught in schools as part of a comparative religion class or such, but the problem here is that they are attempting to teach it as a scientific alternative, and that I can not accept. There's nothing scientific about Intelligent Design, and it is also very biased towards a Christian viewpoint, which ignores other major belief systems throughout the world.

I really feel that anything religious should be kept out of schools completely, or when it's necessary, to be taught in as secular a manner as possible, without showing favoritism towards any one religion. If you want your kids to learn the creation story, take them to Sunday school. The public school system is not the place for this kind of debate.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<a name="20020824.4:28"> page 20020824.4:28 aka DO E <pre>
On 2002-08-24 03:15, David Hall did not write: | ------ | 5
| - DO UN |86box 6
| 0 DUP DOD | Dos 8
| 1 dup DOE <doe?> |winDo 11
| 2 pup DEQ |netsc 19
| 3 tcp FCC DOI |Trump 21
| 4 ggp AFT |Slip 23 <? *.ini ?
| 5 igmp FBI |Lib 30
| 6 icmp CIA |casC 34 darn </pre> therse one more level .. ran out of lines though

Would you be happy if the Cobb County school board voted to teach both astronomy and astrology in the same course as equally valid scientific topics? And, whose version of creationism will they teach?

Just to maintain 2012 USOOC parity:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1547310

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

How about this as a reconciliation,

Let's teach both, objectively, and let bright intelligent kids ( you know, our future leaders ) decide what to believe. There is a lot of belief necessary for science too.

Thus, it would be reasonable for a child to hear:

Children, today we are going to talk about the Universe. As you know, there are many theories about the universe and how it came to be.

One set of opinions, developed through several recent centuries of scientific experimentation, conjectures that the universe started as a very small object, perhaps the size of a head of a pin. Then, for some reason, this pinhead-sized object began expanding -- very quickly at first -- to the universe you see today. There are many theories which describe how galaxies, stars, and planetary systems are formed. There are many theories -- some which do require the Big Bang, as we have all heard it called, and some which do not. An example of one that does not is steady-state theory.

A second set of theories, perhaps several thousand years old, indicate that the universe was created by God. The usual reference for this is the Bible, which says that God created the universe, planets, people, animals, and everything in about 6 days. There are many theories -- some say that this all happened about 6 to 8 thousand years ago, and some which say this could have happened much longer ago than that.

At this time, class, many people are working on each theory. This a highly visible battle for the minds and hearts of future generations. For your assignment, I'd like you to write a 2 page paper on diversity, taking into account both systems. Your papers should emphasize why tolerating diversity is important (in light of a lot of unknowns), and suggest a way that there could be a reconciliation between these 2 theories. A portion of your thesis should discuss the potential outcome if either group is not treated fairly, explaining what you see as the risks to society, and integrity.






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-08-24 11:04 ]</font>

Bernie Ebbers and Dennis Kozlowski (sp?) thought there was no more debate on whether they could be caught [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]

This is a challenging text above. You use a theory to prove a theory, ok. Creationists do the same.

I must admit that I don't think there needs to be mutual exclusion. I believe the universe was created, and has evolved to the state we are in today. (Some call it first cause, which sounds like a bleached version of creationism without the creator).

I believe I have comfortably and successfully reconciled things.

But I still have an open mind, and remain an avid researcher. To that point, I have never heard an explanation of "First Cause," so I look to philosophy/religion to explain that piece because science conveniently explains it as "we don't touch that part because it was before time." <-- copout

DJ

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-08-24 11:41 ]</font>

I dunno, Jim, which version of "Science" will they teach?

DJ

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DJ on 2002-08-24 11:39 ]</font>

I think it's been addressed before, DJ, that the objections are within the fact that creationism is NOT science. That would also be my objection to the recent decision.


-Adam

Yes, I agree creationism is not science. A creationist would claim there is no evidence that could invalidate their claim. Therefore, it is not science.

Here is an example of alternative science that should be taught. Paul Steinhardt I believe his name, from Princeton, published a theory of the cyclic universe earlier this year. From what I have read, it is consitent with current observations of the universe (or at least as consisten as the Big Bang theory) and makes predictions distinct from the Big Bang theory that can be tested with future observations. It can be proven false or validated.

Granted, the cyclic universe has a long way to go to displace the Big Bang, and I am not so sure I buy it yet either. However, it seems to have at least earned a fair hearing.

If Creationism could pass this test, I would support teaching it along with Evolution. In this respect, however, creationism falls far short.

Rob

In a high school? Which class is that?

DJ

With respect, there is only one type of science. That's the version where you theorise, and collect and interpret evidence.

However, there are any number of creation stories. I think it was on James Randi's web-site (www.randi.org), someone posted a story by Michael Shermer during a debate about creationism. He asked the audience to put up their hands if they believed creation should be taught in schools. Nearly all hands went up.

Shermer then asked them whether they should teach the Hindu version of creation (cyclic universes). No one agreed. What about the Chinese version of creation (Earth created from an egg)? No. What about the "God spoke and it happened" version? Again no hands, even though that was the Judaeo-Christian version.

To get to my point, these people treated every "other" creation story as "just a myth" which didn't need to be taught. What makes the Judaeo-Christian version so different?

If students are to be taught the Chinese version of creation, which class should it be taught in? Then that's the class for every other non-scientific story of creation, Christian or not.

Well that narrows it down. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Seems to apply to creation scientists as well, doesn't it?

So should they be taught Big Bang theory, steady state theory, oscillating theory, or some others I probably left out?

If you say all, then the same can be done for the Hindu theory, the Christian theory, etc.

Where you see differences, I see the same. The fact that science must continue to revise it's theories, indicates we should be teaching a process, not the result. I agree with that notion. The same can be done for creation, and I cite the evidence you've already provided -- many theories.

I'm not some hard-line creation freak, hell-bent on god in the classroom. (Not the Christian or Hindu God, just, you know, God.) I don't ascribe to the organized religions, but that doesn't mean I can't see that for every house, there must be a builder.

Instead, I am fascinated by the similarities of the close-minded approach of each side of the debate.

PS: Please tell me what First Cause is.

DJ

Dude, if you continue searching, and you find something out there other than god, please call me first! I'll be your most objective ally.

I disagree with your assertion that god cannot be invalidated.

DJ

Whoops, now I got it. The objection is Science vs. Creationism. How about if we just discuss "Theories of Everything" vs. "Creationism," so in that way, we don't continue to run into the problem with literal definitions of words.

That was our original thread, I thought. Whether the universe was created, or evolved. I apologize if I drew in the folks who disagreed with the word science being used as I had. It was representative of the concepts of the original thread. My bad.

DJ

I don't see the side of science as closed-minded. We don't want to ban the discussion of religion, we just want both sides to stay in their proper places. The function of schools are to disseminate knowledge in as unbiased a way as possible. Giving equal time to creation science (in a science classroom) is very biased.

Again, the only proper place for such teaching in school is in a comparative religion class, where such beliefs can be presented in a rational way, along with the beliefs of other religions. If you want to promote a religious view, do it in a religious setting.

There are several scientific theories of cosmology that can be given proper treatment in a classroom. When I was a junior high student, I can remember being taught steady state and big bang theories, with the strengths and weaknesses of both clearly outlined.

Intelligent design, and most other creation science, is not a scientific theory. It is a *******ization of science used in an attempt to promote a dogma. As such, it needs to be left in the church and stay out of the schools.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

"First Cause" = "Prime Cause" = "God"

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-08-24 15:26 ]</font>

Ahem.
If I may interject my 2p worth (0.003c at current exchange rates). Deborah Lipstadt, she who brought low the mighty David Irving (yay, go Deb, go Deb, go Deborah!) refuses to debate the Holocaust with Holocaust deniers.
Why?
Because, as she states, there is no "other side" to the debate. Those who want to debate are actually out to further their own agenda, not to honestly debate an issue.
I have to say that there are parallels here, with those who intend to shoehorn the facts into their interpretation of reality vs. those who deal with reality as is.

And having thrown all that into the pot, may I observe that the Creationist/Evolutionist battle/intense discussion/spat/mild disagreement only seems to be an issue in the US. Over here in the UK it isn't a worry. Well, not yet ...

__________________
Garlic Bread?!?!

David Hall: Do you agree with the above quote? If not, explain.

DJ

And how much research have you done to find the status of evidence genetic science has discovered to date? Or are you 'comfortable' that ignorance is bliss. I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Whatever you are refering to as 'first cause' is not a scientific hypothesis that I have ever heard. If it is a viable hypothesis, well let scientists look at it. If it is a religious rationalization to keep a thread of factual correctness in the Bible's creation story, then it should probably be presented as such.

You could site lots of examples of folks who had major accepted theories of various things that were later shown to be wrong. That is irrelevant because there are plenty of things that are beyond challenge in any practical sense: The Earth is not flat, the Sun is not orbiting the Earth, A dragon is not eating the Sun during an eclipse. Regardless of how many individuals may not accept such conclusions, the chances future evidence will find these conclusions to be wrong are so remote as to be zero for all practical purposes.

I am not using a 'theory' to prove a theory. Every step of evolution is understood down to the molecular level. It is testable, it is consistent, it is understood.

What the general population is having trouble with is lack of awareness of just how far this research has progressed. People are still arguing 'gaps in the fossil record' and 'adaptation but not evolution'. They are still arguing 'impossible through random, natural, molecular activity'. Genetic researchers have solved all these questions and are miles and miles ahead.

It has already been mapped out how life goes from inorganic molecules randomly in contact with eachother to the first organisms and beyond. The mutation process is understood. Reproduction is understood. Natural processes that result in variation of species is understood. The time to go from no life to humans agrees with the geological and fossil record. The process only requires random occurrances not intelligent design nor intervention.

The human genome with its 3 billion base pairs has been mapped. Other organisms' genomes have been mapped. Mutations needed to go from one species to another have been mapped. The rate of mutation has been observed. It is consistent with the theory of evolution. Factors affecting natural selection are better understood.

Taking inorganic molecules in a 'test tube' and ending up with reproducing RNA molecules has been accomplished. Selecting RNA molecules that are conducive to making DNA molecules through simulated random processes has been accomplished. (The process has to be simulated by speeding things up artificially, but not substantially changing the process, because we can't wait a billion years to see if it works.)

The latest research I heard explained last week, (U of WA science lecture series), was that researchers were working on how one can look at the DNA code in a gene and determine which protein will result. It turns out that only a relatively small number of amino acids on the DNA strand carry the actual protein blueprint and a larger portion of the DNA controls turning the gene on and off.

And she steps down off the soapbox of evolution to once again join the rest of the world.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.