Posted on 02/12/2002 12:24:57 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Since 1920 creationists have been successful in persuading legislatures in five Southern states to pass laws favorable to their views, but the courts consistently struck them down, saying that they violated the establishment clause of the Constitution. In the 1990s creationists began focusing instead on changing state educational standards. The most famous attempt to do so in recent years--the decision of the Kansas Board of Education to eliminate evolution from the state's science standards--was not a success: the decision was reversed in 2001 when antievolution board members were defeated for reelection.
Still, creationists have been victorious in many other states, a trend catalogued by Lawrence S. Lerner of California State University at Long Beach. His evaluation, summarized and updated in the map below, is valuable in part because it points up the widespread sway of creationists in Northern states, such as Illinois, Ohio and Wisconsin, that have a liberal or moderate tradition. Furthermore, it highlights the fact that certain Southern states--North and South Carolina--have more rigorous educational standards than some Northern states, such as New York and Massachusetts.
There is little information on what is actually taught in individual classrooms and school districts, so it is not clear what effect state standards have on the quality of evolution teaching. The influence of the standards is, however, potentially great because they are likely to affect the content of textbooks and lesson plans. Standards set the tone under which teachers and administrators work and, if written well, make it easier for science-oriented educators to insist that all teachers, including the one third who advocate equal time for creationism, observe proper guidelines.
Creationists have been able to alter state education standards despite being a fairly small minority. According to a 1999 poll by the People for the American Way Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based organization opposed to the teaching of creationism in science classes, only 16 percent of Americans support the teaching of creationism to the exclusion of evolution. A huge majority--83 percent--favor teaching evolution, but most of them maintain that creationism should be discussed in science classes with evolution. Only 37 percent expressed strong support for evolution--that is, teaching it to the exclusion of all religious doctrine in science classes.
In the absence of a majority favoring strict standards for evolution teaching, it is easy to see why creationists have been able to make headway even outside the circle of evangelical Christianity. In 1996 Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic Church's commitment to evolution, first stated in 1950, saying that his inspiration for doing so came from the Bible. Despite this, 40 percent of American Catholics in a 2001 Gallup poll said they believed that God created human life in the past 10,000 years. Indeed, fully 45 percent of all Americans subscribe to this creationist view. Many who are indifferent to conservative theology give creationism some support, perhaps because, as mathematician Norman Levitt of Rutgers University suggests, the subject of evolution provokes anxiety about the nature of human existence, an anxiety that antievolutionists use to promote creationist ideas.
The famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].
If a creationist has to look between the lines to find proof for the existence of kangaroos, then how does the creationist know that his point of view is absolute?
[snicker]
Evolution is religious doctrine, and there are evolutionists every bit as dogmatic as any Southern Baptist. Probably some of them will show up here.
In case you are unaware, your reply (Post #7) was to FR's chief high priest of evolutionism.
Methinks Belief in Evolution = A Form of Lysenkoism ...
Because
The Third LAW of Thermodynamics (enthropy) is incompatible with The THEORY of Evolution
BTW, Lysenko was a Russian scientist (favored by Stalin if memory serves) who held 'scientific' views that
were not permitted to be questioned without risk of losing ones job, position, or freedom.
This is a classic strawman argument if I ever saw one.
Where to begin? Where to begin?
Pop quiz: How many things can you find wrong in this one sentence?
Stunning quote of the day bump
It's the SECOND Law of Thermodynamics that supposedly conflicts with evolution.
It is spelled "entropy."
The Second Law only applies to closed systems not receiving any energy input from an external source, such as, for example, a rather energetic star only 93 million miles away.
I certainly can't be the only person who notices how much easier figuring round stuff out would be with this reform.
It's just a lot of smarty-pants nerds who are so stuck on the ridiculous 3.1416.blahblahblah that are opposed.
And Terrorists!!!
That would probably be okay with some folks, but then the question is if we were to do so, when would we find time to teach SCIENCE?
We are talking about SCIENCE class, aren't we?
More please !
I am here. I don't have a problem with schools teaching what the parents of that community want them to teach, be it evolution or special creation. If there is a danger they will teach what is untrue, there is a greater danger still in mandating from above what all schools must teach. For in the former case those in the wrong will soon mend their ways or be at disadvantage, for essential truth is a free-market type corrective mechansim.
Those who want to mandate from above what all schools should teach pose the greater danger to liberty. For should the central powers teach error, corrective mechansims are not so much in place. If they go wrong, then all go wrong, and there will be no one left to shine a light upon the true path...
Waxing a bit prosey today. Must need a nap!
Pop quiz: How many things can you find wrong in this one sentence?
The only error is referring to the second law of thermodynamics as the "third". Otherwise, the statement is correct. My thermodynamics textbook presents the second law of thermodynamics in Chapter 6 and entropy in the following chapter, Chapter 7; so, someone using this text may have made the minor mistake of assuming entropy was the third law.
The intent of the "egregiously erroneous" statement is correct since all physical systems follow the second law of thermodynamics thereby opposing the premise of evolution theory: that order and complexity "somehow" increase to perpetuate evolution.
That kinda implies the second law is pretty useless.
It's Fashtnacht Day here in Pennsylvania.
Pretty much you eat doughnuts, that's all there is to it, really.
I think of myself as an advocate of reason, and an opponent of the junk science of creationism. Opinions vary, of course, according to intelligence and education.
We still have some work to do.
Ask me about the "Desert Visions" Invitational on August 6.
Right. Which is why I think government should get out of the education business. Totally. (Except for a very few Constitutionally permissible areas, like the military and Indian reservations.)
But when would we teach science? I figure there are so many different "Creation Myths" it could take up the entire school year explaining all the different flavors. That would leave no time for science, or writing, or history, or Mathematics, or grammar, etc.
I suppose that would appeal to some.
Science would be taught at it's normal time. School would start one hour earlier so as to accomidate every creation story through the course of the year. See that wasn't so hard.
Question for you: according to your understanding, what makes a law a law, and a theory a theory?
You can't possibly believe that complexity cannot increase! (Double negative, I know!)
You must also be aware that the second law has nothing at all to say about designers (or Designers) or "ordering principles." The idea that any law of physics would have an exception for something as vague as the terms "designed" or "ordered" is rather silly.
The Beatles said it: "Nothing you can do that can't be done." If you can do it, it isn't a miracle. If it really was a miracle, you couldn't do it.
You might argue that no undesigned natural process ever made a toaster. Probably true. Why would a toaster just happen?
This is not the same as saying that the laws of physics forbid toasters except by design. Which laws? What part of nature is checking to make sure that a designer is operating? All you can honestly say is that it's hard to imagine a scenario whereby a toaster just happens.
The law of gravity doesn't forbid things from going up, for all that it produces a tendency for things to go down. A tendency is not a law.
The second law of thermodynamics does not forbid entropy from decreasing locally. Entropy decreases happen locally all the time on earth. Many are undesigned.
My favorite example lately is the kind of thunderstorm that produceds tornadoes. The tornado itself has structure and power. It descends from something called a wall cloud which is also a clearly defined structure. The lowered entropy of the storm system is signalled not only by its apparent order but by its ability to do work (in the physics sense) such as picking up your double-wide trailer and depositing it in the next county.
Not once every sect and cult got done demanding to be part of the "Creation Myth Curriculum." Soon, every day, all day would be taken up teaching Creation Myths.
I propose an alternative: everbody who thinks Creation Myths are important gets up an hour early and takes their children to the house of worship of their choice, after which the kids go to school to learn history, English, science, grammar, reading, social studies, Mathematics, etc.
In the alternative, privatize all schools and send your kids to whichever one suits your budget and fancy. That wasn't so hard, either, and we got the government schools out of the Theology business.
Actually, it's impossible. Aside from the uproar which would arise about teaching our children some truly absurd nonsense, and paying teachers to leacure on this junk, the volume of creation myths is just too overwhelming. Creation Myths of the World .
Creation Myths from around the World .
Creation Myths .
Pretty much you eat doughnuts, that's all there is to it, really.
Pretty much the perfect holiday, isn't it?
I know. My answer was tounge-in-cheek, speeking to the rediculousness of teaching creation in school.
Demand that the three Rs be taught. Demand that the emphasis on team sports be reduced. Demand that students not be allowed cars and don't provide parking for them. You'll really get the PTA up in arms. Do it.
I'm with you here
Demand that the emphasis on team sports be reduced. Demand that students not be allowed cars and don't provide parking for them.
Ok, I'm not sure why demanding this is a good thing? Could you please expand?
BINGO! That was easy wasn't it?
I had a feeling you might agree. ;-)
Sure. It doesn't matter that pi is the ratio of the circumfrence to the diameter at all. Everything will still work, trust me.
Another thing about team sports is the saying that 'there is no I in team,' when it very much an individual thing. Sports, especially football in high school and college teach many things, but should be reserved for those who are doing very well in the three Rs. De-emphasize sports, emphasize scholastics. De-emphasize cars, emphasize studies. Teach science as the cool thing, not having a 4x4 as being cool. How cool would it be if American schoolkids placed in the top 10 scholastically in the world? Sweet.
That's right! Everything will still work.
Dang politicians are in the pocket of the fat textbook lobby!
You can learn lots just by staying awake.
If you assume the universe to be infinite (as far as anyone can tell, it is), then you have to understand a few mathematical concepts. Most people don't take the time to ponder the meaning of "infinity". Everyone has heard the example of an infinite number of monkeys sitting in front of an infinite number of typewriters. You'll eventually get a Shakespearian play right? Well that analogy doesn't go far enough. What you would actually get would be an infinite number of copies of everything that ever had or ever could be written. So if the universe is infinite, everything that can possibly happen, will, an infinite number of times(thus,you get your toaster). That brings us back to our original premise. Is the universe infinite? Good question.
Thus, diamonds.
Sorry. Your name threw me off. So far, everyone with the word "patriot" in his name has been a total whack-job. Except for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.