A push for creationism gains in Springboro

The school board needs one more vote to OK it. Submitted Springboro Junior High School has been updated, with additional classrooms in the back and new offices and this main entrance in the front.

[Kathwynn]

Ohio has snough troubles and this is what the tea party is going to do on a school board. Try once more to force religion in to schools.

[Susanm]

I agree, unless it's going to be taught as a theory like evolution.

[Bitner]

Ridiculous. They only want "God back in school", because they think it will the THEIR god. Apparently, they are too shortsighted to realize which door they are opening up. I do hope the non-Christian citizens of that county will teach them that particular lesson. As we did in my county, when they wanted to push bibles on the students in the schools. We let them know immediately that if they let one religion in, they must let them ALL in. They quickly sang a new tune, and reversed their decision.

[Bitner]

Susanm wrote:

I agree, unless it's going to be taught as a theory like evolution.

It's NOT a 'theory like evolution'. It's a religious belief, period.

There is a vast difference between a scientific theory, and religious belief. Someone who claims to be a nurse should know that already.

[Susanm]

Bitner wrote:

Ridiculous. They only want "God back in school", because they think it will the THEIR god. Apparently, they are too shortsighted to realize which door they are opening up. I do hope the non-Christian citizens of that county will teach them that particular lesson. As we did in my county, when they wanted to push bibles on the students in the schools. We let them know immediately that if they let one religion in, they must let them ALL in. They quickly sang a new tune, and reversed their decision.

I agree, if you open the door for one religious belief you must open the door for all.

[Susanm]

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
It's NOT a 'theory like evolution'. It's a religious belief, period.
There is a vast difference between a scientific theory, and religious belief. Someone who claims to be a nurse should know that already.

I see nothing wrong with discussing different theories.

[Kathwynn]

But creationism is not a theory.. It is a religious belief.

The premise of creationism is that the universe was created by an "Intelligent Designer".. There is simply nothing in science that supports that idea..

Only faith. And while I am a Man of Faith. I find it abhorrent that any one would try to pass Faith off as though there were a basis in science. When in fact none exists.

[Bitner]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
I see nothing wrong with discussing different theories.

Religious beliefs don't belong in science class. They belong in a class on religion, or mythology.

[Bitner]

kathwynn wrote:

But creationism is not a theory.. It is a religious belief.
The premise of creationism is that the universe was created by an "Intelligent Designer".. There is simply nothing in science that supports that idea..
Only faith. And while I am a Man of Faith. I find it abhorrent that any one would try to pass Faith off as though there were a basis in science. When in fact none exists.

Exactly.

[Lunacy]

creationism is a myth. Keep it in the Churches and out of the educational institutions.

[Lunacy]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
I see nothing wrong with discussing different theories.

Creationism is a religious belief. Keep it in your own religion.

[TedHOhio]

Susanm wrote:

I agree, unless it's going to be taught as a theory like evolution.

That's the problem, it's not a scientific theory like evolution, it's a religious philosophy with no scinetific evidence at all. We went through all this the last time. When folks on the school board, like Debra Owens Fink tried to get Creationism, and then later Intelligent Design, adopted. When the Discovery Institute, a bastion for Intelligent Design, mis-represented over 40 articles claiming they supported Intelligent Design. When two teachers tried to push thorugh a sample curriculum that included Creationism.

This is a fight the children of Ohio do not need. It would be different if it were science, or even if it had some evidence -- but's it's a religious belief and does not belong in science class as if it were science. Do we need to pay out over a million in court costs and penalty's like Dover PA? How many of our school districts can afford that bill?

We've had this fight already and Creationism was found not to be science. Do we really need to do it again?

[Kathwynn]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the problem, it's not a scientific theory like evolution, it's a religious philosophy with no scinetific evidence at all. We went through all this the last time. When folks on the school board, like Debra Owens Fink tried to get Creationism, and then later Intelligent Design, adopted. When the Discovery Institute, a bastion for Intelligent Design, mis-represented over 40 articles claiming they supported Intelligent Design. When two teachers tried to push thorugh a sample curriculum that included Creationism.
This is a fight the children of Ohio do not need. It would be different if it were science, or even if it had some evidence -- but's it's a religious belief and does not belong in science class as if it were science. Do we need to pay out over a million in court costs and penalty's like Dover PA? How many of our school districts can afford that bill?
We've had this fight already and Creationism was found not to be science. Do we really need to do it again?

Exactly.

It is a fight that especially when school districts are already hard pressed to support and pay for the basic education. This sort of nonsense can cost a school district money for decades to come.

[TedHOhio]

Susanm wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree, if you open the door for one religious belief you must open the door for all.

But it becomes more than that. During the Dover Trial one of the witnesses for the defendants (The ones pushing for ID/Creationism) admitted that the only way for it to be accepted as science was to expand the defintion of science to the point that Astrology would also be a science. Is that what you want? Is that what our kids need?

http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2011/07/...

While this is a humerous take, this is an example of what will happen in science. A teacher would spend hours covering science, scientific methodology, scientific evidence -- and then with nothing else, no methodology, no evidence, he would have to give equal credence to Creationism? You would be doing a disservice to the science curriculum, the teacher, and more importantly, the students.

[Teaman]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
But it becomes more than that. During the Dover Trial one of the witnesses for the defendants (The ones pushing for ID/Creationism) admitted that the only way for it to be accepted as science was to expand the defintion of science to the point that Astrology would also be a science. Is that what you want? Is that what our kids need?
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/2011/07/...
While this is a humerous take, this is an example of what will happen in science. A teacher would spend hours covering science, scientific methodology, scientific evidence -- and then with nothing else, no methodology, no evidence, he would have to give equal credence to Creationism? You would be doing a disservice to the science curriculum, the teacher, and more importantly, the students.

Creationism is different from intelligent design, but I agree with you, intelligent design is a way to open the door to creationism. I don't believe either belongs in a science class. A social studies class or something similar is more appropriate to teach students all that exists in our society. No preaching please :-).

Not defending her, I wouldn't vote for her, but Bachmann was somewhat correct when it comes to some Nobel prize winners agreeing with intelligent design in it's true definition.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/...

[TedHOhio]

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
Creationism is different from intelligent design, but I agree with you, intelligent design is a way to open the door to creationism. I don't believe either belongs in a science class. A social studies class or something similar is more appropriate to teach students all that exists in our society. No preaching please :-).
Not defending her, I wouldn't vote for her, but Bachmann was somewhat correct when it comes to some Nobel prize winners agreeing with intelligent design in it's true definition.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/...

I think you need to re-read the article on Charles Towne. He's not nearly as pro-ID as Bachmann would like to think. Can you name a single Biologist Nobel Prize winner who supports Creationism/Intelligent Design as a scientific theory that should be taught in science class? I can't even find one who thinks they are a scientific theory, yet a Louisiana High School Student found a list of them who says they are not.

Bachmann is a pandering politician who will say anything if it gets her into office. Pandering to teh Conservative Right is the current way to win elections, just ask Bobby Jindal of Louisisna or Rick Perry of Texas.

I don't think there is much separating Creationism/ID. The Wedge Strategy document of the Discovery Institute clearly laid out that ID was a starting point, a wedge, into the classroom. It's never been a real idea, just an idea minus the religious overcoat of Creationism in order to get further into the education system.

[Rider]

It's not appropriate in pubic schools to do anything more than reference this as an alternative view to current theories of how we developed. that's fine, but that's it!

If there's a group or teachers who want to offer Creationism as an extra-curricular club or organization, then that's fine, but pushing this into the classroom is simply a really really bad idea.
It also happens to be a pretty good barometer of the judgment of some of the members of the school board.
How about an open survey of the community prior to making announcements like this? Has the "Community Feedback" approach in prior discussions not been the cornerstone of what we're all trying to achieve as a "community based school system"? Seems like that approach is being ignored now when it's a personal belief system.

[Teaman]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
I think you need to re-read the article on Charles Towne. He's not nearly as pro-ID as Bachmann would like to think. Can you name a single Biologist Nobel Prize winner who supports Creationism/Intelligent Design as a scientific theory that should be taught in science class? I can't even find one who thinks they are a scientific theory, yet a Louisiana High School Student found a list of them who says they are not.
Bachmann is a pandering politician who will say anything if it gets her into office. Pandering to teh Conservative Right is the current way to win elections, just ask Bobby Jindal of Louisisna or Rick Perry of Texas.
I don't think there is much separating Creationism/ID. The Wedge Strategy document of the Discovery Institute clearly laid out that ID was a starting point, a wedge, into the classroom. It's never been a real idea, just an idea minus the religious overcoat of Creationism in order to get further into the education system.

I didn't mean to focus on Bachmann. As I said, I wouldn't vote for her. She's more of a social conservative. I agree with you she may be using intelligent design as a "starting point" toward creationism.

My point was information shouldn't be shut out. There's a "book burning" aspect to shutting it out. I agree it shouldn't be taught in a science class, but it should be available. There are numerous public schools that have Muslim studies as part of their curriculum.

Name a Nobel prize biologist, tough one. Most are evolutionists. There are biologists that believe intelligent design should be part of an education. Scott Turner comes to mind. Alfred Charles Wallace, Darwin's co-discoverer thought there might be something more to evolution. I'm not sure, you can correct me, but I think James Watson may agree with it to a degree without the creation aspect.

[TedHOhio]

Teaman wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't mean to focus on Bachmann. As I said, I wouldn't vote for her. She's more of a social conservative. I agree with you she may be using intelligent design as a "starting point" toward creationism.
My point was information shouldn't be shut out. There's a "book burning" aspect to shutting it out. I agree it shouldn't be taught in a science class, but it should be available. There are numerous public schools that have Muslim studies as part of their curriculum.
Name a Nobel prize biologist, tough one. Most are evolutionists. There are biologists that believe intelligent design should be part of an education. Scott Turner comes to mind. Alfred Charles Wallace, Darwin's co-discoverer thought there might be something more to evolution. I'm not sure, you can correct me, but I think James Watson may agree with it to a degree without the creation aspect.

We don't shut out Creationism or even Intelligent Design. It can be brought up in its historical perspective. It can be taught in theology or comparative religions classes. It should be discussed in Sociology classes. But it should never be brought up as if it were science -- which was the goal of the previous school board members who dragged Ohio down this path.

The main issue is that proponents wish to by-pass any form of scientific methodology and have their ideas presented as if they were actually the equal of scientific theories. In the words of the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Southern Methodist University, Dr. Mark A. Chancey:

•Intelligent Design originated within certain religious circles
•[ID] has credibility only within those same circles-mostly theologically conservative Christian groups that find aspects of evolutionary theory threatening
•Few ID advocates hold full-time professorial positions in pertinent fields at mainstream colleges and universities
•Many ID proponents with academic positions work at religious institutions devoted to promoting particular theological views
•ID proponents have published very few articles in peer-reviewed journals
•They have created their own in-house journals that they describe as "peer-reviewed." ... universities do not consider a self-serving house organ as truly peer-reviewed; such venues are regarded as fake journals
•IDers sometimes publish books-but most of these are with religious, not academic, presses
•ID research is not rigorous, substantial or convincing enough to be published in genuine academic venues
•Unable to publish their work in legitimate academic venues, they nonetheless present it as cutting-edge science
•Unable to gain acceptance in the scientific community, they nonetheless claim to be gaining momentum
•They deny or obscure the fact that ID is grounded in a particular religious worldview and yet regard it as a tool to promote socially and theologically conservative Christian positions.

His closing comment is something many have been asking, for years now:

"Many religious groups-Christian and other-do not regard evolutionary theory as a threat. For many people of faith, science and religion go hand in hand. When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."

[Long Night Moon]

Are we going to start teaching that the world is flat again?