New Orleans schools ban creationism and 'revisionist' history in rebuke of Texas

Dec 19, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Raw Story

The school board for Orleans Parish in Louisiana voted Tuesday night to ban the teaching of creationism as science and what they called a "revisionist" history curriculum promoted by the state of Texas.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of206
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

There are people with sense in Louisiana!

“No history textbook shall be approved which has been adjusted in accordance with the State of Texas revisionist guidelines nor shall any science textbook be approved which presents creationism or intelligent design as science or scientific theories,”

“No teacher of any discipline of science shall teach any aspect of religious faith as science or in a science class,”

“No teacher of any discipline of science shall teach creationism or intelligent design in classes designated as science classes.”

You go, Orleans Parish! And take THAT, Texas!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 19, 2012
 
Some good science news at last. And on the local level! Usually the local level is where the worst news comes from.
gerreth1

Malbork, Poland

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 19, 2012
 
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 19, 2012
 
Nice try, Bobby! Should'a known it was only gonna be temporary.
I hate athiests

Lansing, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Why can't the dumbass school boards agree to reach creationism and evolutionism. I am catholic and think that the kids should be able to learn both. Ever since atheism and evolutionism have come about the US is in the trash. Some people say that athiests are the best scientists. Any smart person can invent things and make scientific break throughs so let the kids decide what they want

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 26, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I hate athiests wrote:
Why can't the dumbass school boards agree to reach creationism and evolutionism.
That pesky 1st ammendment says government sponsored schools can't teach religion.
I hate athiests wrote:
I am catholic and think that the kids should be able to learn both.
They can, just not in public schools. You can teach the shit out of creationism in church.
I hate athiests wrote:
Ever since atheism and evolutionism have come about the US is in the trash.
Funny how most other secular countries are outperforming us in education isn't it? Maybe if you religionists would stop trying inject your BS into society we could get on with educating our kids.
I hate athiests wrote:
Some people say that athiests are the best scientists.
Who says that? You do know who Francis Crick is, don't you?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 27, 2012
 
This is both surprising, and a bit of good news, if they can evolve so can other states .... well, probably not. Louisiana isn't really that bad, it's just surrounded by a lot of idiots.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 27, 2012
 
I hate athiests wrote:
Why can't the dumbass school boards agree to reach creationism and evolutionism.
Because creationism, being pseudo-scientific religious apologetics, is illegal to teach in public schools due to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
I hate athiests wrote:
I am catholic
How is that relevant to public school science education?
I hate athiests wrote:
and think that the kids should be able to learn both.
And they can. If you want your kids to "learn" creationism you can teach them yourself, homeschool them, take them to a private school, and they are free to go to church whenever they want.
I hate athiests wrote:
Ever since atheism and evolutionism have come about the US is in the trash.
Then the US has always been in the trash? Since both have been around for longer than the United States has existed. Especially evolution which has been going for around 4 billion years.
I hate athiests wrote:
Some people say that athiests are the best scientists.
Atheism is irrelevant to science, so why are you even bringing it up?
I hate athiests wrote:
Any smart person can invent things and make scientific break throughs so let the kids decide what they want
The kids can still decide what they want. The US is a free country. They are free to accept or reject education as much as they like. What they CAN'T do however is decide what the correct answers are on a science test. No other school subject allows that, and science is no different.
John Moreno

Massapequa Park, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 27, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The problem with teaching evolution is in which one of the many theories do you teach. Recent scientific studies cast doubts on Darwin's methodology and have given rise to all sorts of alternatives. A basic scientific premise is that effects must have a cause. What is the primary cause to life and evolution. Chance is not a cause. How do we explain the cambrian explosion, that clearly casts doubt on the theory. A read of Darwin's explanation of how the eye evolved did it for me, it did not make any sense.
What is so terrible in telling students what most people believe, there is an intelligent, creative entity that is the primary cause of life. You do not have to teach any specific religion. It is only a possibility that solves much of the problems with the original theory.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 27, 2012
 
John, how is the Cambrian explosion a problem for evolution? It is only a problem for people who do nut understand evolution.

The reason that we don't allow the teaching of various forms of creationism is that they are all religion. The government is not allowed to favor one religion over another. Science is different from religion, it is based upon experimentation and observation. If you really want to you can reproduce any part of the study of evolution. If you get a different answer, and your methodology is correct it will cast some doubt on that part of the theory. Science has to be repeatable to be valid. Religion is not repeatable. It is based upon the interpretation of books often written by totally ignorant people.

So we can teach anything that is demonstrable in schools. We cannot teach subjects that are not.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 27, 2012
 
John Moreno wrote:
The problem with teaching evolution is in which one of the many theories do you teach.
The only one there is - the modern evolutionary synthesis.
John Moreno wrote:
Recent scientific studies cast doubts on Darwin's methodology and have given rise to all sorts of alternatives.
I am unaware of this. What scientific alternative(s) do you propose?
John Moreno wrote:
A basic scientific premise is that effects must have a cause.
Which has of course been thrown out the window since quantum physics. Evolution on the other hand IS a cause and effect phenomenon, so no problems there anyway.

Another funny thing is that it's primarily creationists who reject evolution for theological reasons, often using that very same argument. Yet the very same premise destroys their own alternative.
John Moreno wrote:
What is the primary cause to life and evolution.
That would be abiogenesis, literally, the beginning of life. However the theory of evolution does not rely on any explanations for abiogenesis, for the exact same reason why the theory of gravity does not rely on explanations for the origin of mass. All the theory of gravity needs is for mass to be here. Mass IS here. Mass attracts. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that mass is in fact NOT here.

All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

Good luck.
John Moreno wrote:
Chance is not a cause.
And as you're still referring to abiogenesis (rather than evolution) your complaint is flawed. Since the current hypotheses re abio deal with chemistry.

If you knew a thing at all about chemistry you would know that it is NOT a "chance" process.
John Moreno wrote:
How do we explain the cambrian explosion, that clearly casts doubt on the theory.
Only if one is gullible enough to buy creationist apologetics. As the Cambrian explosion demonstrates, hard-bodied organisms developed and as such became quite prevalent in the fossil record compared to the pre-Cambrian as soft-bodied organisms did not fossilize anywhere near as often. And from the Cambrian explosion we see clear evolutionary trends, such as in trilobites for instance. Many many different species of them.
John Moreno wrote:
A read of Darwin's explanation of how the eye evolved did it for me, it did not make any sense.
Oh, well if it didn't make sense to you then I guess evolution really is in trouble. After all your baseless non-scientific opinions are really important.

And um... who are you again?

Weren't you the guy who tried to equate chemistry with "random chance"? This is why the scientific community pays little attention to objections from non-scientific lay-people.
John Moreno wrote:
What is so terrible in telling students what most people believe, there is an intelligent, creative entity that is the primary cause of life.
Because there is no evidence. If there is no evidence, it cannot be taught in science classes. You DID know that this is what this was all about, yes? SCIENCE classes?
John Moreno wrote:
You do not have to teach any specific religion.
Yet that would be done anyway. In fact in some states it already IS.
John Moreno wrote:
It is only a possibility that solves much of the problems with the original theory.
How exactly? What's the "science" behind it? We're all ears.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 27, 2012
 
John Moreno wrote:
How do we explain the cambrian explosion, that clearly casts doubt on the theory.
Here is how scientists respond to the assertions of Christians that the so-called Cambrian Explosion poses any kind of a problem for evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.h...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Dec 27, 2012
 
John Moreno wrote:
The problem with teaching evolution is in which one of the many theories do you teach.
There are NOT multiple theories. This is Christian apologetical nonsense. There is some regular, healthy disagreement among scientists about the various MECHANISMS involved in evolution and how they work, etc. But this is a good, healthy thing. It is how the knowledge of humanity grows and progresses.
John Moreno wrote:
Recent scientific studies cast doubts on Darwin's methodology and have given rise to all sorts of alternatives.
Can you be more specific, with links to a SCIENCE website?
John Moreno wrote:
A basic scientific premise is that effects must have a cause. What is the primary cause to life and evolution.
Evolution the origin of life are two separate concepts.

The "causes" of evolution are gene mutation (plus genetic drift and sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.

The "cause" of the origin of life on Earth is still a bit unclear, but it appears to be a biochemical thing -- NOT random chance but action according to the various laws of chemistry. So the "cause" would be the laws of chemistry.
John Moreno wrote:
A read of Darwin's explanation of how the eye evolved did it for me, it did not make any sense.
This PBS page about the eye(with 4 minute video) might explain it better for you.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/...
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I hate athiests wrote:
Why can't the dumbass school boards agree to reach creationism and evolutionism. I am catholic and think that the kids should be able to learn both. Ever since atheism and evolutionism have come about the US is in the trash. Some people say that athiests are the best scientists. Any smart person can invent things and make scientific break throughs so let the kids decide what they want
The REALLY odd thing "I hate atheists", is that pretty much EVERY Catholic school in Michigan, living in Michigan you should know which ones I'm talking about, DO teach both. They teach they SCIENTIFIC Theory of Evolution in biology class and "creationism" in catechism and Sunday school, because, well, even the Catholic Church KNOWS that "creationism" isn't science ... and have been doing so FOR DECADES.

You must be either LYING about being Catholic or LYING about living in Michigan resident to not know this.

BTW "I hate atheists", I hate religious zealots like you. You people have done more harm to humanity, history and the world than any other group known.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 31, 2012
 
John Moreno wrote:
How do we explain the cambrian explosion, that clearly casts doubt on the theory.
Thank you for demonstrating in this one sentence your complete ignorance of the Cambrian explosion ... and the Theory of Evolution ... and science.

.
.
.

Of course, it's not like anyone expects any less from "fundamentalist christian creationists", who have been demonstrating their scientific stupidity for the past 2000+ years.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 31, 2012
 
I hate athiests wrote:
Why can't the dumbass school boards agree to reach creationism and evolutionism. I am catholic and think that the kids should be able to learn both....Any smart person can invent things and make scientific break throughs so let the kids decide what they want
It;s not up to kids to decide what science should be taught in school science classes.

And, as a Catholic, you will, I'm sure, appreciate this statement about evolution by the Jesuit Catholic faculty at one of the top medical schools in America:

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY
STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY
 
The most comprehensive definition of biology is that it is the investigation of the emergent process that we call evolution.  Evolutionary theory’s seamlessly coherent explanatory power for the phenomena that biology investigates at every level of complexity, in the myriad fields that biology encompasses, and in the interrelationships between and among those fields, is unrivaled and presents evolutionary theory as the grand unifying theory of biology.  The theory of evolution has been repeatedly tested for over a century for inconsistency. While new findings continue to illuminate the dimensions and consequences of the evolutionary process, the central tenets of evolutionary theory remain unchanged. It is accepted by scientists, religious believers and non-believers alike in their refereed scientific publications, and transcends theory.  For educators to pretend that biology is anything else than the study of the process and outcomes of evolution, or that evolution is not an accepted scientific theory, would misrepresent the vast body of knowledge that has accumulated over the past century and a half.  Such misrepresentation would be a gross disservice to the human community.
 
The theory of biological evolution does not conflict with religious faith in a pre-existent God Who is ground of all existence, nor with faith in Jesus as Messiah.  This is so since biological evolution is an existent, testable truth, as are all truths that have been discovered by the empirical methodology of science.  It is not within the scope of either biology or any other scientific discipline to investigate questions that lie within the realm of religion, such as why there is existence.
 
Since first proposed, the theory of evolution has transformed the ‘study of life’ by providing a framework for understanding natural processes.  In the words of the renowned evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky,“nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”  Empirical studies over the past 150 years have provided tightly interwoven evidence for evolution and effectively serve as a guiding light for current and future biological inquiry. To confront students with untestable alternatives would not only misrepresent the significance of evolutionary theory and the legitimacy of the scientific method, but would also jeopardize future achievements.
 
We, the faculty of the Department of Biology at Saint Louis University, a Jesuit Catholic institution of higher learning, accept the above statement as basic to our mission of teaching, in order to further the goal of investigating and promoting the truth.
 
Thoughtfully submitted, December, 2005
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

MikeF wrote:
“No teacher of any discipline of science shall teach creationism or intelligent design in classes designated as science classes.”
There goes the science of spontaneous quantum creationism which is now so firmly established in mainstream physics that quantum creationism is now acknowledged to be undeniable science in the popular culture.
http://everythingimportant.org/naturalism

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 31, 2012
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>There goes the science of spontaneous quantum creationism which is now so firmly established in mainstream physics that quantum creationism is now acknowledged to be undeniable science in the popular culture.
http://everythingimportant.org/naturalism
.

Oh, shaddup, you freakin loon.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 31, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>.
Oh, shaddup, you freakin loon.
Your wish to be left to your own delusions is no argument that others should be as fiercely indoctrinated as you have been.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 31, 2012
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Your wish to be left to your own delusions is no argument that others should be as fiercely indoctrinated as you have been.
You being so intimately familiar with delusions.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of206
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

13 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 6 min JM_Brazil 111,831
Science News (Sep '13) 25 min Ricky F 2,821
When Will Evolutionists Confess Their Atheistic... 25 min TurkanaBoy 1,191
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 41 min The Dude 171,204
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr ChromiuMan 132,983
Ann Coulter: Idiot (Sep '11) 13 hr DanFromSmithville 358
Plan your Relocation needs with Packers and Mov... Jul 7 shashi12 1
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••