Comments on: Wisconsin District to Teach Creationism

By: voices.in.my.head

voices.in.my.head — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:31:36 +0000

Wisconsin school district teaching Creationism isn't bad
In a interesting news report from CNN.com, it now appears that a Wisconsin school district will offer more than just evolution in their upcoming school year. Oh horror of horror! Prepare yourselves for the 21st Century version of the Salem Witch hunts!...

By: Signifying Nothing

Signifying Nothing — Mon, 08 Nov 2004 00:01:32 +0000

Creationism comes to Wisconsin
I tend to agree with James Joyner and John Cole that putting creationism in the public school curriculum on-par with evolution is a thoroughly dopey idea. That said, Jim Lindgren points out that the textbook on evolution in question at...

By: zz

zz — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:50:42 +0000

Not only we don't know anything really about how life started, but I don't think Creationism or evolution are particularly revelent to the education of children. Their time is better spent dealing with useful information.

By: BoDiddly

BoDiddly — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:49:07 +0000

I have a solution: Spend about thirty seconds of classroom time explaining that, in the face of all science has to offer, and in the absence of any hard evidence either way, although there are various conflicting theories regarding the origins of life on our planet . . . WE DON'T KNOW.

Then get on to teaching what we do know.

The idea of teaching theories as part of scientific curriculum is preposterous. It stems directly from a "religion of science" in which science is supposed to be able to explain everything authoritatively. While science is supposed to analyze all data equally, the presupposition has always remained that there is no supreme being, therefore any possible evidence of that being's existance must be discarded immediately.

Just a perusal through historical record of how many times "scientific facts" have been refuted and disproven show that any type of absolute presupposition must be avoided in the name of genuine scientific research.

By: A Stitch in Haste

A Stitch in Haste — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:13:11 +0000

How Evolution is Like Economics
Even James Joyner of Outside the Beltway falls into the creationist trap...

By: paladin

paladin — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 16:43:08 +0000

According to an article in the autumn Wilson Quarterly, evolution as a theory is in the process of revision as well. Because of the characteristics of the West Nile Virus, the original thought that evolution was a "ever-branching, never-crossing tree of diversity" is being shown to be false. Oh well, back to the drawing board!

By: McGehee

McGehee — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:57:38 +0000

I've long had the impression that the embrace of evolution-by-self-organized-accident theory, and the sometimes hysterical opposition to other interpretations of the same evidence, is itself quasi-religious in its fervor.

Good ideas will always stand up to challenge from inferior ones, provided the challenge is fairly heard.

By: JoJo Knight

JoJo Knight — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 15:17:23 +0000

I'm a strong believer in giving people what they want, if this school wants to teach Creationism along with Faith based Chemistry and Bible code Math 101 I say "Just do it"!
I used to worry about the hatred that large parts of America has for science and rational thought but you know what, the kids that actually want to challenge their little world view can use Google. More importantly, lets face it the spearhead of American scientific and technological innovation has always been Immigration, as long as we can pick a good number of the best minds from elsewhere this country will do fine as a whole though I really have my doubts about the prospects for these good folks.

By: anon

anon — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:52:25 +0000

One issue is whether these people have a right to teach a curriculum they want. You are commenting from far away. The underlying concern of "church and state" is avoided as long as it is taught without reference to a religous text (i.e. intelligent design). I don't believe in creationism as defined by religion, but things are just a little tooooo structured to be by random chance (there is also the small problem of there not being a feedback loop in the current evolutionary model). And I won't even get into the ammount of faith that is required for modern science, including evolution. Seen a superstring lately? How about a quason? Kuhn commented on science's set of "received beliefs".

By: Jay Solo

Jay Solo — Sun, 07 Nov 2004 14:44:59 +0000

Yep. There is no reason it can't be mentioned and compared. It exists as a theory. To discuss it is not to be all non-secular and impose a state religion.