Creationism vs Evolution in public schools

[kbachler]

I quoted the exact page. It says that students will learn that “Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species … As a basis for understanding this concept … Students know the reasoning used by Charles Darwin in reaching his conclusion that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.” The reasoning used by Charles Darwin is natural selection alone. It says exactly what I said it does.

If you interpret that standard a different way, you can just say so (preferably by citing some authority) instead of accusing me of lying.

Your continued personal attacks clearly demonstrate that you are unable to refute my arguments and so you have resorted to leveling false accusations at my credibility. I have better things to do than to waste time with you, as you are clearly unwilling to have an intelligent conversation.

READ what it says. For example: “As a basis for understanding this concept…” NOT “As the ONLY way to understand this concept”. You continue to read things into what you quote THAT ARE NOT THERE, in order to support your agenda.

Or “Students know the reasoning used by Charles Darwin in reaching his conclusion that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution” and you conclude “The reasoning used by Charles Darwin is natural selection alone.” and therefore that the students will know natural selection alone. BUT THAT ISN’T WHAT IT SAYS: It says they must know what Darwin thought, NOT that they must accept what Darwin thought as the sole means! In a religion class, I might be required to understand aspects of Islam, that doesn’t require me to accept Islam or that the tenets of Islam taught in the class are the ONLY tenets.

Again, you add information that isn’t there to prove your own agenda.

You said a post ago you were going to let this go. I suggest you do until you have a lot of time to pray and meditate on this, and figure out how to reform your approach, or how to use your talents in an way more suited to what they are.

 

[grannymh]

Not really, let me try and explain it again.

Except high school teachers and college professors who say “Man evolved through natural selection (period)” or “evolution is through natural selection (period.)” That is junk science because there are Harvard scientists with lab results that debunk it.

I am researching the origin of the human species and believe that there are two, sole parents of humanity.

Please provide the citations for the lab results by Harvard scientists which you refer to. Names of the scientists would also be appreciated.
Thank you.

Again, I have never said that I am trying to debunk evolutionary theory. I am trying to debunk the notion that natural selection is the sole and only cause of evolution. Looks like I don’t have to do that because Harvard University has already done it.

I am glad to know about Harvard University. Please provide the published articles or other information (such as names, departments etc.) from Harvard University which you refer to. Thank you.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[Cat_Herder]

READ what it says. For example: “As a basis for understanding this concept…” NOT “As the ONLY way to understand this concept”.

On what basis for understanding the concept will they be tested?

BUT THAT ISN’T WHAT IT SAYS: It says they must know what Darwin thought, NOT that they must accept what Darwin thought as the sole means!

What happens if they put some other means on the test?

They fail.

What happens if they answer on the test: “Evolution occurred through several means such as chaotic patterns.” That’s a correct answer at Harvard. But in the eyes of the CA standards, it isn’t.

So they fail.

Again, you add information that isn’t there to prove your own agenda.

No, you are denying reality. You’re a teacher (I think), so you know how this stuff works in real life. There is no room for critical thinking in public schools. Teachers don’t teach; they regurgitate what is written in the curriculum standards and in the tests and textbooks that are based on those standards. If you fail to regurgitate the curriculum standards, then your students flunk the CAT or whatever standardized multiple-choice test based on those standards they have there, and the NCLB reports come out and you don’t make AYP and the state and the feds sanction the whole school, the funds get cut and you get fired for having the audacity to teach your students to question the standards.

That’s one reason why many people say that the public schools should be demolished and the whole thing redone.

P.S. Further authority for the failure of public schools to teach critical thinking skills.

 

[kbachler]

On what basis for understanding the concept will they be tested?

What happens if they put some other means on the test?

They fail.

What happens if they answer on the test: “Evolution occurred through several means such as chaotic patterns.” That’s a correct answer at Harvard. But in the eyes of the CA standards, it isn’t.

So they fail.

No, you are denying reality. You’re a teacher (I think), so you know how this stuff works in real life. There is no room for critical thinking in public schools. Teachers don’t teach; they regurgitate what is written in the curriculum standards and in the tests and textbooks that are based on those standards. If you fail to regurgitate the curriculum standards, then your students flunk the CAT or whatever standardized multiple-choice test based on those standards they have there, and the NCLB reports come out and you don’t make AYP and the state and the feds sanction the whole school.

That’s one reason why many people say that the public schools should be demolished and the whole thing redone.

Again, you assume things to prove your own agenda. Catherder, you seriously need to speak with a priest about this, and pray a lot.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Again, you assume things to prove your own agenda. Catherder, you seriously need to speak with a priest about this, and pray a lot.

In other words: “When confronted with truth, raise doubts in the heart of the speaker.” That doesn’t sound like a page out of the heavenly playbook.

 

[buffalo]

Then no, from a scientific perspective with respect to the universe, I do not agree that design exists.

But within the universe design exists or not?

 

[larkin31]

I quoted the exact page. It says that students will learn that “Biological evolution accounts for the diversity of species … As a basis for understanding this concept … Students know the reasoning used by Charles Darwin in reaching his conclusion that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.” The reasoning used by Charles Darwin is natural selection alone. It says exactly what I said it does.

If you interpret that standard a different way, you can just say so (preferably by citing some authority) instead of accusing me of lying.

I have to quote an “authority” to counter you? That’s just silly. I referred to the wording of the standard to counter you. THAT is sufficient.

Secondly, I did NOT accuse you of lying. I ASKED you if your mistake was intentional or not. I make mistakes sometimes, don’t you? Will you acknowledge your mistake here or not?

Your continued personal attacks clearly demonstrate that you are unable to refute my arguments

I refuted your claims about the California standard specifically and reasonably. The California standard was about the historical knowledge of Darwin’s reference to “natural selection.” It was not, and you cannot find it written ANYWHERE in the California standard, that children are being taught that “natural selection is the SOLE process of evolution”. This summary by you is incorrect. It is a misrepresentation of the California standard which is printed here for everyone to see. You are reading it wrong, I have pointed out the nature of your error. It is simple and clear and needs no “authority” to refute you.

and so you have resorted to leveling false accusations at my credibility

I have said nothing about your general credibility. I have simply pointed out your error here and have asked you if you would explain why you made the error.

I have better things to do than to waste time with you, as you are clearly unwilling to have an intelligent conversation.

I am being very intelligent and sincere. I find it quite objectionable, as a teacher, when someone misrepresents teacher standards in my presence. If you are going to criticize them, you had better understand them first. Seems only fair and “intelligent,” no?

 

[larkin31]

On what basis for understanding the concept will they be tested?

What happens if they put some other means on the test?

They fail.

What happens if they answer on the test: “Evolution occurred through several means such as chaotic patterns.” That’s a correct answer at Harvard. But in the eyes of the CA standards, it isn’t.

So they fail.

No, you are denying reality. You’re a teacher (I think), so you know how this stuff works in real life. There is no room for critical thinking in public schools. Teachers don’t teach; they regurgitate what is written in the curriculum standards and in the tests and textbooks that are based on those standards. If you fail to regurgitate the curriculum standards, then your students flunk the CAT or whatever standardized multiple-choice test based on those standards they have there, and the NCLB reports come out and you don’t make AYP and the state and the feds sanction the whole school, the funds get cut and you get fired for having the audacity to teach your students to question the standards.

That’s one reason why many people say that the public schools should be demolished and the whole thing redone.

P.S. Further authority for the failure of public schools to teach critical thinking skills.

This is full of intellectually lazy and exaggerated disparagement of learning that goes on in schools.

 

[kbachler]

But within the universe design exists or not?

The design of a table exists; we know someone made it for a purpose.

With respect to the universe, we cannot say that design exists, nor can we say it doesn’t exist. In general, the assumption would be that it doesn’t exist, but only because that is a simpler assumption (Occam’s Razor).

 

[StAnastasia]

Correct - it is philosophy supported by modern science.

No, it’s not supported by modern science. That’s why scientists reject ID, and why there are no sessions on ID at science conferences, or courses taught on ID “science” at universities.

 

[StAnastasia]

No, you are denying reality. You’re a teacher (I think), so you know how this stuff works in real life. There is no room for critical thinking in public schools. Teachers don’t teach; they regurgitate what is written in the curriculum standards and in the tests and textbooks that are based on those standards.

This is completely false. Have you ever visited a high school, or been inside a biology classroom? My son is in advanced biology, and we visited his school last week for an open house. In a long conversation with the biology instructor, we were impressed both with his command of his subject matter, and with the open and inviting atmosphere of his classroom. You need to relax a bit, and learn what really goes on in schools.

 

[kbachler]

In other words: “When confronted with truth, raise doubts in the heart of the speaker.” That doesn’t sound like a page out of the heavenly playbook.

Not at all. You aren’t confronting anyone here with the truth. You are misinterpreting several sources (sometimes quite badly) it seems to advance your own agenda. Furthermore, you do so using information which you admit you do not have a knowledge or grasp of the information. I don’t see how you can use that situation as one that you think contains truth.

Frankly, Cat Herder, God has made it clear that He wants us to love Him. This requires a situation where there isn’t clear proof of His existence, since if such proof were available, our actions would become forced, would not originate out of free will, and therefore not love. Imperfect information is necessary for us in this case.

What I see is that you take ideas, like branches of advanced mathematics that you don’t understand, and you try to force them into areas of high school teaching in order to force atheism out of the classroom. Chaos Theory is not a a box that contains God, and neither are fractals. There is no more proof of God there than there is in Euclidean geometry.

Then you take quotes out of context, misinterpret these quotes, and somehow conclude that this stops the evil classroom teaching that you’re convinced is going on.

I’m sorry. Some people here are currently teachers or have been, and know better from first-hand experience. Other people here are actually mathematicians, and know that Chaos Theory does not imply the existence of God (it would have been REALLY BIG news.)

I don’t get why you think that continuing to address something that we’ve responded to, and disproven, will somehow change things. Please, talk to a priest, find your piece with it, and move on to something where you can do some real good.

Thank you.

 

[Cat_Herder]

What I see is that you take ideas, like branches of advanced mathematics that you don’t understand, and you try to force them into areas of high school teaching in order to force atheism out of the classroom.

The danger of ranting is that one slip of tongue is all that is necessary to sink your case. Thanks for admitting that atheism is in the public school classrooms.

 

[LemonAndLime]

The danger of ranting is that one slip of tongue is all that is necessary to sink your case. Thanks for admitting that atheism is in the public school classrooms.

Well, yes it is how you see it. But not everything is as black and white as you see it.

Atheists tend to believe in evolution, because they have no concept of a creator therefore it is easy to assume that teaching evolution is part of atheism. It’s not, because…

Catholics (for example) are free to believe in either or both. Teaching evolution is just as acceptable for Catholics as it is for atheists. So you could argue that these public schools are teaching Catholicism by teaching evolution. But that doesn’t suit some people’s argument, you see.

Evolution is in the field of science because it is something that scientists have put forward, and offered scientific proofs. Therefore it is only right that it belongs in a science lesson. Atheists are happy with this because it is the only explanation for the beginning of the world that they can believe in, and Catholics should be happy with this because it is a scientific explanation and we are not taught that the Bible version is 100% truth.

Creationism is taught in religious education classes because it is a belief of our existence held and put forward by religion, after research into their own religious texts and thus the proofs from those passages in the Bible, etc. Atheists are happy with that because it is not based on science.

Atheists are not happy that creationism is taught in science lessons because it is not based on science. It is based on religion. That is something that we as Catholics are taught to accept and in fact, believe ourselves. The Bible does not claim it is a scientific textbook and neither does the Church.

An equivilant argument would be Muslims saying that their creation story had a right to be taught in a Christian theology session. The topic is Christianity, not Islam. The topic is science, not religion.

Well that’s my :twocents:.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Well, yes it is how you see it. But not everything is as black and white as you see it.

Whether the public schools can teach a religion is black and white law: they can’t. Whether atheism is a religion is also black and white: it is. If they are teaching Darwinism (as opposed to the more modern holistic views of evolution) they are teaching atheism because Darwinism says natural selection alone gave rise to man.

 

[larkin31]

Whether the public schools can teach a religion is black and white law: they can’t. Whether atheism is a religion is also black and white: it is. If they are teaching Darwinism (as opposed to the more modern holistic views of evolution) they are teaching atheism because Darwinism says natural selection alone gave rise to man.

You continue to express your ignorance on this topic: Darwin allowed the possibly of God in his Origin of the Species. He expressly does so, particularly at the end.

You really need to get informed on this topic, and stop your whining about being attacked personally. Darwinism is NOT “atheistic,” and anyone who has read Origin actually KNOWS this.

 

[kbachler]

The danger of ranting is that one slip of tongue is all that is necessary to sink your case. Thanks for admitting that atheism is in the public school classrooms.

As you’ve done continuously, you’ve purposefully misinterpreted what was said. I never said that there was atheism in the classroom. I said that you want to chase atheism out of the classroom (whether it is there, or not.)

Misinterpreting science isn’t the way to do that, since all it does is confirm to people that there is an agenda, and there isn’t honesty.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Whether the public schools can teach a religion is black and white law: they can’t. Whether atheism is a religion is also black and white: it is. If they are teaching Darwinism (as opposed to the more modern holistic views of evolution) they are teaching atheism because Darwinism says natural selection alone gave rise to man.

And in religious education, children are taught that people of religion believe that God alone is responsible for our creation.

In science lessons, children are taught that science is responsible for our creation. This does not contradict what we are taught as Catholics.

So what is your problem? I thought I explained the atheism/science link in my other post.

 

[kbachler]

Whether the public schools can teach a religion is black and white law: they can’t. Whether atheism is a religion is also black and white: it is. If they are teaching Darwinism (as opposed to the more modern holistic views of evolution) they are teaching atheism because Darwinism says natural selection alone gave rise to man.

Again, you are incorrect. Public schools can teach a religion, they have social science classes that cover religion and do it all the time. Public schools cannot teach religion in such a way that A religion is promoted.

Natural selection (or other aspects of evolutionary theory) is a method. It doesn’t remove the possibility that God designed nature in this way. Where do you get the idea that it does?

For those that understand evolution, and also believe in God, we can appreciate what a wonderful and intricate method he has wrought. But there is no proof for or against God there.

 

[kbachler]

You continue to express your ignorance on this topic: Darwin allowed the possibly of God in his Origin of the Species. He expressly does so, particularly at the end.

You really need to get informed on this topic, and stop your whining about being attacked personally. Darwinism is NOT “atheistic,” and anyone who has read Origin actually KNOWS this.

Yes, he specifically did this so that the theory wouldn’t be buried in criticisms that it does away with God. That’s specifically what he didn’t want.