we're not in kansas anymore
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 02/08/06 - 11:13 Post subject: we're not in kansas anymore
Bill bans creationism as science
By Judith Davidoff
Creationism or intelligent design could not be taught as science in Wisconsin public schools under a first-of-its-kind proposal announced today by Madison state Rep. Terese Berceau.
Under the bill, only science capable of being tested according to scientific method could be taught as science. Faith-based theories, however, could be discussed in other contexts.
Alan Attie, a biochemistry professor at UW-Madison, said the bill puts Wisconsin on the map in the ongoing controversy over evolution and intelligent design.
"We can be the un-Kansas," Attie said in an interview.
Kansas, Attie said, has been the object of derision since the state's Board of Education in 2005 adopted teaching standards that support intelligent design.
"To position us in exactly the opposite direction and be the first in the nation to do it, I'm thrilled about," Attie added.
In recent years a growing movement known as intelligent design - the idea that evolution was shaped by an intelligent creator - has challenged the teaching of evolution in public schools.
At a news conference this morning at the State Capitol, Berceau, a Democrat, was flanked by Rep. Spencer Black, D-Madison, and 13 top researchers from the University of Wisconsin who helped draft the legislation.
She said her bill addresses the attempts in Wisconsin and across the country to undermine science education.
"It is designed to promote good science education, and prevent the introduction of pseudo-science in the science classroom," she said.
"It does not ban the discussion of intelligent design or any other ideology in schools in nonscientific contexts. It simply states that if something is presented as science, it must actually be science."
Rob Crowther, director of communications for the Discovery Institute, the main booster group for intelligent design, said his group opposes the bill.
"We think it is a scientific theory," Crowther said of intelligent design. "There are a lot of scientists and scholars doing a lot of research on the topic in research institutions. Any effort to stifle the subject really ultimately harms the work they're doing. We see this as an academic freedom issue, not just for teachers, but for scientists."
Michael Cox, assistant chair of the biochemistry department at UW-Madison, said intelligent design is an "attempt to introduce fake science as science into the school curriculum in public schools."
In an interview, Cox said he hopes the bill improves the atmosphere for science in the state.
"I'm personally concerned as a working scientist that science is under assault in this country in a lot of different ways," Cox said. "I'd like to see some positive signs that the environment for science can be improved and I think this bill will do that."
Cox and others at the news conference said it is important to support science education in order to produce sound students, keep the nation on the cutting edge of technology, and maintain a growing and strong economy.
Berceau's bill would require that anything presented as science in the classroom be testable as a scientific hypothesis and pertain to natural, not supernatural, processes. The material would also have to be consistent with any description of science adopted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Berceau stressed in an interview that intelligent design and any other ideology could still be discussed in school in nonscientific contexts.
"You can even include it in a science class if you want to say why it's not a science," she said. "Otherwise it should be taught in a history of religion class or social studies or philosophy. But it's not a science and shouldn't be taught as a science."
She said the bill was inspired by recent assaults on science in the nation and state.
In Grantsburg, Wis., for instance, the school district in 2004 voted to direct its science department to "teach all theories of origin."
Grantsburg School District Superintendent Joni Burgin said today, however, that the school district has revised its policy and that it would, in fact, comply with Berceau's bill.
"There's no creationism, no religion," Burgin said.
Assembly Speaker John Gard, R-Peshtigo, did not return phone calls for comment.
E-mail: jdavidoff@madison.com
Published: February 7, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 12:06 Post subject:
See, some good things come out of Madision.
sue, has there been a lot of debate about this and do you think it will pass?
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 14:36 Post subject:
I wonder if I could sue for promoting the religion of Secular Humanism? Ya'll make the neo-islamist Jehadi's look like pikers!
|
|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 17:30 Post subject:
my stance on this in public schools is that an open debate can be handled, if it is brought up. Be ready to discuss all possiblities from all religeous backgrounds too though. no picking and choosing. if you WANT your kid to learn creationalism send them to a religeous school then.
BTW for those that wonder, i went to Catholic schools from 7th grade on. it apparently didn't stick.
|
|
|
|
|
Running Brewer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Posts: 3872
Location: Santa Poco
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 17:33 Post subject:
Have they scientifically proven evolution yet? I didn't know that they found the missing link.
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 17:34 Post subject: Democratic Political Hack of the Day
blast wrong thread
|
|
|
|
|
wanttorun100
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2005
Posts: 4946
Location: Just to the right of Atilla the Hun!
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 17:44 Post subject:
| Running Brewer wrote: | | Have they scientifically proven evolution yet? I didn't know that they found the missing link. |
yeh his name is xero and he hangs in the quilting forumn
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 19:05 Post subject:
| Running Brewer wrote: | | Have they scientifically proven evolution yet? I didn't know that they found the missing link. |
Should gravity be taught in Science class?
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 19:28 Post subject:
| HYPERASHEL wrote: | my stance on this in public schools is that an open debate can be handled, if it is brought up. Be ready to discuss all possiblities from all religeous backgrounds too though. no picking and choosing. if you WANT your kid to learn creationalism send them to a religeous school then.
BTW for those that wonder, i went to Catholic schools from 7th grade on. it apparently didn't stick. |
Is the theory of Creationism teaching religion? I say no. And I would be against your arguement in being prepared to teach religion. If religion were to be taught in school, sure, under religious studies and cover all religions. If you want a certain religious study for your child, then, yes put him in a religious based school. If theories of how many came to be is the subject matter, then, all theories should be covered.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 19:37 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: |
If theories of how many came to be is the subject matter, then, all theories should be covered. |
In Science class?
|
|
|
|
|
gretriever
Hipster Doofus
|
|
|
Joined: 16 Jul 2003
Posts: 19385
Location: A moving target in a firing range.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 22:03 Post subject:
| Running Brewer wrote: | | Have they scientifically proven evolution yet? I didn't know that they found the missing link. |
The problem I have with the evolution concept is if it takes millions of years for a given species to develop, and the earth is estimated to be 4 to 6 billion years old, how can evolution explain the development from one-cell amoeba (or whatever is lesser in that life form) to humans - it just does not seem there is enough time involved.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/06 - 23:32 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | | Running Brewer wrote: | | Have they scientifically proven evolution yet? I didn't know that they found the missing link. |
The problem I have with the evolution concept is if it takes millions of years for a given species to develop, and the earth is estimated to be 4 to 6 billion years old, how can evolution explain the development from one-cell amoeba (or whatever is lesser in that life form) to humans - it just does not seem there is enough time involved. |
There's dozens and dozens of unexplicable leaps in evolutionary theory. Sex for instance. Evolutionists cannot explain sex. If those original amoebas split or budded off the next generations, it was a highly efficient reproductive step. Somewhere along the line (evolutionist can't tell you when) sex was introduced somehow and suddenly it took two of the species to create a new one. Verrry 'anti-evolution' in terms of a species become more adapted and efficient at surviving. I mean really, for those species still in the stages of being able to reproduce by themselves versus the 'new' species that took two animals, of the opposite gender mind you, to create an offspring, the evolutionists have to go against their own survival-of-the-fittest theory to explain how that new weird sexually reproducing species could even continue.
There's other 'holes' in the evolutionary theory. It ain't proven 'science' by any stretch of the imagination.
Like I've said before and I believe it thoroughly, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
|
|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/10/06 - 00:29 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: | | HYPERASHEL wrote: | my stance on this in public schools is that an open debate can be handled, if it is brought up. Be ready to discuss all possiblities from all religeous backgrounds too though. no picking and choosing. if you WANT your kid to learn creationalism send them to a religeous school then.
BTW for those that wonder, i went to Catholic schools from 7th grade on. it apparently didn't stick. |
Is the theory of Creationism teaching religion? I say no. And I would be against your arguement in being prepared to teach religion. If religion were to be taught in school, sure, under religious studies and cover all religions. If you want a certain religious study for your child, then, yes put him in a religious based school. If theories of how many came to be is the subject matter, then, all theories should be covered. |
i meant only the stories of each religeons "Creation Story" not the religeon itself. to me creationism is religeous as well.
|
|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/10/06 - 00:33 Post subject:
| gretriever wrote: | | Running Brewer wrote: | | Have they scientifically proven evolution yet? I didn't know that they found the missing link. |
The problem I have with the evolution concept is if it takes millions of years for a given species to develop, and the earth is estimated to be 4 to 6 billion years old, how can evolution explain the development from one-cell amoeba (or whatever is lesser in that life form) to humans - it just does not seem there is enough time involved. |
well first of all evolution does not need millions of years. what it requires is generations. if a lifeform has a life expectancy of of 10 days then evolution can occure literally in a matter of a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
HYPERASHEL
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2003
Posts: 15397
Location: The South's Sauna, Atlanta
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/10/06 - 00:38 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: | | gretriever wrote: | | Running Brewer wrote: | | Have they scientifically proven evolution yet? I didn't know that they found the missing link. |
The problem I have with the evolution concept is if it takes millions of years for a given species to develop, and the earth is estimated to be 4 to 6 billion years old, how can evolution explain the development from one-cell amoeba (or whatever is lesser in that life form) to humans - it just does not seem there is enough time involved. |
There's dozens and dozens of unexplicable leaps in evolutionary theory. Sex for instance. Evolutionists cannot explain sex. If those original amoebas split or budded off the next generations, it was a highly efficient reproductive step. Somewhere along the line (evolutionist can't tell you when) sex was introduced somehow and suddenly it took two of the species to create a new one. Verrry 'anti-evolution' in terms of a species become more adapted and efficient at surviving. I mean really, for those species still in the stages of being able to reproduce by themselves versus the 'new' species that took two animals, of the opposite gender mind you, to create an offspring, the evolutionists have to go against their own survival-of-the-fittest theory to explain how that new weird sexually reproducing species could even continue.
There's other 'holes' in the evolutionary theory. It ain't proven 'science' by any stretch of the imagination.
Like I've said before and I believe it thoroughly, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than creation. |
asexual reproduction occurs in multi celled creatures too. then there are creatures rather low in the evolutionary status that have BOTH sexes but yet need another to reproduce. science has explained this already, it's how genetic material get spread out, it's either that or we'd all be hillbilly inbreds with one tooth.
there are animals that can literally change sex. Every Grouper is born a female, they can change to a male as needed to keep the population up. I admit they don't understand the whole preocess yet though. there are other fish that do the same thing to though. Evolution has much more explanation that Creation does.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
