Zack Kopplin was honored earlier by this blog for his efforts to expose the teaching of creationism in voucher schools in Louisiana. He is a student at Rice University. He is not letting up on his efforts to expose the abuse of science by schools receiving vouchers.
Here is a press release sent by him:
Over 300 Schools Teaching Creationism on the Taxpayer Dime
Over 300 Schools Teaching Creationism on the Taxpayer Dime
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Zack Kopplin
Baton Rouge, LA — (January, 16, 2013) — Over 300 schools in school voucher programs across the country are teaching creationism as science and receiving tens of millions in public money.
These schools are in nine states (Florida, Indiana, Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Colorado, Utah, Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia and were put in a database on creationistvouchers.com.
A few of these creationist voucher schools are:
- Liberty Christian School, in Anderson, Indiana, teaches from a creationist ABeka and ASCI curriculum. They also take trips to the Creation Museum.
- Rocky Bayou Christian School, in Niceville, Florida, in its section on educational philosophy, says “Man is presumed to be an evolutionary being shaped by matter, energy, and chance… God commands His people not to teach their children the way of the heathen.”
- Creekside Christian Academy, in McDonough, Georgia, says, “The universe, a direct creation of God, refutes the man-made idea of evolution. Students will be called upon to see the divine order of creation and its implications on other subject areas.”
These schools that have been discovered are only the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds more schools in these programs, across the nation, are undoubtedly also teaching creationism and receiving public money.
Researcher and science advocate Zack Kopplin partnered with MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry Show to discover and publish this information.
###
Contact Zack Kopplin at 225-715-5946 or zsk1@rice.edu
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thank you Zack for the work you are doing. I guess I was taught the way of the heathen, even though my father was a minister. Oh well, so be it.
Well, if you’ve been following the christian right for some time, let’s say since the 70’s you would know that they have had a end game plan since then. Start local, school boards, city/county elected positions and then on to the state house and the federal level. These folks Reed, Dobson, Falwell, worked very hard to get their constituents to “toe the christian line”-the christian coalition. And it is finally paying off, literally.
How the hell any of this crap passes constitutional muster is beyond me, other than the fact that we now have some serious catholic fundamentalists on the Supreme Court. We need lawsuits, many of them. Support Americans for the Separation of Church and State and the ACLU.
Hell, I very recently found out that my district has a “good friday” holiday actually published as such, needless to say, I will be contacting the super to inform him that this member of the community is offended and that we are opening ourselves to a lawsuit. Christian (only capitalized because it’s starting the sentence) fundamentalists (and militarists, usually part and parcel of the same folks) dominate the discourse in this small rural MO community.
Ef the religionists!
The tide goes out, the tide comes in. Never a miscommunication.
I was raised in a Christian faith tradition that has encouraged intellectual curiosity. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state and am an opponent of taxpayer money funding religious schools. However, Duane, I find your barely contained contempt for us poor souls, scratch that, fools who profess religious faith whether it be Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish,…,all of which should be capitalized, offensive.
2o2t,
My contempt is reserved for those xtians (or of any other faiths) who surreptitiously have attempted to subvert the constitution through all means of obfuscations for their real purpose, to turn this country into a xtian taliban state not for those who practice their religion privately.
I have many friends who are religious, Some even that do their best to convince me of my evil ways. We have good friendly exchanges. Notice that I said “religionists” on purpose as a means of distinguishing between those who practice their faith privately and those who wish to impose it on others, which unfortunately has resulted in a long line of abuses to non believers throughout the ages.
It’s a shame that you feel so “offended” by what I have to say but so be it.
Duane
It was the “Christian (only capitalized because it’s starting the sentence)” that did me in. I find militant believers of any ilk hard to take, too, not the religion or non-religion. If your contempt is reserved for the fanatics, is there some other reason you want to get a rise out of this “xtian?” (I used to wonder what those road signs with no Xing on them meant.) It’s as if you are kicking dirt on my shoes, so to speak. In person, we would not be having this discussion since our positions on “in-your-face” Christians is not much different. The written word is less forgiving. I’ve stuck my foot in my mouth on-line many times. If this is one of them, let me apologize.
2o2t,
Thanks for your response. No need to apologize to me. I really wasn’t as clear as I should have been. And I don’t capitalize the religions in part because the capitalization gives them (any religion) a “status” that I think needs to be challenged (see my response to ME later in these posts about who can have a “steadfast response”). And using xtian is my way of denoting those who proclaim to be Christian but whose actions are quite less than that. Are Atheist, Agnostic or Free Thinker capitalized in the same fashion? I hope you see what I mean.
We agree on almost everything regarding public education and I did not mean to “degrade” you and your personal beliefs personally. Again, it’s my fault for not making that explicit.
Duane
And I thoroughly agree with “The written word is less forgiving” and I’m one who tends to forget that fact.
Duane…read some of the Inaugural Addresses and tell me that the desire to learn about the Almightly is not the cornerstone of this country. Freedom of religion has a deep rooted respect, originaly, for different Christian faiths. But the Constitution is clear…we will not have a national religion…
So, as we mature in our understanding of other cultures we start to accept the faith of those who are not Christian. This is one of the reasons why people from all over the world come to America. But let’s not forget where we come from.
The problem is not only voucher schools. Charter schools can and do teach creationism, depending on the state standards. In Louisiana, the state requires that evolution and creationism both be taught. Charter schools have autonomy over curriculum content as long as they conform with state guidelines. In Colorado, state education officials permit charters to teach “other points of view” than evolution. It would be helpful to know how many charters nationally are teaching creationism as well.
I want to clarify the point in my comment above. The 2008 Louisiana Academic Freedom Act permits schools to include creationists arguments in criticism of evolution. While that might not be construed as “teaching creationism,” it permits schools to present creationists ideas on the same standing as science. Again, we have no idea how many charter schools teach this subject the public has little power over how their tax dollars are used by charters, but the charters schools teaching religion as science should be noted as well. .
The teaching of creationism as science is not restricted to charter or private schools. It also happens in public schools. Wherever it happens, it should be opposed.
TE,
Are you sure you’re not the person who invented “His Noodly Appendage”?
I am not, but I do know some amount the first enlightened.
If I taught in a small town in the middle of the country, surrounded by cornfields and nothing but fundamentalist Christians for a hundred miles in each direction, I would teach both: the science (evolution) and the belief (creationism). One doesn’t need to subscribe to any point of view to teach it. We are but actors upon a stage. Leave it to the children to choose what to believe. It’s called critical thinking.
I am glad you are qualified (degreed in both I presume?) to teach both religious studies and biology, but most of us do not hold such dual certifications.
So, how about we at school teach what we are degreed and certified in and leave the belief systems to the family and the minister/priest/healer/cleric/witch of your choice.
Whose “creation” story would you teach? Many cultures and faiths have their own “creation” story, so which one.
I dunno, this is one area where I think an “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” tactic could be useful. How about if we agree to teach Christianity in the public schools, on the condition that a task force made up of various Christians, from Catholics to evangelicals to mainstream Protestants to assorted sects like the Amish and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, get together and hammer out a curriculum together. I have plenty of questions that should be addressed as starting points, if need be. If they can develop such a curriculum, schools should teach it.
I’m betting it wouldn’t take more than one meeting of this task force for all these good “Christians” to start tearing each other’s eyes out. Then maybe they’ll see why we have separation of church and state in the first place.
Dienne,
Be careful now you will insult the xtians by your last paragraph.
Duane
They have a right to believe whatever they want but on their dime. The meaning of the word “Faith” is a belief in something that cannot be proven. That is why they call it faith. This has nothing to do with facts.
If we are going to be fair on teaching religeon we need to include devil worship, multiple gods, fairy worship, and all beliefs as they are all equally important and many much older than christianity.
And this is what our President and his Secretary of Education will leave as their legacy.
I have to comment on your moniker, P.H. I LOVE it!
In addition to the ones George mentioned, we must also include the teachings of Allah and the study of Islam. What’s good for the goose….. Then the anti constitutional bias be laid as clear as day when the bigots claim freedom of religion as long as it’s christian, I bet even the devil worship wouldn’t draw the screams of outrage that Islamic studies would.
Either Zach is right or David Coleman is. Seems to me people do give a shбt what Zach thinks.
Really ironic, Dave thinks people don’t care about what other people think, but the whole country should care about what he thinks ( and prescribes). Lunacy,
This comment confuses me. Did David Coleman deny that some charter schools do not teach religion?
TE,
My point was intended to be,
ZACK seems to believe that his thoughts/opinions hold value, so he is passing them along and acting on them.
Coleman has infamously stated:”As you grow up in this world, you realize people really don’t give a s— about what you feel or what you think,”
I guess I should quote PeeWee now: “I know you are but what am I.”
“Aw, come on PeeWee listen to reason”
I just read that Arne Duncan stays. Depressing.
Also that scientology almost made into NCLB!
Huffington Post.
If global warming is taught, you don’t object. Sheer hypocrisy.
The evidence of Global Warming is highly documented. NASA Earth tweeted today:
“The ten warmest years in our 132-year global temperature record have all occurred since 1998.” Long Term Global Warming Trend Continues http://earthsky.org/earth/long-term-global-warming-trend-continues
Comparison photographs demonstrate how glaciers have been receding: http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
So many of the same folks who want kids to learn in school about an invisible guy in the sky deny the plethora of empirical evidence indicating climate change (and are still arguing about “legitimate rape.” )
Pardon me, but global warming IS scientifically based.
Let’s not confuse Global Warming with Man-Made Warming…as many like to do. The science fo warming may be clear… but the reasons for the warming are not. So, if you want to say that the world is warming…fine. I object to the conspiracy that it is all because of man…science simply doesn’t supoport that.
One of the subjects I have taught in my 17-year teaching career is science. For anyone interested in why neither creationism nor intelligent design qualifies as science, I encourage you to watch the two part Nova show on a Pennsylvania trial on this topic. There are excellent interviews and it is a fascinating examination of why the so-called evidence for intelligent design doesn’t hold up.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
I would also recommend that people read Ken Miller’s book “Just a Theory.”
Ken Miller, by the way, is the expert witness in the PA trial and was interviewed in this PBS special. He’s also a cell biologist and a devout Catholic. He explains very well how he sees religion and science not in conflict with one another in his book “Finding Darwin’s God.” Another scientist who writes along a similar vein is Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. His book is “The Language of God.”
Word of warning: both of these books do have some scientific detail that may prove somewhat confusing to those who do not have a biological background. However, I believe anyone can grasp where these 2 scientists are coming from. Reading these helped me when I was “confronted” by students who held very deep, fundamental Christian beliefs.
Don’t know if these folks are an issue too, but in AZ, the Sonoran Science Academy, which is a public charter school, is run by followers of the Turkish Gulen movement. Haven’t really followed the story, but here’s a link.
http://gulencharterschools.weebly.com/sonoran-science-academy.html
AZ has the most public charter schools in the country. If you breathe you can start one.
Charter schools are publicly funded. Therefore, taxpayer money is being used to teach these religious beliefs in these Arizona charter schools. The public needs to know how this tax money is being used. This needs to be exposed widely. We need to demand accountability for charter schools.
Section 15 of the Pennsylvania Constitution says:
“No money raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school.”
Yet our state legislature routinely passes voucher bills and the Secretary of Education authorizes religious charters schools. This is a direct violation of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution.
If Constitutions are routinely ignored, we no longer have a democracy.
This is where I diverge from many of you – although I do not believe it is correct that creationism be taught in public schools as science or otherwise. What I do believe is that students ought to be informed as to what is, and what isn’t, science – and why.
After teaching science for decades, including biology for many of those years, I am convinced that the ToE is as weak as creationism in terms of the quality of science, and I believe students have a right to hear the criticisms of the ToE (without necessarily teaching creationism).
I have paralleled the quality of science used in VAM to the quality of science used in the ToE, and I quickly received flack from many of you (which I don’t mind).
Although I agree 100% with the philosophy of education that this blog purports, I am not in agreement with the steadfast nature of Duane and others involving the veracity of their philosophy of science and their factual acceptance of the ToE.
My philosophy of science is a mix of old-fashioned Baconian methodology and Popper falsification (rather than verification), and the theory of evolution does not pass the test of hard science when analyzed under these pretenses. I would classify it as more of a soft science, if it is science at all.
Science doesn’t tell stories about what MAY have happened in the past based on circumstantial evidence (this is what VAM does when analyzed closely), at least NOT the hard sciences. Soft historical science attempts to do this, in many cases using the tools of hard science at its disposal, but that is not to confuse ‘history’ as a science with similar quality of physics, chemistry, or biology.
Science explains the observable phenomena that occur around us, and sometimes theories are derived upon indirect observation and evidences. However, the less repeatable the phenomena, and the less subject the theories are to falsification, then the quality of science is sacrificed. When phenomena are not repeatable (such as any one-time event), they are a matter of history, and should be studied and understood as such (think – O.J. Simpson, or any crime event for that matter). The supposed, historic transitions among species, are subject purely to an inductive, historic frame with no way to repeat, test, and falsify outcomes. The evidences garnered from these supposed transitions, are purely circumstantial and are subject to verification (but not falsification) – whether they be structurally fossil or genetic.
I don’t buy into this argument that ALL science is quality science, otherwise my house would be filled with enough vacuum cleaners to vacuum the face of the earth.
Students need to hear this – they need to be able to criticize what they are being taught. Evolutionists will not allow for it – either you believe in evolution or you are stupid. That is how a vast majority of our science teachers (especially at the collegiate level) handle teaching evolution, and that approach pisses off the general public.
All of this does not mean I advocate teaching creationism in public schools – I DONT! But I do believe that the views and faith of our students ought to be respected and that evolution ought to be taught more as a soft, historical science, than a science that conclusively answers the question, “where did man come from”? That question in and itself ought to be tip-toed around, whether we be approaching it religiously or scientifically.
I was pretty much with you up until the.last paragraph where you said taught a a soft historical science. The problem is that without evolution, not much of the rest of biology makes much sense.
What concessions would you make to those that believe in the young earth? Do geology and physics also need to be taught more as soft historical sciences that don’t necessarily prove that the earth is more than 6,000 years old?
Biology makes sense to informed creationists too, within their context. Just because we’ve built up biology, on the crutches of evolutionary theory, doesn’t mean that evolution occurred. Those who BELIEVE that O.J. either did or didn’t ‘do it’, each have their own contexts in which they believe their cases are built (which is true of any criminal investigation). Also, each side may even stumble upon facts that they wouldn’t have otherwise.
This is the issue – when investigating historical phenomena, we are relegated only to what may have happened, not what we ever will ‘know’ happened within the realm of factual information – this means that we can NEVER know what truly occurred within a historical investigation no matter how hard we work to reach that point. This is not true of contemporary repeatable and falsifiable phenomena – what we may know might change, in that facts can be held to be tentative, but we have the actual ability to derive truth. Without a time machine, history remains forever unknown. This is the critical issue between circumstantial evidence and noncircumstantial evidence – to what extent can we repeat the mechanism within the cause and effect format? It also is the reason why ‘history’, as a soft science, is different than chemistry, biology, and physics.
Concessions? Any time science turns historical (referring to one-time events), whether in geology or any other subject matter, it ought to be treated as such. For instance, the supposed transition from reptiles, to birds, is purely historical, and it ought to be treated as such.
“Evolutionists will not allow for it – either you believe in evolution or you are stupid.”
Or you think it’s the most convincing explanation you’ve heard to date. We’re all ears for other explanations as long as they don’t involve God.
@flerper – evolution is not an explanation – it is a STORY.
“Without a time machine, history remains forever unknown.”
Who wrote the Declaration of Independence? We will never know.
@flerper – “who wrote the Declaration of Independence”?
Either Jefferson or his secretary.
Great historical question though.
Here’s another great historical question – where did man come from?
“Either Jefferson or his secretary.”
How could you possibly know that without a time machine? Are you saying knowledge based on soft science can be reliable? The truth is that you can’t conclusively prove that the Declaration of Independence isn’t written by an elf. That’s what I believe happened, and you should respect that.
@flerper – its great that you BELIEVE Jefferson authored the Declaration, although he had help.
I don’t BELIEVE objects fall to earth while being constantly accelerated at 9.8 m/s x s. I know it.
While we BELIEVE things our history book tells us, we KNOW things that science books tell us.
But I don’t believe Jefferson authored the Declaration of Independence, with or without help. I believe an elf wrote it. And it’s “great” that I believe that, I guess.
You, on the other hand, apparently believe Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, possibly with some help. Yet you appear to concede that you have no way of really knowing whether that’s true. So why on earth do you believe it? Should history teachers make clear to their students that nobody really has any way of knowing who wrote the Declaration of Independence? Or is that something they should talk about the first day of class — that “history” is a “soft science” and we therefore will never actually know whether any of it really happened? Students need to hear this, so they can criticize what they are being taught, right?
Give us a break. We are educators. We know that science is always subject to revision.
Repeatedly referring to evolution as the “theory of evolution” but never characterizing creationism as the “theory of creationism” reveals your bias.
As if you are not biased?
Also reveals a lack of understanding of what a “theory” is. Hint, ME, “theory” isn’t equivalent to “hypothesis”.
@Dienne – please be more specific. Theories are factual explanations used to describe how an event occurs.
Hypotheses are possible explanations, based on preconceived notions, that are to be further tested.
Be specific.
And caution TeacherEd – I dont refer to the “theory of creationism” because it sounds funny.
Creationism is not a theory – it is religion.
That is an interesting position for a science teacher to take, especially one who believes in the demarcation criteria proposed by Popper. You hold that there are no circumstances under which the theory of evolution could be falsified or that the changes in auxiliary hypothesis can be dismissed as ad hoc?
Creationism is NOT a scientific theory.
It is not testable.
It is not falsifiable.
That is not generally taken as the main criteria. You might want to look at this entry in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
Then call it the “story of creationism” or the “belief in creationism,” rather than intimating that it stands on its own as truth uncontested.
Evolution is not weak science.
Please read/watch:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html
about the Dover trail. It is very clear what is and is not science.
Also, I agree with another commenter, please check out Ken Miller’s work (Professor of Biology at Brown University and a believer, by the way).
start here:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
Some of your comments…the mention of transitional fossils for example….display some misunderstandings. For example, “evolutionists (I suppose you mean scientists?) do not believe in evolution. We have seen, examined, understand the evidence for it. If someone presents other evidence we will investigate that. So far, there has been none.
The following quote is from the “father of the intelligent design movement”, Phillip E Johnson:
“I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove… No product is ready for competition in the educational world.”
Phillip Johnson in the Berkeley Science Review, Spring 2006
ME,
I replied to this post at the bottom of the posts. It didn’t go where I wanted, most likely operator error.
Duane
Why do people insist on trying to understand faith as if it was a science? Why would I want to reduce my beliefs to a rational catalogue? Why would I think that I could? I can look at the fossil record and propose a theory of evolution. Science is based on what we observe or can rationally deduce from observable phenomena. As we learn, observe, and experiment more, our theories change over time. Religion does not have the freedom to probe physical phenomena in the same way nor does it need it. If we assume a Creator, what makes us arrogant enough to think we know more about him/her/it than we do the theory of evolution? As human beings, I think we have much more chance of developing a workable understanding the physical world than we ever will the metaphysical.
Well put, 2o2t!
Just because ME teaches science doesn’t mean he isn’t expressing his own opinions. Not all scientists or religions agree that evolution is just an unproven theory.
The BBC is doing a series on The Big Questions and they just aired this one, “Is It Time for All Religions to Accept Evolution?” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOPJXCDsMLI
I hope you are not relating to me the statement that “evolution is just an unproven theory” and somehow subverting that I hold this position.
We don’t attempt to prove theories in science, at least I don’t.
And yes, my expressions are MY opinions. My opinions are mine, and they are NOT part of the curriculum that I teach, nor do they translate into any of my lessons.
These questions might help cut through the crap:
1. Do you believe God created man?
2. If so, when do you believe that happened?
3. How old do you believe the earth is?
4. How old do you believe the universe is?
Evolutionary concepts are not just a result of examining “history”. Genetics is hard science and that plays a critical role in scientific investigations of evolution today, as indicated in this recently published article in Nature, “Discrete genetic modules are responsible for complex burrow evolution in Peromyscus mice” http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7432/full/nature11816.html
Here’s a great example of how science is open to revision as we speak: Biggest Thing in Universe Found—Defies Scientific Theory http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/01/130111-quasar-biggest-thing-universe-science-space-evolution/
I think this 19 year old kid is remarkable. He has been speaking out to inform the public about what is going on in Louisiana’s science classes for 5 years!
“Kopplin was a 14 year old student when the a law came into effect allowing teachers to bring creationist material to class, and he took up the cause, winning a battle that prevented the exclusion of evolution from Louisiana science classes altogether. ”
Kopplin has been vilified by state legislators and creationists. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e2zPfsNe-w
Now he has exposed that over 300 schools teach creationism on the taxpayers money.
Isn’t it unconstitutional to use tax money for religion? School vouchers fund the teaching of creationism because many of the schools in these programs are private fundamentalist religious schools who are teaching creationism.
Zack says, “These schools have every right to teach whatever they want — no matter how much I disagree with it — as long as they are fully private,” he says. “But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules.” Kopplin is hoping for more transparency in these programs so the public can see what is being taught with taxpayers’ money.”
Listen to him. He’s talking about constitutional rights and accountability, not beliefs. I think he deserves our admiration. Don’t we agree that the public needs to see and know what is being taught with taxpayers money?
“But when they take public money through vouchers, these schools need to be accountable to the public in the same way that public schools are and they must abide by the same rules”
But isn’t the problem that Louisiana law permits all public schools to teach creationism as a “supplementary critique” of evolution? It doesn’t seem to be a problem with accountability, or with vouchers, but rather with an idiotic law that presumably was supported by a disturbingly high number of idiotic Louisiana voters. No?
That was the problem 5 years ago but the Louisiana law has been overturned. Now Zack is exposing the more than 300 private schools using the taxpayer funded vouchers to teach creationism or other forms of religion. I believe that many charter schools in AZ and other states are also using public money to teach various forms of religion.
The vouchers are in nine other states (Florida, Indiana, Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Colorado, Utah, Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia so it’s not just the Louisiana law (LSEA).
Reports indicate that the Louisiana law is being fought, but has not been overturned.
“Kopplin has introduced two bills to repeal the LSEA, both of which have been sponsored by State Senator Karen Carter Peterson. He plans on producing a third bill later this spring. And along with the Nobel laureates, he has the support of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), New Orleans City Council, and many others.
Kopplin states, “We’ve had gains over the last few years, but our first attempt to repeal the LSEA was defeated 5-1 in committee, and in our second attempt we lost 2-1.” Kopplin is hoping to get it out of committee this year.”
So, yes, the Louisiana law is the problem in Louisiana, but vouchers (and charter schools) are the problem in at least 9 other states and the District of Columbia.
It would be a lot easier to take critiques of the theory of evolution if they were accompanied by some indication that the critic was actually interested in arriving at ANY non-religious understanding of the origins of Man. If you purport to be a man of science — whether “hard” or “soft” science — and you think there are problems with evolution’s explanation of the origins of Man, then explain those problems and propose a better non-religious explanation. If you can’t propose a better non-religious explanation, then you have nothing to offer, whether in a classroom or on an Internet message board.
All ME has done is assert that evolution is not “hard science.” There’s no indication he’s qualified to critique evolution (“I teach science” isn’t enough for me), and there’s also no indication that he’s interested in arriving at any other non-religious understanding of the origins of Man. Based on this thread, I can only conclude that ME has religious issues with evolution, and I am glad he’s not teaching my kids science.
This reminds me of one of my U.S. history teachers in high school, who said the words “The Civil War was fought to preserve the union, not to end slavery” about 5 times every class. At the time, I was more interested in cracking jokes than asking him why he felt he needed to say that so often.
“Based on this thread, I can only conclude that ME has religious issues with evolution”
I agree, and also, based on this thread, ME has some fundamental misunderstandings/misinformation regarding evolution science.
I am very glad this person is not teaching biology in my department.
People…relax…the answer is that these two concepts are not polar opposites. They can easily co-exist. Creationism speaks to unknown origin of the universe while evolution speaks to what may have happened here on earth.
The problem is that “God did it” is not a valid scientific explanation, so I don’t think the two can easily coexist in a science class.
Religion and school? If that like a purgatory of endless bubble tests?
ME,
Since you directly implied that I have certain beliefs which I don’t believe I have necessarily stated in the manner in which you say I have (if I have please reference said posts, I don’t remember all the posts I do) let me address your statement about me. Many others have done a good job of counteracting your posts and they stand on their own merit. So here goes.
“Although I agree 100% with the philosophy of education that this blog purports, I am not in agreement with the steadfast nature of Duane and others involving the veracity of their philosophy of science and their factual acceptance of the ToE.”
My “steadfast nature” in condemning what I see as a concerted effort starting in the 70’s to surreptitiously install xtian beliefs in the public school realm is because I have read and seen their tactics and believe they are quite unChristian (hey I even capitalized it) lying, obfuscating and concealing their true purposes. Why is it that xtians can have a “steadfast nature” in their beliefs/arguments but those who don’t believe in myths, gods and spirits can’t?
What we have going on is that there are those who take a “Platonic” world view, i.e., that there is something (spirits, gods, morals, ideal forms, etc. . . ) outside the human realm that humans attempt to either discover or strive towards-idealism
I am of the “pragmatic” camp (see Dewey, Pierce, Rorty and others) that says that any and all beliefs and beliefs systems are man’s attempts to clarify his/her relationship with that which is outside the body and mind and I consider those two concepts to be part and parcel of the same entity, certainly non-Cartesian. And that those belief systems are completely contingent on the time and space in which a person occupies.
Now are both these ways of thinking (and there can be many other ways to view things) “beliefs”? Yes! And I believe that a skeptical, scientific way of interpreting the world in which we find ourselves to be a “wiser” course of action. And so did the Founding Fathers of this country, as otherwise they wouldn’t have put the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause in the Constitution, and that is the document (as time and space contingent as it is and I believe it should be modifiable, perhaps in a less onerous way than it is now because otherwise it becomes just another “ideal” floating around outside of the human realm) that guides my thinking in relation to political decisions, especially those concerning public education.
The xtian fundamentalists would love to impose their limited belief system on to all others and have said so from the 70s onward and they have made some inroads, see the miscellaneous state voucher bills, but ultimately I hope that the Supreme Court sees this sham for what it is and rule this using of public monies for sectarian causes to be unconstitutional.
Duane
Yes, while kneeling on a triangular ruler as part of the penance.
Man, I don’t know what’s up with either my computer or the site but sometimes my post comes up as a new one and other times in response to TC. It’s supposed to be a new post.
TC,
At first I read your statement as “. . . like a pornography of endless bubble tests”.
This is good! A book is never that good without a little drama.
The British Humanist Association (BHA) has campaigned for strong protections for the teaching of evolution and against the teaching of creationism and intelligent design . In September last year, the BHA teamed up with 30 leading scientists and science educators and four other organisations to launch thTeach Evolution, Not Creationism! “Creationism” refers to the religious belief in a supernatural …….http://ogibogi.com/node/2288 for details