Arizona is hurtling back a century or more. The state superintendent of education has invited an anti-evolutionist to review the state science standards.
The writer for the Arizona Republic, Laurie Roberts, is quick to spot frauds and quacks in the Ed industry:
“Here is a bit of instruction from a guy Superintendent Diane Douglas tapped to help review Arizona’s standards on how to teach evolution in science class:
“The earth is just 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were present on Noah’s Ark. But only the young ones. The adult ones were too big to fit, don’t you know.
“Plenty of space on the Ark for dinosaurs – no problem,” Joseph Kezele explained to Phoenix New Times’ Joseph Flaherty.
“Flaherty reports that in August, Arizona’s soon-to-be ex-superintendent appointed Kezele to a working group charged with reviewing and editing the state’s proposed new state science standards on evolution.
“Kezele is a biology teacher at Arizona Christian University. He also is president of the Arizona Origin Science Association and, as Flaherty puts it, “a staunch believer in the idea that enough scientific evidence exists to back up the biblical story of creation.”
“Douglas has been working for awhile now to bring a little Sunday school into science class. This spring she took a red pen to the proposed new science standards, striking or qualifying the word “evolution” wherever it occurred.
This, after calling for creationism to be taught along with evolution during a candidate forum last November.
“Should the theory of intelligent design be taught along with the theory of evolution? Absolutely,” Douglas said at the time. “I had a discussion with my staff, because we’re currently working on science standards, to make sure this issue was addressed in the standards we’re working on…”
“Kezele told Flaherty that there is enough scientific evidence to back up the biblical account of creation. He says students should be exposed to that evidence. For example, scientific stuff about the human appendix and the Earth’s magnetic field.
“I’m not saying to put the Bible into the classroom, although the real science will confirm the Bible,” Kezele told Flaherty. “Students can draw their own conclusions when they see what the real science actually shows.”
“Because, hey, Barney floating around on Noah’s Ark.
“Kezele told Flaherty that all land animals – humans and dinosaurs alike — were created on the Sixth Day.
“And there was light and the light was, well, a little dim for science class, if you ask me.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This in the country that elevated a lying buffoon and con man to the “presiduncy,” sigh. What’s next, teach astrology alongside astronomy, alchemy and chemistry, flat earthism and geography? All to be fair and balanced? When are we going to stop glorifying stupidity and knuckleheadedness?
In related news from Texas via the hill dot com: “The State Board of Education in Texas voted on Friday to eliminate several historical figures, including Hillary Clinton and Helen Keller, from the state’s social studies curriculum.
Barbara Cargill, a Texas Republican and member of the board, told The Dallas Morning News that “the recommendation to eliminate Helen Keller and Hillary Clinton was made by [Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills] work groups.””
The monkey trial in reverse. In the 30’s creationists railed against the scientific theory of evolution. Like you they used sarcasm and mockery to defend their belief. They were afraid of of competing ideas and moved to block them. Today people such as yourself use the same tactics to protect your personal beliefs from honest competition of ideas. Creationists do have enough evidence to promote a viable theory. Is there enough evidence to cover it in schools is debatable but does not deserve mocker, no it deserves honest debate. Your actions speech is indefensible as it was for the “monkey trial” deniers.
Take an honest look at creation theory. You can do so without bringing in religious teaching and offending yourself. Try it before rejecting for personal feelings.
John,
I don’t rely on “personal feelings.” I rely on the overwhelming consensus of scientists, not preachers.
Anyone who feels they need science to support their religious beliefs is insecure in their faith. Origin myths are origin myths. There are plenty of them. Creation “theory” is a matter of faith.
The only people who need science to back up their religion are those who read the Bible literally. No nuance, no complexity, no myth or metaphor. Which hobbles the search for meaning. I would say “that’s their business,” except that so many of them are dragging this black/white thinking into the public commons.
Hahahahahaha! Excellent. Thank you. I like to start the day with a good laugh.
Another reason to bring in school choice, and give parents the ability to pull their children out of public schools, which teach nonsense.
And send their children to religious schools that teach the same nonsense every day?
If parents choose to send their children to a religiously-operated school, then the parents will do so. As long as the parents (and ONLY the parents) choose to send their children to a religiously-operated school, then that is perfectly fine with me.
It’s ok with me so long as public funds don’t pay for kids to learn that the Bible is science.
Charles: So you believe that children should be taught that humans rode dinosaurs and that the earth is 6,000 years old?
NO! You are mistaken. (Read my post at 2:26pm). I do NOT favor children going to PUBLICLY-operated schools which teach nonsense. I am an engineer, and not a theologian. Although biology and paleontology, are NOT my fields, I accept the reality of these sciences.
Arizona is considering having the nonsense of a six-day creation in their state curriculum. The Scopes “monkey trial” in reverse.
If public schools start teaching this nonsense of humans riding dinosaurs onto the ark, and that the universe is only a few thousand years old, the citizens should be demanding a new curriculum.
Take me at my word: I DO NOT BELIEVE that children should be taught that humans rode dinosaurs.
But you do believe that tax dollars should subsidize religious schools that teach the Bible as a scientific primer.
I have to stand with the Supreme Court. I support public tax dollars going to parents/students and then the parents/students using this money to attend the school of their choice. And, I admit, this choice includes attending religiously-operated schools, that teach various non-scientific religious myths.
The whole concept of attending non-public schools, is to be free of the state-mandated curriculum.
Students attend institutions of higher learning (post-secondary), which teach all sorts of nonsense. And no one objects, to these students receiving public money to meet the costs.
Students attend religiously-operated seminaries, and are trained to serve as clergypersons, and then go into churches, and teach all sorts of religious myths. And, they go to these seminaries on the public dime. And no one objects.
You are full of contradictions.
You are opposed to funding schools that teach religious myths as science, but you support funding schools that teach religious myths as science.
Excuse me, the public schools in NJ are not teaching this pseudo-science garbage and bunkum. NJ schools teach real actual science.
“Teach nonsense?” Charles, I am sick to death of you coming in here to bash what we public school teachers do everyday. If you’re so smart, quit whatever job it is you say you’re doing his week, and come and teach. You’re welcome to observe or “guest teach” in my classroom for several days. I have geography classes of 37, and a total of 275 students. My door is open to you.
@TOW: Go back to my comment Sept 15 2:26pm. Arizona is considering having a creationist review their science curriculum. If the state mandates teaching creation/intelligent design in the public schools, then that is nonsense. Parents should have the option of pulling their children out of any school which is teaching nonsense (like creationism).
I do not bash public schools, nor public school teachers.
I am an engineer, and my career is in engineering. I am not interested in teaching in a public school (or any school). I have a family to support, and I am not interested in taking a vow of poverty. Personally, I am appalled ,that our society has chosen not to pay a living wage to teachers.
You can say that, Charles, but my quote stands. You say that teachers, “teach nonsense.” If it walks like bashing and sounds like bashing, it’s bashing. You have NEVER put your experience where your mouth is. My offer stands. Come and try it out in the trenches. Watch the “nonsense” I DO NOT teach, nor do others. Try out teaching for a few days. Your eyes will be opened,
TOW,
Charles speaks double talk. He bashes public schools yet insists he loves them. Many members of his family were teachers but he bashes then, then says he didn’t.
He opposes subsidizing nonsense but supports subsidizing nonsense.
When everything Charles says is taken in context, he is starting to sound similar to Trump. He says he does and then he says it doesn’t.
@TOW: See my post at 707am. I stated Q If the state mandates teaching creation/intelligent design in the public schools, then that is nonsense. END Q
I have stated this twice. IF a state mandates that teachers teach creationism/intelligent design, then that is nonsense.
This is not teacher-bashing. IF a state requires its teachers to teach religious myths as reality, then the teachers should refuse to do so.
There is no need for you to encourage me to be a teacher. I do not have a certification, and I am not interested. I already have a career, thank you.
You know nothing about education.
If you’re not willing to put up, Charles, then shut up. Literally. You’re not certified, but only a high school diploma is required in Utah to be a substitute teacher. Take a few vacation days and come out and teach my classes. I’ll take leave, but stay to watch you, attempt to teach my classes.
I dare you.
Perhaps Charles simply does not know how to use a comma …
…but, as written, his sentence —give parents the ability to pull their children out of public schools, which teach nonsense— implies that ALL public schools teach nonsense.
If the intended meaning was actually pull students out of only those particular public schools which teach nonsense (like creationism), Charles should have omitted his last comma so that his sentence was written as
give parents the ability to pull their children out of public schools which teach nonsense.
Commas can — and do– make a big difference in how a sentence is interpreted.
That’s why it is important to learn how to use them correctly.
@somedampoet. Thanks for pointing out the grammatical error.
Public funds should not go to public schools, which teach nonsense like creationism/intelligent design.
I thought I made that clear.
I usually make my meaning clear. I messed up on this one.
Thanks again.
I hope you agree that public funds should not go to religious schools that teach nonsense like creationism and “intelligent design”
@TOW: If you pay the transportation costs, rental car, and all of the expenses for me to fly out to Utah, and teach in one of your classes, I will be delighted to do so.
That’s also why computers are very poor judges of writing, by the way.
Computers simply don’t get meaning.
Q I hope you agree that public funds should not go to religious schools that teach nonsense like creationism and “intelligent design” END Q
We are in agreement.
Good. Government gets to supervise religious schools that accept public funding and control what they teach and ensure that all teachers are certified, and…and.
Charles
You totally missed the point about the comma usage because you left the comma in
Your sentence
Public funds should not go to public schools, which teach nonsense like creationism/intelligent design
STILL implies that all public schools teach nonsense. All your addition does is clarify what kind of nonsense that is.
To actually change the meaning (if that is indeed your intention), you simply MUST remove the comma:
Public funds should not go to public schools which teach nonsense like creationism/intelligent design
The latter refers specifically to only those public schools which teach nonsense as opposed to all public schools.
Another example
Writers, who misuse commas, are confusing.
Writers who misuse commas are confusing.
The first sentence implies that all writers are confusing and also that they all misuse commas. They might all be confusing because they misuse commas or might be confusing for some other reason. The sentence does not make that clear.
Unlike the first sentence, the second sentence does not claim that all writers are confusing OR that all writers misuse commas. It only claims that those writers who do misuse commas are confusing and also implies that the writers who misuse commas are confusing specifically because they misuse commas.
Hope, that clears, up, proper, comma, usage.
Here’s an interesting question
Are writers, who misuse commas, more or less confusing than writers, who don’t use commas at all?
This idiocy was imposed on teachers in a landmark Panda textbook case (Kitzmiller-v-Dover) requiring teachers to address intelligent design. The teachers supported the theory of teaching evolution.
https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/kitzmiller-v-dover-memorandum-opinion?redirect=cpredirect/23137
I thought this was settled law. I guess that will be in doubt now that Trump has populated the courts with judges that will please seekers of “religious freedom” in all matters, in all venues.
I have a print made by an artist depicting the ark with tiny windows from which the heads of dinosaurs are peeking… or their tails are wagging from a bad fit into the ark. A pterodactyl is flying along above. The work was inspired by the Ark and Answers in Genesis tourist attractions in Kentucky.
It is not just science (earth and space, life, physical) that will have to be presented as a Biblical account. All of ancient history, art history, the history of technologies, and explanations of world-wide heritage sites will have to be “re-explained.”
““The earth is just 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were present on Noah’s Ark.”
I can hardly wait to see what else is going to be taught. The creeping of this type of ‘religion’ into education is definitely going to put the US at a disadvantage. This is beyond sickening.
Next comes the sun revolves around the earth and the earth is flat. Maybe the earth is square and Columbus fell off. Mankind is the highest creation in all of the universe and all is subject to his will. [I think strange things are happening because an ignoramus like Trump got elected. How many more stupid people will be our ‘leaders’ when the electorate believes the earth is 6,000 years old?]
We need more knowledge, not less. What damage will be done when scientists and historians are not respected?
“…bring a little Sunday school into science class. “….NO!
Creationist Museum: “The Bible says God created the earth in six days and that humans and land-dwelling animals were made on the same day (Day Six). But do science and logic really affirm that humans and dinosaurs could have lived at the same time? Come see the biblical and scientific evidence that humans and dinosaurs once roamed the earth together only a few thousand years ago.”
@Carolmalaysia: I am 1000% in agreement with you. Public schools, paid for with public dollars, must not be permitted to teach ridiculous religious myths as “science”.
Agreed, Charles. No publicly funded school should be allowed to teach religious myths as “science.” That is one reason we should never send public money to support religious schools that teach myths as science.
The Bible is a wonderful book; it is great literature. It is not science.
Let’s give it another try.
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Abingdon v. Schempp (1963) that public schools could not teach religion ,and have school employees lead prayer sessions.
I stand with the court on this. A good and proper ruling.
The Supreme Court ruled in Mueller v. Allen (1983) That parents could take a tax deduction, on school costs at religious schools.
The Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), that public money could go to parents who chose religious schools.
I stand with the court on these two rulings as well. They are good and proper rulings.
There is no contradiction seen by the court. I also see no contradiction.
If you cannot agree with the court, then a challenge to these rulings should be mounted.
Do you agree that public funds should not go to religious schools that teach nonsense like creationism, or do you just want to deny such funding to public schools?
Charles wrote, “The Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), that public money could go to parents who chose religious schools.”
The only public money that should follow parents that move their child to a religious school is the public money that parent paid to support the public schools.
The public money paid by parents that keep their children in public schools should NOT follow a child to a religious school.
For instance, in California, the K thru 12 Education budget was $56,680,868,000. The total state budget was $201,372,752,000. The Ed Budget is about 28-Percent of the total.
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/budget/2018-19EN/#/BudgetDetail
Let’s see how that would work.
California has a total of 6,220,413 students K-12.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp
Almost 600,000 attend charters or religious schools. That’s about 9.6% of the total.
https://www.clcschools.org/page.cfm?p=750
The only money that should follow those students is the portion of state taxes the parents of those students paid to send them to a private charter or religious school.
“Of course, all of these values vary depending on each taxpayer’s individual finances. For example, if you earn less than $54,000 per year, your marginal rate in California will be no higher than 8%, and your effective income tax rate (the actual amount you pay in taxes) will be closer to 4%.”
Let’s go with 4% and The real median household income in California for 2016. That was $67,739.
4% equals 1,909.56 in tax paid but only 28% of that goes to the schools. That works out to be $534.67.
Based on those numbers, the total that should follow students that leave the public schools for a religious or charter school in California should be no more than $320,802,000 or $534.67 a child.
The money that supports public ed for the other 5,620,413 students should total $56,360,066,000.
Why should the parents or any taxpayer be forced to pay for children attending private charter or religious schools? Only the parent’s share of a child that left the public schools schools should follow the child. Not the money paid by other taxpayers and parents.
There should be a box on each tax form that indicates what you want your share of the education budget to go to — the public schools, a private charter or religious school.
Charles, since you love CHOICE so much, every taxpayer in California should have that CHOICE to decide where their share of the education budget goes that they paid in taxes.
Your question is a little skewed. Let me answer it this way, with no obfuscation.
I support the Supreme Court decision in Abingdon. NO public school, funded with tax dollars, should teach religious myths (as science), nor should they have school-employee led prayer. (The Bible and other religious texts can be studied as literature).
I support the court’s denying funding to schools that teach creationism, etc. as science.
I also support not sending public funds to religious schools, which teach non-science and superstitions as scientific truth.
I also support the Supreme Court decision in Mueller and Zelman. These rulings permit public money (tax deductions, and direct cash payments) directly to families, for the families to use at their own discretion. The court also permitted the families to use these payments for educational costs in sectarian (religious) schools, and non-sectarian schools.
I support all of these three rulings.
NO public money flowing directly to religious schools.
Public money flowing to parents who choose religious schools, OK.
I stand with the Supreme Court. Everyone should.
Oh, good, so that means you support government control of the curriculum and teaching standards in religious schools. I got it.
As you know, and have often written here, Supreme Court decisions are not always correct. It is a citizen’s right to oppose them when they are wrong.
You say: Q you support government control of the curriculum and teaching standards in religious schools. I got it. END Q
No, you do not have it. Not yet.
I do NOT support government control of curriculum/standards,etc in religiously-operated schools. No way.
The whole point of non-public schools, is to be free of the government-mandated curriculum, and government control of education.
Requiring government control over the curriculum/standards at non-government schools, is defeating the whole purpose of the alternate school.
I do NOT support this.
If the government mandates the curriculum/standards at non-public schools, then families would just as well send their children to the public schools!
Please do not tell me what I support, or do not support.
A. You propose that no public money should support schools that teach “nonsense,” ie, creationism
B. You agree that no public money should support non-public schools that teach the same nonsense
C. Conclusion: you support government regulation of the curriculum of non-public schools.
D. You have just demonstrated why many faith leaders reject public funding because sooner or later the funding brings government oversight, accountability, and regulation.
I believe Charles is actually being consistent when he says that
1) no government money should go to religious schools that teach creationism AND
2) government should not be allowed to set curriculum for religious schools.
Religious schools are not forced to accept public funds so although they might be inclined to make their curriculum amenable to receiving such funds, the government is not really controlling the curriculum at such schools.
There is no inconsistency in those two stances.
But there IS a contradiction in the claims that
1)no government money should go to religious schools that teach creationism AND
2) Public vouchers to parents who send their children to a religious school that teaches creationism are fine.
Whether one admits it or not, vouchers are an indirect method for funding schools that teach things that might otherwise disqualify the schools from receiving public funds, which may be the best argument against them.
The voucher system creates a giant loophole that a Mack Truck could drive through and as long as that loophole exists, it matters not whatever else one might do to try to prevent public funding of religious dogma in schools. It’s like the fellow trying to stop the collapsing dike by plugging a few of the millions of holes with his fingers.
This points out the severe problem with looking at this as a Constitutional issue rather than a practical one. Lots of laws might be Constitutionally fine but a bad idea for one reason or another. So vouchers may indeed be Constitutional, but if they create a situation where public funds are effectovely flowing to schools teaching religious dogma as science, they are NOT a good idea. It is virtually impossible to treat vouchers on a case by case basis. Much easier just to say no vouchers.
Kezele didn’t learn his literalism in seminary. Scholars have been touting much of the Bible as a metaphorical narrative for nearly a century. This is absurd to include in public school texts the ignorance of Biblical scholarship as truth by evangelicals. As a Christian, If Presbyterian counts, I am embarrassed by Kezele and others who believe the Bible as literal truth. Oh, yes, the stories like Noah’s Ark are true, but they didn’t really happen! 😯
No, not in a respectable seminary, certainly.
Noah’s Ark
Noah led them two by two
Triceratops and T Rex too
But T Rex kinda spoiled the fun
By putting Noah on the run
For forty days and forty nights
The animals were filled with fright
And Noah climbed the tallest mast
Where T Rex couldn’t reach his ass
How many dinosaurs fit on the head of a pin?
LCT: Very hard question to answer.
I’ve been watching reruns of Jurassic Park, The Lost World:Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III. I’ll never go back to that island which is somewhere off the coast of Costa Rica. Some of those buggers were taller than trees. [I’m glad that only the little ones were on Noah’s Ark.] I also wouldn’t want to ride any dinosaurs. Most of them were not very friendly and some chewed up people. I can’t imagine how a saddle was put on a dinosaur. Jurassic Park movies need to be more informative about such things.
Oh LCT–now that’s a question for a Pear$on publi$hed “$tandardized” te$t! (Grade 3)
Here’s another PARCC question
How many of the absolute dumbest dinosaurs would it take to exceed the brain power of David Coleman?
Answer: just one.
Aaaaaarrrrggghhh! That sounds about normal for this state! Wish it wasn’t!
I’m laughing because the United States is not the center of the world. No matter how stupid the US becomes, we can count on other countries, like China, to stick to the real science and ignore the fundamentalist Christian ignoramuses in the US that want to destroy education in America and teach only biased, stupid, religious dogma.
Even if the US goes dark and steps back to the middle ages where there are Lords (the billionaires) and workers (the serfs and slaves), a country like China will continue to focus on the facts of science.
Instead of Americans colonizing the planets and exploring distant stars, it will be the Chinese and/or Europeans.
So well said, Lloyd!!!
Listening to NPR today, I heard a story about how years ago @ the time the Constitution was written, Presbyterians and Baptists were both fighting for separation of church and state, largely because the Anglicans were torturing them physically. I was appalled. And Anglicans called themselves Christians?????? This American experiment is doomed if this the case. God help us.
For many years, Lloyd, I worked in the textbook industry. We were routinely forbidden by our bosses to write about such subjects as geological history or genetics for fear of offending some fundy nutcases in Texas. My company once had a health textbook not accepted for adoption because it contained the line “Humans and other mammals lactate.” The adoption committee was bothered by the reference to lactation, but what killed the adoption for us was the suggestion that humans were mammals.
Been there in Texas. Managed to offended the Graber family and some other zealots unwilling to have students introduced to mask making as an artform.
Yikes. So sorry you had to deal with that, Laura.
Aie yie yie. Back to the future.
Oh my sweet Lord! Not this imbecility again! Is there freaking lead in the drinking water in Arizona?
Proof that too much sun fries and scrambles their brains.
The Arizonans are selling their water to the Middle East. Aquifer’s so low in Sulpher Springs Valley you have to drill 200-300ft down for water, now that they’re leasing huge tracts of land to Saudi farmers growing water-hungry crops for export. All cuz Arizonans are anti-laws/ regs/ taxes.
They should maybe stop micromanaging the geological history curriculum & teach some basics about the water table– fast. Maybe throw in a little civics while they’re at it.
Is it greed or stupidity?
One can’t reason with creationists. They are fools. We are a product of evolution, at least I know I am. I had no wisdom teeth…….
Some thoughts about this rich topic:
It has always amazed me that even very simple people haven’t noticed that these ancient religious scriptures, of which there are so many, are historically situated and conditioned, that they were often supposedly dictated by the Creator of everything but make not mention of spiral galaxies and autoimmune reactions but do just happen to have the extraordinarily repugnant moral views that ancient people’s held–an inclination to stone homosexuals to death and “not suffer a witch to live,’ and so on.
It’s breathtaking, really, that we STILL, in the 21st century, have to be tap-dancing around this ancient nonsense. These were gropings toward understanding on the part of people wandering in utter darkness.
Oh for the ability to edit copy in WordPress! My apologies for the typos in that note!
Here’s the big difference between religious dogma and actual science: The former posits unchanging absolutes. The latter contains built-in mechanisms for self correction. A case in point: Recently, we’ve learned something very, very important about evolution and heredity–environmental conditions change gene expression dramatically, and changed potential for gene expression is inherited. In other words, Lamarck was on to something, and all those twin studies that supposedly controlled for genetic and environmental components didn’t, in fact, do so. Science is not immune from fads and enforced conformity to absolutist belief systems. Witness Lysenkoism in Russia or Behaviorism in the U.S. and in Great Britain in the 20th century. But the real excitement in science comes when, in the course of some careful observation, the scientist and her colleagues says, “Hmmm. That’s odd,” because the proper reaction, there, is to sit down as a child before the facts, as Julian Huxley so admirably put it, ESPECIALLY WHEN they contradict received notions. So, we still grope around in the darkness, stumbling toward truth, but we have a mechanism for doing that sensibly. Any rational science curriculum makes that very, very clear.
Fundamentalist evangelicals seem utterly unaware of the fact that primary reason for the decline in Americans’ affiliation with any organized religion at all is the anti-scientific stance that many evangelical churches have taken and widely and loudly espoused on many topics, such as the human factor in climate change, but especially on the topic of evolution. But Most Catholics and other Christians don’t really know the tenets of their own faith in regard to the evolution of the universe and of the human body. For example, they don’t know that decades ago the mainstream Christian denominations agreed that evolution is how the human body came to be. Centuries ago, St. Augustine gave this warning to his fellow Christians: “It is a disgraceful and a dangerous thing for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talking nonsense on scientific topics. Many non-Christians are well-versed in Natural [scientific] knowledge, so they can detect the ignorance in such a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The danger is obvious: The failure to conform to demonstrated Natural [scientific] knowledge opens the Christian, and Christianity as a whole, to ridicule. If non-Christians find a Christian mistaken on a scientific subject that they know well and hear such a Christian maintaining his foolish opinions, how are they going to believe our teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven?” Here’s what America’s mainstream Christian churches say about phony “creationism”/”creation science”. Share it widely, especially with your Christian friends:
The CATHOLIC CHURCH: In the 1950 Papal Encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII declared that the human body could have evolved “from pre-existent and living matter” that evolved through a sequence of stages before God instilled a spiritual soul into the human body. Catholics are only bound to believe that the evolution of the human body was a God-guided process, and that the spiritual human soul that inhabits the physical human body didn’t evolve but is created by God.
In 1996, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed to the Pontifical Academy of Science that Pope Pius XII was absolutely correct in the establishing for the faithful “that there is no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one does not lose sight of several indisputable points” such as those cited in the 1950 “Humani Generis” encyclical.
As far back as 1909 the Catholic Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies declared that the first eleven chapters of the Book of Genesis do not properly conform to the historical method of translation “used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time” and therefore Catholics do not have to take these chapters of the Book of Genesis literally.
The EPISCOPAL CHURCH declared in its 67th General Assembly:
“Whereas, the state legislatures of several states have recently passed so-called ‘balanced treatment’ laws requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’ whenever evolutionary models are taught; and
Whereas, in many other states political pressures are developing for such “balanced treatment” laws; and
“Whereas, the terms ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ as understood in these laws do not refer simply to the affirmation that God created the Earth and Heavens and everything in them, but specify certain methods and timing of the creative acts, and impose limits on these acts which are neither scriptural nor accepted by many Christians; and
“Whereas, the dogma of ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ as understood in the above contexts has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; and
“Whereas, ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ is not limited to just the origin of life, but intends to monitor public school courses, such as biology, life science, anthropology, sociology, and often also English, physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social studies; therefore be it
“RESOLVED, that the 67th General Convention affirm the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement, and be it further
“RESOLVED, that we affirm our support of the sciences and educators and of the Church and theologians in their search for truth in this Creation that God has given and entrusted to us; and be it further
“RESOLVED by 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982, that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively urge their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of the ‘Creationists’ into legislating any form of ‘balanced treatment’ laws or any law requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’.”
The LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION declared in its Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, Vol. I, 1965, that: “An assessment of the prevailing situation makes it clear that evolution’s assumptions are as much around us as the air we breathe and no more escapable. At the same time theology’s affirmations are being made as responsibly as ever. In this sense both science and religion are here to stay, and the demands of either are great enough to keep most (if not all) from daring to profess competence in both. To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians.”
The UNITED METHODIST CHURCH declared at its 1984 Annual Conference that:
“Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,
“Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of science; and,
“Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and,
“Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,
“Be it RESOLVED that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce ‘scientific’ creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.”
The UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH in the USA declared at its 1982 General Assembly that:
“Whereas, the dispute is not really over biology or faith, but is essentially about Biblical interpretation, particularly over two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the characteristics of Biblical literature and the nature of Biblical authority:
“Therefore, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly: Affirms that, despite efforts to establish ‘creationism’ or creation science’ as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma; and,
“Calls upon Presbyterians, and upon legislators and school board members, to resist all efforts to establish any requirements upon teachers and schools to teach ‘creationism’ or ‘creation science’.”
It’s embarrassing to live in AZ. Intelligent design is creation disguised as pseudo science. I hope that Democrats can check the republican silliness in the coming midterms.
Oddly enough, I read the bible as mostly supporting evolution rather than modern creationism. First, the story places man squarely in the natural world. So does science. Second, it places man in a position of stewardship over what God has given (another way to say over what exists). Third, it suggests that man is the source for the original “sin” of trying to be like God. This sounds about right in a world that features a humanity about to cut its own throat over political matters, warm the climate to a damaging point, and literally interpret scriptures written for metaphor.
Leave it to Florida…I was reading a story (frightening!) in USA Today whereby a family had been having a huge reptile visitor (& it had also been spotted elsewhere; although officials had tried to find it, it’s been elusive). The mother stated that the sightings were especially frightening, as the family had just seen the latest Jurassic Park.
Speaking of Arizona, gila monsters freak me out!
If you were just casually driving on a random side road in Petersburg, Ky., you might think that Creation Museum was a museum about dinosaurs.
Posted on February 5, 2014, at 1:28 a.m.
Matt Stopera
BuzzFeed Staff
“Dinosaur fossils don’t come with tags on them telling us how old they are, where they lived, what they ate, or how they died. We have to figure that out from a few clues we find.
But because we never have all the evidence, different scientists can reach very different conclusions, depending on their starting assumptions.”
Dinosaurs, along with land-walking animals and man, were created on the sixth day.
They were around when Adam and Eve were chillin’ in the garden as demonstrated by this display.
The dinosaurs went on Noah’s Ark.
Creationists believe most dinosaurs died during the great flood, but Noah brought them on his ark so they were alive AFTER it. They were just like any other animal.
In case you missed it, that means there were humans and dinosaurs living together at the same time.
“Most dinosaurs were reasonably small — about the size of a sheep or a pony. Even large sauropods were much smaller when they were young (just like a crocodile is small at first — when it hatches out of an egg, you can even hold it in your hand!). So the Ark had plenty of room for all the land animal kinds, including every dinosaur ‘kind.'”
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/this-is-what-creationists-believe-about-dinosaurs#2392136?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bfshareemail
That Ark must have been one heck of a big one, containing every “dinosaur kind,” even Tyrannosaurus Rex, who must have taken up quite a lot of space!
The big dinosaurs came when they were young. Most dinosaurs were the size of sheep and all were vegetarians. [If you’re making stuff up, why not go big.] I wonder if man was also a vegetarian or if he killed dinosaurs for food. Maybe that didn’t happen since they could put a saddle on a dinosaur and ride it. [I saw a photo taken in one of these creationist museums in which a small dinosaur had a saddle.] I wonder how long it took for lions to change from being vegetarians to meat eaters?
……………………………………………
What did dinosaurs eat?
God said, “To every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food.—-Genesis 1/30
Before man’s Fall, animals were vegetarians. In a ‘very good’ creation, no animal would die, so there were no carnivores. All beasts of the earth, not just the ‘beasts of the field’ that God brought to Adam to name, ate only plants.
Here’s how it must have worked. T Rex was undoubtedly brought on board first by Noah. Then as each subsequent pair of dinosaurs was brought on board, T Rex ate them, which meant, of course, that the ark only had to be big enough for T Rex. So it had to be pretty big, but nowhere near as big as it would have had to be if Noah had brought T Rex on last.
Order matters.
Now, the really cool thing about this theory is that it also explains why the dinosaurs disappeared. Because T Rex ate the only pair of each species that was selected by Noah to be saved from the flood (and all the rest drowned) and because only one T Rex was brought on board (because that’s all the ark would fit) when that last T Rex died, the dinosaurs ceased to exist.
Much better than the comet theory, in my humble opinion.
Makes perfect sense.
Good to hear that someone else sees it as sensible.
Just before I submitted the comment, I hesitated because I thought it might come across as a crackpot idea.
No, no, it’s brilliant. That makes more sense than the comet idea. How could a comet land in, say, Canada (before it was called Canada) and kill dinosaurs the world over? Impossible.
Your theory about Noah, the T. Rex, and the dinosaurocide makes perfect sense.
“Kezele says students should be given all the information and allowed to make up their own mind…
From above, this suggests that it is modern academics who need to learn to grant freedom of thought. This method of intellectual fighting grows tiring. Accusing your opponent in an argument of your own failings is a piece of psychological projection worthy of entry into the contradictions hall of fame. Students from certain sectarian religions are regularly harangued from the pulpit about the evil of evolution. The idea that a high school teacher will carry the authority to erode this barage of persuasion is preposterous. No class in high school and or college will supply the average person the knowledge necessary to decide this matter.
Students must learn what authority looks like, otherwise they will mistake the authoritarian for true authority.
I am put in mind of watching a woman caught ranting at the sky during last year’s huge storms in Houston, saying something along the lines of: “What have I done, God, to deserve this.” Why actively get involved and demand climate change political action when submission to an angry god is so much easier…
I think it’s great that the current definition of an expert is a person who has no knowledge of the subject. A Creationist reviews science standards. Bezos reinvents prekindergarten in the image of Amazon. Gates goes local having exhausted his standards/widget theory. God forbid anyone should pay any heed to individuals who have devoted their lives to educational research and practice.
And don’t forget Betsy! Arm those teachers to fight off those grizzlies!
Destroy those public schools & git them kids some religion!
Bottom line: what Lloyd said September 15th at 6:09 PM.
Oh & also Laurene Powell Jobs & the “virtual science lab.”
How oxymoronic, with an emphasis on moronic.
Well, given that her knowledge of science is probably virtually nonexistent (she was a business major), it may make more sense than it would appear to make.