Arizona State Superintendent puts Creationist on panel to review standards on teaching of Evolution

I'm sure you would feel the same about a public high school health class curriculum teaching that gender is just a social construct and people can be born the wrong gender. As long as a board approves it.
I believe their opinions deserve to be heard. Even if I *gasp* don't agree with them.

How about I flip it on you and say gays, blacks etc not be allowed to have their voice because their way of thinking bothers me somehow?

You guys are aware that the US is a free country, populated with people with varying beliefs, right?
 
This guy should be part of the board, and his opinion should be heard, and if any of his opinion falls in line with the accepted science then his opinion should influence the review just like everyone else's opinion.

But we don't put unscientific information into science books just because someone's religion believes it to be true. We do not teach religious principles, we teach scientifically backed information. As long as everyone is on the same page with regards to that, then there won't be any problems with this situation.
that has nothing to do with whether or not a person has a right to express their view.
 
I think it should be up to local communities. We are already teaching our kids that we evolved from ape like creatures which is about as real as muhammad and winged horses.

Also, I'm not suggesting we teach the theological aspects of the Bible but rather the scientific, archeological, and physiological evidence that supports the alternative and much more widely held version of history and the origin of life. That being creation.

Should the have transexual consultant for biology?
 
I believe their opinions deserve to be heard. Even if I *gasp* don't agree with them.

How about I flip it on you and say gays, blacks etc not be allowed to have their voice because their way of thinking bothers me somehow?

You guys are aware that the US is a free country, populated with people with varying beliefs, right?
Everyone can have their opinion heard, anyone is free to say anything.

But that's not the topic here, is it? The topic is public schools, with tax money, teaching a curriculum that these certain subjects are scientifically true.

So you really didn't answer the question. Would you find it acceptable for a public school's school board to vote on and adopt health class textbooks that categorically teach "gender is a social construct and people can be born the wrong gender"? Not a psychology text book, but a health and anatomy class text book.

Your argument seems to be little more than a vague strawman equating public tax paid education with 1A rights.
 
Scientific research conducted by Hindus.... In other words.... science conducted by scientists who happen to be Hindu.

Actually I'm referring to science conducted by Hindu scientist that support a Hindu world view and Hindu's version of history.

This is the problem.... when your doing science you need to remove all bias. This creationism bullshit starts with a conclusion and tries to work backwards to find supporting evidence instead of being drawn to a conclusion from evidence gathered. It's a very shitty way to try and do science.

Actually this is how science works. Someone forms a hypothesis or idea and then conducts experiments to either prove or disprove. Most of if not all evolutionary scientists begin with the conclusion that (macro) evolution is real and work backwards to prove it.

Seems like one of those one rule for thee another rule for me kinda deals.
 
By the way, just in case anybody didn't know, they do teach about religion in public schools. World Religions is a unit for all middle schoolers in the state of Maryland and they learn the background of all the common religions.

So it's not like public schools are not allowed to teach about religion, they are just not allowed to teach religion because it's entirely based in faith.

Nobody is talking about teaching religious doctrine or theology in science class. You guys need to get a new talking point.
 
Scientific research conducted by Hindus.... In other words.... science conducted by scientists who happen to be Hindu.

This is the problem.... when your doing science you need to remove all bias. This creationism bullshit starts with a conclusion and tries to work backwards to find supporting evidence instead of being drawn to a conclusion from evidence gathered. It's a very shitty way to try and do science.
It's not the scientific method. Plain and simple.
 
I believe their opinions deserve to be heard. Even if I *gasp* don't agree with them.

How about I flip it on you and say gays, blacks etc not be allowed to have their voice because their way of thinking bothers me somehow?

You guys are aware that the US is a free country, populated with people with varying beliefs, right?
The word belief is exactly the issue. Belief has no place in a science curriculum.
 
Nobody is talking about teaching religious doctrine or theology in science class. You guys need to get a new talking point.
If you incorporate anything to do with a creation myth into the science curriculum that's exactly what you are doing.
 
This guy should be part of the board, and his opinion should be heard, and if any of his opinion falls in line with the accepted science then his opinion should influence the review just like everyone else's opinion.

But we don't put unscientific information into science books just because someone's religion believes it to be true. We do not teach religious principles, we teach scientifically backed information. As long as everyone is on the same page with regards to that, then there won't be any problems with this situation.

I think the thing you guys need to come to terms with is that you don't have a monopoly on what is and what isn't accepted. Just because a portion of the scientific community forms a consensus that means nothing for the rest of us free people. If we would like to present, to our children in their science curriculum, all the scientific evidence showing a world wide flood occurred, or that (macro) evolution is unproven, or the spiritual nature of the universe who are you to tell us we can't teach that to our children?
 
Nobody is talking about teaching religious doctrine or theology in science class. You guys need to get a new talking point.

This post doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything that I have said. I don't know who you are referring to when you say "you guys" but I am not using any talking points at all.
 
We can verify with certainty that this is not true.

All you can do is show information that convinces you. You can't show information that verifies it with certainty for the rest of us. Therefore it's perfectly fine to be discussed, debated, and taught to our children.
 
I think the thing you guys need to come to terms with is that you don't have a monopoly on what is and what isn't accepted. Just because a portion of the scientific community forms a consensus that means nothing for the rest of us free people. If we would like to present, to our children in their science curriculum, all the scientific evidence showing a world wide flood occurred, or that (macro) evolution is unproven, or the spiritual nature of the universe who are you to tell us we can't teach that to our children?

By "you guys" you mean scientists.
 
Actually I'm referring to science conducted by Hindu scientist that support a Hindu world view and Hindu's version of history.
What does this mean? Science is science is science. If it's conducted properly with valid data and stands up to scrutiny, then it will be published in a peer reviewed journal. Could you perhaps link to any of this evidence you are talking about?
 
By the way, just in case anybody didn't know, they do teach about religion in public schools. World Religions is a unit for all middle schoolers in the state of Maryland and they learn the background of all the common religions.

So it's not like public schools are not allowed to teach about religion, they are just not allowed to teach religion because it's entirely based in faith.

No one is talking about teaching religious doctrine and theology...ie 'teach religion'....in science class.
 
What does this mean? Science is science is science. If it's conducted properly with valid data and stands up to scrutiny, then it will be published in a peer reviewed journal. Could you perhaps link to any of this evidence you are talking about?

Science is only science if it's printed in a peer review journal?
 
By "you guys" you mean scientists.

Allow me to rephrase so that you can better understand what I am saying becasue you seem hung up on the "you guys" thing.

I think the thing you need to come to terms with is that you don't have a monopoly on what is and what isn't accepted. Just because a portion of the scientific community forms a consensus that means nothing for the rest of us free people. If we would like to present, to our children in their science curriculum, all the scientific evidence showing a world wide flood occurred, or that (macro) evolution is unproven, or the spiritual nature of the universe who are you to tell us we can't teach that to our children?
 
Back
Top