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

[HomerThompson]

I am starting with the assumption that you can only insert accepted scientific fact into the curriculum. You cannot simply put something incorrect in just because you want it to be there.

So having one representative with a religious background on the panel can be beneficial because it keeps the curriculum review process transparent, and gives him an opportunity to express any concerns they have on behalf of that community.

I still don't understand your reasoning. What's the benefit to the students here?

 

[sub_thug]

I was taught creationism alongside evolution in school. It seriously lasted less than a minute. The teacher said, "Ok, so creationism is the idea that a god or intelligent life form from another planet came to earth and started life as we know it on this planet. There are competing theories on what kind of god or alien life form it was based on religious persuasion. We don't really have any scientific evidence to prove or disprove these claims. And that's about it... Questions? No? Ok, so the theory of evolution goes a little something like this..." We stayed on evolution for the next few months, and appropriately so.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because there isn't scientific evidence to back it up, but let's not conflate "being taught together" as "getting equal representation in the classroom." Histrionics don't win you any points.

 

[MicroBrew]

Easy, you tell them no. They weren't there in the beginning of founding the country.

What you are admitting to is that creationism that is pushed by American Christians is ethnocentric and a tool to exert cultural hegemony, that it has nothing to do with actually believing the Abrahamic version of how things came to be.

 

[no fat chicks]

about time we learn about all the hard science supporting creationist theories.

They should be able to teach all the science they want that supports creationist beliefs.

That way nothing would get in.

 

[MicroBrew]

I was taught creationism alongside evolution in school. It seriously lasted less than a minute. The teacher said, "Ok, so creationism is the idea that a god or intelligent life form from another planet came to earth and started life as we know it on this planet. There are competing theories on what kind of god or alien life form it was based on religious persuasion. We don't really have any scientific evidence to prove or disprove these claims. And that's about it... Questions? No? Ok, so the theory of evolution goes a little something like this..." We stayed on evolution for the next few months, and appropriately so.

Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools because there isn't scientific evidence to back it up, but let's not conflate "being taught together" as "getting equal representation in the classroom." Histrionics don't win you any points.

Last sentence
The article doesn't state creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, it just says putting a creationist on the panel to review the teaching of evolution is not a good idea. I don't think anyone is opposed to the teaching of Creationism in a religion, history or humanities class, the opposition is teaching it in a science class and giving it scientific credence.

 

[nostradumbass]

Kezele was polite and thoughtful, Roth explained, and although he raised alternative scientific explanations, Kezele didn't try to "foist any kind of creationism" on the committee, Roth said.

"I never got the impression that he was really arguing for the inclusion of creationism in the standard," Roth said. "I think he was pretty aware of the court rulings that religion is not going to be taught in science class."

The committee signed off on changing a reference to evolution as "the explanation" for the unity and diversity of all living and extinct organisms to "an" explanation.

Another committee member, University of Arizona Associate Professor William Roth, said that the panelists didn't want to hold up the process for that detail, even though it is misleading to imply that there is an alternative explanation to life on Earth.

"In the context of science, evolution is the explanation," Roth said.

Kezele, 69, said that he does not support teaching creationism in Arizona schools, but he argued that students should be taught scientific evidence and led to form their own conclusions.

Since when did scientists become a bunch of assholes? The guy specifically said he did not advocate bringing the bible into the classroom and is in favor of teaching evolution, and I'm supposed to be outraged over what? The fucking arrogance of these nerds to not even want how life began to be thought about at all is stunning. Evolution starts after life already began, so are we supposed to just start on chapter 2 because you haven't figured out what's in chapter 1?

 

[nac386]

I still don't understand your reasoning. What's the benefit to the students here?

I don't think that one man's presence on the panel has a positive or negative effect on the students. In the end, the standards on teaching evolution should remain scientifically based and free of anything based on theology. I do think that having a Christian on the panel can prevent the Christian community from feeling "forced" out of the conversation, and may prevent any insane conspiracy theories that they may come up with (we already have somebody in this thread calling schools "marxist").

They are not going to teach creationism in any public schools. They will define what it is, which they obviously should. But they will not teach it. Those are completely different things.

 

[Sketch]

What you are admitting to is that creationism that is pushed by American Christians is ethnocentric and a tool to exert cultural hegemony, that it has nothing to do with actually believing the Abrahamic version of how things came to be.

 

[ndwolfwood]

Since when did scientists become a bunch of assholes? The guy specifically said he did not advocate bringing the bible into the classroom and is in favor of teaching evolution, and I'm supposed to be outraged over what? The fucking arrogance of these nerds to not even want how life began to be thought about at all is stunning. Evolution starts after life already began, so are we supposed to just start on chapter 2 because you haven't figured out what's in chapter 1?

The greatest trick the nerds ever pulled was convincing us not to beat them into absolute submission.

 

[HomerThompson]

I don't think that one man's presence on the panel has a positive or negative effect on the students. In the end, the standards on teaching evolution should remain scientifically based and free of anything based on theology. I do think that having a Christian on the panel can prevent the Christian community from feeling "forced" out of the conversation, and may prevent any insane conspiracy theories that they may come up with (we already have somebody in this thread calling schools "marxist").

They are not going to teach creationism in any public schools. They will define what it is, which they obviously should. But they will not teach it. Those are completely different things.

I still don't see how it's a good thing. The panel should be teachers and scientists who understand the material. Not people looking to undermine it because, "Muh Religion!". It's completely asinine.

The religious community's feelings shouldn't be playing any part in designing academic course work. No matter how small.

 

[sub_thug]

Last sentence
The article doesn't state creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, it just says putting a creationist on the panel to review the teaching of evolution is not a good idea. I don't think anyone is opposed to the teaching of Creationism in a religion, history or humanities class, the opposition is teaching it in a science class and giving it scientific credence.

I am agreeing that creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes, but I also don't think that spending 15 seconds stating that creationism is a theory that exists that some people believe in is going to water down the scientific curriculum. If the way that evolution is taught is altered in a way that removes/attempts to obscure scientific fact because of this guy, then that's a problem.

 

[ndwolfwood]

and may prevent any insane conspiracy theories that they may come up with (we already have somebody in this thread calling schools "marxist").

Explain to me how teaching children that we are living in a godless void that is constantly bleeding resources (through entropy) is not marxism.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

'Murica

 

[MayhemMonkey]

I think its about time Christians get some representation in our schools science curriculum.

lol you would ya fucking loon

 

[sub_thug]

I don't think that one man's presence on the panel has a positive or negative effect on the students. In the end, the standards on teaching evolution should remain scientifically based and free of anything based on theology. I do think that having a Christian on the panel can prevent the Christian community from feeling "forced" out of the conversation, and may prevent any insane conspiracy theories that they may come up with (we already have somebody in this thread calling schools "marxist").

They are not going to teach creationism in any public schools. They will define what it is, which they obviously should. But they will not teach it. Those are completely different things.

What a sensible position you hold on this topic! Right there with you. I'm interested in knowing the size of the panel, but if it's more than 3 people, this guy isn't really going to have a lot of sway. Having him there will reframe the dynamic in such a way that doesn't appear to excommunicate people who believe in creationism, despite the lack of evidence for such a theory.

 

[Revolver]

Here's a page out of their curriculum

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

We need to teach about Nephilim as well.

@Ripskater @Thai Domi GTFIH!!

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Here's a page out of their curriculum

looks legit to me.

Wood learn the Fu*k out of this curriculum

 

[MayhemMonkey]

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.

what evidence that supports creation as a version of the origin of life?

 

[nac386]

Explain to me how teaching children that we are living in a godless void that is constantly bleeding resources (through entropy) is not marxism.

Science = Marxism?

I've noticed that lately people have just started calling everything marxism.