GRANTSBURG, Wisconsin (AP) -- School officials have revised the science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.

Members of Grantsburg's school board believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.

Last month, when the board examined its science curriculum, language was added calling for "various models/theories" of origin to be incorporated.

The decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy. It follows a letter sent previously by 43 deans at Wisconsin public universities.

"Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public funds," said Don Waller, a botanist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Wisconsin law mandates that evolution be taught, but school districts are free to create their own curricular standards, said Joe Donovan, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction.

There have been scattered efforts around the nation for other school boards to adopt similar measures. Last month the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania voted to require the teaching of alternative theories to evolution, including "intelligent design" -- the idea that life is too complex to have developed without a creator.

The state education board in Kansas was heavily criticized in 1999 when it deleted most references to evolution. The decision was reversed in 2001.

In March, the Ohio Board of Education narrowly approved a lesson plan that some critics contended opens the door to teaching creationism.

so stupid.....

THE RED STATES ARE COMING, THE RED STATES ARE COMING!!!!

One of the problems with creationism or ID theory is that it is not falsifiable. In order for something to be scientific, it must be falsifiable. The ID theory, also, is somewhat of a cop-out in that by saying things are too complex, they must have had a designer. It is a kind of academic laziness on their part.

"Wow that is complex. Evolution is too difficult to understand, so God must have did it"

That may or may not be true, but it is not falsifiable. The theory of evolution, however, has been studied for decades and physical evidence has been found which often supports AND contradicts the theory. In terms of creationism/ID, there is no phyiscal evidence to support OR contradict the theory.

And that is really the crux of the entire argument. ID/creationism has its place in theology and Sunday School. Evolution has its place in science class.

The REAL question at hand is not whether or not either theory is correct, but what is the true motive of religious groups supporting the teaching of said theory in public school.

The ANSWER: They are doing the modern version of evagelism. They are "spreading the word' by masking it as science. Their goal is increasing parish numbers. Increasing funds for religion. Forcing religious/theological ideas on others, no matter if they want them or not.


Creationism has its place at Sunday School or Church, as science has its place in regular school. And yes, it is PERFECTLY acceptable to believe in both God and evolution/science at the same time.


Sidenote: A lesson on ID/creationism would not take up much public school time, however, as the entire lesson plan would go as follows:

"What is creationism? God created everything. Now, onto evolution for the next 15 weeks..."

Keep God in church and in the hearts of believers. Keep science in school and in the minds of students.

Even funnier:

http://www.peer.org/press/524.html

Press Release

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

PARK SERVICE STICKS WITH BIBLICAL EXPLANATION FOR GRAND CANYON
Promised Legal Review on Creationist Book Is Shelved

Washington, DC — The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Despite telling members of Congress and the public that the legality and appropriateness of the National Park Service offering a creationist book for sale at Grand Canyon museums and bookstores was “under review at the national level by several offices,â€

Popper schmopper.

Dude, is that park services story for real? I mean, who, other than a brainwashed moron, would believe that shit? It's the 21st century for fuck's sake.

You'd have a hard time convincing millions of Jesus freaks otherwise

It is perfectly fine for someone to believe that. However, thier beliefs need not become curriclum.

The beliefs belong in Sunday school or church.

I wouldn't try to convince them otherwise. They're free to believe whatever they want. I just don't think it's the government's job to spread it around.

Quite true! It is the job of the church.

I agree.

Don't you have to have some sort of proof before you teach things to children?

Right on, once again.

Conversely, I don't think science classes should teach as scientific principle that there is not a God. I believe they should teach the principles of evolution as far as evidence supports, and leave God or no God out of it.

Really, evolution and creationism are two different topics, and do not prove/disprove one another. I actually believe both.

what the fuck is happing to US?! Bill...i miss you and your sexual adventures so much

Well, evolution is hardly something that can be proven.

Similar to gravity.

However, both theories are falsifiable and have vast amounts of evidence supporting/contradicting them. This makes them scientific.

Creationism simply does not apply.

Wikipedia helps:

Most non-scientists are unaware that what scientists call "theories" are what most people call "facts". The general public uses the word theory to refer to ideas that have no firm proof or support; in contrast, scientists usually use this word to refer only to ideas that have repeatedly withstood test. Thus, when scientists refer to the theories of biological evolution, electromagnetism, and relativity, they are referring to ideas that have survived considerable experimental testing. But there are exceptions, such as string theory, which seems to be a promising model but as yet has no empirical evidence to give it precedence over competing models.

Especially fruitful theories that have withstood the test of time are considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense – that it is true and factual but of course can still be falsified. This includes many theories, such as universally accepted ones such as heliocentric theory and controversial ones such as evolution, which are backed by many observations and experimental data. Theories are always open to revision if new evidence is provided or directly contradicts predictions or other evidence. As scientists do not claim absolute knowledge, even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be incorrect if new data and observations contradict older ones.

Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of a law falsified by experiments regarding motions at high speeds and in close proximity to strong gravitational fields. Outside of those conditions, Newton's Laws remain excellent accounts of motion and gravity. Because general relativity accounts for all of the phenomena that Newton's Laws do, and more, general relativity is currently regarded as our best account of gravitation.

and more:

Despite popular impressions of science, it is not the goal of science to answer all questions, only those that pertain to physical reality (measurable empirical experience). Also, science cannot possibly address all possible questions, so the choice of which questions to answer becomes important. Science does not and can not produce absolute and unquestionable truth. Rather, science consistently tests the currently best hypothesis about some aspect of the physical world, and when necessary revises or replaces it in light of new observations or data.

Science does not make any statements about how nature actually "is"; science can only make conclusions about our observations of nature. The developments of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century showed that observations are not independent of interactions, and the implications of wave-particle duality have challenged the traditional notion of "objectivity" in science.

Science is not a source of subjective value judgements, though it can certainly speak to matters of ethics and public policy by pointing to the likely consequences of actions. However, science can't tell us which of those consequences to desire or which is 'best'. What one projects from the currently most reasonable scientific hypothesis onto other realms of interest is not a scientific issue, and the scientific method offers no assistance for those who wish to do so. Scientific justification (or refutation) for many things is, nevertheless, often claimed.

watch what you say man...jesus just one the world series

EXACTLY!

I'll bet Jesus laughed at that one.

Gravity? Don't even get me started on THAT!

How long do you think teachers would spend on creationism...if any? I doubt very much. I'm sure it would be very succinct. It is still required that evolution be taught in the class, and that's great. Why is it so wrong for other idea's or theories to be taught along side? Is this something that belongs in a parochial high school? Or simply in church or Sunday school?

Oh, and if you think that the only book being sold in Grand Canyon gift shops is one that proclaims that God created it, you're out of your mind. Someone in here HAS to have been inside a Grand Canyon gift shop, there's dozens, hundreds of books being sold. This is just ONE book in question being sold, and from what I hear, it's at least a very interesting read. Why oh why can't this book be sold in a freakin' gift shop? Why not just stop the sale of all books pertaining to religion in public places.