In just the first three months of 2011, nine bills have been introduced in seven US states, which allow creationism to be taught in our schools’ classrooms. Four of them have already died in committee. Four are still under review.
And one – which says biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, and global warming must be taught as “controversies” – has already passed.
It’s absurd that more than 85 years after the Scopes trial we’re still arguing the validity of evolution. And sad that this story isn’t anything new; there are already states that have had laws like this on the books for some time. You’d just hope that over time there would be fewer attempts to undermine science in our classrooms, not more. And that our kids would learn that the real controversies are when the line between church and state gets blurred in 9th grade Biology. [Mother Jones]
Jacob Taylor
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 9:54 AMI don’t mind a country choosing to become less intelligent, as long as they don’t hold all the nukes.
There is nothing wrong with teaching Creationism as part of religious studies, but it is not science.
James
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 10:03 AMThere is no reason why science and religion can not go hand in hand – i am a christian who belives in god and Jesus and also in evolution. The bible talk about evolution in chapter 1.
people need to read and understand the bible – not just repeat what they have heard from others
Dave
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 9:05 PMYou are missing the point. The point is that lawmakers are seeking to make their religion compulsory in taxpayer funded educational institutions. So mate, No, I don’t “Have” to read the bible, and neither do my kids.
Jamie Carl
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 10:05 AMNext thing you know those crazy Americans will have an ex-5 time world champion wrestler named Dwayne Alfonso Comancho running for president.
Warren Schilpzand
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 10:13 AMActually, evolution is still nothing more than a theory which people have accepted as fact. There has not been one single experiment or observed event that has proved evolution.
As such, it should be taught as a theory. Intelligent design is another theory and should be taught with the same vigor to allow people to choose.
You know, use their intelligence.
Bernhard de Kok
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 10:57 AMWhen are you moving to the States Warren?
It depressing when you think that the middle east is full of religious zealots and the country with the most nukes are even bigger religious zealots (with opposing views).
I don’t suppose any of you biblical scholars have ever read all of Darwins works? A lot of his scientific research was more than just theory and went a long way to proving evolution.
Greg
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 11:03 AMYeah, it’s just a theory! Just like gravity, or the germ theory…..
And we have totally never observed evolution, except in the case of breeding and artificial selection producing innumerable varieties of plants and animals continuously during all of human history, or the countless experiments we have done (eg. Lenski’s Escherichia coli).
Marcel Bennett
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 11:19 AMLike the theory of gravity eh?
Intelligent design is not a theory, it is a ideological concept, there are no facts to support it. On the other hand, evolution is a knowable fact based on evidence and the term theory is used in its scientific context to deliberately deceive the ignorant public.
If you want to understand reality try reading “The Greatest Show on Earth” by Richard Dawkins.
The bible is theoretically based on real events, but there is no facts to support its key doctrines at all. Not even a little bit. Yet its followers choose to believe it over something that is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Amazing.
@typedmillepede, you are not a Christian if you are treating the bible as the myth it is by calling it metaphorical teaching. Doing so shows you understand it not to be the direct word of God and infallible and therefore there is little more to your faith than living your life by the bits you choose to and hopefully leaving out the bits about selling children into sexual slavery or stoning your future children to death for misbehaving or mutilating their genitals.
May I suggest you try reading “God is Not Great: How religion Poisons Everything” by Christopher Hitchens or at least view the many debates he has on YouTube. At the same time study critical thinking and expand your mind beyond religious perceptions. It will be the best thing you can ever do for yourself and the future of mankind.
wsDK_II
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 1:28 PM@Marcel Bennett – your comment,
“Yet its followers choose to believe it over something that is proven beyond any reasonable doubt”
just captures the heart of the missunderstanding between people – belief in Jesus is not based on anything that you can prove through a human mechanism, it is felt, experienced and seen through your soul – which is impossible to truly measure using any human technique.
the different between a christian and a non-christian is this: I do not need any proof to KNOW what i know – i simply know it to be true through what i have experienced first hand, and second hand. It is a knowledge that can not be bounded by measurements, nor captured by any container; It is the ‘completness’ that one feels when connected to the entity which exists outside the space and time that humans occupy.
Those who are bound by only what they can measure are always doomed to see the full extent of life, the universe and how everything inter-connects.
Bernhard de Kok
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 3:48 PMI shouldn’t start a religious argument, but I’m feeling foolish.
I partially understand why people might want to believe in an almighty, a God if you will. But Jesus??? A God should have no beginning, no end and be all powerful or something like that. Jesus wasn’t any of those. He or someone claimed he was the son of God, but I never heard God backing that story up. Just imagine God on a dias stating to all and sundry, “this is Jesus my son, I cuckolded Joseph”. :) Not likely. Yet, there are a lot of people who swallowed that story.
At least the story of evolution or climate change has a little more credence.
Makes you wonder.
goober
Friday, March 25, 2011 at 7:43 AM@wsDK_II
Call me intolerant, but I can tolerate Christians just fine, until their mouths open on the topic of Christianity.
I suppose you have every right to write what you write, since the article must be pretty inflammatory from your perspective. So, rather than spewing vitriol like I was planning to, here is a reasoned response.
What you have is not knowledge. It’s a belief, or an opinion, or a delusion. If you really, really want, we can call it “subjective knowledge” – a kind of a thing that anyone can have, but really can’t do anything with because it’s only relevant to that one person. It’s great, because it makes you feel wonderful and special and magical, but it’s lousy basis for legislation.
For instance, I had some awesome mushrooms in Mexico once, and I swear I saw the cutest dragons by the roadside while driving (silly, silly, silly). Now, I wouldn’t swap that experience for anything, but I would never, ever, not even at the time and in the moment, want to legislate to require people to throw squashes by the roadside (because cute dragons love squashes).
This is because subjective experience is a good basis for building a small insular community that enjoys human-based pyrotechnics, but it’s lousy for building a world where everyone gets along.
Now, what consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them, even if it does involve intellectual deviance and perversion of the religious kind. Just remember that anyone can have a silly belief, and wanting to have your own enshrined in legislation and taught at schools on par with genuine explanations for empirical evidence is not very nice at all, and really ought to have you fed to large felines in any decent society.
dzc12
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 1:30 PMYou watch Boston Legal, I see…
Hubi Vedder
Sunday, September 18, 2011 at 2:01 PMOne quick question Warren. How old is the earth?
Scott Sharrad
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 10:30 AMAnd with those simple words Warren you have lost all credibility that you actually understand what you are talking about. To claim that “there has not been one single experiment or observed event” proving evolutionary biology demonstrates that you have not looked very hard at all, or perhaps are only searching Answer In Genesis dot Com.
Evolutionary adaptations have been observed over and over again in the real world and in the laboratory. Simply take a look at HIV or the AIDS virus; classic examples of a life form evolving due to it’s changing environment.
Evolutionary Theory is as much of a theory as is the Theory of Thermodynamics in that it is a Scientific Theory; not your backwards lay-person understanding of the word “theory”.
typedmillepede
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 10:32 AMI’m a Christian myself (i’m 20, and it is by choice), and i have to say that teaching evolution as “controversy” is dumb. i’d say the story creationism is based off is more of a metaphorical teaching. the two are completely compatible with each other, and choosing one over the other either way is a very silly and short sighted thing to do.
Gordy
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 10:39 AM“evolution is still nothing more than a theory”
said he who obviously has no real conception of just how much evidence supports it, and fails to realise what a theory actually is, that is, our best explanation for something based on the evidence (facts) so far gathered.
Frosty the Snowman
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 6:38 PMIn response to the Global warming conversation (specifically the earthquakes in Japan), lets face it *disclaimer: the following is tongue in cheek, and meant to be humor* It was all caused by our proximity to the moon recently.
Adam Weber
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 11:22 AMMost Americans dont understand Geography and History and now it looks like their understanding and ability to use empirical science and data is not going to be understood.
I dont have a problem with making global warming a controversy.
But evolution? Sure call it a controversy if you are going to use science or empirical data to ‘teach the controversy’ but since the OP bases it on an ancient book which requires people to pull it out of context (Yes, Genesis 1 was never meant to be taken scientific)there is no controversy.
Did you know some of the greatest theologians/apologists of Christianity took Genesis 1 as being allegorical?
Slimmeh
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 12:38 PM“I dont have a problem with making global warming a controversy.”
Hahaha stick up for science with one hand and then stab it in the back with the other. Cracks me up, seriously.
Adam Weber
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 2:49 PMI’m sorry, anthropomorphic pollution causing global warming can be hard to prove due to the lack of data and knowledge available.
You have to remember that it was only about 50-60 years ago when scientists did not care about the environment, and were in fact destroying it with pesticides like DDT, so our understanding of the four spheres and how anthropomorphic pollution affects them is still limited.
Back in the Middle ages the world went through a little ice age, was that due to all the fossil fuels they were burning?
No, it was caused by a cycle.
This planet always undergoes cycles, so perhaps humans are contributing and making the cycle worse? No one really knows.
Did you know anthropomorphic pollution only accounts for 1% of the total atmosphere?
Bern
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 3:25 PMDid you know that the other 99% of the atmosphere is now, and always has been, completely transparent to infrared radiation, and plays no part in the greenhouse effect that stops the planet turning into a giant snowball?
If your answer to that is “no”, then you really need to actually read some facts about climate science, rather than regurgitating some factoid you found on a denialist blog.
Bernhard de Kok
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 3:36 PM“anthropomorphic polution”
What are you smoking?
Are you saying pollution has taken on human characteristics?
Slimmeh
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 3:42 PMWow you sure do sound smart. Wait a second: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
“No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion”
Looks like science agrees just as with evolution. Looks like you believe one and not the other due to your ideoligical beliefs rather than the science which is kinda the point of the article….
Adam Weber
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 5:27 PMNote: I did not say that I do not believe in climate change, I dont know what to believe; whether it is a natural cycle or natural but human induced.
But global warming/climate change did not cause the Japan Earthquakes (google pacific ring of fire), Victorian Bush fires, The floods in Queensland (google La Nina) and so forth.
A lot of people, for some reason, believe that all these natural disasters are caused (or at least blame it on) climate change.
Dare I say its based on apocalyptic ideologies/fantasies and not science at all. We are always going to have earthquakes and other natural disasters.
Dave
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 9:13 PMHuh ? I think your problem may be that you are hanging out with some greviously pigsh1t-stupid people then. Global warming did not kill Elvis and it did not give me an itchy foot this morning either, but neither of these facts have anything whatever to do with climate science or the need to reduce carbon pollution.
Atomsk
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 12:56 PMWhat about my Religions!
Zeus, Thor, Aphrodite and all my other Gods!
This is a blatant example of religious groups not teaching ALL of the controversy. If these bills pass, I DEMAND that ALL known religious beliefs be mandatory in the schooling of our children.
Reynauld Adsett
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 3:24 PMDon’t forget the Celestial Teapot & the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Talk like a Pirate day should be a religious holiday.
Christian
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 1:34 PMBut global warming IS a crock…
2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 3:15 PMThe US is destroying itself. Its science level in high school is getting very weak in comparison to other advance countries.
It laughable that today there are adults who would believe in the existence of a talking snake.
Gordy
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 4:00 PMYes – the US is destroying itself with this nonsense, but it is spreading, both to Europe and here in Australia. That is what is worrying me. There are many people here now who believe the Earth is no more than a few thousand years old and that dinosaurs and humans roamed the land together. Some of our politicians in Federal Parliament believe these notions (mostly on the right wing of the political spectrum – why is that? Same in the US too). What the hell is going on here?
Demitri
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 5:04 PMScience is behind creationism, that’s why the evolutionist don’t want it in the classrooms. Fact evolutions can’t explain where the evolution of information in our DNA came from. Modifying the DNA via mutation can never produce new genetic information by chance, that’s what evolution is. The probability of molecules coming together by chance/randomness to form one protein chain is like 10^80 which is like the number of atoms in the universe. Don’t believe me look it up in Wikipedia. And that’s not all; all life is left handed as a right handed protein does not give life. Its anti-life. There so much more science out there that helps creationism. (Sorry for spelling mistakes and more detailed information, i had time constraints)
Greg
Thursday, March 24, 2011 at 7:32 PMThankfully creationism explains where new genetic information comes from perfectly: It’s plain old magic of course! How does thunder work? Magic! Magnets? Magic! Tides? Magic! How does my toaster work? It’s magic!
What those pesky scientists actually think about “new genetic information”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfybuMJVWj0
Sana
Friday, March 25, 2011 at 1:16 AMIt was only a matter of time before somebody invoked the Goldilocks principle…
sigh
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 8:23 PMscience only proves itself until it has to prove itself again and again always finding more to a once thought to be fact or it disproves itself and most scientific findings and experiments will never be able to be seen firsthand or reproduced by the average man so people will just have to take other peoples word on things religion is always how you interpret something but every time someone thinks of something that coincides with science there attacked the difference between science and religion are that the rules to one are already written and to the other are always changing and either disproving or proving something it should be a lot easier to argue something which is currently being written i would think i believe in evolution to an extent ..i’m not sure if i believe in global warming or that the earth is going through a cycle and i believe in the bible but I will be attacked because of this.Have a nice day.