Texas: Put Creationism In Every Textbook!!!

[Napkiraly]

No they don't.

Says who? Suppression of knowledge is wrong.

Creationism isn't knowledge, it's quackery.

[Northhall]

this makes me glad i don't live in texas.


why

[Genivaria]

Teaching Creationism as an alternate theory is fine. Teaching it as an outright fact, however, is not okay.

Creationism is not a Scientific Theory and should stay out of Science.

[Edlichbury]

No they don't.

Says who? Suppression of knowledge is wrong.

Should we teach that animals came from the murder of Tiamat?

[The Scientific States]

Yes there are many people who hold alternative views because they've been taught to believe that bullcrap. I have yet to meet a scientist or hear of a scientist who does not believe in evolution. Thankfully the public is realizing that creationism is incorrect and that due to the fact that evolution is nearly proven they're starting to drop the whole creationism thing. Lets not revert back to the way things were, that's what'll happen if we teach creationism in schools.

Besides why teach creationism if there is a separation of church and state? It's a completely Abrahamic viewpoint.

I have heard of several scientists who do not "believe" in evolution. Even my high-school biology teacher in liberal New York State was able to admit to herself and the class that evolution is still a theory which is far from concrete. I say it's you who have been brainwashed to accept a certain spin on things. And to all who say that "opinions don't matter", you're right, they don't. Which is why creationists around the world will continue to disbelieve your opinion on the origins of humanity. Another poster mentioned something about "evolution being demonstrated". Micro-evolution is not at all the same as macro, even by evolutionary standards. If it demonstrates any principle, it's that humans will exaggerate any bit of data to support an otherwise preposterous belief.

As for creationism being completely abrahamic, include other views like those of Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Let all views be included instead of perpetuating the model of the intellectual superiority complex which has used so many different fronts over the centuries, militant Christianity included.

Because one high school teacher=the whole scientific community. I'm not saying evolution is a fact, but gravity isn't a proven fact either. Evolution has evidence, other stories do not. Instead of wasting time teaching so many different alternative theories which would take up ridiculous amounts of school time, lets teach the one "theory" we know is probably true.

[Sensorland]

I see nothing wrong with this, as a creationist and Texan (so I'm absolutely not biased in the least). Personnaly, I think we should teach our children evolution and scientific understandings, while also teaching them about creationism and religions.

[Divair]

No they don't.

Says who? Suppression of knowledge is wrong.

Says me. Creationism is full of bullshit, just like astrology, alchemy, magic, phrenology, heliocentrism, and the flat earth model. Science classes should be teaching facts, not myths.

[Konariona]

It's a state decision. Should not be interfered in by the government or anyone else.

[Great Nepal]

No it isn't.

Students have a right to learn about different theories.

Except for the fact that Creationism isn't a theory, hell it isn't even a valid hypothesis.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Yes there are many people who hold alternative views because they've been taught to believe that bullcrap. I have yet to meet a scientist or hear of a scientist who does not believe in evolution. Thankfully the public is realizing that creationism is incorrect and that due to the fact that evolution is nearly proven they're starting to drop the whole creationism thing. Lets not revert back to the way things were, that's what'll happen if we teach creationism in schools.

Besides why teach creationism if there is a separation of church and state? It's a completely Abrahamic viewpoint.

I have heard of several scientists who do not "believe" in evolution. Even my high-school biology teacher in liberal New York State was able to admit to herself and the class that evolution is still a theory which is far from concrete. I say it's you who have been brainwashed to accept a certain spin on things. And to all who say that "opinions don't matter", you're right, they don't. Which is why creationists around the world will continue to disbelieve your opinion on the origins of humanity. Another poster mentioned something about "evolution being demonstrated". Micro-evolution is not at all the same as macro, even by evolutionary standards. If it demonstrates any principle, it's that humans will exaggerate any bit of data to support an otherwise preposterous belief.

As for creationism being completely abrahamic, include other views like those of Buddhists, Hindus, etc. Let all views be included instead of perpetuating the model of the intellectual superiority complex which has used so many different fronts over the centuries, militant Christianity included.

[Agritum]

Says who? Suppression of knowledge is wrong.

Should we teach that animals came from the murder of Tiamat?

Or that lead can really be turned into gold? It's an alternate theory to chemistry, anyways! Eliminating it would be suppression of knowledge!

[The Scientific States]

No they don't.

Says who? Suppression of knowledge is wrong.

Listen, it'd be a waste of time to try to teach a ton of religious theories with no evidence in science class(why would you teach religion in science class anyway). Instead we should teach our kids evolution, which we essentially know is true.

[Pandeeria]

Can the federal government step in?

This is silly, and should be stopped immediately. Creationism shouldn't be in schools.

[Greed and Death]

Sources:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... ience.html
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/09 ... ate-change
http://www.bjconline.org/index.php?opti ... Itemid=134
http://lezgetreal.com/2013/09/texas-bio ... eationism/

Behind closed doors, textbook reviewers appointed by the Texas State Board of Education are pushing to inject creationism into teaching materials that will be adopted statewide in high schools this year, according to new documents obtained by watchdog groups. Records show that the textbook reviewers made ideological objections to material on evolution and climate change in science textbooks from at least seven publishers, including several of the nation's largest publishing houses. Failing to obtain a review panel's top rating can make it harder for publishers to sell their textbooks to school districts, and can even lead the state to reject the books altogether.

Of course, it JUST HAS to be Texas doing this. I'd expect states like Utah to be doing this as well.

There is a little part of me cheering this on (primarily because I am a Creationist of sorts) and there is another part of me that is like "really? "

What are you opinions, thoughts, ideas???

EDIT: please be aware this isn't a religious bashing thread....I just don't want it to devolve into that.

and because California and New York did not publish Texas's choice will be some 85% of all new books this year.

America shall go further red this up coming generation, the children are being taught to be GOP ers.

[Cervas]

You know this place gets shittier as time goes on.

I used to enjoy Texas. You know when they were slightly less conservative and slightly more intelligent but no they had to fuck themselves up even more. *dramatic sigh*

[Divair]

It's a state decision.

No it isn't. See Edwards v. Aguillard.

[Shaggai]

i've seen people make compelling arguments for it, but i am not a person who can form a compelling argument for it.

for the A and B, your arguing semantics, which is futile

What compelling arguments are there for intelligent design?!?

Well, for one thing, it's true. The Elder Things manipulated the DNA of any lifeforms as they saw fit, to make them more useful, along with exterminating dangerous species. The evidence is in Antarctica, although it's rather difficult to find as many of the landmarks my descendant provided don't exist on your planet. He got somewhat confused about his visions and what they were, you see. He also changed a few things to make it a better story. But the evidence is there if you look.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

I see nothing wrong with this, as a creationist and Texan (so I'm absolutely not biased in the least). Personnaly, I think we should teach our children evolution and scientific understandings, while also teaching them about creationism and religions.

Why teach mythology instead of fact?

[The USOT]

Teaching Creationism as an alternate theory is fine. Teaching it as an outright fact, however, is not okay.

This is the reason we need better education surrounding scientific studies, not just the branches of science.

A theory when talked about in science is a graduated hypothesis. Its essentially a model of predictions that thus far the evidence leads towards. The model of predictions part is also important. This means that the theory can make predictions which can then be tested and continue to support the theory.
Note this doesnt mean theories are static, but that not everything that someone might be true in science qualifies as a theory.

Creationism doesnt qualify as a theory. It doesnt have evidence and is at most a hypothesis and doesnt make predictions. Unlike evolution where we have enough evidence in DNA alone, nevermind the physical and even mathematical data to support it. We can even make predictions about the behaviour of organisms from how they evolve which later become verified (look at modern medicine).

So no, creationism should not be taught as fact or as theory. If it should be brought up, it should be as a weird movement in history where people held such proud ego`s as to abuse the position of trust that their children bestowed upon them.

[Divair]

Can the federal government step in?

No need. See Edwards v. Aguillard.

[The Scientific States]

I see nothing wrong with this, as a creationist and Texan (so I'm absolutely not biased in the least). Personnaly, I think we should teach our children evolution and scientific understandings, while also teaching them about creationism and religions.

Why teach them something that isn't true?

[Edlichbury]

I see nothing wrong with this, as a creationist and Texan (so I'm absolutely not biased in the least). Personnaly, I think we should teach our children evolution and scientific understandings, while also teaching them about creationism and religions.

But that implies they are somewhat the same. If you want to teach creationism, you do so in a class about various creation myths or the Abrahamic religions. Don't do it in a science class.

[Blasveck]

What compelling arguments are there for intelligent design?!?

not many, 2 or 3 at most that don't involve a god

...........Intelligent design is based off of the existence of God.

[Divair]

I see nothing wrong with this, as a creationist and Texan (so I'm absolutely not biased in the least). Personnaly, I think we should teach our children evolution and scientific understandings, while also teaching them about creationism and religions.

No. They can go learn about it at church if they want. Schools are here to educate, not indoctrinate.

[Benuty]

It's a state decision. Should not be interfered in by the government or anyone else.

On the basis of saving the students from having to learn about false theories the government should intervene.