Why does every state have to try their own creationism law?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I, for one, hope they eventually get a state law passed so the Supremes are forced to make a call.

This has happened already, in a sense. In both Arkansas and Louisiana, state-level laws mandating equal discussion for creationism have been struck down.

And the ACLU was annoyed that they did so, because this needs to go to the Supreme Court to get it cleared up once and for all. Hopefully.

[Seth]

Because censoring what school children can hear goes against everything the United States and the First Amendment are about. Information is information, it has no moral or ethical burden attached to it, and therefore if the people of a sovereign state want their kids to learn about creationism, it's their right to have it taught to their children in the public schools, right alongside evolution.

No information has ever come forth about intelligent design. We only teach chemistry in school, based on facts. We do not teach, for instance, homeopathy. We could teach herbal medicne if people still knew where herbs grow.

What do you mean "no information has ever come forth" about ID? Plenty of information exists. Whether that information is scientifically valid, or whether it constitutes logical error is entirely irrelevant. The information on the theory exists, and information should not be censored for any reason. This does not mean that creationism or ID (two different things in my view) must be taught as scientific truth, but the information should be taught, at appropriate age levels, and students should be encouraged to critically examine all the evidence and information available and come to their own conclusions.

All that happens when one viewpoint is censored is that the information becomes "forbidden fruit" and all the more powerful for being hidden.

There is nothing inherently religious about "teaching the controversy." It's a valid controversy, even if you don't believe in creationism and even if creationism is false. Presenting both sides (ie: science and religious belief) allows students to see the strengths of one and weaknesses of the other using logic, reason and open inquiry. Suppressing ID or creationism merely strengthens it in the eyes of the faithful students because it appears as if science has something to fear and hide about creationism, which lends credibility to the theory.

Students must be given ALL the information in such disputes, so that they can reason their way to the truth.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Damn, he just gets sillier, or more desperate. Either.

[Seth]

I'd always assumed it was simply because education is not a federal matter and so decided at the state level. Is that not correct?

It's certainly supposed to be. There is absolutely NO constitutional authority whatsoever for the Department of Education and the control it exerts over local schools. The DOE originally began as a research project funded by the federal government to discover effective teaching methods. It was supposed to simply give recommendations, not mandates, to local schools boards on educational techniques and standards. From there, it turned into this behemoth bureaucracy that's attempting to control all education everywhere in the US, including what kind of food schools can put in their vending machines.

The 14th Amendment however, extends the "no establishment" provisions of the First Amendment to all levels of state and local government, which means that local schools do have to meet the Lemon Test criteria when it comes to religion in the schools.

However, it's long been held that teaching ABOUT religion and teaching religion are two different things, and teaching ABOUT religion is fully compatible with the Establishment Clause.

Thus, teaching ABOUT creationism or ID is perfectly allowable, if it's done carefully and not as proselytizing or indoctrination. One way to do that is to teach religion comparatively.

[Seth]

Damn, he just gets sillier, or more desperate. Either.

Oh, look, a one-line poo-flinger!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Give it up, you're not even funny anymore.

[Tero]

Seth, in your blindness toward freedom, you are confusing information and wacky opinion . Which with a little scratching turns out to be crap.

"The earth is flat" contains no info.

I posted on Richard Owen. Though he was creationist, he was able to say what could have evolved from what.

[Pappa]

Because censoring what school children can hear goes against everything the United States and the First Amendment are about. Information is information, it has no moral or ethical burden attached to it, and therefore if the people of a sovereign state want their kids to learn about creationism, it's their right to have it taught to their children in the public schools, right alongside evolution.

No information has ever come forth about intelligent design. We only teach chemistry in school, based on facts. We do not teach, for instance, homeopathy. We could teach herbal medicne if people still knew where herbs grow.

What do you mean "no information has ever come forth" about ID? Plenty of information exists. Whether that information is scientifically valid, or whether it constitutes logical error is entirely irrelevant. The information on the theory exists, and information should not be censored for any reason. This does not mean that creationism or ID (two different things in my view) must be taught as scientific truth, but the information should be taught, at appropriate age levels, and students should be encouraged to critically examine all the evidence and information available and come to their own conclusions.

All that happens when one viewpoint is censored is that the information becomes "forbidden fruit" and all the more powerful for being hidden.

There is nothing inherently religious about "teaching the controversy." It's a valid controversy, even if you don't believe in creationism and even if creationism is false. Presenting both sides (ie: science and religious belief) allows students to see the strengths of one and weaknesses of the other using logic, reason and open inquiry. Suppressing ID or creationism merely strengthens it in the eyes of the faithful students because it appears as if science has something to fear and hide about creationism, which lends credibility to the theory.

Students must be given ALL the information in such disputes, so that they can reason their way to the truth.

Yeah, and they should be taught the current controversies about Heliocentricism, Alien-caused Abiogenesis and Pastafarianism in their science lessons too.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I, for one, hope they eventually get a state law passed so the Supremes are forced to make a call.

This has happened already, in a sense. In both Arkansas and Louisiana, state-level laws mandating equal discussion for creationism have been struck down.

And the ACLU was annoyed that they did so, because this needs to go to the Supreme Court to get it cleared up once and for all. Hopefully.

I would think they're plenty busy as it is. I'm also, on general principles, a fan of decisions being made on the lowest possible level.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I, for one, hope they eventually get a state law passed so the Supremes are forced to make a call.

This has happened already, in a sense. In both Arkansas and Louisiana, state-level laws mandating equal discussion for creationism have been struck down.

And the ACLU was annoyed that they did so, because this needs to go to the Supreme Court to get it cleared up once and for all. Hopefully.

I would think they're plenty busy as it is. I'm also, on general principles, a fan of decisions being made on the lowest possible level.

I just going with what the ACLU has publicly stated. Remember that they wanted Scopes to go the Supreme Court, so they were upset when a higher court overturned his conviction.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, while I generally agree with their outlook, that's not the case with this issue.

[Seth]

Give it up, you're not even funny anymore.

Oh, I don't know, I crack myself up all the time. That'll do.

Oh, and you were never funny, or intelligent, or erudite, or rational...

[Tero]

Seth, we don't teach "freedom" or "alternative explanations" in school. Everything I teach in chemistry...it was college...you can repeat in the lab.

Your information they can just get on the Fox channel. No need to open books.

[Seth]

Seth, in your blindness toward freedom, you are confusing information and wacky opinion . Which with a little scratching turns out to be crap.

"The earth is flat" contains no info.

I posted on Richard Owen. Though he was creationist, he was able to say what could have evolved from what.

The question at issue is not whether you believe that one thing or another is "wacky opinion," the issue is the rights of parents to direct the education of their children in the public schools, through the elected officials in their local areas whom they elect to represent their interests.

If a community elects a school board that authorizes the teaching of ID or creationism, this is a democratic reflection of the will of the members of that community towards the educational resources that they pay for and therefore have a right to direct the use of.

States are perfectly capable of setting minimum school curricula for all students to ensure that they are taught the basics that the state government feels are appropriate. But beyond those mandatory minimums, its up to the school board, as the direct representatives of the parents within the district, to determine what additional information is taught in the local schools.

The federal government has no business or authority infringing on either state sovereignty or on the rights of parents to direct their paid district teachers on what will be taught to THEIR CHILDREN.

It's purely a state issue, and a local one, not a federal one.

If some parent wants their children opted out of the ID or creationism segment of the curriculum, then I'm fine with that too, just as I'm fine with parents opting their kids out of sex education classes.

The state may have a right to dictate what SHALL be taught, and that this minimum curriculum must comply with constitutional provisions, but only the local school board is authorized to determine what SHALL NOT be taught, as a direct reflection of the will of the people within that school district.

[Seth]

Seth, we don't teach "freedom" or "alternative explanations" in school. Everything I teach in chemistry...it was college...you can repeat in the lab.

Your information they can just get on the Fox channel. No need to open books.

That is not YOUR decision to make. You're just a hired employee who will either teach what the people paying your salary dictate that you will teach, or you will find another job and they will find someone who will follow their directions. It's their children's educations at stake, and they have the ultimate right to determine what they will be taught, not you.

If you don't like those conditions of employment, then go get another job.