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

[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.

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

If that's what the parents want, then that's what they have a right to vote for and demand that teachers teach.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Within the limits of the law, as Kansas I and II demonstrated.

[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.

If that's what the parents want, then that's what they have a right to vote for and demand that teachers teach.

Fair point, and one I agree with, but my swipe at your post still stands. The "information on the theory" of ID is pure bollocks. It's no more science than dragonology is. Suggesting it shouldn't be taught in a science class isn't "censorship", but simply upholding the principle that only science should be taught as science. Parents could vote to ensure their kids get taught about fairies in biology if that's what they want, but it wouldn't make the theory of fairies at the bottom of the garden any more real or valid.

I think kids should be taught about the controversy, but in a Religious Studies or Sociology class, where it's actually relevant. Regardless of what the local school boards are free to do with their curriculum, I would assume that the State could/should at least be able to insists that what is taught in a specific subject actually belongs to that realm of knowledge.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

This distinction is arbitrary, and not supported by jurisprudence.

[Tero]

There are national standards for science. It is all fact and dogma. We dont ever teach parent dictated science. You can pull your kid out of any lesson.

Seth, we don't teach "freedom" or "alternative explanations" in school. Everything...

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.

[Seth]

Fair point, and one I agree with, but my swipe at your post still stands. The "information on the theory" of ID is pure bollocks. It's no more science than dragonology is.

So you say. But you cannot demonstrate that intelligent design was NOT responsible for life on earth or that intelligent design did not have an effect on the evolution of life on earth, you (and science) can only say that "natural" evolution is a simpler and more elegant, and to a scientist more intellectually satisfying answer to the question of how we ended up as we are. That's a simple fact of science. Nobody knows how life began on earth, and nobody knows if an intelligence intervened in the process of evolution at some point in the 4.5 billion years earth has been around.

Therefore, the question of whether intelligent design occurred is indeed a completely scientific question, and the proposition that intelligence did intervene in evolution is likewise a perfectly valid scientific theory. It's not falsifiable at the moment, but that doesn't make it "pure bollocks," that's just your own prejudices and biases talking.

In any event, whether it's bollocks or not, parents have a right to demand that the controversy be addressed in their child's education, whether science teachers believe it or not.

Suggesting it shouldn't be taught in a science class isn't "censorship", but simply upholding the principle that only science should be taught as science.

The possibility that an intelligent designer was involved in the existence and evolution of life on earth is entirely a question of science, and censoring that theory is indeed censorship based on a naturalistic bias and prejudice of science which staunchly denies any such possibility without actually providing any evidence whatsoever that intelligent design of organisms has not occurred. It's particularly biased and bigoted because it has been demonstrated in the (scientific) labs around the world that it is in fact possible, and not all that difficult, to intelligently redesign organisms to achieve specific biological objectives, like resistance to pesticides. That being the case, the proposition that an intelligent designer intervened in earth's biological development at some, or many times, is no longer merely in the realm of superstition and supernaturality, it's an entirely plausible scientific theory, albeit usually forwarded by theists as justification for injecting theistic notions into science class.

But you must admit that human beings have demonstrated the ability to genetically engineer organisms, which proves it can be done. Now all that's left is to determine if it's been done before sometime during the evolution of species on earth. How is that not a purely scientific hypothesis?

Parents could vote to ensure their kids get taught about fairies in biology if that's what they want, but it wouldn't make the theory of fairies at the bottom of the garden any more real or valid.

Correct. And it's the parent's right to demand that their public employees, whom they hire and pay to teach, to teach what they want taught, regardless of what the paid employee thinks about what's being taught. And any employee who objects to teaching what the parents want taught should be fired. Teachers are not sacrosanct purveyors of ideological purity based on their own personal whims and beliefs, they are employees who must do what they are told, when they are told to do it, or face termination. It's just that simple.

I think kids should be taught about the controversy, but in a Religious Studies or Sociology class, where it's actually relevant.

Teaching creationism, I agree, because "creationism" is inherently religious in nature. Teaching intelligent design, no way. It's a scientific hypothesis that has valid scientific evidence demonstrating that it is in fact possible to intelligently design an organism. That needs to be taught in a science class because it's a scientific truth. Whether or not intelligent design is responsible for life on earth and how it evolved is yet another question for science to answer...someday. Students need to be taught these facts so that they can make their own rational decisions about the strength of the various arguments and theories.

Regardless of what the local school boards are free to do with their curriculum, I would assume that the State could/should at least be able to insists that what is taught in a specific subject actually belongs to that realm of knowledge.

No, the state can mandate that certain things be taught to a minimum standard, but it has no authority, under the First Amendment, to tell a school board what CANNOT be taught in schools.That's prior restraint of free speech. Only where religious education bumps up against public school secularism is there any legal power on the part of the state to prohibit certain teachings, and then only because the teachers are government employees to begin with. In a private school, the state can still mandate a minimum curriculum, but cannot interfere in anything additional being taught.

The solution is, of course, to close the public schools, issue taxpayer money for education directly to the students (through their parents), and allow the students to select whatever private school best suits their needs. That way no teacher is a public employee and can teach anything they are told to teach by the parents who pay for their services. And the Supreme Court has ruled that doing so is perfectly constitutional. That's why children are fleeing from public schools (which are wastes of taxpayer money in every way) in states where vouchers are authorized, and are seeking better, cheaper, more comprehensive and accountable educations from private schools that cater to different interests and needs.

The death of public schools, and public school teacher unions is but a few short years away in most of the country, as the voucher programs continue to spread like wildfire because parents want better educations for their kids than teat-sucking public school union teachers are willing to provide.

No government schools, no government interference in what's being taught. That's how it used to be, and that's how it should be again.

[Seth]

There are national standards for science.

And therein lies the problem. The federal government has no constitutional authority to issue "national standards" for science education. It's not within its purview. It's purely a state matter and a local matter what is taught in state public schools.

It is all fact and dogma. We dont ever teach parent dictated science.

You teach what your employers tell you to teach or you find another job.

You can pull your kid out of any lesson.

We can also require teachers to teach what we want them to teach. After all, we pay their salaries. They are not the masters of education, they are merely employees. The state, through it's elected legislature as representatives of the people of the state set the minimum basic curriculum of all schools and the local school boards implement those requirements but can add what they deem desirable as direct representatives of the people of the community and the parents of the students.

Teachers don't get to decide what they will and will not teach, they only get to decide whether they will or will not remain employed by the public and teach what they are told to teach to the best of their ability or be fired.

[hackenslash]

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.

Absolutely correct. The facts about creationism should be taught right alongside evolution, and in science class too! The lesson goes like this:

Kids, creationism is fucking stupid. Now let's get on with real science.

Works for me.

[Tero]

Seth, the feds have nothing to do with it! Facts are distilled into text books and the book publishers run what is taught. It is cheaper to teach proven facts.

As it is, texas and CA dictate book content. The large non East states.

[Clinton Huxley]

It's not just that ID is not falsifiable at the moment, it is not falsifiable at all. What could falsify it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I would suggest that, given that it is small-government folks who typically want creationism taught to their children, they ought to put their money where there mouths are and quit asking for my tax dollars to fund their religious nonsense.

[klr]

I would suggest that, given that it is small-government folks who typically want creationism taught to their children, they ought to put their money where there mouths are and quit asking for my tax dollars to fund their religious nonsense.

They are usually the types who go in for home schooling as well, as it so happens. Let them screw up their kids' education and life prospects themselves ...

[Thumpalumpacus]

At least at that point their preachments and actions are congruent.

[Robert_S]

When Last Thursdayism can be refuted, then not having a refutation for ID might be relevant.

But the thing is... It ain't science. It makes no testable claims and has the power to explain nothing.