If you believe any of your theories, you've turned science into areligion.

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedi...c-nynews-print

New twist to old debate
Intelligent design movement prompts public school science teachers to
carefully consider approach
BY ELLEN YAN

November 27, 2005

Even before officials in Kansas and parts of Pennsylvania declared that
intelligent design could be taught in public school science classes,
retired Syosset teacher Jack Friedman was coaching middle school science
teachers on how to address the issue with their students.

"Why not be fair and teach all sides?" a few teachers asked. Others
argued that intelligent design, which says the Earth is so complex that
a higher power must have created it, is more than religion. The designer
doesn't have to be God, they insisted - it might be an alien.

"They didn't want to step on anybody's religion and have their parents
come in and get them in trouble," said Friedman, head of the New York
State Council on Evolution Education, which monitors separation of
church and state in schools.

Most people don't think New York State is on the verge of facing a major
movement to reclaim creationism as science. In fact, Friedman's
organization hasn't been terribly busy in recent years.

But now and then, local public school teachers said, they've responded
to questions on the issue from students and parents.

The queries can be daunting: "How can you believe in God and be a
scientist?" or "Didn't God create that?"

The state requires its public school science teachers to explain the
"mechanisms and patterns" of evolution, covering topics such as gene
mutations, survival of the fittest and how current species developed
from "earlier, distinctly different species."

The issue of evolution vs. intelligent design has been in the national
spotlight since the Kansas Board of Education redefined biology
standards to allow discussions in the classroom of alternatives to
evolution. This month, voters in Dover, Pa., threw out eight school
board members who required teachers to include a statement on
intelligent design in class.

In May, New York State Assemb. Daniel Hooker introduced a bill, which
died, that would have required intelligent design to be taught in public
schools; Hooker said he wanted to stimulate debate.

Critics say the intelligent design theory is no more than a new spin on
creationism, a literal reading of the biblical story on the world's origins.

Some teachers said they've calmed fears and persuaded parents not to
yank their kids out of class during evolution lessons by never attacking
religious beliefs. Some convince doubters by saying it's smart to know
the "enemy" theories - as one retired city teacher says - and others
encourage those who are interested to read about intelligent design on
their own time.

"What I point out to them is that we're not trying to convert them in
any way, but they should be able to understand the tenets of organic
evolution," said Brian Vorwald, chairman of the grades 6-12 science
department for the Sayville school district.

In class, he notes that there are other evolution theories, including
discredited ones such as the flat Earth school of thinking, and the kids
laugh when he tells them, "There's absolutely something you're being
taught this year in science that will be disproven."

Over the years, science teacher John Cunningham has fashioned a weapon
of sorts for students who fear he will force them to accept evolution,
counter to the wishes of their parents or religious leaders.

"What you're supposed to do is to attack theories all the time," the
Brooklyn teacher said he tells them. "If you believe any of your
theories, you've turned science into a religion.

"You can see the look of relief on their faces and from then on, no
matter what belief system they're from, they're willing to ask questions
and posit ideas."

Several local science teachers said they don't object to intelligent
design or creationism in public schools - in social studies or
philosophy classes.

For Cunningham, who teaches biology at Brooklyn Tech High School,
defining the difference between science and religion is crucial to
keeping peace with the parents and motivating students to work on
required evolution projects.

"One of the worst things to do to a curious intellect is to say their
belief is wrong," he said.

"It's pretty helter-skelter right now in terms of trying to pick up the
difference between science and religion and explaining it adequately in
the classroom. In religion, you believe in things, and in science, you
criticize and explore."

Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

Arnold:
New twist to old debate
Intelligent design movement prompts public school science teachers to
carefully consider approach
BY ELLEN YAN...

"Why not be fair and teach all sides?" a few teachers asked. Others
argued that intelligent design, which says the Earth is so complex that
a higher power must have created it, is more than religion. The designer
doesn't have to be God, they insisted - it might be an alien...

Nonsense. ID is repackaged creationism. Its sole purpose is to force a
narrow Protestant fundamentalist religious view on school children.

What no one ever seems to say is that the pushing of the creationist
agenda is partly -- perhaps largely -- motivated by racism. If one
knows the truth of Evolution, one knows that humanity originated in
Africa. The "Christian" right will never accept that.
http://www.davidillig.com/conservatism.shtml

In May, New York State Assemb. Daniel Hooker introduced a bill, which
died, that would have required intelligent design to be taught in public
schools; Hooker said he wanted to stimulate debate.

Hooker overlooked the fact that it is against the law to teach ID in
public schools.

Critics say the intelligent design theory is no more than a new spin on
creationism, a literal reading of the biblical story on the world's origins.

Precisely.

Some teachers said they've calmed fears and persuaded parents not to
yank their kids out of class during evolution lessons by never attacking
religious beliefs...

Well, of course. It isn't the job of a public school teacher to attack
anyone's religious beliefs. The message needs to be spread widely,
loudly, and clearly: Evolution is not an attack on biblical creation
because Evolution says nothing whatsoever about whether some being
/caused/ Evolution to be a property of all life on Earth.

Over the years, science teacher John Cunningham has fashioned a weapon
of sorts for students who fear he will force them to accept evolution,
counter to the wishes of their parents or religious leaders.

Several local science teachers said they don't object to intelligent
design or creationism in public schools - in social studies or
philosophy classes.

To teach that it /exists/ is fine. To teach its tenets is illegal.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Scientists are skeptics!

In Arnold wrote:

"Why not be fair and teach all sides?" a few teachers asked.

All sides?

I find the Hindu creation myths to be quite interesting. When will they be
introducted into New York public school's science curriculum?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

"Arnold" wrote in message
...

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedi...c-nynews-print

New twist to old debate
Intelligent design movement prompts public school science teachers to
carefully consider approach
BY ELLEN YAN

November 27, 2005

Even before officials in Kansas and parts of Pennsylvania declared that
intelligent design could be taught in public school science classes,
retired Syosset teacher Jack Friedman was coaching middle school science
teachers on how to address the issue with their students.

"Why not be fair and teach all sides?"


This is not about fairness. It's about fundamental truth.

If we want to be fair, then, in our public schools we should teach:
-- the flat earth claims
-- the man-did-not-land-on-the-moon claims
-- claims that slavery is ordained by God
-- Hitler was right
-- Mao was right
-- the Confederacy was right
-- man-boy love, woman-girl love is just fine
-- and every other wack-a-doodle claim should have equal billing with
scientific knowledge or social norms.


a few teachers asked. Others argued that intelligent design, which says
the Earth is so complex that a higher power must have created it, is more
than religion. The designer doesn't have to be God, they insisted - it
might be an alien.


So, are we going to show the movie "ET" in science classes as fact? ****,
why not base our study of the Civil War on "Gone With the Wind."




"They didn't want to step on anybody's religion and have their parents
come in and get them in trouble," said Friedman, head of the New York
State Council on Evolution Education, which monitors separation of church
and state in schools.

Most people don't think New York State is on the verge of facing a major
movement to reclaim creationism as science. In fact, Friedman's
organization hasn't been terribly busy in recent years.

But now and then, local public school teachers said, they've responded to
questions on the issue from students and parents.

The queries can be daunting: "How can you believe in God and be a
scientist?" or "Didn't God create that?"

The state requires its public school science teachers to explain the
"mechanisms and patterns" of evolution, covering topics such as gene
mutations, survival of the fittest and how current species developed from
"earlier, distinctly different species."

The issue of evolution vs. intelligent design has been in the national
spotlight since the Kansas Board of Education redefined biology standards
to allow discussions in the classroom of alternatives to evolution. This
month, voters in Dover, Pa., threw out eight school board members who
required teachers to include a statement on intelligent design in class.

In May, New York State Assemb. Daniel Hooker introduced a bill, which
died, that would have required intelligent design to be taught in public
schools; Hooker said he wanted to stimulate debate.

Critics say the intelligent design theory is no more than a new spin on
creationism, a literal reading of the biblical story on the world's
origins.

Some teachers said they've calmed fears and persuaded parents not to yank
their kids out of class during evolution lessons by never attacking
religious beliefs. Some convince doubters by saying it's smart to know the
"enemy" theories - as one retired city teacher says - and others encourage
those who are interested to read about intelligent design on their own
time.

"What I point out to them is that we're not trying to convert them in any
way, but they should be able to understand the tenets of organic
evolution," said Brian Vorwald, chairman of the grades 6-12 science
department for the Sayville school district.

In class, he notes that there are other evolution theories, including
discredited ones such as the flat Earth school of thinking, and the kids
laugh when he tells them, "There's absolutely something you're being
taught this year in science that will be disproven."

Over the years, science teacher John Cunningham has fashioned a weapon of
sorts for students who fear he will force them to accept evolution,
counter to the wishes of their parents or religious leaders.

"What you're supposed to do is to attack theories all the time," the
Brooklyn teacher said he tells them. "If you believe any of your theories,
you've turned science into a religion.

"You can see the look of relief on their faces and from then on, no matter
what belief system they're from, they're willing to ask questions and
posit ideas."

Several local science teachers said they don't object to intelligent
design or creationism in public schools - in social studies or philosophy
classes.

For Cunningham, who teaches biology at Brooklyn Tech High School, defining
the difference between science and religion is crucial to keeping peace
with the parents and motivating students to work on required evolution
projects.

"One of the worst things to do to a curious intellect is to say their
belief is wrong," he said.


So, when a kid tells the teacher that the earth REALLY is flat, the teacher
should say, well, yes, you know, it really is.




"It's pretty helter-skelter right now in terms of trying to pick up the
difference between science and religion and explaining it adequately in
the classroom. In religion, you believe in things, and in science, you
criticize and explore."

Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
In Arnold wrote:

"Why not be fair and teach all sides?" a few teachers asked.

All sides?

I find the Hindu creation myths to be quite interesting. When will they be
introducted into New York public school's science curriculum?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

Call the Kansas Board of Education -- they'll jump right on it.

In fact, here's their website: http://www.kansasmorons.com/

"Why not be fair and teach all sides?" a few teachers asked.

All sides?

I find the Hindu creation myths to be quite interesting. When will they be
introducted into New York public school's science curriculum?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul,

Presumably when the Hindu religion feels its control is threatened or sees
its income drop significantly. (unlikely as its not organised extortion like
Christianity)

PS, had an excellent night last night.
jc

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:32:31 +0200, Arnold quoted,
in part:

The designer
doesn't have to be God, they insisted - it might be an alien.

In the beginning, Azathoth created the Universe.

And then Ubbo-Sathla brought forth life upon this Earth, even as
Shub-Niggurath brought forth the Old Ones.

And then the Elder Race came to the Earth, and found upon it
chimpanzees, and shaped them that they might better become their
servants, and so Man was born.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:18:49 -0500, Davoud wrote, in
part:

The message needs to be spread widely,
loudly, and clearly: Evolution is not an attack on biblical creation
because Evolution says nothing whatsoever about whether some being
/caused/ Evolution to be a property of all life on Earth.

The Bible says clearly that Adam and Eve were directly created by God,
and that all the different kinds of animal and plant life on Earth were
directly and individually created by God.

It is correct that Intelligent Design does not belong in the schools,
because those who want it there wish to falsely teach children that
serious and legitimate doubt exists about evolution.

At the same time, teaching that evolution is the actual means by which
life diversified and developed, although factually correct, does
contradict some religious beliefs. It does not contradict the religious
beliefs of all Christians; some Christians are Catholics, others are
Baptists, and others are Pentacostal, for example. That evolution does
not contradict Catholic religious beliefs is as irrelevant as its
failure to contradict Buddhist religious beliefs when we are asking if
it contradicts the religious beliefs of a Seventh-Day Adventist.

All religions should be respected. We should not be requiring children
to acknowledge as fact statements which contradict their religious
beliefs. We can present information about evolution without doing this.

This can be done by simply omitting that which is controversial: the
claim that evolution has a relation to reality. That we spend time
describing the details of the theory of evolution by natural selection,
and avoid going into detail about Intelligent Design or Creationism
might certainly lead people to suspect we think it more important and
hence better related to reality, but we don't need to say so in so many
words in front of the children.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

Davoud:
The message needs to be spread widely,
loudly, and clearly: Evolution is not an attack on biblical creation
because Evolution says nothing whatsoever about whether some being
/caused/ Evolution to be a property of all life on Earth.

John Savard:
All religions should be respected.

OK, but see below.

We should not be requiring children to acknowledge as fact statements
which contradict their religious beliefs.

We cannot water down science to avoid offending people's religious
beliefs. Evolution may well be the second most thoroughly tested theory
in science, after gravity. To be politically correct, we like to say
that scientific theories can't be "proven." As a practical matter,
however, Evolution is known to be true, and must be taught as the
truth.

We can present information about evolution without doing this.

The best we can do -- and we must do this -- is to avoid saying "...and
this proves that your God doesn't exist, so there!" Short of that,
anyone who takes offense at the teaching of evolution has an agenda --
a chip on their shoulder, so to speak -- and however they may try to
disguise that agenda, it remains the imposition of a certain narrow
religious viewpoint on the entire population of the United States.
Otherwise these extremists would be satisfied to teach creationism in
their churches, their church schools, and their homes.

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com