Received: from smtp02.nwnexus.com (smtp02.nwnexus.com [198.137.231.18]) by mail3.halcyon.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA22374 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 08:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from minglewood.dundee.net (minglewood.dundee.net [206.249.104.16]) by smtp02.nwnexus.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA19450 for ; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 08:49:58 -0700 Message-Id: Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 11:40:47 -0400 To: "ClearingHouse" From: "J. E. Stone" Subject: [education-consumers] Evolution discussion Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Reply-To: "J. E. Stone" Precedence: bulk Status: ===================================================================== Paul said: >Leaving this kind of discussion off ECC may be necessary, but leaving it out >is detrimental to serious discussion of educational issues. Dave said: > This is a real, practical issue. How should topics that some find > offensive be handled in the public school curriculum? John's comments: I have no problem with discussing how schools can deal with controversial issues. I do have a problem with a discussion of an evolutionary explanation of man versus a creationist account. Frankly, a big part of my problem has to do with flooding everyone's mailbox (and eating up everyone's time energy and patience) on such an issue while there are million issues on which we consumers pretty well agree and on which we need to take action. Believe me, we have been over this ground before (see below). I am inclined to agree with Dave's view that the answer to different preferences among consumers is choice and Paul is certainly correct when he says that education issues arise from a larger cultural context. However, if I don't act like an English teacher who insists that the student stay on a narrowly circumscribed topic, discussions of "education" can wander very far afield. Again, I have no problem with discussion of how schools deal with controversial issues. I would suggest, however, if you are like Paul and you would like to delve into educational issues in their broader cultural context, I can refer you to an excellent list that has just that objective: Fred Battey's Loop. In fact, I have recently seen some reaction to forwarded versions Arthur's postings coming from Fred's list. John ****************************************** >Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 16:34:03 -0400 >To: education-consumers@tricon.net >From: "J. E. Stone" >Subject: Re: Evolution (again) > >Before we take off on the evolution issue again, I would like to remind everyone of the obvious, i.e., that there are issues on which consumers may strongly disagree. Evolution is surely one of them. However there are a vast number of other issues on which we agree and in the interest of building a consumer voice, we may simply have to agree to disagree on issues like evolution. > >Steve's remarks are well taken and at the risk of further opening this can of worms I would have to agree with his characterization of the views that prevail within the biological sciences. I certainly don't need to speak for Mark, but knowing of his academic acumen, I am confident that he will be able to clarify, articulate, and place in context his original rather offhand remark. My only comment would be is that since this issue does not pertain strictly to education, I would encourage interested parties to exchange their views off list. > >Neither the beliefs of microbiologists nor the presence or absence of evolutionary mechanisms among microorganisms is the same issue as the whether or how of the Divine role in creation. In truth, there are differences of opinion in this matter among Christian religious sects. Notably, Darwin himself (an orthodox Christian who was greatly troubled by the criticisms of his theory) believed that he had discovered the Divine mechanism for the creation of life. Within recent months, I understand that the Roman Catholic church has taken a position on evolution similar to that of Darwin. Much of the controversy hinges on whether one takes a literal interpretation of the Bible. Differences of opinion among equally devout believers are virtually inevitable in light of Martin Luther's foundational claim that believers may know God directly, i.e., without the earthly intermediary of the (Roman) Church. Thus Protestant Christians are epistemologically entitled to differing beliefs as to the Bible's meaning on evolution as well as other matters. In fact the existence of these well known differences impelled our founding fathers to secure freedom of belief. > >I say all of this not to belabor the obvious or to discourage discussion but simply to remind everyone (in advance) that insolvable differences are inevitable but not insurmountable and that meanwhile Rome burns. > >Regards, > >John > > > >At 01:19 PM 1/19/97 +0000, you wrote: >>As part of Mark Herring's January 15th contribution to The Education Consumers >>Clearinghouse, he said: >> >>> Politically correct classes are a fact of academic life, even in >>> soi-disant conservative, sectarian schools. Academics, as Paul >>> Lazerfeld, Seymour Martin Lipsett and others have pointed out, are >>> always to the left of the general population. With the possible >>> exception of Hillsdale College in Michigan and Grove City, most >>> colleges and universities tolerate this claptrap to as astonishing >>> degree. >>> >>> The only quick anodyne I can this of is the following >>> >>> 1. For the evolution classes, she could read books like Behe's >>> Darwin's Black Box. Apparently, at the microbiological level, >>> nearly no reputable scientist believes in evolution. This is NOT to >>> say that they believe in creation, but many are very quick to call >>> on intelligent design for the answer. >>> >> >>Although I agree with Mr Herring that most college professors are liberals >>who propagate "politically correct" ideology, I am troubled by his >>suggestion that "at the microbiological level, nearly no reputable >>scientist believes in evolution." I find this disturbing not merely >>because it is false, but because this sentiment seems to be very >>common among members of The Education Consumers Clearinghouse. I have >>not read Behe's book, but, as a biologist, I can assure Mr Herring that the >>overwhelming majority of scientists regard evolution theory as fact, >>and creation theory as myth. In fact, the validity of evolution >>theory is particularly obvious at the microbiological level, since >>microbes have a sufficiently fast life cycle to allow us to observe >>their evolution. The Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), for example, >>is so difficult to combat because by the time we develop a vaccine, >>the virus has already evolved to a sufficient extent to render the >>vaccine useless. Remarkably, non-scientists seem to be oblivious to >>the evolution taking place all the time right beneath their noses. >> >>If any member of The Education Consumers Clearinghouse >>would like to know how reputable scientists really feel about >>evolution, I suggest they read books by reputable scientists! I think >>that any book or popular article by Richard Dawkins would be a good >>place to start. >> ******************************************* >Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 08:51:08 -0400 >To: education-consumers@tricon.net >From: "J. E. Stone" >Subject: Re: Evolution (again) > >At 08:25 PM 1/19/97 -0500, you wrote: >>Prof Stone; >> >>I believe you have fallen into a media trap. Cal Thomas in a recent >>column addressed the Pope's remarks on evolution. It was widely and >>loudly reported that the Pope was softening his position on evolution. >>It turns out that he was mis-quoted through translation error. It is >>unfortunate that we are so quick to believe the NY Times over faith in >>the Pope's faith. >> >>Terry Gorham >>Monroe School Board >>Monroe, NH 03771 > >Terry, > >I plead incompetence on the particulars of the latest Papal encyclical. By the way, I believe I got my information from the Washington Times, not the NY Times--a paper that I rarely read. If not, I got it from the Johnson City, TN Press (which is probably as misinformed as the NY Times). :-) > >Of course, the larger point I was trying to make is that an interest group as large as consumers of American public education are bound to disagree on a number of issues and almost certainly on something like an article of religious faith. Thus rather than burning up our time and energies debating disagreements, my hope is that we consumers can find matters on which we agree--I believe there are plenty of them--and work in support of them. If consumers at the local level can find such agreement, they can--through the weight of public opinion--very substantially influence the direction of local schools. > >Regards, > >John > > ===================================================================== EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet Website & Archives: http://education-consumers.com You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: arthurhu@halcyon.com TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net ===================================================================== For less mail, use the following link and choose 1) a daily digest, 2) a daily list of subjects, or 3) no mail (read postings on Web) http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or My position on creationism is like guns, I don't have any guns, I don't believe in scientific creationism, but I'll defend you right to own guns and believe in it without having something else jammed down your kids without your choice in the matter. I don't believe most people are familiar with some of the arguments being used, such as that dinosaurs and people and trilobites all lived at the same time, while at the same time arguing that there isn't any valid evidence to the contrary. The only dating method that comes up with the same dates is the 4004 BC creation-by- bible-geneology method, every other method says trilobites died long before the dinos before people. The policy question is that should such books be allowed in public school libraries, as they currently probably are not, and how are the scientists supposed to intelligently discuss some of this (in my opinion) goofy nonsense if it's going to be effectively banned from public discourse? I think open discourse is worth the risk of the converts such a book would get (since they can always go to their church library or bible bookstore and get it). At worse, the library could attach a sticker stating that this book has religious content, and the state neither endorses nor disapproves of the content. For me, books like this actually strengthen the case for scientific evolution once you have a good understanding of the evidence that lead to the current model of evolution (to me Big Evolution is _all_ processes that lead to development of the present universe, and all all of the evidence, not just Darwinism). There's a high school in Skagit county where some in the community are in an uproar that a science teacher is being allowed to teach about "intelligent design", which is a weak form of creationism to my understanding. For cc: libertarians, beside the fact that libertarians don't believe in public or government run schools, wouldn't the libertarians be inclined to tolerate creationism if that's the preference of a significant minority or majority in the community? Send reply to: wa-ed-deform@egroups.com From: "Hawken, Harold H" To: "'wa-ed-deform@egroups.com'" Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 08:12:32 -0700 Subject: [wa-ed-deform] Re: Sample G5/6 level creationist book > I don't get any of this. I can't tell if the comments are for or against creationist thought; there seems to be facts and digs all mixed together ........ Is there a point to all this?? And who is spewing forth all this info written with such poor English? > > How about some clarification (are you for or against these ideas), or at least the reason we're spending so much time talking about it? > > > ---------- > > From: arthur hu[SMTP:arthurhu@halcyon.com] > > Reply To: wa-ed-deform@egroups.com > > Sent: Friday, 20 August 1999 2:26 PM > > To: wa-ed-deform@egroups.com; education-consumers@lists.dundee.net; fredb001@mail.dreamscape.com > > Subject: [wa-ed-deform] Sample G5/6 level creationist book > > > > Without too much comment, it will probably open some eyes to see > > a typical creationist book I picked up from a Seattle area creationist > > lecture series. I believe under current laws, such books could be > > banned from school or even public libraries, but perhaps they > > provide balance. > > From: "Regnier, Paul" To: "ClearingHouse" Subject: [education-consumers] RE: Evolution discussion Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:00:18 -0400 Send reply to: "Regnier, Paul" ===================================================================== What would you think if Kansas eliminated a state mandate to teach algebra? I know what Kansas did and I am appalled at what they did. Would you "tolerate" schools teaching astrology or numerology as science? -----Original Message----- From: Nanny714@aol.com [SMTP:Nanny714@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 10:09 AM To: ClearingHouse Subject: [education-consumers] RE: Evolution discussion ===================================================================== Karen is right! The Kansas state BOE eliminated the state mandate (standards requiring the teaching of evolution) and handed the decision over whether to teach, or not to teach evolution to the local districts and/or schools. The did NOT replace state mandated evolution standards with standards mandating the teaching of creationism. I am completely amazed at the controversy the elimination of this state mandate has caused! Some of those who scream the loudest when it comes to "tolerance" are the same people screaming the loudest against the Kansas state BOE's decision to eliminate this state mandate. Such hypocrisy! Those whose religious beliefs are contrary to the theory of evolution deserve tolerance and respect of their belief system equal to every other group. Nancy ===================================================================== EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet Website & Archives: http://education-consumers.com You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: pregnier@burkholder.fcps.k12.va.us TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net ===================================================================== For less mail, use the following link and choose 1) a daily digest, 2) a daily list of subjects, or 3) no mail (read postings on Web) http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or ===================================================================== EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet Website & Archives: http://education-consumers.com You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: arthurhu@halcyon.com TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net ===================================================================== For less mail, use the following link and choose 1) a daily digest, 2) a daily list of subjects, or 3) no mail (read postings on Web) http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or From: "paula martino" To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Subject: Re: Evolutionist Fantasy? Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 06:36:30 PDT Didn't find it offensive at all, Fred. It is absolutely necessary and logical for Loop members to consider and debate ALL points of view. To do anything less places us at a disadvantage and allows detractors to charge us with being uninformed and narrow minded - and have a perfectly valid point. Thanks Arthur. From: "Regnier, Paul" To: "ClearingHouse" Subject: [education-consumers] RE: Evolution discussion Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 14:26:17 -0400 Send reply to: "Regnier, Paul" ===================================================================== I am strongly against schools teaching things that are not science as science, whatever percentage of the population believes them. -----Original Message----- From: arthur hu [SMTP:arthurhu@halcyon.com] Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 2:05 PM To: ClearingHouse Cc: education-consumers@lists.dundee.net Subject: [education-consumers] RE: Evolution discussion ===================================================================== Which only proves, you can't have standards of knowledge for all when you can't even get everybody to agree on what the truth is. Even the absence of religion constitutes a religion when it is at odds with the beliefs of 40% of the population. If there isn't an Easter Bunny or Santa Claus, is it the job of the state to break this news to the kids?? > > > Paul, > From: "Regnier, Paul" To: "ClearingHouse" Subject: [education-consumers] RE: Evolution discussion Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:21:32 -0400 Send reply to: "Regnier, Paul" ===================================================================== Again, again, again. Why is it that every other developed country has national or "state" standards and control (including higher ed.) and that most of them are doing a better job educating ALL of their kids than the US? The idea that devolving control will improve education for all kids (rather than only for yours) seems empirically disproved. Are Americans somehow genetically different from people in Europe and Japan? Many kids don't have "Moms and Dads." Many Moms and Dads make bad decisions. Do you feel that our society has no responsibility for providing a good education to all kids? From: Nanny714@aol.com Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 13:01:21 EDT Subject: [education-consumers] RE: Evolution discussion To: "ClearingHouse" Send reply to: Nanny714@aol.com ===================================================================== In a message dated 8/23/99 11:01:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pregnier@burkholder.fcps.k12.va.us writes: << What would you think if Kansas eliminated a state mandate to teach algebra? I know what Kansas did and I am appalled at what they did. Would you "tolerate" schools teaching astrology or numerology as science? >> Paul, I would be all for elimination by the Kansas BOE to teach Algebra as I'm a strong proponent of any reform which shifts the power over education to those at the local level who are closest to the children and thus in the best position to make decisions regarding their educational experience. It's the centralization of power that got us into this mess to begin with. A simple shift from government control over regulating "inputs" to government control over regulating "outcomes (now called standards)" will do little to get us out of this hole. With standards-based reform, there will always be power struggles at the state and federal level far removed from everyday Moms and Dads as to who controls the standards. I'm a strong advocate of local control. And empowering Moms and Dads to decide what's in the best interest of their individual children is as local as you can get! If a parent wants their child in a Core Knowledge school, why shouldn't they have the right to decide. If another parent wants their child in a school which functions under the philosophy of John Dewey, so be it. Yet if others want Montessori or Waldorf, why not?? If others want a parochial school I'm all for gving them that right. Some put their trust in the government bureaucrats to get us out of this educational hole, others like me put our trust in those closest to the children, the parents. Nancy ===================================================================== EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet Website & Archives: http://education-consumers.com You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: arthurhu@halcyon.com TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net ===================================================================== For less mail, use the following link and choose 1) a daily digest, 2) a daily list of subjects, or 3) no mail (read postings on Web) http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or From: "paula martino" To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Subject: Re: Input and Suggestions Requested Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 06:47:52 PDT Thanks for the clarification and for the endorsement! Loved your piece on "evolutionist fantasy"! Recently, I have been rather disappointed in the Loop's conservative "all or nothing" ideology. I like to examine as many points of view as possible before I form an opinion on an issue new to me. I don't find that strategy much on the Loop. I am a supporter of teaching scientific theories like evolution and plate tectonics, but I think education should re-examine the separation of church and state issue. If we can teach students about ancient religions AKA mythology and not violate the Constitution, why can't we teach students about Judeo/Christian religious history as well? >From: "arthur hu" >Reply-To: arthurhu@halcyon.com >To: "paula martino" >Subject: Re: Input and Suggestions Requested >Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 11:33:29 -0700 > >I'm a person of some authority on education matters you can cite >as an endorser. You could probably get other people like Innes or >other people you think would have some clout as backing up your >position, vs. others who cite xyz union, etc. > > > >From: "paula martino" >To: arthurhu@halcyon.com >Subject: Re: Input and Suggestions Requested >Date sent: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:38:05 PDT > > > Thanks, Arthur. I have placed you on my address list. Now, can you >please > > explain to me what an internet authority endorser does? It's either >very > > late or I am very dense - or both. > > > > Paula. > > > > > > >From: "arthur hu" > > >Reply-To: arthurhu@halcyon.com > > >To: "paula martino" (by way of Fred Battey > > >) Subject: Re: Input and Suggestions > > >Requested Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 18:16:48 -0700 > > > I do see your point - when public education is effectively compulsory, and so is "evolution" which conflicts with the religious beliefs of citizens, then I agree. It is also a religion even when it claims not to be, since a lack of religion also consitutes religious belief. In a libertarian state where the government does not control education, no one would be coerced into sending their children into courses that indoctrinate their children with beliefs contrary to their own. Nobody has the right to ram the science or religion of one down the unwilling mind of another, even if it means you have the right to believe that arithmetic is the spawn of the devil. As long as we send our children to standardized schools which teach standardized belief systems, somebody has to be unhappy when we do not agree on those belief systems. If you look at what happened to media, is that we no longer have one monolithic "mainstream" culture any more than we have only 3 broadcast networks, or a single top 40 music chart. There are channels and radio stations and formats for every different part of society, nobody forces country boys to listen to rap, or vice versa. The schools may be the last remnant of the cultural "melting pot" where all are expected to master and appreciate exactly the same skills and curriculum to exactly the same standards. Multiculturalism is a feeble attempt at "consensus" when perhaps there can be no consensus as to whose history or culture is most important. Part of the problem I brought out with the evolution time line is that Darwin is only the tip of the iceberg. If you go down the list of items that science claims happened over 6,000 years ago, and tried to rip all of it out of the curriculum and snip it out of the school library, there wouldn't be much science left untouched. Afterall, the entire reason we have politics is to mediate between people who disagree. In the meantime, until we figure a way to restore schools outside of government control, I do think we have to create schools which respect religion rather than ban it, and come up with more creative solutions than banning either creationism or evolution. Now how will _that_ sell to the religious right? I need a position that will earn their votes even when I myself am not a fan of scientific creationism. Is that close enough? Send reply to: wa-ed-deform@egroups.com From: "Roxanne Sitler" To: Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 12:44:04 -0700 Subject: [wa-ed-deform] Re: Creationism in Schools - tolerate or ban? > Arthur: > > This rhetoric goes straight to the heart of the matter concerning separation > of school and state. From your "position" creation science is "goofy > nonsense" and cannot be "intelligently discussed" by "scientists", you take > a stand with the educational establishment that the state does indeed have > the right to teach religion - it's just not the Christian religion. I have > excerpted part of my testimony on the Freedom of Conscience testimony which > basically show why "public/government" schools shouldn't even exist. The > premise - no education is religiously neutral. Do you believe that > evolution is religiously neutral? We need to define our terms (starting > with "religion"). Evolution is at the heart is at the heart of humanism and > every other ism espoused by pagans since the beginning of time. See the > humanism quote contain in the excerpt. > ################################################################# > (Excerpt from testimony to Senate Ed Committee on Freedom of Conscience in > Ed) > You might ask, "Why is education an issue of conscience?" The required > presupposition is the idea that education is, by its very nature, religious. > The end purpose of education is determined primarily by one's worldview or > belief system. For example, under a Judeo/Christian worldview, the end > purpose is to ultimately glorify God; under a humanist worldview, it is to > perfect man. Let me ask you to consider the following subjects in light of > a worldview. Science: Should it be taught from an evolutionist standpoint > or a creationist standpoint and would that overriding philosophy affect the > nature of the education? History: Should it be taught as a mere collection > of man's accomplishments, or is it the story (HIS-story) of how God has > moved men and nations to bring about His Providential plan for mankind? > Environmental Issues: Should they be taught from the viewpoint that man is > in ultimate control, striving for universal perfection through human > reasoning - resulting in particular views on population control etc., or > should we teach that God has given mankind a stewardship of this earth with > Himself, the Sovereign God, in control? You see, we fool ourselves if we > subscribe to the belief that education can be neutral or secularized, > separating the intellect from moral implications. Every subject and issue > comes back to a worldview: one's moral, spiritual and religious beliefs. > Consider this quote from the Humanist Manifesto. > > "We believe.that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place > revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a > disservice to the human species.We find insufficient evidence for belief in > the existence of a supernatural.as non-theists, we begin with humans, not > God, nature, not deity.No deity will save us; we must save ourselves." > > Can conflicting worldviews be harmonized in education?.the answer is NO and > this is why education has brought us back to the table year after year.it is > why we have parent's rights bills, privacy bills, bills which struggle to > present one worldview over another. The state, by prescribing a > "one-worldview-fits-all", must by nature violate the conscience of the one > or the many. > > The education establishment now admits that it must train the whole child - > performance-based education is ever more laden with what the child shall be > like - his heart, his mind, his soul - the very essence of conscience > itself. If we deny that education is religious in nature, and if we > purport that the state is only attempting to educate the intellect, then we > lie and the state is a cheat. > > In 1792, James Madison said the following concerning conscience as a > property, ".a man's land, merchandise, or money, is called his property.a > man (also) has a property in his opinions and the free communication of > them. He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in > the profession and practice dictated by them. He has an equal property in > the free use of his faculties, and free choice of the objects on which to > employ them.In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he > may be equally said to have a property in his rights..Government is > instituted to protect property of every sort.This being the end of > government .Conscience is the most sacred of all property." > > And, consider this quote, "No parent can fail to resent the intrusion of > any authority between his conscience and convictions, and the soul of his > child. If the father conscientiously believes that his own creed is true > and righteous and obligatory before God, then he must intuitively regard the > intrusion of any other power between him and his child, for the purpose of > causing the rejection of that creed, as a usurpation.It may be objected that > this theory makes the parent sovereign during the child's mental and moral > minority. This affects the moulding of the child's opinions and character, > and because the parent is fallible, and may teach his child wrongly, there > ought to be a superior authority to superintend and intervene. The answer > to this is that the supreme authority must be placed somewhere. God has > indicated that, on the whole, no place is so safe for it as the hands of the > parent who has the supreme love for the child.But may parents neverthless > neglect or pervert the power? Yes, but does the State NEVER neglect and > pervert its powers?.There is no doubt that God has deposited the duty in the > safest place." R.L. Dabney about 1860. > > I close with the two quotes in this bill and a comment, "To compel a man to > furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he > disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson. This > is followed by a quote from our Washington Constitution which reads, > "Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, > belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one > shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of > religion." I submit to you today that a person's conscience is his > property; that education cannot be an operation of the training of the > intellect alone; that education is, by its very nature, spiritual, moral and > religious and that by existing tax law we are being compelled to violate our > conscience. Our person and our property are being molested and disturbed in > matters of education. To allow this to continue is to convey that the State > truly is a coward - fearful that the worldview it dictates would find > disfavor with the majority - and, therefore, the State chooses, you choose, > to dictate the conscience of the people by force of law. > ################################################################# > > This debate is as old as the earth itself and the state does teach a > religion when it teaches either creation or evolution. The real question > is, or should be, is it the state's job to educate our children at > all....What religion will it teach - what religion does it teach? Consider > this quote from John J. Dumphy from Jan/Feb 1983 issue of The Humanist > magazine, "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be > waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly > perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith; a religion of > humanity that recognized and respects the spark of what theologians call > divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless > dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be > ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to > convey humanistic values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of > educational level - preschool day care or large state university. The > classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the > new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with its adjacent evils > and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a > world in which the never realized Christian ideal of "love thy neighbor" > will finally be achieved". > > Roxanne Sitler > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: arthur hu > To: ; > Cc: ; > Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 10:35 AM > Subject: [wa-ed-deform] Creationism in Schools - tolerate or ban? > > > > My position on creationism is like guns, I don't have any guns, I > > don't > > believe in scientific creationism, but I'll defend you right to own > > guns and believe in it without having something else jammed down > > your kids without your choice in the matter. > > > > I don't believe most people are familiar with some of the arguments > > being used, such as that dinosaurs and people and trilobites all > > lived at the same time, while at the same time arguing that there > > isn't any valid evidence to the contrary. The only dating method > > that comes up with the same dates is the 4004 BC creation-by- > > bible-geneology method, every other method says trilobites died > > long before the dinos before people. > > > > The policy question is that should such books be allowed in > > public school libraries, as they currently probably are not, and how > > are the scientists supposed to intelligently discuss some of this > > (in my opinion) goofy nonsense if it's going to be effectively > > banned from public discourse? I think open discourse is worth the > > risk of the converts such a book would get (since they can always > > go to their church library or bible bookstore and get it). At worse, > > the library could attach a sticker stating that this book has > > religious content, and the state neither endorses nor disapproves > > of the content. > > > > For me, books like this actually > > strengthen the case for scientific evolution once you have a good > > understanding of the evidence that lead to the current model > > of evolution (to me Big Evolution is _all_ processes that lead > > to development of the present universe, and all of the > > evidence, not just Darwinism). There's a high school in Skagit > > county where some in the community are in an uproar that > > a science teacher is being allowed to teach about "intelligent > > design", which is a weak form of creationism to my > > understanding. > > > > For cc: libertarians, beside the fact that libertarians don't believe > > in public or government run schools, wouldn't the libertarians be > > inclined to tolerate creationism if that's the preference of a > > significant minority or majority in the community? > > > > > > Send reply to: wa-ed-deform@egroups.com > > From: "Hawken, Harold H" > > To: "'wa-ed-deform@egroups.com'" > > Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 08:12:32 -0700 > > Subject: [wa-ed-deform] Re: Sample G5/6 level creationist book> > > I don't get any of this. I can't tell if the comments are for or > against creationist thought; there seems to be facts and digs all mixed > together ........ Is there a point to all this?? And who is spewing forth > all th > > is info written with such poor English? > >> > > > How about some clarification (are you for or against these ideas), or > at least the reason we're spending so much time talking about it? > > > > > > > > > ---------- > > > > From: arthur hu[SMTP:arthurhu@halcyon.com] > > > > Reply To: wa-ed-deform@egroups.com> > > > Sent: Friday, 20 August 1999 2:26 PM > > To: wa-ed-deform@egroups.com; > education-consumers@lists.dundee.net; fredb001@mail.dreamscape.com > > > > > > Subject: [wa-ed-deform] Sample G5/6 level creationist book > > > > > > > > Without too much comment, it will probably open some eyes to see > > > > a typical creationist book I picked up from a Seattle area creationist > > > > lecture series. I believe under current laws, such books could be > > > > banned from school or even public libraries, but perhaps they > > > > provide balance. > > > > > > > > Arthur Hu arthurhu@halcyon.com Education Deform Critic > > Index: http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/edreform.htm > > listserver: http://www.egroups.com/list/wa-ed-deform > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/wa-ed-deform > > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/wa-ed-deform > http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications > > > > Everything on the timeline is based on scientific data, every one of these items is scientific proof the earth is more than 6,000 years old. You'll have to debunk every one of them (which is what creationists do). Funny thing is that creationists can't agree on a date for any of these things, evolutionists are generally in complete agreement on these dates. To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Copies to: willypete@juno.com, csahq@juno.com Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:43:33 -0700 Subject: Re: Evolutionist Fantasy? From: willypete@juno.com > > Too bad Mr. Hu offered no real scientific basis for his assertions. > Such naturalistic assumptions over origins are precisely what has > driven science back into the dark chambers of mysticism. > > Willy Peterson > > > On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:38:10 -0400 "arthur hu" (by > way of Fred Battey ) writes: > >Even though many will find this offensive I am forwarding it on as I > >think > >it's necessary to understand the thinking of others. Fred > >____________________________________________________ The Andromeda Galaxy lies 2.3 million light years away 1. Tree rings go back 20,000 years 2. Ice cores go back 10,000 years 3. Carbon dating has been proven reliable up to 50,000 years, and compared to actual algae layers in lake up to 43,000 years 4. Go date a rock, any rock. The oldest ones go to 3.5 billion years, near the time of solar system formation, same with rocks on the moon and meteorites. Don't tell me radioactive dating is an unproven theory, dates are 5. Figure out the distance of any star using brightness or red shift that is more than 6,000 light years away. The nearest irregular galxies are 170,000 light years away, Andromeda is 2 million light years away. 6. Come up with evidence to come up with alternative dates for any event science dates as more than 6,000 years ago. No dating method other than Genesis will yield 6,000 years. This is not faith, all I have to do is a little research and math and this is all easily verified. From: willypete@juno.com To: arthurhu@halcyon.com, fredb001@dreamscape.com Copies to: willypete@juno.com Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:59:51 -0700 Subject: Re: Evolutionist Fantasy? > > The burden of proof rests with you. It is your contention that the earth > is billions of years old. > If you are so certain of this assertion, then prove it, simply, > scientifically, logically. > > If it is such a basic tenet of science, then it shouldn't be any problem > to just prove it. > > C'mon Art, don't let me down. > > Willy Peterson > > > On Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:39:59 -0700 "arthur hu" > writes: > >Everything on the timeline is based on scientific data, every > >one of these items is scientific proof the earth is more than > >6,000 years old. You'll have to debunk every one of them (which > >is what creationists do). Funny thing is that creationists can't > >agree on a date for any of these things, evolutionists are > >generally in complete agreement on these dates. You don't > >come up with dates like 10,000 yrs ago for appearance of > >mongloid native americans out of random error. Do the > >creationists have dates for any of these events?? > > > >To: arthurhu@halcyon.com > >Copies to: willypete@juno.com, csahq@juno.com > >Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 19:43:33 -0700 > >Subject: Re: Evolutionist Fantasy? > >From: willypete@juno.com > > > >> > >> Too bad Mr. Hu offered no real scientific basis for his assertions. > > > >> Such naturalistic assumptions over origins are precisely what has > >> driven science back into the dark chambers of mysticism. > >> > >> Willy Peterson > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 19 Aug 1999 09:38:10 -0400 "arthur hu" > > (by > >> way of Fred Battey ) writes: > >> >Even though many will find this offensive I am forwarding it on as > >I > >> >think > >> >it's necessary to understand the thinking of others. Fred > >> >____________________________________________________ > >> >Just for laughs, did some surfing to put together the evolution > >> >theory time line. There is quite a bit of science than can't be > >> >taught > >> >if we are to assume that any dating method which leads to an > >> >event before biblical creation is faulty. > >> > > >> >On the other hand, it > >> >makes dating anything in the universe pretty easy, if it isn't in > >> >recorded history, it is not more than 5,000-10,000 years old, no > >> >need for a Hubble constant, radioactive dating, classification > >> >of strata, matching continents, tracing evolution of organisms, > >> >or red shift. And no need to figure out how anything old we see > >> >got there, it was all created as we see it in 7 days, galaxy, > >star, > >> >planet, continent, ice shelf, you name it. It's all there in all > >of > >> >3 or 4 paragraphs at the start of genesis. Who needs 3 years > >> >of biology, chemistry and physics? > >> > > >> >Should the children of creationists be taught the non-biblical > >> >theories at all, be taught both, or only "scientfic creationism" > >> >(now there's an oxymoron...) What other religions have mounted > >> >official objections to evolutionism? > >> > > >> >Evolution time line time before present > >> >------------------------------- > >> >10-20B age of universe, big bang > >> >10-20B oldest observable universe > >> >15B farthest observed galaxy > >> >10B oldest stars in Milky Way > >> >4.5B rock from mars > >> >4.5B Precambrian > >> >4.6B earth, solar system and sun > >> >3.5B first bacteria fossils > >> >1.7B Bottom of Grand Canyon laid down > >> >1B youngest stars in Milky Way > >> >640M Large soft organisms > >> >600M glacial age > >> >544M Phanerozoic / Paleozoic Era > >> >540M Cambrian - explosion of animals, > >> > trilobite fossils > >> >435 ice age > >> >410M Silurian - jawed fish > >> >300M longest ice age > >> >2-300M pangea, dinosaurs emerged > >> >255M great extinction of all time > >> >250M Top layer of Grand canyon > >> >245M Mesozoic Era > >> >200M first birds > >> >150M ice age cycle time > >> >100M fossil sturgeon > >> >6-70M Rocky Mountains form > >> >65M Great dinosaur extinction > >> >65M Yucatan KT layer strike > >> >65M Cenozoic era - modern life, continents > >> >35M Grand Canyon river is on plain > >> >20M Start to cut Grand Canyon > >> >4-6M men diverge from apes > >> >4.4M earliest man or manlike > >> >2.5M enters current ice age > >> >2.5M stone tools > >> >1.8M ice at poles, ice age > >> >200K africans split > >> >100K homo sapiens > >> >40K human art, paintings > >> >30K last neandertal > >> >20K Huon Pine Tasmania (oldest tree) > >> >---- fantasy according to creationists --- > >> >5-10K Biblical age of earth and universe, history > >> >5K Great flood > >> >5K microevolution of all post-ark races and subspecies > >> >4K Tower of babel, creation of all modern languages > >> >2,000 New Testament > >> >200 Industrial Age > >> >100 Aircraft > >> >50 Computers > >> >25 Space Travel > >> > > >> >Arthur Hu arthurhu@halcyon.com Education Deform Critic > >> >Index: http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/edreform.htm > >> >listserver: http://www.egroups.com/list/wa-ed-deform > >> > > >> > >> ___________________________________________________________________ > >> Get the Internet just the way you want it. > >> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! > >> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. > > > > > >Arthur Hu arthurhu@halcyon.com Education Deform Critic > >Index: http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/edreform.htm > >listserver: http://www.egroups.com/list/wa-ed-deform > > ___________________________________________________________________ > Get the Internet just the way you want it. > Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! > Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. Good point, you can only take "rights" so far. Still, seems the only way to make these guys go away is maybe give these guys some time to tell people how science shows that people and dinosaurs and trilobites lived at the same time?? Or maybe not - the failure of science to directly address these crackpot ideas is a big reason why they are so popular. From: "Lauren Bain" To: Subject: Re: lpforum: Creationism in Schools - tolerate or ban? Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 21:19:20 -0700 > Why are you trying to satisfy an irrational demand? Would you try to > satisfy them if they wanted to ban Jews from P.E.? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: arthur hu > To: Lauren Bain > Sent: Monday, August 23, 1999 7:39 PM > Subject: Re: lpforum: Creationism in Schools - tolerate or ban? > > > > More likely let kids opt out of testing on this stuff, or let them spend > time > > doing independent study or let them use space for classes if they > > want to bring in their own teachers? Still looking for a way to > > satisfy the christian right on this one short of blowing up the public > > schools (which appears to be the ultimate solution) > > > > From: "Lauren Bain" > > To: > > Subject: Re: lpforum: Creationism in Schools - tolerate or ban? > > Date sent: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 15:26:10 -0700 > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----