Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.

Lesson Plans


Re: Fw: creationism vs. evolutionism

[ Thread ][ Subject ][ Author ][ Date ]
Lincoln Arts (lincarts)
Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:28:59 -0700


I certainly don't want to get into a philosophical (sp?) discussion of
religion on this site (those discussions haven't always gone over too well
on this site in the past).

However, .... Hasn't the Kansas state school board determined that state
tests will not have science questions that allude to/cover evolution in any
way? And if that is true, doesn't this mean that most districts won't have
it taught in the classroom because they'll want teachers to concentrate on
teaching what WILL be on the tests?

Just curious,
Jeanne

>----- Original Message -----
>From: Lawrence A. Parker/OCCTI <occti>
>To: OPEN <open>; <wduncan>
>Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 8:37 AM
>Subject: creationism vs. evolutionism
>
>
>> > > Didn't Kansas just OK teaching creationism and not mentioning
>evolution?
>> >
>> > Yes, Sorry to admit it but our state school board is in the dark ages.
>> What
>> > they really did was say each district can do with the issue as they
>> please.
>> > That's not leadership, but that's what happens anyway. We spend lots of
>> hours (I
>> > did) writing standards. And then we go back to our classrooms and do
>our
>> own
>> > thing anyway.
>>
>> Apart from my opinion that the teaching of creationism should be left to
>the
>> church and that a teaching of creationism to the exclusion of evolutionary
>> theory in the schools shudders of church control of public schools
>> (parochial schools are, of course, another matter), perhaps teachers
>should,
>> so far as they are able, teach or present both. They are both, after all,
>> only theories, and both most likely have as many adherents who claim that
>> theirs is the 'truth'. Scientific stellar theory, for example, can only
>> account for the creation of the universe back to within something like
>> 1/200th of second AFTER the 'beginning'. What happened before that they
>do
>> not at this time know, but at least they can present evidence and data for
>> everything up to that point.
>>
>> So, present both as theories, then examine them according to the same
>agreed
>> upon standards/criteria - evidence, consistency, integrity,
>reasonableness,
>> rationality, etc.
>>
>> To make clear my own position, although I was raised Methodist and am in
>> fact married to an ecumenical church organist, I am religiously an atheist
>> and philosophically an agnostic. By this I mean that religious belief is
>> just that - a belief. It depends on how you answer the question, "Do you
>> *believe* that there is a God or gods?" This is not a question of
>knowledge
>> ("Do you *know* that there is a God or gods?"). Philosophically, I admit
>a
>> lack of knowledge in either direction. Gnosticism was an early form of
>> religious belief based on an experience by the individual of God's
>presence,
>> upon which someone based their belief in the implied 'fact'. I have never
>> experienced anything which would lead me to believe that there is a
>'supreme
>> being or beings'. Thus, I am A-gnostic.
>>
>> Interestingly, as science has delved deeper and deeper into the fabric of
>> the universe through quantum studies, it has become clearer and clearer
>that
>> the deeper we look, everything is the same at the most sublime level. A
>> point the Taoist have maintained since the writings of Lao-tse nearly
>3,500
>> years ago. Everything else is created from this fabric by our perceiving
>> minds (like waves in an ocean by the effects of wind and gravity) and is
>in
>> a sense, when compared with the nature of the pervasive ocean, illusion.
>> Or, Maya, as the Hindus have referred to it.
>>
>> I leave it to you teachers to consider these things and then do your own
>> thing, but be sure that you are being fair to the children.
>>
>> Larry Parker
>>
>>
>
>