No @Robert_Byers1 is right. They are banned because the Truth-TM is offensive to godless teachers like myself.
1 Like
No this is inaccurate. They are censored, a historical impulse of humanity still lingering EVEN in English civilization, or banned based on the claim they break the separation concepts in the constitution.
it has nothing to do with the merits of creationism. Thats just the point. Enough of the population thinks it has merits to have it taught also AND I think I read a majority think both sides should be taught.
Instead state censorship is justified based on the constitution.
This new bill is weird but its makes the equation once more. THe state in banning religious conclusions is stepping on the students rights of religion. sure they are.
the greater hpe should be this introduces the illogical and obviously unconstitional STATE censorship used againt “religious” conclusions and culture.
THEY first said conclusions wre wrong in subjects while saying they were not saying they were wrong.
I’m concerned about YEC censorship of non YEC ideas. Aren’t you?
5 Likes
This is a terrible lie at the heart of all quasi/pseudo/anti science like YEC amongst many others. Essentially they tell their followers that their common sense without any knowledge is sufficient to come to correct conclusions about any phenomenon. I think Venema highlights this well in this article:
Humans are not well suited to have “common sense” (or to use Axe’s term, “common science”) intuitions about phenomena that are outside our range of everyday experiences.
So it doesn’t matter what the majority want or think are true. This logically can lead to many conflicting ‘answers With different cultural beliefs in different parts of our own country and across the world should this be a universal policy.
2 Likes
This is about the public education. yet YEC doesn’t censor non yEC ideas unless its on thier turf.
YEC is always the oppresed group and is sensitive to full inclusion in the public domaine of all.
its the other guys who use the government to censor and ban the historic conclusions of Christiandom.
The great design of a free people is freedom to seek and artiuculate the truth in important matters or any matters. therefore state censorship in America, eventually Canada, should be in our time finally destroyed.
i guess it must come from the native conservative republican circles first. Freedom of thought and speech , on a curve, is a gain for mankind. Especially the accurate and good guys.
Well its not accurate to define it as a lie but at best a error in good conscience.
I have read folks saying these things for years and know they saiod it in ancient times.
They are wrong. iTs just someone saying the people are inferior to other people and can’t understand things and so can’t be trusted to weigh the issue in reflection.
The wrong side especially says this I note.
there probably is no suich thing as common sense. instead there is a general intellect ability of all adults, unless medical problems or drunk, in which we equally can weigh, after careful attention, the merits of evidence on any subject. Thats common sense. Common smarts.
I understand a majority of americans think bothy sides should get equal time etc in schools on origin matters and that because trhey think they can weigh the facts and get conclusions as well as only getting one side and not the other.
Your side saying they should only get your side’s stuff is saying they what they conclude is not intellectually of great merit anyways. If they are too dumb, as you say, to understand stuff then why are they smart enough to understand your side??
Freedom, common smarts, YES would add to creationism(s0 and lose to the others. This because we have the evidence. I guess your side embracing censorship IS the right last trench hope!
The 1925 Butler act made it illegal to teach evolutionary science in Tennessee. Censorship of a non-YEC idea in public education. Christians using government censorship to ban the historic conclusions of science.
1 Like
Exactly what are you proposing I teach? And how much time do propose I spend on it? I teach Animal Biology to primarily college freshman. We spend approximately one week on cell structure/function, during which I discuss Origin of Life research - Deep Sea Vents, Panspermia, RNA World, etc. We also spend approximately one week on DNA, during which we talk about DNA homology, pseudogenes, transposons, chromosome fusion, etc. Any references to evolution are linked to data, e.g. “Modern human DNA contains sequences also found in bananas. Scientists believe this is because we share a common ancestor.”. I guess I could add “YECs think it’s because God made it that way,” but I don’t see how that adds much to the conversation.
6 Likes
That was a right of the people. It was not saying the constitution allowed such things. It was the peoples will what their kids were taught. These days again the peopl are denied thier will. Anyways saying it was wrong to censor back then is not case for doing it today.
That is to be decided by those who decide these things. its simply that if important origin conclusions are taught, indeed must be very little, then the creationist ideas must not be banned. I think the people should decide these things and they would be reasonable. An exercide in freedom and intellectual investigation of nature. i think it would, in a tiny marginal way, introduce more kids to a interest in these things. cEnsoring one side just introduces them to acedemic and government control on interesting things. Spoils the fun for many.
That doesn’t answer my question. I don’t teach creationism because there’s nothing to teach. It’s not censorship, it’s lack of data.
3 Likes
another point but creationists could get up excellent educational material for the schools and surely this will happen in the future once enough effort is made and interest…
If you got some creationist material are you saying you would teach it? Watch out!
If the creationist material was quality scientific research, I would definitely teach it. But if it’s the garbage that’s out there, definitely not. I’ve read quite a bit of the stuff put out by the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovey Institute. So far I’m not impressed. I am skeptical that “excellent educational materials” could be created. It’s not that folks haven’t been trying for the past 30 years.
4 Likes
She’s saying no such thing exists. There isn’t one piece of positive evidence in the natural world that supports your ideas on a young earth or global flood.
5 Likes
He’s a she…but yes.
1 Like