It has to do with the teaching of Evolution in our schools, and whether or not to also include Creationism, or what is more recently been designated as "Intelligent Design" or "ID" in the science curriculum.
Here is my position.
I'm against any attempt to insert Creationism or "Intelligent Design" into the science curriculum in our elementary and high schools.
Yes, I do believe in Evolution. Yes, I also believe in a God. And there are many Evolutionists who also believe there's a God, but they keep their religion personal and separate from science.
As you all know, and as I have mentioned before, I'm in the process of converting to Judaism, and so, I go to a Reform Synagogue every Saturday morning, on Shabbot, for Torah Studies and Religious Services.
Back in February 14,2009 or (Shavet 20,5769) which was 2 days after the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, our Rabbi decided to talk about Charles Darwin during our Torah Studies, and he was also mentioned during our Religious Services. On that day, we honored Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, and he also mentioned the recent controversy in which the Texas Board Of Education was voting on whether or not to include "Intelligent Design" ID, in the science curriculum.
My Rabbi says he's against it, because science and religion should remain separate endeavors, that they should not include Creationism or what is now called "Intelligent Design" or ID is the science classes.
My Rabbi also believes in Evolution, and he supports all science, and that Evolution is NOT atheistic as some people would have us believe.
I believe that here in the USA, we should be free to believe in anything we choose. I'm all for freedom of religion, and I'm also for intellectual and academic freedom. But I also believe, that in order to truly have freedom OF religion, we also should have freedom FROM religion, so I'm against having people force their religious beliefs on me, and at the same time, I shall not force my religious beliefs on anybody else.
So, here is my position, and anybody is free to either agree or disagree with my position.
Yes, I do believe in a God, but no, I do not take the creation story literally.
I believe that ALL religions have their legends and myths, and Judaism and/or Christianity is no exception to that rule, because the Torah and Tannach (What Christians call The Old Testament) has it's legends and mythologies just like ALL other religions. The creations story of the 6 days, was taken from an ancient Babylonian myth which also depicted the world being created in 6 days, the difference being, that in the Torah, it was done by one God alone, while in the Babylonian myth, it involve a battle between to gods, and the surviving god formed the earth from the body of the defeated god. The Babylonian myth was polytheistic, involving more than one god, while the creation story in the Torah was monotheistic, involving only one God, but both myths depict the creation in 6 days. Many of the stories in the Bible were actually taken from myths and legends from many other religions. That is a historical fact.
That is why I DON'T TAKE EVERYTHING in the Bible so literally, and neither does my Rabbi.
I have no problem with Fundamentalists and with what they believe, as long as they do not try to force their beliefs into the political arena or into the science curriculum in our schools.
I'm sorry, but Creationism or Intelligent Design, ID, is NOT science, and therefore should not be injected into science text books. I don't mean to offend anybody, this is the way I feel on this subject.
Your free to believe in anything you wish, that is what America is all about, or at least, that is what it should be all about.
But unfortunately, some of the members in the Texas Board of Education are trying to inject their beliefs into the science curriculum, in an attempt to usurp the teaching of science.
Here is an article on a web site at:
http://ncseweb.org/news/2009/04/setback ... xas-004710
OK, now that is out of the way . . .
A setback for science education in Texas
April 1st, 2009
At its March 25-27, 2009, meeting, the Texas state board of education voted to adopt a flawed set of state science standards, which will dictate what is taught in science classes in elementary and secondary schools, as well as provide the material for state tests and textbooks, for the next decade. Although creationists on the board were unsuccessful in inserting the controversial "strengths and weaknesses" language from the old set of standards, they proposed a flurry of synonyms â?? such as "sufficiency or insufficiency" and "supportive and not supportive" â?? and eventually prevailed with a requirement that students examine "all sides of scientific evidence." Additionally, the board voted to add or amend various standards in a way that encourages the presentation of creationist claims about the complexity of the cell, the completeness of the fossil record, and the age of the universe.
The proceedings were confusing and contentious, and it is understandable that journalists differed in their initial assessments of the significance of the vote: for example, the Dallas Morning News (March 28, 2009) headlined its article as "Conservatives lose another battle over evolution," while the Wall Street Journal (March 27, 2009) headlined its article as "Texas Opens Classroom Door for Evolution Doubts," and the Austin-American-Statesman (March 28, 2009) played it safe with "State education board approves science standards." As the dust settled, though, NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott â?? who was invited to testify before the board at its meeting â?? commented, in a March 30, 2009, press release, "The final vote was a triumph of ideology and politics over science."
"The board majority chose to satisfy creationist constituents and ignore the expertise of highly qualified Texas scientists and scientists across the country," Scott added. Among the organizations calling upon the board to adopt the standards as originally drafted by a panel of Texas scientists and educators were the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, the Paleontological Society, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the Texas Association of Biology Teachers, as well as fifty-four scientific and education societies that endorsed a statement circulated by NCSE. The board's chair, avowed creationist Don McLeroy, responded by crying (video is available on NCSE's YouTube channel), during the meeting, "Somebody's got to stand up to experts!"
Writing in Salon (March 29, 2009), Gordy Slack â?? the author of The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA (Jossey-Bass 2007) â?? explained that after Kitzmiller v. Dover, "advocates of teaching neo-creationism have been forced to seek other ways into public science classrooms. Enter the 'strengths and weaknesses' strategy." After the creationist faction on the board failed to reinsert the "strengths and weaknesses" language, NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott commented, "they had a fallback position, which was to continue amending the standards to achieve through the back door what they couldn't achieve upfront." Slack added, "Each of the amendments singles out an old creationist argument, strips it of its overtly ideological language, and requires teachers and textbook publishers to adopt it."
Rachel Courtland, a blogger for New Scientist (March 31, 2009), examined a case in point: the deletion of a reference in the standards to the age of the universe ("about 14 billion years ago"). As revised, the standards require students to learn "current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe," with the actual age absent. "Is the new standard an invitation for young-Earth proponents to teach students that the Earth and the universe beyond it is just a few thousand years old?" asked Courtland, adding, "Some teachers could conceivably see it as an opening. According to a 2008 study ["Evolution and Creationism in America's Classrooms: A National Portrait" from PLoS Biology 2008; 6 (5)], 16% of US science teachers believe humans were created by God in the last 10,000 years."
Texas groups defending the integrity of science education were dismayed at the result. Kathy Miller, the president of the Texas Freedom Network, Kathy Miller, said in a March 27, 2009, statement, "The word 'weaknesses' no longer appears in the science standards. But the document still has plenty of potential footholds for creationist attacks on evolution to make their way into Texas classrooms. Through a series of contradictory and convoluted amendments, the board crafted a road map that creationists will use to pressure publishers into putting phony arguments attacking established science into textbooks." There is a historical precedent in the textbook adoption process from 2003, when creationists selectively applied the "strengths and weaknesses" language to try to dilute the treatment of evolution in the textbooks under consideration.
On his blog for the Houston Chronicle (March 27, 2009), Steven Schafersman of Texas Citizens for Science optimistically commented, "I think we can work around the few flawed standards," but lamented, "But the point is that there shouldn't be ANY flawed standards. The science standards as submitted by the science writing teams were excellent and flaw-free. All the flaws were added by politically unscrupulous SBOE members with an extreme right-wing religious agenda to support Creationism." Having attended (and blogged from) all three days of the meeting and observed the confusion and contention among the members of the board, he ruefully added, "this is not the way to develop educational policy in one of the most wealthy and powerful states in the most wealthy and powerful country in the world in the 21st century."
Even The New York Times (March 30, 2009) took notice of the plight of science education in Texas, editorially commenting, "This was not a straightforward battle over whether to include creationism or its close cousin, intelligent design, in the science curriculum. Rather, this was a struggle to insert into the state science standards various phrases and code words that may seem innocuous or meaningless at first glance but could open the door to doubts about evolution. ... At the end of a tense, confusing three-day meeting, Darwin's critics claimed that this and other compromise language amounted to a huge victory that would still allow their critiques into textbooks and classrooms. One can only hope that teachers in Texas will use common sense and teach evolution as scientists understand it."
The Austin American-Statesman (April 1, 2009) editorially complained, "Chairman Don McLeroy, Dunbar and others have turned the education board into a national joke. But when it comes to teaching Texas children, what they have done is not funny. Last week's discussion about shaping the teaching of science to allow doubts about evolution was surreal. Biology texts now must include 'all sides' of scientific theories ... The underlying point is that a board majority wants creationism to be part of the scientific discussion. And they got enough of a foot in the door with their language about teaching 'all sides' of scientific theories that publishers will have to include criticism of evolution if they want to sell science textbooks to Texas schools."
Detailed, candid, and often uninhibited running commentary on the proceedings is available on a number of blogs: Texas Citizens for Science's Steven Schafersman was blogging and posting photographs on the Houston Chronicle's Evo.Sphere blog, the Texas Freedom Network was blogging on its TFN Insider blog, and NCSE's Joshua Rosenau was blogging on his personal blog, Thoughts from Kansas (hosted by ScienceBlogs). For those wanting to get their information from the horse's mouth, minutes and audio recordings of the board meeting will be available on the Texas Education Agency's website as well as on Tony Whitson's Curricublog. NCSE's previous reports on events in Texas are available on-line, and of course NCSE will continue to monitor the situation as well as to assist those defending the teaching of evolution in the Lone Star State.
I have put up some links to some You Tube videos, a 17 part series of 17 videos titled "Foundational Falsehoods Of Creationism" and the transcripts for each of the 17 videos.
To view the 17 videos, and to read the transcripts thereof, just go to my latest topic titled . . .
The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism - 17 Videos
http://www.sportssuck.org/phpbb2/viewto ... 8309#p8309
Now, I am a firm believer in The 10 Commandments, therefore, I'm against lies, fraud, and deceptions, and the truth is, many of these so-called "Creationist Scientists" can not make a strong case for their position, and so, they have resorted to lies, deceptions, and outright fraud!
That being said, they have all violated at least one of The 10 Commandments, thou shalt not lie!
So, please do take the time to watch the videos that I have put up in a separate topic. Please watch them with an open mind, and I would welcome your comments.
Thank you.
I'm fat and sassy! I love to sing & dance & stomp my feet & really rock your world!
