The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Youngstown, Ohio, teaches intelligent-design creationism as fact

Posted 16 May 2016 by Matt Young

A commenter on an earlier thread directed our attention to an article by Zack Kopplin in the Daily Beast, "School teaching creationism with video from Islamic sex cult." The headline may be a bit over the top, but the gist of the article is that the school district is employing materials developed by Harun Yahya. To give due credit, here is what the commenter, "Charley Horse," wrote on the earlier thread:

A bit off topic ... but of interest. School Teaching Creationism With Video From Islamic Sex Cult. An Ohio school district is using a video made by a Holocaust-denying Muslim to undermine evolution in science class. QUOTE A BIT: A curriculum map recommends teachers in this public school district show a creationist video, Cambrian Fossils and the Creation of Species as part of 10th grade science education. The video claims that the Cambrian Explosion "totally invalidates the theory of evolution." ...The district's curriculum map calls for teaching "an alternative theory called Intelligent Design," which is another name for creationism. Youngstown suggests teachers show a creationist video, Unlocking the Mystery of Life, produced by the right wing Christian advocacy group, Focus on the Family and by the Discovery Institute, a creationist think tank.... "Students are reminded how the irreducibly complex system like the flagellum of a bacterial cell could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece and serves as a counter-example to evolution," says the curriculum, citing another disproven creationist talking point. It also recommends the video Darwin's Dilemma, also produced by the Discovery Institute. Other materials call evolution a "theory in crisis," and were created by the All About GOD ministries.

The Daily Beast article directs us to a "curriculum map" and notes,

A curriculum map (PDF) recommends teachers in this public school district show a creationist video, Cambrian Fossils and the Creation of Species as part of 10th grade science education. The video claims that the Cambrian Explosion "totally invalidates the theory of evolution." The Cambrian Explosion was a time period, nearly 550 million years ago, where, over the next tens of millions of years, the number of species on Earth experienced a (relatively) rapid expansion by evolutionary standards. Christian creationists regularly point to this explosion of life as evidence for creation by God and against evolution. Blink and you'd miss the Islamic connection in the video. A black screen flashes for less than one second that says "this film is based on the works of Harun Yahya." In the right corner, there's a gold bubble that says, "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah" in Arabic.

I followed the link to the curriculum map. I am not a biologist, and I did not read all 24 pages in detail, but, sure enough, on page 3/24, I found,

5. Teacher explains Darwin's dilemma: The geologically-sudden appearance of dozens of major complex animal types in the fossil record without any trace of the gradual transitional steps Charles Darwin had predicted. Students watch a video which gives a description of the Cambrian explosion and traits of Cambrian life forms that existed hundreds millions years ago, which still amaze scientists today. Students discuss the issues presented in the video and consider the big question that the Cambrian Explosion poses - where does the massive increase in genetic information come from for the development of these new animal types? Students consider another possible view of the dilemma in video 2 by considering changes in protein structure. video 1 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyEHNg1O3QM (8:29) video 2 -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h38Xi-Jz9yk (4:58) 6. Teacher explains that in recent decades Charles Darwin's explanation of evolution through natural selection has been challenged by an alternative theory called Intelligent Design[.] Class does both parts of the activity A and B, with a follow-up class discussion for both A and B. A. Students watch two videos to consider the evidence being used to explain the great diversity and complexity of life. Teacher discusses each video after viewing; students work in small groups to identify the key supporting points for each argument. Video titles - Unlocking the Mystery of Life video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85q8y-z9Cyk - part 1 Explains Darwin's theory video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyGgkShTZvU - part 2 Explains basis for Intelligent Design [creationism] B. In small groups students read one of several articles (attached); compare findings and cite evidence in the article to support /contradict the theories; groups report out the information they found; teacher records arguments on chart paper as students highlight their own copy of the article and/or take notes. Class Discussion (see questions below.) Students analyze and critique the positions of each side of the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate by referring to the information presented i)n [sic] the videos/articles and through answering the following questions:     1. Which side uses more factual information and statistical data to support its position? How convincing is the support?     2. Which uses more historical and / or societal references for support?     3. Which allows for more supposition or interpretation?     4. Which position is more often on the defensive? And, why do you think so? After the class discussion each student assesses the usefulness of each source in answering the research question; integrates information into the text selectively to maintain the flow of ideas, avoiding plagiarism and following a standard format for citation. 7. Teacher explains another evolution theory [sic!], modern evolutionary synthesis; students take notes. Students are reminded how the irreducibly complex system like the flagellum of a bacterial cell could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece and serves as a counter-example to evolution (students saw this presented in the T-L #6 video -- part 2)

Students "are reminded ..." that the flagellum "could not have evolved slowly." In other words, for all the appearance of objectivity that preceded article 7, students are now told unequivocally that intelligent-design creationism is fact and the modern synthesis is flawed. That, it seems to me, is tantamount to teaching religion in a public school class and should be prohibited.

70 Comments

W. H. Heydt · 16 May 2016

Talk about a lawsuit waiting to happen....

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 May 2016

4. Which position is more often on the defensive? And, why do you think so?
Which position is more often attacked by ignorant loonies? Ah ha, evolution is. Told you it was wrong. Glen Davidson

Michael Fugate · 16 May 2016

6.A. The supposed explanation of evolution is by the Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer?

Mike Elzinga · 16 May 2016

Over the last 50 years ID/creationists have always sampled the politictal winds for opportunities to push their sectarian agenda. We are in a particularly nasty political season in which the Far Right Wing has dominated the core of the Republican Party and has used purity tests to purge the Republican Party of moderates.

Furthermore, the Republican party has benefited from poor voter turnout in the 2010 election season by winning seats in state legislatures and then losing no time to take advantage of the opportunity to gerrymander districts to keep themselves in power.

ID/creationist are aware of this current political advantage; they are like a dormant herpes zoster virus waiting to give us a nasty case of the shingles when we are in a weakened state.

Matt Young · 16 May 2016

1000 apologies: I forgot to note that the author of the article was Zack Kopplin. I remedied this oversight a moment ago.

Matt Young · 16 May 2016

W. H. Heydt said: Talk about a lawsuit waiting to happen....
I am afraid that I alerted Americans United (though they probably know already), with links to this article, the Daily Beast article, and the curriculum map.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

When a GENETIC GENOME Law suit?

I am really laughing here!

You guys are weird!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f · 16 May 2016

Sorry!

When "does" a GENETIC GENOME Law suit? IT is supposed to be a passed on DNA info!?

I am really laughing here!

You guys are weird!

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 16 May 2016

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: Sorry! When "does" a GENETIC GENOME Law suit? IT is supposed to be a passed on DNA info!? I am really laughing here! You guys are weird!
And how far a GENETIC GENOME Law suit? I love corrections to senseless statements that leave them equally senseless. Glen Davidson

gnome de net · 16 May 2016

As a resident of the state of Ohio, I offer no apologies for what's happening in Youngstown. I do, however, regret that I am not a resident in that school district and consequently have no legal standing to initiate what I hope is an inevitable lawsuit.

Just Bob · 16 May 2016

2. Which uses more historical and / or societal references for support?

I'm not even sure what they think the right answer is to that, but what the hell difference do either make to the validity of scientific fact and theory?

eric · 16 May 2016

Be sure to check out pages 11-14 too.

1. They've thrown YECism under the bus, going squarely with OECism (at least in this case).

2. The ID unit practically quotes Behe on irreducible complexity, even going so far as to use Behe's mousetrap example, yet does not cite Behe by name at all.

3. Flagellum as motor!

Just Bob · 16 May 2016

https://me.yahoo.com/a/TmT6tr96j8I7z.NSXVrs5i9QwNXEtw--#1813f said: Sorry! When "does" a GENETIC GENOME Law suit? IT is supposed to be a passed on DNA info!? I am really laughing here! You guys are weird!
George, old buddy, here's some English teacher's advice: Before you hit "Submit," read what you wrote out loud. The out loud part is vital, because it makes you slow down and realize that the words you wanted there--that your mind "sees" there--are not really there. Also, you might get an inkling of just how crazy you sound. Be sure to shout every time you get to an all caps word.

Matt Young · 16 May 2016

No more comments from 813f or his antagonists, please. I will send silly comments to the BW.

W. H. Heydt · 16 May 2016

Matt Young said:
W. H. Heydt said: Talk about a lawsuit waiting to happen....
I am afraid that I alerted Americans United (though they probably know already), with links to this article, the Daily Beast article, and the curriculum map.
No need to apologize. If you have the contacts, it's good for you to use them to begin the process of lowering the boom on this nonsense.

Matt Young · 16 May 2016

W. H. Heydt said:

No need to apologize. If you have the contacts, it's good for you to use them to begin the process of lowering the boom on this nonsense.

I have no contacts there -- just looked at their Website till I found Report a violation. I do not think we should inundate them, so I am hesitant to recommend that others do the same. If they take the report seriously, then 1 report ought to be enough. I will let you know if I hear back from them, but they warn that it might be some time.

Matt Young · 16 May 2016

Be sure to check out pages 11-14 too.

Page 11 has a pretty good article by 2 editors of Natural History, Richard Milner and Vittorio Maestro; they make clear that ID creationism is not scientific. It is juxtaposed with some nonsense about mousetraps and flagella. I wonder whether the Natural History article was contributed (as opposed to plagiarized from a NH website), and whether the 2 editors knew what they were contributing to.

Joe Felsenstein · 16 May 2016

The wording of the curriculum plan suggests that it is cut-and-paste from some Discovery Institute original. Would be worth finding out whether this was so.

Joe Felsenstein · 16 May 2016

I did a little searching on phrases -- so far no smoking gun.

harold · 16 May 2016

eric said: Be sure to check out pages 11-14 too. 1. They've thrown YECism under the bus, going squarely with OECism (at least in this case). 2. The ID unit practically quotes Behe on irreducible complexity, even going so far as to use Behe's mousetrap example, yet does not cite Behe by name at all. 3. Flagellum as motor!
Yet as always there is a wink to YEC. "ID proponents accept that some species do change and that Earth is much more than 6,000 years old" "(And by 'much more' we could mean 1000 years more, yuk, yuk.)" The word "billion" is conspicuously absent here, let alone the actual age of the Earth. "but reject that evolution accounts for the array of species. In some circles, however, opposition to the concept of evolution has persisted to the present. The argument from design has recently been revived by a number of academics with scientific credentials, who maintain that their version of the idea (unlike Paley’s) is soundly supported by both microbiology and mathematics. These antievolutionists differ from fundamentalist creationists" Stander boilerplate "it isn't religious because some people who deny evolution claim to differ slight from us" language. "in that they accept that some species do change (but not much) " Wait, by not much? So it's not just that almost everything evolved but Cambrian explosion and bacterial flagellum were magically created by a vague neo-Platonic entity or alien? It's that species really are immutable? Whoops, sounds like YEC isn't being treated too badly here. "and that Earth is much more than 6,000 years old. Like their predecessors, however, they reject the idea that evolution accounts for the array of species we see today, and they seek to have their concept—known as intelligent design—included in the science curriculum of schools." This whole thing is just a throwback to the year 2000. This is just copy and paste, in spirit at least, and very probably literally, from the DI "we'll sneak it in to schools for you by denying it's religious" playbook of the glory years. It doesn't really matter how YEC it is, it's bullshit either way, but I do detect that it is not actually anti-YEC but rather, merely, the standard DI plausible deniability tactic.

DavidK · 16 May 2016

I've forwarded items to AU before. They do take note.

eric · 16 May 2016

harold said: This whole thing is just a throwback to the year 2000. This is just copy and paste, in spirit at least, and very probably literally, from the DI "we'll sneak it in to schools for you by denying it's religious" playbook of the glory years.
It does look that way. Check out the strike-throughs at the bottom of the natural history article; it appears it was written sometime around the year 2002, when the Ohio board was considering ID.

Robert Byers · 16 May 2016

Well these things come down to a finale equation.
If teaching conclusions about origins touch on a creator or the bible and are illegal THEREFORE because they are under the title RELIGION THEN teaching conclusions about origins opposed to a creator/bible or by censoring same is the state teaching ABOUT religion. Teaching religion are wrong. So breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship against the religious stuff.

The state can't censor religion in subjects about truth without saying they are saying the religious stuff is not true.
How can you beat these equation???
How!!!

What was the intent of the founders of the nation when making the constitution etc??
Is this that complicated?

phhht · 16 May 2016

Robert Byers said: Well these things come down to a finale equation. If teaching conclusions about origins touch on a creator or the bible and are illegal THEREFORE because they are under the title RELIGION THEN teaching conclusions about origins opposed to a creator/bible or by censoring same is the state teaching ABOUT religion. Teaching religion are wrong. So breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship against the religious stuff. The state can't censor religion in subjects about truth without saying they are saying the religious stuff is not true. How can you beat these equation??? How!!! What was the intent of the founders of the nation when making the constitution etc?? Is this that complicated?
But assertions about the putative involvement of creator gods in the world are NOT TRUE, Robert Byers. There are no gods here in reality. There is not the slightest shred of empirical evidence for the reality of gods. If you disagree, why not cite some?

Henry J · 16 May 2016

Not to mention that there's no reason to assume that the conclusions of biology necessarily contradict the existence of God. The only thing it contradicts is the assumption that a God wouldn't (or couldn't?) do it that way.

Not to mention that the traditional boundaries between different sciences are for the convenience of teachers and students, not because of any sharp boundary in subject matter. Outside of school environments, people can't really afford to ignore something just because it's lumped under some other subject label.

Just Bob · 16 May 2016

Oh, no! This one IS going to be the "Waterloo" of evolution!

For sure, this time!

Scott F · 16 May 2016

Robert Byers said: Well these things come down to a finale equation. If teaching conclusions about origins touch on a creator or the bible and are illegal THEREFORE because they are under the title RELIGION THEN teaching conclusions about origins opposed to a creator/bible or by censoring same is the state teaching ABOUT religion. Teaching religion are wrong. So breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship against the religious stuff. The state can't censor religion in subjects about truth without saying they are saying the religious stuff is not true. How can you beat these equation??? How!!!
Well, that's pretty easy. (Actually, you have no idea what an "equation" actually is.) Creationism and the Bible say 6,000 years and fixed species. God did it, and it's all a mystery. Stop asking pesky questions. *All* of Science, and *all* of the actual Evidence on agree 13.799 (!) billion years for the universe, 4.54 billion years for the sun and the Earth, and at least 2.4 billion years for Life, and species that Evolve. Natural forces did it, and we have a pretty good how it all happened, but you can be a part of discovering the answers to questions that we don't yet know how to ask. Let the kids decide. Do you really want open debate about religion in Science Class? Shall we turn the Science Class into a Comparative Religion Class? You're guaranteed to lose more than you are now. Remember, there are several hundred, if not several thousand "creation" stories, all of which must be taught in your "Science" class.
What was the intent of the founders of the nation when making the constitution etc?? Is this that complicated?
Nope, not complicated at all. The majority of the Founders believed in the principles of free enquiry of the Enlightenment. They would strongly agree with Modern Science, and would reject your stale Creationism. P.S. Pretty surprising that they can conclude 13.799±0.021 billion years. That's an amazingly precise value.

eric · 17 May 2016

Robert Byers said: If teaching conclusions about origins touch on a creator or the bible and are illegal THEREFORE because they are under the title RELIGION THEN teaching conclusions about origins opposed to a creator/bible or by censoring same is the state teaching ABOUT religion. Teaching religion are wrong. So breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship against the religious stuff.
You are misinterpreting the first amendment's establishment clause. Teaching *about* religion is legal. Teaching that one religion as true is illegal. Thus it is perfectly legal for the state to offer a class *about* the Bible and have kids read from it, but the state can't teach that Jesus really was the messiah. Some public high schools do in fact offer bible-as-literature classes. Not every school does, however, because typically the amount of student interest in taking it is not enough to support it (you need approximately 20 kids/year interested in taking it to make an elective worthwhile...the bible rarely peaks that much interest). How this impacts creationism in science classes is pretty simple: creationism is a claim that the theology of the bible is true. Therefore teaching creationism is illegal. Teaching *about* creationism would be legal, but it would also be pretty bad pedagogy to do that in a science class because its not a scientific theory. By all means teach what Paley thought in a philosophy or history elective. Finally, the state *can* teach claims that impact a religion or have religious implications, if they have a secular purpose for doing so. For example, teaching that the Earth is 4.5 billion years ago obviously impacts YECism. However the state has a secular purpose for doing it: that is the conclusion of science, and in science class we teach the conclusions of science so that kids know what science says about the world. This is not the same as claiming atheism is right (which would be unconstitutional), because its perfectly possible to be a theist and think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Its also possible to be an atheist and think it isn't. An example from "the other side" where the state was allowed to teach a scientific claim that positively impacted one or more religions was when the Big Bang theory was developed. Atheistic scientists at the time generally preferred the Steady State theory. The BBT sounded too much like Genesis. But the state could still teach it because teaching an accepted conclusion of science that just so happens to align with a religious belief is not illegal. So the door has swung both ways and you are not being discriminated against.

harold · 17 May 2016

eric said:
harold said: This whole thing is just a throwback to the year 2000. This is just copy and paste, in spirit at least, and very probably literally, from the DI "we'll sneak it in to schools for you by denying it's religious" playbook of the glory years.
It does look that way. Check out the strike-throughs at the bottom of the natural history article; it appears it was written sometime around the year 2002, when the Ohio board was considering ID.
Could this crap have been put together in 2002 and been out there, under the radar, since then? This raises a very important point about ID/creationism and its motivation for getting into public schools. They are willing to use code, and are okay if others don't get the code. They aren't, at least when pushing evolution denial, primarily trying to proselytize. They're trying to shut down their cognitive dissonance and send a message, potentially coded if necessary, to the kids and teachers they already have, not to believe science. This doesn't overtly say "God", "Jesus", "Adam", or "Noah's ark", so it's entirely plausible that naïve students and their families have taken it at face value and not perceived that their rights are being violated. This may literally have been happening since 2002. But their rights have been severely violated for the obvious reason that they have been taught, at taxpayer expense, that someone else's science denying religious dogma is "scientifically true", and they have been denied a sound science education in the process. This may be an example of what got shut down in Dover actually "working" - of ID crap actually bamboozling regular students and allowing coded creationism to be snuck in to the classroom. Not every creationist is a DI level weasel. You won't catch Ken Ham making vague "plausible deniability" type statements about the age of the Earth. He's a weasel and tries to get tax funding for his religious projects, but just less of a weasel. When dealing with ID promoted by the DI and those associated with that approach, we are dealing with a strategy of dissembling, playing word games, and making coded statements, in order to send a tacit message of pandering to the religious right and get away with sabotaging science education. We tend to mentally model fanatics as hellfire and brimstone types who mainly target the sinners in a clumsy but sincere attempt to bring stray sheep into the flock. That isn't what we're dealing with when it comes to ID. We're dealing with extreme weasels whose goal is to appropriate precious public resources for coded science denial, in order to pander to those already in the flock in a coded way, and, of course, extract resources from them as well. The good news is that this repulsive strategy has largely failed and the DI is shrinking, not growing. Some of yesterday's "ID celebrities" are unemployed and/or isolated today. However, this shows that there are still some weeds that need to be pulled.

Matt Young · 17 May 2016

My colleague Paul Strode of Fairview High School in Boulder posted a link to this article on the Facebook page of the National Association of Biology Teachers. Another biology teacher, Chris Monsour, posted several responses. First, he notes that the state is about to take over the school district or has already done so. A quick check shows that the district will probably be put into the hands of "a CEO who would run the schools and could bring in more charter schools." (Gratuitous comment: All the charter schools in the district recently received grades of F, according to the WKBN article.)

Mr. Monsour further notes that the PDF I cited in the article refers to the "diversity of life" strand, not the "evolution" strand, which he considers "sneaky." In the diversity strand, teachers should cover ecological principles and cladograms, rather than debate the merits of the theory of evolution, he says. "Cladogram" appears once in the PDF, in item 9 on page 4.

Matt Young · 17 May 2016

Could this crap have been put together in 2002 and been out there, under the radar, since then?

Dunno, but the footer at the bottom of each page reads "5/22/2015," so I am guessing this is the first year. The original article is from a special section of Natural History magazine, April, 2002, and you can find the whole section pirated here and there around the Web.

harold · 17 May 2016

Matt Young said:

Could this crap have been put together in 2002 and been out there, under the radar, since then?

Dunno, but the footer at the bottom of each page reads "5/22/2015," so I am guessing this is the first year. The original article is from a special section of Natural History magazine, April, 2002, and you can find the whole section pirated here and there around the Web.
Hopefully it is relatively new; I'd hate to think that this kind of thing could survive. Even new, it demonstrates that somebody in 2015 went back to ultimately rejected ID/creationism talking points from 2002, completely ignoring the fact that attempting to use them led to disaster in Dover in 2005, and decided to force them on Youngstown students. It shows how bad ideas keep resurrecting themselves.

DavidK · 17 May 2016

Matt Young said: My colleague Paul Strode of Fairview High School in Boulder posted a link to this article on the Facebook page of the National Association of Biology Teachers. Another biology teacher, Chris Monsour, posted several responses. First, he notes that the state is about to take over the school district or has already done so. A quick check shows that the district will probably be put into the hands of "a CEO who would run the schools and could bring in more charter schools." (Gratuitous comment: All the charter schools in the district recently received grades of F, according to the WKBN article.) Mr. Monsour further notes that the PDF I cited in the article refers to the "diversity of life" strand, not the "evolution" strand, which he considers "sneaky." In the diversity strand, teachers should cover ecological principles and cladograms, rather than debate the merits of the theory of evolution, he says. "Cladogram" appears once in the PDF, in item 9 on page 4.
Gov. Kasich has been involved in a charter school scandal of his own making in Ohio. He tries to keep it under wraps, but it's a pretty pathetic showing for him and charter schools. Charter school scandal haunts John Kasich http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/charter-school-scandal-haunts-john-kasich-220700

Ron Okimoto · 17 May 2016

The long awaited IDiot public school lesson plan. Will the ID perps own up to it or blame the school district?

Robert Byers · 17 May 2016

eric said:
Robert Byers said: If teaching conclusions about origins touch on a creator or the bible and are illegal THEREFORE because they are under the title RELIGION THEN teaching conclusions about origins opposed to a creator/bible or by censoring same is the state teaching ABOUT religion. Teaching religion are wrong. So breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship against the religious stuff.
You are misinterpreting the first amendment's establishment clause. Teaching *about* religion is legal. Teaching that one religion as true is illegal. Thus it is perfectly legal for the state to offer a class *about* the Bible and have kids read from it, but the state can't teach that Jesus really was the messiah. Some public high schools do in fact offer bible-as-literature classes. Not every school does, however, because typically the amount of student interest in taking it is not enough to support it (you need approximately 20 kids/year interested in taking it to make an elective worthwhile...the bible rarely peaks that much interest). How this impacts creationism in science classes is pretty simple: creationism is a claim that the theology of the bible is true. Therefore teaching creationism is illegal. Teaching *about* creationism would be legal, but it would also be pretty bad pedagogy to do that in a science class because its not a scientific theory. By all means teach what Paley thought in a philosophy or history elective. Finally, the state *can* teach claims that impact a religion or have religious implications, if they have a secular purpose for doing so. For example, teaching that the Earth is 4.5 billion years ago obviously impacts YECism. However the state has a secular purpose for doing it: that is the conclusion of science, and in science class we teach the conclusions of science so that kids know what science says about the world. This is not the same as claiming atheism is right (which would be unconstitutional), because its perfectly possible to be a theist and think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Its also possible to be an atheist and think it isn't. An example from "the other side" where the state was allowed to teach a scientific claim that positively impacted one or more religions was when the Big Bang theory was developed. Atheistic scientists at the time generally preferred the Steady State theory. The BBT sounded too much like Genesis. But the state could still teach it because teaching an accepted conclusion of science that just so happens to align with a religious belief is not illegal. So the door has swung both ways and you are not being discriminated against.
On this forum/blog we have been over this. However just to say THAT if your prohibited from saying some faith idea is TRUE then the same law means you can't say its not true. The secular interest is truth. AMEN. So censoring one side is the state saying ITS NOT TRUE for the censored or saying it can't teach whats true. an absurity for a secular purpose in education!!! That creationism might bump into THEOLOGY is irrelevant to the secular intention of truth on origins. You can't beat the equation. A law censoring religion can not then allow attack on that religion. Thats the state making a opinion about religious truth. This has nothing to do with the intents of the constitution. Its a invention since WW11 to attack Christian doctrines and creationism and teach a state opinion. ID/YEC should go to the public and courts on a great crusade to overthrow state censorship in public institutions based on existing constitutional rights and freedoms. A important and exciting development in truth and freedom and national liberty.

Just Bob · 17 May 2016

"On this forum/blog we have been over this."

Yes we have. You apparently didn't get it then, and probably won't now, but here's the short, simple version: In the US the final and only arbiter of what the Constitution is, what the law is, and what law is constitutional (and therefore valid US law) is the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has said, more than once, that creationism, being solely a religious concept, cannot be taught as science in tax-funded public schools. That's it. That's the LAW, because the Supreme Court says it is.

gnome de net · 18 May 2016

Robert Byers said:
eric said:
Robert Byers said: If teaching conclusions about origins touch on a creator or the bible and are illegal THEREFORE because they are under the title RELIGION THEN teaching conclusions about origins opposed to a creator/bible or by censoring same is the state teaching ABOUT religion. Teaching religion are wrong. So breaking the very law it invokes for the censorship against the religious stuff.
You are misinterpreting the first amendment's establishment clause. Teaching *about* religion is legal. Teaching that one religion as true is illegal. Thus it is perfectly legal for the state to offer a class *about* the Bible and have kids read from it, but the state can't teach that Jesus really was the messiah. Some public high schools do in fact offer bible-as-literature classes. Not every school does, however, because typically the amount of student interest in taking it is not enough to support it (you need approximately 20 kids/year interested in taking it to make an elective worthwhile...the bible rarely peaks that much interest). How this impacts creationism in science classes is pretty simple: creationism is a claim that the theology of the bible is true. Therefore teaching creationism is illegal. Teaching *about* creationism would be legal, but it would also be pretty bad pedagogy to do that in a science class because its not a scientific theory. By all means teach what Paley thought in a philosophy or history elective. Finally, the state *can* teach claims that impact a religion or have religious implications, if they have a secular purpose for doing so. For example, teaching that the Earth is 4.5 billion years ago obviously impacts YECism. However the state has a secular purpose for doing it: that is the conclusion of science, and in science class we teach the conclusions of science so that kids know what science says about the world. This is not the same as claiming atheism is right (which would be unconstitutional), because its perfectly possible to be a theist and think the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Its also possible to be an atheist and think it isn't. An example from "the other side" where the state was allowed to teach a scientific claim that positively impacted one or more religions was when the Big Bang theory was developed. Atheistic scientists at the time generally preferred the Steady State theory. The BBT sounded too much like Genesis. But the state could still teach it because teaching an accepted conclusion of science that just so happens to align with a religious belief is not illegal. So the door has swung both ways and you are not being discriminated against. [emphasis added for the sake of Robert Byers]
On this forum/blog we have been over this. However just to say THAT if your prohibited from saying some faith idea is TRUE then the same law means you can't say its not true. The secular interest is truth. AMEN. So censoring one side is the state saying ITS NOT TRUE for the censored or saying it can't teach whats true. an absurity for a secular purpose in education!!! That creationism might bump into THEOLOGY is irrelevant to the secular intention of truth on origins. You can't beat the equation. A law censoring religion can not then allow attack on that religion. Thats the state making a opinion about religious truth. This has nothing to do with the intents of the constitution. Its a invention since WW11 to attack Christian doctrines and creationism and teach a state opinion. ID/YEC should go to the public and courts on a great crusade to overthrow state censorship in public institutions based on existing constitutional rights and freedoms. A important and exciting development in truth and freedom and national liberty.
Robert, go back and finish reading what eric wrote. ...an accepted conclusion of science that just so happens to align with a religious belief is not illegal. Again: ...an accepted conclusion of science that just so happens to align with a religious belief is not illegal. One more time: ...an accepted conclusion of science that just so happens to align with a religious belief is not illegal. And while you're trying to learn the difference between "hugh" and "huge", spend some time and effort learning the difference between World War Eleven (WW11) and World War Two (WWII).

harold · 18 May 2016

On this forum/blog we have been over this. However just to say THAT if your prohibited from saying some faith idea is TRUE then the same law means you can’t say its not true. The secular interest is truth. AMEN.
Correct. However, when teaching scientific findings, there is always going to be someone somewhere who makes a claim that contradicts the correct finding, usually in the name of religion. A small minority of Hindus and Buddhists believe that the current universe is far older than 13 billion years, just as a small minority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe it is far younger. It would violate the constitution, and be absurd, to teach bigotry against a religious tradition in science class, but we can't teach the correct age of the Earth, or any wrong age, or for that matter even make a false claim that according to science "it could be any age", without offending someone. This is true of almost any well established every scientific fact. Someone somewhere denies it due to deeply held spiritual or cultural beliefs. We can't help that. We just have to teach the correct science.
So censoring one side is the state saying ITS NOT TRUE for the censored or saying it can’t teach whats true. an absurity for a secular purpose in education!!!
Classroom time is limited and we can't teach everything, nor should we ever falsely teach that science shows other than what it shows. Your side is not censored. If you were censored Panda's Thumb would be shut down by the authorities for allowing you to voice your opinion. Science class is a special use of public resources to teach accurate science. Saying that someone's religious ideas are censored if they are not inserted into science class is like saying that someone is censored if they clog up the 911 system by calling in to preach religion to the operators, and are told to stop to make room for emergency calls.
That creationism might bump into THEOLOGY is irrelevant to the secular intention of truth on origins. You can’t beat the equation.
This is correct and in fact many people think that science supports their religion. Many Catholics think that the big bang supports their Christian theology. Some Hindus and Buddhists think that the theory of evolution and the relatedness of life support their ideas. Probably any scientific fact has some who deny it and some who extrapolate beyond the science about it. However, in science class we just teach the science.
A law censoring religion can not then allow attack on that religion. Thats the state making a opinion about religious truth.
Right wing Christians are always demanding laws that censor other religions. Today there is high demand for unconstitutional laws to censor Muslims. Other than that, I don't know of anyone trying to censor religion. Not teaching your religion in science class as science is not the same thing as censoring it.
This has nothing to do with the intents of the constitution. Its a invention since WW11 to attack Christian doctrines and creationism and teach a state opinion.
Scientific opinions don't come from any state, not from the US, Canada, or any other state government. Until recently science was a completely private occupation with no public funding. It certain was for Darwin. Now the state provides grants and facilities for science and science students, but does not set scientific opinion. Public school curricula by definition must be set by people authorized by the state, but that would be no more or less true if ID/creationism was included. Public school officials don't do scientific research. They work with science education experts to prioritize which science to include but the science isn't invented by the state.
ID/YEC should go to the public and courts on a great crusade to overthrow state censorship in public institutions based on existing constitutional rights and freedoms. A important and exciting development in truth and freedom and national liberty.
If either of them actually is censored I will join you on that crusade. As of now, that clearly isn't happening.

TomS · 18 May 2016

The irony is that movements like ID are predicated on self-"censorship". They make a point of not speaking of what might be an alternative to evolution. No one needs to stop them from telling us what they think happens in the world of life, they silence themselves.

harold · 18 May 2016

TomS said: The irony is that movements like ID are predicated on self-"censorship". They make a point of not speaking of what might be an alternative to evolution. No one needs to stop them from telling us what they think happens in the world of life, they silence themselves.
And also that their goal is to censor actual teaching of science. Teaching science denial instead of teaching science, purging the curriculum of certain scientific ideas, or even teaching science first and then teaching students, incorrectly, that there is something terribly wrong with the science as a follow up - all are just methods of censoring science.

eric · 18 May 2016

Robert Byers said: On this forum/blog we have been over this. However just to say THAT if your prohibited from saying some faith idea is TRUE then the same law means you can't say its not true.
We have indeed been over this, which makes it harder to understand why you don't get it. The first amendment allows public schools to teach science claims that contradict specific faith claims, if they have a secular reason for teaching those science claims. I gave two examples above, one pro-Christianity and one con-YECism. What don't you understand about those examples?
an absurity for a secular purpose in education!!!
What would be absurd would be if the law followed your advice and forbade the teaching of any concept that contradicted any religious claim. Different religions say so many different things, we wouldn't be able to teach hardly anything under your model of how it should work. But that is not how the first amendment is interpreted by the courts. Just because some person religiously believes that pi = 3 doesn't mean the US government must remain silent on the value of pi. They have a legitimate secular purpose for teaching kids how to do math, so they can teach pi = 3.14etc. We 'beat the equation' quite simply by saying that the endorsement clause allows teaching things contradictory to faith claims as long as the state has a good secular reason to teach it. But for some reason, you can't comprehend that that as long as clause is part of settled law.

Michael Fugate · 18 May 2016

John Wilkins has several posts on the role of a secular society in protecting religion. Robert and his kindred spirits are shooting themselves in the foot by railing against secularism; a secular government tolerates freedom of thought - something theocracy abhors.

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2008/10/secularism_as_protection_for_r/

Robert Byers · 18 May 2016

Just Bob said: "On this forum/blog we have been over this." Yes we have. You apparently didn't get it then, and probably won't now, but here's the short, simple version: In the US the final and only arbiter of what the Constitution is, what the law is, and what law is constitutional (and therefore valid US law) is the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court has said, more than once, that creationism, being solely a religious concept, cannot be taught as science in tax-funded public schools. That's it. That's the LAW, because the Supreme Court says it is.
No. Thats not true. thats what Locke talked about. the whole government , and so the constitution, is a contract between the people giving thier obediance to a gov't AS long ass it fulfills the contract to defend thier freedoms and rights. The constitution only echos these rights/freedoms. iTs not the origin of them. SO if the Supreme court uses its power to overthrow the CONTRACT's goals then the people can overthrow the Supreme court. In short you can fire the King. As was done with King James 11 and the focus of John's locke's ideas. The court is not a dictaorship. Its just a court backing up conclusions consented to by the people. so the people are the finale judge iF the court goes very wrong. In fact this is what Abe Lincoln ran on for election to senate/presidentency . Opposition to the courts Dred Scott decision.

Robert Byers · 18 May 2016

harold said:
On this forum/blog we have been over this. However just to say THAT if your prohibited from saying some faith idea is TRUE then the same law means you can’t say its not true. The secular interest is truth. AMEN.
Correct. However, when teaching scientific findings, there is always going to be someone somewhere who makes a claim that contradicts the correct finding, usually in the name of religion. A small minority of Hindus and Buddhists believe that the current universe is far older than 13 billion years, just as a small minority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe it is far younger. It would violate the constitution, and be absurd, to teach bigotry against a religious tradition in science class, but we can't teach the correct age of the Earth, or any wrong age, or for that matter even make a false claim that according to science "it could be any age", without offending someone. This is true of almost any well established every scientific fact. Someone somewhere denies it due to deeply held spiritual or cultural beliefs. We can't help that. We just have to teach the correct science.
So censoring one side is the state saying ITS NOT TRUE for the censored or saying it can’t teach whats true. an absurity for a secular purpose in education!!!
Classroom time is limited and we can't teach everything, nor should we ever falsely teach that science shows other than what it shows. Your side is not censored. If you were censored Panda's Thumb would be shut down by the authorities for allowing you to voice your opinion. Science class is a special use of public resources to teach accurate science. Saying that someone's religious ideas are censored if they are not inserted into science class is like saying that someone is censored if they clog up the 911 system by calling in to preach religion to the operators, and are told to stop to make room for emergency calls.
That creationism might bump into THEOLOGY is irrelevant to the secular intention of truth on origins. You can’t beat the equation.
This is correct and in fact many people think that science supports their religion. Many Catholics think that the big bang supports their Christian theology. Some Hindus and Buddhists think that the theory of evolution and the relatedness of life support their ideas. Probably any scientific fact has some who deny it and some who extrapolate beyond the science about it. However, in science class we just teach the science.
A law censoring religion can not then allow attack on that religion. Thats the state making a opinion about religious truth.
Right wing Christians are always demanding laws that censor other religions. Today there is high demand for unconstitutional laws to censor Muslims. Other than that, I don't know of anyone trying to censor religion. Not teaching your religion in science class as science is not the same thing as censoring it.
This has nothing to do with the intents of the constitution. Its a invention since WW11 to attack Christian doctrines and creationism and teach a state opinion.
Scientific opinions don't come from any state, not from the US, Canada, or any other state government. Until recently science was a completely private occupation with no public funding. It certain was for Darwin. Now the state provides grants and facilities for science and science students, but does not set scientific opinion. Public school curricula by definition must be set by people authorized by the state, but that would be no more or less true if ID/creationism was included. Public school officials don't do scientific research. They work with science education experts to prioritize which science to include but the science isn't invented by the state.
ID/YEC should go to the public and courts on a great crusade to overthrow state censorship in public institutions based on existing constitutional rights and freedoms. A important and exciting development in truth and freedom and national liberty.
If either of them actually is censored I will join you on that crusade. As of now, that clearly isn't happening.
A law is invoked to censor certain conclusions on the claim its illegal conclusions in public institutions. I say there is no such law and its a invention. However evolutionists etc say there is and use it to censor creationism(s). So i make a equation. That if the state censors a opinion , in subjects dedicated to the truth, then the state is saying EITHER that opinion is false or even if true/possibly true it can't teach it . the latter a absurdity. The former is illegal by the law invoked for the original censorship. state censorship on religious conclusion that deal with conclusions under discussion equals state opinion on same religious conclusions. so illegal. Why is my equation wrong???

eric · 18 May 2016

Robert Byers said: A law is invoked to censor certain conclusions on the claim its illegal conclusions in public institutions. I say there is no such law and its a invention.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968) Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) (If you only look up one law, Robert, look up this one) Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Why is my equation wrong???
Because those are all laws that directly refute your claim.

Robert Byers · 18 May 2016

eric said:
Robert Byers said: On this forum/blog we have been over this. However just to say THAT if your prohibited from saying some faith idea is TRUE then the same law means you can't say its not true.
We have indeed been over this, which makes it harder to understand why you don't get it. The first amendment allows public schools to teach science claims that contradict specific faith claims, if they have a secular reason for teaching those science claims. I gave two examples above, one pro-Christianity and one con-YECism. What don't you understand about those examples?
an absurity for a secular purpose in education!!!
What would be absurd would be if the law followed your advice and forbade the teaching of any concept that contradicted any religious claim. Different religions say so many different things, we wouldn't be able to teach hardly anything under your model of how it should work. But that is not how the first amendment is interpreted by the courts. Just because some person religiously believes that pi = 3 doesn't mean the US government must remain silent on the value of pi. They have a legitimate secular purpose for teaching kids how to do math, so they can teach pi = 3.14etc. We 'beat the equation' quite simply by saying that the endorsement clause allows teaching things contradictory to faith claims as long as the state has a good secular reason to teach it. But for some reason, you can't comprehend that that as long as clause is part of settled law.
You didn't beat the equation If you teach me that science ideas can be taught contradictory to faith then you must teach science ideas endorsing faith must be allowed. Just put it that way. So creationism is not illegal because it has conclusions that bump into religion. In short your practically agreeing the priority in education should/must be the truth. Amen. Then any censorship in schools must no be on a claim that certain conclusions are already illegal whether true or not. THEN why is the state deciding if religious conclusions are true or not? They have no legal right. The equation works.

Just Bob · 18 May 2016

Robert Byers said: No. Thats not true. thats what Locke talked about. the whole government , and so the constitution, is a contract between the people giving thier obediance to a gov't AS long ass it fulfills the contract to defend thier freedoms and rights. The constitution only echos these rights/freedoms. iTs not the origin of them. SO if the Supreme court uses its power to overthrow the CONTRACT's goals then the people can overthrow the Supreme court. In short you can fire the King. As was done with King James 11 and the focus of John's locke's ideas. The court is not a dictaorship. Its just a court backing up conclusions consented to by the people. so the people are the finale judge iF the court goes very wrong. In fact this is what Abe Lincoln ran on for election to senate/presidentency . Opposition to the courts Dred Scott decision.
Sounds like you're advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. You're Canadian, right? And who the hell is King James the Eleventh?

Robert Byers · 18 May 2016

eric said:
Robert Byers said: A law is invoked to censor certain conclusions on the claim its illegal conclusions in public institutions. I say there is no such law and its a invention.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968) Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971) (If you only look up one law, Robert, look up this one) Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987) Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Why is my equation wrong???
Because those are all laws that directly refute your claim.
it was never intended that a establishment of religion meant the schools. it meant the government. Not everything the gov pays for. They never would of denied God and genesis being taught. in fact they would of censored the opposite. If you claim its a law about establishment of religion for the state to teach creationism then its also a law of establishment of religion to censor it in subjects touching on religious truth. The establishment law was made to separate State from Church. its a great idea. However when subjects on origins comes up the state breaks this separation by censoring creationism EVEN though the priority is to teach the truth. So the state is EITHER saying these religious ideas are not true KIDS or we can't teach the truth. Yet they teach something that means religious ideas are not true and so ARE INDEED teaching religious ideas are not true. There is no greater law on establishment of religion then the law saying certain religious doctrines are not true. Its illegal. Anyways it has nothing to do with the founders and the constitution. They never meant education or even thiought the federal government would control education. It being a local state issue. If its an establishment of religion to teach some point that religion advocates then opposing same point religion advocates is also a establishment of religion. There is a great case here for ID/YEC/freedom defenders .

Robert Byers · 18 May 2016

Just Bob said:
Robert Byers said: No. Thats not true. thats what Locke talked about. the whole government , and so the constitution, is a contract between the people giving thier obediance to a gov't AS long ass it fulfills the contract to defend thier freedoms and rights. The constitution only echos these rights/freedoms. iTs not the origin of them. SO if the Supreme court uses its power to overthrow the CONTRACT's goals then the people can overthrow the Supreme court. In short you can fire the King. As was done with King James 11 and the focus of John's locke's ideas. The court is not a dictaorship. Its just a court backing up conclusions consented to by the people. so the people are the finale judge iF the court goes very wrong. In fact this is what Abe Lincoln ran on for election to senate/presidentency . Opposition to the courts Dred Scott decision.
Sounds like you're advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. You're Canadian, right? And who the hell is King James the Eleventh?
Not violent yet. Yet its an option if they are seen as breaking the contract. Government is a contract between the people and being ruled. Sure it is. Any Judges must obey the contract. The people therefore are the finale judge. Its not well known how many King James england had.!!! There was a lot of firing back then!!!

phhht · 18 May 2016

Robert Byers said:
Just Bob said:
Robert Byers said: No. Thats not true. thats what Locke talked about. the whole government , and so the constitution, is a contract between the people giving thier obediance to a gov't AS long ass it fulfills the contract to defend thier freedoms and rights. The constitution only echos these rights/freedoms. iTs not the origin of them. SO if the Supreme court uses its power to overthrow the CONTRACT's goals then the people can overthrow the Supreme court. In short you can fire the King. As was done with King James 11 and the focus of John's locke's ideas. The court is not a dictaorship. Its just a court backing up conclusions consented to by the people. so the people are the finale judge iF the court goes very wrong. In fact this is what Abe Lincoln ran on for election to senate/presidentency . Opposition to the courts Dred Scott decision.
Sounds like you're advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. You're Canadian, right? And who the hell is King James the Eleventh?
Not violent yet. Yet its an option if they are seen as breaking the contract. Government is a contract between the people and being ruled. Sure it is. Any Judges must obey the contract. The people therefore are the finale judge. Its not well known how many King James england had.!!! There was a lot of firing back then!!!
If you're not an American, Robert Byers, then you are not a party to the contract. How we run our government and our courts is none of your business.

Matt Young · 18 May 2016

I think we have had more than enough of Mr. Byers; please do not feed him any more.

DanHolme · 19 May 2016

Matt Young said: I think we have had more than enough of Mr. Byers; please do not feed him any more.
Awww... 'It is not well-known how many King James England had' is my new favourite Byers-ism of all time. It's certainly going to add some spice to my lessons next time I teach the Stuarts to year 7. I'd like to think he's referring to some of the Pretenders after the Orange Revolution, and possibly a secret conspiracy of hidden Catholic Kings going back to 1688 - but it's more likely that he's just incapable of reading a book.

gnome de net · 19 May 2016

Just Bob said: And who the hell is King James the Eleventh?
The British monarch during World War Eleven? (Sorry, the Devil made me do it...)

Dave Luckett · 19 May 2016

There wasn't even a King James the Eleventh of Scotland, which was famous for them. As Queen Victoria said of Scottish history, "Too many Jameses, and all of them murdered."

W. H. Heydt · 19 May 2016

Dave Luckett said: There wasn't even a King James the Eleventh of Scotland, which was famous for them. As Queen Victoria said of Scottish history, "Too many Jameses, and all of them murdered."
...said a relative of Edward VIII and successor to Henry VIII. Perhaps she should complain about Denmark which has had a Christian X and Frederick IX. (And, if I'm not mistaken, will likely have a Frederick X in the not very distant future.) But, then, Denmark has had the same ruling house since about 900 AD.

fnxtr · 19 May 2016

And the USA had Malcolm X

Matt Young · 20 May 2016

Glenn Branch informs us that the Yahya video will be removed from the curriculum. A district official, Timothy Filipovich, told Vindy.com, "We don’t teach creationism,” and added that the curriculum was "designed for [students] to learn to look at resources and determine whether those resources are reliable.” Students are expected to evaluate evidence in favor of evolution and intelligent design. Filipovich added, “There are a great deal of publications out there. They [the students] have to be able to determine the merit and flaws of the resources and evidence to support one argument or the other.” A school board member, Dario Hunter, by contrast, got it right: “That to me is ridiculous,” he said. “You’re putting two things to compare and contrast into the same room that shouldn’t be in the same ballpark.”

DS · 20 May 2016

Matt Young said: Glenn Branch informs us that the Yahya video will be removed from the curriculum. A district official, Timothy Filipovich, told Vindy.com, "We don’t teach creationism,” and added that the curriculum was "designed for [students] to learn to look at resources and determine whether those resources are reliable.” Students are expected to evaluate evidence in favor of evolution and intelligent design. Filipovich added, “There are a great deal of publications out there. They [the students] have to be able to determine the merit and flaws of the resources and evidence to support one argument or the other.” A school board member, Dario Hunter, by contrast, got it right: “That to me is ridiculous,” he said. “You’re putting two things to compare and contrast into the same room that shouldn’t be in the same ballpark.”
Sounds like they got caught and are now trying to avoid a law suit. They know they will lose, so time to go with the back up plan. But of course the students know what they were taught and what they were told about the video. If they testify in court, it might not work out so well for the school district. Oh well, at least they are going to stop showing the video, right? Someone should keep an eye out in that school district.

DS · 20 May 2016

The more I think about this, the dumber it sounds.

First, the curriculum instructs teachers to teach intelligent design. It doesn't say anything about providing examples of pseudoscience and if it did, why would you have to mandate exactly what example of bad science teachers should use?

Second, do they use this approach with every other subject? Do they say, here are tow answers to the math problem, you decide which one is correct? Do they say, her are two models for atomic structure, you decide which one is better? ARe they just singling out evolution for special treatment because they don;t like it?

Third, tenth graders are in no way qualified to judge the validity of scientific ideas. They need to learn the basics before the can distinguish between science and pseudoscience. They need to learn how science actually works before being exposed to charlatans who try to misrepresent it.

Fourth, where in the curriculum are they told which alternative is real science and which is pseudo science? Are they simply allowed to decide for themselves? Where does it say, now expose the pseudo scientific crap for what it is and learn the characteristics of pseudoscience and how to avoid them?

Now if this ever goes to trial (and it probably should), these are the question the judge should ask. These are the issues the prosecutor should focus on. A clear message needs to be sent that this kind of deceitful and disingenuous nonsense will not be tolerated in public schools. ANd lying about your motives isn;t going to help if you get caught.

harold · 20 May 2016

Matt Young said: Glenn Branch informs us that the Yahya video will be removed from the curriculum. A district official, Timothy Filipovich, told Vindy.com, "We don’t teach creationism,” and added that the curriculum was "designed for [students] to learn to look at resources and determine whether those resources are reliable.” Students are expected to evaluate evidence in favor of evolution and intelligent design. Filipovich added, “There are a great deal of publications out there. They [the students] have to be able to determine the merit and flaws of the resources and evidence to support one argument or the other.” A school board member, Dario Hunter, by contrast, got it right: “That to me is ridiculous,” he said. “You’re putting two things to compare and contrast into the same room that shouldn’t be in the same ballpark.”
"Equal time" for accurate science and science denying religious dogma, each taught as science, in science class, has been ruled unconstitutional for decades.
designed for [students] to learn to look at resources and determine whether those resources are reliable.” Students are expected to evaluate evidence in favor of evolution and intelligent design. Filipovich added, “There are a great deal of publications out there. They [the students] have to be able to determine the merit and flaws of the resources and evidence to support one argument or the other.”
This is really disgusting. The cheap trick of justifying the teaching of lies by saying that "students should be able to figure out it's a lie" is absurd. Obviously they're teaching it in science class in order to trick the students into believing it's science.

eric · 20 May 2016

DS said: Second, do they use this approach with every other subject? Do they say, here are tow answers to the math problem, you decide which one is correct? Do they say, her are two models for atomic structure, you decide which one is better? ARe they just singling out evolution for special treatment because they don;t like it?
My guess is that most HS chemistry classes cover the 'plum pudding' model of the atom, at least for 5-10 minutes. For the purposes of pointing out that it was wrong, and early atomic collision experiments showed it to be wrong. However, as you say, the pedagogy there is entirely different from the "equal time, you decide" approach these guys want to use for ID. The focus on the 'wrong' example is much shorter, much more specific and guided, and mainly included as a historical reference to how scientists often test multiple hypotheses when faced with an unknown, before they glom on to the right (or at least, an accurate) model. Is your last question rhetorical? Of course they single out evolution for special treatment - that's been their schtick for 30+ years.

Just Bob · 20 May 2016

Actually, I'm surprised they don't have something about climate change and human cloning in there.

DavidK · 24 May 2016

Americans United has posted a message regarding the Youngstown creationist fiasco:

Kooky Curriculum: Ohio Public School Under Fire For Using Creationist Video Produced By Turkish Televangelist

http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/kooky-curriculum-ohio-public-school-under-fire-for-using-creationist-video

eric · 24 May 2016

DavidK said: Americans United has posted a message regarding the Youngstown creationist fiasco: Kooky Curriculum: Ohio Public School Under Fire For Using Creationist Video Produced By Turkish Televangelist http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/kooky-curriculum-ohio-public-school-under-fire-for-using-creationist-video
They forgot to mention Yahya/Oktar's most laughable "contribution" to creationism: in his Atlas of Creation, he uses a number of pictures of shrimp etc. to argue that their features are so remarkable, they must be designed. The pictures, however, are of fishing lures. You can even see the hook. Whoops. :)

Henry J · 24 May 2016

The pictures, however, are of fishing lures. You can even see the hook.

An argument with support like that is apt to flounder!

John Harshman · 24 May 2016

eric said:
DavidK said: Americans United has posted a message regarding the Youngstown creationist fiasco: Kooky Curriculum: Ohio Public School Under Fire For Using Creationist Video Produced By Turkish Televangelist http://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/kooky-curriculum-ohio-public-school-under-fire-for-using-creationist-video
They forgot to mention Yahya/Oktar's most laughable "contribution" to creationism: in his Atlas of Creation, he uses a number of pictures of shrimp etc. to argue that their features are so remarkable, they must be designed. The pictures, however, are of fishing lures. You can even see the hook. Whoops. :)
The fishing lures are insects. There's also a fake spider. Just as good, to my mind, are the several pictures he shows of supposed living crinoids, all of which are annelid featherduster worms, and the comparison of a fossil spider crab to a living crab spider.

Christine M Janis · 28 May 2016

One interesting thing that Yahya claims about the Cambrian fossils is that Walcott deliberately hid them from science because he knew that they would "discredit Darwinism". No explanation of how Whittington and his students later managed to "rediscover" them.

Christine M Janis · 29 May 2016

One interesting thing that Yahya claims about the Cambrian fossils is that Walcott deliberately hid them from science because he knew that they would "discredit Darwinism". No explanation of how Whittington and his students later managed to "rediscover" them.

Christine M Janis · 29 May 2016

whoops, sorry for duplicate post!