
Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism. - joshrotenberg
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_public_schools_mapped_where_tax_money_supports_alternatives.html
======
hawkharris
A high school in Pensacola, FL, where my girlfriend studied years ago, got
sued by the ACLU for forcing students to pray. Teachers defended the practice,
arguing that prayer was acceptable because nearly all the students were
Christian.

I wonder how those teachers' perspectives will change over time, as America's
ethnic and religious demographics change. If a predominantly Muslim public
school requires students to pray, will the teachers in Pensacola start citing
constitutional concerns?

~~~
MartinCron
_Teachers defended the practice, arguing that prayer was acceptable because
nearly all the students were Christian_

And this is a clear illustration of why you should never put minority rights
up for majority vote.

~~~
figglesonrails
^-- This is the most important thing said on this whole topic.

------
primitivesuave
This has been happening for a long time, and resulted in the Pastafarian
movement: venganza.org

------
dylz
Why is slate doing this? Shouldn't we be teaching every point of view the
students are going to encounter objectively instead of censoring "unwanted
things"?

~~~
angersock
No, because anybody who believes in creationism is a completely backward
person and incapable of rational, critical thought. Even on the off-chance
they somehow come up with something that makes sense on another topic,
anything they say is suspect.

So, no, we shouldn't be teaching every point of view, because that'd be
stupid.

Similarly, I've flagged this article, because it's just another "ho ho ho look
how superior we are to those backwards Southerners yes...."

~~~
chad_oliver
> anybody who believes in creationism is a completely backward person and
> incapable of rational, critical thought.

Was that meant to be sarcastic? Because that's rather bigoted. I think that
creationism is irrational, but it's a very large jump to say that a person is
therefore incapable of critical thought.

~~~
angersock
My entire post was sarcasm, though reading back through it it is rather dry
and non-obvious.

~~~
chad_oliver
Ah, my bad.

------
joshfraser
Science is all about observation and repeatable experiments. When it comes to
the question of how we got here, both creationist and evolutionists have the
daunting task of convincing us to believe in an extraordinary tale with very
little supporting evidence on either side. Either you believe a supreme being
willed the world into existence or you believe that fish turned into people --
when you boil them down, both explanations are quite implausible. It seems
fair to me that teachers would tell their students "Obviously we weren't
around to witness the origin of the planet, but here are a couple theories
people have on how we got here..."

~~~
bediger4000
In the case of creationism, you're only vapidly correct. There's a geologic
record, stratigraphy, and a fossil record that have to be accounted for.
Simply put, no variation on creationism can account for all of those things. I
don't see how some obvious creation myth, no matter how powerful the backers,
can be taught with a straight face, much less in public school.

As far as intelligent design, I'll agree to teaching that, as long as we
follow up on the consequences. First, what criteria can I apply on my own to
decide whether a biological feature (the vertebrate eye, for example) is
irreducibly complex? Second, what does the existence of intelligent design
have to say about theology and the various hagiographies? Does ID make
monotheism or polytheism more likely for example? Can we determine
characteristics of God or gods based on examples of Design?

There are plenty of observational sciences, astronomy and geology and
economics among them. What you wrote is hackneyed and untrue.

~~~
joshfraser
I think you're reacting to a lot more than what I actually said. The
indisputable fact is that you and I weren't there and it's impossible to prove
either intelligent design or evolution because neither is reproducible.

~~~
cpleppert
>>it's impossible to prove either intelligent design or evolution because
neither is reproducible.

I don't even know where to begin..... If that was the case science could tell
us nothing about anything that isn't perfectly reproducible.

