Home » Creationism, Education, Intelligent Design » Creationist will vote against teaching ID and creationism

Creationist will vote against teaching ID and creationism

I can only speak for myself, and not the rest of those at UD, but in my opinion, voting against any mandate to teach ID or creation science in the public schools is the right thing to do. As much as I advocate that ID is correct, it is not the time to teach it in the public schools. Creationist Don McLeroy, chairman of the Texas School board, agrees.

McLeroy’s position is to be applauded by everyone. He might be the one guy that Darwinists, Creationists, and ID proponents will support with respect to not mandating ID or creation science in the public school.

My own view, and I hope it is the one the Texas School Board adopts, is to advocate teaching MORE about evolution, and not less, and to teach it in the way which Darwin would have wished.

A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

Charles Darwin

I strongly recommend that evolution be studied thoroughly in the high schools. I also recommend Explore Evolution as a textbook. Details of this book and how to order it can be found at www.ExploreEvolution.com.

There are individuals who may be pro-ID out there who want to lobby to teach ID in the public schools. I think this is ill advised. I encourage rather than lobbying for the teaching of ID or creation science, one should lobby for teaching MORE evolution, and in the way Darwin would have wished it taught. The was beautifully accomplished in the book: Explore Evolution

Ok, in light of that, here is the article August 24, 2007, State board members oppose teaching intelligent design in schools:

State board members oppose teaching intelligent design in schools
AUSTIN — A majority of State Board of Education members said the theory of intelligent design should be left out of the science curriculum for public schools.

The board will rewrite the science curriculum next year and some observers expect backers of intelligent design to push for the theory’s inclusion.

In interviews with The Dallas Morning News, 10 of the board’s 15 members said they wouldn’t support requiring the teaching of intelligent design. One board member said she was open to the idea. Four board members didn’t respond to the newspaper’s phone calls.

Proponents of intelligent design contend that life is too complex to have occurred by chance, requiring instead the guidance of an unnamed supernatural being. Critics say it’s a ploy for introducing creationism — the biblical account of the origin of humans — into science classes.

“Creationism and intelligent design don’t belong in our science classes,” said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. “Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community and intelligent design does not.”

McLeroy, R-College Station, said he doesn’t want to change the existing requirement that evolution be taught in high school biology classes. But he joined several of his colleagues in arguing that biology textbooks should cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.

McLeroy and three other socially conservative board members voted against the current biology texts in 2003 over the evolution issue. The textbook debate comes up again in 2011.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

16 Responses to Creationist will vote against teaching ID and creationism

  1. I have to disagree Sal…

    Perhaps not Creationism, but surely ID should be ABLE TO BE TAUGHT.

    What you are saying is that you don’t want teacher’s to even point out areas where the evolutionary theory doesn’t work out??? I hope you are not suggesting teachers should not be able to speak out against Darwin.

    What is wrong with teaching

    1) Haldane’s dilemma
    2) CSI and the explanatory filter
    3) What the fossil record actually says vs what Darwinists says it is.

    Surely evolution should be taught and more so…
    but to come outright and say you cannot teach ID in the classroom is wrong (given that evolution is taught as well)

  2. Jpark320,

    Thank you for your comments, but we must recognize tha 75% of the teachers out there are Darwinists. Do we trust them to teach ID corectly?

    Besides, the Liqour Control Board Director’s cut-and-paste ACLU ruling in Dover puts a legal hurdle at this time on teaching ID.

    If you’re really interested in the issue, the Discovery Institute recommends: How to Teach the Controversy Legally (June 30, 2005).

    Perhaps this would make a good separate thread.

    Salvador

  3. Creationists have been saying for a long time that they don’t want Creation Science to be mandated. HOwever, and in agreement with the position of the Discovery Institute, teachers should be free to provide *scientific* evidence for and against *any* theory on origins.

    Those who don’t want the light of science to shine on them are those who know that their theory cannot stand.

  4. Sal,

    I’d rather see the 25% get the chance to teach it and have the other 75% give handouts and have the students report them if they don’t teach it right.

    ID ppl can teach evolution correctly. In fact I know a teacher right now who just teaches the evolution outline – not very difficult.

    Besides, I truly believe ID is science and that students should learn about this debate b/c it won’t go away no matter how much anybody wants it to.

  5. Rather than teach ID they should teach evo-matero skepticism :-)

  6. edit: Teachers who don’t teach evolution right or speak out against are in trouble of losing their job – that’s what the teacher told me (and I’m here in Kansas!)

    I trust more biology teachers will teach ID correctly if they are under the same pressure.

  7. I just put a thread up specifically on the DI video:

    How to teach the controversy

    Feel free to comment on this thread or that one as you see appropriate.

    Thank you all for your comments.

    Those who are really into this are invited to purchase Explore Evolution and see for themselves.

    One of the DI fellows pointed out that not teaching a balanced view might actually lead to liabilities for the school. I would agree.

    If scientific evidence contrary to Darwinian evolution is withheld because atheists were trying to promote their world view by withholding scientific evidence, then that could be a violation of the establishment clause.

  8. The way I was taught evolution in High School (and in Popular Press) is that there was no controversy. Upon learning the actual evidence of the fossil record, which they had access to in my day, I feel betrayed by the science that I had much faith in. I certainly do not think evolution should be allowed free reign in science education.

  9. “The way I was taught evolution in High School (and in Popular Press) is that there was no controversy.”

    Me too. I can remember in freshmen (maybe sophomore) year biology class, that my teacher actually said something to the effect of “all our thoughts, feelings, and emotions are the result of chemical interactions” The “lecture” was essentially the materialist view of the mind, which amounts to nothing more than fictitious c*ap IMHO. I don’t even remember the guys name, but I do remember thinking “Huh? Chemicals don’t think?” Of course I was 14 so I didn’t protest the class – or stay awake in it for that matter.

  10. Shanner74,
    What your teacher said was, as you can see, self-refuting.
    If all our thoughts, feelings and emotions are the result of chemical interactions, then the thought that says “all our thoughts, feelings and emotions are the result of chemical interactions” is itself the result of chemical interactions.
    Notice how materialists proclaim that everyone else’s thoughts are just “chemicals”, but their own thoughts seem not to be just chemicals.

    Now, if all our thoughts are just chemicals, why should we teach just one set of chemical interactions (the belief in evolution) at the exclusion of another set of chemical interactions (ID)?
    If all chemicals are created equal, what makes their chemicals the “scientific ones” ?

  11. Mats said:
    “Shanner74,
    What your teacher said was, as you can see, self-refuting.”

    Yup. I just think of it simply in terms of matter. If we are nothing more than a fortuitous arrangement of matter, then nothing really “matters”, so to speak. I think it’s becoming clear though that we are not “just” matter.

  12. The problem is who is what teachers are qualified to teach Intelligent Design or Creation Science?

    How biology should be taught is to present the data along with the options as to how that data arose and then have open-minded discussions that will sharpen the students’ critical thinking skills.

    There is only one reality behind our existence. Students must be made aware of that.

    Students should also be told that most of the greatest minds that this planet has ever seen saw science as a way to understand “God’s” handywork. Therefore if you take that PoV you will become no more scientifically literate as those great minds were.

    But I doubt the anti-ID and anti-Creation mob would allow that.

    BTW Judge Jones III’s ruling only holds to that district. It does not have any legal merit beyond that dustrict. However it can (and has?) deter people from trying to introduce ID- that is until they read “Traipsing Into Evolution”.

  13. HT: Synapostasy for finding this comment by creationist Don McLeroy:

    According to Johnson, the first thing to do is to get the Bible out of the discussion. Remember, even if you don’t bring the Bible into the discussion, the naturalist has already put it into the discussion. And Johnson states “it’s vital not to give any encouragement to this prejudice and to keep the discussion strictly on the scientific evidence and the philosophical assumptions. This is not to say that the Biblical issues aren’t important, the point is the time to address them will be after we have separated materialistic prejudice from scientific fact.”

    And let me say it again: in the 2003 biology book adoption in Texas this principle was followed strictly. There wasn’t a board member that wasn’t trying to get the weakness of evolution into the debate. We never brought up religion. We never brought up intelligent design. All we brought up was evidence.

  14. I can only again speak form myself, but I think with respect to public schools, we have to get away from trying to :

    1. Teach ID
    2. Teach the Controversy

    We have to emphasize what needs to be done is to Explore Evolution in the way Darwin would have wished. The facts will take care of themselves. And if the Darwinists wish to suppress scientific evidence for their own villainous ends, they’ll be in violoation of the law.

    We can save teaching ID and teaching the controversy for the universities and for the free market place of ideas.

    May the Wedge of Truth be with you.

  15. What needs to be done is that we end the teaching of evolution as fact. If we stop the teaching of this erroneous theory as fact, however, we basically default to ID, without even mentioning it. This is because ID is the natural conclusion of someone who hasn’t been “educated” to the contrary. While I know some here will resist the connection, Paley’s analogy is the natural line of thought for people to follow. When you look at your hand, it clearly must have been designed. To believe in Darwinism, you must believe that your common sense is flawed.

    http://outrageoracle.blogspot.com/

  16. Scordova wrote:
    I can only again speak form myself, but I think with respect to public schools, we have to get away from trying to :

    1. Teach ID
    2. Teach the Controversy

    I don’t see why. Are we going to teach science, or not. If we can establish that ID is, indeed, the best explanation for life in all its multitudes of forms, why should that not be taught. Should we just say, “I don’t know”, when a child asks about the origin of species?

Leave a Reply