Meet the Creationist Helping to Change Arizona School Standards on Evolution

[HenryChinaski]

No, he's saying let's talk about it. Debate it.

That would serve the students just as well as the debating leprechauns and unicorns. The ID loons are so desperate to slip their bull**** into academia. We’ll dress up our religious beliefs in a lab coat and call it science!

 

[American]

One more reason not to vote conservative.

Meet the Creationist Helping to Change Arizona School Standards on Evolution

Arizona Superintendent Diane Douglas tapped a young-earth creationist to serve last month on a committee tasked with revising the state's science curriculum standards on evolution.

Kezele teaches biology at Arizona Christian University in Phoenix. He advocates teaching his version of "established, real science" in classrooms.

He argued that scientific evidence supports his creationist ideas, including the claims that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs were on board Noah's Ark.​

Cherry picking, smh. :roll:

 

[Sweden]

Still many do......99% of these evangelical nut jobs are "conservative"

So what? That does not imply that any particular percentage of conservatives are evangelical nut jobs. EG : I'm a conservative atheist.

 

[Hatuey]

So what? That does not imply that any particular percentage of conservatives are evangelical nut jobs. EG : I'm a conservative atheist.

You are in a tiny minority as far as the US is concerned. The overwhelming majority of conservatives in the US are Christians, and the closest thing we have to atheist conservatives live in podcasts and are rarely let out of their basements.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Sweden]

You are in a tiny minority as far as the US is concerned. The overwhelming majority of conservatives in the US are Christians, and the closest thing we have to atheist conservatives live in podcasts and are rarely let out of their basements.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

That's as maybe. There is not, however, any essential relationship between political and religious inclinations, In England the early socialists were mostly non-conformist Christians but it would be a bold move to infer that they were socialists because they were Christians - or indeed vice versa.

 

[Hatuey]

That's as maybe. There is not, however, any essential relationship between political and religious inclinations, In England the early socialists were mostly non-conformist Christians but it would be a bold move to infer that they were socialists because they were Christians - or indeed vice versa.

In America there is, religious conservatives espoused historically leftist positions until the 1960s when they became increasingly right wing as these positions were expanded upon by an academia that also explored communism and socialist positions beyond the caricatures of the cold war.

You should read up on early 20th century conservatives, there is a direct link between religion and politics in the US. Sometimes it has been left as sometimes it has been right as far as some specific issues go but, the guiding compass has been race and individualism (largely territory of the right). I say this because religious conservatives in the US were also largely and ironically behind Jim Crow laws.

When these came down, they embraced increasingly right wing ideas which reassembled those of the Confederacy (Ie. 'states rights') but omitted any relationship with slavery and they started voting Republican.

This stuff isn't complicated.


Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Maccabee]

That would serve the students just as well as the debating leprechauns and unicorns. The ID loons are so desperate to slip their bull**** into academia. We’ll dress up our religious beliefs in a lab coat and call it science!

If the students bring it up, I don't see a problem with it.

 

[MSgt]

1.) agreed
2.) nobody is denying that SOME people on the right (just like some in any group) have supported nutball movements like in the op.... still doesnt change the fact this is not representative of conservatives

i repeat grouping conservatives (or liberal or republicans or democrats etc) all together like one like minded entity is illogical and dishonest. its part of the problem with politics today.

Have you ever considered that conservatives have collectively earned today's grouping? Look at the Republican Primary results in 2016...

14,015,993: Donald Trump
7,822,100: Ted Cruz

Set into words, a champion "birther," who encouraged violence in his rallies, proved to be morally broken, and built a campaign simply by tapping into years of developed bitterness and irrational hatred, won the overwhelming support of conservatives long before the other option was Hillary Clinton. Conservatives went from chastising Christian evangelicals like Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart for their sexual misconduct to cheering for a twice divorced, ***** grabber who's family values are obviously next to nothing. Conservatives went from cheering for John McCain for serving, while Obama "did not," to supporting a non-serving Donald Trump even after ridiculing American POWs at McCain's expense. Conservatives went from supporting Bush as he blew debt through the roof, to criticizing Obama for sending debt even higher, and then supporting Trump as he sends debt even higher. And it has always been conservatives who try (and achieve) to push Christianity into the history books.

So, if this behavior isn't representative of conservatives, what is?

 

[D_NATURED]

well good thing i did NONE of that . . please keep the partisan hypocritical straman exaggerations to a minimum
Yes their are nutters with in the right wing . . regardless its not all right wing or even the majority and right wingers or Christians shouldn't be judged by the nut job in the OP thats the point i made and nothing else.

It would be just as retarded to judge the left based on a nutters . . . its part of the problem with politics today.

what i ACTUALLY said is a fact and it stands. what does voting conservative have to do with this nutter? he doesnt speak for them or represent them.:shrug:

Really? You're going to pretend that reality might be something other than what it obviously is? Maybe there is more continuity on the right than you suspect.

First of all, the types of people who deny evolution and want to make that aspect of their magical faith a component of an education in science DO come from the right wing. It's not a straw man, it's not an exaggeration and it's only "partisan" because they come from a specific party that begins with an "R".

What voting conservative has to do with that "nutter" is that there is a major nutter constituency on the right that takes parts or all of the bible literally and desires to have their faith be taught in public schools. Furthermore, those nutters have the ear of MANY conservative politicians and they are constantly pandering to them. You know that and so does everyone else. They are the same people who advocate home schooling to keep children insulated from real science, from which they risk learning about their own sexuality and realizing that many things they were taught were utter bull****.

I know the truth hurts and I'm sorry it has to be said. Unfortunately, there is a marketplace of ideas on this planet and the future will not belong to those who follow Jesus or Muhammad as the followers of those two characters or, should I say, the institutions that finance these myths, have averted their eyes from anything resembling reason and they are a constant source of embarrassment to our nation. THAT is a fact.

 

[HenryChinaski]

If the students bring it up, I don't see a problem with it.

Good thing that you’re not a teacher then.

 

[Maccabee]

Good thing that you’re not a teacher then.

Why do you want to stifle critical thinking? Silencing dissent will only solidify the beliefs held by the students. By letting them ask questions and discussing which viewpoint has the most evidence, students will learn more about the subject and ultimately about themselves.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Why do you want to stifle critical thinking? Silencing dissent will only solidify the beliefs held by the students. By letting them ask questions and discussing which viewpoint has the most evidence, students will learn more about the subject and ultimately about themselves.

Does discussing leprechauns, Unicorns and flat earth utilize “critical thinking? And Religion, no matter how much you try to dress it up in a lab coat is still religion. And slipping ID into evolutionary biology curriculum isn’t going to serve any purpose for the student studying to be a microbiologist. What you’re doing is putting him at a disadvantage by feeding him bull**** that he wont use in his intended career field. It’s a waste of time and money.

 

[Deuce]

The real lie would be refusing to address their questions. You can't make critical thinkers out of students unless you are willing to discuss all the variations on a topic; then those critical thinking skills should lead them to the truth, or as close to it as we humans can get. Education doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's a microcosm of the world, and there are plenty of wrongheaded theories out there in that world. The one place students should be able to ask questions and get answers is in the classroom, where any topic should be eligible for discussion in an objective and academic environment.

Let me be more clear:

You are attacking a ridiculous strawman. You’ve invented some bizarre scenario where a kid asks “what about god” and the teacher, I don’t know, just glares at them. The proper response to a question about young earth creationism in a science classroom is “it has no scientific evidence to support it, and in fact numerous fields of science conclusively prove the earth is far older.” And that’s it, really. There’s nothing else in creationism worthy of discussion in a science classroom. If students want to ask further questions about, say, carbon dating, that’s not a discussion of creationism.

 

[iguanaman]

and yet they dont speak for conservatives and are still individuals... grouping conservatives (or liberal or republicans or democrats etc) all together like one like minded entity is illogical and dishonest. its part of the problem with politics today.

So you are saying the Republicans are the problem? Because they are the ones that have been doing the "grouping". If you don't want creationism taught in our schools don't vote for Republicans. They have made their choice now it is your turn.

 

[AGENT J]

Have you ever considered that conservatives have collectively earned today's grouping? Look at the Republican Primary results in 2016...

14,015,993: Donald Trump
7,822,100: Ted Cruz

Set into words, a champion "birther," who encouraged violence in his rallies, proved to be morally broken, and built a campaign simply by tapping into years of developed bitterness and irrational hatred, won the overwhelming support of conservatives long before the other option was Hillary Clinton. Conservatives went from chastising Christian evangelicals like Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart for their sexual misconduct to cheering for a twice divorced, ***** grabber who's family values are obviously next to nothing. Conservatives went from cheering for John McCain for serving, while Obama "did not," to supporting a non-serving Donald Trump even after ridiculing American POWs at McCain's expense. Conservatives went from supporting Bush as he blew debt through the roof, to criticizing Obama for sending debt even higher, and then supporting Trump as he sends debt even higher. And it has always been conservatives who try (and achieve) to push Christianity into the history books.

So, if this behavior isn't representative of conservatives, what is?

nope because i dont judge groups that way because i know better and reality proves it wrong.

it would be just as dishonest, biased and hypocritical as saying "have you ever considered <insert name here> blacks, whites, latinos, women, men, gays, straights, christians, muslims, jews etc etc erned today's grouping"

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Really? You're going to pretend that reality might be something other than what it obviously is? Maybe there is more continuity on the right than you suspect.

2.) First of all, the types of people who deny evolution and want to make that aspect of their magical faith a component of an education in science DO come from the right wing. It's not a straw man, it's not an exaggeration and it's only "partisan" because they come from a specific party that begins with an "R".

3.) What voting conservative has to do with that "nutter" is that there is a major nutter constituency on the right that takes parts or all of the bible literally and desires to have their faith be taught in public schools. Furthermore, those nutters have the ear of MANY conservative politicians and they are constantly pandering to them. You know that and so does everyone else. They are the same people who advocate home schooling to keep children insulated from real science, from which they risk learning about their own sexuality and realizing that many things they were taught were utter bull****.

4.) I know the truth hurts and I'm sorry it has to be said. Unfortunately, there is a marketplace of ideas on this planet and the future will not belong to those who follow Jesus or Muhammad as the followers of those two characters or, should I say, the institutions that finance these myths, have averted their eyes from anything resembling reason and they are a constant source of embarrassment to our nation. THAT is a fact.

1.) hey look, you just made up ANOTHER lie LMAO keep them going
2.) it is a strawman because remind me what that has to do with what "I" actually said? oh thats right nothing . . your strawman fails again
3.) correct . . . "nutters" not all of the conservatives or even majority . . which again is what i actually said
4.) nothing you said hurts me nor is truth in regards to again what i actually said.

once again we are in the same spot and your strawmen rantings have changed nothing
what i ACTUALLY said is a fact and it stands. what does voting conservative have to do with this nutter? he doesnt speak for them or represent them. That fact is still true. :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

So you are saying the Republicans are the problem? Because they are the ones that have been doing the "grouping". If you don't want creationism taught in our schools don't vote for Republicans. They have made their choice now it is your turn.

nope just pinting out the fact that nutter in the OP doesnt speak for conservatives or republicans nor does he represent them.

I made my choice along time ago i chose not to be a partisan sheep, hence why i dont dishonestly, hypocritical and falsely group people together because its retarded and void of reality. Its everything wrong with politics today.

it would be just as dishonest, biased and hypocritical as grouping <insert name here> blacks, whites, latinos, women, men, gays, straights, christians, muslims, jew, righties, lefties etc etc together

 

[JustHanging]

please make this be an onion article

You wins the interwebs this week! Great comment, gave me a true LOL moment. Thanks!

 

[Maccabee]

Does discussing leprechauns, Unicorns and flat earth utilize “critical thinking?

If the student brings it up and is serious about it, yes. The best way to dispell myths and misconceptions is to put as much light on the subject as possible. Do you really think that student will give up whatever beliefs he had because someone said essentually "shut up, we don't allow anyone to question what is being taught"? BTW, schools already teach Greek mythology with all sorts of gods and myths. I don't see how allowing students to bring up dissenting views (not even talking about installing Intellegent Disign and Creation as curriculum) is any differemt nor do I see the harm.

And Religion, no matter how much you try to dress it up in a lab coat is still religion. And slipping ID into evolutionary biology curriculum isn’t going to serve any purpose for the student studying to be a microbiologist. What you’re doing is putting him at a disadvantage by feeding him bull**** that he wont use in his intended career field. It’s a waste of time and money.

I never said anything one way or the other about installing ID or Creation as a Curriculum. In fact, I'm against it. Students should be taught strictly what is confirmed by in this case what is observed, tested, and demostrated by science. What I am saying, though, is if while discussing origins or evolution, a student dissents and disagrees with what's being taught, he should have the opportunity to express why he dissents.

 

[Maccabee]

So you are saying the Republicans are the problem? Because they are the ones that have been doing the "grouping". If you don't want creationism taught in our schools don't vote for Republicans. They have made their choice now it is your turn.

Lol. Saying that the left don't group people together while at the same time grouping all republicans together in your accusation. Irony at it's finest.

 

[JustHanging]

"Taught" can be many things. I think you have to acknowledge and address what kids are aware of and often asking about. And for over 30+ years, that's exactly what I did every school term.

You're a teacher with 30+ years experience? Wow.

I explained that evolution is just a theory,

"Just a theory"? You taught science for 30+ years and you don't know what a scientific theory is? Wow. Just wow.

but backed by quite a bit of evidence, but there are other theories out there, like creationism and intelligent design.

WTF! Creationism and ID are NOT "other theories". You taught science for 30+ years and you don't even know what a ****ing scientific theory is? Pathetic and Disgusting.

You were a terrible teacher and did your students a great disservice. You were unwilling to learn even the most rudimentary facts about the subject you teach. You undoubtedly had a negative effect on many many children who came through your "classroom". Read some books on the theory of education, and learn the damage you've done. Oh never mind, you weren't even willing to spend 10 minutes learning about the subject you actually taught.

Those theories

They're NOT ****ing theories. Didn't you care enough about your students to learn even the most basic facts about what you "taught"? Pathetic.

don't have much support in the scientific community

No **** Sherlock, because they are NOT theories. Christ. Right now, go and spend 10 minutes learning what a Scientific Theory is. And then feel shame knowing that for 30 years you were too lazy to even learn this most elementary fact about the subject you taught.

but there are lots of people who do support those theories.

Yep, and literally 10 minutes of research would have quickly showed you how wrong all those people were. But over your 30 years of teaching you couldn't spend even 10 minutes learning about the subject you supposedly teach. Again, that is pathetic.

I was never afraid to discuss any issue, no matter what the school board might say.

No, apparently you were always willing to indoctrinate other people's children into your religion. Pathetic.

What I detest is limiting academic inquiry.

This from the person who wasn't even willing to spend 10 ****ing minutes learning about the course they taught. You did nothing but limit the academic inquiry of your students on a daily basis. Pathetic..

 

[JustHanging]

If the students bring it up, I don't see a problem with it.

Then you're not a teacher, or at least not a good one.

If you think about it, I'm sure you'll see the flaw in this. By your logic, if students are interested in a flat earth, you're going to start wasting your science class teaching the "theories" of flat earthers?

And what if students are then interested in Big Foot? Are you going to spend a couple of classes on that? Then there's Area 51, Lizard people, the moon landing "hoax", and on and on.

You could literally spend an entire year in science class without ever learning one thing about science.

 

[JustHanging]

I don't see how allowing students to bring up dissenting views (not even talking about installing Intellegent Disign and Creation as curriculum) is any differemt nor do I see the harm.

Nothing personal, but you're obviously not a teacher, or at least not a good one. Once you have some experience you realize the flaws in this type of thinking.

High school students do not know nearly enough science to have "dissenting views". Are they going to offer their refutations of Newtonian Physics?

Or perhaps an explanation as to how Plate Tectonic Theory is flawed. They can use their knowledge of the lithosphere, the asthenosphere, and how lateral density variations in the mantle result in convection. Really? A high school student?

In order to have a "dissenting view", they would have to understand the mathematics, the theories, the data, and the data collection techniques behind those theories. Otherwise their entire argument is "NUH UH," and that does not belong in a science class.

 

[Maccabee]

Then you're not a teacher, or at least not a good one.

If you think about it, I'm sure you'll see the flaw in this. By your logic, if students are interested in a flat earth, you're going to start wasting your science class teaching the "theories" of flat earthers?

Like I said, I never said anything about teaching. All I said that students should be able to hash out any dissent thry may have within a timely matter. Either "dedicate" a time slot to allow the students to discuss and debate or have them write an essay on why they dissent.

And what if students are then interested in Big Foot? Are you going to spend a couple of classes on that? Then there's Area 51, Lizard people, the moon landing "hoax", and on and on.

You could literally spend an entire year in science class without ever learning one thing about science.

See above.

 

[Waddy]

Let me be more clear:

You are attacking a ridiculous strawman. You’ve invented some bizarre scenario where a kid asks “what about god” and the teacher, I don’t know, just glares at them. The proper response to a question about young earth creationism in a science classroom is “it has no scientific evidence to support it, and in fact numerous fields of science conclusively prove the earth is far older.” And that’s it, really. There’s nothing else in creationism worthy of discussion in a science classroom. If students want to ask further questions about, say, carbon dating, that’s not a discussion of creationism.

I wouldn't dismiss them so quickly. You haven't explained anything really. It would require a great deal more in-depth explanation to satisfy most students. In fact, I would probably put a chart up showing the various challenges to evolution and what they're based on. Discussing these then would make it abundantly clear to my students that evolution has the only real scientific support out there. I would let evolution prove itself to these students. Of their own free will and reasoning powers they would then come to see the flaws in these other ideas and be much more likely to support evolution.