Many Texas Schools Teach Creationism

[Solar]

There is a big difference between discussing the Hebrew creation myth and telling children that the earth is 6,000 years old.

I highlighted it for you, it is an elective class for those wanting to learn about Religion.
Do you have an issue with people broadening their minds?

2007 the state legislature passed a law allowing school districts to offer "elective courses on the Bible's Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament." The Supreme Court long ago ruled that such classes pass constitutional muster

[distraff]

Again, I never said the earth is 6,000 years old. I did say SOMETHING happened to a certain creature called "Man" about 6,000 years ago. Before that, they didn't have agriculture, roads, cities, writing etc.  Yes there were similar creatures much earlier, but no transition from one to the other.  KIND reproduces after KIND. Man is a unique creature in which God placed the "spirit of Man"  THAT makes Man unique and why no other animal will ever "evolve" to do the things Man does today.  Man is a unique creation.  A friend used to say, Man is capable of living like gods on earth, or living lower than the animals.  Removing God from the picture seems to make Man live like animals (China, Russia Cambodia)

I am interested to know how you explain species like homo erectus, homo ergaster, homo neanderthal, and homo habilis. 

And by the way, China is only 42% non-religious, Russia is only 13% non-religious, and Cambodia is 96% Buddhist.

[distraff]

I highlighted it for you, it is an elective class for those wanting to learn about Religion.
Do you have an issue with people broadening their minds?

Not when they are teaching pseudo-science.

[Yawn]

I highlighted it for you, it is an elective class for those wanting to learn about Religion.
Do you have an issue with people broadening their minds?

That changes EVERYTHING. I was only responding to his words. I didn't realize it was an elective!  Atheists really do want to close out all competing ideas.  It's a complete non-issue.

[JTA]

Obviously our ancestor inherited the "get smarter" gene, whereas their ancestor inherited the "keep the fur suit"...

I seem to have also inherited the fur suit gene.

[kopema]

Atheists really do want to close out all competing ideas.

Du-uh!

Every belief system in the world must, of necessity, contain some degree of intolerance.  Atheism is the only exception to that rule:  it consists of absolutely nothing BESIDES intolerance toward the beliefs of others.

[Solar]

Not when they are teaching pseudo-science.

Who claimed it to be a science class?
You really are reaching here, it's a damned elective class, no one is forced to attend!
Would you be happier if it was a socialist teaching the benefits of Marxism?

Point is, offering classes on religion, folk lore, black history or even Marxist ideals, is irrelevant, knowledge kills ignorance.
If more people understood Capitalism and socialism, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today, and you further want to stifle education?
You're worse than the Religious zealots out there!

[distraff]

Who claimed it to be a science class?
You really are reaching here, it's a damned elective class, no one is forced to attend!
Would you be happier if it was a socialist teaching the benefits of Marxism?

Point is, offering classes on religion, folk lore, black history or even Marxist ideals, is irrelevant, knowledge kills ignorance.
If more people understood Capitalism and socialism, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today, and you further want to stifle education?
You're worse than the Religious zealots out there!

1: For the record, I would not be ok with our children learning the benefits of a failed economic system that has cost the lives of tens of millions of people. 
2: I don't think any class whether it is a science, philosophy, liberal arts, or elective class is a class for pseudo-science.  Pseudo-science should not be taught to our children in any class in any school period.
3: Knowledge does not kill ignorance in a populace that is ignorant.  History should be an example.  Even if children could figure out the truth, what is the point in misinforming them in the first place?  Why not just teach them the truth?
4: If we are to present pseudo-science present it as pseudo-science and the refutations to it.  Don't teach it as the truth.

[Solar]

1: For the record, I would not be ok with our children learning the benefits of a failed economic system that has cost the lives of tens of millions of people. 
2: I don't think any class whether it is a science, philosophy, liberal arts, or elective class is a class for pseudo-science.  Pseudo-science should not be taught to our children in any class in any school period.
3: Knowledge does not kill ignorance in a populace that is ignorant.  History should be an example.  Even if children could figure out the truth, what is the point in misinforming them in the first place?  Why not just teach them the truth?
4: If we are to present pseudo-science present it as pseudo-science and the refutations to it.  Don't teach it as the truth.

You make an awful lot of assumptions based on someones opinion piece.
Do you know for a fact it's being taught as an infallible truth, or is it being taught in an historical context?
Using your logic, we shouldn't teach kids about Hitler because it might influence their minds towards hatred of Jews.

Point is, these are elective courses for people wanting to expand their knowledge base on a particular subject.
Maybe Atheists want to better understand what it is they are so against, giving them more knowledge so as to make a better argument against. 
You can't fight ignorance unless you have a better understanding of the individual spewing it, and you are quickly becoming suspect as an ignorant bigot in trying to dictate what people learn.

On the courses being taught.
Public School Bible Courses

Bible courses can be an effective way to teach public school students about the importance of religion in history and literature. However, Bible courses in public schools must be taught in an academic, non-devotional manner that refrains from promoting or disparaging religion or promotiong one particular faith perspective over all others. Many courses fail this most basic test and jeopardize the religious freedom of students.
http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_religious_freedom_bible_courses

[JustKari]

1: For the record, I would not be ok with our children learning the benefits of a failed economic system that has cost the lives of tens of millions of people. 
2: I don't think any class whether it is a science, philosophy, liberal arts, or elective class is a class for pseudo-science.  Pseudo-science should not be taught to our children in any class in any school period.
3: Knowledge does not kill ignorance in a populace that is ignorant.  History should be an example.  Even if children could figure out the truth, what is the point in misinforming them in the first place?  Why not just teach them the truth?
4: If we are to present pseudo-science present it as pseudo-science and the refutations to it.  Don't teach it as the truth.

Fine, then we must also toss out the big bang myth, since it has no basis in fact, only speculation.  Macro evolution as well, must be thrown out, it in no way has been tested and proven to exist, therefore it is a myth.  Global Warming and/or cooling depending on the "expert" you are talking to, has also never been proven as fact, more myths, throw them out.

By the way, you are not the first Atheist to show up and try to stir the pot, be respectful or you'll end up in the same boat all the rest have. 

[distraff]

Fine, then we must also toss out the big bang myth, since it has no basis in fact, only speculation. 

Actually we have the background radiation of the big bang event.  That is pretty strong evidence right there.

Macro evolution as well, must be thrown out, it in no way has been tested and proven to exist, therefore it is a myth. 

We know of dozens of species that show that evolution is real.  Species like homo neanderthal, homo erectus, homo habilis, and homo ergaster. 

Global Warming and/or cooling depending on the "expert" you are talking to, has also never been proven as fact, more myths, throw them out.

Actually about 97% of climate scientists believe that humans are a factor in global warming.  The physics of global warming is sound.  We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  We now how much CO2 warms per unit.  We know how much CO2 we have.  Therefore we can predict the amount of warming we should expect.  There predictions match up with the warming we are seeing.

[JustKari]

Actually we have the background radiation of the big bang event.  That is pretty strong evidence right there.

Actually you have what they "believe" to be the radiation from the big bang.  It is still a theory, one that they teach as fact.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm

We know of dozens of species that show that evolution is real.  Species like homo neanderthal, homo erectus, homo habilis, and homo ergaster.

Do you have any idea how long the people lived before the time of about Abraham? Methuselah at 969 years, was the oldest recorded in the Bible before the Lord started to shorten lifespans.  What happens to the human skeleton as you age?  Tell me that that could not easily be the skeleton of a very, very old person.  Gravity alone would make the hunch over time. 

Actually about 97% of climate scientists believe that humans are a factor in global warming.  The physics of global warming is sound.  We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.  We now how much CO2 warms per unit.  We know how much CO2 we have.  Therefore we can predict the amount of warming we should expect.  There predictions match up with the warming we are seeing.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

They may agree, but that does not make them right.  The great majority of scientists thought the world was flat too.

[kopema]

Bible courses can be an effective way to teach public school students about the importance of religion in history and literature. However, Bible courses in public schools must be taught in an academic, non-devotional manner that refrains from promoting or disparaging religion or promotiong one particular faith perspective over all others.  Many courses fail this most basic test and jeopardize the religious freedom of students.

That's not how liberals see the world.  It's not really possible to teach someone ABOUT Christianity without "promoting it."  That's how the Christian faith is typically proselytized:  by simply telling people about the faith.  And that is specifically what liberals are trying to abolish.

More aggressive religions, such as Islam and Communism, don't work that way.  The only way they can work is by first attacking and destroying all other belief systems, and then collectivizing all thought.

Ergo, any curriculum aimed toward increasing government control over individuals (which, by definition, is the only possible goal of a centrally-dictated education system) must require students to demonstrate constant "tolerance" (i.e. obsequiousness) toward beliefs which require unquestioning submission to authority, and rabid INtolerance toward public recognition of any belief system which includes the concept of a spiritual authority existing separately from governmental authority.

[Solar]

That's not how liberals see the world.  It's not really possible to teach someone ABOUT Christianity without "promoting it."  That's how the Christian faith is typically proselytized:  by simply telling people about the faith.  And that is specifically what liberals are trying to abolish.

More aggressive religions, such as Islam and Communism, don't work that way.  The only way they can work is by first attacking and destroying all other belief systems, and then collectivizing all thought.

Ergo, any curriculum aimed toward increasing government control over individuals (which, by definition, is the only possible goal of a centrally-dictated education system) must require students to demonstrate constant "tolerance" (i.e. obsequiousness) toward beliefs which require unquestioning submission to authority, and rabid INtolerance toward public recognition of any belief system which includes the concept of a spiritual authority existing separately from governmental authority.

That is exactly why history is sooo important, it's also the reason libs are repeating the mistakes of the past, they know nothing of history, except the filtered PC version being taught.

[walkstall]

Actually you have what they "believe" to be the radiation from the big bang.  It is still a theory, one that they teach as fact.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100613212708.htm

Do you have any idea how long the people lived before the time of about Abraham? Methuselah at 969 years, was the oldest recorded in the Bible before the Lord started to shorten lifespans.  What happens to the human skeleton as you age?  Tell me that that could not easily be the skeleton of a very, very old person.  Gravity alone would make the hunch over time. 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

They may agree, but that does not make them right. The great majority of scientists thought the world was flat too.

  that's gotta hurt!