
Colorado Conservatives are struggling to pass a bill that could drastically change the state’s education system. The bill, focused on academic freedom, would allow creationism, also known as intelligent design, to be taught in public schools. Creationism is the idea that a supernatural being created the earth and its inhabitants. The bill was said to be D.O.A (dead on arrival) by Claire Levy, chair of the House of Appropriations Committee, according to huffingtonpost.com.
“I think it’s safe to say it’s not going to make it to the governor’s desk,” Levy announced on Denver’s 760 AM radio. “It’s asking science teachers or allowing science teachers to teach creationism and deny global warming.”
For a bill to be submitted by conservative Republicans in a committee that’s mostly made up of Democrats, it would appear that Levy is correct.
However, a recent report found that creationism is being taught in Texas public schools.
“The Bible provides scientific evidence that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that astronauts have discovered ‘a day missing in space in elapsed time’ that affirms biblical stories of the sun standing still and moving backwards,” huffingtonpost.com reported. “The study covered the state’s 57 districts and three charter schools offering Bible courses in the 2011-12 academic year.”
The article stated that in the courses reading, writing and Religion 2, Texas students are being taught that “the Bible is the written word of God…giving God his rightful place in the national life of this country has provided a rich heritage for all its citizens…Christ’s resurrection was an event that occurred in time and space — that it was, in reality, historical and not mythological.”
Prominent figures have been speaking out against the teaching of creationism in public schools. Near the end of 2012, Bill Nye, a popular TV personality known as “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” released a video that took YouTube by storm.
“I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we’ve observed in the universe, that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it,” Nye said. “The Earth is not 6,000 or 10,000 years old, it’s not. And if that conflicts with your beliefs, I strongly feel you should question your beliefs.”
I would hope to see the bill pass in Colorado. As a Christian, I am a strong believer in creationism. However, it wouldn’t seem fit to be the only objective taught in public schools. The U.S. is a melting pot of all different cultures and religious beliefs, so it would be somewhat offensive to teach that principle to those who don’t choose to believe in it.
Evolution shouldn’t be the only answer either. If the bill passes, it’ll bring some relief to creationists. I’ve had to sit through many lectures about Darwinism, along with the Big Bang theory, in addition to enduring teachers who challenged my beliefs by stating that evolution is a fact.
Since the study of how humans and this earth came into existence can’t be eliminated from the public school curriculum, it would be beneficial to at least have different science classes. Schools should leave the decision of what is taught up to the teachers and students. Teachers that believe in creationism should be allowed to teach it, and those who don’t can teach evolution. Students should have the power to choose which class they participate in. If they believe in creationism, they shouldn’t have to be subjected to listening to a lecture about how their ancestors branched off from apes. If they don’t believe they were created by a supernatural being, they can choose to take a class with a teacher who explains evolution. Or, there could also be a class that shows both sides of the argument, which is what the Colorado bill will hopefully do: present creationism as a mere alternative to evolution. If students are shown multiple arguments, they won’t have to feel like an opinion or belief is being forced on them.

JosephU is quoting long-debunked creationist arguments, some of which are so lame that even creationist websites deny them.
Let’s have a look:
JosephU says: “Matter from explosions does not condense to form objects like
galaxies.”
Unless of course you consider GRAVITY. Please google Isaac Newton. We watch matter condense all the time in space. JosephU’s statement is silly.
JosephU says: “Molecules to man violates the Law of Biogenesis”
Pasteur’s Law of Biogenesis refuted the contention that dirty rags cause mice to appear, and had nothing to do with the slow chemical processes that science believes spawned the first replicating life. That said, what DOES violate the “Law of Biogenesis” is the contention by Intelligent Design proponents that species appear fully formed by magic.
JosephU says: “The complexity of genetic information doesn’t increase spontaneously”
Except when it does. Gene duplication and divergence, which we’ve observed in nature, explains a tremendous amount of the increase in new genes with new functions. You’ll find a good treatment of this topic on Biologos – that hotbed of anti-religious thinking (sarcasm).
I’ll skip JosephU’s comments about a 10,000 year old Earth – it is a silly assertion from someone who doesn’t understand the Bible is poetry, not journalism.
JosephU says: “There are no intermediate types in the fossil record”
Except for all those transitional fossils we keep predicting and finding. There are THOUSANDS of examples – from gliding bats to whole ranges of reptile/mammal intermediates to Tiktaalik to all those awesome feathered dinosaurs in China.
Google Robert Bakker regarding feathered dinosaur predictions. And you can trust him because he’s also a Pentecostal preacher.
JosephU – if you’d like answers to the standard, tired, old arguments by evolution denialists, there’s a whole list of them on talkorgins.org with nice, clear answers. Look there first before you post discredited statements on forums like this.
Creation, evolution, science …
let’s teach our children the truth.
Q. What does creation teach, what does the Bible say?
A. Genesis 1: 25 (NIV1984Bible)
“God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Google: Genesis 1
Q. What Does Cutting-Edge Science tell us?
A. Matter from explosions does not condense to form objects like
galaxies.
…
– Molecules-to-man evolutionism violates the Law of Biogenesis: Life does not come from non-life.
– The specific complexity of genetic information in the genome does not increase spontaneously.Therefore, there is no natural process whereby reptiles can turn into birds, land mammals into whales, or chimpanzees (or any other kind of creature) into human beings.
…
– Many worldwide natural processes indicate an age for the earth of 10,000 years or less.These include population kinetics, influx of radiocarbon into earth’s atmosphere, absence of meteorites from the geologic column, and decay of earth’s magnetic field.
…
– There is no gradualism in the fossil record, no intermediate types.
For more examples,
Google:
What Does Cutting-Edge Science Teach about Origins?
Jessica wants schools to “present creationism as a mere alternative to evolution…”
As RickK points out, Jessica would also probably want schools to present the “angry gods” theory of earthquake or disease causation as an alternative to current scientific views, astrology as an alternative to astronomy, phrenology as an alternative to psychology…
Get the picture? Creationism – including intelligent design creationism – is scientific illiteracy based on religion, not science.
Right – science teachers, regardless of their backgrounds in science, should have the academic freedom to teach whatever they believe.
Students should be allowed to take classes with teachers who don’t challenge anything they already firmly believe. The same applies to other classes. If students don’t believe the Apollo missions landed on the Moon or don’t believe the Jewish story of the Holocaust or don’t believe Harry Potter is fiction, they should have the option of avoiding challenges to those beliefs.
And this shouldn’t be limited to schools. For example, our criminal court system is entirely too focused on evidence. Just as truth and falsehood in classes should be based on teacher and student beliefs, then guilt and innocence in criminal trials should be based on the cultural and faith beliefs of the judge and jury.
Similarly, public health policy should take into consideration peoples’ beliefs in the healing power of prayer, the efficacy of vaccinations or insurance coverage of homeopathic cancer treatments rather than relying so much on medical studies.
After all, only misery has resulted from people being faced with compelling facts until they’re pressured into changing their minds.