Teacher informs students of evolution lies in textbooks

Post Reply New Topic

I'm unclear as to just what the OP means by "evolution" - all of it? Every single living species? Or is it just the humans-evolved-from-apes aspect that you're opposed to?
To me, evolution is equal parts luck, genetic mutations and survival of the fittest, and I do get annoyed when people throw around the word "evolution" too readily. A few years ago I remember a news story that said hedgehog numbers weren't dwindling, and the lack of squashed hedgehogs on our roads was because they had evolved and learned to stay off the roads. To me, the intelligent hedgehogs knew to stay away from the big loud metal things and the dumb ones got run over. The species as a whole may now be considered slightly more intelligent, but nothing about the hedgehogs had actually changed, so calling it "evolution" is a bit of a stretch.
These days humans are more intelligent, healthier and live longer than ever before. Mostly that's due to our own advances in technology and medicine, but I call that evolution if it eventually benefits the entire human race.

I'm still curious what these alleged errors in the textbooks are. They are not mentioned in the articles as far as I can see.

@leejosepho

I saw you quote Kent Hovind as a source of information. If you were to do just a little research, you would find that most if not all of everything Kent Hovind says about evolution is false. Sure he is a slick talker and makes a good presentation. So what? He ignores many facts and denies or distorts what he does not ignore. He also makes stuff up, total fabrication out of touch with reality. He invents his own definitions and terms that are not supported by any evidence and are not used by anyone except those who quote Kent Hovind as a source. If you rely on sources such as Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort or Ken Ham for your information about evolution, you will be basing your opinion on lies and distortions. Don't take my word for this. Check what they say against the actual evidence and what scientists have said (not the misquotes and quotations taken out of context found in creationist web sites, books and films). I for one am highly offended by how blatantly these creationists distort the truth, especially since they claim to be doing it in the name of God. They bring shame to Christ and make Christians and Christianity look really stupid.

I see a mixture of creation and evolution. I see physical life forms as an evolutionary process, a simpletons explanation, and consciousness as what defines existence as we know it. Physical existence being relative to state of consciousness, which is constantly evolving, but has no form. So the non-form "consciousness" perceives the physical form relative to whatever sense indulgence is taking place at any given moment. But no physical "form" is "real" as we perceive it. I know it probably makes no sense to anyone but me, but what form is really here to perceive?

?? Had you missed my answer?


Maybe in a couple of weeks I will try to make such a list after I get some new glasses and can see well enough to be able to do so without having to strain my eyes as much. However, my goal would only be to raise the questions to discuss the merit of asking them rather than to prove anything where most people seem inclined to immediately begin debating conflicting answers!


That might be true, but saying he is right or wrong about evolution is not the point of this thread. Rather, I am suggesting *all* people claiming to be scientists should be watched for the kinds of things you have mentioned:

"...slick talker...makes a good presentation...ignores many facts and denies or distorts what he does not ignore....makes stuff up, total fabrication out of touch with reality...invents his own definitions and terms that are not supported by any evidence and are not used by anyone except those who quote [him or her] as a source."

Such things are not limited to charlatans on either side of the debate.

facts are relative to those who have no integrity. If Kent Hovind wants to list the Bible as a souce of fact, he immediately loses all credibility. Whats the point debating with Creationists though. They are not even rational. Its a waste of time. I live in a family of "believers" and debating this ridiculous topic only creates animosity in the family.

Maybe you are missing the point of this thread, and I mean to be saying that respectfully. The question here is about the scrutiny of science textbooks, not evolution-versus-creation. I suspect most of us have heard of revisionism such as presenting history in a dogma-first kind of way, and I cannot think of any reason for science textbooks to never be challenged.

Are we challenging science textbooks on everything? Or are we challenging science textbooks as pertains to teaching evolution? That is the whole point of the topic, for me. Is that Creationists are using this issue to skirt the separation of church and state issue. To insidiously teach Christianity in public school. To get into childrens minds at the earliest possible impressionable age, the belief in God as Creator and Jesus as savior. This is why I say Creationists have no integrity. This has nothing to do with the validity of science textbooks. This is all about creating an avenue to slide Creationism into public schools under the guise of Creation Science/Intelligent Design, whatever you want to call it. They way they are trying to do it is by telling kids to challenge the science teachers. Even to the point of sending little kids into public school with prescripted lists of challenge questions. Creationists do not want educated, intelligent children. That is a threat to authority. Creationists (Conservative fundamentalists) want obedient, compliant, submissive citizens, and the best way to do that is to indoctrinate them with this nonsense at the earliest age possible.

Only in the sense that anything anywhere always remain open to review.


Not in the way I believe you mean that.


That would be a separate matter, and no pun intended there. A critical review of textbooks only has to do with religion where religion, including atheism, might need to be removed from them.


I do understand why you say that, and I am aware of that being the case in certain cases. However, Hovind specifically states that is *not* his intent and I happen to believe him. That does not make any of his "lies in the textbooks" allegations true, of course, but the dismissal of everything he says will require something far beyond mere rhetoric, dogma or word games if I am ever to be convinced he is wrong in every way.


That is a ridiculous statement even though the same could be said of some evolutionists having their own agendas...but such is not the point of this thread.

I have never seen a science textbook that even mentions atheism. I have seen a science textbook that explicitly mentions christianity as the origin for "intelligent design science." I had a nephew with a Mississippi state board of education approved science book that had that in it. around halfway through the year, the district courts heard a case on that specific textbook and he had to get a new textbook.

Just for the record, teaching evolution is not the same as teaching atheism.

We definitely agree there, at least not always, and neither is teaching ID or Creation always the same as teaching any religion...and either side using the cry or "Religion!" against the other in a debate of science does a disservice to everyone.

In and of itself, teaching ID or Creation is not specifically religious (although the religious are both the only proponents as well as the origin of both).

The basic issue is that evolution is science, whereas ID and Creationism is not. I am just as against someone trying to teach children about aliens in history class, JFK conspiracy theories in poli-sci, or homeopathy in biology or pathophysiology. You can believe all those things if you want to, and you are perfectly free to teach these things to your children, but they do not belong in the public education system any more than mandatory atheism lectures.

I really don't think we are very far apart in terms of our viewpoints; just approaching it from different directions along with some disagreements on what is scientifically sound and what has no basis in science.

I also agree with the above, however I'd also add that neither ID or Creationism is science and consequently have no place in science classes. If people feel those subjects should be taught then teach them in their own classes but please do not call them science because they are not.

I don't know why it is ridiculous to say Creationists do not want educated intelligent children., or why evolutionists have their own agenda. I was being taught evolution in school as far back as 1964, at the same time I was walking every Sunday morning to spend time being indoctrinated at the Presbyterian church. There was never any controversy over the teaching of evolution that I recall. We went to school to learn science, civics, math, English and all the rest. We went to church to learn religion. I don't ever recall in school of any science teacher saying anything about creationism, mocking God or anything of the sort. It was just accepted that the two had nothing to do with each other. We never thought about such things. Being taught evolution in public school is not what turns people away from Creationism. Science is not trying to turn people away from belief in God. People are turning away from the belief in God because of what they see and learn in life. Why, and when, did the patriarchs of religion fabricate this illusion that teaching evolution turns people away from God and use it to attack scientists? Scientists are not in their chosen profession as a way to attack religion. It is just coincidence that the discoveries of science are disproving the timeline of the Bible. The church feels threatened by science, so the church wants to create their own science to threaten the status quo. The intent is still the same. Of course people like Hovind are going to deny that they are trying to slide religion into public schools. He has no integrity. He IS in prison, is he not, for being dishonest. Is that not breaking one of Christianity Commandments? The point of this thread avoids the whole reason this debate is taking place. Stop attacking science. Science is not attacking religion. Religion is not under attack at all. Religion is losing its stranglehold on society and is trying to make science the scapegoat.

Religion itself is the reason people are turning away from religion. Religion is FAITH based. It is irrational. When rational people evolve into adult people they figure that out. Or they don't, and continue living a fantasy life. Nott based on reality. And I have a whole family of believers to point at and say that as far out as I may be with my mental issues, my religious family is far more lost than I will ever be in the real world.

Just do a survey somewhere and ask Creationists whether they want "educated intelligent children"!


I had not said all of them do.


Are you recognizing each as being an indoctrination or have you just added that to the second part in order to take a cheap shot at religion?


I grew up in a different denomination where we were told to be cautious of the teaching and/or teachings (where present) of evolution.


I remember something of that sort in 10th-grade biology in 1966, but I do not recall the details.


I believe that is accurate, but that does not mean no scientist ever has a religious agenda.


I am aware of his conviction, but I have yet to see any evidence of actual wrong-doing.


There certainly is some truth there, but that is not always the case.

I am not aware of any organized teaching of Atheism. I would say that people evolve toward Atheism as result of experiences with religion. Not necessarily negative experiences, but rather as a result of the exploration and understanding of religion. And I disapprove of teaching children either Atheism or religion. I think studies have proven that Atheists are more informed about relative religions than are the people who actually practice these religions. And that is not a slam on religion. Surveys are a scientific process.