Ohio school district trying to teach Creationism and other pseudoscience

Timshel

New member
The creationist have given up on intelligent design as science (or at least they have moved that bs argument to the back burner). Their new attack/buzzword is "Teach the Controversy" which was dreamed up by the quacks at the Discovery Institute.

Most of the non religious issues, though some of it (Agenda 21) is pure conspiratard nonsense, could easily be a part of class discussion. They don't need a class or to develop curriculum for it. The purpose is to sneak in creationism.

http://anr.apartmentj.com/?p=1433

On Thursday, a small Ohio town’s school board allowed for comments from citizens, parents, and students on a proposed policy change that would allow the district to teach and promote Creationism and a host of other pseudo-scientific positions under the guise of discussing controversial issues.

The Springboro Community City School District has introduced 2240 – Controversial Issues, whose purpose is to “help students think critically, learn to identify important issues, explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the values and factors involved, and develop techniques for formulating and evaluating positions.”

The list of controversial topics includes, “[Religion] when not used in a historical or factual context, sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change, UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and any other topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion and/or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.”
 
America today is very troubled with violence and evil, as witnessed again today with the shooting in Chicago. I'm now wondering if the upside of teaching religion in the schools could trump the downside. It's become a question of just what is going to destroy your country the fastest. Religion does have it's pacifist aspect to consider. Even though teaching it to children could form their opinions for life.

Then on the other hand, America seems to be leading the world in gun violence and violence against others in other countries and that is not consistent with it's higher proportion of Christian believers than other more peaceful countries.
 
America today is very troubled with violence and evil, as witnessed again today with the shooting in Chicago. I'm now wondering if the upside of teaching religion in the schools could trump the downside. It's become a question of just what is going to destroy your country the fastest. Religion does have it's pacifist aspect to consider. Even though teaching it to children could form their opinions for life.

Then on the other hand, America seems to be leading the world in gun violence and violence against others in other countries and that is not consistent with it's higher proportion of Christian believers than other more peaceful countries.

The notion that teaching religion in schools to stop violence is ridiculous. We were still a violent nation when it was taught in our schools. The difference, we were just killing the natives and enslaving others, not shooting up schools or businesses.
 
The notion that teaching religion in schools to stop violence is ridiculous. We were still a violent nation when it was taught in our schools. The difference, we were just killing the natives and enslaving others, not shooting up schools or businesses.

Still, on the average I think that real Christians can claim the highroad more often than non-religious. Non-religious includes those who pretend to be religious.

And I'm talking from an atheist POV.

Don't forget, I asked the question of whether the upside would outweigh the downside of teaching children things that are not true.
 
Still, on the average I think that real Christians can claim the highroad more often than non-religious. Non-religious includes those who pretend to be religious.

And I'm talking from an atheist POV.

Don't forget, I asked the question of whether the upside would outweigh the downside of teaching children things that are not true.

I would need to see the proof and from what I have read, there is no correlation.

Currently they teach conflict resolution and respect for others, I don't see how love one another is anymore effective, or be nice or you are going to hell can be more effective.
 
America today is very troubled with violence and evil, as witnessed again today with the shooting in Chicago. I'm now wondering if the upside of teaching religion in the schools could trump the downside. It's become a question of just what is going to destroy your country the fastest. Religion does have it's pacifist aspect to consider. Even though teaching it to children could form their opinions for life.

Then on the other hand, America seems to be leading the world in gun violence and violence against others in other countries and that is not consistent with it's higher proportion of Christian believers than other more peaceful countries.

It's consistent with it. The murder rates are not due to a lacking of Christian faith.
 
Still, on the average I think that real Christians can claim the highroad more often than non-religious. Non-religious includes those who pretend to be religious.

And I'm talking from an atheist POV.

Don't forget, I asked the question of whether the upside would outweigh the downside of teaching children things that are not true.

Sure you are an atheist. We know that because you said so.

How do you determine who these people are that pretend to be religious but are not really religious? You are blatantly stating that you have a selection bias in determining the criminality of "real Christians." It's the same fallacious nonsense employed by every other right wing moron.
 
The creationist have given up on intelligent design as science (or at least they have moved that bs argument to the back burner). Their new attack/buzzword is "Teach the Controversy" which was dreamed up by the quacks at the Discovery Institute.

Most of the non religious issues, though some of it (Agenda 21) is pure conspiratard nonsense, could easily be a part of class discussion. They don't need a class or to develop curriculum for it. The purpose is to sneak in creationism.

http://anr.apartmentj.com/?p=1433

On Thursday, a small Ohio town’s school board allowed for comments from citizens, parents, and students on a proposed policy change that would allow the district to teach and promote Creationism and a host of other pseudo-scientific positions under the guise of discussing controversial issues.

The Springboro Community City School District has introduced 2240 – Controversial Issues, whose purpose is to “help students think critically, learn to identify important issues, explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the values and factors involved, and develop techniques for formulating and evaluating positions.”

The list of controversial topics includes, “[Religion] when not used in a historical or factual context, sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change, UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and any other topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion and/or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.”
Without even bothering to read your post I can guess that the school is either located in south east Ohio in the piedmont region along the Ohio river or is in a west central central Ohio farming community.
 
The creationist have given up on intelligent design as science (or at least they have moved that bs argument to the back burner). Their new attack/buzzword is "Teach the Controversy" which was dreamed up by the quacks at the Discovery Institute.

Most of the non religious issues, though some of it (Agenda 21) is pure conspiratard nonsense, could easily be a part of class discussion. They don't need a class or to develop curriculum for it. The purpose is to sneak in creationism.

http://anr.apartmentj.com/?p=1433

On Thursday, a small Ohio town’s school board allowed for comments from citizens, parents, and students on a proposed policy change that would allow the district to teach and promote Creationism and a host of other pseudo-scientific positions under the guise of discussing controversial issues.

The Springboro Community City School District has introduced 2240 – Controversial Issues, whose purpose is to “help students think critically, learn to identify important issues, explore fully and fairly all sides of an issue, weigh carefully the values and factors involved, and develop techniques for formulating and evaluating positions.”

The list of controversial topics includes, “[Religion] when not used in a historical or factual context, sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change, UN Agenda 21 and sustainable development, and any other topic on which opposing points of view have been promulgated by responsible opinion and/or likely to arouse both support and opposition in the community.”
Well, I was correct. Springboro is in west central Ohio farm country about halfway between Dayton and Cincinnati. I used to live and work there. I'm not surprized at all. Springboro has a huge hillbilly....err sorry....Appalachian American population.

They're idiots. No way in hell that this passes the Lemon test and it sets the school and city up for huge legal expenses if some concerned parents take this to court for violating the seperation clause.
 
Don't our schools have enough to do without trying to figure out how to "teach the controversy"?
The whole notion is a red herring. There is no scientific controversy about the theory of biological evolution. Only a religious one. The fact of evolutionary theory has a hugely wide based consensus among life scientist.
 
Still, on the average I think that real Christians can claim the highroad more often than non-religious. Non-religious includes those who pretend to be religious.

And I'm talking from an atheist POV.

Don't forget, I asked the question of whether the upside would outweigh the downside of teaching children things that are not true.
What the hell is a "Real Christian" other than a phrase fanatics use to demonise those who don't share their absolutist views?
 
Back
Top