Option of teaching creationism in science classes is establishing a state religion

[Calm]

I need to sleep.  Maybe this will congeal after that.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Doesn't it? I'd say that the state teaching geometry certainly does establishes geometry as something the state believes in.

I am thinking of a state religion more like a official state language.  In Canada, it is French and English for the federal, French for Quebec, English for Alberta and iirc, French and English for the rest of the provinces...but it has been almost 20 years since I drove those streets so I may be off.

Teaching Latin in schools does not result in having Latin on the signs on the freeways or on the government buildings.

[Calm]

Sorry if I am not being particularly clear....

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

But I am not talking about

I’m not sure that your interpretation is the one that matters (with respect). What creationism do you think the framers of the law had in mind (I wonder if you looked at who voted for this law, if a single one didn’t identify as Christian)? And what interpretation of creationism will teachers have? And does the law require your generic interpretation? 
 

The law isn’t about teaching that “some people believe” xyz as your characterize it. It allows teaching “creationism” on equal footing. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am thinking of a state religion more like a official state language.  In Canada, it is French and English for the federal, French for Quebec, English for Alberta and iirc, French and English for the rest of the provinces...but it has been almost 20 years since I drove those streets so I may be off.

Teaching Latin in schools does not result in having Latin on the signs on the freeways or on the government buildings.

The state already allows creationism to be taught in this manner - in say a comparative religion class. This as you point out has no first amendment implications. This law goes well beyond that and teaches religion as science. 

[MiserereNobis]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am thinking of a state religion more like a official state language.  In Canada, it is French and English for the federal, French for Quebec, English for Alberta and iirc, French and English for the rest of the provinces...but it has been almost 20 years since I drove those streets so I may be off.

Teaching Latin in schools does not result in having Latin on the signs on the freeways or on the government buildings.

Latin is the official language of Vatican City. The ATMs have Latin as a language option.

And people say Latin is a dead language...  

Edited April 17, 2021 by MiserereNobis

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

or even discussing creation myths as part of the Science course, 

Maybe I misunderstood the law, but the text allows for teaching creationism as a “theory”. Are you saying “theory” here is not used in a scientific context?

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not pro teaching creationism in detail in science classes as I don’t see it as science (“the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”), but am simply wondering about the reasoning offered in the quote below that teaching it is unconstitutional.

Can someone explain to me how a science teacher having the option to mention that some people believe deity created the earth establishes a state religion?  I can see if it is the only theory that is presented there would be a problem and I believe that it isn’t actually science, so it IMO isn’t an appropriate subject for any detail in a science class....though I can see it being discussed in terms of ‘we don’t know what started the part of the process we have evidence for, some people assume a “first cause”’ or as part of a history or philosophy of science section.  I just don’t get the jump from “an idea is religious in nature” to “this is state religion” especially if the Christian version isn’t specified, but rather a generic version summarizing the basic belief of deity somehow triggering chaos to transform into organized forms.

Question arose for me due to this article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/04/arkansas-representatives-passes-a-bill-to-allow-creationism-in-schools/

No need to debate whether the law is unconstitutional or not and please don’t turn this into a debate about evolution or young earth vs old earth, just looking for the reasoning of the bolder part.  Teaching geometry does not establish geometry as a state institution or belief system, so why would teaching creationism do so?

Back in the 1960s we had some school prayer decisions at the Supreme Court with the same result.  Then Univ of Chicago Law Professor Dallin Oaks actually wrote a full explanation of those school prayer decisions in our Improvement Era.  LDS members did not understand that a public school teacher is a state employee, and that allowing or having a prayer in class was illegal under the First Amendment.  Students could of course pray on their own before or after school (that's why the LDS Seminary program cannot be held on campus).

I remember discussing the teaching of creationism in state schools with a Bible-believing Missouri State legislator who just didn't get it.  The Supreme Court had no problem at all with a wide-ranging discussion of various religious POVs in a class on religions, but absolutely prohibited the teaching of creationism under the guise of science in a science class.  Why?  Because creationism tended to be an inherently religious subject, even if tinged with science terminology.

As a subject in the philosophy of science, creationism was freely discussed in class at CalTech as one of a number of theories of origins (a CalTech professor even authored a book in which creationism was included, but not as a religious POV).  It was more on the order of what Richard Dawkins would agree could be done by very technically advanced sentient beings somewhere in the universe.  God-like, but not gods in the Judeo-Christian sense.

Edited April 17, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I’m sure the thinking is that if even only 1 student in the entire state of Arkansas is persuaded to believe in the existence of God through the presentation of creationist theory in the classroom it will be considered the establishment of religion, at very least the establishment of religion in the mind of the student who has thusly been persuaded.......................

The elementary or secondary public school teacher is a state employee with a captive audience and therefore cannot be allowed to provide cover for any religious POV (even seemingly innocuous views).  The concern is not about college students, who are adults and can be subjected to wide-ranging opinions on almost anything.  Think also of the old Arabic POV that, if you allow the camel to put his nose into the tent, pretty soon you'll have the whole camel in the tent.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

s a subject in the philosophy of science, creationism was freely discussed in class at CalTech as one of a number of theories of origins (a CalTech professor even authored a book in which creationism was included, but not as a religious POV).  It was more on the order of what Richard Dawkins would agree could be done by very technically advanced sentient beings somewhere in the universe.  God-like, but not gods in the Judeo-Christian sense.

This is probably more of what I am thinking of as a reasonable and indeed more beneficial approach, basically starting off a high school science class with a week or two of discussion of the philosophy and history of science including a discussion about the theories of origins so the kids can then view the actual principles of Science as part of a greater worldview rather than just a set of facts and concepts that need to be memorized. 
 

While I was very good at using math formulae as puzzles in themselves, I found them easier to retain and apply if taught the reasoning and purpose behind them.  And with science, I find it raises learning to a greater level of enjoyment if the process of discovery is used as part of the teaching process..as if we are tracing the path the researchers themselves first took, though cleared somewhat of what is now known as irrelevant debris.

I enjoy a more holistic approach to teaching.  Learning  about environment of the scientists and their struggles and insights and what motivated them and the consequences of discoveries, how in turn they affected the development of society along with the principles of Science would be to me a more worthwhile experience and might lead to a greater interest in Science itself.

 

[teddyaware]

54 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The elementary or secondary public school teacher is a state employee with a captive audience and therefore cannot be allowed to provide cover for any religious POV (even seemingly innocuous views).  The concern is not about college students, who are adults and can be subjected to wide-ranging opinions on almost anything.  Think also of the old Arabic POV that, if you allow the camel to put his nose into the tent, pretty soon you'll have the whole camel in the tent.

 

Meanwhile the quasi religion of godless post-modern humanism, wherein “science” takes the place of God, is another kind of camel that’s fully inside the tent, ensconced on a golden throne, and openly hostile to anyone and anything that refuses to worship its antiChrist idols. Yea, real fair. This is why secular governments should have never been permitted to gain control over the systems of education in the first place.

But I guess I shouldn’t let it bother me too much because the modern, godless ‘educational’ systems are a major reason why the world is ripening in iniquity at an ever accelerating pace, and the sooner the day of full ripening comes the sooner the faithful will be with their risen Lord.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

But I guess I shouldn’t let it bother me too much because the modern, godless ‘educational’ systems are a major reason why the world is ripening in iniquity at an ever accelerating pace, and the sooner the day of full ripening comes the sooner the faithful will be with their risen Lord.

I teach English at a public high school. I guess when I look around me, at my fellow teachers, at my wonderful students, at the staff who supports us and the parents who help us, I don't see an institution that is causing the world to "ripen in iniquity." Quite the opposite, actually. I see people who love and care for children, who try their best to make up for difficult home lives and socio-economic disadvantages. People who push children to be better both intellectually and morally.

I invite you to come visit my public high school. Perhaps we can walk the halls together and you can point out the ways that we are ruining the world? I suppose you might look at our daycare facilities, which have received the highest rankings for something like 7 years in a row, and decry our "support" of teen pregnancy (never mind that the mothers and fathers are required to take classes on how to parent, how to budget, how to be an adult in order to have their children cared for while they finish high school). Maybe you'd scoff at our nationally award winning multi-media broadcast program, because, you know, media and fake news.

It's easy to be removed from the actual lives of children and call the institution that often gives them the most support "godless."

I'll also add, based on your posting history, that you seem to be looking forward to the death and destruction prophesied before the second coming.

[mrmarklin]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not interested in speculation about motivations or fears. A legal argument should have reasoning attached, so there should be no need for speculation such as what you are doing.

The mandate is the problem. From a neutral point of view, since no one knows how we got here, having a deity create us is as good a theory as any. Evolution, the current hypothesis, is at least as far fetched as God.  But people believe it implicitly!

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

Meanwhile the quasi religion of godless post-modern humanism, wherein “science” takes the place of God, is another kind of camel that’s fully inside the tent, ensconced on a golden throne, and openly hostile to anyone and anything that refuses to worship its antiChrist idols. Yea, real fair. This is why secular governments should have never been permitted to gain control over the systems of education in the first place.

But I guess I shouldn’t let it bother me too much because the modern, godless ‘educational’ systems are a major reason why the world is ripening in iniquity at an ever accelerating pace, and the sooner the day of full ripening comes the sooner the faithful will be with their risen Lord.

Take your meds.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Meanwhile the quasi religion of godless post-modern humanism, wherein “science” takes the place of God, is another kind of camel that’s fully inside the tent, ensconced on a golden throne, and openly hostile to anyone and anything that refuses to worship its antiChrist idols. Yea, real fair. This is why secular governments should have never been permitted to gain control over the systems of education in the first place.

But I guess I shouldn’t let it bother me too much because the modern, godless ‘educational’ systems are a major reason why the world is ripening in iniquity at an ever accelerating pace, and the sooner the day of full ripening comes the sooner the faithful will be with their risen Lord.

OTOH, broad secular education throughout the world makes our missionary efforts more likely to succeed.  There must needs be opposition in all things.  Then too, science is merely an explanation of how things function under natural law, and the LDS faith is a humanistic faith with an anthropomorphic God who has mastered natural law.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

This is probably more of what I am thinking of as a reasonable and indeed more beneficial approach, basically starting off a high school science class with a week or two of discussion of the philosophy and history of science including a discussion about the theories of origins so the kids can then view the actual principles of Science as part of a greater worldview rather than just a set of facts and concepts that need to be memorized. 
 

While I was very good at using math formulae as puzzles in themselves, I found them easier to retain and apply if taught the reasoning and purpose behind them.  And with science, I find it raises learning to a greater level of enjoyment if the process of discovery is used as part of the teaching process..as if we are tracing the path the researchers themselves first took, though cleared somewhat of what is now known as irrelevant debris.

I enjoy a more holistic approach to teaching.  Learning  about environment of the scientists and their struggles and insights and what motivated them and the consequences of discoveries, how in turn they affected the development of society along with the principles of Science would be to me a more worthwhile experience and might lead to a greater interest in Science itself.

Yes, and very few people realize that one of the very greatest of scientists, Sir Isaac Newton, was also an actual wizard (sorcerer).  Michael White, Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer (Fourth Estate, 1997), online at https://sites.google.com/a/masheh.host/yolondagres/isaac-newton-the-last-sorcerer

[nuclearfuels]

22 hours ago, Calm said:

Teaching geometry does not establish geometry as a state institution or belief system, so why would teaching creationism do so?

Arkansas may have written that law to ensure the predominant spiritual beliefs of the majority of their constituents is not made illegal by the Marxist godless public school curriculum. Indoctrination is a book that explains more of the public school system's intentions.  

I've wondered why our Church doesn't have schools like the Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and others do. 

I love the idea though of a full separation of Church and State. Church HQ would be sovereign, like Catholic HQ. Social programs of both Church and State, perhaps, would not overlap so much and still continue to worsen the war on poverty?

[sunstoned]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe what I am missing is “state religion” is any religious idea that gets promoted through a public venue with tax dollars, even generic ones while I have been looking at it as more backing a church organization. 

Technically this is dealing a specific religious teaching.  That of the Christian religion.  There are many hundreds of other religions with their beliefs of how mankind and the earth were created.  IMO a state employee (teacher) who singles out one religion and promotes its beliefs in the classroom is very close to endorsing a preferred religion.   This could be seen as a state religion.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

Technically this is dealing a specific religious teaching.  That of the Christian religion. 

So “Creationism” is legally defined as a specific Christian belief and never or rarely applied to just a generic belief in a divine Creator?  I honestly haven’t paid that much attention to this as a political debate and it seems I made a false assumption about the term.  I have read a few proponents of Creationism who have stated that Creationism is generic, but if that is only their idiosyncratic version and it is overwhelmingly defined as a version of Christian belief, the claim of establishing a state religion makes more sense to me.

Was this defined in a legal context, because it looks like from dictionaries and wiki, that while the bibical version is the most often POV for a creationist, they allow for other religions to be included.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Quote

The term creationism most often refers to belief in special creation; the claim that the universe and lifeforms were created as they exist today by divine action, and that the only true explanations are those which are compatible with a Christian fundamentalist literal interpretation of the creation myths found in the Bible's Genesis creation narrative.[7] 

Only the second definition is purely Christian.

Quote

the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.

(sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, especially in the first chapter of Genesis.

the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/creationism

 

I didn’t see anything in the Arkansas law that specifies a Christian viewpoint.  If lawyers for the state argue that the law is meant to apply to any religious belief about divine creation, wouldn’t that remove the challenge that the law established a state religion?

(Again, not saying creationism of any sort should be allowed to be taught as science as I think the law is wrong as I don’t think teachers should be allowed to promote personal beliefs and even discussions of their personal beliefs should be limited to a very precise set of circumstances...like teaching critical thinking and presenting their own POV to be dissected by students making it clear there are other reasonable interpretations, etc;  just trying to understand the reasoning behind the claim the law is unconstitutional.)

Edited April 18, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

So “Creationism” is legally defined as a specific Christian belief and never or rarely applied to just a generic belief in a divine Creator?  I honestly haven’t paid that much attention to this as a political debate and it seems I made a false assumption about the term.  I have read a few proponents of Creationism who have stated that Creationism is generic, but if that is only their idiosyncratic version and it is overwhelmingly defined as a version of Christian belief, the claim of establishing a state religion makes more sense to me.

Was this defined in a legal context, because it looks like from dictionaries and wiki, that while the bibical version is the most often POV for a creationist, they allow for other religions to be included.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism

Only the second definition is purely Christian.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/creationism

 

I didn’t see anything in the Arkansas law that specifies a Christian viewpoint.  If lawyers for the state argue that the law is meant to apply to any religious belief about divine creation, wouldn’t that remove the challenge that the law established a state religion?

(Again, not saying creationism of any sort should be allowed to be taught as science as I think the law is wrong as I don’t think teachers should be allowed to promote personal beliefs and even discussions of their personal beliefs should be limited to a very precise set of circumstances...like teaching critical thinking and presenting their own POV to be dissected by students making it clear there are other reasonable interpretations, etc;  just trying to understand the reasoning behind the claim the law is unconstitutional.)

It sounds to me like you are saying that, since it's not advocating the entirety of one specific religion, just a generic creation science, that you don't see that as establishing a state religion. Is that accurate?

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It sounds to me like you are saying that, since it's not advocating the entirety of one specific religion, just a generic creation science, that you don't see that as establishing a state religion. Is that accurate?

Correct mostly.  Presenting a religious belief isn't automatically advocating for it.  Explaining that there are those who believe in a creator or a creative force can be done by an atheist easily enough, after all.  I had a class on Greek and Roman culture that included discussion about religion and it was obvious no proselyting was going on. 

  Plus I don't see it as an effective use of time in a science class to go over an "entirety" of any religious belief, that would be for a comparative religion course.  Any detailed discussion will need to reference specific beliefs of a specific faith, as far as I can see, so either you spend too much time in a science class teaching a variety of creation beliefs or to make better use of your time, you introduce the idea in a simple fashion, such at an appropriate stage of the class, have an intro section, perhaps like this:   'while we can theorize about much of what happened in the beginnings of our universe/solar system, we have much less information available to us for what might have come before...if anything did; some believe __________ (list most popular, current speculations by scientists; others don't care to speculate at all since they do not believe there is any credible evidence to test their ideas on; still others believe there was something or someone divine who created all things out of nothing or organized chaos/void into the universe or in some other fashion brought all we know into being.  It can be both fun and meaningful to explore these ideas and beliefs about the origins of everything, just be aware that it is not Science even if at times interest in Origins has motivated scientists to explore our environment."

This would actually be a good time to then discuss what Science actually is and what it is meant to do and its limits.

Edited April 18, 2021 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Correct mostly.  Presenting a religious belief isn't automatically advocating for it.  Explaining that there are those who believe in a creator or a creative force can be done by an atheist easily enough, after all.  I had a class on Greek and Roman culture that included discussion about religion and it was obvious no proselyting was going on. 

  Plus I don't see it as an effective use of time in a science class to go over an "entirety" of any religious belief, that would be for a comparative religion course.  Any detailed discussion will need to reference specific beliefs of a specific faith, as far as I can see, so either you spend too much time in a science class teaching a variety of creation beliefs or to make better use of your time, you introduce the idea in a simple fashion, such at an appropriate stage of the class, have an intro section, perhaps like this:   'while we can theorize about much of what happened in the beginnings of our universe/solar system, we have much less information available to us for what might have come before...if anything did; some believe __________ (list most popular, current speculations by scientists; others don't care to speculate at all since they do not believe there is any credible evidence to test their ideas on; still others believe there was something or someone divine who created all things out of nothing or organized chaos/void into the universe or in some other fashion brought all we know into being.  It can be both fun and meaningful to explore these ideas and beliefs about the origins of everything, just be aware that it is not Science even if at times interest in Origins has motivated scientists to explore our environment."

This would actually be a good time to then discuss what Science actually is and what it is meant to do and its limits.

Yes, but you do see the difference between teaching about beliefs and teaching religious beliefs as science, right? I think that is the issue with the bill.

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Correct mostly.  Presenting a religious belief isn't automatically advocating for it.  Explaining that there are those who believe in a creator or a creative force can be done by an atheist easily enough, after all.  I had a class on Greek and Roman culture that included discussion about religion and it was obvious no proselyting was going on

The problem with this is what would/does happen in practice. In a culture dominated by a particular religion, teaching creationism cannot avoid enforcing that religious view. Your analogy doesn't really hold up since the Greek and Roman culture and religions are not part of current cultural practices and beliefs. It is sort of the same problem that the South faced when trying to implement "separate but equal" racial practices. It just does not work.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

. It is sort of the same problem that the South faced when trying to implement "separate but equal" racial practices. It just does not work.

It is probably too impractical. It would require a well informed and careful teacher to stay within the limits. Very easy to go too far. Just have to look at how often sex education gets screwed up from what I have seen and heard, how many teachers ignore the guidelines for personal preferences of what needs to be taught. I have had nieces and nephews mocked by teachers for being Saints even, which was shocking to me given the time and place  (about 20 years ago in Denver).

[CA Steve]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

It would require a well informed and careful teacher to stay within the limits.

Such a teacher would recognize that creationism is just religion masquerading as science.