|
|
|
|
Are you in support of teaching any religious creation stories in the public schools? Is there a way to teach another theory along side evolution without supporting one certain religion? How did you happen to review the High School text, Biology?
In January of 1999, Ellen Barber found that her kindergarten son in Pinckney was being taught evolutionary ideas. She asked the teacher how they taught kindergarteners the idea of a theory - a difficult concept for that age. She was told that they don't teach evolution as a theory, but as a fact. Thinking this was strange, Ellen contacted the coordinator of the Science Department. From Lynda Allen it was confirmed that evolutionary ideas were taught as fact in grades K-12 in Lawrence and no other theories or information that may question evolution were allowed to be presented in the classroom by the teacher or visiting teachers.
Feeling this to be a clear case of censorship in the schools, Ellen chose the democratic way to see change -- try to get school board candidates elected that would be open to teaching the theory of evolution as a theory. It was March, and a school board election was coming up in April. Ellen realized that the present school board members had allowed this unwritten policy to be set (she has not been able to get a written policy from the district) and unless new board members were elected who were sympathetic to teaching evolution as a theory, no changes would be seen. In order to organize a campaign for the coming election of the local school board, Ellen called on like-minded parents to vote for candidates who believed evolution should be taught as a theory and would allow open discussion of the evolutionary model in the classroom. Parents for Objective Science and History was born in that effort. Hundreds of people were contacted and encouraged to vote for candidates that supported their view. While one of their candidates did get elected, the majority of the Board members remain very closed-minded on this issue. In order to see change, it will take many more parents who will refuse to let the issue drop and continue to voice their concern regarding the censorship of information in our children's science classroom
FLAT was formed shortly after POSH as a satire seemingly mocking the intelligence of POSH, and claiming that POSH is seeking the use of the Bible as a science text. This is not what POSH endorses. Neither does POSH endorse the style of argument they have chosen. Therefore, we have not endeavored to dialogue with them. There is a separate site that deals with their issues and it can be accessed at www.roundearth.net
Are you in support of teaching any religious creation stories in the public schools? No. POSH desires to work within the district’s and the state’s guidelines. We understand that the Establishment Clause states that "no particular religion" may be taught in the public schools. POSH respects the Establishment Clause and agrees that no particular religion(s) should be taught to the public with tax dollars. If a person wants something different taught to their child, then they may choose a private education. Meanwhile, neither do we want our tax dollars used to teach macroevolution or naturalistic materialism dogmatically, as though a religion. (Note that complete naturalism points philosophically to atheism, and atheism is a registered religion in the United States.) When these ideas are taught dogmatically, they cross into the philosophical realm, and are no longer scientific.
Is there a way to teach another theory along side evolution without supporting one certain religion? Yes. (In addition, it should be required, though it is not, that all types of evidences regarding evolutionary theory be presented in the science classroom. Empirical science does not censor, sugar coat, nor suppress undesirable or contradictory evidence, yet that is what is happening in much of the current evolutionary education.). There are three possible causes for any given event: chance, necessity, or design. Current scientific ideology permits investigation into the origin and development of life using only the first two as a working framework, excluding the third. Yet significant evidence exists for design in nature, and it can be detected, and tested empirically by many procedures, including those used in SETI (search for extra-terrestrial intelligence). Intelligent Design theory is founded on empiricism, and makes no attempt to define, identify, or promote any supernatural being. Its purpose is to reintroduce design, along with chance and necessity, as a legitimate cause in scientific investigation. I.D. increasingly is being embraced by respected scientists because of its empirical commitment and its supporting body of evidence. Some of the greatest advances in scientific history have been achieved in large part because scientists operated under the assumption that no theories are immune to critique. Dogmatic teaching of Darwinism (or anything) extinguishes critical thinking, which is antithetical to education.
How did you happen to review the High School text, Biology? After the election, the steering committee could see that POSH was going to be ignored by the Board. We asked ourselves these questions: What proof did we have that evolution was or was not taught objectively in the science classroom? Were we making a big deal over nothing? Were we objective enough to look for ourselves and assess the situation? There was just one way to find out besides going to class every day – review our children’s text. How did it present evolution? Did it define the terms adequately? Did it give all sides of the issue, the positive and the negative? Was all the information accurate? Our review answers all of these questions.
The review is not a request of the Board for a different text. We are committed to using the present text, but in a more objective manner. POSH has provided worksheets for the teacher, student, and parent who want to look at the issue from more than one scientific perspective. Highly practical, the review reveals the text’s problematic usages of the term "evolution," and shows how the text teaches macroevolution dogmatically. It points out misinformation used in the text for the purpose of evolutionary propaganda. The review takes a critical analysis approach to what the text presents and asks the questions that have been previously censored from the science classroom. It is a tool that will foster objective discussion of evolutionary assumptions and evidences for and against evolutionary theory.
|
|
|
