Man who believes earth is 6,000 yrs old helping to revise Arizona's education standards on evolution

[Soph0571]

Thanks to Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas, a committee tasked with revising the state’s science curriculum standards on evolution now has as one of its members a man who takes the bible literally when it comes to how life on earth was formed.

As the Phoenix New Times points out, Joseph Kezele is the president of the Arizona Origin Science Association, an organization that promotes young earth creationism — a worldview that looks to the bible as a historical and scientific record. Now, just in time for the final review on teaching standards regarding the theory of evolution in Arizona public schools, Kezele was appointed to an eight-member panel tasked with doing the job.

-----------------------------
From the Phoenix New Times:
Kezele successfully convinced other members to de-emphasize evolution in at least one instance.

The committee signed off on changing a reference to evolution as “the explanation” for the unity and diversity of all living and extinct organisms to “an” explanation.

[link:http://deadstate.org/man-who-believes-the-earth-is-6000-years-old-tasked-to-help-revise-arizonas-school-science-curriculumfbrefreshforcefbrefreshforcefbrefreshforce/|

They are setting their children up to fail when they hit real life grown up world

[SWBTATTReg]

1. Irresponsible and flying in the face of overwhelming logic and evidence to the contrary...

This is a disservice to the kids...and brainwashing them no less too. That's fine. Just wait, they'll shortly be on the unemployment lines after attempting to find a job and having no luck, when they fail their prospective employer tests in their attempts to get jobs.

[Nitram]

3. Dude, dinchya know? Noah's flood carved out the Grand Canyon in a single afternoon!

And God, that ol' joker! He hid fossils of sea shells on the top of mountains to test our faith.

[Permanut]

10. Oh, yeah, that Grand Canyon story..

Expounded by "Doctor" Steven A Austin, a "Senior Research Scientist" at the Institute for Creation Research in Dallas, Texas. That clown came to my attention in the 90's with his bizarre arguments about Mt. St. Helens. Said that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, and the rapid deposits of ash and mud from that event, prove that all the geological features on the planet were created in one day. Doesn't say it exactly that way, but strongly implied.

Oh, and this theory is endorsed by Ken Ham, who we know and love around here as the founder of Answers in Genesis. That would be the Genesis which is really the premier science text on the planet. We don't need that other fake sciency stuff.

[Nitram]

11. My favorite Young Earth Creationist "theory" is their attempt to get around the speed of light.

How to explain why light is just now reaching the Earth after leaving a star billions of years ago? No problem, the speed of light must have changed over time. Used to be a billion times faster, donchya know?

[Nitram]

2. Jesus Christ! Arizona, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi - helping their children re-enter

the Dark Ages.

[Major Nikon]

5. The worst is Texas

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbooks-on-us/

[Nitram]

7. Yes, add Texas. I'm sure there are others that deserve to be on the List of Shame.

[edhopper]

4. Aren't we suppose to

respect his belief?

[Mariana]

6. Yes, we must do that

lest some religious person infer that "Democrats believe that any person of faith is mentally deficient."

[qazplm135]

9. We should respect his right to believe what he wants

it's when he spreads it to children...

[edhopper]

12. My problem with that is

I don't know anyone with strong beliefs that don't act on them. And if the belief is wrong or dangerous (both in this case) I think that belief should be challenged.
It's not a simple thing, what is respecting the right to belief if the belief is heinous?
What is the nature of this respect? In real terms?

[qazplm135]

13. you can respect a right to have a belief

and challenge said belief at the same time...the two concepts are not mutually exclusive.

I don't think believing the Earth is 6000 years old is "heinous." It's stupid.
Believing you should be able to have sex with kids is heinous.

[edhopper]

17. for heinous

I was thinking of Nazis, the KKK and Trumpsters.

I said of this guy it was wrong and dangerous.

Sorry I wasn't clearer.

[trotsky]

14. Who are you to say he can't teach his beliefs to children?

Are you going to go after math teachers next?

Who decides which beliefs are "stupid" and shouldn't be taught?

[qazplm135]

15. you're being silly

education is a communal, societal responsibility.

So we decide which beliefs are stupid and shouldn't be taught.

[trotsky]

16. No I'm not.

I'm asking a tough question.

What gives you the right to call creationism "stupid" and declare it can't be taught to children?

If a majority of people are creationists, does that suddenly make it right to teach?

[qazplm135]

18. no, you aren't...you apparently think you are though

the "right?"

There is no "right" to teach patently wrong, unscientific things to our children.

There IS a "right" to teach patently wrong, unscientific things to YOUR children as a parent, because we don't allow the State to interfere in the religious beliefs you teach your children.

We DO allow the State to interfere with what is taught collectively. That's why we have elected school boards, that's why we have laws that address teaching religious beliefs in secular/public schools, it's why religious schools are private.

If a majority of people are creationists, they may have the power to make it "right" to teach, but it doesn't make scientifically correct, and there's not moral or ethical or legal "right" to teach fundamentally false information in a public school.

[trotsky]

19. You just called someone's religious beliefs "stupid" and said they can't be allowed to teach them.

Ordinarily you'd chastise an atheist for making such a statement.

But for you, it's OK. Why?

[qazplm135]

20. When have I "chastised"

someone for calling a specific belief stupid?

There are all sorts of stupid beliefs...religious, secular, what have you. There's an infinity of stupid beliefs.

Feel free to call a SPECIFIC belief wrong, stupid or what have you. The Earth is 6000 years old is a stupid belief. The idea that all religious people are the same or a threat is also a stupid belief. I can name a million more of them given time.

Something can be stupid, and still lead to the right result. I've literally said that on here a dozen times. That if a religious based relief gets someone to the right ethical/moral answer, I don't care that it was the wrong "belief" that got them to the right result, so long as it's the right result.

That you somehow think any of my points on here have been you can never call a specific belief stupid if it happens to have a religious basis to it is your own...well...I won't say it.

[trotsky]

27. Allow me to help you understand what I said.

Here's my quote:

You just called someone's religious beliefs "stupid" and said they can't be allowed to teach them. Ordinarily you'd chastise an atheist for making such a statement.

What that referred to is your proven behavior of berating atheists who dared to say that believing in fake things isn't good. It's all over this thread: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=290018

Now on to something you just said:

Something can be stupid, and still lead to the right result. I've literally said that on here a dozen times. That if a religious based relief gets someone to the right ethical/moral answer, I don't care that it was the wrong "belief" that got them to the right result, so long as it's the right result.

This recalls a discussion you and I had previously where you insisted you could tell "good" Christianity from "bad" Christianity. How do you identify the "right" result for a belief? Please explain.

And to tie that to the topic at hand, why are you allowed to declare specific beliefs "stupid" and decide they can't be taught to children?

[qazplm135]

28. Good grief you are bad at this

"As long as you aren't hurting anyone and are happy who fucking cares?"

Literally the sentence you quoted LMAO. I said I don't care if someone believes in something fake SO LONG AS it's not hurting anyone.

Yes, the "right result." Teaching kids that the Earth is only 6000 years old violates both those things.

I also did not say anything about "good" Christianity and "bad" Christianity, I said good and bad people were determined by their actions, not whether they believed something true or false, which ties in to everything above.

Maybe you should just sit the next couple of plays out Champ.

[trotsky]

29. I'm sorry I'm so stupid. It must be such a burden for you to interact with me.

That thread is full of you berating others for suggesting it's not good to believe in fake things. But you are allowed to call beliefs stupid. Why such a double standard? That's all I'm asking.

I also did not say anything about "good" Christianity and "bad" Christianity, I said good and bad people were determined by their actions, not whether they believed something true or false, which ties in to everything above.

Let's go to the tape.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=292392

qazplm135 (504 posts)
20. some of them are, yes

as practiced by some, yes.

As someone else said, there are a ton of different versions of Christianity ranging from very good to very bad and everything in between.

Ouch. You DID say there were "good" and "bad" versions of Christianity. How embarrassing. No wonder you'd rather have me go sit on the bench. Too bad I won't.

[qazplm135]

30. if the thread is full of it

please reveal.

I was talking about the MORALS of Christianity which is literally the question posed that I responded to. Christianity as practiced, not literally Episcopalians are good and Catholics are bad.

SOME of the morals are good, SOME of the morals are bad. You know this but you are trying to continue some sort of attempt at, I don't really know what so you leave that part out. You also leave the very next part out where I talk about actions.

You really shouldn't link stuff, it really doesn't help you.

And yes, you are pretty stupid at least in these exchanges and it is a bit of a burden to interact with you because you aren't trying to debate in good faith, or understand, you are trying to be an internet warrior winning some battle, and it's tiresome.

[trotsky]

31. You directly contradicted yourself and I'm sorry that embarrassed you so much...

that you need to lash out and call me stupid.

Yes, you literally did say there were "good" and "bad" versions of Christianity, and I provided proof.

Feel free to fling some more insults if you need to. I'm done with you again.

[qazplm135]

32. what a waste of time you are

There are some thoughtful atheists on here...you ain't one of em, and I'm done wasting time with you.

[qazplm135]

21. still waiting

you made a claim, now back it up or retract.

Thanks.

[trotsky]

26. Oh hi.

Sorry, I'm not usually on DU evenings and weekends. Better things to do and all, ya know?

I'll reply to your message above.

[Voltaire2]

22. So he is abusing children by trying to teach

them religious nonsense?

[qazplm135]

23. He's abusing

By trying to teach nonsense.

[Voltaire2]

24. So teaching nonsense deliberately to children

with the intent to permanently convince them that it is not nonsense, is abuse, right?

[qazplm135]

25. What's the definition

of nonsense?

Hint it doesn't mean "wrong."

[Voltaire2]

33. And here I thought we'd agreed that deliberately

teaching children nonsense was abuse.

[qazplm135]

34. The difference is

You think literally everything about religion is nonsense and I don't.

[Voltaire2]

35. No I think some religious beliefs are obvious nonsense

and that indoctrination of children into believing nonsense is abusive.

You seem (perhaps) to agree when it comes to creationism, but you want to treat that as some sort of aberration. It ain’t.

[qazplm135]

36. Baloney

What religious beliefs do you think aren't nonsense?

I didn't say creationism is an aberration. There's all sorts of abusive beliefs from prayer science to treating sex as naughty and the impact that has, to the prohibition against condom use.

[Voltaire2]

37. Some of the ethical teachings are fine.

“Do unto others...” etc. obviously not unique to religion but also not nonsense.

[trotsky]

38. Yeah you can only call SOME religious ideas stupid.

The ones qa says it's OK to. He's the sole arbiter of this stuff.

[LuvNewcastle]

8. Some parents don't want their kids to reach their potential.

They want their kids to be carbon copies of themselves. Sad but true.