Greetings my old friend. Ahh the old science, creation "Debate". The fact is most people simply don't acquire the critical thinking skills necessary. Lets face it. Students and teachers spend so much time fretting about the details than learning how to think critically and analyze ideas. Just today I learned an art teacher in my school does not beleive the Earth is [she said] millions of years old. She said our existence disproves evolution. She would not elaborate. As is so often the childhood indoctrination and lack of thinking skills collide.
I simply ask why do people who do not study a subject matter feel so qualified to make grand statements. I don't go around stating BS about art. I know I don't know art and I don't delude myself into thinking I do. Yet people constantly feel because they 'studied' a subject in high school that they know more than experts in the field. It grates me.

I had to literally walk out. I left three colleagues sitting there as I walked out - quickly.

My old friend, we need science experts from the earliest grades who can 'grow' witht the students as they progress. Before students get to me they are so full of crap and bad habits I want to bang my head against the wall. As Stan Robinson [http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html] says we teach the creativity and thinking OUT of children.

I either need to leave teaching or start my own school. You have a job any day if I get it going. :)
I truly hope you feel the same.

As we speak I have students 'writing' exam using technology. New told, old methods.
I know I won't be heading to Asia any time soon. If you appear near Ontario please let me know.
Cheers - James

I apologize for my disjointed post above. I thought this was a personal blog of Clay's. I didn't even do a spell check or finish some sentences. I believe my points are still valid but I could have articulated them more clearly for an international audience.

Happy Anniversary Darwin [150 since origins, 200 since birth]

This will probably be cut or blocked or whatever else the powers to be will control the content of this blog. By the way, it is one of the better sites I have seen in awhile. I just wish all concerns would be left alone. Oh well. As far as evolution vs. intelligent design is concerned I don't see why there is a problem.

Let me explain:

I do not understand why people have to argue which concept or religion represents truth. Let me see if I can get this straight? The fundamentalist concept is based on the idea that man was created in God's image and what man is, is what he has always been and always will be. Of course, this image has to be the Evangelical Christian image. Because of this concept most fundamentalists are against any form of Darwinian evolution or any theory, which hints that man evolved from anything different from being created in the image of God. The fundamentalists have gone so far as organizing their beliefs in a discipline called The Science of Intelligent Design.

So, the Christian Fundamentalists and the evolutionists seem to be in direct confrontation with each other. I don’t understand this. I believe the fundamentalists make their biggest mistake in equating an idea of science to something that is anti-religious, even atheistic. As an educator and a Christian I believe it is imperative to discuss why any idea of science, by definition, has to be an example of thought that is based on theology.

Let me attempt to explain. Looking back eons, which are billions of years, physicists have been able, through mathematics, to show where all our origins were formed. At least back to 1.0 x 10-42 of a second before everything began. They discuss how sub atomic particles were formed and go back into the theory of the beginnings of our universe and thus energy itself. In fact, these so-called secular scientists go back to the hypothesis that we all evolved from the first spark of a star. After this a natural system of evolution took place.

The Christian fundamentalists do not appreciate this type of thinking because they believe this concept is the antithesis of the Christian belief that man was created in the image of God by God. This is the precise point where the fundamentalists lose sight of what the scientist and educator is striving to construe. Remember that physicists state that man can theorize and correlate how matter and energy began back to a micro piece of time. Before this all scientific ideas are blind. The scientists, not the fundamentalist, states that we must have faith that at this time, in this creative mix, all was originated. If the fundamentalist wants to divide this pre one-mega-millionth of a second into seven days, I am certain the scientist would have little argument.

A unified theory of the origin of the universe has been worked on since the times of Aristotle. Einstein considered his life a failure because he was unable to describe a unified principle that would have explained the beginning of time. Most physicists today realize this unified idea must be something so obvious, so beautiful, that maybe man, as a species does not have the capacity to understand its simplicity.

Man has always been intrigued by the term beginning; genesis. In man's quest to discover how the beginning originated, scientists, no matter what their beliefs are, realize that a vacuum is always established before the beginning. This vacuum is then easily replaced by that non-secular term, "faith".

Fundamentalist Evangelical Christian educators are always exclaiming that they are trying to re-educate our children in the ideas and laws of the Christian Faith. They must remember that we are all blessed with a sense of curiosity to seek one's roots and thus one's beginnings. Why the Christian Fundamentalist thought and Secular Scientific ideas are in direct confrontation is beyond all logical understanding. Scientific knowledge should never be considered an evil idea or a misrepresentation of any type of religious thought. It is simply a means of understanding what was and because of the consistency of nature, will always be.

Albert Einstein summed up this controversy between science and religion by stating, “"Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind."

Jim Fabiano is a teacher and a writer living in York, Maine

I'll try to keep this short because I don't want this to be me arguing comment after comment. I have mostly made my point about standards in the previous post.

1. Science is not a truth and it does not claim to be. Science is a process of acquiring information to help us explain the universe around us.
2. The Big Bang and origins of the universe has nothing to do with biological evolution of species. I was discussing evolution in its original sense: Descent with modification and natural selection.
3. There are no evolutionsists. There are people who understand the scientific process and accept the evidence acquired from the process and there are people who do not accept the evidence because it clashes with thier belief system. One is based on logic and reason the other on an supernatural power. The first makes no claims about the second because the second lies beyond the power of the first to investigate.
4. Creationism should not be in science class because it does not follow the process of science. Teach it wherever you want but if it is not observable, testable, reproducible then it is not science and should not be thought of as such and has no place in science class. It is akin to a student declaring, in math class, that 2+2 = 5 because he was read in some book that it does. It is not correct math and has no place in math class.

I agree with the previous post in one way, there should be no conflict between the two. One is a system of reduction investigation using evidence to support ideas. The other is a belief system by definition - because there is no evidence. If there was evidence there would be no need for faith. Having said this, the conflict arises when people discuss standards and some regions of a country fail to understand the scientific process and want to call untestable ideas [not a theory!] science. Then a conflict has been manufactured by those who do not understand science, not the scientific community.

Cheers.