Talk:Creation and evolution in public education in the United States

Sentence flagged for citation.

I don't really know how to use the Wikipedia format, but I flagged the following sentence as citation needed:

"This could lead to the disabling of students' abilities to develop the critical thinking skills necessary for all scientists."

This is an enormous claim. It strikes me as better to criticize creationism in science class on the grounds that it violates the methodological naturalism demanded by the terms of scientific inquiry (the previous sentence) than to engage in unsourced, facile identification of the acceptance of some non-natural theory of the generation of life with an inability to practice science. After all, the director of the NIH is a Christian theist who does not accept philosophical naturalism and believes in the supernatural.

My flag was removed; it looks like "drive-by" tagging means that I didn't make a comment here on the talk page. I've re-flagged the offending sentence; please let me know if I should provide additional materials.

Personally, I would see the sentence removed, but I'm not a regular Wikipedia editor, so I'm not going to take that action.

Lead Incorrect.

The lead states that New Mexico requires the teaching of altenate theories. But this is based on a very old report from a pro-intelligent design website that seems to have gotten the facts wrong.

• In 1999 New Mexico barred creationism from state curriculum
• One local school district, Rio Rancho, did adopt a teach the controversy approach but changed its support in 2007. [1]
• A bill was introduced in 2011 [2] but died before it made it to the floor for a vote. I am going to remove New Mexico form this list, but we should also check the other states to see if they are similarly representing out of date information. Thenub314 (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creation and evolution in public education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160305214842/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,61065,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,61065,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead is sourced only to press release from discovery institute

The only source in the article for the claim that Minnesota's laws require students to critically examine evolution is a press release from Discovery Institute. That is bad. Jytdog (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: FWIW - Thank you for your comments - Yes - agreed - better refs are preferred - also - your recent lead rewrite seems *Excellent* imo - in any case - Thanks again for your recent efforts - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

:) Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

smithsonian EL

See basically done discussion here Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Creation and evolution in public education in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C61065%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924063758/http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/the_kansas_stan.html to http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/07/the_kansas_stan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Ref

• https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED475822.pdf
• https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/63338/1/Tamar-Lomidze-masters-thesis-1.pdf

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Needs updated to reflect Carson v. Makin decision

The supreme court's Carson V Makin decision, which requires voucher programs to not exclude religious institutions, seems highly likely to result in an increase in government voucher funding going towards schools teaching creationism and thus quite relevant to this page's topic. I unfortunately don't feel qualified to do the topic justice, especially since I've struggled to find a good neutral source to cite discussing the implication of the decision *specifically* to evolution and creationism teaching; but I suspect there are more competent editors out there that could do the subject justice.