PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States




Pages : [1] 2

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 02:29 AM
Ongoing...


Most of these new bills will likely die early in legislative sessions, explained Rosenau, because they are rarely considered of great importance or worth the very vocal opposition they engender.

It is almost identical language in all of the bills," said Rosenau. "It's a package of bills that we've been tracking since the 2004 'Academic Freedom' bill." That bill, which was passed into law, was based on language generated by the Discovery Institute, which has long pushed for the inclusion of biblical creationism and pseudo-scientific "intelligent design" into science classes in public schools.

On the other hand the bills would create problems for administrators and teachers, said Eric Feaver, president of the Montana Education Association and the Montana Federation of Teachers.

“It affects the supervisors of the schools,” said Feaver, because they would not be able to stop the teaching of religion disguised as science.

“We believe the bill is, on its face, unconstitutional,” said Feaver



http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/anti-science-bills-weighed-in-4-states-130128.htm

"Four US states are considering new legislation about teaching science in schools, allowing pupils to be taught religious versions of how life on earth developed in what critics say would establish a backdoor way of questioning the theory of evolution," the Guardian (January 13, 2013) summarizes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/31/states-laws-challenge-teaching-evolution). The states in question are Colorado (House Bill 13-1089 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/antiscience-legislation-colorado-0014685)), Missouri (House Bill 179 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-0014680) and House Bill 291 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/intelligent-design-bill-missouri-0014690)), Montana (House Bill 183 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/montana-bill-mutates-0014668)), and Oklahoma (Senate Bill 758 and House Bill 1674 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/two-antiscience-bills-oklahoma-0014686)) — to which should be added Arizona (Senate Bill 1213 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/antiscience-legislation-arizona-0014695)) and Indiana (House Bill 1283 (http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/stealth-antiscience-bill-indiana-0014693)), for a grand total of eight bills in six states.

Missouri's HB 179 and HB 291 target evolution only, with HB 291 requiring, "If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught." Arizona's SB 1213, Colorado's HB 13-1089, Oklahoma's HB 1674, and Montana's HB 183 target, in varying wording, "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." Oklahoma's SB 758 and Indiana's HB 1283 mention no specific topics, although evolution is clearly the implicit target.

Except for Missouri's HB 291, all of the bills share three features, expressed in more or less the same language. First, they are permissive, allowing rather than requiring teachers to help pupils understand the supposed "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of scientific theories. Second, they are protective, forbidding state and local educational authorities from prohibiting teachers to do so. (Oklahoma's HB 1674 also protects students from being penalized for subscribing "to a particular position on scientific theories.") Third, they disavow any intention to promote any religious or antireligious view.

Discussing the bills, NCSE's Joshua Rosenau commented, "Taken at face value, they sound innocuous and lovely: critical thinking, debate and analysis. It seems so innocent, so pure. But they chose to question only areas that religious conservatives are uncomfortable with. There is a religious agenda here." Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State concurred, telling the Guardian, "This is just another attempt to bring creationism in through the back door. The only academic freedom they really want to encourage is the freedom to be ignorant."

Although over forty such bills have been introduced over the last decade, only two have been enacted: in Louisiana in 2008 and in Tennessee in 2012. Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University (and a member of NCSE's board of directors) attributed the popularity of such bills to the outcome of the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, in which teaching "intelligent design" in the public schools was found to be unconstitutional. "Creationists never give up. They never do. The language of these bills may be highly sanitized but it is creationist code," she said.

"The laws can have a direct impact on a state," the Guardian reported, citing the Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology's boycott of Louisiana (recently rescinded (http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/sicb-lifts-boycott-new-orleans-0014676) for the city of New Orleans, after the New Orleans City Council and the Orleans Parish School Board both took firm stands against teaching creationism). Zack Kopplin, the young Lousiana activist, argued that similar bills risk the economy and the reputation of states considering them. "It really hurts students. It can be embarrassing to be from a state which has become a laughing stock in this area," Kopplin remarked.



Aside...(short list)... Missouri Republican proposes bill to require teaching of ‘intelligent design’ (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/24/missouri-republican-proposes-bill-to-require-teaching-of-intelligent-design/) - The bill was introduced by State Rep. Rick Brattin, and cosponsored by State Reps. Andrew Koenig and Kurt Bahr. All three lawmakers are Republicans.

Brattin introduced a nearly identical bill last year. He told local media outlets (http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/state/missouri/missouri-lawmaker-wants-intelligent-design-taught-alongside-evolution) the bill was “just good science” and promoted “objectivity in the science room.”

Brattin, Koenig, Bahr and other Missouri lawmakers also introduced legislation (http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0179I.htm) this month that would encourage teachers to discuss the “scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses” of the theory of evolution. Critics said the law was intended to undermine scientific teaching by presenting evolution to students as if it was a controversial topic among biologists.

“It’s ironic that creationist strategies continue to evolve,” Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Scientific Education said. “At first, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools altogether. When they were no longer able to do so, they tried to ‘balance’ it with the teaching of Biblical creationism, or scientific creationism, or intelligent design.

Antiscience legislation in Colorado (http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/antiscience-legislation-colorado-0014685) - The primary sponsors of HB 13-1089 are Stephen Humphrey (R-District 48) in the House and Scott Renfroe (R-District 13) in the Senate — in Colorado, bills in either house of the legislature will have a sponsor in the other house. Listed as cosponsors are Perry Buck (R-District 49), Justin Everett (R-District 22), Chris Holbert (R-District 44), Janak Joshi (R-District 16), Dan Nordberg (R-District 14), Lori Saine (R-District 63), and James D. Wilson (R-District 60) in the House, and Kevin Grantham (R-District 2), Ted Harvey (R-District 30), and Owen Hill (R-District 10) in the Senate.

Antiscience Arizona bill (http://ncse.com/news/2013/01/antiscience-legislation-arizona-0014695) - The prime sponsors of SB 1213 are Judy Burges (R-District 22) and Chester Crandell (R-District 6), with Rick Murphy (R-District 21), Steve Pierce (R-District 1), Don Shooter (R-District 13), and Steve Yarbrough (R-District 17) as cosponsors. The bill is the first antiscience bill introduced in Arizona in at least the past decade; the last statewide controversy over the teaching of evolution was evidently in 2004, when the Arizona state board of education was lobbied, in the end unsuccessfully, to include a directive for teachers to discuss "intelligent design" in the state science education standards.


Recent others (short list without sponsors)
Tennessee
House Bill 368 (HB 368)
Aim: "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories"...including evolution, global warming, the chemical origin of life, and human cloning.
Status: Passed in the House, 4/7/2011. Senate version postponed until 2012 session.
Senate Bill 893 (SB 893)
Aim: Identical to HB 368.
Status: Postponed until 2012 session
Tennessee’s Anti-Science Bill Becomes Law (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/04/tennessees-antiscience-law/)
"Tennessee antievolution bill passes the House" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/tennessee-antievolution-bill-passes-house-006609)
"Tennessee's 'monkey bill' on hold" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/tennessees-monkey-bill-hold-006631)

Florida
SB 1854
Aim: requires a "thorough presentation and critical analysis of the scientific theory of evolution" in the state's public schools.
Status: Died in committee

"Reactions to the antievolution bill in Florida" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/reactions-to-antievolution-bill-florida-006551)
"Florida antievolution bill dies" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/05/florida-antievolution-bill-dies-006666)

Texas
HB 2454
Aim: "An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms."
Status: Died in committee

"Intelligent design legislation in Texas" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/intelligent-design-legislation-texas-006531)
"Texas 'intelligent design' bill dies" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/05/texas-intelligent-design-bill-dies-006689)

Missouri
HB 195
Aim: "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution." Almost identical to last year's HB 1165.
Status: Died in committee

"Antievolution legislation in Missouri" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/01/antievolution-legislation-missouri-006421)
"Missouri antievolution bill dies" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/05/missouri-antievolution-bill-dies-006673)

Kentucky
HB 169
Aim: would have allowed teachers to "use...instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."
Status: Died in committee

"Antievolution bill dies in Kentucky" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-dies-kentucky-006540)

Oklahoma
SB 554
Aim: A classic academic freedom bill that also provides that "No teacher shall be reassigned, terminated, disciplined or otherwise discriminated against for providing scientific information being taught in accordance with adopted standards and curricula."
Status: Died in committee

"Antievolution bill apparently dies in Oklahoma Senate" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-apparently-dies-oklahoma-senate-006521)

HB 1551
Aim: allows teachers to help "students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." Topics specifically mentioned: "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
Status: Died in committee

"Antievolution bill loses in committee in Oklahoma" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-bill-loses-committee-oklahoma-006500)

New Mexico
HB 302
Aim: Teachers must inform students about "relevant scientific information regarding either the scientific strengths or scientific weaknesses". The bill would protect teachers from "reassignment, termination, discipline or other discrimination for doing so."
Status: Died in committee
New Mexico Bill Seeks to Protect Anti-Science Education (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/new-mexico-science-education/)
"Antievolution legislation in New Mexico" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/02/antievolution-legislation-new-mexico-006469)
"Antievolution bill in New Mexico dies" (http://ncse.com/news/2011/03/antievolution-bill-new-mexico-dies-006587)

Indiana
Antiscience bill dies in Indiana (http://ncse.com/news/2013/02/antiscience-bill-dies-indiana-0014726)

Indiana's House Bill 1283 (http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2013/IN/IN1283.1.html) died on February 25, 2013, when the deadline for House bills to have their third reading in the House passed. The fate of the bill was not unexpected: its sponsor Jeff Thompson (R-District 28) told (http://www.jconline.com/article/20130202/COLUMNISTS30/302020045/) the Lafayette Journal and Courier (February 3, 2013) that he thought that it would not receive a hearing in the House Education Committee, and a spokesperson for the committee's chair said that it would not receive a hearing due to the volume of bills and the limited time to address them.

HB 1283 was the only antiscience bill in Indiana in 2013. State senator Dennis Kruse (R-District 14) disclosed in November 2012 that he intended to introduce a bill that would encourage teachers to misrepresent evolution as scientifically controversial. He subsequently changed his plan, saying that he would introduce a bill that would allow students to challenge teachers to provide evidence to support any claims the students found suspect. Apparently, however, no such bill was introduced.

A Missouri amendment in Virginia? (http://ncse.com/news/2013/02/missouri-amendment-virginia-0014722)

William M. Stanley Jr. (R-District 20), a cosponsor of the resolution, told the Post, "They should still be able to recite Darwin's theory," explaining that creationist students would not be permitted to ignore evolution in class, although they would not be penalized for rejecting it. He was not, however, quoted as explaining why it would not violate the provision in question to compel a student to study evolution if he or she claimed that it violated their religious beliefs.

After SJR 287 was introduced, it was referred to the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, which modified it slightly and reported it back to the Senate on January 29, 2013. On February 5, 2013, at Stanley's request, the Senate recommitted it back to the committee, where it is effectively dead because February 5 was the deadline for each house to complete work on its own legislation. The legislature is scheduled to adjourn sine die on February 23, 2013.

The resolution was sponsored by Stanley and Charles W. Carrico Sr. (R-District 40), with Mark L. Cole (R-District 88) serving as its patron in the House. Even if the resolution had passed the Senate, it would still have had further hurdles to jump: as the Post explained, "To amend the state constitution, the resolution would have to pass the General Assembly twice, with a general election for the House of Delegates between the two legislative sessions, and then receive approval from voters in a referendum."

DamianTV
04-10-2013, 07:08 AM
Education is best left decided between the Parent and the Teacher. Dont like the teacher? Find another one. In the society we have today, you dont get to choose your school, or your teachers, or even what teacher indoctrinate your children with. This proves that beyond any doubt, the government solution to any problem is worse than the problem itself.

RonPaulFanInGA
04-10-2013, 07:12 AM
Homeschool your kid and you won't have to worry what the government is trying to teach them.

The Gold Standard
04-10-2013, 07:31 AM
Government has no place in education. I don't see how these are anti-science though. Requiring different viewpoints be covered is not anti-science. That's the same kind of hysteria they give you when they call you anti-America for wanting to stop bombing Muslims.

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 07:35 AM
Homeschool your kid and you won't have to worry what the government is trying to teach them.

I'm not particularly worried. Those are your words. I was just sharing the update.

FrankRep
04-10-2013, 08:11 AM
"backdoor way of questioning the theory of evolution"

Oh the horror! We can't question the theory of evolution!

The Gold Standard
04-10-2013, 08:13 AM
"backdoor way of questioning the theory of evolution"

Oh the horror! We can't question the theory of evolution!

It is anti-science to question theories.

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 08:13 AM
I don't see how these are anti-science though. Requiring different viewpoints be covered is not anti-science.

I'm kind of in the middle with it.

Origanalist
04-10-2013, 08:14 AM
I guess it's all blasphemy, depending on which side you're on.

Sonny Tufts
04-10-2013, 08:17 AM
Requiring different viewpoints be covered is not anti-science.

It is if the differing viewpoint isn't scientific. That's why a bill that would require the teaching of astrology, phrenology, and the four bodily humors would be anti-scientific. By its very nature, creationism isn't scientific.

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 08:42 AM
It is if the differing viewpoint isn't scientific. That's why a bill that would require the teaching of astrology, phrenology, and the four bodily humors would be anti-scientific. By its very nature, creationism isn't scientific.

I view it as more of a political stunt. Goes back to that line separating the genuine science from the political variety. The kids are always enthusiastic about learning the sciences. Can take a student who has attended church every week of his/her life and teach them the wonders of the universe and other relevant areas. Can teach them how stars are formed and things like that and they'll not only show interest in this day and age of technology but they'll thrive. They'll tell you why things work the way they do.

Of course, I'm only speaking for the S.T.E.M. programs. I'm not debating other problems with the school system that may be legitimate reason for concern. Not my area.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 08:47 AM
Recent others (short list without sponsors)
Tennessee
House Bill 368 (HB 368)
Aim: "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories"...including evolution, global warming, the chemical origin of life, and human cloning.
Status: Passed in the House, 4/7/2011. Senate version postponed until 2012 session.
Senate Bill 893 (SB 893)
Aim: Identical to HB 368.
Status: Postponed until 2012 session
Tennessee’s Anti-Science Bill Becomes Law
"Tennessee antievolution bill passes the House"
"Tennessee's 'monkey bill' on hold"


If you don't support the Tennessee bill, then you are not a libertarian or a scientist. Really, the most "unscientific" thing the government does is to try to force feed the public that supposedly prevailing theories on global warming (and evolution), cannot be questioned.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 08:48 AM
Homeschool your kid and you won't have to worry what the government is trying to teach them.

Yep.

Brett85
04-10-2013, 08:52 AM
That's certainly good news. If we're going to have public schools, they might as well teach something that actually makes a little bit of sense to counteract the already debunked theory of evolution.

Acala
04-10-2013, 08:57 AM
The evolution v. creationism dispute is just another government-created food-fight to distract people from real political issues. Government can NEVER solve this dispute. Ever. And yet politicians never stop posturing on the issue and setting the people against each other over it.

If you spend one minute arguing about what government schools should teach rather than working to abolish government education, you are falling into the trap.

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 09:00 AM
If you don't support the Tennessee bill, then you are not a libertarian or a scientist. Really, the most "unscientific" thing the government does is to try to force feed the public that supposedly prevailing theories on global warming (and evolution), cannot be questioned.

Nobody gets force fed anything. They choose to sit in front of the tv and listen to the media feed the narrative from the people who are actually literate in the field. And the narrative is political. That audience doesn't generally look at the facts through a scientific lens because they can't. Most are a product of the very infrastructure that helped create the problems. So they don't "question"nything at all. They recite the narrative. It's their livelihood. So they take what the media feeds them and run with it and the whole time removing themselves from the actual democratic process without even knowing they are doing it to themselves. That's political science 101, Jmdrake. How can you not understand that?

Cripes. I know for a fact I've told you how I felt about the entire global warming narrative.

Of course, I'm not excusing reckless infrastructure either. If you can move beyond what you're being fed from "the news" sometime maybe we can discuss that.

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 09:09 AM
The evolution v. creationism dispute is just another government-created food-fight to distract people from real political issues.

I think people go out of their way to distract themselves.

Dr.3D
04-10-2013, 09:55 AM
Anti-Science: What happens when science becomes corrupted by politics.

James Madison
04-10-2013, 11:37 AM
That's certainly good news. If we're going to have public schools, they might as well teach something that actually makes a little bit of sense to counteract the already debunked theory of evolution.

...what?

Peace&Freedom
04-10-2013, 12:21 PM
...what?

Yes. Half the population does not accept evolution, or regards it as debunked, and these have been the poll results for decades. At some point, even government school curriculums have to accept and reflect there is a controversy among reasonable people about whether the evolution of life is true or false. At the very least, the fact that there are scientific problems with evolution should be disclosed, regardless of whether special creation or intelligent design is brought up as a positive alternative.

James Madison
04-10-2013, 12:42 PM
Yes. Half the population does not accept evolution, or regards it as debunked, and these have been the poll results for decades. At some point, even government school curriculums have to accept and reflect there is a controversy among reasonable people about whether the evolution of life is true or false. At the very least, the fact that there are scientific problems with evolution should be disclosed, regardless of whether special creation or intelligent design is brought up as a positive alternative.

Thankfully, scientific facts remain facts whether the public agrees or not. And I think it odd you appeal to the majority opinion. Would you do so if 'half the population' supported torture, gun restrictions, and the police state? Does public support legitimize any of these things?

The only reason controversy exists is because many Americans cling to the notion of a 6000-year-old Earth (which isn't even in the Bible, but whatever). That and people like Richard Dawkins give evolution a bad name amongst the general public. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution.

Can you identify some of these scientific problems. And please, no links to a personal blog or website. Either explain your ideas in full or link to a peer-reviewed article from a reputable journal.

TheTyke
04-10-2013, 02:09 PM
Help! Help! The scientific Establishment's orthodoxy is under attack! If we allow people to hear unapproved scientific viewpoints, pretty soon people might reject scientific facts like man-made global warming too!

erowe1
04-10-2013, 02:10 PM
I didn't see anything anti-science in the descriptions of these bills in the OP.

What exactly in any of them is anti-science?

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 02:18 PM
Anti-science = just more propaganda from the atheist statist apologists.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 02:21 PM
"backdoor way of questioning the theory of evolution"

Oh the horror! We can't question the theory of evolution!

Exactly.

What shocks me is that evolution is the protected theory by the state and no libertarian atheists stops to question this. Evolution is the favorite theory of the state! Why shouldn't we challenge these protected theories? What is there to hide?

QuickZ06
04-10-2013, 02:21 PM
“It’s ironic that creationist strategies continue to evolve,” Eugenie C. Scott of the National Center for Scientific Education said. “At first, creationists tried to ban the teaching of evolution in the public schools altogether. When they were no longer able to do so, they tried to ‘balance’ it with the teaching of Biblical creationism, or scientific creationism, or intelligent design.


Seems she is the one who only wants her religion in the classroom.

brooks009
04-10-2013, 02:24 PM
Exactly.

What shocks me is that evolution is the protected theory by the state and no libertarian atheists stops to question this. Evolution is the favorite theory of the state! Why shouldn't we challenge these protected theories? What is there to hide?

It not protected by the state it is protected by EVIDENCE. Evidence you don't care to review.

erowe1
04-10-2013, 02:28 PM
It not protected by the state it is protected by EVIDENCE. Evidence you don't care to review.

If the state is requiring teachers to claim that the evidence proves evolution, and prohibiting them from saying anything to the contrary, which seems to be the case, then the state is protecting it. If evolutionists are so confident in the theory to stand on its own without the state's help, they should welcome these bills.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 02:32 PM
It is if the differing viewpoint isn't scientific. That's why a bill that would require the teaching of astrology, phrenology, and the four bodily humors would be anti-scientific. By its very nature, creationism isn't scientific.

Very few people, as exemplified in your post, understand what science actually is. It is this widespread and stupefying ignorance that perpetuates numbskulls like you spewing your pseudo-scientific opinions about the meaning of science.

Science means every belief, no matter how "scientific" the current theory is perceived to be, is questionable. I don't expect you to be able to comprehend that, though. Keep bleating.

Sola_Fide
04-10-2013, 02:34 PM
"Anti-science"? What was anti-science about anything in the OP? Why is anything that is not Darwinism "anti-science"?

This is nothing but an attempt to frame the debate in terms only favorable to one side. Everyone can see through this.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 02:38 PM
Nobody gets force fed anything. They choose to sit in front of the tv and listen to the media feed the narrative from the people who are actually literate in the field. And the narrative is political. That audience doesn't generally look at the facts through a scientific lens because they can't. Most are a product of the very infrastructure that helped create the problems. So they don't "question"nything at all. They recite the narrative. It's their livelihood. So they take what the media feeds them and run with it and the whole time removing themselves from the actual democratic process without even knowing they are doing it to themselves. That's political science 101, Jmdrake. How can you not understand that?

Cripes. I know for a fact I've told you how I felt about the entire global warming narrative.

Of course, I'm not excusing reckless infrastructure either. If you can move beyond what you're being fed from "the news" sometime maybe we can discuss that.

And what they've been fed by the media happens to be evolution. When is the last time you've actually seen a variance in opinion on this from anyone on TV?

As I've said before, what shocks me is that none of the supposedly libertarian atheists here question what is going on with evolution and just accept that the state is doing the right thing this time, despite all those other times where it tried to subvert the public with rhetoric that supports its own agenda.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 02:41 PM
...what?

The already debunked theory of evolution that people like you hold on to because it's in your own best interest. Of course, you still think the theory is alive and well because the media hasn't ceased to spew propaganda in favor of the theory of evolution, so your confusion is understandable.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 02:45 PM
It not protected by the state it is protected by EVIDENCE. Evidence you don't care to review.

Maybe you haven't heard about the state-run education system and how that same state-run system only supports the teaching of the theory of evolution. Ergo, the theory of evolution is protected by the state. The mere fact that you even have the gall to say it's not protected by the state shows the extent of your cognitive dissonance.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 02:54 PM
Nobody gets force fed anything. They choose to sit in front of the tv and listen to the media feed the narrative from the people who are actually literate in the field.


Ummm...you realize that we're talking about public schools right? You realize that going to school is compulsory? And if you believe that the media actually picks the most "literate in the field" to talk about science.....well you have far too much faith in the media. Seriously. There are people who are extremely literate when it comes to science who reject AGW and evolution as the origin of species just like there are people who are scientifically literate who reject the idea that deficit spending got us out of the great depression. Economics, by the way, is considered a "science." So if you believe that only the "literate" scientific viewpoints get into the media...then why are you a part of a movement that rejects conventional wisdom on economics? Seriously?

Are you aware that the founder of the weather channel wanted to sue Al Gore for fraud over Gore's global warming claims? Do you think the founder of the weather channel is not "scientifically literate?"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h-MnAbH8WE



And the narrative is political. That audience doesn't generally look at the facts through a scientific lens because they can't. Most are a product of the very infrastructure that helped create the problems. So they don't "question"nything at all. They recite the narrative. It's their livelihood. So they take what the media feeds them and run with it and the whole time removing themselves from the actual democratic process without even knowing they are doing it to themselves. That's political science 101, Jmdrake. How can you not understand that?


How can I not understand what? What you just wrote has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said, or anything to do with your own thread for that matter. Again, we are talking about what will or will not go into a state funded public school curriculum and whether said curriculum "dare" question the dogma of Al Gore and the liars who said they needed to "hide the decline." Did you know that Al Gore's movie "an inconvenient truth" is barred from public school in England unless it



Cripes. I know for a fact I've told you how I felt about the entire global warming narrative.


Yes. That's why I brought it up. I'm calling you out. You think that people "don't understand" science or your position when we simply disagree with both your "science" and your position. Trust me. I have a fantastic memory. If I bring something up I've most likely done that on purpose.


Of course, I'm not excusing reckless infrastructure either. If you can move beyond what you're being fed from "the news" sometime maybe we can discuss that.

Again, this is not about the news. It's about the public school system which largely has a captive audience. Yes there are ways around that captivity. Ron Paul's homeschool curriculum, as flawed as it may be, is one attempt around that. I welcome others. I also welcome moves by state legislatures to at least put some limits on the blanket indoctrination that's being pumped into innocent children. I was all for fighting global warming back in the 80s before most people had even heard of the term. I changed my mind after looking at the science. So frankly I find it insulting that you or anyone else would claim it is "anti-science" to question conventional views pushed about science. Do you realize that at one point the "climate science" community was pushing "global cooling?"

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_b5hcKABPlGI/R-h3GoF3OLI/AAAAAAAAIUQ/6dNeTfWFb8I/s400/03-06e.gif

Oh yeah, and they blamed cars for global cooling.

Sonny Tufts
04-10-2013, 03:06 PM
[shrill ad hominem screed omitted]

Science means every belief, no matter how "scientific" the current theory is perceived to be, is questionable.

Indeed it does. A scientific theorem can never be proven in the same way that a mathematical theorem can. But they can be falsified, which is why no one in his right mind would insist that the weaknesses of the germ theory of disease should be taught along side the theory of the four bodily humors.

But the bills referred to in the original post are nothing more than lame attempts to introduce intelligent design into the science curriculum, where it does not belong.

erowe1
04-10-2013, 03:20 PM
Indeed it does. A scientific theorem can never be proven in the same way that a mathematical theorem can. But they can be falsified, which is why no one in his right mind would insist that the weaknesses of the germ theory of disease should be taught along side the theory of the four bodily humors.
I don't see anything in these bills analogous to that. Nobody is insisting that anything be taught alongside anything.


But the bills referred to in the original post are nothing more than lame attempts to introduce intelligent design into the science curriculum, where it does not belong.
Let's say the bills do that. And let's say you don't think intelligent design should be mentioned in any scientific context. Why should you impose that conviction of yours on others?

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 03:27 PM
Indeed it does. A scientific theorem can never be proven in the same way that a mathematical theorem can. But they can be falsified, which is why no one in his right mind would insist that the weaknesses of the germ theory of disease should be taught along side the theory of the four bodily humors.

But the bills referred to in the original post are nothing more than lame attempts to introduce intelligent design into the science curriculum, where it does not belong.

Do you think questioning of AGW belongs in a science curriculum? Yes or no?

angelatc
04-10-2013, 03:30 PM
Government has no place in education. I don't see how these are anti-science though. Requiring different viewpoints be covered is not anti-science. That's the same kind of hysteria they give you when they call you anti-America for wanting to stop bombing Muslims.

The problem is that the liberals won't allow different viewpoints to be covered.

angelatc
04-10-2013, 03:32 PM
It is if the differing viewpoint isn't scientific. That's why a bill that would require the teaching of astrology, phrenology, and the four bodily humors would be anti-scientific. By its very nature, creationism isn't scientific.


It's pretty easy to see who went to public schools, isn't it?

Acala
04-10-2013, 03:33 PM
Why should you impose that conviction of yours on others?

And that brings us back again to the actual solution to this problem: get government out of education.

But people just can't help but be drawn into the argument that can never be resolved.

The Free Hornet
04-10-2013, 03:34 PM
If you don't support the Tennessee bill, then you are not a libertarian or a scientist. Really, the most "unscientific" thing the government does is to try to force feed the public that supposedly prevailing theories on global warming (and evolution), cannot be questioned.

Who pays for the implementation and is this the correct bill you claim every libertarian and every scientist supports (http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0893.pdf):


SECTION 2. By no later than the start of the 2011-2012 school term, the department of education shall notify all directors of schools of the provisions of this act. Each director shall notify all employees within the director's school system of the provisions of this act.

I'm not sure I support a bill to complete a legistative circle jerk. Thankfully, I don't work as a scientist or libertarian.

Now.... aside from the cost of the bill:


Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

So if the teacher can cloak their POV in "SCIENCE!", then they have a blank check to tell the school board - even if consisting 100% of taxpaying parents of the children - to "EFFF OFF... I'M TEACHING 'EM SCIENCE!".

What does this bill accomplish that any scientist or libertarian should be happy about? Growing up, my teachers were accountable to the principle who was accountable to the school board. I'm not trying to remove discretion/authority from the teacher, rather, the give-and-take of accountability shouldn't cut the parents out of the loop. To a degree, teachers should challenge students and this will offend parents at times. It is the administration that has to look at the net effect a teacher has. Does this bill interfere with that process?

Sonny Tufts
04-10-2013, 03:39 PM
Let's say the bills do that. And let's say you don't think intelligent design should be mentioned in any scientific context. Why should you impose that conviction of yours on others?

Because it's based upon a supernatural explanation and is therefore not a scientific theory. Apparently in some people's eyes I have mistakenly assumed that what should be taught in a science class is science, not theology.

erowe1
04-10-2013, 03:42 PM
Because it's based upon a supernatural explanation and is therefore not a scientific theory. Apparently in some people's eyes I have mistakenly assumed that what should be taught in a science class is science, not theology.

The claim, "what should be taught in a science class is science, not theology," is itself a theological claim.

I don't agree that science should be taught without any reference to or questioning of its philosophical underpinnings. But even if you do think that, I don't see why you should require others to agree or use legislation to protect students from engaging in those questions.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 03:48 PM
Who pays for the implementation and is this the correct bill you claim every libertarian and every scientist supports (http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0893.pdf):

If you're worried about costs then de-fund public education all together. But there is no cost to simply telling teachers "You have a right to encourage children to evaluate what they are being taught and not just accept it at face value." That's a red herring.



I'm not sure I support a bill to complete a legistative circle jerk. Thankfully, I don't work as a scientist or libertarian.

Good for you.



Now.... aside from the cost of the bill:


There isn't any from what I can see.



So if the teacher can cloak their POV in "SCIENCE!", then they have a blank check to tell the school board - even if consisting 100% of taxpaying parents of the children - to "EFFF OFF... I'M TEACHING 'EM SCIENCE!".


That's not what the bill says. That's your interpretation. If a child's textbook says "CO2 from cars is causing our planet to heat up and the polar bears to die" then I hope a teacher will tell a school board to go jump if the teacher wants to introduce an alternative viewpoint and the school board wants to block it. By the way, in Tennessee there is no requirement that school board members be parents of students in the school system. Most aren't.



What does this bill accomplish that any scientist or libertarian should be happy about? Growing up, my teachers were accountable to the principle who was accountable to the school board. I'm not trying to remove discretion/authority from the teacher, rather, the give-and-take of accountability shouldn't cut the parents out of the loop. To a degree, teachers should challenge students and this will offend parents at times. It is the administration that has to look at the net effect a teacher has. Does this bill interfere with that process?

The parents are already out of the loop.

Really, in Tennessee we have kids making it to the 5th grade unable to read words like "cat" and "dog." The last thing I'm worried about is whether some teacher tells a student man made global warming or aspects of evolution are debatable.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 03:48 PM
Indeed it does. A scientific theorem can never be proven in the same way that a mathematical theorem can. But they can be falsified, which is why no one in his right mind would insist that the weaknesses of the germ theory of disease should be taught along side the theory of the four bodily humors.

But the bills referred to in the original post are nothing more than lame attempts to introduce intelligent design into the science curriculum, where it does not belong.

So you think the weaknesses of the germ theory should not be taught? Am I understanding you correctly?

My point was that, you do not have the authority to say what is and is not science. Intelligent design is just as scientific as evolution. It just interprets the science differently. In conclusion, suggesting either evolution or intelligent design is the "correct" theory would be fallacious since neither can actually be observed, tested, or repeated.

What I really detest, however, is the idea that evolution should not be challenged in its favorited position among the government curriculum. Let's face it. The theory you happen to throw your support behind is a child of government-run indoctrination and continued brain-washing by the media when the kids exit school.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 03:55 PM
So you think the weaknesses of the germ theory should not be taught? Am I understanding you correctly?

My point was that, you do not have the authority to say what is and is not science. Intelligent design is just as scientific as evolution. It just interprets the science differently. In conclusion, suggesting either evolution or intelligent design is the "correct" theory would be fallacious since neither can actually be observed, tested, or repeated.

What I really detest, however, is the idea that evolution should not be challenged in its favorited position among the government curriculum. Let's face it. The theory you happen to throw your support behind is a child of government-run indoctrination and continued brain-washing by the media when the kids exit school.

I guess this Lancet article couldn't be discussed in certain schools.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2868%2991425-6/abstract
Abstract

The germ theory of disease—infectious disease is primarily caused by transmission of an organism from one host to another—is a gross oversimplification. It accords with the basic facts that infection without an organism is impossible and that transmissible organisms can cause disease; but it does not explain the exceptions and anomalies. The germ theory has become a dogma because it neglects the many other factors which have a part to play in deciding whether the host/germ/environment complex is to lead to infection. Among these are susceptibility, genetic constitution, behaviour, and socioeconomic determinants.

Tod
04-10-2013, 03:58 PM
It is if the differing viewpoint isn't scientific. That's why a bill that would require the teaching of astrology, phrenology, and the four bodily humors would be anti-scientific. By its very nature, creationism isn't scientific.

Assume for a moment that creationism IS IN FACT the correct explanation for the origin of the universe.

That would mean that science is inadequate for explaining the origin of the universe.

Does that mean that we should then refuse to consider other sources for explanation just because the tool we have been using to gain understanding is inadequate?

erowe1
04-10-2013, 03:59 PM
Because it's based upon a supernatural explanation and is therefore not a scientific theory. Apparently in some people's eyes I have mistakenly assumed that what should be taught in a science class is science, not theology.

The more I think about this, the more strange it is.

Even if it were possible to divorce science from theology (which it isn't), it seems so odd that it would be desirable, and not only desirable, but mandatory.

Should science teachers also be prohibited from discussing history in their science classes, on the grounds that "what should be taught in a science class is science, not history"? Imagine prohibiting science teachers from discussing logic, math, or the philosophy of science. The idea that each subject has to be circumscribed by some definition that excludes certain topics is a terrible way to educate about any topic.

James Madison
04-10-2013, 04:00 PM
The already debunked theory of evolution that people like you hold on to because it's in your own best interest. Of course, you still think the theory is alive and well because the media hasn't ceased to spew propaganda in favor of the theory of evolution, so your confusion is understandable.

'People like me'
'my own best interest'

First of all, saying evolution is 'debunked' over and over again does not make it so. Sorry, that isn't how science works.

And how is it 'in my own best interest?' What difference does it make? I'm here either way.

Evolution isn't 'propaganda', it's science. Creationism is propaganda; 6000-year-old Earth is propaganda. These things simply aren't true.

If you deny the basic tenants of evolution, you are denying God. It's fine to debeat the exact mechanisms of evolution or what events may have lead to which outcomes, but to flat-out deny evolution is simply, well, wrong. Copernicus's faith wasn't shaken when he formulated the heliocentric model of the solar system, nor was Galileo as he peered into the heavens of the night sky. Isaac Newton is basically the father of physics, having been the first to describe -- in detail -- the concept of gravity, calculus, how and why objects continue or cease in motion, and Optics. Yet in his lifetime he wrote more on Christian theology than he wrote on physics. He was a devout Protestant and was very interested in how Biblical prophesy related to current events. Never once was his faith shaken.

What about Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics? He was a monk and died a devout, pious man. Yet he told us that the traits we possess are not because God is some cosmic micromanager, but because the cells in our body already have the blueprint. Now, you were no longer disabled because God was punishing you; no, it was because you inherited those traits from your parents. Think that didn't ruffle a few feathers? Sure, but it never made it any less true.

The people who cannot accept the realities of this world, deny God in the most intimate way possible. Disease is clearly caused by microorganisms and not bad air/evil spirts, yet there are some who deny this. Why? That's how God created the world for His purposes; why would they deny His Glory? They question His design not out of faith but out of pride. They believe they can create a better world than God. It is man's pride, which makes himself believe he is mightier than God.

Anyways, I didn't plan for this response to ramble on so much. These things have been debated for years of RPFs and no amount of 1s and 0s on the interwebz will change your opinion. Good day, all, and best of luck in this thread. I'm out.

DamianTV
04-10-2013, 04:01 PM
Religion and Science are at opposite ends of the same spectrum.

The problem remains that children are expected to only know what they are told, and to not question the authority in any way shape or form.

Sonny Tufts
04-10-2013, 04:05 PM
I don't agree that science should be taught without any reference to or questioning of the philosophical underpinnings that it accepts as axioms. But even if you do think that, I don't see why you should require others to agree.

Science is based on the assumption of the validity of sense experience. But I don't think the limited classroom time (especially in public schools) would be well spent in discussing whether our experimental observations are valid or whether they are something else, such as the theory that we are all brains in vats who are merely experiencing electrical impulses generated by a mad scientist somewhere.

erowe1
04-10-2013, 04:06 PM
If you deny the basic tenants of evolution, you are denying God.
Huh?

One of the basic tenets of evolution is that the processes by which the universe came to be what it is today must have always been the same ones that we can discover empirically, that going back in time ad infinitum, nothing outside of these patterns can have happened, such that if God exists, it must be the case that he can only work through these means and no others. Miracles are axiomatically excluded.

To reject that tenet is not to deny God, it's just to permit an understanding of God that includes the possibility of his performing miracles. The moment someone accepts that any miracle has ever happened, such as that Jesus rose from the dead, they deny that basic tenet of evolution.

erowe1
04-10-2013, 04:07 PM
Science is based on the assumption of the validity of sense experience.
Should science teachers be allowed to discuss that assumption? Or should they be required by law to proceed on the basis of it without ever talking about it?

Do you really think students will understand science better if they are sheltered from critical thought about the assumptions behind the science they study?

N.b. the assumption of the validity of sense experience is a theological one.

Sonny Tufts
04-10-2013, 04:14 PM
So you think the weaknesses of the germ theory should not be taught? Am I understanding you correctly?

No, you aren't.


Intelligent design is just as scientific as evolution.

Nonsense. One relies upon a supernatural explanation; the other doesn't.


In conclusion, suggesting either evolution or intelligent design is the "correct" theory would be fallacious since neither can actually be observed, tested, or repeated.

Assume this is true (it's certainly true for creationism). Why stop at just two theories that can't be observed, tested, or repeated? Why not give time to alternative theories such as the idea that space aliens populated our world with all of the species?

erowe1
04-10-2013, 04:18 PM
Assume this is true (it's certainly true for creationism). Why stop at just two theories that can't be observed, tested, or repeated? Why not give time to alternative theories such as the idea that space aliens populated our world with all of the species?

I wouldn't support a school board having a policy that prohibits science teachers from talking about the theory that the world was populated by space aliens. In fact, if I were as confident in the theory of evolution as you are, I would think that a lot of teachers could use that kind of discussion to help their students understand evolution better and shouldn't have their hands tied.

The Free Hornet
04-10-2013, 04:27 PM
If you're worried about costs then de-fund public education all together.

Yes. Lead with that and end your post...


But there is no cost to simply telling teachers "You have a right to encourage children to evaluate what they are being taught and not just accept it at face value." That's a red herring.

Where I work, the mandatory notifications (e.g., minimum wage laws and many others) do not post themselves. Nor are the posters free of charge. Nor does Uncle Sam pay our printing costs or for our email server. Nor is the wall on which legal notifications reside free of cost. When we have to log attendance at safety/notification meetings, this doesn't occur on its own.

The law as written is another thing they must do, and it need not have been in your science/libertarian bill to accomplish its task (protecting teachers). The law itself should be sufficient without mandating we educate teachers about the law.


If a child's textbook says "CO2 from cars is causing our planet to heat up and the polar bears to die" then I hope a teacher will tell a school board to go jump if the teacher wants to introduce an alternative viewpoint and the school board wants to block it.

The teachers are employees who should not have the legislature defending their actions. Also, of note, this bill doesn't protect any STUDENT's right to question. It may encourage the teacher's to encourage the children, but any little Johnnie or Susie that gets out of line has zero protection from this bill. The unionized teacher - from a group that scores poorly on standardized tests compared to other disciplines - is being given a privilege (!) the student doesn't enjoy.

How about a bill that declares, "For the teaching of any 'controversial' subject, anarchy shall rule!".

Perhaps you have language from the bill that shows similar protection to students. I know asking you to research your opinion and post a link is difficult....


Really, in Tennessee we have kids making it to the 5th grade unable to read words like "cat" and "dog." The last thing I'm worried about is whether some teacher tells a student man made global warming or aspects of evolution are debatable.

Then promotion of this bill ought to be the second to last thing of which you worry about.

The Free Hornet
04-10-2013, 04:33 PM
Assume this is true (it's certainly true for creationism). Why stop at just two theories that can't be observed, tested, or repeated? Why not give time to alternative theories such as the idea that space aliens populated our world with all of the species?


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Sonny Tufts again. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/reputation.php?do=addreputation&p=4967833)

LOL @ #55. If you can't accept the truth, spread as many lies as possible.


Edit/added: I should not have said "the truth". Also, my comments pertain more to evolution/age-of-universe stuff (basic science which won't impact policy like AGW might). AGW/enviromentalism ought not be a topic in elementary level science. That is more suited to current events or social studies.

Sola_Fide
04-10-2013, 04:39 PM
Science is based on the assumption of the validity of sense experience.

Right. Science is based on an unproven premise assumed on faith.

What is the proof of your faith?

The Free Hornet
04-10-2013, 04:49 PM
Right. Science is based on an unproven premise assumed on faith.

What is the proof of your faith?

Sonny didn't mention faith, so why ask about it?

IMO, the best explanation of


Science is based on the assumption of the validity of sense experience.

is this:


Objectivist epistemology maintains that all knowledge is ultimately based on perception. "Percepts, not sensations, are the given, the self-evident."[20] Rand considered the validity of the senses to be axiomatic, and claimed that purported arguments to the contrary all commit the fallacy of the "stolen concept"[21] by presupposing the validity of concepts that, in turn, presuppose the validity of the senses.[22] She held that perception, being physiologically determined, is incapable of error. For example, Optical illusions are errors in the conceptual identification of what is seen, not errors in sight itself.[23] The validity of sense perception, therefore, is not susceptible to proof (because it is presupposed by all proof as proof is only a matter of adducing sensory evidence) nor should its validity be denied (since the conceptual tools one would have to use to do this are derived from sensory data). Perceptual error, therefore, is not possible. Rand consequently rejected epistemological skepticism, as she holds that the skeptics' claim to knowledge "undistorted" by the form or the means of perception is impossible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Metaphysics:_objective_ reality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29#Metaphysics:_objective_ reality)

MRK
04-10-2013, 04:50 PM
Homeschool your kid and you won't have to worry what the government is trying to teach them.

Unfortunately homeschooling in many states is restricted to 'approved curriculums' with 'licensed professionals'.

Tod
04-10-2013, 05:45 PM
No, you aren't.



Nonsense. One relies upon a supernatural explanation; the other doesn't.



Assume this is true (it's certainly true for creationism). Why stop at just two theories that can't be observed, tested, or repeated? Why not give time to alternative theories such as the idea that space aliens populated our world with all of the species?


Science often errors, but that doesn't prevent the public school systems from presenting it as fact. A realistic curriculum will be humble enough to acknowledge that science is not the be-all end-all supreme answer worthy of worship.

Mach
04-10-2013, 05:56 PM
My point was that, you do not have the authority to say what is and is not science. Intelligent design is just as scientific as evolution.

Good thing you have the authority to say what is.....



It just interprets the science differently. In conclusion, suggesting either evolution or intelligent design is the "correct" theory would be fallacious since neither can actually be observed, tested, or repeated.

:toady:

What a bunch of gibberish.

Christian Liberty
04-10-2013, 06:10 PM
Do you think questioning of AGW belongs in a science curriculum? Yes or no?

Yes, as does the questioning of Evolution.

I'll admit that Young Earth Creationism probably isn't a scientific theory, even though I accept it, since that requires several "On faith" assumptions, but I'm not sure just basic ID does anymore than evolution does.

Evolution is also really valuable to propagandists, it makes it out like we're all just animals...

The Free Hornet
04-10-2013, 06:35 PM
Evolution is also really valuable to propagandists, it makes it out like we're all just animals...

That door swings both ways as you don't want to corner a wild animal. Nor do you wish a cornered human to realize he is one... or ought to be.

heavenlyboy34
04-10-2013, 06:37 PM
What a bunch of gibberish.
How so? What he said is accurate. Observation, testing, and repeatability are critical to the scientific method.

Origanalist
04-10-2013, 06:41 PM
How so? What he said is accurate. Observation, testing, and repeatability are critical to the scientific method.

Beat me to it.

Christian Liberty
04-10-2013, 06:50 PM
That door swings both ways as you don't want to corner a wild animal. Nor do you wish a cornered human to realize he is one... or ought to be.

I posted quickly but I don't completely disagree with this. I'm not suggesting that everyone who accepts evolution is also a propagandist for the state, nor do I even think they necessarily believe man is just an animal. I have theological problems with evolution but I have never claimed that you can't be a Christian who believes in evolution. That said, the state schools who are teaching this certainly aren't doing so for this reason. They're doing it to destroy human exceptionalism, which is ESSENTIAL for libertarianism.

Tod
04-10-2013, 06:56 PM
How so? What he said is accurate. Observation, testing, and repeatability are critical to the scientific method.

Unfortunately observation, testing, and repeatability are insufficient to determine the correctness of a scientific theory.

Newtonian physics taught in high schools as fact is merely an incorrect approximation for reality that meets, in many (but not all) practical situations, the above three criteria. Does that mean that it shouldn't be taught at all or does it mean that it should be taught with context?

Slutter McGee
04-10-2013, 06:57 PM
I posted quickly but I don't completely disagree with this. I'm not suggesting that everyone who accepts evolution is also a propagandist for the state, nor do I even think they necessarily believe man is just an animal. I have theological problems with evolution but I have never claimed that you can't be a Christian who believes in evolution. That said, the state schools who are teaching this certainly aren't doing so for this reason. They're doing it to destroy human exceptionalism, which is ESSENTIAL for libertarianism.

I am not going to argue creation vs evolution with you. I believe what I do. You believe what you do. But in no way is human exceptionalism lessened by the belief in evolution. Nor is it strengthened. Id even argue that the belief that humans have accomplished what they have without the direct help of God helps argue in favor of human exceptionalism.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

ClydeCoulter
04-10-2013, 06:59 PM
The evolution v. creationism dispute is just another government-created food-fight to distract people from real political issues. Government can NEVER solve this dispute. Ever. And yet politicians never stop posturing on the issue and setting the people against each other over it.

If you spend one minute arguing about what government schools should teach rather than working to abolish government education, you are falling into the trap.

^^ THIS ^^

heavenlyboy34
04-10-2013, 07:10 PM
Unfortunately observation, testing, and repeatability are insufficient to determine the correctness of a scientific theory.

Newtonian physics taught in high schools as fact is merely an incorrect approximation for reality that meets, in many (but not all) practical situations, the above three criteria. Does that mean that it shouldn't be taught at all or does it mean that it should be taught with context?
Well, Newtonian physics/classical physics are already taught as part of standard physics curriculum. The profs I know of treat it as "legitimate" physics. As Professor Richard Wolfsen would say in his intro to physics lectures, "classical physics is very much modern physics". It makes sense to teach it in the context of a general physics class.

To answer your question, yes, context is important.

jonhowe
04-10-2013, 08:00 PM
Very few people, as exemplified in your post, understand what science actually is. It is this widespread and stupefying ignorance that perpetuates numbskulls like you spewing your pseudo-scientific opinions about the meaning of science.

Science means every belief, no matter how "scientific" the current theory is perceived to be, is questionable. I don't expect you to be able to comprehend that, though. Keep bleating.

You are correct. Science is meant to be questionable. It HAS to be. Thats why it changes, every day. The theory of evolution has been corrected many times, and will be many more. THe same is true of continental drift; 1st rejected due to lack of evidence, then accepted as more came to light. Creationism and intelligent design, however, have also been questioned, but have been found to be unsupported by evidence..

Peace&Freedom
04-10-2013, 08:02 PM
Thankfully, scientific facts remain facts whether the public agrees or not. And I think it odd you appeal to the majority opinion. Would you do so if 'half the population' supported torture, gun restrictions, and the police state? Does public support legitimize any of these things?

The only reason controversy exists is because many Americans cling to the notion of a 6000-year-old Earth (which isn't even in the Bible, but whatever). That and people like Richard Dawkins give evolution a bad name amongst the general public. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution.

Can you identify some of these scientific problems. And please, no links to a personal blog or website. Either explain your ideas in full or link to a peer-reviewed article from a reputable journal.

Thankfully, most of the scientific facts are consistent with creation scenario, and remain the facts whether you acknowledge it or not. No, there will be no jumping through your carefully qualified hoops (designed to reject any authority or argument offered). Your mere refusal to simply acknowledge scientific difficulties with evolution, even when creation or ID is not considered, reveals your absolutism. The genealogies of Genesis do show a timeline of about 2000 years from Adam to Abraham (who is known to have lived circa 4000 BC), so yes, the Bible does indicate a timeline of roughly 6,000 years from creation to now.

The point behind mentioning the poll numbers was not to establish the truth, but to establish it was reasonable, in contrast with your dismissal of half the population as extremist morons. The only reason the controversy exists is the government schools are blocking at least half the scientific information (that portion favoring creation/ID) that would educate more people that it was the superior approach to accounting for the evidence, otherwise even more people would be creationists, once both views of origins were critically compared.

Christian Liberty
04-10-2013, 08:10 PM
6,000 years just seems too short. Egypt supposedly started 7,000 years ago. A Flood in 2400 BC is not really compatible with any semblance of Civilization when Abraham left Ur. in roughly 2000 BC, yet there clearly was. Some generations have to have been skipped.

I'm a young earther, but I'm more of a 10-15K year young earther than a 6,000 year young earther.

erowe1
04-10-2013, 08:14 PM
Creationism and intelligent design, however, have also been questioned, but have been found to be unsupported by evidence..

Interesting. What do you base this on?

erowe1
04-10-2013, 08:14 PM
..

Peace&Freedom
04-10-2013, 08:27 PM
You are correct. Science is meant to be questionable. It HAS to be. Thats why it changes, every day. The theory of evolution has been corrected many times, and will be many more. THe same is true of continental drift; 1st rejected due to lack of evidence, then accepted as more came to light. Creationism and intelligent design, however, have also been questioned, but have been found to be unsupported by evidence..

These statements are the ones unsupported by evidence. The actual truth is that the evolution side self-servingly paints itself as scientific, and paints creation as not. Modifications to a theory do not make it more scientific, just more reconciled to the account for the facts. By the strict understanding of the scientific method observation, testing and replication), neither special creation nor macro-evolution (being historical events) qualify as scientific. Scientific approaches to historical events are done bey comparing competing models for interpreting the evidence.

Under Occam, when comparing like categories of views, the concept that is modified LEAST, once exposed to the actual data, is deemed simpler, and more likely the truth. Most people who fairly approach the data on origins find creation/ID more directly anticipates the facts seen in nature (incredible and inter-active complexity at every level, lack of transitional forms, dozens of geophysical processes pointing to recent creation, etc), than does evolution, which must rationalize away all such data. When it does so, it betrays it fails Occam's test.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 08:27 PM
Who pays for the implementation and is this the correct bill you claim every libertarian and every scientist supports (http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0893.pdf):



I'm not sure I support a bill to complete a legistative circle jerk. Thankfully, I don't work as a scientist or libertarian.

Now.... aside from the cost of the bill:



So if the teacher can cloak their POV in "SCIENCE!", then they have a blank check to tell the school board - even if consisting 100% of taxpaying parents of the children - to "EFFF OFF... I'M TEACHING 'EM SCIENCE!".

What does this bill accomplish that any scientist or libertarian should be happy about? Growing up, my teachers were accountable to the principle who was accountable to the school board. I'm not trying to remove discretion/authority from the teacher, rather, the give-and-take of accountability shouldn't cut the parents out of the loop. To a degree, teachers should challenge students and this will offend parents at times. It is the administration that has to look at the net effect a teacher has. Does this bill interfere with that process?

A better question is what does this bill do that we would object to? Making a decision without parents being in on it? Well, in case you haven't noticed, that is already how it works. As far as I'm concerned, this bill simply gives the teacher more freedom to examine the philosophical underpinnings of scientific thought and to question evolution. What, in your opinion, would be a good way to offer alternatives to evolution? If the only thing you consider scientific is evolution, then you have just commited the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

If not creation/intelligent design, then what qualifies as a good scientific way to question evolution? Must one always be completely secular and avoid all references to God? Why is it that a teacher should not have the freedom to suggest that maybe science is part of God's work here on earth? Why do you want to protect the monopoly on thought that evolution has? That's exactly what it is, too. It is a monopoly on thought because we are indoctrinated with it from such an early age and the propaganda never stops until we die. We are spoon fed evolution from cradle to grave. What about that strikes you as okay?

The fact that you might believe in evolution should not cause you to just assume that your view is the only scientific one.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 08:34 PM
'People like me'
'my own best interest'

First of all, saying evolution is 'debunked' over and over again does not make it so. Sorry, that isn't how science works.

And how is it 'in my own best interest?' What difference does it make? I'm here either way.

Evolution isn't 'propaganda', it's science. Creationism is propaganda; 6000-year-old Earth is propaganda. These things simply aren't true.

If you deny the basic tenants of evolution, you are denying God. It's fine to debeat the exact mechanisms of evolution or what events may have lead to which outcomes, but to flat-out deny evolution is simply, well, wrong. Copernicus's faith wasn't shaken when he formulated the heliocentric model of the solar system, nor was Galileo as he peered into the heavens of the night sky. Isaac Newton is basically the father of physics, having been the first to describe -- in detail -- the concept of gravity, calculus, how and why objects continue or cease in motion, and Optics. Yet in his lifetime he wrote more on Christian theology than he wrote on physics. He was a devout Protestant and was very interested in how Biblical prophesy related to current events. Never once was his faith shaken.

What about Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics? He was a monk and died a devout, pious man. Yet he told us that the traits we possess are not because God is some cosmic micromanager, but because the cells in our body already have the blueprint. Now, you were no longer disabled because God was punishing you; no, it was because you inherited those traits from your parents. Think that didn't ruffle a few feathers? Sure, but it never made it any less true.

The people who cannot accept the realities of this world, deny God in the most intimate way possible. Disease is clearly caused by microorganisms and not bad air/evil spirts, yet there are some who deny this. Why? That's how God created the world for His purposes; why would they deny His Glory? They question His design not out of faith but out of pride. They believe they can create a better world than God. It is man's pride, which makes himself believe he is mightier than God.

Anyways, I didn't plan for this response to ramble on so much. These things have been debated for years of RPFs and no amount of 1s and 0s on the interwebz will change your opinion. Good day, all, and best of luck in this thread. I'm out.

Do you not recognize the propaganda that has been going on in favor of evolution? Do you not realize that it is mandatory to teach evolution in our government-run education system? How does THAT propaganda not trouble you? Before I answer anything else you have to say, I would like to get an answer on that. Why do you say creationism is propaganda when the media and the public education system are constantly propagating evolution?

Peace&Freedom
04-10-2013, 08:36 PM
6,000 years just seems too short. Egypt supposedly started 7,000 years ago. A Flood in 2400 BC is not really compatible with any semblance of Civilization when Abraham left Ur. in roughly 2000 BC, yet there clearly was. Some generations have to have been skipped.

I'm a young earther, but I'm more of a 10-15K year young earther than a 6,000 year young earther.

I respect your view, but what you have mentioned amounts to a logical or deductive case, instead of one based on the evidence. The Genesis genealogies flat out do not indicate skipped generations. If one may counter with other logic, we can suppose ancient man was far smarter and industrious on average, and built civilizations much faster than supposed. Think about how quickly urban areas have changed in less than 120 years (in the late 1800s, Times Square was still farmland, etc), to see how fast things can be built up.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 08:49 PM
No, you aren't.

Okay. Care to elaborate?


Nonsense. One relies upon a supernatural explanation; the other doesn't.

Evolution relies upon a supernatural explanation. It must explain how life can arise from non-life, and it must explain the big bang theory. Before you say, "That's not part of evolution!" would you care to explain to me why it's still taught in schools.

None of what evolution proposes has ever been observed or tested. We cannot observe or test one animal changing into a different kind of animal, so it's not scientific. Again, before you tell me that speciation is observable, tell me how that can scientifically be extrapolate to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions.


Assume this is true (it's certainly true for creationism). Why stop at just two theories that can't be observed, tested, or repeated? Why not give time to alternative theories such as the idea that space aliens populated our world with all of the species?

Why not indeed? The whole idea that we should limit what can be talked about in science class is a statist notion in and of itself because it precludes the freedom of the teacher from being able to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of science. If you think your science teacher isn't doing their job, find a different school or get a new teacher. Unfortunately, however, we have a state-run education system and because of that, according to you, it's okay to tell people that they can only discuss what we deem as scientific.

Besides, what you just proposed is that, if we are teaching our kids one un-scientific theory, they should be allowed to discuss ONLY that theory and no other. Does that really sound like good education to you, regardless about your beliefs on the difference between theology and science, which are actually very slim differences?

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 08:57 PM
Sonny didn't mention faith, so why ask about it?

IMO, the best explanation of



is this:

Basically what Ayn Rand is saying is that all concepts that might interfere with the validity of the senses should be assumed to be invalid. What about the validity of her own concept of the validity of the senses? Logic fail. The fact that the senses are self-evident does not rule out the idea that we should consider other sources for what we observe in the world beside the self-evident.

Origanalist
04-10-2013, 08:59 PM
Okay. Care to elaborate?



Evolution relies upon a supernatural explanation. It must explain how life can arise from non-life, and it must explain the big bang theory. Before you say, "That's not part of evolution!" would you care to explain to me why it's still taught in schools.

None of what evolution proposes has ever been observed or tested. We cannot observe or test one animal changing into a different kind of animal, so it's not scientific. Again, before you tell me that speciation is observable, tell me how that can scientifically be extrapolate to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions.



Why not indeed? The whole idea that we should limit what can be talked about in science class is a statist notion in and of itself because it precludes the freedom of the teacher from being able to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of science. If you think your science teacher isn't doing their job, find a different school or get a new teacher. Unfortunately, however, we have a state-run education system and because of that, according to you, it's okay to tell people that they can only discuss what we deem as scientific.

Besides, what you just proposed is that, if we are teaching our kids one un-scientific theory, they should be allowed to discuss ONLY that theory and no other. Does that really sound like good education to you, regardless about your beliefs on the difference between theology and science, which are actually very slim differences?

It's posts like this that make me wish I could turbo rep...........

BUT THAT'S NOT SCIENCE!!!!

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 09:01 PM
Good thing you have the authority to say what is.....




:toady:

What a bunch of gibberish.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? The word repeated doesn't have any deeper meaning to me, I'm sorry if I don't get why you bolded that word.

Also, I'm not assuming any authority. I'm not the one arguing that my viewpoint should be mandatory in schools.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 09:07 PM
Yes. Lead with that and end your post...

So now you want to tell me how to post? :rolleyes: Sorry but I'm not interested in your advice.



Where I work, the mandatory notifications (e.g., minimum wage laws and many others) do not post themselves. Nor are the posters free of charge. Nor does Uncle Sam pay our printing costs or for our email server. Nor is the wall on which legal notifications reside free of cost. When we have to log attendance at safety/notification meetings, this doesn't occur on its own.


The law in question had no mandatory notification and there are many laws that require no mandatory notification. Sorry but your argument has no merit.



The law as written is another thing they must do, and it need not have been in your science/libertarian bill to accomplish its task (protecting teachers). The law itself should be sufficient without mandating we educate teachers about the law.


Ummmm...okay. You just undermined your own argument, but okay.



The teachers are employees who should not have the legislature defending their actions. Also, of note, this bill doesn't protect any STUDENT's right to question. It may encourage the teacher's to encourage the children, but any little Johnnie or Susie that gets out of line has zero protection from this bill. The unionized teacher - from a group that scores poorly on standardized tests compared to other disciplines - is being given a privilege (!) the student doesn't enjoy.


That's life. Students don't get pensions either. Non argument.



How about a bill that declares, "For the teaching of any 'controversial' subject, anarchy shall rule!".


Draft one and send it to your legislature.



Perhaps you have language from the bill that shows similar protection to students. I know asking you to research your opinion and post a link is difficult....


But you making a silly comment isn't difficult at all.



Then promotion of this bill ought to be the second to last thing of which you worry about.

I'm not the one who posted the OP. That said I support a law that encourages teachers to encourage students to think critically. Maybe you prefer a world where school boards (excuse me "mythical school boards run by parents") dictate that all children must learn that their farts cause global warming because somehow having a law on the books that teachers can actually allow children to question that will cost you? Fine. Whatever floats your boat.

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 09:07 PM
I had shared a paper that a couple of people scribbled up and submitted to Icarus scientific journal. Basically they make a point for intelligent design. The actual paper is there with a snippet from the article. Was pretty interesting. I just didn't have a place to share it that was actually relevant so I stuck it in that thread since it had already contained spew regarding Panspermia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia)

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?397211-NASA-Scientist-(Creationist)-on-life-on-Mars

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 09:10 PM
Unfortunately observation, testing, and repeatability are insufficient to determine the correctness of a scientific theory.

Newtonian physics taught in high schools as fact is merely an incorrect approximation for reality that meets, in many (but not all) practical situations, the above three criteria. Does that mean that it shouldn't be taught at all or does it mean that it should be taught with context?

You just proved my point by saying that science cannot support evolution. It can, however, support Newtonian physics. The fact that it is not perfect does not eliminate the difference between its ability to support an observable, testable, repeatable phenomenon and a supposedly historical one that cannot be observed, tested, or repeated.

Game. Set. Match.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 09:16 PM
You are correct. Science is meant to be questionable. It HAS to be. Thats why it changes, every day. The theory of evolution has been corrected many times, and will be many more. THe same is true of continental drift; 1st rejected due to lack of evidence, then accepted as more came to light. Creationism and intelligent design, however, have also been questioned, but have been found to be unsupported by evidence..

So you are saying that, since it has ALREADY been questioned, that it can no longer be questioned? I dunno, some people held some crazy beliefs for a PRETTY long time.

What you said is simply foolish. To say that something can no longer be questioned because the scientific elite have already determined the answer for us is to contradict yourself when you say that everything should be questionable... AT ALL TIMES. At NO point does a theory suddenly become unquestionable. The fact that we have been bombarded with propaganda in support of evolution does not change the fact that we should be allowed to question it. In fact, it only enhances it. Basically, what you are saying is that the kids of the future can't question evolution because they're late to the game. So, in your view, that justifies indoctrinating them with evolution.

Also, I don't think evolution has been questioned nearly as much as you think it has. It is still a favored theory that nobody wants to touch because it goes against the conventional wisdom. THE SCIENCE GODS HAVE SPOKEN!

Let's not question their motivations for publishing lies in the textbooks about human gill slits and hoaxes like The Piltdown Man that were used to support evolution.

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 09:19 PM
Are you aware that the founder of the weather channel wanted to sue Al Gore for fraud over Gore's global warming claims? Do you think the founder of the weather channel is not "scientifically literate?"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h-MnAbH8WE



Yes. I am aware. It's the same exact video you retrieved the last time you needed a counterpoint. And that guy is a business man. I think we look at change in the Earth differently. You're leaning toward the news narrative whereas I'm content to let them spin themselves into the circle while the genuine changes in the cosmos that are affecting the planet are actually studied. Two totally different discussions. I loathe the one you bring up. It's spin. Basically irrelevant.

Of course, I still don't condone the infrastructure that your business man espouses. Doesn't help things.

We want to approach the discussion in the classroom from the perspective of the physics of the universe. That's the correct model. Not what red eye guy and the oil guy want us to lie to them about. These are social conservatives practicing political science. Is far removed from the genuine stuff.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 09:23 PM
Yes. I am aware. It's the same exact video you rerieved the last time you needed a counterpoint. And that guy is a business man. I think we look at change in the Earth differently. You're leaning toward the news narrative whereas I'm content to let them spin themselves into the circle while the genuine changes in the cosmos that are affecting the planet are actually studied. Two totally different discussions. I loathe the one you bring up. It's spin. Basically irrelevant.

Of course, I still don't condone the infrastructure that your business man espouses. Doesn't help things.

If you think the person in the video is "just a businessman" then your scientific inquiry skills are sorely lacking. And I see you don't even want to address that the fake science pushing global warming was once pushing global cooling and have now jumped on the ubiquitous "climate change" argument. And there are thousands of scientists who have denounced the UN climate change report and we all know about the "hide the decline" emails. I loathe that you ignore science that doesn't fit your worldview but still try to call your worldview "science." It isn't. True science welcomes debate. It doesn't try to pretend the other side doesn't exist or is just "media spin" or whatever it is you are trying to say.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 09:24 PM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?'
Marc Sheppard
The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself.

On Saturday, Lawrence Solomon wrote a great piece in the National Post (h/t Benny Peiser) which begged the question:

"How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?"


How many, indeed?

Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition," which states that

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."


How might anyone of clear mind consider these words from these numbers and still accept claims of scientific consensus? Or calls for any -- let alone immediate -- action?

Solomon also points out that these dissenting scientists - over 9,000 of whom hold Ph.Ds -- now outnumber the environmentalists that attended the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio that actually kicked off the global warming craze. And, I might add, far exceed the count of UN IPCC "scientists" whose calamitous predictions lie at the very heart of climate hysteria and what Solomon calls "the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science."

But will their sheer numbers nullify the "settled science" argument?

Not if the alarmists have any say it won't. Solomon offers a brief history of attempts to bury all such previous accords. First by mocking the limited number of signatures on earlier appeals, and then -- when the original Oregon petition boasted 17,800 signatories -- claiming duplicate or fraudulent names. And even when all names were ultimately verified as authentic (save one actually planted by agents of Greenpeace), the MSM still ignored their consequence.

Sixteen years ago, the Rio event attracted over 7,000 journalists who dutifully spread the word of man's inhumanity to his habitat to an appreciative world. Will today's official announcement of 32,000 men and women of science who, by their physical signature, reject mankind's guilt capture any media attention at all?

Or, for that matter, that of climate experts Gore, Boxer, Lieberman, Warner, Clinton, Obama, or, most despicably -- McCain?

As the science no longer appears to concern any of them -- don't hold your CO2 polluted breath.

Yet their denials change nothing - the wheels continue to fall off the warmist dungwagon.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 09:30 PM
Natural Citizen, here's a pure "science" lecture for you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 09:47 PM
What he's pointing out is a transparent paradigm between political lemmings who abuse the sciences for gain. It's a valid argument. I'm not saying that it isn't.

Danan
04-10-2013, 09:52 PM
Evolution relies upon a supernatural explanation. It must explain how life can arise from non-life, and it must explain the big bang theory. Before you say, "That's not part of evolution!" would you care to explain to me why it's still taught in schools.

That's not part of evolution. I doubt that any school teaches that the big bang is part of evolution. So there is that.

Why must evolution, the theory of how life-forms are adopting over generations, explain how life came about initially? That's like saying electro-magnetism can't be right until you can explain quantum mechanics.


None of what evolution proposes has ever been observed or tested. We cannot observe or test one animal changing into a different kind of animal, so it's not scientific. Again, before you tell me that speciation is observable, tell me how that can scientifically be extrapolate to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions.

On the contrary it can and has been observed and reproduced. Of course nobody took a paramecium and made a giraffe out of it, but if that's the level of certainty you need in order to accept the theory, than it's virtually unprovable to you. Most people would and do accept the huge body of evidence as a sign that evolution seems to explain the transformation of life-forms on this planet.


Why not indeed? The whole idea that we should limit what can be talked about in science class is a statist notion in and of itself because it precludes the freedom of the teacher from being able to discuss the philosophical underpinnings of science.

Why does it sound like a bad idea to limit the content of science classes to actual science? I mean, I'd have no problem with explaining the philosophical underpinnings of natural science per se at one point. In fact I believe that's a good idea. But to insist to teach non-scientific theories alongside scientific theories in science classes doesn't seem very sensible.

Natural science is "knowledge" aquired by a very specific method. You can argue about the epistemology of science in a philosophy class, but ID is not using the scientific method (and when some people try their results are routinely falsified, yet they continue to hold those beliefs) and can therefore not called a science.

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 09:54 PM
And I see you don't even want to address that the fake science pushing global warming was once pushing global cooling and have now jumped on the ubiquitous "climate change" argument. Everyone already knows all of that stuff, jmdrake. I just don't care to harp on it. This is what happens when business men pay for the scientific narrative.

The argument itself isn't practical for that reason alone. It's loaded. And it's loaded in the direction of those I had referenced who would latch onto it and negate themselves from the democratic process. Again, this is political science.

If you're curious about genuine Earth changes then perhaps you should look to the stars for those answers. That's where they are. That's where the relevant discussion is premised. And it's way more fun. You're going to give yourself grey hair running around the politial circle, jmdrake.

Origanalist
04-10-2013, 10:02 PM
Everyone already knows all of that stuff, jmdrake. I just don't care to harp on it. This is what happens when business men pay for the scientific narrative.

The argument itself isn't practical for that reason alone. It's loaded. And it's loaded in the direction of those I had referenced who would latch onto it and negate themselves from the democratic process.

Your original post got my attention, but I'm a bit (looking for the word) confused? by what you mean by "the democratic process".

Danan
04-10-2013, 10:06 PM
And I see you don't even want to address that the fake science pushing global warming was once pushing global cooling and have now jumped on the ubiquitous "climate change" argument.

So your point is that with new evidence new theories were developed that now predict a new outcome, while some people still believe the earth is a few thousand years old although there are huge amounts of evidence to the contrary?

That being said, climatology is clearly not working as it's supposed to work today, because of huge governmental influence. However, the modelling itself is not even that bad, given how awfully difficult it is to predict the climate (which is a very chaotic system). The policy reccomendations that come from that modelling and the level of trust politicians (and many political "scientists") put into those predictions are laughable. What should be done is to research further until the predictions are correct on a consistent basis until we even start to talk about policies. And then I will oppose any policy regardless.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 10:07 PM
Everyone already knows all of that stuff, jmdrake. I just don't care to harp on it. This is what happens when business men pay for the scientific narrative.

The "scientific narrative" that's been bought and paid for is the one you are following with regards to global warming.



The argument itself isn't practical for that reason alone. It's loaded. And it's loaded in the direction of those I had referenced who would latch onto it and negate themselves from the democratic process. Again, this is political science.

If you're curious about genuine Earth changes then perhaps you should look to the stars for those answers. That's where they are. That's where the relevant discussion is premised. And it's way more fun. You're going to give yourself grey hair running around the politial circle, jmdrake.

Oh I fully agree that the sun (which is a star in case you didn't know) causes climate change. Glad you finally realized that! ;) And I'm not getting grey hairs over this. After all you're the one that posted the OP. ;)

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 10:11 PM
So your point is that with new evidence new theories were developed that now predict a new outcome, while some people still believe the earth is a few thousand years old although there are huge amounts of evidence to the contrary?

My point is that people should be free to question everything...including whether the earth is warming or cooling or billions of years old. If you fully believe the evidence is on your side, then the questioning shouldn't bother you and the "anti science" bills shouldn't be seen as "anti science."



That being said, climatology is clearly not working as it's supposed to work today, because of huge governmental influence. However, the modelling itself is not even that bad, given how awfully difficult it is to predict the climate (which is a very chaotic system). The policy reccomendations that come from that modelling and the level of trust politicians (and many political "scientists") put into those predictions are laughable. What should be done is to research further until the predictions are correct on a consistent basis until we even start to talk about policies. And then I will oppose any policy regardless.

When data is purposefully hidden to the point that you can't even get it with a freedom of information act, that by definition is "bad modelling." I'm sure there is a lot of good climate science out that. The science that claims there is "unquestioned consensus" on what's going on is clearly junk science.

jmdrake
04-10-2013, 10:14 PM
What he's pointing out is a transparent paradigm between political lemmings who abuse the sciences for gain. It's a valid argument. I'm not saying that it isn't.

Glad you agree. Some of those "political lemmings" have influence on what goes into "science" textbooks. An astute teacher should be able to read such a textbook, determine that it is bollocks, and then show the video explaining the dishonest that went into "hide the decline" with regards to global warming to his/her class, and then say "Make up your own mind whether or not CO2 from cars and industry is causing global warming."

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 10:16 PM
That's not part of evolution. I doubt that any school teaches that the big bang is part of evolution. So there is that.

I never said any school teacher teaches it as part of evolution. That is irrelevant to me whether they do or not. My problem is that they teach it, period. Of course, you probably knew that but are trying to avoid the issue.


Why must evolution, the theory of how life-forms are adopting over generations, explain how life came about initially? That's like saying electro-magnetism can't be right until you can explain quantum mechanics.

Again, I just warned you about telling me it's not part of evolution, and yet you find a way to do it anyway. My concern is not that evolution must explain any part of it. My concern is that it's being taught as truth, in the same textbook that then skips straight from life evolving from non-life to how that newly-evolved life-form then developed. There's no question it's part of the same story used to subvert our kids into accepting a secular view of how this world came to be.


On the contrary it can and has been observed and reproduced. Of course nobody took a paramecium and made a giraffe out of it, but if that's the level of certainty you need in order to accept the theory, than it's virtually unprovable to you. Most people would and do accept the huge body of evidence as a sign that evolution seems to explain the transformation of life-forms on this planet.

The level of certainty I need is just as much as any other scientific theory would need. Your assertion that it can and has been observed and reproduced does not make it so. What you are doing is taking your ridiculous belief and turning it around against me. It's not my fault that it sounds ridiculous to turn a paramecium into a giraffe. It's the theory's fault. You keep talking about that "huge body of evidence" as dogma and dogma only. It's an assertion that I am not supposed to question. Like I said, explain to me how small changes in an animal can be scientifically extrapolated to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions. Until you can do that, don't bother to reply with another bold assertion and no backing.


Why does it sound like a bad idea to limit the content of science classes to actual science? I mean, I'd have no problem with explaining the philosophical underpinnings of natural science per se at one point. In fact I believe that's a good idea. But to insist to teach non-scientific theories alongside scientific theories in science classes doesn't seem very sensible.

Because what you are essentially saying is that your certainty in the theory of evolution gives the government the authority to use force to prevent any alternatives from being discussed. Despite whatever you say, this is what it boils down to. Because you think evolution is scientific, that makes it okay to use government force to prevent discourse that would challenge evolution. Also, like I said, evolution is NOT "actual science". You still haven't explained that one away.


Natural science is "knowledge" aquired by a very specific method. You can argue about the epistemology of science in a philosophy class, but ID is not using the scientific method (and when some people try their results are routinely falsified, yet they continue to hold those beliefs) and can therefore not called a science.

You are making a bunch of claims with no backing. Surely you realize how dogmatic you sound, yes? Why is it that you say the epistomology of science is irrelevant to science? You are arbitrarily separating the two so that your definition of science will not be undermined. College professors develop their curriculum in different ways. Who are you to say that a high school teacher can't start with the epistemology of science as a basis for understanding science?

Your assertions are all lies. Instead of blindly asserting that ID experiments are routinely falsified, why don't you give an example?

Natural Citizen
04-10-2013, 10:16 PM
Your original post got my attention, but I'm a bit (looking for the word) confused? by what you mean by "the democratic process".

There are issues that confront society where science provides their foundation. And now in these times of technological change it is more apparent than ever.So if we arent scientifically literate (as in the youth more importantly) then you're just disenfranchising yourself from that process.So then when we hear the media narrate the days events that actually relate to science they do so knowing that most just aren't up to par so they kind of skip the good stuff and sell you the political model that the lobbyist has use for as it pertains to it. And so it becomes political leverage in the exact form jmdrake gave me with the red eye guy and the other fellow who was pimping the oil industry.

That's the narrative that takes hold and the true gifts of science as they relate to infrastructure is just ignored and never even discussed. And so you'll never hear a person, or not a whole lot of people, ask their potential representatives what their actual position is on the sciences. Ask them where they think we are headed (or where they would lead us, to be clear) based upon their position regarding the sciences and how they would govern in an era where the sciences provide the very platform for the technological and monumental change that is inevitable. After the monumental media mind raping they are too often proned and trained mentally to view participation in the process as something as remedial as passing around videos of what some lobbyist has paid to be the political narrative and silly links that espouse the same narrative or present the conforming false left/right paradigm. Is why I always say change will pass this demograph right by. And they won't even see it. To continue to allow scientific illiteracy creates the potential for abuse by those who actually are literate who have demonstrated that thay can and will manipulate those that are scientifically illiterate. This leaves society vulnerable to making very bad choices given the reality that science, technology, engineering and math are the foundation for what sits ahead. Globally. Geopolitically. Down the list. I've posted so many relevant papers and references to the phenomenon around the board but because there is no actual platform for the sciences and the relevant discussion here they are basically lost in the shuffle and buried because you have to just post them wherever. Intelligent design perhaps. Is a shame.

That's about as short as I can scribble it up, origanalist. Off of the top of my head you could think of something that everyone knows about like Monsanto. With all of the legislation that was pushed through because of a lack of understanding of the science behind it folks were just letting politicians do whatever they felt was in the best interest of the lobbyists. Did you ever hear anyone from the media discuss the science of it? Of course not. And so those folks were largely illiterate and had no say so in what went down. They were all like "hell yeah, free market...'merica". The politicians knew though.It was convenient for the lobbyists that the politicians didn't have an informed enough base to force them to ask more.

Actually, now that you have reminded me I've been meaning to ask jmdrake if Rand has an official position on the sciences on his wiki page. It really is the foundation for the way the next generation will exist.

PaulConventionWV
04-10-2013, 10:20 PM
So your point is that with new evidence new theories were developed that now predict a new outcome, while some people still believe the earth is a few thousand years old although there are huge amounts of evidence to the contrary?

That being said, climatology is clearly not working as it's supposed to work today, because of huge governmental influence. However, the modelling itself is not even that bad, given how awfully difficult it is to predict the climate (which is a very chaotic system). The policy reccomendations that come from that modelling and the level of trust politicians (and many political "scientists") put into those predictions are laughable. What should be done is to research further until the predictions are correct on a consistent basis until we even start to talk about policies. And then I will oppose any policy regardless.

Listen to yourself. In one breath you say that climatology is not working because of huge governmental influence, and yet you have the audacity to deny that government has any influence over evolutionary biology?

heavenlyboy34
04-10-2013, 10:26 PM
That's not part of evolution. I doubt that any school teaches that the big bang is part of evolution. So there is that.

Yes it is-at least as taught at the university level. As their story goes, the acids that comprise DNA spontaneously aligned themselves and formed single-celled organisms. From there, evolution caused organisms to become increasingly complex. It always struck me as fairy-tale-ish as anything a religious philosopher has come up with.

Danan
04-10-2013, 10:31 PM
My point is that people should be free to question everything...including whether the earth is warming or cooling or billions of years old. If you fully believe the evidence is on your side, then the questioning shouldn't bother you and the "anti science" bills shouldn't be seen as "anti science."

When data is purposefully hidden to the point that you can't even get it with a freedom of information act, that by definition is "bad modelling." I'm sure there is a lot of good climate science out that. The science that claims there is "unquestioned consensus" on what's going on is clearly junk science.

Of course. Sadly, it is true for all fields of science, but especially those where governments are invested the most (climatology, medicine, ...) that academic discourse is terrible right now. The same applies to other fields of academia (economics, sociology, history, gender studies, ...).

You can argue in favor of a "crazy" new idea in physics and if you can provide evidence, or at least an easily falsifiable theory that is not yet falsified, there might be a paradigm shift. Maybe not instantaneously and you will encounter resistence from the mainstream, but you have a good chance of revolutionizing the field. That happened a couple of times in the last decades.

Creating a paradigm shift in economics is much harder, but given the nature that it's not a natural science that's at least understandable. It sadly appears to be that climatology is really to some extend quite elitist. But then again I haven't studied it in great detail. It took me literally thousands of working hours to come to my current understanding of economics (and that's still far from being top level) and if some amateur tries to explain me why my views are wrong, of course that will annoy me. The same is true if I were to be trying to tell an IPPC scientist why he is a paid shill with no clue about the sun. The level of expertise I would need in order to be knowledable enough to argue with them, or to even have a reasonable opinion on whether or not their theories are correct, is huge.

I don't have time for that, but I don't pretent to know stuff that I don't. Personally I doubt the general anthropogenic climate change-consensus. Or at least I doubt the magnitude of it and that the certainty of that claim is high enough to base policy on it.

Danan
04-10-2013, 10:43 PM
Yes it is-at least as taught at the university level. As their story goes, the acids that comprise DNA spontaneously aligned themselves and formed single-celled organisms. From there, evolution caused organisms to become increasingly complex. It always struck me as fairy-tale-ish as anything a religious philosopher has come up with.

The field about the origin of life is called abiogenesis. I've seen an awsome presentation where a scientist shows that they reproduced some primitive (although not really sustainable) form of abiogenesis in a lab. There are some chemical molecules that align themselves and start to move, reproduce and "eat" (all things we attribute to living beings). Sadly I can't find that right now.

Abiogenesis is not nearly as well documented and accepted as evolution, though. It still seems entirely plausible and probable to me, from what I know about it. However, there is not "one" theory about it. There are a few dozens and there is a lively debate going on among biologists/chemists.

The Rebel Poet
04-11-2013, 12:04 AM
legislation..critics say would establish a backdoor way of questioning the theory of evolution
Mustn't question the official story! Does anyone else think it's strange when people are afraid of questions?

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 12:10 AM
Mustn't question the official story! Does anyone else think it's strange when people are afraid of questions?

Absolutely. My issue is not with people that search for or ask questions. It's with those who feel that our understanding is complete and that no more questions should be asked.

jmdrake
04-11-2013, 03:03 AM
Of course. Sadly, it is true for all fields of science, but especially those where governments are invested the most (climatology, medicine, ...) that academic discourse is terrible right now. The same applies to other fields of academia (economics, sociology, history, gender studies, ...).

You can argue in favor of a "crazy" new idea in physics and if you can provide evidence, or at least an easily falsifiable theory that is not yet falsified, there might be a paradigm shift. Maybe not instantaneously and you will encounter resistence from the mainstream, but you have a good chance of revolutionizing the field. That happened a couple of times in the last decades.

Creating a paradigm shift in economics is much harder, but given the nature that it's not a natural science that's at least understandable. It sadly appears to be that climatology is really to some extend quite elitist. But then again I haven't studied it in great detail. It took me literally thousands of working hours to come to my current understanding of economics (and that's still far from being top level) and if some amateur tries to explain me why my views are wrong, of course that will annoy me. The same is true if I were to be trying to tell an IPPC scientist why he is a paid shill with no clue about the sun. The level of expertise I would need in order to be knowledable enough to argue with them, or to even have a reasonable opinion on whether or not their theories are correct, is huge.

I don't have time for that, but I don't pretent to know stuff that I don't. Personally I doubt the general anthropogenic climate change-consensus. Or at least I doubt the magnitude of it and that the certainty of that claim is high enough to base policy on it.

Oh I fully agree. Experts should debate experts. When we get to the point of what goes on in the classroom, who's the expert? The teacher? The school board? The parent? The child? If we go with the textbook writer, well he's not there to be "annoyed." More importantly, why not bring in another textbook from another expert who disagrees with the first?

FTR, while I totally disagree with the OP of this thread, I'm glad it merges both the AGW and the evolution vs creation debate, because by doing so it hightlights what the real problem is. Dogma is science is bad. It doesn't matter if it's religious dogma, or secularist dogma. You want a falsifiable theory? Here's one. "No scientist who's actually studied evolution/AGW and understands evolution/AGW doubts evolution/AGW." I think it's well established that there are climate scientists who doubt AGW. I know chemists, biologists and physicists who believe in creation. Some work and teach at secular, and even state run universities. And I'm talking "God created man from the dust of the ground" creationists, not "God created a single celled organisms that over billions of years of birth, life and death evolved into all life forms as we see them today including humans" creationists. Since I know that for a fact, I know that comments like "People who disagree with evolution just don't understand it" cannot possibly be correct. (I know you didn't make that comment. I've just seen comments like that in this thread).

Here's the bottom line. Any independently thinking person will, at some point, have a view that goes against conventional wisdom and will not be the correct answer on a standardized test. It might be in science, it might be in economics, it might be in history. If the question on a standardized test is "Who killed JFK" the correct answer for the test is "Lee Harvey Oswald" even if you can made a good faith argument for "I don't know."

UMULAS
04-11-2013, 07:02 AM
......

pcosmar
04-11-2013, 07:20 AM
It is anti-science to question theories.

Sort of like being "anti-government" for advocating a return to the Constitution.

It is not anti- science.
Evolution is a widely accepted yet Unproven Theory.
Good science examines and questions all theories.

Danan
04-11-2013, 07:41 AM
I really don't understand the argument that the government shouldn't be allowed to tell what has to be taught in certain classes at public schools.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe there should be no public schools in the first place. However given that there are public schools and given that the government also makes a viable alternative near to impossible for the masses by first taxing everyone and then offering a "free" choice, it obviously should regulate its own schools.

That's essentially the same problem we have with speed limits and drunk-driving. Does the government have a right to tell me how fast and sober I have to drive? Well, on the one hand no, it should not even own roads in the first place and therefore private road owners should tell you what you can and can not do on their property. They will make that decission based on what set of rules maximizes their profits, since there are many people who want strict rules, but others who hate to be restricted and want the freedom to drive however they want. With the government owning the roads, however, there is no market process since they eliminate all possible competition. What process can we use to decide for the rules on public roads now? Currently it's the democratic process. It seriously sucks compared with the free market process, but given that the government owns stuff, it seems like the best way to decide for rules on specific property publically owned.

The same is true for schools. Given that schools are owned publically (which they shouldn't be), there needs to be some democratic process (direct/indirect, local/federal, ...) to decide what is going to be taught in which classes. You claim that banning non-scientific explainations alongside scientific ones in science classes is wrong. Would it also be wrong to ban teachers from teaching Chinese in English classes? To prohibit teachers from doing sports in math classes? To forbid teachers from teaching music in physics classes?

It seems to me that it makes sense to say, "Only teach scientific theories in science classes, and maybe the philosophical underpinnings of science itself." What's wrong with teaching religious theories in religion classes? Maybe that's what you should push for instead. I'd have no problem with a subject called "Religion" explaining all the different religious theories of the origin of the universe and life and its transformation over the years. And I believe it would make sense not to talk about evolution or the big bang in those classes.

UMULAS
04-11-2013, 07:56 AM
........

pcosmar
04-11-2013, 08:12 AM
You better start reading, .
Piltdown man.

but you go ahead and believe whatever you like.

that is your choice and freedom of religion.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 08:17 AM
Would it also be wrong to ban teachers from teaching Chinese in English classes? To prohibit teachers from doing sports in math classes? To forbid teachers from teaching music in physics classes?

Of course all those things would be wrong. I have trouble seeing how anyone would support a one-size-fits-all policy made up by politicians, telling math teachers, "We know how to teach math better than you do, and that means no talking about sports."

erowe1
04-11-2013, 08:19 AM
It seems to me that it makes sense to say, "Only teach scientific theories in science classes, and maybe the philosophical underpinnings of science itself."

The philosophical underpinnings of science are inherently religious.

georgiaboy
04-11-2013, 08:31 AM
The philosophical underpinnings of science are inherently religious.

I think I know what you mean by this - that a statement like "everything about the universe can be explained from a purely naturalistic basis" is an inherently religious statement, but could you please explain your perspective, or at least let me know I'm understanding you correctly?

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 08:31 AM
N.b. the assumption of the validity of sense experience is a theological one.

No, it's an epistemological one that has no connection to theology.

pcosmar
04-11-2013, 08:34 AM
The philosophical underpinnings of science are inherently religious.

I would agree.


The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork.


For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

and from the book of Job,,

3“But I have intelligence as well as you;
I am not inferior to you.
And who does not know such things as these?

4“I am a joke to my friends,
The one who called on God and He answered him;
The just and blameless man is a joke.

5“He who is at ease holds calamity in contempt,
As prepared for those whose feet slip.

6“The tents of the destroyers prosper,
And those who provoke God are secure,
Whom God brings into their power.

7“But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you;
And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you.

8“Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you;
And let the fish of the sea declare to you.

9“Who among all these does not know
That the hand of the LORD has done this,

10In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?

11“Does not the ear test words,
As the palate tastes its food?

12“Wisdom is with aged men,
With long life is understanding.

Danan
04-11-2013, 08:49 AM
The philosophical underpinnings of science are inherently religious.

I don't necessarily agree that it's "religious". It's true that positivistic epistemology would argue that (scientific) knowledge is a subset of belief. In the end, that's a matter of definition.

But even if science is religious it's a very distinct branch with its own characteristics. If you argue that science is inherently flawed and does not really tell us anything about the real world, that's one thing. That still doesn't justify to teach non-scientific theories in science classes.


Of course all those things would be wrong. I have trouble seeing how anyone would support a one-size-fits-all policy made up by politicians, telling math teachers, "We know how to teach math better than you do, and that means no talking about sports."

I said doing sports. The reason we should not allow math teachers to do that is because they likely do not reach their objective to teach their students mathematics if half of what they do is playing basketball. If you say that playing basketball is just as important as learning maths, you should argue for a sports class with the objective of playing basketball.

In a free market parents could choose a school that does not talk about non-scientific theories in science classes. In those private schools the owners would have made that decision in order to maximize their profits, or because they believe that's the way it should be done. Given that public schools are more or less "owned" by the public, obviously the public has a right to make the rules in such a way as they would expect a private school (that could exist absent of government intervention) to regulate their classes' content. Ideally the public shouldn't own schools (or at least coerce everybody into paying for them). But given that this is the case, those rules don't seem to be irrational to me.

Acala
04-11-2013, 08:49 AM
Evolution is a widely accepted yet Unproven Theory.


No theory is EVER proven. The best a theory can do is be stated in a form that can be falsified but successfully resists being falsified. "All swans are white" is a falsifiable statement that successfully resisted falsification for a long time. Until a black swan was discovered. Then it was falsified.

pcosmar
04-11-2013, 09:02 AM
No theory is EVER proven.
When it is proven, (repeatable, observable and predictable results) it is no longer a theory.

as a theory it must be questioned and tested,, to either be refuted or corrected or proven.

That is science. To accept a theory without proof is not science.

All theories should be presented for examination.

Acala
04-11-2013, 09:20 AM
When it is proven, (repeatable, observable and predictable results) it is no longer a theory.



No theory can ever be proven because it is always susceptible to being falsified by currently unknown evidence. It can only be venerable in its success at resisting falsification.

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 09:22 AM
There's an apocryphal story about the time the great French scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace presented a copy of his five-volume masterpiece Celestial Mechanics to Napoleon, who remarked to Laplace that his huge work on the system of the universe never mentioned God. Laplace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis". Later historians have concluded that Laplace wasn't denying the existence of God, but merely denying that He intervened in the universe from time to time to adjust its workings.

The point is that a scientific theory that doesn't include a theistic element is neither religious nor anti-religious. It is simply one in which such an element is felt to be unnecessary.

pcosmar
04-11-2013, 09:29 AM
No theory can ever be proven because it is always susceptible to being falsified by currently unknown evidence. It can only be venerable in its success at resisting falsification.

Newtons Laws are not a theory.

Gravity is not a theory.

Mortality is not a theory.

There is a progression,, Hypothesis> Theory> Law

I reject the "Law" of evolution. It is as yet an unproven theory, (in my mind) nothing more than a Hypothesis.

It should be (for educational purposes) presented as such.

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 09:43 AM
I'm a christian pentecostal.

That's irrelevant. I wasn't calling you an atheist, specifically. The bigger point of that post remains.


Care to show me research, documents, papers, drafts to support this?

The burden of proof is on you. My point is not to come here and argue about evolution as I have done so many times so fruitlessly since evolutionists will always attack the legitimacy of the proof rather than discuss the substance. Since there are no "peer-reviewed" (i.e. approved by the scientific elite) articles, then you think that gives you an excuse to just dismiss everything and say "THE SCIENCE GODS HAVE SPOKEN!"

My point in doing this is not to argue evolution. It's to examine why YOU think that it's okay to use government force to say what teachers can and cannot talk about. Why is it that you believe the government has any business telling the parents what they can and cannot teach their children?


Because you are basically claiming ID to be a real science. I wouldn't have a problem if it was an elective, a dual enrollment class, maybe a social science, but don't call it a hard science.

As I have already pointed out, evolution is not science either. It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. Before you tell me that speciation is observable, tell me how that means you can extrapolate it to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions. I have asked this question a few times on this thread and I still haven't received an answer.


Science is always questioned, but something that is refuted such as ID shouldn't be considered as something for students to discuss SINCE IT'S BEEN REFUTED.

So what you are saying is that future students should not be allowed to question evolution because they are late to the game. What part of EVERYTHING IS QUESTIONABLE do you not understand? At NO point in time does a theory become unquestionable. Why are you against students being presented with both sides of the debate and being able to decide for themselves? What you want is for students to just accept it because someone else has already decided for them. What part of that sounds like good science or good education to you?


If ID goes against the scientific methods (which it does), then IT'S NOT A SCIENCE.

Who are you to say what is and isn't science? Why should I be allowed to prevent a teacher from beginning their class with explaining the philosophical underpinnings of science with government force? How is that okay to you? Also, your vague, blind assertion that "ID goes against the scientific method" does not make it so. When are you going to learn that assertions don't make something fact?


Because using propaganda in homeschool curriculums is nothing compared to the state, the only difference is that parents are the ones deciding what shall the child learn. I'm afraid of that since there many idiots like you guys wanting to teach kids ID.

I'm confused. You say using propaganda in homeschool curriculums is "nothing compared to the state" and then you say that it's okay for the state to design curriculums? Why does state propaganda not bother you? Why are you "afraid" of kids being taught something other than evolution? Do you realize how dogmatic you sound right now? Is it ever okay in your mind to question evolution in schools? What would be a good way to present alternative viewpoints? The science is not as hard set as you say, and it never will be because evolution is not science. It has been selected as the approved theory. At no point in time was it legitimately tested. Now you refuse to see the relationship between this belief that evolution is unquestionable and the fact that we are being brainwashed every day with pro-evolution viewpoints from the government-run media and government-run schools. Why does it not bother you that the government is pushing evolution?

Danan
04-11-2013, 09:46 AM
When it is proven, (repeatable, observable and predictable results) it is no longer a theory.

as a theory it must be questioned and tested,, to either be refuted or corrected or proven.

That is science. To accept a theory without proof is not science.

All theories should be presented for examination.

Karl Popper would disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

RockEnds
04-11-2013, 09:54 AM
....

The same is true for schools. Given that schools are owned publically (which they shouldn't be), there needs to be some democratic process (direct/indirect, local/federal, ...) to decide what is going to be taught in which classes. You claim that banning non-scientific explainations alongside scientific ones in science classes is wrong. Would it also be wrong to ban teachers from teaching Chinese in English classes? To prohibit teachers from doing sports in math classes? To forbid teachers from teaching music in physics classes?

It seems to me that it makes sense to say, "Only teach scientific theories in science classes, and maybe the philosophical underpinnings of science itself." What's wrong with teaching religious theories in religion classes? Maybe that's what you should push for instead. I'd have no problem with a subject called "Religion" explaining all the different religious theories of the origin of the universe and life and its transformation over the years. And I believe it would make sense not to talk about evolution or the big bang in those classes.

Imo, public schools are a lost cause, but interdisciplinary activities are a great thing. I'm not teaching English and sports simultaneously at this particular point, but we do a lot of interdisciplinary activities. Right now, I have my daughter working on a giant foam puzzle map of the US. It's really big. It's for Social Studies (geography). She sits in front of the tv and watches the YouTube channel of the songs we're working on for music. They include:

Didn't My Lord Deliver Daniel
Shenandoah
Froggy Went a Courtin'
Old Dan Tucker
O Susannah
My Old Kentucky Home
My Darlin' Clementine
Lorena

They're not just music, they're a slice of history and mention some states as well, making the map more meaningful. There's even religion in a historical context. When she takes a notion, she dances atop the States to Old Dan Tucker. In school, that would be ADHD. Here, that's a splash of PE. (She takes dance lessons for more formal instruction. ;) ) When the map is put together, she lifts it in the air and pretends she's Atlas carrying the world. (A splash more of the humanities with mythology.)

Of course, the point of this exercise is Geography, but because she's not in a class of 30 kids with the state peering over her shoulder, I don't mind if she spends two or three hours doing this repeatedly. And she learns more because she's having fun and her mind is working on more than one, boring map of the states and capitols.

Thinking more upon this, I don't have a foreign language song on my list right now. I should add one....

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 09:54 AM
I really don't understand the argument that the government shouldn't be allowed to tell what has to be taught in certain classes at public schools.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe there should be no public schools in the first place. However given that there are public schools and given that the government also makes a viable alternative near to impossible for the masses by first taxing everyone and then offering a "free" choice, it obviously should regulate its own schools.

Do you know WHY there should be no public schools? It's so the government cannot indoctrinate the kids. It should bother you that the government is now determining what can and cannot be talked about. Just because public schools exist, that doesn't give the government free reign to force teachers to only talk about certain things. It should also bother you that evolution is the government-favored theory at this point. Did you ever stop to question why it might be that the government loves evolution so much?


That's essentially the same problem we have with speed limits and drunk-driving. Does the government have a right to tell me how fast and sober I have to drive? Well, on the one hand no, it should not even own roads in the first place and therefore private road owners should tell you what you can and can not do on their property. They will make that decission based on what set of rules maximizes their profits, since there are many people who want strict rules, but others who hate to be restricted and want the freedom to drive however they want. With the government owning the roads, however, there is no market process since they eliminate all possible competition. What process can we use to decide for the rules on public roads now? Currently it's the democratic process. It seriously sucks compared with the free market process, but given that the government owns stuff, it seems like the best way to decide for rules on specific property publically owned.

So the government has no right to tell you how fast to drive, but since it monopolized roads, that means it does? Can you explain that logic a little more clearly?


The same is true for schools. Given that schools are owned publically (which they shouldn't be), there needs to be some democratic process (direct/indirect, local/federal, ...) to decide what is going to be taught in which classes. You claim that banning non-scientific explainations alongside scientific ones in science classes is wrong. Would it also be wrong to ban teachers from teaching Chinese in English classes? To prohibit teachers from doing sports in math classes? To forbid teachers from teaching music in physics classes?

It is wrong for the government to EVER use force to tell a teacher what they can and cannot discuss in class. What you are doing now is the same thing Keynesians use to tell us the government should interfere in the economy. Because if there no rules to govern what people could do with their businesses, then people could do whatever they want and it would be chaos! Oh the horror! So you believe in the free market when it comes to the economy, but when it comes to schools, you don't believe in the free market anymore. And even though the government does control public schools, that doesn't mean they should also control the dialogue between students and teachers. The more free the market, the better.


It seems to me that it makes sense to say, "Only teach scientific theories in science classes, and maybe the philosophical underpinnings of science itself." What's wrong with teaching religious theories in religion classes? Maybe that's what you should push for instead. I'd have no problem with a subject called "Religion" explaining all the different religious theories of the origin of the universe and life and its transformation over the years. And I believe it would make sense not to talk about evolution or the big bang in those classes.

So do you believe there is any room for questioning evolution in science class? What would be a good way to do this if not to present the idea that, perhaps, science is the examination of God's world? Why must the teacher be required to restrict their discussions to secularism?

erowe1
04-11-2013, 09:54 AM
There's an apocryphal story about the time the great French scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace presented a copy of his five-volume masterpiece Celestial Mechanics to Napoleon, who remarked to Laplace that his huge work on the system of the universe never mentioned God. Laplace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis". Later historians have concluded that Laplace wasn't denying the existence of God, but merely denying that He intervened in the universe from time to time to adjust its workings.

The point is that a scientific theory that doesn't include a theistic element is neither religious nor anti-religious. It is simply one in which such an element is felt to be unnecessary.

That story doesn't prove your conclusion. It disproves it. Denial that God ever intervenes in the universe is a purely religious dogma.

Acala
04-11-2013, 09:57 AM
Newtons Laws are not a theory.

Gravity is not a theory.

Mortality is not a theory.



Sorry, but you are proving my point.

Newton's theories of gravitation WERE shown to have exceptions - by Einstein and subsequent experimental demonstrations of the theory of relativity.

You can say that "all living things die" and that is a perfectly valid scientific statement. Until we find some living thing that doesn't die. You may have FAITH that we will never discover such a thing. But you have not proven that no such thing exists.


But what I am saying really supports your other point which is that scientific theories should be questioned. Indeed, science should consist exclusively of trying to falsify theories.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 09:59 AM
Indeed, science should consist exclusively of trying to falsify theories.

I don't know if you're exaggerating. But if not, then I can't agree. Science should be a search for the truth, whatever it may be. It shouldn't be a game confined to rules that exclude any means of inquiry toward truth.

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 10:06 AM
That story doesn't prove your conclusion. It disproves it. Denial that God ever intervenes in the universe is a purely religious dogma.

No, it's simply the omission of a assumption that the theory doesn't require. You might as well argue that an explanation of the rules of baseball that doesn't include the assumption that God inspired Alexander Cartwright to make the distances between the bases 90 feet is religious dogma.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 10:09 AM
No, it's simply the omission of a assumption that the theory doesn't require. You might as well argue that an explanation of the rules of baseball that doesn't include the assumption that God inspired Alexander Cartwright to make the distances between the bases 90 feet is religious dogma.

It's not an omission of an assumption. It's an assumption. And it's a purely religious one, that is itself not supported by science (it would be logically impossible to support it by science).

I like that baseball analogy, it shows that your approach to science is to treat it as a game with arbitrary rules.

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 10:22 AM
I like that baseball analogy, it shows that your approach to science is to treat it as a game with arbitrary rules.

If that's what you took away from the example, it's no surprise that you don't understand science or basic logic. A theory that doesn't include axiom A is not the same thing as one that includes not-A as an axiom. So your labeling as "religious" any theory that doesn't include a theistic element simply misuses the word.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 10:24 AM
A theory that doesn't include axiom A is not the same thing as one that includes not-A as an axiom.

If you thought that the example you gave about Laplace was merely someone prescinding from an assumption without making an assumption, then it's you who do not understand logic.

The idea that any scientific method at all can proceed without assumptions is ludicrous. Let me guess, you're a Randian.


A theory that doesn't include axiom A...any theory that doesn't include a theistic element

Let's go with this language. Do you concede, then, that a theory that doesn't merely not include theism, but one that positively excludes theism, would be based on religious assumptions?

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 10:32 AM
The idea that any scientific method at all can proceed without assumptions is ludicrous. Let me guess, you're a Randian.

Of course it's ludicrous, and you guess wrong. The fact that Rand used A and not-A in her writings doesn't mean she invented the convention. Would you have been happier if I had said p and ~p?

Acala
04-11-2013, 10:37 AM
I don't know if you're exaggerating. But if not, then I can't agree. Science should be a search for the truth, whatever it may be. It shouldn't be a game confined to rules that exclude any means of inquiry toward truth.

As you wish. But if a rigorous analysis of the philosophy of scientific knowledge interests you, you might want to take a glance at Karl Popper. Pretty cool stuff.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 10:37 AM
Of course it's ludicrous, and you guess wrong. The fact that Rand used A and not-A in her writings doesn't mean she invented the convention. Would you have been happier if I had said p and ~p?

I haven't read those writings. I didn't actually know that you were using her own language. That only highlights your religious devotion to her.

This is the thing about Randians. They have this absurd notion that they're not religious, that they don't appeal to faith, that they begin on some purely neutral objective ground and proceed forth with nothing but logic, reason, evidence, and objectivity. And they are completely blind to their own dogmas.

jmdrake
04-11-2013, 10:37 AM
I really don't understand the argument that the government shouldn't be allowed to tell what has to be taught in certain classes at public schools.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe there should be no public schools in the first place. However given that there are public schools and given that the government also makes a viable alternative near to impossible for the masses by first taxing everyone and then offering a "free" choice, it obviously should regulate its own schools.

Should the federal government regulate schools funded and run by the state government? In this case, state legislatures are offering bills saying they the, the states, want to give teachers more freedom on what to teach. That is a bad thing because.....?



That's essentially the same problem we have with speed limits and drunk-driving. Does the government have a right to tell me how fast and sober I have to drive? Well, on the one hand no, it should not even own roads in the first place and therefore private road owners should tell you what you can and can not do on their property. They will make that decission based on what set of rules maximizes their profits, since there are many people who want strict rules, but others who hate to be restricted and want the freedom to drive however they want. With the government owning the roads, however, there is no market process since they eliminate all possible competition. What process can we use to decide for the rules on public roads now? Currently it's the democratic process. It seriously sucks compared with the free market process, but given that the government owns stuff, it seems like the best way to decide for rules on specific property publically owned.


So the state government can't say "I don't want a 55 MPH speed"? Should a state government be able to say "I don't want to bar talking on cell phones"? Tennessee just passed a repeal of helmet regulations. Is that wrong? The fact that the state owns the highways means that they have to pass every possible regulation imaginable?



The same is true for schools. Given that schools are owned publically (which they shouldn't be), there needs to be some democratic process (direct/indirect, local/federal, ...) to decide what is going to be taught in which classes. You claim that banning non-scientific explainations alongside scientific ones in science classes is wrong. Would it also be wrong to ban teachers from teaching Chinese in English classes? To prohibit teachers from doing sports in math classes? To forbid teachers from teaching music in physics classes?


You realize your argument makes absolutely no sense in the context of the thread? This isn't someone going to court to bar state legislatures from saying certain things can't be taught in the classroom. This is the state legislatures passing (or attempting to pass legislation) saying that teachers have a write to encourage debate about certain things being taught in the classroom. It's the democratic process that you claim to support at work.



It seems to me that it makes sense to say, "Only teach scientific theories in science classes, and maybe the philosophical underpinnings of science itself." What's wrong with teaching religious theories in religion classes? Maybe that's what you should push for instead. I'd have no problem with a subject called "Religion" explaining all the different religious theories of the origin of the universe and life and its transformation over the years. And I believe it would make sense not to talk about evolution or the big bang in those classes.

It seems to me that you are responding to a thread that doesn't exist. This thread was about state legislatures pushing to give teachers the authority to offer criticism of certain theories.

Again:

Recent others (short list without sponsors)
Tennessee
House Bill 368 (HB 368)
Aim: "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories"...including evolution, global warming, the chemical origin of life, and human cloning.
Status: Passed in the House, 4/7/2011. Senate version postponed until 2012 session.

All this is saying is that teachers should have to push the idea that certain theories are "facts". And I've been in a classroom (university physics class) where the professor said straight up "evolution is a fact." I'm sick and tired of the BS being pushed as "science" which pulls out certain theories and falsely claims they are "facts." Then when the other side points out that there are holes in said "fact" the fake scientists come back and say "But of course. It's a theory. Theories can't be proven."

erowe1
04-11-2013, 10:39 AM
As you wish. But if a rigorous analysis of the philosophy of scientific knowledge interests you, you might want to take a glance at Karl Popper. Pretty cool stuff.

I have, and others. I recall reading Popper in a philosophy of science class in my undergraduate studies, which, admittedly, is a long time ago now.

jmdrake
04-11-2013, 10:41 AM
No theory is EVER proven. The best a theory can do is be stated in a form that can be falsified but successfully resists being falsified. "All swans are white" is a falsifiable statement that successfully resisted falsification for a long time. Until a black swan was discovered. Then it was falsified.

Right. But time after time, the science education establishment pushes evolution as a fact instead of a theory, then they fall back on the "Well it's just a theory" when they get called out on it. That's dishonest and anti-science.

And here's quick proof that "scientists" try to elevate the theory of evolution to a fact.

http://www.hhmi.org/grants/professors/wessler_bio.html
"The fact that a school board would call evolution 'a theory, not a fact' is shocking proof that we're failing to communicate the revolution that is going on in our laboratories," said Wessler, a pioneer in the study of transposable elements, or "jumping genes," which are found scattered through plant and animal genomes. Researchers believe that these transposable elements—short segments of DNA previously viewed as "junk"—play a role in evolution.

It's okay to talk about the "theory" of relativity, but evolution must be treated as "fact." Why?

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 10:49 AM
That only highlights your religious devotion to her.

This is the thing about Randians. They have this absurd notion that they're not religious, that they don't appeal to faith, that they begin on some purely neutral objective ground and proceed forth with nothing but logic, reason, evidence, and objectivity. And they are completely blind to their own dogmas.

You are truly delusional if you think I'm devoted to Rand, religiously or not. But you've finally said something I can agree with -- her devoted followers are as dogmatic as any religion.

Incidentally, if you really believe that science shouldn't exclude any means of inquiry toward truth, then would you think that astrology or reading the entrails of owls has a place in science?

erowe1
04-11-2013, 10:59 AM
You are truly delusional if you think I'm devoted to Rand, religiously or not.
At first it was just a guess, based on the religious views you've been espousing in this thread. I wouldn't have been surprised to be wrong about that. But then when it turned out that you've actually been quoting her holy books in this conversation, I couldn't help laughing at the irony of it.



Incidentally, if you really believe that science shouldn't exclude any means of inquiry toward truth, then would you think that astrology or reading the entrails of owls has a place in science?
Of course. Why should those theories be immune to scientific testing?

Acala
04-11-2013, 11:04 AM
Right. But time after time, the science education establishment pushes evolution as a fact instead of a theory, then they fall back on the "Well it's just a theory" when they get called out on it. That's dishonest and anti-science.

And here's quick proof that "scientists" try to elevate the theory of evolution to a fact.

http://www.hhmi.org/grants/professors/wessler_bio.html
"The fact that a school board would call evolution 'a theory, not a fact' is shocking proof that we're failing to communicate the revolution that is going on in our laboratories," said Wessler, a pioneer in the study of transposable elements, or "jumping genes," which are found scattered through plant and animal genomes. Researchers believe that these transposable elements—short segments of DNA previously viewed as "junk"—play a role in evolution.

It's okay to talk about the "theory" of relativity, but evolution must be treated as "fact." Why?

As I have previously posted, the argument as to what government schools should teach is the wrong argument and does not interest me. The answer is abolish government schools.

Epistemology, on the other hand, interests me a great deal.

Acala
04-11-2013, 11:12 AM
I have, and others. I recall reading Popper in a philosophy of science class in my undergraduate studies, which, admittedly, is a long time ago now.

I wasn't intending that as a put down, by the way. I am no expert myself. It was more intended to point a friend to something I find really interesting.

Before you can say what science should be, you need to be very clear about the nature of the end product: scientific truth. So what IS a scientific truth? I think Popper would say it is a falsifiable statement that has yet to be falsified. And the method of arriving at such a statement is by proposing such statements and then trying to falsify them. Such a statement becomes the prevailing model of scientific truth until it is overthrown by some form of falsification.

Danan
04-11-2013, 11:15 AM
Of course. Why should those theories be immune to scientific testing?

They aren't immune to it and both have been sufficiently falsified. Just like the claim that the earth is a few thousand years old has been sufficiently falsified.

Of course you could spend all the time of a science class to talk about already falsified theories (and there are virtually indefinitely many of them). Or you could simply teach current state of the art theories, which are those that have yet to be sufficiently falsified, like evolution, quantum mechanics, etc.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 11:18 AM
I wasn't intending that as a put down, by the way. I am no expert myself. It was more intended to point a friend to something I find really interesting.

Before you can say what science should be, you need to be very clear about the nature of the end product: scientific truth. So what IS a scientific truth? I think Popper would say it is a falsifiable statement that has yet to be falsified. And the method of arriving at such a statement is by proposing such statements and then trying to falsify them. Such a statement becomes the prevailing model of scientific truth until it is overthrown by some form of falsification.

I wouldn't accept that definition.

I don't remember enough about philosophical theories of truth. IIRC, I think I accept the correspondence theory of truth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_theory_of_truth). But I don't remember if there might be some alternative with different nuances.

Any truth-claim is either falsifiable or unfalsifiable. We could assume that all true truth claims must be falsifiable. But that assumption is unfalsifiable, and therefore self-defeating. Therefore, it's at least possible that some true truth-claims are unfalsifiable. This doesn't mean that such claims are entirely without reason to be believed. Therefore, I don't think we should exclude them from our search for truth.

Dr.3D
04-11-2013, 11:20 AM
They aren't immune to it and both have been sufficiently falsified. Just like the claim that the earth is a few thousand years old has been sufficiently falsified.

Of course you could spend all the time of a science class to talk about already falsified theories (and there are virtually indefinitely many of them). Or you could simply teach current state of the art theories, which are those that have yet to be sufficiently falsified, like evolution, quantum mechanics, etc.
How has it been falsified?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u58vxm0BsC8

Danan
04-11-2013, 11:24 AM
I wasn't intending that as a put down, by the way. I am no expert myself. It was more intended to point a friend to something I find really interesting.

Before you can say what science should be, you need to be very clear about the nature of the end product: scientific truth. So what IS a scientific truth? I think Popper would say it is a falsifiable statement that has yet to be falsified. And the method of arriving at such a statement is by proposing such statements and then trying to falsify them. Such a statement becomes the prevailing model of scientific truth until it is overthrown by some form of falsification.

For logical positivists knowledge is justified true belief (all of those three words are defined in a very specific way in this context). Popper's critical rationalism would say that knowledge is on the contrary unjustified untrue unbelief.

Popper would not say that truth is a falsifiable statement that has yet to be falsified. To Popper truth is objective. That is, truth is not what we percieve as true and not subjective, or dependend on thinking entities to sense it, it is "really real". He might say that "knowledge" is what you described, although I'm not sure about that.

Danan
04-11-2013, 11:27 AM
How has it been falsified?

By a body of evidence to the contrary, from astronomical (red light shift, cosmic backround radiation, etc.), geological, anthropological, biological and many other sources.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 11:31 AM
By a body of evidence to the contrary, from astronomical (red light shift, cosmic backround radiation, etc.), geological, anthropological, biological and many other sources.

All of those means rely on uniformitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism). But they don't, and can't, prove the validity of uniformitarianism. Belief in a young earth entails a rejection of uniformitarianism. So it can't be falsified by those means.

Dr.3D
04-11-2013, 11:32 AM
By a body of evidence to the contrary, from astronomical (red light shift, cosmic backround radiation, etc.), geological, anthropological, biological and many other sources.
They mean nothing. If you will watch the video starting at 28:02 you will understand.

Acala
04-11-2013, 11:32 AM
For logical positivists knowledge is justified true belief (all of those three words are defined in a very specific way in this context). Popper's critical rationalism would say that knowledge is on the contrary unjustified untrue unbelief.

Popper would not say that truth is a falsifiable statement that has yet to be falsified. To Popper truth is objective. That is, truth is not what we percieve as true and not subjective, or dependend on thinking entities to sense it, it is "really real". He might say that "knowledge" is what you described, although I'm not sure about that.

Yes, I should have said scientific knowledge rather than truth.

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 11:36 AM
I wouldn't have been surprised to be wrong about that. But then when it turned out that you've actually been quoting her holy books in this conversation, I couldn't help laughing at the irony of it.

You mistake me for someone else. I haven't been quoting her.



Of course. Why should those theories be immune to scientific testing?

You miss the point. If you believe that all means of inquiry are to be included in the search for truth, then you are implicitly assuming that they have some utility in that regard. I'd like to know why you think that astrology has any value at all in discovering the truth.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 11:41 AM
I'd like to know why you think that astrology has any value at all in discovering the truth.

I don't. But that doesn't remove it from the discussion. Studying astrology could easily contribute to a better understanding of science, even if that study proves it invalid.

Danan
04-11-2013, 12:11 PM
I don't. But that doesn't remove it from the discussion. Studying astrology could easily contribute to a better understanding of science, even if that study proves it invalid.

That has been done again and again and every time it has been falsified. The same is true for other theories.

Of course if you deny that the means by which we try to falsify theories are not sufficient and can ultimately never be sufficient, then we won't get very far with that approach. There is no ultimate way of "proving" anything, let alone the very act of proving itself. It just seems rational to assume that the laws that govern our universe don't change all the time and that evidence does indeed show us something about the "real reallity", the objective truth, because all our sensible evidence is consistent with that worldview.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 12:37 PM
That has been done again and again and every time it has been falsified.

Following the line of reasoning of people who object to the bills in the OP, this kind of thing should not be discussed in science classes.


It just seems rational to assume that the laws that govern our universe don't change all the time and that evidence does indeed show us something about the "real reallity", the objective truth

I understand. But be aware that that's a religious dogma. And that science that proceeds on that basis can never prove the truthfulness of that dogma that it assumes. I'm of the opinion that science classes will do a better job of teaching science when they include discussions of the religious assumptions behind the methods used and an awareness of their own limitations. Apparently, in the mind of some, this belief would be enough to disqualify anyone from teaching science.


all our sensible evidence is consistent with that worldview.

That's just not true. And for it ever to be true, uniformitarian science will have to have completed its purpose and arrived at explanations for all things without any remaining problems to solve.

Danan
04-11-2013, 01:07 PM
Following the line of reasoning of people who object to the bills in the OP, this kind of thing should not be discussed in science classes.

There is a difference between studying astrology in detail in a science class and in pointing out why astrology has been falsified whenever it was presented as a falsifiable theory and that most of the time it's not even scientific at all.

You can't explain all falsified theories in adequate detail as practical matter.


I understand. But be aware that that's a religious dogma. And that science that proceeds on that basis can never prove the truthfulness of that dogma that it assumes. I'm of the opinion that science classes will do a better job of teaching science when they include discussions of the religious assumptions behind the methods used and an awareness of their own limitations. Apparently, in the mind of some, this belief would be enough to disqualify anyone from teaching science.

Nobody can ever prove the truthfulness of anything, including this statement. Popper's critical rationalism doesn't claim to find truth. It tries to eliminate what likely is not true. He also never claimed that this method was falsifiable, just that it was useful.


That's just not true. And for it ever to be true, uniformitarian science will have to have completed its purpose and arrived at explanations for all things without any remaining problems to solve.

What evidence is there that the laws of physics were not in effect, or different in any point in time at any location in the known universe?

UMULAS
04-11-2013, 01:08 PM
......

erowe1
04-11-2013, 01:11 PM
What evidence is there that the laws of physics were not in effect, or different in any point in time at any location in the known universe?

The best example of that is Jesus rising from the dead. A recital of the evidence for that would exceed this format. But I could point you to sources.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 01:14 PM
Science is not a democracy nor a belief; it will be a fact untill it is scientifically discredited. PERIOD.


I can't tell if this sentence is pure gibberish or not. But if it's not, then I'm pretty sure it begs the question.

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 01:34 PM
But be aware that that's a religious dogma. And that science that proceeds on that basis can never prove the truthfulness of that dogma that it assumes. I'm of the opinion that science classes will do a better job of teaching science when they include discussions of the religious assumptions behind the methods used and an awareness of their own limitations.

While a belief in the existence of an objective reality that is perceptible by our senses may be an unprovable assumption, it doesn't follow that there's anything remotely religious about it. Meanwhile, our schools are turning out students who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate compared to other industrialized countries, and we don't need to waste limited classroom time discussing the theoretical possibility that we're all brains-in-vats and that what we perceive isn't really real, when we should be teaching calculus, physics, biology, and chemistry. There's time enough for metaphysical speculation in a philosophy course (do public schools even offer philosophy courses?)

Science Teacher: I am forced by the school board to tell you that it's theoretically possible that all the science you will be studying is an illusion, and that what you think you see, hear, feel, taste, and touch isn't real. We'll be spending the next few classes discussing this.

Student: Then why do we need to learn any of the science you'll be teaching us later on? If it's all an illusion, who cares? I'd rather play video games.

Teacher: But almost everyone in the world behaves as if what they perceive is real, and they base their behavior on the predictible results of science. Science works.

Student: You only have faith that it does and that the results are predictible, because it could all be an illusion. For all I know, the sun could rise in the west tomorrow.

Teacher: If you believe that what you're experiencing now is an illusion, why not test it by jumping out of the window (assume the classroom is on the third floor) -- who knows, you might find that you're able to fly. Wouldn't that be more fun than a video game? (Aside to the other students: Everyone else, please measure the time it takes for your classmate to hit the ground; we'll then discuss the equation d = 16 t^2. Oh, and don't worry if you think you see blood and guts all over the ground -- it could just be an illusion.)

Student: [no response]

erowe1
04-11-2013, 01:48 PM
While a belief in the existence of an objective reality that is perceptible by our senses may be an unprovable assumption, it doesn't follow that there's anything remotely religious about it.

Yes it does follow. Furthermore, we're talking about a lot more than just that one assumption.


Meanwhile, our schools are turning out students who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate compared to other industrialized countries
Yes. This is happening today, while these policies of politicians telling teachers what they're allowed to talk about are in place.


and we don't need to waste limited classroom time discussing the theoretical possibility that we're all brains-in-vats and that what we perceive isn't really real
Actually, I'm pretty sure that science teachers who talked about the theoretical possibility that we're brains in vats would not run into any problems. It's the ones who entertain the possibility of God's existence who are in trouble. But even so, I wouldn't defend a law telling science teachers that they can't talk about the theoretical possibility that we're brains in vats. I assume the teachers themselves would be able to decide whether or not that discussion would aid their teaching better than I could for them.


There's time enough for metaphysical speculation in a philosophy course (do public schools even offer philosophy courses?)
And in science courses that proceed on the basis of that metaphysical speculation.


Science Teacher: I am forced by the school board to tell you that it's theoretically possible that all the science you will be studying is an illusion, and that what you think you see, hear, feel, taste, and touch isn't real. We'll be spending the next few classes discussing this.

You got it backwards. We're not talking about forcing teachers to talk about things. We're talking about allowing them to. It's the people who oppose the bills in the OP who want teachers to have their hands tied by non-teachers.

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 02:16 PM
You got it backwards. We're not talking about forcing teachers to talk about things. We're talking about allowing them to. It's the people who oppose the bills in the OP who want teachers to have their hands tied by non-teachers.

So if a science teacher wanted to explain everything on the basis that Allah (the One True God and blessed be His name) created everything, that's OK?

Danan
04-11-2013, 02:29 PM
So if a science teacher wanted to explain everything on the basis that Allah (the One True God and blessed be His name) created everything, that's OK?

That's the crux of the matter. Obviously someone has to decide what has to be taught. If the class is called biology it makes sense to teach actual scientific theories that are part of the field of biology, rather than what the bible says. In fact, if you call the subject biology you already eliminate intelligent design from the table of content, since it's not part of biology.

Why in the world would we believe that teachers have the ultimate right to teach whatever they see fit and the parents (who - also - "own" the school after all) can't do anything about it? If the public who "owns" the school (even though that's a problem from libertarian property rights theory, it's still the hand we're dealt), then it should be the public who determines the rules by which the school is governed. That process is not very effective, but it's the best we can come up with, given we are in the terrible situation that the public/government owns schools.

At least we can all agree that if the government wouldn't be in that business, there wouldn't be a problem.

pcosmar
04-11-2013, 02:29 PM
So if a science teacher wanted to explain everything on the basis that Allah (the One True God and blessed be His name) created everything, that's OK?
What would be wrong with it?

Or are you opposed to the name some folks use for God?

Danan
04-11-2013, 02:30 PM
What would be wrong with it?

Or are you opposed to the name some folks use for God?

What about if the science teacher used all his time telling students that there is no such thing as God, instead of teaching science? Who are we to prohibit such behavior?

pcosmar
04-11-2013, 02:35 PM
What about if the science teacher used all his time telling students that there is no such thing as God, instead of teaching science? Who are we to prohibit such behavior?

Or that Man is God?

I would prefer that government Schools did not exist.. and I believe that any "teacher" (regardless of setting) should present information, and stimulate thought and encourage investigation.
I have never been in favor of mindless memorization and regurgitation of "facts".

erowe1
04-11-2013, 02:37 PM
So if a science teacher wanted to explain everything on the basis that Allah (the One True God and blessed be His name) created everything, that's OK?

Not necessarily. But if a science teacher does that and does a better job of teaching science, then I don't see why a universal rule prohibiting it makes sense. They should be judged on the basis of their qualities as a teacher overall, not some single religious litmus test.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 02:39 PM
In fact, if you call the subject biology you already eliminate intelligent design from the table of content, since it's not part of biology.

That's precisely the problem.

You logically cannot eliminate something from the realm of science and then proceed to claim that science has proven that thing false.

A science teacher with any command of logic who wants to propound a uniformitarian approach to studying origins should have not trouble with saying, "What we're doing is investigating what we could say about origins on the assumption of uniformitarianism. We don't claim to prove that assumption. Therefore, on the basis of this science we are not capable of saying that the theories we teach are more likely to be true than other views that start from different assumptions."

Danan
04-11-2013, 02:45 PM
That's precisely the problem.

You logically cannot eliminate something from the realm of science and then proceed to claim that science has proven that thing false.

ID is sometimes presented in a scientific notion, sometimes not. When people claim the earth is a few thousand years old and state that this is a falsifiable theory that can be falsified by our common means of testing (which has been done) it has always been falsified. But then sometimes the same people, sometimes others, turn around and say that our means of aquiring evidence or testing theories don't apply to ID. Then it's not scientific anylonger.

jmdrake
04-11-2013, 02:47 PM
By a body of evidence to the contrary, from astronomical (red light shift, cosmic backround radiation, etc.), geological, anthropological, biological and many other sources.

I take it you didn't watch the video.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 02:49 PM
ID is sometimes presented in a scientific notion, sometimes not. When people claim the earth is a few thousand years old and state that this is a falsifiable theory that can be falsified by our common means of testing (which has been done) it has always been falsified. But then sometimes the same people, sometimes others, turn around and say that our means of aquiring evidence or testing theories don't apply to ID. Then it's not scientific anylonger.

I think there have been some problems with the rhetoric of ID proponents and creationists, especially when they try to pretend that they can advance their theories with some kind of religious neutrality. They can't. Neither can those who deny them. Both sides need to stop teaching kids that there's some religiously neutral ground they can stand on and just do pure objective science.

Dr.3D
04-11-2013, 02:55 PM
I take it you didn't watch the video.

What can a person learn who knows everything?

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 03:05 PM
What would be wrong with it?

Or are you opposed to the name some folks use for God?

What's wrong with it is that a government employee is using his official position to promote his individual religious belief, which not only violates the First Amendment but is also horrible policy.

The last thing a religious believer should want is for the government to be allowed to promote a particular religious belief through the public schools. If you're going to have public schools in the first place, they have to be neutral on religious matters and can't favor one belief over another or promote theism in general. And it's no answer to say that the failure to teach a particular religious viewpoint is in itself a religious viewpoint. It should be obvious, but I'll say it again: the failure to teach p is not equivalent to teaching that p is false.

Is religious faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of the State to promote itself to a captive audience? I know you'll probably say that we should keep government out of education, but that's not the point. IF we will have public schools, do we want to allow every teacher to proselytize his or her own religious beliefs?

Dr.3D
04-11-2013, 03:09 PM
What's wrong with it is that a government employee is using his official position to promote his individual religious belief, which not only violates the First Amendment but is also horrible policy.

The last thing a religious believer should want is for the government to be allowed to promote a particular religious belief through the public schools. 1 If you're going to have public schools in the first place, they have to be neutral on religious matters and can't favor one belief over another or promote theism in general. And it's no answer to say that the failure to teach a particular religious viewpoint is in itself a religious viewpoint. It should be obvious, but I'll say it again: the failure to teach p is not equivalent to teaching that p is false.

Is religious faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of the State to promote itself to a captive audience?2 I know you'll probably say that we should keep government out of education, but that's not the point. IF we will have public schools, do we want to allow every teacher to proselytize his or her own religious beliefs?
1. Then why do they promote the religion of Secular Humanism?
2. Seems to be, the state is promoting the religion of Secular Humanism to a captive audience.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 03:10 PM
What's wrong with it is that a government employee is using his official position to promote his individual religious belief, which not only violates the First Amendment but is also horrible policy.

All public education does that. It's unavoidable. It permeates every class. There are zero exceptions.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 03:13 PM
Is religious faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of the State to promote itself to a captive audience?

The irony that you're the one saying this is not lost on me.

Origanalist
04-11-2013, 04:08 PM
What's wrong with it is that a government employee is using his official position to promote his individual religious belief, which not only violates the First Amendment but is also horrible policy.

The last thing a religious believer should want is for the government to be allowed to promote a particular religious belief through the public schools. If you're going to have public schools in the first place, they have to be neutral on religious matters and can't favor one belief over another or promote theism in general. And it's no answer to say that the failure to teach a particular religious viewpoint is in itself a religious viewpoint. It should be obvious, but I'll say it again: the failure to teach p is not equivalent to teaching that p is false.

Is religious faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of the State to promote itself to a captive audience? I know you'll probably say that we should keep government out of education, but that's not the point. IF we will have public schools, do we want to allow every teacher to proselytize his or her own religious beliefs?

Derp.

jmdrake
04-11-2013, 04:27 PM
What's wrong with it is that a government employee is using his official position to promote his individual religious belief, which not only violates the First Amendment but is also horrible policy.

A bill that says "It's okay for a teacher to encourage students to question theories including global warming and evolution" is not promoting an invidiual religious belief. Not unless you believe that questioning AGW requires you to be religious. And if it's okay to question AGW then its okay to question evolution.



The last thing a religious believer should want is for the government to be allowed to promote a particular religious belief through the public schools.


Treating evolution as a theory is not promoting a particular religious belief. In fact the act of questioning evolution isn't promoting any religious belief.



If you're going to have public schools in the first place, they have to be neutral on religious matters and can't favor one belief over another or promote theism in general. And it's no answer to say that the failure to teach a particular religious viewpoint is in itself a religious viewpoint. It should be obvious, but I'll say it again: the failure to teach p is not equivalent to teaching that p is false.


Teaching students to weigh the pros and cons of evolution is not equivalant to teaching religion.



Is religious faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of the State to promote itself to a captive audience? I know you'll probably say that we should keep government out of education, but that's not the point. IF we will have public schools, do we want to allow every teacher to proselytize his or her own religious beliefs?

Is your faith is science so unpersuasive that you have to use a straw man argument to promote it?

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 04:30 PM
All public education does that. It's unavoidable. It permeates every class. There are zero exceptions.

Oh, please. Where is the promotion of religion in teaching the binomial theorem?

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 04:33 PM
1. Then why do they promote the religion of Secular Humanism?
2. Seems to be, the state is promoting the religion of Secular Humanism to a captive audience.

Just because they don't teach creationism or promote your favorite religious faith doesn't mean they're teaching secular humanism.

jmdrake
04-11-2013, 04:35 PM
Just because they don't teach creationism or promote your favorite religious faith doesn't mean they're teaching secular humanism.

Just because a school may teach creationism doesn't mean it's teaching a particular religion.

Just because a school may teach students to think critically about evolution and understand problems with the theory doesn't mean its teachng creationism.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 04:39 PM
Oh, please. Where is the promotion of religion in teaching the binomial theorem?

Mathematics presupposes the existence of God.

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 04:42 PM
Mathematics presupposes the existence of God.

Why?

erowe1
04-11-2013, 04:49 PM
Why?

Because it appeals to inviolable laws that must have law giver with a rational mind.

ETA: One need only read an essay like this one (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html) by Nobel Prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner to see that proper study of mathematics requires that it be understood theologically.

Sonny Tufts
04-11-2013, 05:12 PM
Because it appeals to inviolable laws that must have law giver with a rational mind.

You're begging the question -- that is, you assume that the "laws" of mathematics must have a lawgiver. Why must this be the case? Why can't they simply be the human mind's abstraction of features of the universe? Or if you're a Platonist, why can't they simply be features of reality that the human mind has discovered? Of course, if you're going to claim that the universe and reality were created by God, then it would follow that math presupposes the existence of God. But then you'd still have the problem of proving that (a) God exists, and (b) God created everything.

Incidentally, the laws of mathematics aren't necessarily inviolable. Noneuclidean geometries are just one example.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 05:17 PM
You're begging the question -- that is, you assume that the "laws" of mathematics must have a lawgiver. Why must this be the case? Why can't they simply be the human mind's abstraction of features of the universe? Or if you're a Platonist, why can't they simply be features of reality that the human mind has discovered? Of course, if you're going to claim that the universe and reality were created by God, then it would follow that math presupposes the existence of God. But then you'd still have the problem of proving that (a) God exists, and (b) God created everything.

It's more than that. The laws of mathematics exist. They are not extended in space. They are transcendent of the physical universe. Atheism is the denial of the existence of anything not extended in space and transcendent of the physical universe. It rules out mathematics as much as it rules out the doctrine of the Trinity.



Incidentally, the laws of mathematics aren't necessarily inviolable. Noneuclidean geometries are just one example.

Noneuclidian geometries are built on inviolable laws.

One Last Battle!
04-11-2013, 05:21 PM
Because it appeals to inviolable laws that must have law giver with a rational mind.

ETA: One need only read an essay like this one (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html) by Nobel Prize winning physicist Eugene Wigner to see that proper study of mathematics requires that it be understood theologically.

No

jonhowe
04-11-2013, 05:22 PM
I respect your view, but what you have mentioned amounts to a logical or deductive case, instead of one based on the evidence. The Genesis genealogies flat out do not indicate skipped generations. If one may counter with other logic, we can suppose ancient man was far smarter and industrious on average, and built civilizations much faster than supposed. Think about how quickly urban areas have changed in less than 120 years (in the late 1800s, Times Square was still farmland, etc), to see how fast things can be built up.

Why do you accept any part of the bible as 100% accurate? Or even factual? Can we start there?

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 05:22 PM
Begging the question is a natural reaction. Is tough to not do.

erowe1
04-11-2013, 05:23 PM
Begging the question is a natural reaction. Is tough to not do.

At some level it's impossible not to do. Where problems come in isn't in the fact of having religious presuppositions. It's in the pretense of not having them.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 05:37 PM
At some level it's impossible not to do. Where problems come in isn't in the fact of having religious presuppositions. It's in the pretense of not having them.

Yep. But it's how "religion" (meaning the overall theme) comes into it though and then usually all is lost because of moral discussion from so many differnt perspectives. I really don't care for this when it happens because we lose the context. In reading the dialogue from yourself and sunny I almost choked on my coffee. Is good stuff that can only stimulate adult speak.

But yes. Even in the science community we find that begging the question and a general hypothesis, although similar in language, just isn't the same thing but exists. And then we get what jmdrake had mentioned and then referenced with the graphic. Which eventually leads to why origanalist's question was relevant to it. Is a mess.

Dr.3D
04-11-2013, 05:40 PM
Just because they don't teach creationism or promote your favorite religious faith doesn't mean they're teaching secular humanism.
No they claim they don't promote any religion, when in fact, Secular Humanism is the official religion of the state and is the only religion allowed to be taught in public schools.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 05:44 PM
No they claim they don't promote any religion, when in fact, Secular Humanism is the official religion of the state and is the only religion allowed to be taught in public schools.

Heck, I've seen transhumanism make surprising leaps in a few areas of science in High Schools. And it's interesting because you'll typically hear the language used that specifically do stimulate the question of "God". If only subtle, it does happen. I know that's not relevant to your point but just thought of it for whatever reason. Probably the begging the question points made earlier because it's the student who would come preprogrammed to maybe ask or consider this without any actual or physical guidance to to so. Kind of a mind screw, really.

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 06:46 PM
That has been done again and again and every time it has been falsified. The same is true for other theories.

Of course if you deny that the means by which we try to falsify theories are not sufficient and can ultimately never be sufficient, then we won't get very far with that approach. There is no ultimate way of "proving" anything, let alone the very act of proving itself. It just seems rational to assume that the laws that govern our universe don't change all the time and that evidence does indeed show us something about the "real reallity", the objective truth, because all our sensible evidence is consistent with that worldview.

It should be done a thousand times more, and a thousand more after that. In case you didn't notice, we have new people coming into this world every day. No human being should be deprived of discussion about these things just because we think we have already found the answers. Will we ever learn just how shallow our knowledge of the universe is? No matter how much we study, we will always be led to believe false beliefs that we are sure are right and we will always commit ourselves to some belief that is popular only to be proven wrong after we are dead.

It is the height of absurd arrogance to claim that the next generation should have this generation's filter built in to their education. That is what you are arguing, and it is just flat out wrong.

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 06:53 PM
While a belief in the existence of an objective reality that is perceptible by our senses may be an unprovable assumption, it doesn't follow that there's anything remotely religious about it. Meanwhile, our schools are turning out students who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate compared to other industrialized countries, and we don't need to waste limited classroom time discussing the theoretical possibility that we're all brains-in-vats and that what we perceive isn't really real, when we should be teaching calculus, physics, biology, and chemistry. There's time enough for metaphysical speculation in a philosophy course (do public schools even offer philosophy courses?)

Science Teacher: I am forced by the school board to tell you that it's theoretically possible that all the science you will be studying is an illusion, and that what you think you see, hear, feel, taste, and touch isn't real. We'll be spending the next few classes discussing this.

Student: Then why do we need to learn any of the science you'll be teaching us later on? If it's all an illusion, who cares? I'd rather play video games.

Teacher: But almost everyone in the world behaves as if what they perceive is real, and they base their behavior on the predictible results of science. Science works.

Student: You only have faith that it does and that the results are predictible, because it could all be an illusion. For all I know, the sun could rise in the west tomorrow.

Teacher: If you believe that what you're experiencing now is an illusion, why not test it by jumping out of the window (assume the classroom is on the third floor) -- who knows, you might find that you're able to fly. Wouldn't that be more fun than a video game? (Aside to the other students: Everyone else, please measure the time it takes for your classmate to hit the ground; we'll then discuss the equation d = 16 t^2. Oh, and don't worry if you think you see blood and guts all over the ground -- it could just be an illusion.)

Student: [no response]

Nobody's forcing teachers to discuss alternatives. We're simply giving them the freedom to. Now that you know that, you fully support these bills, right? You like freedom, right? Or are you just another one of those atheist statist apologists?

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 06:57 PM
That's the crux of the matter. Obviously someone has to decide what has to be taught. If the class is called biology it makes sense to teach actual scientific theories that are part of the field of biology, rather than what the bible says. In fact, if you call the subject biology you already eliminate intelligent design from the table of content, since it's not part of biology.

Why in the world would we believe that teachers have the ultimate right to teach whatever they see fit and the parents (who - also - "own" the school after all) can't do anything about it? If the public who "owns" the school (even though that's a problem from libertarian property rights theory, it's still the hand we're dealt), then it should be the public who determines the rules by which the school is governed. That process is not very effective, but it's the best we can come up with, given we are in the terrible situation that the public/government owns schools.

At least we can all agree that if the government wouldn't be in that business, there wouldn't be a problem.

I was taught by a teacher who was a devout Christian and explained science through that lense. Guess what? I still learned a lot of science.

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 07:04 PM
What about if the science teacher used all his time telling students that there is no such thing as God, instead of teaching science? Who are we to prohibit such behavior?

That's what they are required to do now. All we want is some freedom of discussion. What I find comical is that people who tell me "You can't allow teachers the freedom to talk about X because then teachers will do what they want and anarchy will reign!" It's essentially the same thing that statists say when they are explaining why the economy should be regulated. "You can't let business owners run their businesses how they want or they will do whatever they want and anarchy will reign!"

This is strikingly hypocritical because it demonstrates that you turn your back on the free market when it comes to teaching. Now I understand that your tax dollars are used to fund public schools, but saying this justifies government shaping the curriculum to brainwash students is the worst way to react. When in doubt, err on the side of freedom. When we allow our freedom to be taken away for our own good, we find it does more harm than risking the consequences of freedom ever would have. Have we not learned this by now?

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 07:12 PM
ID is sometimes presented in a scientific notion, sometimes not. When people claim the earth is a few thousand years old and state that this is a falsifiable theory that can be falsified by our common means of testing (which has been done) it has always been falsified. But then sometimes the same people, sometimes others, turn around and say that our means of aquiring evidence or testing theories don't apply to ID. Then it's not scientific anylonger.

Except it has not been falsified. You believe it has, but you happen to be wrong. Now where do we go from here? What you want to do is tell me that only your view should be taught because you believe that my view has been falsified. You don't even consider the idea that you are wrong about my idea being falsified. There are plenty of well-qualified scientists who dispute the evolutionary version of the age of the earth, and yet you have the audacity to say that your side is the only one that should be taught.

What's really surprising is that people don't see the problem with promoting only what the current research supports. The current research, including the research that supposedly falsifies all of my theories, could very well be wrong, no matter how sure you are. What's more, you think falsifying my theories justifies eliminating my theories from scientific discussion and depriving students of the ability to find that out for themselves. Fools believe that their children should only be taught things that their parents believe are correct. Present the students with ALL of the options and let them decide. It doesn't matter if it's a public school or a private school. Freedom is still a good thing even when public schools are supported by stolen money. You MUST ERR on the side of freedom. Always.

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 07:15 PM
What's wrong with it is that a government employee is using his official position to promote his individual religious belief, which not only violates the First Amendment but is also horrible policy.

The last thing a religious believer should want is for the government to be allowed to promote a particular religious belief through the public schools. If you're going to have public schools in the first place, they have to be neutral on religious matters and can't favor one belief over another or promote theism in general. And it's no answer to say that the failure to teach a particular religious viewpoint is in itself a religious viewpoint. It should be obvious, but I'll say it again: the failure to teach p is not equivalent to teaching that p is false.

Is religious faith so unpersuasive that it needs the power of the State to promote itself to a captive audience? I know you'll probably say that we should keep government out of education, but that's not the point. IF we will have public schools, do we want to allow every teacher to proselytize his or her own religious beliefs?

You must have misunderstood. Nobody is promoting a religious belief. We are simply allowing teachers the freedom to discuss alternatives to the secularist propaganda that we have in schools now. Do you not support freedom and choice and the ability to reach one's own conclusions?

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 07:20 PM
We are simply allowing teachers the freedom to discuss alternatives to the secularist propaganda that we have in schools now.

What is this secularist propaganda you reference. Explain please.

Are you referencing the actual material? Because if you are then you should specifically point it out. Where is it?

dancjm
04-11-2013, 07:22 PM
Science provides us only with our current best wrong answer.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 07:25 PM
Science provides us only with our current best wrong answer.

Is true, huh. :)

Of course there is also a difference in subscribing to a theoretically complete body of knowledge and an actual way of thinking. Which is what science is in scope. It's a way of thinking.

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 07:26 PM
Is your faith is science so unpersuasive that you have to use a straw man argument to promote it?

Why did you change it? It would have been more hard-hitting if you had used the same "power of the state" line that he used, IMO. It really is ironic that he is asking US why WE need the power of the state when that is exactly what the state is doing to support HIS beliefs. Whether he calls them religious or not is irrelevant. I would really like to get an answer from Sonny Tufts on this. Why do you not see the irony in this? It's almost comical the amount of cognitive dissonance that is going on by the atheist statist apologists in here.

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 07:27 PM
Just because they don't teach creationism or promote your favorite religious faith doesn't mean they're teaching secular humanism.

Except they are. What do you think secular humanism is? It is secular, and it teaches that humans are the masters of their own destiny. There is no alternative to this belief. That is exactly what is being taught, by definition.

Sola_Fide
04-11-2013, 07:29 PM
What is this secularist propaganda you reference. Explain please.

Seriously? The official state religions taught in our state schools are secular humanism, Darwinism, and statism (which all compliment each other and condition us all for a lifetime of slavery to elitism).

That you can't see this as propaganda is evidence of your own religious bias.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 07:40 PM
Seriously? The official state religions taught in our state schools are secular humanism, Darwinism, and statism (which all compliment each other and condition us all for a lifetime of slavery to elitism).

That you can't see this as propaganda is evidence of your own religious bias.

S_F, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't welcome in any way, shape or form any kind of religious indoctrine into any classroom where the sciences are applied.

Why do you believe that it should be?

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 07:43 PM
What is this secularist propaganda you reference. Explain please.

Are you referencing the actual material? Because if you are then you should specifically point it out. Where is it?

The idea that we must rule out God as a source of scientific thought. The idea that God cannot be included in science is a religious notion itself. Things like the Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, not to mention evolution itself.

You are arguing that we should not allow creationism or ID to be discussed and then you tell me there's no secularist propaganda? The very fact that you want to ban religious discussion makes it secularist propaganda. Under the current system, we are not allowed to question evolution with anything non-secular, so that means the state-run education is supporting the teaching of a secular study of origins, one that does not require God. If the government supports a secular teaching of origins, then it is engaging in secularist propaganda because it is not allowing opposing viewpoints except those with secular roots to be taught.

PaulConventionWV
04-11-2013, 07:46 PM
S_F, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't welcome in any way, shape or form any kind of religious indoctrine into any classroom where the sciences are applied.

Why do you believe that it should be?

A better question is, why do you believe he believes that? Where did that notion come from?

Sola_Fide
04-11-2013, 07:46 PM
S_F, I'll be the first to tell you that I don't welcome in any way, shape or form any kind of religious indoctrine into any classroom where the sciences are applied.

Yes you do. You are so blinded by your religion of Darwinism, you can't see it. You actually think you are neutral. You're not neutral. There is no neutrality.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 07:51 PM
Why did you change it? It would have been more hard-hitting if you had used the same "power of the state" line that he used, IMO. It really is ironic that he is asking US why WE need the power of the state when that is exactly what the state is doing to support HIS beliefs. Whether he calls them religious or not is irrelevant. I would really like to get an answer from Sonny Tufts on this. Why do you not see the irony in this? It's almost comical the amount of cognitive dissonance that is going on by the atheist statist apologists in here.


Note, SA (in case you stumble across this thread). This is the model I was referencing regarding the false paradigm that I saw in the book snippet. What we see here is a clear direction to argue two generic opposing principles (irrelevant to the issue as they may be in scope) whereas the genuinely active and capable platform isn't even contemplated. So it's not the author of the book that creates the paradigm as much as it is the base that tries to. Is futile to try but do get one to chuckling.

So, yeah. There it is. Live and in living color. I'm still not going to take advantage of it and point out why it can exist in these kinds of debates because I really don't want to tinker with the other thing (now with it's equally relevant problem regarding the same basic vision) and put in in a bad light but just pointing it out.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 07:56 PM
Yes you do. You are so blinded by your religion of Darwinism, you can't see it. You actually think you are neutral. You're not neutral. There is no neutrality.

Nope. You're wrong. And in timely fashion too. Too many like to turn it into a "atheist statist apologists" (more ad hominem) vs their interpretation of the science community model. This is a false paradigm. What do you think "neutral" means in the context of the argument (the social one), S_F? Careful now. You can get stung here.

And there is still the argument that I haven't seen anyone even touch on except for sunny. What's the problem with the curriculum in these science classrooms outside of your social biases? Is there one?

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 08:15 PM
The idea that we must rule out God as a source of scientific thought. The idea that God cannot be included in science is a religious notion itself. Things like the Big Bang Theory, abiogenesis, not to mention evolution itself.

You are arguing that we should not allow creationism or ID to be discussed and then you tell me there's no secularist propaganda? The very fact that you want to ban religious discussion makes it secularist propaganda. Under the current system, we are not allowed to question evolution with anything non-secular, so that means the state-run education is supporting the teaching of a secular study of origins, one that does not require God. If the government supports a secular teaching of origins, then it is engaging in secularist propaganda because it is not allowing opposing viewpoints except those with secular roots to be taught.

Yeah, nobody is ruling out "God" as a scientific thought. In fact, when it comes to "God" science tolerates the unknown in a way that religion simply does not. I had mentioned elsewhere that my issue wasn't with people who go looking for "God" but those who think they already have all of the answers and that no more questions need asking.

Now as far as your argument regarding the state, I can't particularly disagree with much of what you say.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 08:17 PM
A better question is, why do you believe he believes that? Where did that notion come from?

I don't know that I do. Ironically enough, I was begging the question.

Dr.3D
04-11-2013, 08:31 PM
Yeah, nobody is ruling out "God" as a scientific thought. In fact, when it comes to "God" science tolerates the unknown in a way that religion simply does not. I had mentioned elsewhere that my issue wasn't with people who go looking for "God" but those who think they already have all of the answers and that no more questions need asking.

Now as far as your argument regarding the state, I can't particularly disagree with much of what you say.
Those are the people who won't view the video I posted further up in this thread. They feel they already know all of the answers so they can't learn anything.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 08:34 PM
Those are the people who won't view the video I posted further up in this thread. They feel they already know all of the answers so they can't learn anything.

I don't know what video you're talking about. I'll look and go watch it.

As long as it's not one of those hour long ones.:)

Edit... I looked through it and see a Genesis video. I guess that's the one? I'll tell you what, I've got some serious issues with Genesis but not in Genesis itself. Genesis is profound and I read it a little differently than many. Cetrtainly ask a different set of questions than the usual list. Don't know whether to share my spew on it first or watch your video. Hm...

Dr.3D
04-11-2013, 08:39 PM
I don't know what video you're talking about. I'll go watch it.

As long as it's not one of those hour long ones.:)
Well, it's not quite an hour long. You can cut to the chase if you want, but starting it at 28:02.
Here is the post I put it in.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?410759-Anti-Science-Bills-Weighed-in-Four-States&p=4969185&viewfull=1#post4969185

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 08:56 PM
Well, it's not quite an hour long. You can cut to the chase if you want, but starting it at 28:02.
Here is the post I put it in.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?410759-Anti-Science-Bills-Weighed-in-Four-States&p=4969185&viewfull=1#post4969185

I already started listening to it from scratch. Am up to arounf 15 minutes or so. I hate when they replace atom for Adam though. That's where they start to lose me with the storyline taking over the science model.

Dr.3D
04-11-2013, 08:57 PM
I already started listening to it from scratch. Am up to arounf 15 minutes or so. I hate when they replace atom for Adam though. That's where they start to lose me with the storyline taking over the science model.
Well, I hope you checked out the credentials of the person who is talking in that video.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 09:08 PM
Well, I hope you checked out the credentials of the person who is talking in that video.

I know who he is. I've read a few o his papers. Some from a few of his colleagues as well. Never heard him do a presentation though.


Am reminded of the 12,000 year old Gobekli Tepe discovery after listening for a bit. I'll tell you what though that's the kind of model needed to stimulate these kinds of discussions. He speaks with substance. It's far more practical to debate substance in my opinion. Even enjoyable.

jmdrake
04-11-2013, 09:20 PM
Why did you change it? It would have been more hard-hitting if you had used the same "power of the state" line that he used, IMO. It really is ironic that he is asking US why WE need the power of the state when that is exactly what the state is doing to support HIS beliefs. Whether he calls them religious or not is irrelevant. I would really like to get an answer from Sonny Tufts on this. Why do you not see the irony in this? It's almost comical the amount of cognitive dissonance that is going on by the atheist statist apologists in here.

Because I honestly don't believe the bills in question are using the power of the state to promote religion. They are using the power of the state to give teachers latitude to discuss pros and cons of theories that have been elevated to dogma. But yeah, the other side is using (and abusing) the power of the state.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 09:46 PM
Well, it's not quite an hour long. You can cut to the chase if you want, but starting it at 28:02.
Here is the post I put it in.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?410759-Anti-Science-Bills-Weighed-in-Four-States&p=4969185&viewfull=1#post4969185

That was a pretty good listen. Refreshing even.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 09:52 PM
jmdrake; They are using the power of the state to give teachers latitude to discuss pros and cons of theories


They have separate majors for this already. It's called a philosophy major. Perhaps even a political science major.

Seems like you support wanting to put someone in the classroom to tell students that "We're going to teach you scientific method but don't listen because we already know that the Bible tells us that God (And we already know what that is so don't ask otherwise) did it." Am I wrong to think that? If that's what you want to do then let me be the first to tell you that you will lose. Guarantee it.

On the flipside, there are teachers who are capable of answering legitimate scientific questions in the manner in which Schroeder did in the video 3d shared should they ever come up. This I'm in favor of. And I know that many have even taken that approach willingly.

It's naive to think that faith is removed from aspects of the school system. It's also naive to think that parents don't have any say so. I can tell you that this Saturday my son's High School varsity baseball team will host a visiting team for a 7 inning game. Before that game, both teams will huddle and pray for each others safety just as they always do. They'll play 7 innings and when it's done one will win and one will lose. But they'll also (both teams) merge and stand in a circle around the mound with captains in the middle and pray again before joining the cookout that parents from the community have provided behind the backstop. And everyone gets along just fine. That's the real world.

Natural Citizen
04-11-2013, 11:02 PM
Well, I hope you checked out the credentials of the person who is talking in that video.

Coming up in an hour or so in the second half of Coast to Coast AM - Lecturer at UCLA, Dr. Robert Piccioni, (http://www.guidetothecosmos.com/) will discuss the extraordinary odds required to form a universe by chance, and will also cover the numerous contributions of Albert Einstein beyond the Theory of Relativity.

Conforming to the video you shared. I won't be up for it but may listen tomorrow or something.

jmdrake
04-12-2013, 04:07 AM
They have separate majors for this already. It's called a philosophy major. Perhaps even a political science major.

Okay. I stopped reading here. This is a silly argument. There are no "philosophy majors" in elementary or high school. And to think that critical thinking should be relegated to philosophy and political science classes is just goofy.

PaulConventionWV
04-12-2013, 06:35 AM
Because I honestly don't believe the bills in question are using the power of the state to promote religion. They are using the power of the state to give teachers latitude to discuss pros and cons of theories that have been elevated to dogma. But yeah, the other side is using (and abusing) the power of the state.

They're not, but the state certainly is using its power to protect his beliefs. That's what I meant.

PaulConventionWV
04-12-2013, 06:41 AM
They have separate majors for this already. It's called a philosophy major. Perhaps even a political science major.

Seems like you support wanting to put someone in the classroom to tell students that "We're going to teach you scientific method but don't listen because we already know that the Bible tells us that God (And we already know what that is so don't ask otherwise) did it." Am I wrong to think that? If that's what you want to do then let me be the first to tell you that you will lose. Guarantee it.

On the flipside, there are teachers who are capable of answering legitimate scientific questions in the manner in which Schroeder did in the video 3d shared should they ever come up. This I'm in favor of. And I know that many have even taken that approach willingly.

It's naive to think that faith is removed from aspects of the school system. It's also naive to think that parents don't have any say so. I can tell you that this Saturday my son's High School varsity baseball team will host a visiting team for a 7 inning game. Before that game, both teams will huddle and pray for each others safety just as they always do. They'll play 7 innings and when it's done one will win and one will lose. But they'll also (both teams) merge and stand in a circle around the mound with captains in the middle and pray again before joining the cookout that parents from the community have provided behind the backstop. And everyone gets along just fine. That's the real world.

One of the strangest arguments I've ever seen from atheists and evolutionists (two separate things, I know) is the idea that "God did it, therefore, science is irrelevant!"

My science teacher was a devout Christian and she taught me a lot of good science. Being a Christian doesn't mean you just disregard scientific thought. A belief in God does not exclude you from having the will to learn about how the world works. You can still learn plenty of chemistry and biology and all other sciences while believing in God. In fact, it may even make it more interesting to you, knowing there's a purpose for everything you're studying.

So, please stop telling us that our view of science is "God did it" and nothing more. I find science quite a fascinating study even while believing in the existence of God and His ability to control things.

Sonny Tufts
04-12-2013, 08:34 AM
Nobody is promoting a religious belief. We are simply allowing teachers the freedom to discuss alternatives to the secularist propaganda that we have in schools now. Do you not support freedom and choice and the ability to reach one's own conclusions?

Don't be so naive. The only alternative the bills' sponsors want the teachers to discuss is creationism, which is a religious doctrine, not a scientific one.

jmdrake
04-12-2013, 08:57 AM
Don't be so naive. The only alternative the bills' sponsors want the teachers to discuss is creationism, which is a religious doctrine, not a scientific one.

Again, saying "The theory that man evolved from a single celled organism has the following problems" is not teaching creationism, any more than years ago saying "the theory of spontaneous generation has the following problems" taught creationism.

Sonny Tufts
04-12-2013, 08:59 AM
The laws of mathematics exist. They are not extended in space. They are transcendent of the physical universe.

So, you are a Platonist. Fine. I tend to agree with you in the sense that I lean toward the belief that mathematical truths (or at least some of them) are discovered, not invented, although I can also appreciate the view that they are simply the human mind's abstraction of certain features of experience. For example, it's hard for me to see how geometry or topology can be divorced from space.

There's an interesting quote from Leopold Kronecker, a 19th century German mathematician: "God made the integers; the rest is the work of man."

Having said that, however, the existence of transcendent mathematical truths doesn't imply the existence of a deity. That is an extra step that, per Occam's Razor, is unnecessary.


Atheism is the denial of the existence of anything not extended in space and transcendent of the physical universe. It rules out mathematics as much as it rules out the doctrine of the Trinity.

I disagree. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in theism, and theism is a much narrower concept than transcendence.


Noneuclidian geometries are built on inviolable laws.

No, they're built on different formulations of the parallel axiom, which are not laws.

Ranger29860
04-12-2013, 09:02 AM
Bills were written by the Discovery Institute. Go look up some of the cases they have lost in the past in regards to these type of bills. You will see very fast that the point of the bills is to introduce creationism into the classroom , I'm sorry its called "intelligent design" now. If these bills were written by anyone other than them then I would at least more likely take the person at there word that this has nothing to do with creationism.

Sonny Tufts
04-12-2013, 09:02 AM
Again, saying "The theory that man evolved from a single celled organism has the following problems" is not teaching creationism, any more than years ago saying "the theory of spontaneous generation has the following problems" taught creationism.

I was responding to the argument that the bills will allow teachers to discuss alternatives. What other alternative besides creationism do you think could be or would be discussed?

jmdrake
04-12-2013, 09:05 AM
I was responding to the argument that the bills will allow teachers to discuss alternatives. What other alternative besides creationism do you think could be or would be discussed?

As I live in Tennessee I am only focusing on that state's bill which was posted in the OP.


Recent others (short list without sponsors)
Tennessee
House Bill 368 (HB 368)
Aim: "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories"...including evolution, global warming, the chemical origin of life, and human cloning.
Status: Passed in the House, 4/7/2011. Senate version postponed until 2012 session.
Senate Bill 893 (SB 893)
Aim: Identical to HB 368.
Status: Postponed until 2012 session


Sorry, but I don't see the word "alternative" in there anywhere.

RockEnds
04-12-2013, 09:49 AM
While a belief in the existence of an objective reality that is perceptible by our senses may be an unprovable assumption, it doesn't follow that there's anything remotely religious about it. Meanwhile, our schools are turning out students who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate compared to other industrialized countries, and we don't need to waste limited classroom time discussing the theoretical possibility that we're all brains-in-vats and that what we perceive isn't really real, when we should be teaching calculus, physics, biology, and chemistry. There's time enough for metaphysical speculation in a philosophy course (do public schools even offer philosophy courses?)

...



This is one of the most damaging arguments in the public school debate. Upon high school graduation, a child has spent approximately 16,000 hours in school. Yet many graduates are functionally illiterate. So the feds, and the states, and eventually the local board of education begin to cut other programs. Art, music, foreign language, and anything that can be labeled "extra curricular" suffers. I remember several years ago attending a school board meeting that was standing room only, filled with parents angry that French was being cut entirely, the music and art programs were losing teachers, and the shop and ag programs were gutted. The school board listened to us for about three hours after which they called a vote and passed their cuts unanimously without any debate among themselves. What? Were we invisible? Apparently so.

Did the school improve? Uh, no.

The school system has ample time to teach a great variety of studies effectively. The problem isn't limited time or resources. The problem is the model of education. Math and science are important subjects. Reading is also important. But they are no more important than receiving a well-rounded education in a variety of subjects.

What makes one discipline more important than another? They're intertwined. They build upon one another. In case you haven't noticed, science is really dry and boring. The younger the children, the more likely they are to be bored with their nose in a textbook. But young children love to communicate ideas. In fact, science tells us that they're biologically hardwired to enjoy engaging in such tasks. The ability to form and communicate complex ideas is part of what makes us human. Why would anyone want to restrict the areas in which children can engage in such thought and communication? "Well Johnny, it's 1:30pm. You can only communicate in science for the next 45 minutes." Good luck with that. What makes science and math so much more valuable than art or humanities? Religion is a very unique human quality. You won't remove it from the educational conversation. You can't. You can form committees, pass laws, and make public proclamations stating that we will, as a society, ignore it to the best of our abilities, but they will fail because humans are by nature religious beings.

Get out of the box. The public school system is a complete and utter failure because it refuses to engage little humans in an interesting and educational manner. There's no saving it. There's no, "OMG we have limited hours!!" There's only the admission that what we're doing isn't working. We need to do something else. If we can't teach a child to read in over 16,000 hours, you can't expect much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

erowe1
04-12-2013, 10:13 AM
So, you are a Platonist. Fine. I tend to agree with you in the sense that I lean toward the belief that mathematical truths (or at least some of them) are discovered, not invented, although I can also appreciate the view that they are simply the human mind's abstraction of certain features of experience. For example, it's hard for me to see how geometry or topology can be divorced from space.

They can be divorced from space. We use spatial images in our minds to symbolize them. But there are mathematical truths behind these. And even the way these mathematical truths apply in space can be in things other than the images we use to symbolize them. I have images that I instantly call to mind when I think of asymptotes and parabolas. But I know there are meanings to polynomial and logarithmic functions and such that have to do with much more than just those pictures.

Yes, people can disagree about math being discovered rather than invented. But if they do, their view is as religious as mine. The subject cannot and should not be divorced from the all-encompassing world view it fits in. Education based on imaginary walls that separate the secular from the religious is illusory.



I disagree. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in theism, and theism is a much narrower concept than transcendence.
Atheism is the denial that God exists. Transcendence may be broader than theism, but it's not less religious.



No, they're built on different formulations of the parallel axiom, which are not laws.
The laws which govern what theorems comport with those axioms are laws. Noneuclidian geometry is just as much a quest to discover truth, not to invent it, as other math. Math is not some game where you can just change the rules and make it mean something different.

PaulConventionWV
04-12-2013, 10:20 AM
Don't be so naive. The only alternative the bills' sponsors want the teachers to discuss is creationism, which is a religious doctrine, not a scientific one.

What other alternatives do you think you should be discussed? The textbooks now teach the big bang theory and abiogenesis, which are clearly secular notions. Why not give the option of introducing God into it? Why not allow people to mention that there are problems with the current theories?

All this bill does is give teachers the OPTION to discuss those things. It doesn't mandate that they must talk about them. If you are for freedom, then you should have absolutely no problem with this. You're the one being naive. What gives the government the right to tell teachers they can't talk about creationism? At least it adds some variety and SOME alternative to the secular propaganda that they are currently MANDATED to teach. Again, if you like freedom, then this is a no-brainer.

PaulConventionWV
04-12-2013, 10:28 AM
Bills were written by the Discovery Institute. Go look up some of the cases they have lost in the past in regards to these type of bills. You will see very fast that the point of the bills is to introduce creationism into the classroom , I'm sorry its called "intelligent design" now. If these bills were written by anyone other than them then I would at least more likely take the person at there word that this has nothing to do with creationism.

Why shouldn't it have anything to do with creationism? If somebody wants to give teachers an option to talk about the problems with the current state-sanctioned theory, then why does it matter who is promoting it? They are trying to make this less of a one-sided debate and anyone who appreciates freedom or choice should appreciate what they are doing. If you are so sure about the theory of evolution, then this should pose no threat because the theory would obviously stand above the rest if it's as strong as you think it is. The problem is when all you evolutionists suddenly think it's okay for the state to force our teachers to only talk about evolution. It doesn't matter what excuses you come up with, it's not right to use the power of the state to tell a teacher what they can and cannot talk about.

PaulConventionWV
04-12-2013, 10:30 AM
I was responding to the argument that the bills will allow teachers to discuss alternatives. What other alternative besides creationism do you think could be or would be discussed?

The point is, why do you think it's a bad thing to stop using government force to tell a teacher what they can and cannot talk about? It shouldn't matter one bit what would be talked about if you really recognized that freedom is the best way to go and not just dogmatic reinforcement of the protected theory of evolution.

Christian Liberty
04-12-2013, 10:36 AM
. The school board listened to us for about three hours after which they called a vote and passed their cuts unanimously without any debate among themselves. What? Were we invisible? Apparently so.


Isn't a cut in government funded public schools a good thing from a libertarian perspective?

PaulConventionWV
04-12-2013, 10:45 AM
Isn't a cut in government funded public schools a good thing from a libertarian perspective?

Not necessarily. It doesn't lower your tax rate. It's simply a matter of appropriation. If the money doesn't go to your school, then it will go to something else, but I'm sure many schools actually do need the funding and do a good job despite the fact that the government screws everything up.

RockEnds
04-12-2013, 10:52 AM
Isn't a cut in government funded public schools a good thing from a libertarian perspective?

Do you really think they spend less money now than before? I think giving up on public education is a good thing from a libertarian perspective. I don't think reducing the courses offered did anything to improve public education here. At the same time this was happening, the school banned newspapers. They called it a budget issue, but in reality, it was because of the bad press they were getting for cutting extra-curriculars. They couldn't ban our local paper only, so they defunded ALL newspapers to the school system. I was informed by a teacher who knew I was the vocal type. I went to the newspaper office and bought that teacher a subscription. When they learned what happened, they found local businesses to pay the remainder of the subscriptions and published an article about the situation. The back-peddaling was entertaining to say the least.

Sonny Tufts
04-12-2013, 12:28 PM
In case you haven't noticed, science is really dry and boring.

Only if the teacher makes it so. It's no more inherently boring than reading a Jane Austen novel or a history text's discussion of the Smoot-Hawley Act..


What makes science and math so much more valuable than art or humanities?

I wasn't suggesting they were. My point was that the time spent in a class, whether it's calculus or Victorian literature, should be devoted to the subject matter, and the teacher shouldn't be permitted to proselytize his or her religion.

Sonny Tufts
04-12-2013, 12:39 PM
Atheism is the denial that God exists.

No, it's the absence of a belief in God, which isn't the same as a belief that God doesn't exist. It's as if you were to ask me, "Do you believe I have a nickel in my pocket?" Not knowing anything about what you might have in your pocket, I'd answer "No" because I don't, in fact, have such a belief. But that wouldn't mean that I believed that you didn't have one.

RockEnds
04-12-2013, 12:46 PM
Only if the teacher makes it so. It's no more inherently boring than reading a Jane Austen novel or a history text's discussion of the Smoot-Hawley Act..



I wasn't suggesting they were. My point was that the time spent in a class, whether it's calculus or Victorian literature, should be devoted to the subject matter, and the teacher shouldn't be permitted to proselytize his or her religion.

Math really is pretty boring. It can be made fun. Schoolhouse Rock is one example of how to make beginning math fun. It used music, art, and storytelling to accomplish that. Have you ever attempted to teach math to a preschooler? Limit the lesson to just math, and you've lost your audience. If you fail to come up with something more creative than "This is a zero. Zero is a placeholder in the 10 based number system...," you'll put them to sleep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxYsgRsNg2s

Sonny Tufts
04-12-2013, 12:54 PM
What gives the government the right to tell teachers they can't talk about creationism?

Because government employs them and like any employer, the government has the right to tell them what will and won't be taught. The teaching of creationism as an alternative scientific explanation in a public school violates the First Amendment and is bad policy to boot.

I wouldn't mind if creationism and evolution were discussed in a class devoted to contemporary political issues, or if the Scopes Trial were discussed in an American History class. I wouldn't even mind if a high school honors English class read Paradise Lost or the Inferno. But I'd want to make sure that the teacher didn't use the opportunity to preach to the kids.

jmdrake
04-12-2013, 02:07 PM
Because government employs them and like any employer, the government has the right to tell them what will and won't be taught. The teaching of creationism as an alternative scientific explanation in a public school violates the First Amendment and is bad policy to boot.

I see whatever you learned in elementary school, it wasn't logic. Your claiming that this is about the government's right as an employer to tell teachers what they can and can't teach? If you really believed that, then you wouldn't be participating in this thread. Seriously. This new legislation is being proposed by state GOVERNMENTS!

And I see that after being proven wrong, you're still back on the "It's forcing alternatives to be taught" nonsense. Again, one could refute the earlier atheist view of life on earth, spontaneous generation, without introducing creation or any other "alternative". You don't have to talk about the alternative to a theory to point out the holes in the theory.

erowe1
04-12-2013, 02:10 PM
No, it's the absence of a belief in God

No, it's the denial that God exists. To be an atheist is to say that the statement, "God exists." is false.

ETA:

From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.

From the Encyclopedia of Religion:

ATHEISM. The term atheism is employed in a variety of ways. For the purpose of the present survey atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise, and good. The focus of the present study is on atheism occurring within a context of thought normally called "religious."

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

atheism, n.
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

Natural Citizen
04-12-2013, 09:18 PM
No, it's the denial that God exists. To be an atheist is to say that the statement, "God exists." is false.



But what if you're not an atheist? What if you're both an educator/lecturer (and there are other possibilities) in the field and are agnostic? The political trend/narrative has been to argue the terms of controversy relative to educating youth in the field of sciences in a manner that is premised upon atheism versus the faithful with regard to the legislation and general discussion. Which is a loaded model. This is where the theoretical line that devides political science from the genuine stuff does and must continue to exist given the ignorance. I think it's good as is (because it must remain as a devider given the problems with the narrative or popular approach) but cannot and will not continue to exist as we transition both generational and infrastructural.