Religious agendas posing as "academic freedom"

[CancelMyService]

This is some ridiculous bullshit right here. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080627-louisiana-passes-first-antievolution-academic-freedom-law.html)


For those who don't want to click or read, here's a summary:

1. Louisiana passed an "Academic Freedom" law basically saying schools now can present things like evolution, global warming, and human cloning (!) as wacky things only Jesus haters and libruls believe in.

2. This new law was written by the Discovery Institute that just happens to write textbooks with a pro-religion slant to them.

3. This brings the concept we see on cable news of giving both sides of a debate equal weight despite one being enormously, laughably wrong to the classroom where now kids have to learn about Jesus Horses in science class and other "alternate" theories that are total bullshit and will keep kids from obtaining any usable critical thinking skills.


It's easy to dismiss stories like this with a stereotypical "lol, southern states" response, but this is really starting to piss me off how these hypocrites are trying to weasel their religious and political beliefs into schools.

[tropicsgoddess]

Isn't church and state supposed to be separate from schools? I thought only the religious stuff was only for religious private schools, not public schools. Evolution, Biology and Global Warming are a part of science. Now my argument for the uber-religious types is this: If man was created by God, then what explains the fact that we constantly unearth all these fossils of cavemen, dinosaurs and creatures from over a million years ago? Is global warming a sign of the apocalypse?! Seriously. Let the students have their own opinions for themselves on if they believe more in creationism versus evolution instead of pushing religious agendas on them.

[anriana]

If man was created by God, then what explains the fact that we constantly unearth all these fossils of cavemen, dinosaurs and creatures from over a million years ago?


God let Satan put those there to test believers. These people are too clever to let silly things like logic keep them from the truth.



"lol, southern states"

I don't have a better reaction that that.

[Greenday]

Well, hey, if everyone is going to just let them do it so they can get what they want, why wouldn't they do it?

I'm fine with teaching religion in school as long as you teach about a variety of religions. Teaching one religion and one religion only is wrong.

[anriana]

I'm fine with teaching religion in school as long as you teach about a variety of religions. Teaching one religion and one religion only is wrong.

But they don't want to teach religion in a sociological sense, (and I do think that mandatory classes on world religion would do good things for this country) they want to teach religious beliefs as actual science.

[Greenday]

But they don't want to teach religion in a sociological sense, (and I do think that mandatory classes on world religion would do good things for this country) they want to teach religious beliefs as actual science.

Quite silly. There is nothing scientific at all about religion.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

If I may play Devil's Advocate here for the sake of this discussion, many things are taught in school that really are simply theories and not provable fact. Evolution, for instance. The Big Bang theory. Human origins. However, they are often presented as fact.

I could argue, I guess, that Creationism is no more or less ultimately provable than any other theory. (and I realize that's a very simplistic observation, but like I said, just trying to see the other side a bit.)

The Creationist folk have the same thing to say about many other theories as you might have to say about theirs.

I find that the scientific community is terribly, terribly close minded. You cannot call yourself a scientist and be as close minded as they are, but they do it all the time. As a result, they stop thinking and discovering. People stop questioning. And that is a very bad thing.

I might not agree that the universe popped fully formed from the mind of God in the blink of an eye. But I can agree that the minute we accept one way of thinking as gospel, and completely disregard any other way of thinking, we are setting ourselves up for another Dark Ages. I am in favor of as many different thoughts in the mix as possible, whether or not I agree or disagree with them.

[anriana]

I might not agree that the universe popped fully formed from the mind of God in the blink of an eye. But I can agree that the minute we accept one way of thinking as gospel, and completely disregard any other way of thinking, we are setting ourselves up for another Dark Ages. I am in favor of as many different thoughts in the mix as possible, whether or not I agree or disagree with them.

So all of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth should be taught as plausible theories in science class?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I'm not speaking for the worth or plausabity of any theory over any other theory. You either got my point or you didn't.

EDIT: Just checked out your link. In answer to your question, if it is presented in context for what it is, yes.

[Greenday]

I just want to point out that evolution is actually true. It's what I've come to learn about a lot of theories. Most of them are true, but the only reasons they are "theories" and not "laws" is because there are some people who refuse to believe them. Evolution is proven. God is not.

[Pedersen]

If I may play Devil's Advocate here for the sake of this discussion, many things are taught in school that really are simply theories and not provable fact. Evolution, for instance. The Big Bang theory. Human origins. However, they are often presented as fact.

They are as provable as the theory of gravity. And yeah, that one skips right by a lot of people. Gravity is still considered a theory.

Here's the point you seem to be missing, RK: All of the evidence that we have in our possession points to the theory of evolution being the means by which we have come into being. The same is true for the Big Bang, and human origins.

We don't have evidence that contradicts it. The only time an even semi-viable contradiction occurs is when you allow for things that cannot be contradicted. For instance, an omnipotent being created the universe in this exact form one second ago, complete with all of our memories. We then have no way of measuring or contradicting the statement. On the flip side, we also have no way of verifying the statement.

All of which is to say that the statement is useless for expanding our knowledge of the universe. As far as we can tell, with the evidence at hand right now, evolution is what happened. As is the big bang, and the general origin of human life.

If you disagree that this is what happened, present evidence to the contrary. People will listen.

The religious right, though, which is pushing these ideas as fact is not doing this. They are pushing a piece of paper, which was written down by man, as unassailable fact. And if what has been observed disagrees with that particular piece of paper, then what has been observed must be wrong. In short, flat out ignoring the evidence, without providing any reason to do so other than "Well, this piece of paper says that you didn't observe it, and therefore you couldn't have observed it."

I'm not speaking for the worth or plausabity of any theory over any other theory. You either got my point or you didn't.

Count me as one of the ones who didn't get your point, then. I'd like to, but I don't.

[MystyGlyttyr]

Count me as one of the ones who didn't get your point, then. I'd like to, but I don't.

I think the point is you can't prove any one thing more than you can prove any other thing, so all are equally worthy of consideration and should be taught as such, at least so far as public schools go.

For instance, we could offer that in the last one million trials, lowering the temperature of water to below freezing causing it to freeze. Most if not all people would say that proves water always freezes below a certain temperature. However, you can't be absolutely certain that on the next try, water will refuse to freeze. Just because we think we have all the answers doesn't mean we do, as nature and physics are quite likely to toss us a curveball with no warning pretty much whenever. Which basically means "one theory is as good as another, as long as you accept there's other theories to consider."

I might have missed the point entirely, though.

So far as it goes, I think K from Men In Black said it best... "1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

[Pedersen]

I think the point is you can't prove any one thing more than you can prove any other thing, so all are equally worthy of consideration and should be taught as such, at least so far as public schools go.

I have an issue with one component of that: If that is what is being done in the schools, then students aren't being taught anything.

By saying to the kid "Well, we have this theory over here which fits all known observations, but we're still not sure it's right", that basically says "We have no idea. And your coming to school is pretty pointless. Just go believe whatever you wish to believe, because we can't teach you anything."

That is a grave disservice to the student. And if that's the point that is desired to be taught, then allow me to be among the first to say that I'm glad I don't understand that point.

[Difdi]

global warming


While the fact of global warming is readily obvious to anyone who cares to look, the points of contention in the matter are:

A) Whether humans are having a major influence on it or not.

B) Whether or not warming is a bad thing.

There's quite a bit of evidence that not only is the warming not significantly influenced by human actions, but that it might be beneficial overall.

People panicking about every molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while simultaneously overlooking the effects of water vapor, and ignoring the fact that the Earth has been in a cooling trend for thousands of years...well, there's not a lot of room for rational analysis when people are panicking.

[Zyanya]

This is called 'scientific method' -

Step 1 - Make a hypothesis based on observations of the world around you.
Step 2 - Make predictions based on hypothesis.
Step 3 - Test predictions.
Step 3 - Evaluate results of test and either reformulate hypothesis, or continue with testing.
Step 4 - Once hypothesis has passed the tests, it is now a theory.

To be a theory, a hypothesis MUST BE TESTABLE. It must meet the standards of falsification, meaning there must be a way to test it that CAN DISPROVE IT.

To be testable, you must be able to A) make a prediction based on the hypothesis and B) be able to test the prediction. In addition, C) the results of the test must be repeatable. This is called 'peer review' and 'replication'.

If you cannot do any of the above, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. At best, it is philosophy.

You cannot do any of the above with creationism. It is a philosophy, not a science.

You can prove evolution. It has been observed, you can make predictions, you can test the predictions and get results that can be replicated. It is a scientific theory. It is not a law because it does not meet the definition of a scientific law just like gravity does not. Scientific laws are essentially short and sweet, and can generally be expressed mathematically. Because there are so many factors at work in gravity, just like with evolution, it cannot be simplified to the point of scientific law.

It does not belong in a science classroom. There is no rational or logical justification for it to be in a science classroom.

http://www.eas.slu.edu/People/RBHerrmann/Courses/EASA193F07/Images/overview_scientific_method2.gif

[CancelMyService]

That's what I was getting at, if you want to have like a comparative studies class on creation stories, fine, but don't teach it in science class and get kids' heads full of spiritual hokum taught as fact.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

So then teach them how to be discerning, how to test hypothesis, how to observe.

Saying "This is absolutely how it is. Memorize this fact." Does nothing to help a student learn how to..well, learn.

Teaching a student how to spell, how to write, and how to do math is not something with a lot of wiggle room. They need to know how to do that correctly. Once they learn that, they can sort though evidence, facts, other people's hypothesis for themselves. With science, in addition to being open minded, one has to learn how to think and evaluate. There IS wiggle room, in that one can consider all sorts of ideas. Teach him to do that, and you won't NEED to tell him which is the correct thing. He can figure it out on his own. Isn't that more useful?

There are so many things I was taught as fact as a child that we now know was wrong. Just about all of it in the field of science. Science is a field that requires mental flexibility. Should Creationism be taught as the last word, the final fact? Of course not. But I see nothing wrong with presenting it as one of many ways of thought. I mean, it is what it is.

No, I'm not a Creationist, if that's what you are all thinking. I am in love with the the idea of star nurseries, exploding universes, creatures morphing and improving over the eons. I feel sorry for anyone who lacks an appreciation for it. In fact, I don't see it as evidence of a lack of a God. Just the opposite.

That's what's cool about being an Episcopalean, we get to believe in dinosaurs. Well, that and no grape juice.

[Amethyst Hunter]

This is, sadly, a classic Dominionist example of the "parallel world" that they're trying to build - that is, they are trying to indoctrinate children (aka The Future) who will grow up believing this garbage and who will (they hope) pass it down to THEIR children, and ad nauseum.

Basically, they're breeding critical thought out of people and breeding unquestioning obedience into them, in the hope that the rest of us will eventually die out (whether by natural means or their means - and don't think for a second that they wouldn't *love* to see all the groups of people they hate (i.e., anyone who is non-dominionist by their standards) "condemned to God's damnation") and put them that much closer to their *implicitly* stated goal: total dominion over the earth.

Even if creationism were a viable belief that could be taught in schools (which I don't believe it is - there's a time and a place for that and it's called Sunday School/church), it would still be poisoned by these people because they CANNOT tolerate any sort of creative thought whatsoever; it challenges their authority, and to dominionists, authority IS God. (This is why they are very heavy on the whole "The man is the head of the woman" business)

So if you attempt to theorize why a God might create such and such, it would get slapped down faster than a mosquito that's just kissed a bug zapper. To dominionists, their mindset is "God did this and then He did that, and then He did this and THAT IS 100% EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THIS YOU HEATHEN SINNER?!" Because, you see, God may well have created the earth and its solar system in 7 days, but what one fails to take into account is that God's concept of time is a whole lot different than our human perception (and I think that God Himself even says as much in the Bible) - so to God, "7 days" might actually end up being something like "7 million YEARS." A dominionist believes that God did this in *exactly* 7 human days, our standard week, and anything else is literally heresy and possibly punishable - at worst, by torture/death.

That's why creationism does NOT belong in schools. It's an unchanging, unyielding and stagnant philosophy that has nothing of value to offer - whereas actual scientific theories are, while for the most part dependably solid, always shifting and changing even on the slightest level to reveal new things to those who study them. I would even go so far as to say that creationism is a "dead" philosophy because of its very bland and rigidly-set nature, and that actual science is a "living" philosophy because it's always changing and evolving.

Incidentally, there are a good deal of scientists who do believe in a God, or a Creator-being of some sort, and have shown that such belief is not incompatible with their field. (I happen to agree that the way the earth system is set up indicates the possible existence of a Creator; where I take issue is WHOSE creator did it - I guarantee you the type that dominionists believe in is *not* any Creator you want anything to do with.)

[AFPheonix]

So then teach them how to be discerning, how to test hypothesis, how to observe.

Saying "This is absolutely how it is. Memorize this fact." Does nothing to help a student learn how to..well, learn.

Teaching a student how to spell, how to write, and how to do math is not something with a lot of wiggle room. They need to know how to do that correctly. Once they learn that, they can sort though evidence, facts, other people's hypothesis for themselves. With science, in addition to being open minded, one has to learn how to think and evaluate. There IS wiggle room, in that one can consider all sorts of ideas. Teach him to do that, and you won't NEED to tell him which is the correct thing. He can figure it out on his own. Isn't that more useful?

There are so many things I was taught as fact as a child that we now know was wrong. Just about all of it in the field of science. Science is a field that requires mental flexibility. Should Creationism be taught as the last word, the final fact? Of course not. But I see nothing wrong with presenting it as one of many ways of thought. I mean, it is what it is.



Unfortunately young earth creationism and Intelligent Design have been debunked multiple times by utilizing the scientific method, so they still have no place in a science class. They're fine in a comparative religion class with other creation stories from other cultures. Evolution itself, defined as allele shift in a population over time has been one of the best tested and proven theories yet. It's absolutely the cornerstone of modern Biology today. Of course, it, like any other theory can be discarded if something pops up. So far, nothing has and the extremely large body of evidence has supported the theory.
Now, if we're going to lump in abiogenesis, that's a whole different kettle of fish that drags in multiple other areas of study including physics, chemistry and geology, and there's still a lot of stuff at the hypothetical stage. It's pretty exciting stuff though, and it has turned Newtonian physics on its ear in places.

I've taken a lot of science classes though, and every introductory one and just about everyone in high school started with a chapter on the scientific method and what science can and cannot explain. I should hope that other children had the same sort of intro to this that I did.

[Slytovhand]

Well - we've got another debate here, which is the same as the ID/Creationism debate, so I don't really want to go into that side of things (in which I've posted my thoughts, which just coincidentally happen to match up with RK's!). Science classes should, at least just briefly, touch upon the ideas as to why it's not perfect.

One of those, which is what the Creationists will jump upon, is that Carbon-dating isn't perfect, and has been shown to be way off target on some occasions. (of course, Creationists are likely to seize upon any discrepancies, and treat them as the be-all and end-all to the matter, without allowing for a rational explanation for those errors, nor for the counter balances in place - like dendrochronology or thermoluminescence, etc etc...I'd love to know what they do with red-shift :D).

But - yes - from the original article, the idea of teaching the ability to question what you are being taught is a good idea! (yay for the principle expressed), by boo to the people pushing the point (and the agenda). Teach them what is actually wrong with scientific principles (eg - the close-minded attitude that sometimes goes with it. Science needs to remember it's place in the world - eg, god can never be disproven, so it's rather stupid to say that god doesn't exist, here's the proof! *and no - I'm not saying that's what goes on in the classrooms, just trying to point out that belief in the supernatural doesn't have anything to do with belief in the natural).

Oh - btw - I love Stellar Nurseries.. just goes to show god (small 'g' - for whatever you choose to insert by way of name/s) is artistic as well :D


Slyt

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Hey, you all might like this, I found it while poking around the internet looking for articles on the subject. Thought it was interesting.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:jo9_merUrFMJ:www.leaderu.com/science/mondore-bigbang.html+proving+the+big+bang+theory&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

Let me say for the record I am about as certain as one can be that the universe probably started out with the Big Bang. I think the evidence to support it is compelling to say the least. Why am I only 99 percent certain as opposed to 100 percent certain?

Because it's still a theory. A theory with an extremely high probability of being correct, buta theory nonetheless. It's not like we can reproduce the exact phenomenon in a lab. And nobody on earth witnessed it.

I do not want to be guilty of the close mindedness I see so rampant in the scientific community and acadamia. So I will I leave that 1% of doubt in my head to continue to question and dream.

[Zyanya]

So then teach them how to be discerning, how to test hypothesis, how to observe.

Learned the above in third grade science class. They do. The dominists however, don't want them too. That's why they are trying to present Creationism as science when it clearly does not meet the well-known and oft published standards of science.

[lordlundar]

Zyanya, there's a part missing from that chart you posted. There should be an arrow going from the report findings to ask questions.

True science works on the principal that a theory is wrong and you work to prove it wrong. Once that's done, then you prove the new theory wrong. And so on and so forth. Accepted theories simply haven't been proven wrong yet, though there is an effort to do so.

Creationism and intelligent design teach that the theory is right and any attempt to disprove it is flawed for the simple attempt. All that does is stifle creativity under the assumption that someone will have a hit of divine revelation or similar.

So I say as a compromise, any place that teaches Creationism/ID instead of proper science functions without ANYTHING that came about with the application of true science. Whoops! There went the light bulbs, pretty much anything synthetic, and their books as well. Heck, lets go for improved manufacturing techniques which all came about from advances in science through hard work. Guess it's back to a log cabin and chalk pads. No wait, those came about the same way. Guess it's oral teaching out in the woods. Should be fun to watch when there's a thunderstorm. :D

Simply put. You want to teach Creationism/ID as the only means, you have to abandon ANYTHING that came about from proper application of science, otherwise you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

[Zyanya]

Zyanya, there's a part missing from that chart you posted. There should be an arrow going from the report findings to ask questions.

Couldn't find one with that, didn't feel like drawing it. Figured what I did find was good enough to demonstrate the Creationism is most certainly NOT science.

True science works on the principal that a theory is wrong and you work to prove it wrong. Once that's done, then you prove the new theory wrong. And so on and so forth. Accepted theories simply haven't been proven wrong yet, though there is an effort to do so.

Not exactly, but close enough.

The problem is, there is no experiment you can design to test creationism. Therefore, it is simply not science.

There is no way to observe creationism. Therefore, it is simply not science.

I can design an experiment to test evolution. I can even observe evolution on a micro-level by simply looking out the window, and on a macro level if I had a microscope powerful enough to see bacteria.

Evolution has survived every attempt to disprove it.

Oh, and for the record, hey, creationists - EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY THEORY REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Evolution is actually NOT opposed to creationism. For all creationists know/ can prove, evolution is the means the 'creator' used to get the variable life forms. Anyone who thinks evolution is the opposite of creationism needs to learn a thing or three about the theory of evolution.

The 'big bang' theory has to do with the origin of life. It stands in opposition to the theory of creation. NOT evolution.

/rant

Creationism and intelligent design teach that the theory is right and any attempt to disprove it is flawed for the simple attempt. All that does is stifle creativity under the assumption that someone will have a hit of divine revelation or similar.

Indeed. Which is their point, exactly.

[Depot Denizen]

I frequent a science board - one that focuses on astronomy. We get threads like this from time to time.

Lordlunar is correct. When a presenting a theory, the scientist is fighting an uphill battle all the way. The scientist has to prove that his methods are correct, that the data is accurate, and the results are more or less conclusive.

Papers are brought up for review by peers who gleefully attack it and point out flaws and weaknesses. If the theory holds, then all is well. If it is disproven, then back to the drawing board. Some times a theory will need a few tweaks here and there - but that is part of the process. If the evidence does not support the theory, change the theory and go from there.

Creation "science" however, does not use this. It starts from the basis that their idea is right, and that it is up to science to disprove them. Evidence is ignored or labeled as false if it doesn't fit the theory. The scientific method simply doesn't exist when it comes to dogma. The theory doesn't change.

The Discovery Institute is a such an offender. It masquerades Bible dogma as scientific theory, and even has their own little museum. Creationism is masked as "Intelligent Design" as if that gives it more credibility. I wouldn't oppose teaching creationism in a comparative religion class (I took such a course in community college, it covered a variety of creation myths) but it has no place in a science classroom.

[EDIT] Zyanya also brings up a good point that I missed - observation and falsification. Can the theory be falsified? Can it be observed? As an aside, the theory of Evolution has changed, in light of discoveries that are made along the way.

[AFPheonix]

Because it's still a theory. A theory with an extremely high probability of being correct, buta theory nonetheless. It's not like we can reproduce the exact phenomenon in a lab. And nobody on earth witnessed it.



The definition of a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has survived testing. "Merely" a theory? Being a theory is the highest status an idea can earn in science.
Sorry, but that is really one of my biggest pet peeves. There is no such thing as fact in science vocabulary.
The big bang is still very much being debated. But it is a far different theory than evolution, which even in this thread and in the creationism thread (http://www.fratching.com/showthread.php?t=73&highlight=evolution+creationism) has been quite well defined.

As kids get older, yes I support the teacher bringing in things like Scientific American to show different schools of thought on stuff like this. Hell, I think it would be a fabulous idea to set up a debate in physics courses and have kids pick different stances to argue and set up a decent explanation as to why their hypothesis is better supported by the evidence we have now.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

There is no such thing as fact in science vocabulary.
The big bang is still very much being debated.

Hell, I think it would be a fabulous idea to set up a debate in physics courses and have kids pick different stances to argue and set up a decent explanation as to why their hypothesis is better supported by the evidence we have now.

I couldn't agree more on both these points. Maybe I didn't do a great job explaining my point, but this is pretty much it. Thank you. :D

[Boozy]

So Louisiana school teachers are now free to teach children that the moon landing was a hoax, Lizard People are ruling the world, and there are aliens in Roswell?

Of course not. They don't actually mean "freedom". They most certainly do not mean "academic". They mean "Think what we tell you to think. Do not use your brains. Do not rely on logic and the scientific method, for it will lead you to question us. We are your Dominionist overlords."

This is frightening, guys. These kids are going to get to vote one day.

[Slytovhand]

Hell, Boozy - those kids are going to be president one day - of the world's largest arsenal of nuclear and biological weapons!! :p

APF - I like the idea of the kids setting up a debate in school... I could see some backlashes though...

LordLundar - actually - science need not be out of the picture as you suggest just because ID takes on a more prominent position in community thinking. It came about because of qualified and serious professional scientists (mostly physicists and astrophysicists) looked around and figured it couldn't all be by chance, so hypothesised that it was 'designed'. So, science has a very real and relevant place in the scheme of ID.

And interestingly enough, The Big Bang and Creationism or even ID don't necessarily need to stand in opposition to each other. ID quite happily accepts the Big Bang as a good theory - they just add in a step before it.

What would peeve me in Louisiana, is that there would only be 1 version of Creationism taught. I bet you they wouldn't teach any of these stories! (http://www.crystalinks.com/nativeamcreation.html) (for those choosing not to go look - it's titled "Native American Myths of Creation" - and I'm not even going to do a search for any other types of creation myths to complement it from the rest of the planet). After all, they're just as valid.

Slyt

[AFPheonix]

The debate topics should only be on journal-submitted ideas. The teacher should nix any side that attempts to bring a religious or supernatural idea to the table, and explain why (cannot be proven scientifically, therefore is not science).
I'm a big fan of giving kids the tools to think critically. It's an ability that can serve anyone in any walk of life.

[the_std]

But but but... AFP... Then the students will start asking QUESTIONS about why the bigwigs do things the way they do... And the students will want to FIX things... And then the bigwigs will have to give up their millions of dollars a year!...

Situations like this instantly turn on the sarcasm in me.

[AFPheonix]

Well, there's always a hitch in my evil plans somewhere ;)

[lordlundar]

LordLundar - actually - science need not be out of the picture as you suggest just because ID takes on a more prominent position in community thinking. It came about because of qualified and serious professional scientists (mostly physicists and astrophysicists) looked around and figured it couldn't all be by chance, so hypothesised that it was 'designed'. So, science has a very real and relevant place in the scheme of ID.

Slyt

I have to respectfully disagree slyt, but not on the concept. Instead I have to disagree on the perspective.

Science is about constantly challenging the world around you, both what you were taught and what you observe. ID took the concept and used it to support their viewpoint. The problem is that when proponents of ID are challenged, they act no differently than creationists, rejecting any challenges as unfit science because they can't refute it.

Proponents of ID only use science for their own purposes, then reject the same practice when it no longer suits them. They are little more than hypocrites who abuse science, not properly use it.

[Slytovhand]

Well - yeah... I know what you mean. Over in the ID/Creationism debate I was getting that sort of tendency. As I said there (and will say again here), my problem was that I learnt about ID in philosophy, as part of a philosophy degree, from the Dept of History and Philosophy of Science at Melbourne Uni... thus, the angle I got was a bit different (as I found out when I googled it...). At the time of my debates over there, I wasn't aware of the close connections with the religious groups involved.

Also, as I said over there, ID is far more of a boon to us pagans than it is for Xtians (and, if they really want to read it proper, it sort of destroys a few of their agendas in the process... cos it would or should mean that humans aren't at the top of the ladder, and aliens are around somewhere - quite possible who are also higher on the ladder than us :D)


APF.. while I'm still liking your ideas of bringing in such debates from 'reputable' journals, the kids are still going to ask the bigger questions that science isn't going to touch. I would think there needs to be a debate on exactly why those questions aren't touched, and see if there is anything that can come from that. And if some religious questions can't be looked at, why do some scientists use various religious texts to validate some claims? Or at least head them of in that direction (eg the flood??)


Slyt

[AFPheonix]

APF.. while I'm still liking your ideas of bringing in such debates from 'reputable' journals, the kids are still going to ask the bigger questions that science isn't going to touch. I would think there needs to be a debate on exactly why those questions aren't touched, and see if there is anything that can come from that. And if some religious questions can't be looked at, why do some scientists use various religious texts to validate some claims? Or at least head them of in that direction (eg the flood??)


Slyt

If I were a science teacher, I would actually welcome a discussion on that, if nothing else than to give the kids something to chew on next time they're in Sunday School and their teacher's trying to sell them the idea that the Genesis account of Creation is literally true.
I'd probably explain much as I did in the Creationism thread: that religion and science have different jobs to do. Science is limited to only that which we can measure and that which is found in the realm of nature. Religion deals with supernatural issues and the ultimate questions about why we are here and our ultimate purpose. Attempting to use religious ideas to explain scientific principles is as shortsighted as trying to explain God and the supernatural with science.
I'm afraid I don't really understand your last question. Are you referring to Creationist scientists who try to use the fossil record to show that the flood occurred worldwide? Because that has been good and debunked a long time ago.

[Slytovhand]

I'm afraid I don't really understand your last question. Are you referring to Creationist scientists who try to use the fossil record to show that the flood occurred worldwide? Because that has been good and debunked a long time ago.

Yeah - sort of that sort of thing.

I'm wondering.. what do you mean by 'good and debunked'? Cos from my understanding, the fossil records do nicely indicate a large-scale level of flooding across the planet (not sure if it's the same time period though). And that's why every major civilisation or history of people has some sort of flood story (obviously, they exaggerated just how much water there actually was...).

One other sort of thing I mean is... the burning bush miracle. I do recall hearing that there is a particular type of shrubbery (a nice pretty one, to go next to the first one....) that has a particularly volatile liquid come gas produced. When the stones from the animals happen to get rammed together and spark, it ignites the volatile gasses - yay burning bush... yay 1 miracle! Which means... either there was a miracle and no-one need look any further for an explanation other than the supernatural... or someone who thinks something happened, now lets see if there is a 'valid' explanation for it.

Would you put that into your science class?


Slyt

[AFPheonix]

Yeah - sort of that sort of thing.

I'm wondering.. what do you mean by 'good and debunked'? Cos from my understanding, the fossil records do nicely indicate a large-scale level of flooding across the planet (not sure if it's the same time period though). And that's why every major civilisation or history of people has some sort of flood story (obviously, they exaggerated just how much water there actually was...).

One other sort of thing I mean is... the burning bush miracle. I do recall hearing that there is a particular type of shrubbery (a nice pretty one, to go next to the first one....) that has a particularly volatile liquid come gas produced. When the stones from the animals happen to get rammed together and spark, it ignites the volatile gasses - yay burning bush... yay 1 miracle! Which means... either there was a miracle and no-one need look any further for an explanation other than the supernatural... or someone who thinks something happened, now lets see if there is a 'valid' explanation for it.

Would you put that into your science class?


Slyt

For the flood questions, here's some good layman's articles on it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

Because I'd most likely not be teaching just children from Christian homes, no, I would not go into Christian mythology. If children wished to come to me after class then we could probably put together a research project together to work on outside of class time. Besides, separation of church and state and all.

[Slytovhand]

Thanks APF... I'm reading through the hoax one at the moment - I love the names this guy uses (all 3 - not just the one they point out...) Mr Asholian, Vladimir Sobitchsky, and Allis Buls Hitian. hehehe :DD

I was thinking more of going into all mythologies without particular exclusion. I don't think Separation of Church and State applies to education. And if you left things to research projects out of class time, I could see some people getting upset - rather than havng a research assignment given where groups of students sus out a particular mythology and see how evidence stacks up for or against (and - no, the kids can't do it on their own religion :D )

[Boozy]

I was thinking more of going into all mythologies without particular exclusion. I don't think Separation of Church and State applies to education.

The "church" in the well-known phrase "separation of church and state" does not refer to the study of comparative religion, which is what I think you're confusing it with.

Separation of church and state must apply to the public education system, or it becomes almost pointless to apply it anywhere else. It doesn't mean that we can't talk about religion in schools; it just means that kids can't be indoctrinated in one particular religion.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I must be too simplistic; to my mind, you teach science in Science and creation myths in Religious Education. Am I missing something here? O_o

[AFPheonix]

I was thinking more of going into all mythologies without particular exclusion. I don't think Separation of Church and State applies to education. And if you left things to research projects out of class time, I could see some people getting upset - rather than havng a research assignment given where groups of students sus out a particular mythology and see how evidence stacks up for or against (and - no, the kids can't do it on their own religion :D )

It would because public schools are funded by taxes and thus are overseen by the government.
I would consider having a discourse about one religion's mythologies without talking about others to be promoting one religion, and thus against the idea of separation of church and state. Besides, I would consider it to be a waste of time compared to actually talking about science. It is a science class after all, not a philosophy or comparative religions class. I'd have more than plenty material to go over without dragging Mosaic mythology into it.

But, as I said, if a student wanted to talk about it after class on his own time, then that would be fine with me.

[Slytovhand]

Umm - I think I may have mis-interpreted what APF said in regards to the Separation of C & S bit, hence why I said what I did in that bit...

Oh yes... I am quite familiar with the 'promoting' side of such things... I went to one of those public schools, and even in the 'comparitive' religion class, other's beliefs were almost ridiculed. Certainly, they're always referred back to that dominant religion...

As for why we're discussing it in science and not in religion (assuming the school has such a class) - because the OP is all about putting in more 'critical thinking' ideas to science, so that creationism gets a look in - as well some other religious ideologies or opinions, and trying to pass them off as scientific. I'm just seeing some of the possible 'legitimate' ways to do this, or some of the potential backlash that could come of it... not all of their plans would pay off as they want them to (if you had a teacher with the nerve and talent to try it out :D)

Could you imagine what would happen if all those little school kiddies who ferverntly believed something and ridiculed something else, had it pointed out to them by their own logic that what they believed was also just as 'ridiculous'??? I think the questions they would then be asking their parents might be enough to induce a change of attitude..... (well - ok, no it wouldn't.. hence the bill in the first place... but I can dream :p)