Teaching science in schools

[tschu]

Politically, America is retardedly conservative. Most of the world has passed us by in basic tax policy, education, and most importantly healthcare. This is legitimately a problem.

 

A chicken-and-egg scenario too - I'm not sure what's the root cause, our politics or our education.

[strigori]

Politically, America is retardedly conservative. Most of the world has passed us by in basic tax policy, education, and most importantly healthcare. This is legitimately a problem.

 

A chicken-and-egg scenario too - I'm not sure what's the root cause, our politics or our education.

I honestly think its the religion obsession. Most of that list is fought tooth and nail by the religious right, and they will find a way to tie it into being a religious battle.

[Moiraine]

Does anyone know what religion or specific church is out there today railing against science and evolution? I attend Mass weekly for several years now and I have to say that I can't remember once it being an issue during the readings or the homily.

I grew up attending a non denominational church that would hold lectures about the earth being 8,000 years old and how dinosaurs and men walked it at the same time.

[JJ Husker]

And obviously my own personal views "cloud" my viewpoint as well. I certainly think that religion has a place in society and that many people's lives benefit from finding inspiration and hope from a higher power. Religion helps many people improve their lives and inspire them to help others. However, many other people use it as a crutch for bigotry, racism, discrimination against gays, an excuse to try to dispute scientific fact, etc etc. The irony of worshiping a god who loves all of creation while condemning a person for their sexual orientation is mind-blowingly retarded, and while I don't condone violence, I feel the urge to bitch-slap anyone in the face who uses the bible as a crutch for not being tolerant of gays. I wish society could reap the benefits of religion without having all of the drawbacks.

 

Well said. +1

[JJ Husker]

Does anyone know what religion or specific church is out there today railing against science and evolution? I attend Mass weekly for several years now and I have to say that I can't remember once it being an issue during the readings or the homily.

I grew up attending a non denominational church that would hold lectures about the earth being 8,000 years old and how dinosaurs and men walked it at the same time.

 

That's scary. How did you escape?

[carlfense]

Does anyone know what religion or specific church is out there today railing against science and evolution? I attend Mass weekly for several years now and I have to say that I can't remember once it being an issue during the readings or the homily.

I'd guess from looking at where a lot of this nonsense is being spewed . . . southern baptists.

[Husker_x]

X and tschu- I'm not using a creator as a substitute for science. I do not hold the position that because science doesn't have an answer, it "must" be a creator. I have arrived at that belief with 50 years of personal research and observation. It may not seem logical to you and apparantly you have made a different determination about how things came to be. I'm fine with that. Where I start to get concerned is when statements are made that it's "a waste of time and oxygen". Science is a great thing that can and has answered many things for us. I cannot help it or control that it is totally incapable of dealing with a supernatural all powerful creator. It may very well be illogical, in that sense, for a person to go beyond science and hold supernatural beliefs. That however does not make those beliefs impossible or a waste of effort. It just is what it is.

 

And husker x, yes I may state my faith and beliefs as absolute convictions but that does not mean I am closed minded or not willing to look at further evidence. Particularly in these types of discussions, I am always looking for an explanation that would cause me to rethink my position. I cannot help the fact that information which would change my mind has not yet been provided from any source. I am not focusing on this one issue to avoid having to defend the myriad of problems of defending the larger issues of "religions" and all that entails. It just happens to be the magic bullet that would indicate there is more at work here and science, quite frankly, is not equipped to deal with that realm. Sorry, I wish it were. It sure would free up some time for me if I didn't feel the need to tend to spiritual matters. I'd love to sleep in on Sundays.

 

Edit- changed the term "smoking gun" to the more appropriate "magic bullet".

 

When I busted out the "waste of ink and oxygen" line it was in specific reference to creationism (and yes that includes Intelligent Design Creationism), which, with no disrespect intended to the amount of research you've put into 'spiritual' matters, I maintain is a complete waste of human resources. This is a different view altogether than saying that studying religion is a waste of time/ink/air/etc. I study religion. Right now I'm on a Buddhist tear, and I've found that a lot of my political and philosophical views jive nicely with aspects Buddhist philosophy. The difference here is that a certain factions of (typically Christian) religious organizations have in fact intruded into the ream of science. ID Creationism makes untestable, unfalsifiable claims about specific aspects of the natural world and many IDers demand that their ideas be presented as education. My different determination is that when I approach the questions of the universe's origin or life from non-life, I take the position all scientists do: I don't know.

 

And that's really the crux of the issue. The truth is nobody knows. Not you, not me, not anyone reading this thread. Not Ken Ham. Not Bill Nye. Not Richard Dawkins. Not Lawrence Krauss. Not anybody. Where you and I seem to diverge philosophically (and I admit I really don't understand your position very thoroughly because it's not yet been fully presented) is that I am comfortable with the "I don't know," and I don't feel the need to insert supernatural guesswork into that space. I have no problem with you drawing a different conclusion or debating its merit; my beef against ID is when it tries to pass itself off as science--which it continues to do--or as something which deserves equal time with real science. The mysteries of the universe should be presented as mysteries, not something we secretly have an answer to.

 

I think you'll have trouble finding people who can change your view. First, because the expectation is backwards. In this discussion you are the claimant, so to speak. It's up to you to prove to me that there even is a "that realm" or a "spiritual" aspect to the universe at all. As I've said, creationists rarely every bother with evidence, and not one religious person in the whole history of our species has yet to prove a single, verifiable instance of the supernatural. Mostly creationists just look for something science has not yet explained (origins, abiogenesis), call that the work of God, and hope no one notices. If you're up for it, I'm listening intently. However, if your position is faith-based, not evidence-based, then there is no possibility of rational discussion. Faith positions are by definition arrived at in the absence of evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary. In order to provide counter arguments I would have to have a more complete picture of your religious views.

 

The shortest counter argument to all supernaturalists is this: They make claims and then ignore or fail to meet their burden of proof.

[JJ Husker]

Husker X- I think we are in basic agreement. I probably read a little something into your waste of ink and oxygen comment that you did not intend. I took it as a shot at people who claim belief in a creator instead of specifically at the crazies who make wild assertions and treat them as absolutes. I think I've previously explained my position well enough in this thread to make it clear that although I do believe a creator caused "this" to happen, I don't insist I am right and others are wrong nor have I found the need to ignore the reality of scientific evidence to reinforce some ludicrous idea of how it has specifically taken place. I'm plenty good with your position in the previous post. +1

 

Btw- I fully realize I believe something that I cannot prove. I have never tried to claim that is the way things are. I know it can't be proven and I have yet to see my belief disproven. I guess it's just the natural direction of the discussion when two people hold a slightly different view. It sure doesn't help me try to explain my beliefs when so many others who have a belief in a creator base theirs on such wildly undefendable ideas.

[knapplc]

46% of Americans believe in Creationism

 

From that survey, 67% of Americans who go to church regularly believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

 

Whatever these churches are saying in press clippings, in church, Sunday school, Bible study, etc, they're reinforcing a Young Earth/Creationist belief.

 

Even these polls I take with a huge grain of salt. I have people call me all the time wanting me to take a survey. I just hang up. What kind of people sit there and listen to the actual question? Did the caller say...."Hello, would you like to take a survey on if you believe in creationism?" If something like that is said, then the people who are emotional about the topic and are out to prove their belief that the world was created 3000 years ago and science is hogwash are going to say....HELL YES I"LL TAKE IT.....

 

I find it hard to believe that there are that high of percentage of people in America that believe the world is only 10,000 years old.

 

 

I answer these questions. I took every political survey that called me in 2012, and I typically answer the surveys I get today (depending on the time I have).

 

They typically start off by asking if you have a few minutes to answer some questions. They give you their generic polling-company name, and start off with bland questions. It's four or five questions into it sometimes before you figure out what you're dealing with, whether it's a push-poll for some product, a poll gauging political affiliation, something about education, whatever. I've had a couple tell me up front that this poll will take 15 or more minutes, and if I have time I play along. Those people have a tough job, and I have an opinion on pretty much everything. So it helps them and my viewpoint becomes part of the data set.

 

They do not start their questions off with, "Do you believe that Jesus and the dinosaurs walked the earth together?" or any other such obvious and silly thing. Aside from product polls or political push-polls, most of them are reasonable and intelligent.

[BigRedBuster]

46% of Americans believe in Creationism

 

From that survey, 67% of Americans who go to church regularly believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

 

Whatever these churches are saying in press clippings, in church, Sunday school, Bible study, etc, they're reinforcing a Young Earth/Creationist belief.

 

Even these polls I take with a huge grain of salt. I have people call me all the time wanting me to take a survey. I just hang up. What kind of people sit there and listen to the actual question? Did the caller say...."Hello, would you like to take a survey on if you believe in creationism?" If something like that is said, then the people who are emotional about the topic and are out to prove their belief that the world was created 3000 years ago and science is hogwash are going to say....HELL YES I"LL TAKE IT.....

 

I find it hard to believe that there are that high of percentage of people in America that believe the world is only 10,000 years old.

 

 

I answer these questions. I took every political survey that called me in 2012, and I typically answer the surveys I get today (depending on the time I have).

 

They typically start off by asking if you have a few minutes to answer some questions. They give you their generic polling-company name, and start off with bland questions. It's four or five questions into it sometimes before you figure out what you're dealing with, whether it's a push-poll for some product, a poll gauging political affiliation, something about education, whatever. I've had a couple tell me up front that this poll will take 15 or more minutes, and if I have time I play along. Those people have a tough job, and I have an opinion on pretty much everything. So it helps them and my viewpoint becomes part of the data set.

 

They do not start their questions off with, "Do you believe that Jesus and the dinosaurs walked the earth together?" or any other such obvious and silly thing. Aside from product polls or political push-polls, most of them are reasonable and intelligent.

OK...you stated that you are opinionated so you want them to know your opinion (paraphrasing). That basically was my point.

[BigRedBuster]

That is your belief and you are entitled to that. But, to me, nothing science has proven has diminished the existence of a higher power involved in the process.

I want to ask specifically where you see a higher power involved, because I am genuinely curious. But I don't want to have you get ripped apart like it tends to happen in these threads.

 

 

Sorry, I didn't remember seeing this question and I don't remember answering it.

 

To me, there is absolutely nothing in either science or the belief in a creator that disproves either one. I believe what they figure out in science is the evidence of what and how the creator created everything. Let's put it this way, this is like going into a kitchen and looking at a cake. You realize that flower, oil, eggs...etc all came together in a mixer, put in a pan and baked in an oven to create the cake. That doesn't disprove that there wasn't a cook standing there making the cake.

 

I went through a time in my life where I questioned everything. It was around my late college early adult hood stage. I can handle everything science has thrown at me. I get it. However, when you put together the entire thought that this entire world is just one big random happening....it just doesn't make sense to me. This goes with everything Knapp has posted about how a random chemical reaction can put together such complex life structures to my posts on here about how and why do we care, love and have emotions towards things. Sure, it can be explained as that is what the chemical reactions are doing. But, then why don't we simply mark all of our emotions up to chemical reactions and stop caring about anything? I have to believe it's because there is something bigger than us involved. What that is is anyone's guess at this point. I have chosen (probably because that is how I was raised) to believe there is one "God" who created the Earth. That "God" must have ultimate power if he is able to do what I believe he has done. Now, I have not seen anything that proves that wrong.

 

Your question is fine because I really don't care if someone tries to rip me apart for my beliefs. I have said nothing that should offend them or make them defensive towards them NOT believing in a "God" or higher power. So, if they want to rip me apart, then that says more about them than me.

 

Now, I also find other religions very interesting and I believe I could be a part of them based on what I know. I have very high respect for some of the ancient indian religions. I also have a lot of respect for other spiritual leaders such as the Dalai Lama.

[Junior]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934.html?hp=t1

 

Decades of litigation have established that public schools cannot teach creationism or intelligent design. But private schools receiving public subsidies can — and do. A POLITICO review of hundreds of pages of course outlines, textbooks and school websites found that many of these faith-based schools go beyond teaching the biblical story of the six days of creation as literal fact. Their course materials nurture disdain of the secular world, distrust of momentous discoveries and hostility toward mainstream scientists. They often distort basic facts about the scientific method — teaching, for instance, that theories such as evolution are by definition highly speculative because they haven’t been elevated to the status of “scientific law.”

 

And this approach isn’t confined to high school biology class; it is typically threaded through all grades and all subjects.

 

One set of books popular in Christian schools calls evolution “a wicked and vain philosophy.” Another derides “modern math theorists” who fail to view mathematics as absolute laws ordained by God. The publisher notes that its textbooks shun “modern” breakthroughs — even those, like set theory, developed back in the 19th century. Math teachers often set aside time each week — even in geometry and algebra — to explore numbers in the Bible. Students learn vocabulary with sentences like, “Many scientists today are Creationists.”

[carlfense]

http://www.politico....4934.html?hp=t1

 

Decades of litigation have established that public schools cannot teach creationism or intelligent design. But private schools receiving public subsidies can — and do. A POLITICO review of hundreds of pages of course outlines, textbooks and school websites found that many of these faith-based schools go beyond teaching the biblical story of the six days of creation as literal fact. Their course materials nurture disdain of the secular world, distrust of momentous discoveries and hostility toward mainstream scientists. They often distort basic facts about the scientific method — teaching, for instance, that theories such as evolution are by definition highly speculative because they haven’t been elevated to the status of “scientific law.”

 

And this approach isn’t confined to high school biology class; it is typically threaded through all grades and all subjects.

 

One set of books popular in Christian schools calls evolution “a wicked and vain philosophy.” Another derides “modern math theorists” who fail to view mathematics as absolute laws ordained by God. The publisher notes that its textbooks shun “modern” breakthroughs — even those, like set theory, developed back in the 19th century. Math teachers often set aside time each week — even in geometry and algebra — to explore numbers in the Bible. Students learn vocabulary with sentences like, “Many scientists today are Creationists.”

It's interesting that the Koch brothers are supporting this . . . quite the long game they're playing, eh?

[Junior]

http://www.politico....4934.html?hp=t1

 

Decades of litigation have established that public schools cannot teach creationism or intelligent design. But private schools receiving public subsidies can — and do. A POLITICO review of hundreds of pages of course outlines, textbooks and school websites found that many of these faith-based schools go beyond teaching the biblical story of the six days of creation as literal fact. Their course materials nurture disdain of the secular world, distrust of momentous discoveries and hostility toward mainstream scientists. They often distort basic facts about the scientific method — teaching, for instance, that theories such as evolution are by definition highly speculative because they haven’t been elevated to the status of “scientific law.”

 

And this approach isn’t confined to high school biology class; it is typically threaded through all grades and all subjects.

 

One set of books popular in Christian schools calls evolution “a wicked and vain philosophy.” Another derides “modern math theorists” who fail to view mathematics as absolute laws ordained by God. The publisher notes that its textbooks shun “modern” breakthroughs — even those, like set theory, developed back in the 19th century. Math teachers often set aside time each week — even in geometry and algebra — to explore numbers in the Bible. Students learn vocabulary with sentences like, “Many scientists today are Creationists.”

It's interesting that the Koch brothers are supporting this . . . quite the long game they're playing, eh?

 

 

Did you see the Daily Show bit about the Koch Brothers getting involved in local politics in Corralville, Iowa? Pretty weird stuff. I can't say as I know exactly what they are really shooting for, other than they have more money than they know what to do with.

[carlfense]

Did you see the Daily Show bit about the Koch Brothers getting involved in local politics in Corralville, Iowa? Pretty weird stuff. I can't say as I know exactly what they are really shooting for, other than they have more money than they know what to do with.

I didn't see that bit but I'll have to look it up . . .

 

In this case it seems that their financial interests are well served by undermining a general belief in science. Basically a long game of the same "the science isn't settled!" argument that we've been seeing.