"Anti-science Bills in the South"

[Jose Fly]

Shhhhh!!!!!
Let's not give'm ideas.

Oops....sorry.

 

[Jose Fly]

Another question for the creationists here......do you think this sort of advocacy helps or hinders the public perception of Christianity?

 

[Kenny]

What scientifically viable alternatives do you suggest?

The question acutally is"What viable alternative are there to education".

Calling evolution FACT when it is still a hypothesis, as they have done in the past; and
Having wrong information for YEARS knowing it was wrong and yet still saying it is true

Is not good education.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd like to see those who advocate for including creationism in science class provide a justification for doing so that couldn't also be used to justify teaching flat-earth geocentrism.

They should also get to teaching that god's fart was the Big Bang and that Jeannie poofed everything into being from there. Here is the visual proof:

 

[Jose Fly]

Calling evolution FACT when it is still a hypothesis,

Sheesh....how long have you been here at RF?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Calling evolution FACT when it is still a hypothesis

Evolution is a very solid theory. To claim it a hypothesis only demonstrates your own ignorance of it, and science as a whole.

 

[Jose Fly]

They should also get to teaching that god's fart was the Big Bang and that Jeannie poofed everything into being from there. Here is the visual proof:

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The question acutally is"What viable alternative are there to education".

And, indeed, the question is what scientifically viable alternatives do you suggest? You don't want evolution being taught as science, so what other options that are backed by tons of scientific research do you suggest?

 

[Kenny]

I'd like to see those who advocate for including creationism in science class provide a justification for doing so that couldn't also be used to justify teaching flat-earth geocentrism.

You are displaying some flat-earth tendencies:

Buy as to why there might be a justification for critical thinking, maybe we should ask some of these people?

• Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
• Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
• Dr James Allan, Geneticist
• Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
• Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
• Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
• Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
• Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
• Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
• Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
• Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
• Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
• Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
• Dr Markus Blietz, Astrophysicist
• Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
• Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
• Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
• Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
• Dr Robert W. Carter, Zoology (Marine Biology and Genetics)
• Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
• Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
• Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
• Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
• Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
• Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
• Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
• Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
• Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
• Dr Bob Compton, DVM
• Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
• Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
• Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
• Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
• Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
• Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
• Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
• Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
• Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
• Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
• Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
• Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
• Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
• Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
• Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
• Dr Angel Duty, Biomedical engineering
• Dr Chad Duty, Mechanical engineering
• Robert H. Eckel, Medical research
• Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
• Dr Deborah (Debbie) Eisenhut, Medical missionary with SIM
• Dr Edward Elmer, Orthopedic surgery specialist (Harvard Medical School graduate)
• Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
• Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
• Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
• Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
• Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
• Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
• Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
• Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
• Dr Tim Gilmour, Electrical Engineer
• Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
• Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
• Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
• Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
• Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
• Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
• Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
• Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
• Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
• Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
• Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
• Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
• Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
• Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
• Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
• Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
• Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
• Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
• Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
• Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
• Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
• Dr George F. Howe, Botany
• Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
• Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
• Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
• Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
• George T. Javor, Biochemistry
• Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
• Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
• Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
• Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
• Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
• Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
• Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
• Dr Dean Kenyon, Biology
• Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
• Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
• Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
• Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
• Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
• Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
• Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
• Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
• Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
• Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
• Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
• Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
• Dr John G. Leslie, Biochemistry, molecular biology, medicine, biblical archaeology
• Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biology, Genetics
• Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
• Dr Alan Love, Chemistry
• Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear Physics
• Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biology, Microbiology:
• Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biology
• Dr George Marshall, Ophthalmology
• Dr Jim Mason, Nuclear Physics
• Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
• Dr John McEwan, Chemist
• Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
• Dr David Menton, Anatomist
• Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
• Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
• Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
• Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
• Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
• Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
• Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
• Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
• Dr Len Morris, Physiologist

I'm sorry, I couldn't list them all... space limitations

 

[sun rise]

To the contrary, most of what falls under the label 'science' is just belief based what
us philosophers call 'argument from authority' - and under proper analysis is shown to
be little more than sophistry no different from medieval religion: like Relativity for example.

Moreover, science itself is an off-shoot of religion, and without religion, there would
therefore never have been any science.

But my argument was not about that at all. If people have a particular understanding
of the world, however right or wrong, to legislate against that is actually against the
principle of free speech. Many religious people would like to outlaw atheism, and
often this is a reaction to such anti-religious dogma which you are defending.
If you perpetuate anti-religion, be ready to defend science with your life,
that is just what is going to happen.

The point is that ethics is a priori to science.
Because if it is not seen in this way, then the result is that lies are allowed to be
perpetuated under the force of law, so long as they claim to be science.

This is because the method of science, is not the same as the institution of science.

In addition, the method of science is based on trial-and-error, and that includes:
error. But your dogmatic approach ignores the role that error plays in the matter
because you wish to exclude error from the method, which is clearly entirely
cotnrary to that method which entails both the trial - and the 'ERROR', see?

It's not even worthwhile trying to answer all of this with a discussion about what science is and is not.

But if this is the logic, then I demand that every religion's principles be taught equally and that all answers are accepted as true.

 

[Skwim]

To be able to question what they are being spoon fed

Sorry, but I misspelled "thinking" as "thing." Does it make any difference?

.
.

 

[Jose Fly]

You are displaying some flat-earth tendencies:

Buy as to why there might be a justification for critical thinking, maybe we should ask some of these people?

I'm sorry, I couldn't list them all... space limitations

You don't think there are degreed professionals who believe in a flat earth or geocentrism?

 

[corynski]

According to the NCSE link, Brandon Haught of Florida Citizens for Science writes in the Orlando Sentinel that

Science education in Florida’s public schools is facing an unprecedented assault that started last year and has the high potential to escalate this year. Evolution and climate change are the targets of a coordinated attack as detractors of these concepts seek to balance lessons with some forms of creationism or denial of human-caused climate change.​

Mr. Haught warns of a new law that, incredibly, allows any citizen to challenge instructional materials that they do not like. Another pair of bills would allow school districts to set their own science standards and allow “controversial” theories to be “taught in a factual, objective, and balanced manner.” Balanced treatment; critical thinking. I think we all know what that means.

Perhaps worse, a bill introduced in the Alabama House would

allow teachers to present “the theory of creation as presented in the Bible” in any class discussing evolution, “thereby affording students a choice as to which theory to accept.” The bill would also ensure that creationist students would not be penalized for answering examination questions in a way reflecting their adherence to creationism, “provided the response is correct according to the instruction received.”​

The bill, according to NCSE, is modeled on a Kentucky law that was enacted in 1976, before the Supreme Court killed the balanced-treatment ruse. NCSE calls the Kentucky law unconstitutional.
source


So, bad, bad, bad; good; or who cares?

.

Let's see..... evolution is both theory and fact, while religion is a guess with no evidence. But there are thousands of religions to choose from. Teachers and students must be too stupid to care....... What? It's not intuitive? One has to read and think and study anthropology to understand evolution? And it's never taught to young children. Religion is so much easier ....... you just accept it without thinking, because it was forced upon you since birth, and nobody cares whether it is true or not. And I've heard you can go to a place called 'hell' for even asking.
Well, there's a 50/50 chance we will all be extinct in 10 or so years.... we either will, or we won't.
It's all so painful watching the humans stumbling around.......

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm sorry, I couldn't list them all... space limitations

So you can post one list of Creationists that all come from the same pro-Creationist source?
I can pull from medical, psychological, anthropological, biology, and paleontology sources to provide evidence for evolution. And from many different journals and websites from the same disciplines.

 

[Skwim]

You are displaying some flat-earth tendencies:

Buy as to why there might be a justification for critical thinking, maybe we should ask some of these people?

• Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
• . . . . . . . .

I'm sorry, I couldn't list them all... space limitations

Ever hear of Project Steve?

"Project Steve is a list of scientists with the given name Stephen/Steven or a variation thereof (e.g., Stephanie, Stefan, Esteban, etc.) who "support evolution". It was originally created by the National Center for Science Education as a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of creationist attempts to collect a list of scientists who "doubt evolution," such as the Answers in Genesis' list of scientists who accept the biblical account of the Genesis creation narrative or the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. The list pokes fun at such endeavors to make it clear that, "We did not wish to mislead the public into thinking that scientific issues are decided by who has the longer list of scientists!" It also honors Stephen Jay Gould. The level of support for evolution among scientists is very high. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time."

However, at the same time the project is a genuine collection of scientists. Despite the list's restriction to only scientists with names like "Steve", which in the United States limits the list to roughly 1 percent of the total population, Project Steve is longer and contains many more eminent scientists than any creationist list. In particular, Project Steve contains many more biologists than the creationist lists, with about 51% of the listed Steves being biologists.

The "List of Steves" webpage provides an updated total of scientist "Steves" who have signed the list. As of January 5, 2018, Project Steve has 1,422 signatories.
Source: Wikipedia​

At 1% of the total population this translates into 142,200 scientists who support evolution versus the 224 ± 1 or 2 scientists who support creationism.

That's......142,000.. vs.. 224

.​

 

[Skwim]

Let's see..... evolution is both theory and fact, while religion is a guess with no evidence.

To be precise, it's a fact supported in part by theories.

.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am detecting a bit of bias here, old bean.
The issue is surely one of free speech, and that excluding the perspective of half
of the people is just bigotry.

The problem is that you want to be player and referee.

So if a bunch kooky yokels demanded that math classes teach that 2+2=5 because they believed god said so, would it be "biased" or "bigoted" if schools refused to do so?

 

[Father Heathen]

So you approve of the government deciding for you what your children will learn and are not worried about such sweeping powers. That is what I have been talking about

Public schools should teach nothing other than objective, verifiable fact. If parents want to shelter their child they could home school them or enroll them in a private school that teaches the kooky spooky that they desire. You're not going to use my tax dollars to fill children's heads with silly voodoo.

 

[Father Heathen]

Less science for them means more science for me.
So I'm OK with it.

How exactly would children receiving a substandard education benefit you?

 

[Father Heathen]

Who cares? Any idea can be challenged and/or criticised. Why should science be immune to this?

Of course it's okay to challenge/criticize scientific notions, but once those challenges and criticisms have been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted, it would be dishonest to pretend that they still held any validity. Willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty have no place in the educational process.