"Anti-science Bills in the South"

[Skwim]

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?

.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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?

.

Well one of the few good things to come out of this is that if creationists want YEC taught in schools as fact they also cannot prevent Pastafarian creation beliefs being taught as fact.

 

[Skwim]

Well one of the few good things to come out of this is that if creationists want YEC taught in schools as fact they also cannot prevent Pastafarian creation beliefs being taught as fact.

But hasn't Pastafarian creation already been declared scientifically sound and therefore qualifies for representation in science classes?

.

.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

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

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.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Probably this is strengthened by the general reaction to Common Core which was shoved down everyone's throats. I guess its unfortunate that the laws are being fashioned around creationism, but the right to question anything in the curriculum is justified by the scope of control imposed by the federal govt over education. As it is the Federal govco is set up to impose almost any doctrine it likes.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

But hasn't Pastafarian creation already been declared scientifically sound and therefore qualifies for representation in science classes?

Someone get this man a beer volcano!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"Bad, bad, bad idea" is, in my opinion, a gross understatement of just how dire and severe such a thing is. People want to say Liberals are the "special snowflakes," but here we see yet again Christians are wanting to mold the law around themselves and shape society so it bends to their fantasies rather than conforming to reality.

The issue is surely one of free speech, and that excluding the perspective of half

Science is based on facts and evidence, not what about you feel and believe. Religious mythos have no place or room in a course dedicated to science, as these mythos have not one iota of scientific merit.

but the right to question anything in the curriculum is justified by the scope of control imposed by the federal govt over education.

There is no such "right." It doesn't exist. And while questioning things is good, when you question science but can offer nothing scientific as a rebuttal your beliefs shouldn't be taught as scientific fact.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

 

[Skwim]

I am detecting a bit of bias here, old bean.

Gee, really?

The issue is surely one of free speech, and that excluding the perspective of half
of the people is just bigotry.

Now that's an interesting take. Not surprising, just interesting.

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

No need to bring in personalities at this early point. Let's just stick with the main issue until you run dry and have to resort to ad homs. Or are we already at that point?

.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Science is based on facts and evidence, not what about you feel and believe. Religious mythos have no place or room in a course dedicated to science, as these mythos have not one iota of scientific merit.

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?

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is no such "right." It doesn't exist. And while questioning things is good, when you question science but can offer nothing scientific as a rebuttal your beliefs shouldn't be taught as scientific fact.

I defer for the moment about the right.

Otherwise true, but now the Federal government has the power to impose that very thing the moment the political wind switches. Look who your president is. Are you sure you want the federal government to have absolute control of the education in every district, and keep in mind that public schools are the bottom rung of education. Who knows but 5 years from now maybe all students will be required to learn creationism just depending upon who is running common core.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Gee, really?


Now that's an interesting take. Not surprising, just interesting.


No need to bring in personalities at this early point. Let's just stick with the main issue until you run dry and have to resort to ad homs. Or are we already at that point?

.

The point is that in a discussion with two opposing views,
to legislate against one of the views is bias.
Even if a referee prefers one side, he or she must still be
impartial in order to be fair. That is why the only assumption
that is fair in a debate between science and religion: is agnosticism.

And there is a very real reason why it is in your interest to be fair,
because if you want to play hard-ball (in the real phyiscal world)
you will lose hopelessly, and your attempt to legislate against
religion will result certainly in a legislation against aTheism.

That is not in the interest in anyone because any type of understanding
must be freely chosen in order to be authentic.

 

[Enoch07]

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?

.

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

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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.

Can you offer even one advantage that an education in "creation science" offers anyone? Where can you take such information? I would think your only career choice along that branch would be to become a teacher or professor to just push the static body of knowledge on to another generation. I can't see much of any merit to having "creationist" knowledge... maybe that's just my bias showing, but to my mind It does nothing, reveals nothing and there is absolutely no hope for it to push through its own intellectual dead-end.

Meanwhile, people studying evolution will continue to put together puzzles with real-world application. Like studying bacterial evolution to stay one step ahead in antibiotic treatments, or examining evolutionary traits within human ancestry to better understand where our common health deficiencies have developed and trying to understand what can be done to overcome them. The tenets of the theory have real-world application that creationist knowledge can never hope to possess.

And sure, you can take anything I just said and just pin it all on God anyway, and say that we could study those things anyway, just with a creationist mindset - but can you honestly say we would have gone down some of the roads we've gone down in scientific study if "Christianity" had always been at the helm? When even hinting at evolution sometimes sees believers with their hands over their ears shouting "Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah! Blah!"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Science requires replication, evidence, and facts. Religion requires faith. Science has long been the adversary of religion, because for hundreds of years it has been replacing the shadows we called "god" with knowledge and understanding.

Otherwise true, but now the Federal government has the power to impose that very thing the moment the political wind switches.

And, we do kind of need that because we have people wanting to teach school children that fairy tales are science fact.

public schools are the bottom rung of education.

I've been through worse than public school. Ever see a school curriculum justify an apartheid Africa? Claims that America was established to be based on Christian-value? Teaching basic money counting when you should be learning algebra?

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

Science isn't immune to that. However, if you're going to challenge a scientific theory you are going to need science to challenge it, not religious beliefs with no actual evidence to back them up.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Can you offer even one advantage that an education in "creation science" offers anyone?

You don't read very well, because I just did.
The very existence of science originates from creationism.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Religion requires faith

You are entirely wrong.
Faith is demonstrated by works (physical science).

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Like studying bacterial evolution to stay one step ahead in antibiotic treatments

And by that you mean use legislative force to threaten people into buying
corporate snake-water and other hocus-pocus dressed up in the veneer of science.

Why is it that American medicine costs 3 times British medicine and there is no
diffrence in life expectancy unless most of it is bobbledigook?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Science has long been the adversary of religion

That is you belief.
Science is the child of religion.
Your lack of historical data is selective and blatantly anti-religious propaganda.

Once you subvert the ethic of religion, you end up with fascism or communism.
And if you cannot tell the difference between somebody who truly knows God
and somebody who is pretending in order to dupe the unwitting, then you
are in for a nasty surpise one way or the other. Even an agonstic should be
mindful of the difference between those two.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You are entirely wrong.
Faith is demonstrated by works (physical science).

What evidence can you provide?