"Anti-science Bills in the South"

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

What evidence can you provide?

That is a bit ambiguous.
I'm not sure if you mean that you want the exact religious quote from the bible
that tells us this. It is in the new testament somewhere. Perhaps read the whole testement
sometime? Or do you want spoon-feeding?

Or perhaps you want me to demonstrate my own faith through my own works?

Or is it that you have not noticed that science itself is the best example of this?

Perhaps have a look at all those amazing cathedrals, cities, religious art,
incredible music (not sure if my suggestions will be to your taste) but I always
found Bob Marley to be most inspirational.

 

[Nakosis]

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?

.

Next time the southern states want to secede, maybe we ought to let them.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

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.

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?

I've been in public school and both ACE and Abeka. I've also been in home schooling. It always comes down to the teacher, not the curriculum and not the administrator. Even the choice of textbook is not all that important. Too many directives hamstring the teachers, and that is what happens with these multiple levels of control.

Spoiler: Crude scene from Southpark illustrating the teacher holds sway over how science is presented

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is you belief.

That science has long been persecuted and hindered by the church is a historical fact. It is fact that Copernicus was nearly dead when his ideas of heliocentrism was published, a fact that their was a religious edict against it, and fact that Galileo was warned about such ideas and placed on house arrest for proclaiming a truth that contradicted religion: that the sun, and not the Earth, is the center of the solar system and everything revolves around it. Religion has long stood against the theory of evolution. Because of religious superstition we have the meaningless, useless, and worthless "astrology," and another term for when the stars became properly studied, "astronomy." Religion is demonic possessions, science is mental illness.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you approve of the government deciding for you what your children will learn and are not worried about such sweeping powers.

When science is kept as science, history as history, and math as math. I don't agree, for example, with the amount of standardized testing, but I just don't run around screaming "I don't believe in them." To the contrary, I can point to studies that demonstrate such testing really isn't good for an education, and is far more detrimental than beneficial when such an emphasis is placed on them.
Those wanting any sort of Creationism taught in public schools cannot do such a thing, for Creationism has no ground to stand on outside of philosophy and metaphysics.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Hey why are us pagans not allowed to teach all 2,552,537 of our creation stories? They are scientifically accurate I promise!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That is a bit ambiguous.
I'm not sure if you mean that you want the exact religious quote from the bible
that tells us this. It is in the new testament somewhere. Perhaps read the whole testement
sometime? Or do you want spoon-feeding?

Or perhaps you want me to demonstrate my own faith through my own works?

Or is it that you have not noticed that science itself is the best example of this?

Perhaps have a look at all those amazing cathedrals, cities, religious art,
incredible music (not sure if my suggestions will be to your taste) but I always
found Bob Marley to be most inspirational.

My initial statement was that science requires evidence, religion requires faith. You said faith is demonstrated in physical sciences. What evidence do you have of physical sciences proving religion?

 

[Skwim]

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.

Gotta take the venue into consideration. Public schools are prohibited from teaching religion. As has been pointed out from Supreme Court rulings:

"Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion."
source​

Aside from the fact that creationism is a religious concept, which is a verboten subject in public schools, even teaching about religion in the science class room, which is where Christians want creationism taught, is no more appropriate than wasting time in a chemistry class teaching ancient alchemy, or using an astronomy class to teach astrology. So creationists loose out on two points. Want to teach or learn about your religion, then go to church.

.

.

 

[Kenny]

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?

.

"Balanced treatment; critical thinking"... are you saying we don't want balanced critical thinking?

And this is an ANTI-SCIENCE position?

Is the title misleading?

IS THIS FAKE NEWS?

 

[Brickjectivity]

When science is kept as science, history as history, and math as math. I don't agree, for example, with the amount of standardized testing, but I just don't run around screaming "I don't believe in them." To the contrary, I can point to studies that demonstrate such testing really isn't good for an education, and is far more detrimental than beneficial when such an emphasis is placed on them.
Those wanting any sort of Creationism taught in public schools cannot do such a thing, for Creationism has no ground to stand on outside of philosophy and metaphysics.

I am with you on the Alabama bill. There should not be a bill paving the way for creationism to be taught. I like the idea of parents being able to question what is being taught, however.

 

[Skwim]

Next time the southern states want to secede, maybe we ought to let them.

Not a bad thought. Not a bad thought at all.

.

 

[Kenny]

I I like the idea of parents being able to question what is being taught, however.

Now THAT is a good thing. I remember where one teacher was showing a movie where cats were coming out of a skull... Maybe she was teaching evolution, I don't know.

 

[Kenny]

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

.

Yes, it seems that @Skwim has a "science belief" position that there shouldn't be any critical thinking or that free speech and free thought should be in the classroom.

Critical thinking is anti-science according to the opening volley

 

[Skwim]

"Balanced treatment; critical thinking"... are you saying we don't want balanced critical thinking?

In as much as the basis for creationism, FAITH, is far from the basis for evolution, EVIDENCE, creationism doesn't come close to the critical thinking required for evolution, so there is no basis for any balanced treatment.

And this is an ANTI-SCIENCE position?

Yup. When you say science is wrong, "I'm against the conclusions of science," you're taking an anti-science position.

.

 

[Skwim]

Critical thinking is anti-science according to the opening volley

What critical thing?

.

 

[Kenny]

What critical thing?

.

To be able to question what they are being spoon fed

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I like the idea of parents being able to question what is being taught, however.

I really don't mind that. However, with these bills, and with many Conservatives throughout America, what they provide as an alternative just doesn't work. And we need some oversight to keep such things out. If I completely denied the possibility of some creator I couldn't claim myself Agnostic, but yet at the same time I have to realize and accept that such an idea cannot be scientifically demonstrated. Sort of like intelligent alien life. Sure, it's probably out there somewhere, but have no proof and no evidence to say that it is out there.

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To be able to question what they are being spoon fed

What scientifically viable alternatives do you suggest?

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

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