New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[cladking]

It is probably because our school boards have no say of curriculum combined with 3 types of funding. Schools and quality of are not limited by the funding of the locals.

The school boards are most of the problem here but they just rubber stamp every idiocy that comes out of Washington (or the state). Teachers simply have no control because there are no standards at all for those making the decisions. There are no standards and no responsibility. School boards should be tarred and feathered but they instead declare war on the State of Arizona.

It really looks like the final days.

Well school by definition is indoctrination. Sure it will play into various consumer products especially as use of technology increases. Kids in my extended family (nephews and nieces) have their own student iPad for school I understand the reasons for the use but that is still a lot of money over time to spend. It ends up feeding into a cycle as introduction to consumer products comes at an earlier age. Granted I am restrictive with technology access for kids. For example if my kids want a smartphone they can get a job. Now I have to deal with the fact that schools are giving children a tool for a purpose which will turn into a desire at home.

Advertising is a great evil.

It should never be allowed in school. Indeed, most products not directly related to education should be kept out as well. Schools make a lot of rich people a lot of money. This is what they are chiefly for now days.

 

[Shad]

The school boards are most of the problem here but they just rubber stamp every idiocy that comes out of Washington (or the state).

Boards here control funding for the school

Teachers simply have no control because there are no standards at all for those making the decisions.

The unions are pretty strong here. It can be a problem as they have to deal with the government as employees but they are lot more involved than those in the US from what I can see.

There are no standards and no responsibility. School boards should be tarred and feathered but they instead declare war on the State of Arizona.

Boards here have no say in teacher wages or even any class. Teachers are the direct link to improvement in the schools and government beside parents themselves as voters. Board just allocate funding within the school system with limited power to request additional funding from government(s) on the 3 levels.

It should never be allowed in school. Indeed, most products not directly related to education should be kept out as well. Schools make a lot of rich people a lot of money. This is what they are chiefly for now days.

The Ipads for the student are used in place of textbooks and old hand work. The reasons are not out of line in my view. I just have issues when the tool becomes an entertainment desire over sports or club. I see too many university students absorbed in their little devices. Even some professors and TAs let their student Google answers in class instead of doing the work. That isn't going to happen to my kids if I can help it.

 

[cladking]

The unions are pretty strong here. It can be a problem as they have to deal with the government as employees but they are lot more involved than those in the US from what I can see.

It varies by state here but as a rule they used to be too strong and now they are too weak.

It's not unions that need more power but individual teachers. They need the power to call the shots in the classroom.

The Ipads for the student are used in place of textbooks and old hand work. The reasons are not out of line in my view. I just have issues when the tool becomes an entertainment desire over sports or club. I see too many university students absorbed in their little devices. Even some professors and TAs let their student Google answers in class instead of doing the work. That isn't going to happen to my kids if I can help it.

I don't know the extent of the abuse of these devices. But I'm sure most of the time spent on them has no place in school, on the job, or outside one's own home. Even at home it is not good to be addicted to silly computer games and texting. Long term ramifications will be significant and many highly predictable.

 

[Ponder This]

Isn't that already the case before introducing this statute? Secular humanists are quite familiar with the church's theocratic agenda, usually in reproductive rights areas, where legislation is introduced as if it were intended to do something other than prevent abortion. It doesn't advocate for anything neutral - just legislation to promote its religious agenda. This is surely intended to do that as well.

While I don't deny that groups of people do have theocratic or religious agendas...
What is "neutral"? Is it neutral to tell people that they cannot have their religious freedoms?

The church is desperate to get to the young minds not brought it every Sunday morning, before those minds develop critical thinking skills. It failed with its intelligent design subterfuge. This bill is surely intended to get religion introduced into the classroom and give it status as an alternative to secular teaching.

I agree that many religious people want to influence young developing minds (in fact want to influence all minds regardless of development, old or young). I also cannot deny the that some people want to influence young developing minds (and minds in general) to an anti-religious point of view.

Yet surely, somebody will sue for being graded down after giving that answer, which will have the effect of intimidating teachers who would mark down for such an answer. Like I said, this bill is not to promote the status quo as its authors and supporters would claim with a wink and a nod. It is to promote the church's agenda oof getting religion back into public classrooms by whatever method it can to whatever degree it can.

Sure. I mean people already sue because they feel their religious freedoms (or the religious freedoms of their children) have been denied in a school or because they believe the school has coerced them or their children with a religious agenda. It is not uncommon. This is not new and will happen regardless if this is a law or not.

I'll assume that this is a typo, and that you meant to write the opposite. If not, I strenuously disagree. Science does not consult religion - yet another reason that religion does not belong in the science classroom or texts.

Yes, sorry. That is a typo! It seems I cannot edit the post to correct it... which is unfortunate. Thank You for bringing that to attention! And, as you point out, the religious content has failed to meet the academic standards of substance and relevance!

The bill's sponsor cannot prevent students or their parents from harassing schools and teachers that don't give students credit for religious answers. The religious will simply claim that they are being punished for their religious beliefs in violation of the new law, and that giving them A's for their creationist opinions is not a reward. Bet your home on it.

Sure. The sponsor of the bill cannot prevent people from making unsupported lawsuits or trying to twist the meaning of his intended bill. Nor can people prevent others from trying to re-interpret constitutional clauses to suit their intended agendas.

Even if the courts don't side with the religious plaintiffs, the statute will have served its intended purpose of getting the religious discussion going in the school and intimidating teachers.

It seems to me that the objections to the bill have been inaccurate. I even wonder if there is an anti-religious agenda against the bill or an effort to stir up people to advocate false interpretations, possibly as a form of intimidation.

 

[nPeace]

Unfortunately, I still don't know what you mean by "the doctrines of men". Can you clarify?

Clarifying ...
Doctrine - a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

The Prescription against Heretics by Tertullian
CHAP. VII.
Pagan philosophy the parent of heresies. The connection between deflections from Christian faith and the old systems of pagan philosophy.
These are "the doctrines" of men and "of demons" produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world's wisdom: this the Lord called "foolishness," and "chose the foolish things of the world" to confound even philosophy itself. For (philosophy) it is which is the material of the world's wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy.

What is taught (as Gospel). In other words... a belief, or set of beliefs taught by men, as the truth.
Is that clear Fly?

You have absolutely no beliefs at all about what is or isn't crucial for salvation? That's surprising.

Oh boy. Lord. How long?

Post #207
Anything designed by God's adversary, is a salvation issue. That's why Christians use common sense when preconceived ideas are presented as scientific dogma. They think for themselves, and question such dogma.
Clarifying ...
For a Christian, what they have been taught from the Christ, along with other scriptures, is truth. They investigate that fact for themselves. Repeating post #198, which I explained.
Jesus said, a person who listens to him, and remain in his word, they will know the truth, and the truth will set them free. He didn't specify exactly what the truth sets one free from, but one's experience does verify the fact that there is no end to philosophy, in this world.
So, in a nutshell, it is just a matter of people choosing their system of belief. In other words, a Christian who listens to truth, and is led by truth, will be set free, and not be misled by doctrines of men - philosophy... which the theory of evolution evidently falls into.

Jesus taught the truth. It can be clearly identified as truth. Of course, one who remains in that truth, is in line for salvation. Christians see Satan's designs for what they are. Their salvation depend on being able to distinguish truth from error.
God decides who gains salvation. Not I.

Is that clear Fly?

Good catch. I'll try and be more precise in the future.





Agreed.


It seems you're saying something like "we all should question and examine everything, and Anthony Flew used reason and common sense to conclude there must be a designer".

The problem is, I agree with and/or know all that. I just don't understand the point. It's like, Anthony Flew concluded there must be a designer, therefore................?

And I certainly don't understand how any of that relates to my question about whether universal common ancestry is a salvation issue.

The point I am making,is that each person - Christian, religious, or non, all have the opportunity to identify, and know the truth, then choose what they will believe, or follow.
I hope you better understand from my comments previous.

Okay, I understand that.


Okay, I look forward to you addressing that question. I hope you also further explain how you see evolution as a philosophy, 'cause the above doesn't really do that.


Good luck!

I will let you know when where to find the link(s) to my response, as soon as I post... should be soon.

 

[nPeace]

To the atheist, all doctrines are doctrines of men, including Christianity. Just because somebody claims that a doctrine is of divine origin doesn't make it so, and absent evidence to support such a claim, it should not be believed. That principle, a doctrine of men, has been one of the most productive ever in the history of mankind.

Rational skepticism applied to the physical realm converted alchemy and astrology to chemistry and astronomy, transforming two useless and sterile faith-based pursuits into two extremely successful and productive sciences. That great gift of this doctrine of man is evidence that the principle is valid - more valid than it's faith-based alternatives, also the doctrines of men. All of the gifts of modern science are the result of this great stride forward in thought.

But that's not all that this doctrine of men has given the world. Rational skepticism applied to daily life allowed us to reject the received wisdom of the ancients such as the Christian principle of the divine right of kings ("Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2, and "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1) and invent the modern, liberal, democratic state with guaranteed personal rights - a huge leap in progress from subjecthood to citizenship, from serf to free man.

There's more still. Rational released man from the bondage of received moral codes etched in scriptural stone. These are examples of that received moral instruction: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5 and "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 to abolition and equal rights and protections for women. In every case, we are substituting the product of our reasoning ability for ideas that were offered as fact and the final word - all to the benefit of mankind.

I agree with this ... Just because somebody claims that a doctrine is of divine origin doesn't make it so, and absent evidence to support such a claim, it should not be believed.
There is evidence for God, and doctrines of men are indeed in opposition to his divine truth.
Just because someone closes their eyes to that truth, that doesn't make it go away.

No, when Flew was compos mentis, he was an atheist. In his dotage, he became a deist. He committed one of the commonest logical fallacies in religion - the credulity fallacy: "Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance." Basically, what Flew was saying was that although in the past, he could easily conceive of a godless reality, suddenly, it seemed to complex to him to not have been intelligently designed, despite no new evidence in support of that guess. He most assuredly did not go where evidence led him, which is why virtually no other rational skeptics went with him..

Are you saying that anyone who sees evidence of God, has used the credulity fallacy?
If yes, that would suggest that you are saying there is no evidence of God, but that would require you to prove that what is presented as evidence of God, is not... and you can't prove that.
If no, then your argument seems to be useless, because then you would be acknowledging that one can indeed find evidence of God.
What are you saying?

 

[Milton Platt]

But then, so did Muslims. Are you gonna talk bad about them?

I think you must be Islamophobic if you talk bad about Muslims (who are against nearly everything libs value).

Any law that is constitutional has to apply to people you like and people you hate.



Perhaps you overestimate the degree of acceptance children have in the classroom in regards to their religion?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/harra_sc.htm

Teachers in the past have both been involved in trying to take away children's religion as they have been trying to sell them on a certain one.

Islamaphobia is not anti-muslim. It's anti islam.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I agree with this ... Just because somebody claims that a doctrine is of divine origin doesn't make it so, and absent evidence to support such a claim, it should not be believed..

Extreme irony noted-- your posts demonstrate the opposite of evidence. Seriously.

There is evidence for God, .....

You keep saying this---- yet--- you NEVER EVER-EVER provide any!

Are you saying that anyone who sees evidence of God, has used the credulity fallacy?
If yes, that would suggest that you are saying there is no evidence of God, but that would require you to prove that what is presented as evidence of God, is not... and you can't prove that..

Correct: there is zero evidence for gods. You had a chance to post it here-- but do not.

Interesting.

If no, then your argument seems to be useless, because then you would be acknowledging that one can indeed find evidence of God.
What are you saying?

Again-- you keep saying "evidence" BUT YOU NEVER-EVER-EVER SHOW ANY.

irony.

 

[Jose Fly]

Clarifying ...
Doctrine - a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.

The Prescription against Heretics by Tertullian
CHAP. VII.
Pagan philosophy the parent of heresies. The connection between deflections from Christian faith and the old systems of pagan philosophy.
These are "the doctrines" of men and "of demons" produced for itching ears of the spirit of this world's wisdom: this the Lord called "foolishness," and "chose the foolish things of the world" to confound even philosophy itself. For (philosophy) it is which is the material of the world's wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and the dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy.

What is taught (as Gospel). In other words... a belief, or set of beliefs taught by men, as the truth.
Is that clear Fly?

It's clear. But it makes me wonder....are there any "doctrines of men" that are true?

Post #207
Anything designed by God's adversary, is a salvation issue. That's why Christians use common sense when preconceived ideas are presented as scientific dogma. They think for themselves, and question such dogma.
Clarifying ...
For a Christian, what they have been taught from the Christ, along with other scriptures, is truth. They investigate that fact for themselves. Repeating post #198, which I explained.
Jesus said, a person who listens to him, and remain in his word, they will know the truth, and the truth will set them free. He didn't specify exactly what the truth sets one free from, but one's experience does verify the fact that there is no end to philosophy, in this world.
So, in a nutshell, it is just a matter of people choosing their system of belief. In other words, a Christian who listens to truth, and is led by truth, will be set free, and not be misled by doctrines of men - philosophy... which the theory of evolution evidently falls into.

Jesus taught the truth. It can be clearly identified as truth. Of course, one who remains in that truth, is in line for salvation. Christians see Satan's designs for what they are. Their salvation depend on being able to distinguish truth from error.
God decides who gains salvation. Not I.

Is that clear Fly?

From what I can tell, you have no opinions on whether or not UCA is a salvation issue. For you, it's up to God and that's it. Is that right?

The point I am making,is that each person - Christian, religious, or non, all have the opportunity to identify, and know the truth, then choose what they will believe, or follow.
I hope you better understand from my comments previous.

So if a Christian finds that the evidence for evolution and UCA is compelling and decides that it's true, as far as you know their salvation may or may not be at risk.....you have no idea and it's entirely up to God?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's clear. But it makes me wonder....are there any "doctrines of men" that are true?

Good question-- especially as how, so far, nobody -- not one person-- has shown that gods are even possible, let alone real.

Thus? All doctrines are Of Men.

 

[nPeace]

It's clear. But it makes me wonder....are there any "doctrines of men" that are true?


From what I can tell, you have no opinions on whether or not UCA is a salvation issue. For you, it's up to God and that's it. Is that right?


So if a Christian finds that the evidence for evolution and UCA is compelling and decides that it's true, as far as you know their salvation may or may not be at risk.....you have no idea and it's entirely up to God?

I get the feeling you still don't understand what is meant by doctrine of men, so let me ask... Give me an example of a doctrine of men, that might be true.

I thought I was clear. Apparently you still don't understand. Let me try another approach.
Is murder a crime? s it a death sentence issue?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I get the feeling you still don't understand what is meant by doctrine of men, so let me ask... Give me an example of a doctrine of men, that might be true..

The bible is 100% doctrine of men. Until you can show actual divine influence.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I get the feeling you still don't understand what is meant by doctrine of men, so let me ask... Give me an example of a doctrine of men, that might be true.

I thought I was clear. Apparently you still don't understand. Let me try another approach.
Is murder a crime? s it a death sentence issue?

Oh, and thanks for reporting my previous-- obviously accurate-- post. (now removed due to complaints)

The fact you cannot answer to the accusation: Show us evidence of divine inspiration, says a great deal.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I thought I was clear. Apparently you still don't understand. Let me try another approach.
Is murder a crime? s it a death sentence issue?

Crime? That's a legal term--- so any country that defines unsanctioned death of another human, as "murder", it is indeed a crime.

To a Secular Humanist? Murder is wrong-- because it's not promoting the general good. And, again, murder being the unsanctioned killing of another human.

Death sentence is a different thing, from murder. Many see the granting the State the power to kill it's citizens lawfully, as being Immoral. The principle argument is that it can be demonstrated to do nothing positive for the Greater Good (simplified version).

Others see that granting the State that much power, is Dangerous, as the State must always be at least a little bit corrupt, and thus, opening the possibility of killing someone for the wrong cause. (that's my stance, by the way). You cannot undo death-- you can only ever undo confinement.

Note that I have not introduced any Supernatural Woo in this-- because not everyone agrees that there are such things.

But, everyone has to agree that people can be killed-- it's easily demonstrated. Too easy, in fact.

 

[Jose Fly]

I get the feeling you still don't understand what is meant by doctrine of men, so let me ask... Give me an example of a doctrine of men, that might be true.

The earth is spherical.

Is murder a crime?

It is by definition ("murder" is illegal killing).

s it a death sentence issue?

In places with the death penalty, yes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Ohio House passed a law that says that students cannot be counted wrong, even in a science class, if their answers are in line with their religion:

Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion

In other words, the suggestion is that science teachers are not in the business of teaching science, but in catering to religious dogma.

Why anyone would consider this to be appropriate is beyond me.

How alarming. Another win for ignorance.

If an atheist took a class in Islam, could he give answers that did not accurately reflect what he had learned about Islam, just because he disagreed with it?

 

[dad]

The Ohio House passed a law that says that students cannot be counted wrong, even in a science class, if their answers are in line with their religion:

Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion

In other words, the suggestion is that science teachers are not in the business of teaching science, but in catering to religious dogma.

Why anyone would consider this to be appropriate is beyond me.

In other words, keep their cotton picking religious beliefs that oppose founding religions out of the mandatory education/paid for by the people education system.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

In other words, keep their cotton picking religious beliefs that oppose founding religions out of the mandatory education/paid for by the people education system.

You have it 100% backwards-- the Ohio law specifically enables ugly, WRONG and inaccurate religious belief to REPLACE ACTUAL FACT in school curriculum.

Keep religion in church where it belongs. Keep it OUT of public education-- religion has been proven wrong SO MANY TIMES, it's laughable.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I note Ohio is now discussing mmaking it legally mandatory to implant ectopic pregnancies into the womans womb. First have legislation that makes faith based wrongness "right", then introduce laws demanding scientifically impossible medical procedures. Pretty clever...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I note Ohio is now discussing mmaking it legally mandatory to implant ectopic pregnancies into the womans womb. First have legislation that makes faith based wrongness "right", then introduce laws demanding scientifically impossible medical procedures. Pretty clever...

What else, from a legislature comprised of ignorant MEN, who clearly are so ignorant of biology, they could not find the clitoris with a map, a spotlight, and live instructions from Opra...

Yet, they feel "qualified" to make MEDICAL laws!

What's next? Passing a law that Pi should be forevermore 3.0, because irrational numbers are... icky?