Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[Dr.3D]

I already started listening to it from scratch. Am up to arounf 15 minutes or so. I hate when they replace atom for Adam though. That's where they start to lose me with the storyline taking over the science model.

Well, I hope you checked out the credentials of the person who is talking in that video.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, I hope you checked out the credentials of the person who is talking in that video.

I know who he is. I've read a few o his papers. Some from a few of his colleagues as well. Never heard him do a presentation though.


Am reminded of the 12,000 year old Gobekli Tepe discovery after listening for a bit. I'll tell you what though that's the kind of model needed to stimulate these kinds of discussions. He speaks with substance. It's far more practical to debate substance in my opinion. Even enjoyable.

 

[jmdrake]

Why did you change it? It would have been more hard-hitting if you had used the same "power of the state" line that he used, IMO. It really is ironic that he is asking US why WE need the power of the state when that is exactly what the state is doing to support HIS beliefs. Whether he calls them religious or not is irrelevant. I would really like to get an answer from Sonny Tufts on this. Why do you not see the irony in this? It's almost comical the amount of cognitive dissonance that is going on by the atheist statist apologists in here.

Because I honestly don't believe the bills in question are using the power of the state to promote religion. They are using the power of the state to give teachers latitude to discuss pros and cons of theories that have been elevated to dogma. But yeah, the other side is using (and abusing) the power of the state.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, it's not quite an hour long. You can cut to the chase if you want, but starting it at 28:02.
Here is the post I put it in.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...-Four-States&p=4969185&viewfull=1#post4969185

That was a pretty good listen. Refreshing even.

 

[Natural Citizen]

jmdrake; They are using the power of the state to give teachers latitude to discuss pros and cons of theories

They have separate majors for this already. It's called a philosophy major. Perhaps even a political science major.

Seems like you support wanting to put someone in the classroom to tell students that "We're going to teach you scientific method but don't listen because we already know that the Bible tells us that God (And we already know what that is so don't ask otherwise) did it." Am I wrong to think that? If that's what you want to do then let me be the first to tell you that you will lose. Guarantee it.

On the flipside, there are teachers who are capable of answering legitimate scientific questions in the manner in which Schroeder did in the video 3d shared should they ever come up. This I'm in favor of. And I know that many have even taken that approach willingly.

It's naive to think that faith is removed from aspects of the school system. It's also naive to think that parents don't have any say so. I can tell you that this Saturday my son's High School varsity baseball team will host a visiting team for a 7 inning game. Before that game, both teams will huddle and pray for each others safety just as they always do. They'll play 7 innings and when it's done one will win and one will lose. But they'll also (both teams) merge and stand in a circle around the mound with captains in the middle and pray again before joining the cookout that parents from the community have provided behind the backstop. And everyone gets along just fine. That's the real world.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well, I hope you checked out the credentials of the person who is talking in that video.

Coming up in an hour or so in the second half of Coast to Coast AM - Lecturer at UCLA, Dr. Robert Piccioni, will discuss the extraordinary odds required to form a universe by chance, and will also cover the numerous contributions of Albert Einstein beyond the Theory of Relativity.

Conforming to the video you shared. I won't be up for it but may listen tomorrow or something.

 

[jmdrake]

They have separate majors for this already. It's called a philosophy major. Perhaps even a political science major.

Okay. I stopped reading here. This is a silly argument. There are no "philosophy majors" in elementary or high school. And to think that critical thinking should be relegated to philosophy and political science classes is just goofy.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Because I honestly don't believe the bills in question are using the power of the state to promote religion. They are using the power of the state to give teachers latitude to discuss pros and cons of theories that have been elevated to dogma. But yeah, the other side is using (and abusing) the power of the state.

They're not, but the state certainly is using its power to protect his beliefs. That's what I meant.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

They have separate majors for this already. It's called a philosophy major. Perhaps even a political science major.

Seems like you support wanting to put someone in the classroom to tell students that "We're going to teach you scientific method but don't listen because we already know that the Bible tells us that God (And we already know what that is so don't ask otherwise) did it." Am I wrong to think that? If that's what you want to do then let me be the first to tell you that you will lose. Guarantee it.

On the flipside, there are teachers who are capable of answering legitimate scientific questions in the manner in which Schroeder did in the video 3d shared should they ever come up. This I'm in favor of. And I know that many have even taken that approach willingly.

It's naive to think that faith is removed from aspects of the school system. It's also naive to think that parents don't have any say so. I can tell you that this Saturday my son's High School varsity baseball team will host a visiting team for a 7 inning game. Before that game, both teams will huddle and pray for each others safety just as they always do. They'll play 7 innings and when it's done one will win and one will lose. But they'll also (both teams) merge and stand in a circle around the mound with captains in the middle and pray again before joining the cookout that parents from the community have provided behind the backstop. And everyone gets along just fine. That's the real world.

One of the strangest arguments I've ever seen from atheists and evolutionists (two separate things, I know) is the idea that "God did it, therefore, science is irrelevant!"

My science teacher was a devout Christian and she taught me a lot of good science. Being a Christian doesn't mean you just disregard scientific thought. A belief in God does not exclude you from having the will to learn about how the world works. You can still learn plenty of chemistry and biology and all other sciences while believing in God. In fact, it may even make it more interesting to you, knowing there's a purpose for everything you're studying.

So, please stop telling us that our view of science is "God did it" and nothing more. I find science quite a fascinating study even while believing in the existence of God and His ability to control things.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Nobody is promoting a religious belief. We are simply allowing teachers the freedom to discuss alternatives to the secularist propaganda that we have in schools now. Do you not support freedom and choice and the ability to reach one's own conclusions?

Don't be so naive. The only alternative the bills' sponsors want the teachers to discuss is creationism, which is a religious doctrine, not a scientific one.

 

[jmdrake]

Don't be so naive. The only alternative the bills' sponsors want the teachers to discuss is creationism, which is a religious doctrine, not a scientific one.

Again, saying "The theory that man evolved from a single celled organism has the following problems" is not teaching creationism, any more than years ago saying "the theory of spontaneous generation has the following problems" taught creationism.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The laws of mathematics exist. They are not extended in space. They are transcendent of the physical universe.

So, you are a Platonist. Fine. I tend to agree with you in the sense that I lean toward the belief that mathematical truths (or at least some of them) are discovered, not invented, although I can also appreciate the view that they are simply the human mind's abstraction of certain features of experience. For example, it's hard for me to see how geometry or topology can be divorced from space.

There's an interesting quote from Leopold Kronecker, a 19th century German mathematician: "God made the integers; the rest is the work of man."

Having said that, however, the existence of transcendent mathematical truths doesn't imply the existence of a deity. That is an extra step that, per Occam's Razor, is unnecessary.

Atheism is the denial of the existence of anything not extended in space and transcendent of the physical universe. It rules out mathematics as much as it rules out the doctrine of the Trinity.

I disagree. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in theism, and theism is a much narrower concept than transcendence.

Noneuclidian geometries are built on inviolable laws.

No, they're built on different formulations of the parallel axiom, which are not laws.

 

[Ranger29860]

Bills were written by the Discovery Institute. Go look up some of the cases they have lost in the past in regards to these type of bills. You will see very fast that the point of the bills is to introduce creationism into the classroom , I'm sorry its called "intelligent design" now. If these bills were written by anyone other than them then I would at least more likely take the person at there word that this has nothing to do with creationism.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Again, saying "The theory that man evolved from a single celled organism has the following problems" is not teaching creationism, any more than years ago saying "the theory of spontaneous generation has the following problems" taught creationism.

I was responding to the argument that the bills will allow teachers to discuss alternatives. What other alternative besides creationism do you think could be or would be discussed?

 

[jmdrake]

I was responding to the argument that the bills will allow teachers to discuss alternatives. What other alternative besides creationism do you think could be or would be discussed?

As I live in Tennessee I am only focusing on that state's bill which was posted in the OP.


Recent others (short list without sponsors)
Tennessee
House Bill 368 (HB 368)
Aim: "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories"...including evolution, global warming, the chemical origin of life, and human cloning.
Status: Passed in the House, 4/7/2011. Senate version postponed until 2012 session.
Senate Bill 893 (SB 893)
Aim: Identical to HB 368.
Status: Postponed until 2012 session


Sorry, but I don't see the word "alternative" in there anywhere.

 

[RockEnds]

While a belief in the existence of an objective reality that is perceptible by our senses may be an unprovable assumption, it doesn't follow that there's anything remotely religious about it. Meanwhile, our schools are turning out students who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate compared to other industrialized countries, and we don't need to waste limited classroom time discussing the theoretical possibility that we're all brains-in-vats and that what we perceive isn't really real, when we should be teaching calculus, physics, biology, and chemistry. There's time enough for metaphysical speculation in a philosophy course (do public schools even offer philosophy courses?)

...

This is one of the most damaging arguments in the public school debate. Upon high school graduation, a child has spent approximately 16,000 hours in school. Yet many graduates are functionally illiterate. So the feds, and the states, and eventually the local board of education begin to cut other programs. Art, music, foreign language, and anything that can be labeled "extra curricular" suffers. I remember several years ago attending a school board meeting that was standing room only, filled with parents angry that French was being cut entirely, the music and art programs were losing teachers, and the shop and ag programs were gutted. The school board listened to us for about three hours after which they called a vote and passed their cuts unanimously without any debate among themselves. What? Were we invisible? Apparently so.

Did the school improve? Uh, no.

The school system has ample time to teach a great variety of studies effectively. The problem isn't limited time or resources. The problem is the model of education. Math and science are important subjects. Reading is also important. But they are no more important than receiving a well-rounded education in a variety of subjects.

What makes one discipline more important than another? They're intertwined. They build upon one another. In case you haven't noticed, science is really dry and boring. The younger the children, the more likely they are to be bored with their nose in a textbook. But young children love to communicate ideas. In fact, science tells us that they're biologically hardwired to enjoy engaging in such tasks. The ability to form and communicate complex ideas is part of what makes us human. Why would anyone want to restrict the areas in which children can engage in such thought and communication? "Well Johnny, it's 1:30pm. You can only communicate in science for the next 45 minutes." Good luck with that. What makes science and math so much more valuable than art or humanities? Religion is a very unique human quality. You won't remove it from the educational conversation. You can't. You can form committees, pass laws, and make public proclamations stating that we will, as a society, ignore it to the best of our abilities, but they will fail because humans are by nature religious beings.

Get out of the box. The public school system is a complete and utter failure because it refuses to engage little humans in an interesting and educational manner. There's no saving it. There's no, "OMG we have limited hours!!" There's only the admission that what we're doing isn't working. We need to do something else. If we can't teach a child to read in over 16,000 hours, you can't expect much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

 

[erowe1]

So, you are a Platonist. Fine. I tend to agree with you in the sense that I lean toward the belief that mathematical truths (or at least some of them) are discovered, not invented, although I can also appreciate the view that they are simply the human mind's abstraction of certain features of experience. For example, it's hard for me to see how geometry or topology can be divorced from space.

They can be divorced from space. We use spatial images in our minds to symbolize them. But there are mathematical truths behind these. And even the way these mathematical truths apply in space can be in things other than the images we use to symbolize them. I have images that I instantly call to mind when I think of asymptotes and parabolas. But I know there are meanings to polynomial and logarithmic functions and such that have to do with much more than just those pictures.

Yes, people can disagree about math being discovered rather than invented. But if they do, their view is as religious as mine. The subject cannot and should not be divorced from the all-encompassing world view it fits in. Education based on imaginary walls that separate the secular from the religious is illusory.

I disagree. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in theism, and theism is a much narrower concept than transcendence.

Atheism is the denial that God exists. Transcendence may be broader than theism, but it's not less religious.

No, they're built on different formulations of the parallel axiom, which are not laws.

The laws which govern what theorems comport with those axioms are laws. Noneuclidian geometry is just as much a quest to discover truth, not to invent it, as other math. Math is not some game where you can just change the rules and make it mean something different.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Don't be so naive. The only alternative the bills' sponsors want the teachers to discuss is creationism, which is a religious doctrine, not a scientific one.

What other alternatives do you think you should be discussed? The textbooks now teach the big bang theory and abiogenesis, which are clearly secular notions. Why not give the option of introducing God into it? Why not allow people to mention that there are problems with the current theories?

All this bill does is give teachers the OPTION to discuss those things. It doesn't mandate that they must talk about them. If you are for freedom, then you should have absolutely no problem with this. You're the one being naive. What gives the government the right to tell teachers they can't talk about creationism? At least it adds some variety and SOME alternative to the secular propaganda that they are currently MANDATED to teach. Again, if you like freedom, then this is a no-brainer.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Bills were written by the Discovery Institute. Go look up some of the cases they have lost in the past in regards to these type of bills. You will see very fast that the point of the bills is to introduce creationism into the classroom , I'm sorry its called "intelligent design" now. If these bills were written by anyone other than them then I would at least more likely take the person at there word that this has nothing to do with creationism.

Why shouldn't it have anything to do with creationism? If somebody wants to give teachers an option to talk about the problems with the current state-sanctioned theory, then why does it matter who is promoting it? They are trying to make this less of a one-sided debate and anyone who appreciates freedom or choice should appreciate what they are doing. If you are so sure about the theory of evolution, then this should pose no threat because the theory would obviously stand above the rest if it's as strong as you think it is. The problem is when all you evolutionists suddenly think it's okay for the state to force our teachers to only talk about evolution. It doesn't matter what excuses you come up with, it's not right to use the power of the state to tell a teacher what they can and cannot talk about.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I was responding to the argument that the bills will allow teachers to discuss alternatives. What other alternative besides creationism do you think could be or would be discussed?

The point is, why do you think it's a bad thing to stop using government force to tell a teacher what they can and cannot talk about? It shouldn't matter one bit what would be talked about if you really recognized that freedom is the best way to go and not just dogmatic reinforcement of the protected theory of evolution.