Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[RockEnds]

LOL at you having to search for a textbook and your daughter not knowing what one was. Kudos for you teaching her about sprouting. I assume you've taught her how nutricious and delicious sprouts are. My kids are at private school and its textbook oriented. Sadly teachers are more focused on quizes and assignments than hands on learning. Each chapter in the science textbook, for example, has at least one science project in there, but the only hands on science project they did all year was for the science fair (which of course I had to help them find and do) or other science projects I did with them outside of school. Some schools are better than others on this, but it would be refreshing to see a school that reversed this model, worked mostly on projects, then tacked the "book learning" on the back end. "Now that we've successfully split hydrogen from oxygen with a 9 volt battery and some water, let's look at the chemical reaction behind what happened."

In fairness to teachers, they're teaching to a test. I'm not forced to do that. Our homeschool assistance program does offer standardized testing, and it's recommended the students begin in 3rd grade. I haven't decided if she'll participate yet. I do have a BA (in poli sci), so I can administer the test myself. I can also do it through our local Area Education Agency. My other option is to do a portfolio of what she learns throughout the year. So I have options. Teachers don't. My daughter's grandma is a teacher. This is her last year before retirement, but she has kept me informed on what is required of her.

I do have math texts. I use the Horizon series, but we do much of the work on the chalk board. She doesn't interact with the textbook often. At least, not yet. When she takes a test, I present it as a worksheet. We have mounds of math manipulatives, and she likes those as well. Math really isn't her favorite subject. She loves reading. She writes wonderful stories, illustrates them, and tapes them to her bedroom wall. She's a very talented storyteller! She likes science, too. She watched PBS's Becoming Human series more than once this week. She likes Turkana Boy. He died when he was eight. She's eight. She has questions about the idea of evolution, and because I'm not teaching in a public school, we can discuss the possibilities. Neanderthal's place on the human family tree has recently changed. It may change again soon. My daughter and I had our DNA tested, and we know an estimated 2.8% of our autosomal DNA is from Neanderthal. So Neanderthal was once considered an ancestor. He moved to a cousin, and really, it now appears he is us, at least in part. What is presented as evolutionary fact today may well change tomorrow. She knows that.

This was one of our favorite science projects. We thought we had this caterpillar confined until we found him in a door jam! We put a dresser in front of the door, and he lived. He even made it outside, and we watched him fly away!

 

[Ranger29860]

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.

Because science is about supporting evidence and testable conclusions. Neither of which is present in ID. Also people keep saying evolutionary theory has major problems or in your case is "debunked" when I have yet to see any discussion on what those debunking facts are. We have had this conversation multiple times on these forums and frankly its getting a little ridiculous on how much people lie or openly mislead. I use to think it was just willful ignorance of science and the facts but now I see most of you have an agenda.

Your right its not okay for the state to force teachers to, to teach anything. But its also not alright for a teacher to teach religious based dogma to children either. Especially as a representative and employee of the local government. If you want creationism taught in school then do it in a theology class or world religions class not a science class.

 

[RockEnds]

.... Also people keep saying evolutionary theory has major problems or in your case is "debunked" when I have yet to see any discussion on what those debunking facts are....

Okay. I'm not on either side of the argument, but I do remember listening to the two sides of the debate while growing up. I was born mid-60s. I remember the evolutionists insisting Neanderthal was a separate species, an ancestor. I also remember the Creationists insisting he was human. So about that. At this point, the evidence is really swinging toward the Creationists preconceived notion instead of the preconceived notion of the evolutionists. Isn't that interesting?

http://www.theposthole.org/read/article/194

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Because science is about supporting evidence and testable conclusions. Neither of which is present in ID. Also people keep saying evolutionary theory has major problems or in your case is "debunked" when I have yet to see any discussion on what those debunking facts are. We have had this conversation multiple times on these forums and frankly its getting a little ridiculous on how much people lie or openly mislead. I use to think it was just willful ignorance of science and the facts but now I see most of you have an agenda.

Your right its not okay for the state to force teachers to, to teach anything. But its also not alright for a teacher to teach religious based dogma to children either. Especially as a representative and employee of the local government. If you want creationism taught in school then do it in a theology class or world religions class not a science class.

We have an agenda? Oh, that's rich. I'm sorry, my friend, but maybe you realize we're not the ones trying to impose our theories on children in state-sanctioned schools. The only agenda we have is to give the kids a chance to think for themselves. You are the anti-choice. Basically what you are telling us is that kids can't hear objections to evolution because they are late to the game. I don't care how sure you or anyone else is that evolution is true. The kids should never be forced to see the world through the lens of the previous generation just because we think we already have that figured out.

Now, you say it's not okay for the state to force teachers to teach anything, so why is it okay for the state to force teachers to teach about evolution? You're on here because you believe in free markets, but all of a sudden, when it comes to evolution, you side with the state, not the individual. Right now, the employees of the government are teaching evolution, and you say that's okay because you are incredibly biased. It's not okay to teach religion, but it is okay to teach a secular view of the world that contradicts religion, which is itself a religious view. This idea that there should be rigid lines between subjects is outdated and wrong. It's just another way of trying to tell us we can only teach the religion of evolution in science class and nothing else qualifies. The bullshit and the tyranny needs to stop.

 

[Mach]

:56 (tantamount)

 

[Natural Citizen]

It's not okay to teach religion, but it is okay to teach a secular view of the world that contradicts religion, which is itself a religious view. This idea that there should be rigid lines between subjects is outdated and wrong. It's just another way of trying to tell us we can only teach the religion of evolution in science class and nothing else qualifies. The bullshit and the tyranny needs to stop.

There are no sacred truths in science. None. And we don't send youth to school to be taught religion. I could see where jmdrake made a fair point in providing a platform for intellectual reason. What you're saying is that you want to teach religion in a science classroom.

You will lose. I promise.

 

[Natural Citizen]

LOL at you having to search for a textbook and your daughter not knowing what one was. Kudos for you teaching her about sprouting. I assume you've taught her how nutricious and delicious sprouts are. My kids are at private school and its textbook oriented. Sadly teachers are more focused on quizes and assignments than hands on learning. Each chapter in the science textbook, for example, has at least one science project in there, but the only hands on science project they did all year was for the science fair (which of course I had to help them find and do) or other science projects I did with them outside of school. Some schools are better than others on this, but it would be refreshing to see a school that reversed this model, worked mostly on projects, then tacked the "book learning" on the back end. "Now that we've successfully split hydrogen from oxygen with a 9 volt battery and some water, let's look at the chemical reaction behind what happened."

You did that at home?

Edit - Actually meant to quote RockEnds about the science projects. Not you, jmdrake.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Please exaplain why (and don't dodge this time) this is a problem for an atheist educator.

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
Tennessee’s Anti-Science Bill Becomes Law
"Tennessee antievolution bill passes the House"
"Tennessee's 'monkey bill' on hold"

The fact that the "teacher shall be permitted" is not the same as "the teacher shall be required." And I would think a good teacher wouldn't mind discussing the pros and cons of any theory. But (some) atheist science teachers become very unscientific when it comes to discussing evolution. Again, my university physics class. Evolution wasn't even being discussed. We were talking about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But he felt compelled to throw in some hand-wavy explanation as to why that law didn't matter and ended with "evolution is a fact." Really? I thought it was a theory? Anyway, under the law I just quoted, if that professor was a HS science teacher he could still continue to be a douche and claim evolution is a fact. But another science teacher could say "Here are the strengths of evolution as a theory. Now here are some of the problems. And here are the rebuttals to challenges to the theory based on the problems." Science teacher #2 is being anti science because......?

Well. Firstly...I didn't dodge anything. I just didn't really feel like debating you right that second. I'm probably the last feller you would ever meet that would back off from a genuine debate. Heck, sometimes I even press my luck with the bounds of controversy just to see if the mods are paying attention.

I oppose you. 100%. Like the other guy said. You want to teach religion instead of scientific method. There are no sacred truths in science class. And what's worse is that it's politically driven by social conservatives like yourself. You don't really care about the students, do you? Heck, you want to end public education. Right?

Now you are free to lobbby for the end of public education. You're free to do that all day long. Iron age fairy tales have no place in the scientific method though. None.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

If you were to truly abstain from belief, you would say "I don't know", but you made a positive statement and said "no."

"No" is the correct answer to whether I have a belief that you have a nickel in your pocket, because I have no such belief.

Atheism is disbelief in God, not just a lack of belief. A lack of belief is agnosticism because you are admitting a lack of knowledge. Atheism is a gnostic statement of a belief in the absence of God.

No, agnosticism is the belief that God's existence or nonexistence is unknowable. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God, but it doesn't denote a belief that God doesn't exist. The word comes from a-theism, meaning not theism, meaning a lack of a theistic belief. Unfortunately, the word has come to connote a belief that God doesn't exist, but that's not how I use the word.

If you don't mind it discussed in those classes, then why is it suddenly a problem when it's discussed in science class?

Because it isn't science. For the same reason, I wouldn't want a science teacher to start discussing Emily Dickenson's poetry.

Evolution is not science.

Of course it is.

The propaganda is the only reason so many people believe it's been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. They don't actually understand why the few little talking points they hear about prove evolution other than they heard it from a "scientist" and it "seems legit."

And instead of believing the scientific community I'm supposed to believe a preacher who says it isn't?

 

[RockEnds]

You did that at home?

Edit - Actually meant to quote RockEnds about the science projects. Not you, jmdrake.

Yes.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Because science is about supporting evidence and testable conclusions.

No it is not. Science is a religious worldview that presupposes the outcome before any evidence is ever tested.

 

[I<3Liberty]

No matter what you believe "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
- Aristotle

I'm Christian and I took the time to learn about both creationism and evolution. How can you make a decent argument for either if you do not understand the basis of the theory you do not believe in? While I do not believe evolution is a perfect theory, I can see where it can overlap with some portions of creationism. I will always be open to listening to both sides out of respect and open-mindedness. Listening to someone else's opinion (whether it be a teacher, friend, an author of a book, etc.) does not mean you have to change your own.

 

[Ranger29860]

No it is not. Science is a religious worldview that presupposes the outcome before any evidence is ever tested.

Why don't we have a emoticon with a guy smashing his head against a wall? Even if we can keep this country from going to shit by fascist I fear we are already doomed to go the way of many civilizations before us where science is ostracized within the culture.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No it is not. Science is a religious worldview

How so?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yes.

We did a lot of things like that too. Still have some probably stashed in a room some place. Was fun. Going outside and snooping around nature is always fun to fiddle with too. Especially if you havea creek or something around.

 

[RockEnds]

We did a lot of things like that too. Still have some probably stashed in a room some place. Was fun. Going outside and snooping around nature is always fun to fiddle with too. Especially if you havea creek or something around.

I don't have a creek, but I have friends with creeks. I like two of them in particular. One is an easy fossil hunt, and the other has geodes. They're lots of fun.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I was reminded of where we are in the wonderful world of the sciences relative to transhumanism after some of the recent posts. Actually, PaulConvention got me to chuckling when he placed free market spew into the equation. Didn't help that I had mentioned elsewhere that what we see with our perspective representatives having the luxury of a support base that isn't technically literate enough as a whole in the science department to ask them what their position is on the sciences is that they tend to go with the flow conforming to what the lobby would do with the science. This equates to a government controlled market since these corporations have merged with state of, by and for themselves. And the science says they own you too. So there goes your personhood. Is a hoot. ID 101. I briefly explained that phenomenon when Origanalist asked what I meant by removing onself from the democratic process when conforming to that model some pages down.

Anyhoo... Researchers Raise Alarm about Loss of Individual "Genomic Liberty" Due to Gene Patents That May Impact the Era of Personalized Medicine

Note the study’s conclusion that when all of the individually patented sequences are summed up the entire human genome is owned by some corporation.. “Their analysis concluded that almost all clinically relevant genes have already been patented, especially for short sequence patents, showing all human genes are patented many times over.”

I had referenced a separate paper that was submitted to Icarus science journal which is a very prestigious journal, btw, earlier in the thread that gave the ID model a fair shake. Basically the same argument that Cubical had shared via that video which I thought was interesting too. That paper is in the NASA/Creationist thread which sits in the Religion sub forum and linked some place in this one as well.

Scwewy...

 

[Origanalist]

Was reminded of where we are in the wonderful world of the sciences relative to transhumanism. Actually, PaulConvention got me to chuckling when he placed free market spew into the equation. Didn't help that I had mentioned what we see with our perspective representatives having the luxury of a support base that isn't technically literate enough as a whole in the science department to ask them what their position is on the sciences. I breifly explained it when Origanalist asked what I meant by removing onself from the democratic process when conforming to that model.

Anyhoo... Researchers Raise Alarm about Loss of Individual "Genomic Liberty" Due to Gene Patents That May Impact the Era of Personalized Medicine

Note the study’s conclusion that when all of the individually patented sequences are summed up the entire human genome is owned by some corporation.. “Their analysis concluded that almost all clinically relevant genes have already been patented, especially for short sequence patents, showing all human genes are patented many times over.”

I had referenced the paper over at Icarus science journal earlier in the thread that gave the ID model a fair shake. Basically the same argument that Cubical had shared via that video which i thought was interesting too. That paper is in the NASA/creationist thread which sits in the Religion thread and linked some place in this one as well.

Holy shit.... brave new world indeed.

 

[Sola_Fide]

How so?

It is illogical, because no number of specific observations can bring down the conclusion that something is true. This is called the fallacy of induction. So science can't make truth statements, it can only approximate. It is an illogical religious fairy tale to believe that a method that cannot yield truth, does yield truth. That is one way in which it is religious.

 

[Origanalist]

I don't have a creek, but I have friends with creeks. I like two of them in particular. One is an easy fossil hunt, and the other has geodes. They're lots of fun.

I had one running through my front yard for a few years as a kid until we moved. Pretty cool stuff at that age. Crawdads, fish, water sceeters....etc.