Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[PaulConventionWV]

That's not part of evolution. I doubt that any school teaches that the big bang is part of evolution. So there is that.

I never said any school teacher teaches it as part of evolution. That is irrelevant to me whether they do or not. My problem is that they teach it, period. Of course, you probably knew that but are trying to avoid the issue.

Why must evolution, the theory of how life-forms are adopting over generations, explain how life came about initially? That's like saying electro-magnetism can't be right until you can explain quantum mechanics.

Again, I just warned you about telling me it's not part of evolution, and yet you find a way to do it anyway. My concern is not that evolution must explain any part of it. My concern is that it's being taught as truth, in the same textbook that then skips straight from life evolving from non-life to how that newly-evolved life-form then developed. There's no question it's part of the same story used to subvert our kids into accepting a secular view of how this world came to be.

On the contrary it can and has been observed and reproduced. Of course nobody took a paramecium and made a giraffe out of it, but if that's the level of certainty you need in order to accept the theory, than it's virtually unprovable to you. Most people would and do accept the huge body of evidence as a sign that evolution seems to explain the transformation of life-forms on this planet.

The level of certainty I need is just as much as any other scientific theory would need. Your assertion that it can and has been observed and reproduced does not make it so. What you are doing is taking your ridiculous belief and turning it around against me. It's not my fault that it sounds ridiculous to turn a paramecium into a giraffe. It's the theory's fault. You keep talking about that "huge body of evidence" as dogma and dogma only. It's an assertion that I am not supposed to question. Like I said, explain to me how small changes in an animal can be scientifically extrapolated to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions. Until you can do that, don't bother to reply with another bold assertion and no backing.

Why does it sound like a bad idea to limit the content of science classes to actual science? I mean, I'd have no problem with explaining the philosophical underpinnings of natural science per se at one point. In fact I believe that's a good idea. But to insist to teach non-scientific theories alongside scientific theories in science classes doesn't seem very sensible.

Because what you are essentially saying is that your certainty in the theory of evolution gives the government the authority to use force to prevent any alternatives from being discussed. Despite whatever you say, this is what it boils down to. Because you think evolution is scientific, that makes it okay to use government force to prevent discourse that would challenge evolution. Also, like I said, evolution is NOT "actual science". You still haven't explained that one away.

Natural science is "knowledge" aquired by a very specific method. You can argue about the epistemology of science in a philosophy class, but ID is not using the scientific method (and when some people try their results are routinely falsified, yet they continue to hold those beliefs) and can therefore not called a science.

You are making a bunch of claims with no backing. Surely you realize how dogmatic you sound, yes? Why is it that you say the epistomology of science is irrelevant to science? You are arbitrarily separating the two so that your definition of science will not be undermined. College professors develop their curriculum in different ways. Who are you to say that a high school teacher can't start with the epistemology of science as a basis for understanding science?

Your assertions are all lies. Instead of blindly asserting that ID experiments are routinely falsified, why don't you give an example?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Your original post got my attention, but I'm a bit (looking for the word) confused? by what you mean by "the democratic process".

There are issues that confront society where science provides their foundation. And now in these times of technological change it is more apparent than ever.So if we arent scientifically literate (as in the youth more importantly) then you're just disenfranchising yourself from that process.So then when we hear the media narrate the days events that actually relate to science they do so knowing that most just aren't up to par so they kind of skip the good stuff and sell you the political model that the lobbyist has use for as it pertains to it. And so it becomes political leverage in the exact form jmdrake gave me with the red eye guy and the other fellow who was pimping the oil industry.

That's the narrative that takes hold and the true gifts of science as they relate to infrastructure is just ignored and never even discussed. And so you'll never hear a person, or not a whole lot of people, ask their potential representatives what their actual position is on the sciences. Ask them where they think we are headed (or where they would lead us, to be clear) based upon their position regarding the sciences and how they would govern in an era where the sciences provide the very platform for the technological and monumental change that is inevitable. After the monumental media mind raping they are too often proned and trained mentally to view participation in the process as something as remedial as passing around videos of what some lobbyist has paid to be the political narrative and silly links that espouse the same narrative or present the conforming false left/right paradigm. Is why I always say change will pass this demograph right by. And they won't even see it. To continue to allow scientific illiteracy creates the potential for abuse by those who actually are literate who have demonstrated that thay can and will manipulate those that are scientifically illiterate. This leaves society vulnerable to making very bad choices given the reality that science, technology, engineering and math are the foundation for what sits ahead. Globally. Geopolitically. Down the list. I've posted so many relevant papers and references to the phenomenon around the board but because there is no actual platform for the sciences and the relevant discussion here they are basically lost in the shuffle and buried because you have to just post them wherever. Intelligent design perhaps. Is a shame.

That's about as short as I can scribble it up, origanalist. Off of the top of my head you could think of something that everyone knows about like Monsanto. With all of the legislation that was pushed through because of a lack of understanding of the science behind it folks were just letting politicians do whatever they felt was in the best interest of the lobbyists. Did you ever hear anyone from the media discuss the science of it? Of course not. And so those folks were largely illiterate and had no say so in what went down. They were all like "hell yeah, free market...'merica". The politicians knew though.It was convenient for the lobbyists that the politicians didn't have an informed enough base to force them to ask more.

Actually, now that you have reminded me I've been meaning to ask jmdrake if Rand has an official position on the sciences on his wiki page. It really is the foundation for the way the next generation will exist.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

So your point is that with new evidence new theories were developed that now predict a new outcome, while some people still believe the earth is a few thousand years old although there are huge amounts of evidence to the contrary?

That being said, climatology is clearly not working as it's supposed to work today, because of huge governmental influence. However, the modelling itself is not even that bad, given how awfully difficult it is to predict the climate (which is a very chaotic system). The policy reccomendations that come from that modelling and the level of trust politicians (and many political "scientists") put into those predictions are laughable. What should be done is to research further until the predictions are correct on a consistent basis until we even start to talk about policies. And then I will oppose any policy regardless.

Listen to yourself. In one breath you say that climatology is not working because of huge governmental influence, and yet you have the audacity to deny that government has any influence over evolutionary biology?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's not part of evolution. I doubt that any school teaches that the big bang is part of evolution. So there is that.

Yes it is-at least as taught at the university level. As their story goes, the acids that comprise DNA spontaneously aligned themselves and formed single-celled organisms. From there, evolution caused organisms to become increasingly complex. It always struck me as fairy-tale-ish as anything a religious philosopher has come up with.

 

[Danan]

My point is that people should be free to question everything...including whether the earth is warming or cooling or billions of years old. If you fully believe the evidence is on your side, then the questioning shouldn't bother you and the "anti science" bills shouldn't be seen as "anti science."

When data is purposefully hidden to the point that you can't even get it with a freedom of information act, that by definition is "bad modelling." I'm sure there is a lot of good climate science out that. The science that claims there is "unquestioned consensus" on what's going on is clearly junk science.

Of course. Sadly, it is true for all fields of science, but especially those where governments are invested the most (climatology, medicine, ...) that academic discourse is terrible right now. The same applies to other fields of academia (economics, sociology, history, gender studies, ...).

You can argue in favor of a "crazy" new idea in physics and if you can provide evidence, or at least an easily falsifiable theory that is not yet falsified, there might be a paradigm shift. Maybe not instantaneously and you will encounter resistence from the mainstream, but you have a good chance of revolutionizing the field. That happened a couple of times in the last decades.

Creating a paradigm shift in economics is much harder, but given the nature that it's not a natural science that's at least understandable. It sadly appears to be that climatology is really to some extend quite elitist. But then again I haven't studied it in great detail. It took me literally thousands of working hours to come to my current understanding of economics (and that's still far from being top level) and if some amateur tries to explain me why my views are wrong, of course that will annoy me. The same is true if I were to be trying to tell an IPPC scientist why he is a paid shill with no clue about the sun. The level of expertise I would need in order to be knowledable enough to argue with them, or to even have a reasonable opinion on whether or not their theories are correct, is huge.

I don't have time for that, but I don't pretent to know stuff that I don't. Personally I doubt the general anthropogenic climate change-consensus. Or at least I doubt the magnitude of it and that the certainty of that claim is high enough to base policy on it.

 

[Danan]

Yes it is-at least as taught at the university level. As their story goes, the acids that comprise DNA spontaneously aligned themselves and formed single-celled organisms. From there, evolution caused organisms to become increasingly complex. It always struck me as fairy-tale-ish as anything a religious philosopher has come up with.

The field about the origin of life is called abiogenesis. I've seen an awsome presentation where a scientist shows that they reproduced some primitive (although not really sustainable) form of abiogenesis in a lab. There are some chemical molecules that align themselves and start to move, reproduce and "eat" (all things we attribute to living beings). Sadly I can't find that right now.

Abiogenesis is not nearly as well documented and accepted as evolution, though. It still seems entirely plausible and probable to me, from what I know about it. However, there is not "one" theory about it. There are a few dozens and there is a lively debate going on among biologists/chemists.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

legislation..critics say would establish a backdoor way of questioning the theory of evolution

Mustn't question the official story! Does anyone else think it's strange when people are afraid of questions?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Mustn't question the official story! Does anyone else think it's strange when people are afraid of questions?

Absolutely. My issue is not with people that search for or ask questions. It's with those who feel that our understanding is complete and that no more questions should be asked.

 

[jmdrake]

Of course. Sadly, it is true for all fields of science, but especially those where governments are invested the most (climatology, medicine, ...) that academic discourse is terrible right now. The same applies to other fields of academia (economics, sociology, history, gender studies, ...).

You can argue in favor of a "crazy" new idea in physics and if you can provide evidence, or at least an easily falsifiable theory that is not yet falsified, there might be a paradigm shift. Maybe not instantaneously and you will encounter resistence from the mainstream, but you have a good chance of revolutionizing the field. That happened a couple of times in the last decades.

Creating a paradigm shift in economics is much harder, but given the nature that it's not a natural science that's at least understandable. It sadly appears to be that climatology is really to some extend quite elitist. But then again I haven't studied it in great detail. It took me literally thousands of working hours to come to my current understanding of economics (and that's still far from being top level) and if some amateur tries to explain me why my views are wrong, of course that will annoy me. The same is true if I were to be trying to tell an IPPC scientist why he is a paid shill with no clue about the sun. The level of expertise I would need in order to be knowledable enough to argue with them, or to even have a reasonable opinion on whether or not their theories are correct, is huge.

I don't have time for that, but I don't pretent to know stuff that I don't. Personally I doubt the general anthropogenic climate change-consensus. Or at least I doubt the magnitude of it and that the certainty of that claim is high enough to base policy on it.

Oh I fully agree. Experts should debate experts. When we get to the point of what goes on in the classroom, who's the expert? The teacher? The school board? The parent? The child? If we go with the textbook writer, well he's not there to be "annoyed." More importantly, why not bring in another textbook from another expert who disagrees with the first?

FTR, while I totally disagree with the OP of this thread, I'm glad it merges both the AGW and the evolution vs creation debate, because by doing so it hightlights what the real problem is. Dogma is science is bad. It doesn't matter if it's religious dogma, or secularist dogma. You want a falsifiable theory? Here's one. "No scientist who's actually studied evolution/AGW and understands evolution/AGW doubts evolution/AGW." I think it's well established that there are climate scientists who doubt AGW. I know chemists, biologists and physicists who believe in creation. Some work and teach at secular, and even state run universities. And I'm talking "God created man from the dust of the ground" creationists, not "God created a single celled organisms that over billions of years of birth, life and death evolved into all life forms as we see them today including humans" creationists. Since I know that for a fact, I know that comments like "People who disagree with evolution just don't understand it" cannot possibly be correct. (I know you didn't make that comment. I've just seen comments like that in this thread).

Here's the bottom line. Any independently thinking person will, at some point, have a view that goes against conventional wisdom and will not be the correct answer on a standardized test. It might be in science, it might be in economics, it might be in history. If the question on a standardized test is "Who killed JFK" the correct answer for the test is "Lee Harvey Oswald" even if you can made a good faith argument for "I don't know."

 

[UMULAS]

......

 

[pcosmar]

It is anti-science to question theories.

Sort of like being "anti-government" for advocating a return to the Constitution.

It is not anti- science.
Evolution is a widely accepted yet Unproven Theory.
Good science examines and questions all theories.

 

[Danan]

I really don't understand the argument that the government shouldn't be allowed to tell what has to be taught in certain classes at public schools.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe there should be no public schools in the first place. However given that there are public schools and given that the government also makes a viable alternative near to impossible for the masses by first taxing everyone and then offering a "free" choice, it obviously should regulate its own schools.

That's essentially the same problem we have with speed limits and drunk-driving. Does the government have a right to tell me how fast and sober I have to drive? Well, on the one hand no, it should not even own roads in the first place and therefore private road owners should tell you what you can and can not do on their property. They will make that decission based on what set of rules maximizes their profits, since there are many people who want strict rules, but others who hate to be restricted and want the freedom to drive however they want. With the government owning the roads, however, there is no market process since they eliminate all possible competition. What process can we use to decide for the rules on public roads now? Currently it's the democratic process. It seriously sucks compared with the free market process, but given that the government owns stuff, it seems like the best way to decide for rules on specific property publically owned.

The same is true for schools. Given that schools are owned publically (which they shouldn't be), there needs to be some democratic process (direct/indirect, local/federal, ...) to decide what is going to be taught in which classes. You claim that banning non-scientific explainations alongside scientific ones in science classes is wrong. Would it also be wrong to ban teachers from teaching Chinese in English classes? To prohibit teachers from doing sports in math classes? To forbid teachers from teaching music in physics classes?

It seems to me that it makes sense to say, "Only teach scientific theories in science classes, and maybe the philosophical underpinnings of science itself." What's wrong with teaching religious theories in religion classes? Maybe that's what you should push for instead. I'd have no problem with a subject called "Religion" explaining all the different religious theories of the origin of the universe and life and its transformation over the years. And I believe it would make sense not to talk about evolution or the big bang in those classes.

 

[UMULAS]

........

 

[pcosmar]

You better start reading, .

Piltdown man.

but you go ahead and believe whatever you like.

that is your choice and freedom of religion.

 

[erowe1]

Would it also be wrong to ban teachers from teaching Chinese in English classes? To prohibit teachers from doing sports in math classes? To forbid teachers from teaching music in physics classes?

Of course all those things would be wrong. I have trouble seeing how anyone would support a one-size-fits-all policy made up by politicians, telling math teachers, "We know how to teach math better than you do, and that means no talking about sports."

 

[erowe1]

It seems to me that it makes sense to say, "Only teach scientific theories in science classes, and maybe the philosophical underpinnings of science itself."

The philosophical underpinnings of science are inherently religious.

 

[georgiaboy]

The philosophical underpinnings of science are inherently religious.

I think I know what you mean by this - that a statement like "everything about the universe can be explained from a purely naturalistic basis" is an inherently religious statement, but could you please explain your perspective, or at least let me know I'm understanding you correctly?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

N.b. the assumption of the validity of sense experience is a theological one.

No, it's an epistemological one that has no connection to theology.

 

[pcosmar]

The philosophical underpinnings of science are inherently religious.

I would agree.

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

and from the book of Job,,

3“But I have intelligence as well as you;
I am not inferior to you.
And who does not know such things as these?

4“I am a joke to my friends,
The one who called on God and He answered him;
The just and blameless man is a joke.

5“He who is at ease holds calamity in contempt,
As prepared for those whose feet slip.

6“The tents of the destroyers prosper,
And those who provoke God are secure,
Whom God brings into their power.

7“But now ask the beasts, and let them teach you;
And the birds of the heavens, and let them tell you.

8“Or speak to the earth, and let it teach you;
And let the fish of the sea declare to you.

9“Who among all these does not know
That the hand of the LORD has done this,

10In whose hand is the life of every living thing,
And the breath of all mankind?

11“Does not the ear test words,
As the palate tastes its food?

12“Wisdom is with aged men,
With long life is understanding.

 

[Danan]

The philosophical underpinnings of science are inherently religious.

I don't necessarily agree that it's "religious". It's true that positivistic epistemology would argue that (scientific) knowledge is a subset of belief. In the end, that's a matter of definition.

But even if science is religious it's a very distinct branch with its own characteristics. If you argue that science is inherently flawed and does not really tell us anything about the real world, that's one thing. That still doesn't justify to teach non-scientific theories in science classes.

Of course all those things would be wrong. I have trouble seeing how anyone would support a one-size-fits-all policy made up by politicians, telling math teachers, "We know how to teach math better than you do, and that means no talking about sports."

I said doing sports. The reason we should not allow math teachers to do that is because they likely do not reach their objective to teach their students mathematics if half of what they do is playing basketball. If you say that playing basketball is just as important as learning maths, you should argue for a sports class with the objective of playing basketball.

In a free market parents could choose a school that does not talk about non-scientific theories in science classes. In those private schools the owners would have made that decision in order to maximize their profits, or because they believe that's the way it should be done. Given that public schools are more or less "owned" by the public, obviously the public has a right to make the rules in such a way as they would expect a private school (that could exist absent of government intervention) to regulate their classes' content. Ideally the public shouldn't own schools (or at least coerce everybody into paying for them). But given that this is the case, those rules don't seem to be irrational to me.