Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[Acala]

Evolution is a widely accepted yet Unproven Theory.

No theory is EVER proven. The best a theory can do is be stated in a form that can be falsified but successfully resists being falsified. "All swans are white" is a falsifiable statement that successfully resisted falsification for a long time. Until a black swan was discovered. Then it was falsified.

 

[pcosmar]

No theory is EVER proven.

When it is proven, (repeatable, observable and predictable results) it is no longer a theory.

as a theory it must be questioned and tested,, to either be refuted or corrected or proven.

That is science. To accept a theory without proof is not science.

All theories should be presented for examination.

 

[Acala]

When it is proven, (repeatable, observable and predictable results) it is no longer a theory.

No theory can ever be proven because it is always susceptible to being falsified by currently unknown evidence. It can only be venerable in its success at resisting falsification.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

There's an apocryphal story about the time the great French scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace presented a copy of his five-volume masterpiece Celestial Mechanics to Napoleon, who remarked to Laplace that his huge work on the system of the universe never mentioned God. Laplace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis". Later historians have concluded that Laplace wasn't denying the existence of God, but merely denying that He intervened in the universe from time to time to adjust its workings.

The point is that a scientific theory that doesn't include a theistic element is neither religious nor anti-religious. It is simply one in which such an element is felt to be unnecessary.

 

[pcosmar]

No theory can ever be proven because it is always susceptible to being falsified by currently unknown evidence. It can only be venerable in its success at resisting falsification.

Newtons Laws are not a theory.

Gravity is not a theory.

Mortality is not a theory.

There is a progression,, Hypothesis> Theory> Law

I reject the "Law" of evolution. It is as yet an unproven theory, (in my mind) nothing more than a Hypothesis.

It should be (for educational purposes) presented as such.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm a christian pentecostal.

That's irrelevant. I wasn't calling you an atheist, specifically. The bigger point of that post remains.

Care to show me research, documents, papers, drafts to support this?

The burden of proof is on you. My point is not to come here and argue about evolution as I have done so many times so fruitlessly since evolutionists will always attack the legitimacy of the proof rather than discuss the substance. Since there are no "peer-reviewed" (i.e. approved by the scientific elite) articles, then you think that gives you an excuse to just dismiss everything and say "THE SCIENCE GODS HAVE SPOKEN!"

My point in doing this is not to argue evolution. It's to examine why YOU think that it's okay to use government force to say what teachers can and cannot talk about. Why is it that you believe the government has any business telling the parents what they can and cannot teach their children?

Because you are basically claiming ID to be a real science. I wouldn't have a problem if it was an elective, a dual enrollment class, maybe a social science, but don't call it a hard science.

As I have already pointed out, evolution is not science either. It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated. Before you tell me that speciation is observable, tell me how that means you can extrapolate it to mean the sky is the limit without making a whole bunch of assumptions. I have asked this question a few times on this thread and I still haven't received an answer.

Science is always questioned, but something that is refuted such as ID shouldn't be considered as something for students to discuss SINCE IT'S BEEN REFUTED.

So what you are saying is that future students should not be allowed to question evolution because they are late to the game. What part of EVERYTHING IS QUESTIONABLE do you not understand? At NO point in time does a theory become unquestionable. Why are you against students being presented with both sides of the debate and being able to decide for themselves? What you want is for students to just accept it because someone else has already decided for them. What part of that sounds like good science or good education to you?

If ID goes against the scientific methods (which it does), then IT'S NOT A SCIENCE.

Who are you to say what is and isn't science? Why should I be allowed to prevent a teacher from beginning their class with explaining the philosophical underpinnings of science with government force? How is that okay to you? Also, your vague, blind assertion that "ID goes against the scientific method" does not make it so. When are you going to learn that assertions don't make something fact?

Because using propaganda in homeschool curriculums is nothing compared to the state, the only difference is that parents are the ones deciding what shall the child learn. I'm afraid of that since there many idiots like you guys wanting to teach kids ID.

I'm confused. You say using propaganda in homeschool curriculums is "nothing compared to the state" and then you say that it's okay for the state to design curriculums? Why does state propaganda not bother you? Why are you "afraid" of kids being taught something other than evolution? Do you realize how dogmatic you sound right now? Is it ever okay in your mind to question evolution in schools? What would be a good way to present alternative viewpoints? The science is not as hard set as you say, and it never will be because evolution is not science. It has been selected as the approved theory. At no point in time was it legitimately tested. Now you refuse to see the relationship between this belief that evolution is unquestionable and the fact that we are being brainwashed every day with pro-evolution viewpoints from the government-run media and government-run schools. Why does it not bother you that the government is pushing evolution?

 

[Danan]

When it is proven, (repeatable, observable and predictable results) it is no longer a theory.

as a theory it must be questioned and tested,, to either be refuted or corrected or proven.

That is science. To accept a theory without proof is not science.

All theories should be presented for examination.

Karl Popper would disagree with you.

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

 

[RockEnds]

....

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.

Imo, public schools are a lost cause, but interdisciplinary activities are a great thing. I'm not teaching English and sports simultaneously at this particular point, but we do a lot of interdisciplinary activities. Right now, I have my daughter working on a giant foam puzzle map of the US. It's really big. It's for Social Studies (geography). She sits in front of the tv and watches the YouTube channel of the songs we're working on for music. They include:

Didn't My Lord Deliver Daniel
Shenandoah
Froggy Went a Courtin'
Old Dan Tucker
O Susannah
My Old Kentucky Home
My Darlin' Clementine
Lorena

They're not just music, they're a slice of history and mention some states as well, making the map more meaningful. There's even religion in a historical context. When she takes a notion, she dances atop the States to Old Dan Tucker. In school, that would be ADHD. Here, that's a splash of PE. (She takes dance lessons for more formal instruction. ) When the map is put together, she lifts it in the air and pretends she's Atlas carrying the world. (A splash more of the humanities with mythology.)

Of course, the point of this exercise is Geography, but because she's not in a class of 30 kids with the state peering over her shoulder, I don't mind if she spends two or three hours doing this repeatedly. And she learns more because she's having fun and her mind is working on more than one, boring map of the states and capitols.

Thinking more upon this, I don't have a foreign language song on my list right now. I should add one....

 

[PaulConventionWV]

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.

Do you know WHY there should be no public schools? It's so the government cannot indoctrinate the kids. It should bother you that the government is now determining what can and cannot be talked about. Just because public schools exist, that doesn't give the government free reign to force teachers to only talk about certain things. It should also bother you that evolution is the government-favored theory at this point. Did you ever stop to question why it might be that the government loves evolution so much?

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.

So the government has no right to tell you how fast to drive, but since it monopolized roads, that means it does? Can you explain that logic a little more clearly?

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 is wrong for the government to EVER use force to tell a teacher what they can and cannot discuss in class. What you are doing now is the same thing Keynesians use to tell us the government should interfere in the economy. Because if there no rules to govern what people could do with their businesses, then people could do whatever they want and it would be chaos! Oh the horror! So you believe in the free market when it comes to the economy, but when it comes to schools, you don't believe in the free market anymore. And even though the government does control public schools, that doesn't mean they should also control the dialogue between students and teachers. The more free the market, the better.

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.

So do you believe there is any room for questioning evolution in science class? What would be a good way to do this if not to present the idea that, perhaps, science is the examination of God's world? Why must the teacher be required to restrict their discussions to secularism?

 

[erowe1]

There's an apocryphal story about the time the great French scientist Pierre-Simon Laplace presented a copy of his five-volume masterpiece Celestial Mechanics to Napoleon, who remarked to Laplace that his huge work on the system of the universe never mentioned God. Laplace replied, "I had no need of that hypothesis". Later historians have concluded that Laplace wasn't denying the existence of God, but merely denying that He intervened in the universe from time to time to adjust its workings.

The point is that a scientific theory that doesn't include a theistic element is neither religious nor anti-religious. It is simply one in which such an element is felt to be unnecessary.

That story doesn't prove your conclusion. It disproves it. Denial that God ever intervenes in the universe is a purely religious dogma.

 

[Acala]

Newtons Laws are not a theory.

Gravity is not a theory.

Mortality is not a theory.

Sorry, but you are proving my point.

Newton's theories of gravitation WERE shown to have exceptions - by Einstein and subsequent experimental demonstrations of the theory of relativity.

You can say that "all living things die" and that is a perfectly valid scientific statement. Until we find some living thing that doesn't die. You may have FAITH that we will never discover such a thing. But you have not proven that no such thing exists.


But what I am saying really supports your other point which is that scientific theories should be questioned. Indeed, science should consist exclusively of trying to falsify theories.

 

[erowe1]

Indeed, science should consist exclusively of trying to falsify theories.

I don't know if you're exaggerating. But if not, then I can't agree. Science should be a search for the truth, whatever it may be. It shouldn't be a game confined to rules that exclude any means of inquiry toward truth.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

That story doesn't prove your conclusion. It disproves it. Denial that God ever intervenes in the universe is a purely religious dogma.

No, it's simply the omission of a assumption that the theory doesn't require. You might as well argue that an explanation of the rules of baseball that doesn't include the assumption that God inspired Alexander Cartwright to make the distances between the bases 90 feet is religious dogma.

 

[erowe1]

No, it's simply the omission of a assumption that the theory doesn't require. You might as well argue that an explanation of the rules of baseball that doesn't include the assumption that God inspired Alexander Cartwright to make the distances between the bases 90 feet is religious dogma.

It's not an omission of an assumption. It's an assumption. And it's a purely religious one, that is itself not supported by science (it would be logically impossible to support it by science).

I like that baseball analogy, it shows that your approach to science is to treat it as a game with arbitrary rules.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I like that baseball analogy, it shows that your approach to science is to treat it as a game with arbitrary rules.

If that's what you took away from the example, it's no surprise that you don't understand science or basic logic. A theory that doesn't include axiom A is not the same thing as one that includes not-A as an axiom. So your labeling as "religious" any theory that doesn't include a theistic element simply misuses the word.

 

[erowe1]

A theory that doesn't include axiom A is not the same thing as one that includes not-A as an axiom.

If you thought that the example you gave about Laplace was merely someone prescinding from an assumption without making an assumption, then it's you who do not understand logic.

The idea that any scientific method at all can proceed without assumptions is ludicrous. Let me guess, you're a Randian.

A theory that doesn't include axiom A...any theory that doesn't include a theistic element

Let's go with this language. Do you concede, then, that a theory that doesn't merely not include theism, but one that positively excludes theism, would be based on religious assumptions?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The idea that any scientific method at all can proceed without assumptions is ludicrous. Let me guess, you're a Randian.

Of course it's ludicrous, and you guess wrong. The fact that Rand used A and not-A in her writings doesn't mean she invented the convention. Would you have been happier if I had said p and ~p?

 

[Acala]

I don't know if you're exaggerating. But if not, then I can't agree. Science should be a search for the truth, whatever it may be. It shouldn't be a game confined to rules that exclude any means of inquiry toward truth.

As you wish. But if a rigorous analysis of the philosophy of scientific knowledge interests you, you might want to take a glance at Karl Popper. Pretty cool stuff.

 

[erowe1]

Of course it's ludicrous, and you guess wrong. The fact that Rand used A and not-A in her writings doesn't mean she invented the convention. Would you have been happier if I had said p and ~p?

I haven't read those writings. I didn't actually know that you were using her own language. That only highlights your religious devotion to her.

This is the thing about Randians. They have this absurd notion that they're not religious, that they don't appeal to faith, that they begin on some purely neutral objective ground and proceed forth with nothing but logic, reason, evidence, and objectivity. And they are completely blind to their own dogmas.

 

[jmdrake]

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.

Should the federal government regulate schools funded and run by the state government? In this case, state legislatures are offering bills saying they the, the states, want to give teachers more freedom on what to teach. That is a bad thing because.....?

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.

So the state government can't say "I don't want a 55 MPH speed"? Should a state government be able to say "I don't want to bar talking on cell phones"? Tennessee just passed a repeal of helmet regulations. Is that wrong? The fact that the state owns the highways means that they have to pass every possible regulation imaginable?

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?

You realize your argument makes absolutely no sense in the context of the thread? This isn't someone going to court to bar state legislatures from saying certain things can't be taught in the classroom. This is the state legislatures passing (or attempting to pass legislation) saying that teachers have a write to encourage debate about certain things being taught in the classroom. It's the democratic process that you claim to support at work.

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.

It seems to me that you are responding to a thread that doesn't exist. This thread was about state legislatures pushing to give teachers the authority to offer criticism of certain theories.

Again:

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.

All this is saying is that teachers should have to push the idea that certain theories are "facts". And I've been in a classroom (university physics class) where the professor said straight up "evolution is a fact." I'm sick and tired of the BS being pushed as "science" which pulls out certain theories and falsely claims they are "facts." Then when the other side points out that there are holes in said "fact" the fake scientists come back and say "But of course. It's a theory. Theories can't be proven."