Anti-Science Bills Weighed in Four States

[Christian Liberty]

. 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.

Isn't a cut in government funded public schools a good thing from a libertarian perspective?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Isn't a cut in government funded public schools a good thing from a libertarian perspective?

Not necessarily. It doesn't lower your tax rate. It's simply a matter of appropriation. If the money doesn't go to your school, then it will go to something else, but I'm sure many schools actually do need the funding and do a good job despite the fact that the government screws everything up.

 

[RockEnds]

Isn't a cut in government funded public schools a good thing from a libertarian perspective?

Do you really think they spend less money now than before? I think giving up on public education is a good thing from a libertarian perspective. I don't think reducing the courses offered did anything to improve public education here. At the same time this was happening, the school banned newspapers. They called it a budget issue, but in reality, it was because of the bad press they were getting for cutting extra-curriculars. They couldn't ban our local paper only, so they defunded ALL newspapers to the school system. I was informed by a teacher who knew I was the vocal type. I went to the newspaper office and bought that teacher a subscription. When they learned what happened, they found local businesses to pay the remainder of the subscriptions and published an article about the situation. The back-peddaling was entertaining to say the least.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

In case you haven't noticed, science is really dry and boring.

Only if the teacher makes it so. It's no more inherently boring than reading a Jane Austen novel or a history text's discussion of the Smoot-Hawley Act..

What makes science and math so much more valuable than art or humanities?

I wasn't suggesting they were. My point was that the time spent in a class, whether it's calculus or Victorian literature, should be devoted to the subject matter, and the teacher shouldn't be permitted to proselytize his or her religion.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Atheism is the denial that God exists.

No, it's the absence of a belief in God, which isn't the same as a belief that God doesn't exist. It's as if you were to ask me, "Do you believe I have a nickel in my pocket?" Not knowing anything about what you might have in your pocket, I'd answer "No" because I don't, in fact, have such a belief. But that wouldn't mean that I believed that you didn't have one.

 

[RockEnds]

Only if the teacher makes it so. It's no more inherently boring than reading a Jane Austen novel or a history text's discussion of the Smoot-Hawley Act..



I wasn't suggesting they were. My point was that the time spent in a class, whether it's calculus or Victorian literature, should be devoted to the subject matter, and the teacher shouldn't be permitted to proselytize his or her religion.

Math really is pretty boring. It can be made fun. Schoolhouse Rock is one example of how to make beginning math fun. It used music, art, and storytelling to accomplish that. Have you ever attempted to teach math to a preschooler? Limit the lesson to just math, and you've lost your audience. If you fail to come up with something more creative than "This is a zero. Zero is a placeholder in the 10 based number system...," you'll put them to sleep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxYsgRsNg2s

 

[Sonny Tufts]

What gives the government the right to tell teachers they can't talk about creationism?

Because government employs them and like any employer, the government has the right to tell them what will and won't be taught. The teaching of creationism as an alternative scientific explanation in a public school violates the First Amendment and is bad policy to boot.

I wouldn't mind if creationism and evolution were discussed in a class devoted to contemporary political issues, or if the Scopes Trial were discussed in an American History class. I wouldn't even mind if a high school honors English class read Paradise Lost or the Inferno. But I'd want to make sure that the teacher didn't use the opportunity to preach to the kids.

 

[jmdrake]

Because government employs them and like any employer, the government has the right to tell them what will and won't be taught. The teaching of creationism as an alternative scientific explanation in a public school violates the First Amendment and is bad policy to boot.

I see whatever you learned in elementary school, it wasn't logic. Your claiming that this is about the government's right as an employer to tell teachers what they can and can't teach? If you really believed that, then you wouldn't be participating in this thread. Seriously. This new legislation is being proposed by state GOVERNMENTS!

And I see that after being proven wrong, you're still back on the "It's forcing alternatives to be taught" nonsense. Again, one could refute the earlier atheist view of life on earth, spontaneous generation, without introducing creation or any other "alternative". You don't have to talk about the alternative to a theory to point out the holes in the theory.

 

[erowe1]

No, it's the absence of a belief in God

No, it's the denial that God exists. To be an atheist is to say that the statement, "God exists." is false.

ETA:

From the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.

From the Encyclopedia of Religion:

ATHEISM. The term atheism is employed in a variety of ways. For the purpose of the present survey atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise, and good. The focus of the present study is on atheism occurring within a context of thought normally called "religious."

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

atheism, n.
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No, it's the denial that God exists. To be an atheist is to say that the statement, "God exists." is false.

But what if you're not an atheist? What if you're both an educator/lecturer (and there are other possibilities) in the field and are agnostic? The political trend/narrative has been to argue the terms of controversy relative to educating youth in the field of sciences in a manner that is premised upon atheism versus the faithful with regard to the legislation and general discussion. Which is a loaded model. This is where the theoretical line that devides political science from the genuine stuff does and must continue to exist given the ignorance. I think it's good as is (because it must remain as a devider given the problems with the narrative or popular approach) but cannot and will not continue to exist as we transition both generational and infrastructural.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

No, it's the absence of a belief in God, which isn't the same as a belief that God doesn't exist. It's as if you were to ask me, "Do you believe I have a nickel in my pocket?" Not knowing anything about what you might have in your pocket, I'd answer "No" because I don't, in fact, have such a belief. But that wouldn't mean that I believed that you didn't have one.

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

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Because government employs them and like any employer, the government has the right to tell them what will and won't be taught. The teaching of creationism as an alternative scientific explanation in a public school violates the First Amendment and is bad policy to boot.

I wouldn't mind if creationism and evolution were discussed in a class devoted to contemporary political issues, or if the Scopes Trial were discussed in an American History class. I wouldn't even mind if a high school honors English class read Paradise Lost or the Inferno. But I'd want to make sure that the teacher didn't use the opportunity to preach to the kids.

The government is not afforded the same rights as a legitimate employer or business. So no, they don't have the right, even though they hijacked the system, to tell their employees what to teach. They are using taxpayer money. Once they start using their own money, then they get to decide what their employees can teach.

If you don't mind it discussed in those classes, then why is it suddenly a problem when it's discussed in science class? You are basically suspending your belief in the free market. You believe that the government has no right to tell people how to run their businesses, but when it comes to schools and learning, all of a sudden teachers can't think for themselves and the government needs to step in and tell them how to do their jobs. This rigid line between the subjects does not exist. Evolution is not science. It's history. The only problem is that, if you put it in an actual history class, the history teachers would have problems finding evidence that any of it actually happened.

So they pass it off as science so it can't be questioned. They treat it like it's already been established as fact, when that's far from the truth. 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." After all, it wouldn't be on TV if it wasn't true, right?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Math really is pretty boring. It can be made fun. Schoolhouse Rock is one example of how to make beginning math fun. It used music, art, and storytelling to accomplish that. Have you ever attempted to teach math to a preschooler? Limit the lesson to just math, and you've lost your audience. If you fail to come up with something more creative than "This is a zero. Zero is a placeholder in the 10 based number system...," you'll put them to sleep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxYsgRsNg2s

That's spot on. Is why I had referenced the value of the arts earlier on in the discussion. And the arts are quickly becoming commonplace in the science classroom. Science communication is a field in and of itself. Very good point, RockEnds.

Here are some examples of how the arts contribute to interest (just interest) and in some instances make their way onto digital whiteboards in the classroom.

[video=youtube;BuxFXHircaI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BuxFXHircaI#![/video]

 

[cubical]

An unobserved mutation from a single celled life form(that somehow gained life) to current day humans is just as scientific as ID. In fact, being as objective as I can, ID is far more plausible. Just because you attach a story to your observations it does not make it fact and force feeding to my child as such without question is absolutely wrong.

 

[cubical]

..

SIAP

 

[Natural Citizen]

That's around an hour and a half long, cubical. What is it?

Nevermind. I see now.

 

[cubical]

That's around an hour and a half long, cubical. What is it?

Nevermind. I see now.

Yeah, it's long so most won't watch. I wouldn't if it were on evolution. But if you are interested in science of ID, it is a good video and should at least make you think about your pre conceived thoughts on evolutionary biology.

 

[jmdrake]

But what if you're not an atheist? What if you're both an educator/lecturer (and there are other possibilities) in the field and are agnostic?

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......?

 

[RockEnds]

That's spot on. Is why I had referenced the value of the arts earlier on in the discussion. And the arts are quickly becoming commonplace in the science classroom. Science communication is a field in and of itself. Very good point, RockEnds.

Here are some examples of how the arts contribute to interest (just interest) and in some instances make their way onto digital whiteboards in the classroom.

As they should. This is one of our kindergarten units on plants and seeds:

We had a FOSS science lab that accompanied this, but apparently I didn't take pictures of that. She always has fun with the labs.

I understand the concern for promoting math and science. I simply disagree with the idea that to promote math or science, the school should allow more time for just math or science and segregate them from other subjects. IMO, that type of thinking is part of the reason our school system is a failed model. Children are complex social creatures whose minds are spinning quickly in many directions at one time. It's so much easier to use that to one's advantage than it is to try to change it.

Yesterday, my daughter was giving me some grief about an assignment. I suggested she could be at school with her nose in a textbook. She, uh, asked me what a textbook is. I had to look. I pulled out my one textbook and asked her to read the first two pages of chapter one. She decided that I was right. It was not the most exciting way to spend one's day. It was a 9th grade history text. She's in 2nd grade. She read it at about a 95% accuracy. If I can teach a child to read without a teaching degree or a pile of textbooks, why does the school have so much difficulty?

IMO, the public schools are a failed model.

 

[jmdrake]

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."

As they should. This is one of our kindergarten units on plants and seeds:

We had a FOSS science lab that accompanied this, but apparently I didn't take pictures of that. She always has fun with the labs.

I understand the concern for promoting math and science. I simply disagree with the idea that to promote math or science, the school should allow more time for just math or science and segregate them from other subjects. IMO, that type of thinking is part of the reason our school system is a failed model. Children are complex social creatures whose minds are spinning quickly in many directions at one time. It's so much easier to use that to one's advantage than it is to try to change it.

Yesterday, my daughter was giving me some grief about an assignment. I suggested she could be at school with her nose in a textbook. She, uh, asked me what a textbook is. I had to look. I pulled out my one textbook and asked her to read the first two pages of chapter one. She decided that I was right. It was not the most exciting way to spend one's day. It was a 9th grade history text. She's in 2nd grade. She read it at about a 95% accuracy. If I can teach a child to read without a teaching degree or a pile of textbooks, why does the school have so much difficulty?

IMO, the public schools are a failed model.