"Anti-science Bills in the South"

Skwim · Jan 25, 2018

Ponder This said:
I don't think the issue is properly framed not as religion vs science but in terms of who decides what is taught to children in schools.

Parents have a say in what their children learn. I don't agree with a society where the parents don't take an interest in the education of their children. So, yeah, parents should have the right to challenge the materials taught in classrooms and maybe even "any citizen" should be allowed to challenge what is taught, but that may bear some scrutiny.
Allowing school districts to set their own standards for their classrooms makes sense to me and maybe the dark-side of that is that some school districts want to teach nonsense. It isn't wise to teach things that aren't science as if they were science, but the real question is who decides what is taught, imo.

I Agree, And who gets to decide are the people elected or appointed to school boards. They're the ones who are suppose to be representing their community's interests and the interests of the students.

Professionals should have a say, sure, but if it's my child, and I think the "professionals" are full of ****, then that's just the way of it.

Not sure what professionals you have in mind.

.
.

David T · Jan 25, 2018

Skwim said:
According to the NCSE link, Brandon Haught of Florida Citizens for Science writes in the Orlando Sentinel that

Science education in Florida’s public schools is facing an unprecedented assault that started last year and has the high potential to escalate this year. Evolution and climate change are the targets of a coordinated attack as detractors of these concepts seek to balance lessons with some forms of creationism or denial of human-caused climate change.

Mr. Haught warns of a new law that, incredibly, allows any citizen to challenge instructional materials that they do not like. Another pair of bills would allow school districts to set their own science standards and allow “controversial” theories to be “taught in a factual, objective, and balanced manner.” Balanced treatment; critical thinking. I think we all know what that means.

Perhaps worse, a bill introduced in the Alabama House would

allow teachers to present “the theory of creation as presented in the Bible” in any class discussing evolution, “thereby affording students a choice as to which theory to accept.” The bill would also ensure that creationist students would not be penalized for answering examination questions in a way reflecting their adherence to creationism, “provided the response is correct according to the instruction received.”

The bill, according to NCSE, is modeled on a Kentucky law that was enacted in 1976, before the Supreme Court killed the balanced-treatment ruse. NCSE calls the Kentucky law unconstitutional.
source

So, bad, bad, bad; good; or who cares?

.

Seems like a normal dysfunctional family squabble.

Jose Fly · Jan 25, 2018

Ponder This said:
I don't think the issue is properly framed not as religion vs science but in terms of who decides what is taught to children in schools.

Parents have a say in what their children learn. I don't agree with a society where the parents don't take an interest in the education of their children. So, yeah, parents should have the right to challenge the materials taught in classrooms and maybe even "any citizen" should be allowed to challenge what is taught, but that may bear some scrutiny.
Allowing school districts to set their own standards for their classrooms makes sense to me and maybe the dark-side of that is that some school districts want to teach nonsense. It isn't wise to teach things that aren't science as if they were science, but the real question is who decides what is taught, imo.

Professionals should have a say, sure, but if it's my child, and I think the "professionals" are full of ****, then that's just the way of it. And if there is a real problem, then professionals and parents needs to get together and work out their differences. If parents want professionals to teach their children, then they are just going to have to suck it up and let them teach. I don't agree with a lot of micro-managing, either accept what the professionals teach or don't have your children be taught by professionals. It's that simple. Have some second rate village idiot teach your children if that it what you really want, but don't pretend like they got a degree they didn't earn: that's the role of standards set by professionals in the larger community.

So, I don't have a problem with parents who take an interest in their children's education or in giving school districts a certain degree of freedom. If more freedom is given to school districts, then parents are going to have to step up to the plate if they want their children to succeed because there are still standards set by professionals and maybe parents should be thinking about if their children are being prepared to meet all the challenges the world poses.

That brings up a good point that I think is important to this topic....how do we set science curricula?

Since most of science education is conveying to students the current state of the science on various subjects, we work with actual scientists to identify what the "current state" is, and then we reflect that in the textbooks and other materials. And the hard truth is, evolutionary theory is overwhelmingly supported and utilized by the scientific community, whereas creationism (and its variants) isn't...at all. So when we teach science, we teach evolutionary theory and not creationism.

But obviously some in the public don't like that, and it leads to an obvious question.....by what other process should we set science curricula?

james bond · Jan 26, 2018

ChristineM said:
Wrong, again. Sheesh. If their work could stand scrutiny then there is no reason for it not to be published. As it stands, the only publication they can get is on creationism websites that are not peer reviewed

The creation scientists peer review each other's work. Probably just as good, if not better. than atheist scientists for other atheist scientists imho.

And how do you know? What peer reviews have you read recently? My most recent ones were responding to a white hole cosmology review and the bounded universe. If atheist scientists come to admit the universe is bounded than boundless, then it means the earth is at the center of the universe. Not to mention atheist scientists were wrong again.

Skwim · Jan 26, 2018

james bond said:
The creation scientists peer review each other's work. Probably just as good, if not better. than atheist scientists for other atheist scientists imho.

And how do you know? What peer reviews have you read recently? My most recent ones were responding to a white hole cosmology review and the bounded universe. If atheist scientists come to admit the universe is bounded than boundless, then it means the earth is at the center of the universe. Not to mention atheist scientists were wrong again.

I know what a god-awful kick you get out of labeling scientists "atheists," but like it or not, not all scientists are atheists. In fact a healthy percentage of them are not.

source

And, considering that 98% of all scientists believe in evolution, there has to be an enormous number who are evolution supporting Christians.
(source)

But go ahead with your silly "atheist scientists" if it lets you sleep better at night.

.

james bond · Jan 26, 2018

Skwim said:
I know what a god-awful kick you get out of labeling scientists "atheists," but like it or not, not all scientists are atheists. In fact a healthy percentage of them are not.

source

And, considering that 98% of all scientists believe in evolution, there has to be an enormous number who are evolutionary supporting Christians.
(source)

But go ahead with your silly "atheist scientists" if it lets you sleep better at night.

.

I sleep fine regardless. I would think the non-believers are greater in number today than in 2009. I call them atheist scientists because they cannot use God, the supernatural and the Bible by their definition of science. Today's science was created by the uniformitarian thinking (which later became evolutionary thinking) of atheists Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin in the 1850s. So, right off the bat, even if God and the supernatural, i.e. miracle, was true, it cannot be used. As for the Bible being a religious book, it's part that because it's the word of God, but it's also a non-fiction book. What creation scientists use as a guide is the Bible. This is not to say that it is their source. More like the Bible is their inspiration. God and the supernatural can be taken away, but the Bible stays. This was the way it used to be as catastrophism, God, the supernatural and the Bible were part of science. It was part of society. The criticism was that the creation scientists of old relied too much on God as a source. It was the Christians saying to their scientists that you are using the God of the Gaps argument to validate your science. This wasn't right either. Since the 1850s, the pendulum has swung 180 degrees and it's now the atheist scientists who are in power. God, the supernatural and the Bible has been systematically eliminated completely. Even if creation was true, they would not be able to come up with a test or experiment for it nor consider it to be a factor. Thus, the battle goes on between creation science and atheist science, and I would think the creation scientists took a big leap forward since 2011 when many scientists started to think that evolution was not true. They do not admit it publicly, but keep it to themselves. It usually doesn't affect their work, as evolution isn't a factor unless it has to do with dating something or some evolutionary theory in zoology, biology, paleontology or geology.

ChristineM · Jan 26, 2018

james bond said:
The creation scientists peer review each other's work. Probably just as good, if not better. than atheist scientists for other atheist scientists imho.

And how do you know? What peer reviews have you read recently? My most recent ones were responding to a white hole cosmology review and the bounded universe. If atheist scientists come to admit the universe is bounded than boundless, then it means the earth is at the center of the universe. Not to mention atheist scientists were wrong again.

Hats lie asking school kids to mark there friends work.

I have told you this before, you seem to ignore it, not all scientists are athiest but most of them are honest in their persuit of science.

I regularly see what's new on arxiv
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology authors/titles recent submissions

and the perimeter institute.
Some of my papers

You (and the papers you claim to read) have a serious egotistical misunderstanding of the nature of the the universe.
[0710.5321] The cmb dipole and existence of a center for expansion of the universe

Subduction Zone · Jan 26, 2018

james bond said:
The creation scientists peer review each other's work. Probably just as good, if not better. than atheist scientists for other atheist scientists imho.

And how do you know? What peer reviews have you read recently? My most recent ones were responding to a white hole cosmology review and the bounded universe. If atheist scientists come to admit the universe is bounded than boundless, then it means the earth is at the center of the universe. Not to mention atheist scientists were wrong again.

Sorry, but "creation scientists" only do a circle jerk of each other's work. There is no real peer review. The work of science deniers is laughed at in the world of the sciences. I seriously doubt if you read any peer review.

What well respected professional peer review journals do you follow? Your bias against actual science is obvious to all. You really do not fool anyone with your false claims of "creation science".

SkepticThinker · Jan 26, 2018

james bond said:
I sleep fine regardless. I would think the non-believers are greater in number today than in 2009. I call them atheist scientists because they cannot use God, the supernatural and the Bible by their definition of science. Today's science was created by the uniformitarian thinking (which later became evolutionary thinking) of atheists Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin in the 1850s. So, right off the bat, even if God and the supernatural, i.e. miracle, was true, it cannot be used. As for the Bible being a religious book, it's part that because it's the word of God, but it's also a non-fiction book. What creation scientists use as a guide is the Bible. This is not to say that it is their source. More like the Bible is their inspiration. God and the supernatural can be taken away, but the Bible stays. This was the way it used to be as catastrophism, God, the supernatural and the Bible were part of science. It was part of society. The criticism was that the creation scientists of old relied too much on God as a source. It was the Christians saying to their scientists that you are using the God of the Gaps argument to validate your science. This wasn't right either. Since the 1850s, the pendulum has swung 180 degrees and it's now the atheist scientists who are in power. God, the supernatural and the Bible has been systematically eliminated completely. Even if creation was true, they would not be able to come up with a test or experiment for it nor consider it to be a factor. Thus, the battle goes on between creation science and atheist science, and I would think the creation scientists took a big leap forward since 2011 when many scientists started to think that evolution was not true. They do not admit it publicly, but keep it to themselves. It usually doesn't affect their work, as evolution isn't a factor unless it has to do with dating something or some evolutionary theory in zoology, biology, paleontology or geology.

Nobody can use God, the supernatural or "miracles." Not anybody who's actually doing science, that is. Those are things that fall outside the realm of testable, measurable, repeatable science. Unless of course, someone can demonstrate the existence of any of those things. You acknowledge at least that much yourself and yet somehow still insist that "creation scientists" have it figured out. To mean, it seems apparent that "supernatural" and "miracles" are just words people use when they can't think of an explanation as to how something has occurred - basically just an argument from personal incredulity.

That's it. No vast "atheist scientist" conspiracy. Just straight up facts.

Ponder This · Jan 26, 2018

Skwim said:
I know what a god-awful kick you get out of labeling scientists "atheists," but like it or not, not all scientists are atheists. In fact a healthy percentage of them are not.

source

And, considering that 98% of all scientists believe in evolution, there has to be an enormous number who are evolutionary supporting Christians.
(source)

But go ahead with your silly "atheist scientists" if it lets you sleep better at night.

.

It looks like biological and medical scientists still mostly ascribe to a higher power.
Surprise!
It's actually the physicists and astronomers who are taking the more atheist stance!

I think a deeper exploration will further discover that people by and large don't change their religious beliefs when they learn about evolution. The only reason evolution is branded as an atheist idea is because until atheists learn about evolution, they don't have a substantial belief system about their own origins that they can cling to.
That's not a dig against atheists, it's just that people do have certain natural psychological tendencies and atheists are not immune. Their rejection of the common religious explanations just means they will search elsewhere for the same answers.

Polymath257 · Jan 26, 2018

james bond said:
Wrong, again. Sheesh. They do real research and are not published in refereed (?) journals because they are discriminated against for their beliefs. Atheist science has systematically eliminated them from their science.

Garbage. The most they do is misinterpret the research others have done. They don't do any field work themselves.

The only reason they have been 'systematically eliminated' is that their ideas make no sense and are not supported by the evidence. The same is true for flat-earthers, and for the same reasons. The scientific debate over creationism happened over 150 years ago. It is over now. All that is left is the propaganda war in the popular press, specifically in the fundamentalist press. But no real scientist takes much notice of this.

james bond · Jan 26, 2018

ChristineM said:
Hats lie asking school kids to mark there friends work.

I have told you this before, you seem to ignore it, not all scientists are athiest but most of them are honest in their persuit of science.

I regularly see what's new on arxiv
General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology authors/titles recent submissions

and the perimeter institute.
Some of my papers

You (and the papers you claim to read) have a serious egotistical misunderstanding of the nature of the the universe.
[0710.5321] The cmb dipole and existence of a center for expansion of the universe

I didn't say they were dishonest, but they practice atheist science so I label them as such. For example, origins of life MUST have a natural cause. The origins of the universe MUST have a natural cause. No supernatural or miracles as it is NOT science. Extraterrestrial life forms, we'll accept even though there is no evidence for it. It's become a creation science vs atheist science world.

ChristineM · Jan 26, 2018

james bond said:
I didn't say they were dishonest, but they practice atheist science so I label them as such. For example, origins of life MUST have a natural cause. The origins of the universe MUST have a natural cause. No supernatural or miracles as it is NOT science. Extraterrestrial life forms, we'll accept even though there is no evidence for it. It's become a creation science vs atheist science world.

Please reference a scientific paper which claims "must have" anything. The only such claims i ever see are in creationist woo and that's what gives their game away (and that of their gullible readers). They claim "must" without providing evidence for such a claim.

Science has nothing to say on supernatural because it cannot be observed or measured. So what this boils down to is the paranoia of not comprehending what science actually says.

ChristineM · Jan 26, 2018

james bond said:
I didn't say they were dishonest, but they practice atheist science so I label them as such. For example, origins of life MUST have a natural cause. The origins of the universe MUST have a natural cause. No supernatural or miracles as it is NOT science. Extraterrestrial life forms, we'll accept even though there is no evidence for it. It's become a creation science vs atheist science world.

Oh, just to let you know, ive just Googled "what is atheist science" guess how many relevant to you use of the term results were returned on page 1.... You guessed right... zero.

corynski · Jan 26, 2018

ThePainefulTruth said:
Climate Change and global warming are PC BS and have been exposed. Evolution, on the other hand, has been virtually proven. Lesson: libs should learn to be objective instead of pursuing socialism as their own brand of blind faith religion.

"Exposed as PC BS"? You wish....... Seems like it's 50/50, it will either happen or it won't.

SinSaber · Jan 26, 2018

This is barely news worthy. You just started this thread to *****, *****

james bond · Jan 27, 2018

ChristineM said:
Oh, just to let you know, ive just Googled "what is atheist science" guess how many relevant to you use of the term results were returned on page 1.... You guessed right... zero.

Atheists are usually wrong.

LMGTFY

james bond · Jan 27, 2018

ChristineM said:
Please reference a scientific paper which claims "must have" anything. The only such claims i ever see are in creationist woo and that's what gives their game away (and that of their gullible readers). They claim "must" without providing evidence for such a claim.

Science has nothing to say on supernatural because it cannot be observed or measured. So what this boils down to is the paranoia of not comprehending what science actually says.

Not quite. Descartes thought that our mind/consciousness was separate from our body in proposing dualism. I'm not sure how it's done, but it's possible to measure the electrical impulses in our brain, i.e. brain waves, that shows that we are having dreams. What may be more difficult to measure are thoughts and when we are experiencing or remembering something. Others say it's chemicals and electrical impulses in our brain, but chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain doesn't necessary lead to thoughts, dreams or living/reliving experiences. Thus, there is something more involved like the supernatural maybe?

What is the Philosophy of Mind?

My thinking is that the Trinity could be part of the electromagnetic spectrum. God is in the high band of gamma rays, Jesus is visible light and the Holy Spirit is radio waves.

ChristineM · Jan 27, 2018

james bond said:
Atheists are usually wrong.

LMGTFY

Yet you happily use the fruits of atheist science, your term, to make such claims. Do you not see the contradiction in your statement?

And of course your post in no way addresses my search. Is this because you know the truth and are unwilling to actually face that truth on a public thread?

ChristineM · Jan 27, 2018

james bond said:
Not quite. Descartes thought that our mind/consciousness was separate from our body in proposing dualism. I'm not sure how it's done, but it's possible to measure the electrical impulses in our brain, i.e. brain waves, that shows that we are having dreams. What may be more difficult to measure are thoughts and when we are experiencing or remembering something. Others say it's chemicals and electrical impulses in our brain, but chemicals and electrical impulses in the brain doesn't necessary lead to thoughts, dreams or living/reliving experiences. Thus, there is something more involved like the supernatural maybe?

What is the Philosophy of Mind?

My thinking is that the Trinity could be part of the electromagnetic spectrum. God is in the high band of gamma rays, Jesus is visible light and the Holy Spirit is radio waves.

Descartes lived and worked 400 years ago. Knowledge has advanced somewhat since then, and of course what gives you the impression that 27th century philosophy is relevant to science?

And how does this answer my query? Let me me guess. It doesn't .you know is doesn't but you can't actually provide an answer so do the next best thing in your mind, provide irrelevant stuff and pretend

"Anti-science Bills in the South"

Anti-science Bills in the South

Bad, bad, bad idea,

Good idea

Who cares

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Fisker of men

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Think & Care

Well-Known Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

Reality First!

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.