New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong.

[ecco]

Very true. I'm hoping at some point some good lawyers advise some Ohio Republicans on how this bill is a series of lawsuits waiting to happen.


As I'm sure you know, fundamentalist Christians have been trying all sorts of schemes to get the government to teach their religious beliefs to kids in public schools....they've been doing it for decades, and I doubt they're going to stop any time soon either.

The obviously cannot abide kids getting a secular education, which speaks volumes.

All Christians, including Fundamentalist Christians, would benefit from understanding those parts of history that caused the Puritans to flee England. More often than not, in the past, it was Christian against Christian rather than Christians against secularism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Agreed. I watched my mother teach in a high school. She got criticized for giving too many A's, then too many C's, then for not following the precise syllabus for each day, then.....

Higher Ed is a MUCH better living.

In higher education, you also have the added factor that the students that are there, actually are there out of their own free will, because they want to - not because they are required by law to be there. And they are adults, not a bunch of teenagers that are just discovering their hormones

That alone makes up for a world of difference.
And off course idd the parents... they tend to let go after high school.

I'ld love to teach one day.
But definatly not in high school! lol

 

[cladking]

This is the problem with rote learning in general.

This is part of the reason schools have failed. They don't teach critical thinking. They only teach kids to hate school. They are so pathetic that they teach to the test now days. It's all rote learning and has been for decades.

Students gain mastery of nothing unless they are self motivated and few of them are because they've learned to hate school.

If everyone else has to memorize answers and parrot them back then religious kids should as well.

In the future every answer will be acceptable and every kid will get 100%. And no one will learn anything at all.

 

[Shad]

This is part of the reason schools have failed. They don't teach critical thinking.

I am in Canada so my experience may be different. I found English, Chemistry, Lab Bio, various "Shops" and Arts to promote critical thinking. History was mostly rote until students were in 9/10 English at which point a lot of essay and literature replacing spelling and grammar assignments.

They only teach kids to hate school. They are so pathetic that they teach to the test now days. It's all rote learning and has been for decades.

This is a problem in any class with a standardized test.

Students gain mastery of nothing unless they are self motivated and few of them are because they've learned to hate school.

What grade(s) do electives and open selection start in your area?

If everyone else has to memorize answers and parrot them back then religious kids should as well.

Keep in mind some of that rote learning covers terminology. At least up here.

 

[nPeace]

I really can't say, as it's a phrase I don't use. I figured since you used it, you could shed some light into what it refers to.

Hmmm.
Didn't I? How much brighter should I light it?
Jose Fly said...
This is the part I'm not getting. It seems like you're saying that everything that "bears the marks of a doctrine of men" is automatically not true. ("it does not stand up to the truth. Primarily because it bears the marks of a doctrine of men").

Does that mean nothing "men" say is true?

nPeace replied...
What is said, and what is taught (as Gospel), are two different things. Agreed?

Are you sure you are asking the right questions?

I'm simply asking if you believe a Christian acknowledging evolutionary common ancestry as real and valid excludes them from salvation. Is it possible for you to give a yes or no answer?

I'm not in the business of deciding who get's salvation. That's God's business.
So no, I cannot give you a yes or no answer.
I think you mean universal common ancestry, rather than evolutionary common ancestry. Terminology is very important in discussions like these.

I know what you are getting at though... from the get go.
So,I won't prolong your suffering any longer.
I understand what you are struggling with. Let me try to remove some of that darkness and thick gloom... but it is up to you to open your eyes, and remove yourself from the gloom.

First. This is not a case of religion against science, or scientific fact. It is about evaluating what is truth,
Earlier, I believe I explained quite clearly the situation. Why Fly is driving on this dark, one way street, is obvious though.
Recall, I said...
So, in a nutshell, it is just a matter of people choosing their system of belief. In other words, a Christian who listens to truth, and is led by truth, will be set free, and not be misled by doctrines of men - philosophy... which the theory of evolution evidently falls into.

So when Masatoshi Nei says... "any time a scientific theory is treated like dogma, you have to question it... You have to question dogma. Use common sense. You have to think for yourself, without preconceptions", it applies to every living, breathing human being - religious or not, Christian or not.

A person cannot evaluate information, and use common sense, and reason, if they have no knowledge at all. That alone is common sense. Isn't that true?

Let me draw your attention to just one individual, whom I think, we can say, applied Masatoshi Nei's words, as well as other words he appreciated. "Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything."

Anthony Flew used reason and common sense, to conclude that there must be a designer, because no amount of "bleating" about how "it only looks designed", or "it only gives the appearance of design", could convince him that it is not design. So he went where the evidence led him.

Spoiler: Design

My point. Christians do the same. However, as I said before, they were taught the truth, by someone who knows it, so they have an edge really.
So Fly, really you are either fishing in the wrong waters, or using the wrong bait.
There is only one question you asked, that I have remaining to be answered, and that is... On what basis does evolutionary theory fall into the category of "philosophy"?

Let me just clear this one thing up for you though. If I believe something, and it is wrong or not factual, it doesn't mean that automatically I have been influenced by the Devil.
For example, a teaching or view may be popularized, by people, and I may be led to believe it, or jump on the bandwagon, in some cases. All I have basically done, is chosen a belief.
Whether that belief or view is a Satanic one, is the question that needs to be considered... at least for those who believe Satan is a real spirit being that controls this world, and promotes teachings in opposition to God's, so as to mislead the masses.
Do I think the idea of UCA is a Satanic teaching? I will address that along with the question I promised to answer.
See how easy that was? You could have come right out and asked me directly, instead of fishing. LOL

Well that's too bad. Hope it works out.

Thanks. Me too.

 

[cladking]

I am in Canada so my experience may be different. I found English, Chemistry, Lab Bio, various "Shops" and Arts to promote critical thinking. History was mostly rote until students were in 9/10 English at which point a lot of essay and literature replacing spelling and grammar assignments.



This is a problem in any class with a standardized test.



What grade(s) do electives and open selection start in your area?



Keep in mind some of that rote learning covers terminology. At least up here.

Canadian schools are a little better. They get worse all the time here as more and more interference comes down from government and they tie teachers' hands. Usually there is a little selection for specific classes as early as 6th grade but the real electives don't start until grade 9.

I know some learning must be rote but a lot of opinion is being foisted as fact to be memorized and regurgitated. Indoctrination and propaganda are words that come to mind. Manufacturers are given access to peddle their products and brainwash the new "consumers".

 

[Ponder This]

In post #19, you say:

I realize it also says grades and scores will be "calculated using ordinary standards", but that's a testament to just how poorly this bill is written.

I asked you:

Can you elaborate on why this is poorly written?

You haven't been able to really explain how the bill is poorly written.

You say:

First, that makes no sense. You agree that the student is being penalized for the answer he gave, but since his answer is a clear expression of his religious beliefs, he cannot be penalized for it under this bill. "He has not been penalized for his religious content" is nonsensical, given that his answer is entirely religious.

And the bill states directly that:

Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance,including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work.

So it should be clear from reading this that the grades and scores (e.g. whether the student received an "A" or an "F") is calculated using academic standards of substance and relevance and not penalized or rewarded based on religious content. But you continue to insist that the bill asserts that grades be assigned not on academic standards of substance and relevance but instead on religious content (which is the reverse of what the bill states).

The answer to the scientific question; "How old is the Earth?"
Is not "The Word of God teaches that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old" according to academic standards of substance and relevance. On the point of substance, ordinary science does not claim "the Earth is no more than 10000 years old". On the point of relevance, ordinary science does draw its conclusions from "the Word of God". So yes, the religious content, according to the bill, is irrelevant. Yet, you assert otherwise.

Second, by declaring his religious beliefs to be irrelevant, the school is making a clear statement about his religious beliefs. IOW, the school would be telling the student "The Word of God is irrelevant regarding the age of the earth". Do you really think that's what the Ohio Republicans had in mind when they wrote this thing?

We, in fact, know what the (republican) sponsor of the bill had in mind, because according to this source (Does Ohio Bill Let Students Give Wrong Answers Based on Religion?) provided by @dybmh in post #83, we know that the specific objection you assert was raised by ACLU of Ohio Chief Lobbyist Gary Daniels and that the bill's sponsor maintained that students could not abuse the bill to avoid answering questions by responding with religious content:

[Rep. Timothy] Ginter, the bill’s sponsor, said that the student would get a lesser grade in a biology class for an evolution assignment. Even if the student doesn’t believe in evolutionary theory, the student must turn in work that accurately reflects what is taught.

“It will be graded using ordinary academic standards of using substance and relevance,” he said.

“This doesn’t give student a get-out-of-jail free card.”​

So to answer your question, yes, I think that's what the Ohio Republicans had in mind when they wrote this "thing": that the student's religious beliefs are not relevant.

Finally, all this does is further illustrate just how ridiculous and self-contradictory this bill is. Hopefully it'll just die in the Senate and that'll be the end of it.

As far as I can tell, you have only illustrated how ridiculous and self-contradictory your interpretation of the bill is. You appear to think that the bill allows teachers to penalize or reward students on the basis of the religious content of their answers.

 

[Jose Fly]

Hmmm.
Didn't I? How much brighter should I light it?
Jose Fly said...
This is the part I'm not getting. It seems like you're saying that everything that "bears the marks of a doctrine of men" is automatically not true. ("it does not stand up to the truth. Primarily because it bears the marks of a doctrine of men").

Does that mean nothing "men" say is true?

nPeace replied...
What is said, and what is taught (as Gospel), are two different things. Agreed?

Are you sure you are asking the right questions?

Unfortunately, I still don't know what you mean by "the doctrines of men". Can you clarify?

I'm not in the business of deciding who get's salvation. That's God's business.
So no, I cannot give you a yes or no answer.

You have absolutely no beliefs at all about what is or isn't crucial for salvation? That's surprising.

I think you mean universal common ancestry, rather than evolutionary common ancestry. Terminology is very important in discussions like these.

Good catch. I'll try and be more precise in the future.

I know what you are getting at though... from the get go.
So,I won't prolong your suffering any longer.
I understand what you are struggling with. Let me try to remove some of that darkness and thick gloom... but it is up to you to open your eyes, and remove yourself from the gloom.

First. This is not a case of religion against science, or scientific fact. It is about evaluating what is truth,
Earlier, I believe I explained quite clearly the situation. Why Fly is driving on this dark, one way street, is obvious though.
Recall, I said...
So, in a nutshell, it is just a matter of people choosing their system of belief. In other words, a Christian who listens to truth, and is led by truth, will be set free, and not be misled by doctrines of men - philosophy... which the theory of evolution evidently falls into.

So when Masatoshi Nei says... "any time a scientific theory is treated like dogma, you have to question it... You have to question dogma. Use common sense. You have to think for yourself, without preconceptions", it applies to every living, breathing human being - religious or not, Christian or not.

A person cannot evaluate information, and use common sense, and reason, if they have no knowledge at all. That alone is common sense. Isn't that true?

Agreed.

Let me draw your attention to just one individual, whom I think, we can say, applied Masatoshi Nei's words, as well as other words he appreciated. "Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything."

Anthony Flew used reason and common sense, to conclude that there must be a designer, because no amount of "bleating" about how "it only looks designed", or "it only gives the appearance of design", could convince him that it is not design. So he went where the evidence led him.

Spoiler: Design

My point. Christians do the same. However, as I said before, they were taught the truth, by someone who knows it, so they have an edge really.
So Fly, really you are either fishing in the wrong waters, or using the wrong bait.

It seems you're saying something like "we all should question and examine everything, and Anthony Flew used reason and common sense to conclude there must be a designer".

The problem is, I agree with and/or know all that. I just don't understand the point. It's like, Anthony Flew concluded there must be a designer, therefore................?

And I certainly don't understand how any of that relates to my question about whether universal common ancestry is a salvation issue.

There is only one question you asked, that I have remaining to be answered, and that is... On what basis does evolutionary theory fall into the category of "philosophy"?

Let me just clear this one thing up for you though. If I believe something, and it is wrong or not factual, it doesn't mean that automatically I have been influenced by the Devil.
For example, a teaching or view may be popularized, by people, and I may be led to believe it, or jump on the bandwagon, in some cases. All I have basically done, is chosen a belief.

Okay, I understand that.

Whether that belief or view is a Satanic one, is the question that needs to be considered... at least for those who believe Satan is a real spirit being that controls this world, and promotes teachings in opposition to God's, so as to mislead the masses.
Do I think the idea of UCA is a Satanic teaching? I will address that along with the question I promised to answer.

Okay, I look forward to you addressing that question. I hope you also further explain how you see evolution as a philosophy, 'cause the above doesn't really do that.

Thanks. Me too.

Good luck!

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

The fact that we are the product of evolution does not refute the existence of God.

The idea that we are the products of evolution is not an established fact, but a proposed theory.

I also never made the claim that the idea that we are the products of evolution refuted the existence of God.

The idea that we are the products of evolution does conflict with my personal beliefs about Man and Man's relationship with God.

However, since I have received a witness from the Holy Spirit that has confirmed my beliefs concerning Man and Man's relationship with God in my mind and heart, I am much more inclined to hold to them than to the idea that we are the products of evolution.

That is the mistake that many creationists make.

It is not a mistake at all if the said Creationist believes in a literal Adam and Eve being formed in God's image.

It all depends on how they interpret the scriptures.

They think that their God is the only possible version of God and ignore the bad theology involved with that belief.

The term "bad theology" is completely subjective and therefore, in my opinion, worthless.

But science may eventually find evidence for God. Though I think that to be highly unlikely. The attitude of believers will have to change for that to happen.

I also believe this is highly unlikely, but I would contend that the attitude of non-believers would need to change first.

I see evidence for God in everything, so I don't think it's the attitude of believers that need to change.

 

[Jose Fly]

You haven't been able to really explain how the bill is poorly written.

I, and others here, have explained how this bill is self-contradictory numerous times.

So it should be clear from reading this that the grades and scores (e.g. whether the student received an "A" or an "F") is calculated using academic standards of substance and relevance and not penalized or rewarded based on religious content.

But what if the answer is entirely religious content?

But you continue to insist that the bill asserts that grades be assigned not on academic standards of substance and relevance but instead on religious content (which is the reverse of what the bill states).

Because in the example I gave ("the Word of God teaches that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old") is entirely religious content. Therefore, the teacher is put in the position of evaluating that religious content (because there's nothing else to evaluate). If the teacher gives the student an F, he is penalizing the student. If the teacher gives the student an "incomplete" based on irrelevance, he is penalizing the student and stating that the student's religious beliefs are irrelevant. If he gives the student an A, he is rewarding the student. Under this bill, all those are prohibited ("shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content").

The answer to the scientific question; "How old is the Earth?"
Is not "The Word of God teaches that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old" according to academic standards of substance and relevance. On the point of substance, ordinary science does not claim "the Earth is no more than 10000 years old". On the point of relevance, ordinary science does draw its conclusions from "the Word of God". So yes, the religious content, according to the bill, is irrelevant. Yet, you assert otherwise.

See above.

We, in fact, know what the (republican) sponsor of the bill had in mind, because according to this source (Does Ohio Bill Let Students Give Wrong Answers Based on Religion?) provided by @dybmh in post #83, we know that the specific objection you assert was raised by ACLU of Ohio Chief Lobbyist Gary Daniels and that the bill's sponsor maintained that students could not abuse the bill to avoid answering questions by responding with religious content:

[Rep. Timothy] Ginter, the bill’s sponsor, said that the student would get a lesser grade in a biology class for an evolution assignment. Even if the student doesn’t believe in evolutionary theory, the student must turn in work that accurately reflects what is taught.

“It will be graded using ordinary academic standards of using substance and relevance,” he said.

“This doesn’t give student a get-out-of-jail free card.”​

So to answer your question, yes, I think that's what the Ohio Republicans had in mind when they wrote this "thing": that the student's religious beliefs are not relevant.

It's good that that was their intent. In the opinion of many, they should then revise the bill to remove the contradiction.

As far as I can tell, you have only illustrated how ridiculous and self-contradictory your interpretation of the bill is. You appear to think that the bill allows teachers to penalize or reward students on the basis of the religious content of their answers.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The idea that we are the products of evolution is not an established fact, but a proposed theory.

I also never made the claim that the idea that we are the products of evolution refuted the existence of God.

The idea that we are the products of evolution does conflict with my personal beliefs about Man and Man's relationship with God.

No, the theory explains the fact. Just as the theory of gravity explains gravity. There is endless evidence for evolution and no scientific evidence for any other claims.

However, since I have received a witness from the Holy Spirit that has confirmed my beliefs concerning Man and Man's relationship with God in my mind and heart, I am much more inclined to hold to them than to the idea that we are the products of evolution.

More likely hallucination or wishful thinking than anything else. That is not a reliable source.

It is not a mistake at all if the said Creationist believes in a literal Adam and Eve being formed in God's image.

It all depends on how they interpret the scriptures.

A literal interpretation is bad theology, oooh, I see that you realized that below. Helpful hint, do not break up posts excessively. You broke up an idea mid thought. Not only rude, but then you do not know what you are responding to.

The term "bad theology" is completely subjective and therefore, in my opinion, worthless.

I also believe this is highly unlikely, but I would contend that the attitude of non-believers would need to change first.

I see evidence for God in everything, so I don't think it's the attitude of believers that need to change.

No, not really. Is your God evil? Is he capricious? If not then the Adam and Eve story is a myth. The "God" of that story was incompetent. He made Adam and Eve without the knowledge of right and wrong. If you read the myth they did not understand that what they did was wrong until after they ate the "apple". He then blames his creation for his error. That is not only the sign of an incompetent workman, it is an evil capricious workman. And no, you do not see evidence. You probably do not understand the concept. I have yet to meet a creationist that does. Most are afraid to learn. What you have is only confirmation bias. There is a big difference.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

All of science is taken tentatively, and is based on the current evidence. That is the whole point.

But it is exactly this caution that gives the scientific technique its power. Those things that have been repeatedly checked and verified are much less likely to be substantially wrong (as opposed to an imperfect approximation).

So, Newton was wrong in his theory of gravity, but it is such a good approximation that his ideas are still used for sending probes to other planets. That is a much different sort of wrongness than Ptolemy putting the Earth at the center of the universe with everything orbiting it.

Many of the basics that (some) religious people take exception to are in the 'possibly wrong but a very good approximation' category as opposed to 'completely wrong'. Evolution is known to happen; the mechanism is still debated. The universe is expanding and is about 13.7-8 billion years into the current expansion. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. We may be off in the second or third decimal place, but it is solid that the Earth is older than 4 billion years and that the universe is about 3 times as old as the Earth.

Part of the goal of the public educational system is to produce educated individuals that are capable of making the decisions necessary in a free society. This is ultimately what keeps our system running and, unfortunately, it is broken by those attempting to bring their religious agendas into the public schools. What we end up with is an *uneducated* populace that seems to be unable to deal with a wide range of basic scientific facts intelligently. This is ultimately dangerous.

The human experience is not only confined to how we observe nature.

It is crucial that our children learn all these laws and processes of nature, but they have the right to claim a divine source for these things as well.

How we calculate the age of the Earth and the universe is based on assumptions and there is always the possibility that those assumptions can be wrong.

I personally believe that the matter and element used to form the discernible universe are eternal and therefore their age cannot be determined.

I don't like how so many scientific theories (based on assumptions) are taught in absolute terms. Even as a child that always irked me.

I don't see anything wrong with our children being taught that all these wonderful things, that we can observe and measure, could have a divine origin.

I see no danger in that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The human experience is not only confined to how we observe nature.

It is crucial that our children learn all these laws and processes of nature, but they have the right to claim a divine source for these things as well.

How we calculate the age of the Earth and the universe is based on assumptions and there is always the possibility that those assumptions can be wrong.

I personally believe that the matter and element used to form the discernible universe are eternal and therefore their age cannot be determined.

I don't like how so many scientific theories (based on assumptions) are taught in absolute terms. Even as a child that always irked me.

I don't see anything wrong with our children being taught that all these wonderful things, that we can observe and measure, could have a divine origin.

I see no danger in that.

I am sorry, but the term "assumptions" is not allowed unless you can demonstrate the assumptions that you claim that are being used. Tell me, is "gravity" an assumption?

 

[Ponder This]

I would suggest something along the lines of

"No penalty or benefit shall be given for expression of a religious viewpoint *in addition to the academic work*."

This has the benefit of distinguishing the religious viewpoint from the academic work and allows the academic work to be graded for its own merits. Now, I am not in the habit of writing laws, but this at least deals with a major flaw.

I'm trying to understand how what you've suggested is better than the bill's statement:

"Assignment grades and scores shall be calculated using ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance,including any legitimate pedagogical concerns, and shall not penalize or reward a student based on the religious content of a student's work."​

You claim that your version addresses a major flaw by separating the religious viewpoint (or content) from the academic work. However, the topic of an essay, or the subject of an art piece, can be a religious topic or convey a religious viewpoint and contain or reference relevant religious content (as opposed to answering science questions with irrelevant religious content).

Perhaps you can explain more clearly the benefit of your version. For example, is there a benefit in legal interpretation or effect? Because my understanding is that the objection to the bill (according to you and also raised by @Sunstone) is that the bill will be interpreted

wildly different from anything a sane person would interpret them.

in the courts.

And, moreover, that

a whole lot of people here on RF struggle to even barely understand legal writing.

. And maybe that's true. That's fair. So what is it that people here on RF don't understand about legal writing in this context? And if it cannot be articulated here on RF, can someone direct me to relevant material that forms the basis of this opinion?

 

[Polymath257]

The human experience is not only confined to how we observe nature.

Of course not.

It is crucial that our children learn all these laws and processes of nature, but they have the right to claim a divine source for these things as well.

Of course they do. But a public school is not the place.

How we calculate the age of the Earth and the universe is based on assumptions and there is always the possibility that those assumptions can be wrong.

Of course that is a possibility. But are we likely to be so far wrong that the answers are off by a factor of 1000? Not likely at all. And yet, some claim that they are off by a factor of 500,000.

I personally believe that the matter and element used to form the discernible universe are eternal and therefore their age cannot be determined.

And yet, we manage to find ages for some of them (not all, but some).

I don't like how so many scientific theories (based on assumptions) are taught in absolute terms. Even as a child that always irked me.

And it irked me that religious ideas were taught in such absolute terms.

I don't see anything wrong with our children being taught that all these wonderful things, that we can observe and measure, could have a divine origin.

And there is a location for that: their place of worship. Not on a science question in a public school.

I see no danger in that.

And would you if it was a little Satanist child expressing their views? Or maybe an Islamic one? or a Pagan?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And would you if it was a little Satanist child expressing their views? Or maybe an Islamic one? or a Pagan?

To quote Holy Grail, "Burn her! Throw her into the pond!" and worse....

 

[Ponder This]

But what if the answer is entirely religious content?

If the student failed to meet academic standards of substance and relevance, then regardless of how much religious content he has included, he has failed to contribute anything upon which to calculate a grade or score. It is as if the student had not done any academic work at all, which would give him nothing.

If the teacher gives the student an F, he is penalizing the student. If the teacher gives the student an "incomplete" based on irrelevance, he is penalizing the student and stating that the student's religious beliefs are irrelevant.

The student's beliefs are irrelevant.
Is it your position that the religious content, in your example, satisfies academic standards of substance and relevance?

It's good that that was their intent. In the opinion of many, they should then revise the bill to remove the contradiction.

Although I, and others, do not see a problem with the wording of the bill, it is clear that you, and others, do see a problem with the wording of the bill.

Thanks for your time.

Thank You as well.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Let me draw your attention to just one individual, whom I think, we can say, applied Masatoshi Nei's words, as well as other words he appreciated. "Follow the evidence wherever it leads, and question everything."

That's ancient advice : "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

Incidentally, it is that application of this advice, called rational skepticism, in which all claims are questioned, and none believed without evidentiary support, that led me to atheism. If one questions the god claims of others, and insists that they produce suffuicieent evidence to support belief before believing, one is forced to remain agnostic regarding such claims, not accept them.

a Christian who listens to truth, and is led by truth, will be set free, and not be misled by doctrines of men - philosophy... which the theory of evolution evidently falls into.

To the atheist, all doctrines are doctrines of men, including Christianity. Just because somebody claims that a doctrine is of divine origin doesn't make it so, and absent evidence to support such a claim, it should not be believed. That principle, a doctrine of men, has been one of the most productive ever in the history of mankind.

Rational skepticism applied to the physical realm converted alchemy and astrology to chemistry and astronomy, transforming two useless and sterile faith-based pursuits into two extremely successful and productive sciences. That great gift of this doctrine of man is evidence that the principle is valid - more valid than it's faith-based alternatives, also the doctrines of men. All of the gifts of modern science are the result of this great stride forward in thought.

But that's not all that this doctrine of men has given the world. Rational skepticism applied to daily life allowed us to reject the received wisdom of the ancients such as the Christian principle of the divine right of kings ("Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2, and "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1) and invent the modern, liberal, democratic state with guaranteed personal rights - a huge leap in progress from subjecthood to citizenship, from serf to free man.

There's more still. Rational released man from the bondage of received moral codes etched in scriptural stone. These are examples of that received moral instruction: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5 and "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22 to abolition and equal rights and protections for women. In every case, we are substituting the product of our reasoning ability for ideas that were offered as fact and the final word - all to the benefit of mankind.

Anthony Flew used reason and common sense, to conclude that there must be a designer, because no amount of "bleating" about how "it only looks designed", or "it only gives the appearance of design", could convince him that it is not design. So he went where the evidence led him.

No, when Flew was compos mentis, he was an atheist. In his dotage, he became a deist. He committed one of the commonest logical fallacies in religion - the credulity fallacy: "Concluding that because you can't or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance." Basically, what Flew was saying was that although in the past, he could easily conceive of a godless reality, suddenly, it seemed to complex to him to not have been intelligently designed, despite no new evidence in support of that guess. He most assuredly did not go where evidence led him, which is why virtually no other rational skeptics went with him..

So it should be clear from reading this that the grades and scores (e.g. whether the student received an "A" or an "F") is calculated using academic standards of substance and relevance and not penalized or rewarded based on religious content.

Isn't that already the case before introducing this statute? Secular humanists are quite familiar with the church's theocratic agenda, usually in reproductive rights areas, where legislation is introduced as if it were intended to do something other than prevent abortion. It doesn't advocate for anything neutral - just legislation to promote its religious agenda. This is surely intended to do that as well.

The church is desperate to get to the young minds not brought it every Sunday morning, before those minds develop critical thinking skills. It failed with its intelligent design subterfuge. This bill is surely intended to get religion introduced into the classroom and give it status as an alternative to secular teaching.

The answer to the scientific question; "How old is the Earth?"
Is not "The Word of God teaches that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old" according to academic standards of substance and relevance.

Yet surely, somebody will sue for being graded down after giving that answer, which will have the effect of intimidating teachers who would mark down for such an answer. Like I said, this bill is not to promote the status quo as its authors and supporters would claim with a wink and a nod. It is to promote the church's agenda oof getting religion back into public classrooms by whatever method it can to whatever degree it can.

ordinary science does draw its conclusions from "the Word of God"

I'll assume that this is a typo, and that you meant to write the opposite. If not, I strenuously disagree. Science does not consult religion - yet another reason that religion does not belong in the science classroom or texts.

the bill's sponsor maintained that students could not abuse the bill to avoid answering questions by responding with religious content

The bill's sponsor cannot prevent students or their parents from harassing schools and teachers that don't give students credit for religious answers. The religious will simply claim that they are being punished for their religious beliefs in violation of the new law, and that giving them A's for their creationist opinions is not a reward. Bet your home on it.

Even if the courts don't side with the religious plaintiffs, the statute will have served its intended purpose of getting the religious discussion going in the school and intimidating teachers.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

But a public school is not the place.

According to what?

How does a child sharing what they believe violate anything?

It's not as if the school is teaching religious things to the children or even asking them for religious answers.

Of course that is a possibility. But are we likely to be so far wrong that the answers are off by a factor of 1000? Not likely at all. And yet, some claim that they are off by a factor of 500,000.

The learned once thought the Earth was flat. We can and have been flat wrong before.

And yet, we manage to find ages for some of them (not all, but some).

We manage to find timestamps for when certain things happened to them.

And it irked me that religious ideas were taught in such absolute terms.

What religious ideas were mandated you learn by the State?

And come on - we all know that religion is a subject of belief.

Anyone who shares a religious idea in absolute terms is merely stating their opinion. With passion.

Not so with what is said in the classroom.

And there is a location for that: their place of worship. Not on a science question in a public school.

This is where I feel you flipped this issue on its head.

From what I read it seems that no one is claiming that any "science question" should contain religious ideology, but rather that a student could include it in their answer to a "science question".

And would you if it was a little Satanist child expressing their views? Or maybe an Islamic one? or a Pagan?

As long as they are learning and being tested on the science I don't care.

If they want to claim on their test that the force that attracts two bodies toward each other began with Satan than I don't care one bit.

As long as they know what gravity is.

 

[Shad]

Canadian schools are a little better.

It is probably because our school boards have no say of curriculum combined with 3 types of funding. Schools and quality of are not limited by the funding of the locals.

They get worse all the time here as more and more interference comes down from government and they tie teachers' hands. Usually there is a little selection for specific classes as early as 6th grade but the real electives don't start until grade 9.

Just to clarify. Electives here are classes which I can take by choice at grade 10. Selective are programs which must be completed which have classes to pick from. For example for shop for grade 7 I could pick woodworking, tech, or mental working. Any one of the 3 counted for the credit. As grades progressed more advanced classes along with a large selection became available.

School here are dropping in quality. Classes I took in HS are no longer offered here. Those courses have shifted to college and university.

I know some learning must be rote but a lot of opinion is being foisted as fact to be memorized and regurgitated.

Sure. Even here the amount of rote testing has increased. Some classes have combined in Jr HS like English and History decreasing essay assignment in favour of rote learning from text. The rote learning becomes the method to evaluate English portion. When I was young rote learning in English was spelling at lower levels with the rest being creative as per essays. Lower grades often just wrote small stories. Higher grades use book as I have mentioned before.

Indoctrination and propaganda are words that come to mind. Manufacturers are given access to peddle their products and brainwash the new "consumers".

Well school by definition is indoctrination. Sure it will play into various consumer products especially as use of technology increases. Kids in my extended family (nephews and nieces) have their own student iPad for school I understand the reasons for the use but that is still a lot of money over time to spend. It ends up feeding into a cycle as introduction to consumer products comes at an earlier age. Granted I am restrictive with technology access for kids. For example if my kids want a smartphone they can get a job. Now I have to deal with the fact that schools are giving children a tool for a purpose which will turn into a desire at home.