Religious agendas posing as "academic freedom"

[CancelMyService]

This is some ridiculous bullshit right here.


For those who don't want to click or read, here's a summary:

1. Louisiana passed an "Academic Freedom" law basically saying schools now can present things like evolution, global warming, and human cloning (!) as wacky things only Jesus haters and libruls believe in.

2. This new law was written by the Discovery Institute that just happens to write textbooks with a pro-religion slant to them.

3. This brings the concept we see on cable news of giving both sides of a debate equal weight despite one being enormously, laughably wrong to the classroom where now kids have to learn about Jesus Horses in science class and other "alternate" theories that are total bullshit and will keep kids from obtaining any usable critical thinking skills.


It's easy to dismiss stories like this with a stereotypical "lol, southern states" response, but this is really starting to piss me off how these hypocrites are trying to weasel their religious and political beliefs into schools.

[tropicsgoddess]

Isn't church and state supposed to be separate from schools? I thought only the religious stuff was only for religious private schools, not public schools. Evolution, Biology and Global Warming are a part of science. Now my argument for the uber-religious types is this: If man was created by God, then what explains the fact that we constantly unearth all these fossils of cavemen, dinosaurs and creatures from over a million years ago? Is global warming a sign of the apocalypse?! Seriously. Let the students have their own opinions for themselves on if they believe more in creationism versus evolution instead of pushing religious agendas on them.

[anriana]

If man was created by God, then what explains the fact that we constantly unearth all these fossils of cavemen, dinosaurs and creatures from over a million years ago?

God let Satan put those there to test believers. These people are too clever to let silly things like logic keep them from the truth.



"lol, southern states"

I don't have a better reaction that that.

[Greenday]

Well, hey, if everyone is going to just let them do it so they can get what they want, why wouldn't they do it?

I'm fine with teaching religion in school as long as you teach about a variety of religions. Teaching one religion and one religion only is wrong.

[anriana]

I'm fine with teaching religion in school as long as you teach about a variety of religions. Teaching one religion and one religion only is wrong.

But they don't want to teach religion in a sociological sense, (and I do think that mandatory classes on world religion would do good things for this country) they want to teach religious beliefs as actual science.

[Greenday]

But they don't want to teach religion in a sociological sense, (and I do think that mandatory classes on world religion would do good things for this country) they want to teach religious beliefs as actual science.

Quite silly. There is nothing scientific at all about religion.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

If I may play Devil's Advocate here for the sake of this discussion, many things are taught in school that really are simply theories and not provable fact. Evolution, for instance. The Big Bang theory. Human origins. However, they are often presented as fact.

I could argue, I guess, that Creationism is no more or less ultimately provable than any other theory. (and I realize that's a very simplistic observation, but like I said, just trying to see the other side a bit.)

The Creationist folk have the same thing to say about many other theories as you might have to say about theirs.

I find that the scientific community is terribly, terribly close minded. You cannot call yourself a scientist and be as close minded as they are, but they do it all the time. As a result, they stop thinking and discovering. People stop questioning. And that is a very bad thing.

I might not agree that the universe popped fully formed from the mind of God in the blink of an eye. But I can agree that the minute we accept one way of thinking as gospel, and completely disregard any other way of thinking, we are setting ourselves up for another Dark Ages. I am in favor of as many different thoughts in the mix as possible, whether or not I agree or disagree with them.

[anriana]

I might not agree that the universe popped fully formed from the mind of God in the blink of an eye. But I can agree that the minute we accept one way of thinking as gospel, and completely disregard any other way of thinking, we are setting ourselves up for another Dark Ages. I am in favor of as many different thoughts in the mix as possible, whether or not I agree or disagree with them.

So all of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth should be taught as plausible theories in science class?

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I'm not speaking for the worth or plausabity of any theory over any other theory. You either got my point or you didn't.

EDIT: Just checked out your link. In answer to your question, if it is presented in context for what it is, yes.

[Greenday]

I just want to point out that evolution is actually true. It's what I've come to learn about a lot of theories. Most of them are true, but the only reasons they are "theories" and not "laws" is because there are some people who refuse to believe them. Evolution is proven. God is not.

[Pedersen]

If I may play Devil's Advocate here for the sake of this discussion, many things are taught in school that really are simply theories and not provable fact. Evolution, for instance. The Big Bang theory. Human origins. However, they are often presented as fact.

They are as provable as the theory of gravity. And yeah, that one skips right by a lot of people. Gravity is still considered a theory.

Here's the point you seem to be missing, RK: All of the evidence that we have in our possession points to the theory of evolution being the means by which we have come into being. The same is true for the Big Bang, and human origins.

We don't have evidence that contradicts it. The only time an even semi-viable contradiction occurs is when you allow for things that cannot be contradicted. For instance, an omnipotent being created the universe in this exact form one second ago, complete with all of our memories. We then have no way of measuring or contradicting the statement. On the flip side, we also have no way of verifying the statement.

All of which is to say that the statement is useless for expanding our knowledge of the universe. As far as we can tell, with the evidence at hand right now, evolution is what happened. As is the big bang, and the general origin of human life.

If you disagree that this is what happened, present evidence to the contrary. People will listen.

The religious right, though, which is pushing these ideas as fact is not doing this. They are pushing a piece of paper, which was written down by man, as unassailable fact. And if what has been observed disagrees with that particular piece of paper, then what has been observed must be wrong. In short, flat out ignoring the evidence, without providing any reason to do so other than "Well, this piece of paper says that you didn't observe it, and therefore you couldn't have observed it."

I'm not speaking for the worth or plausabity of any theory over any other theory. You either got my point or you didn't.

Count me as one of the ones who didn't get your point, then. I'd like to, but I don't.

[MystyGlyttyr]

Count me as one of the ones who didn't get your point, then. I'd like to, but I don't.

I think the point is you can't prove any one thing more than you can prove any other thing, so all are equally worthy of consideration and should be taught as such, at least so far as public schools go.

For instance, we could offer that in the last one million trials, lowering the temperature of water to below freezing causing it to freeze. Most if not all people would say that proves water always freezes below a certain temperature. However, you can't be absolutely certain that on the next try, water will refuse to freeze. Just because we think we have all the answers doesn't mean we do, as nature and physics are quite likely to toss us a curveball with no warning pretty much whenever. Which basically means "one theory is as good as another, as long as you accept there's other theories to consider."

I might have missed the point entirely, though.

So far as it goes, I think K from Men In Black said it best... "1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."

[Pedersen]

I think the point is you can't prove any one thing more than you can prove any other thing, so all are equally worthy of consideration and should be taught as such, at least so far as public schools go.

I have an issue with one component of that: If that is what is being done in the schools, then students aren't being taught anything.

By saying to the kid "Well, we have this theory over here which fits all known observations, but we're still not sure it's right", that basically says "We have no idea. And your coming to school is pretty pointless. Just go believe whatever you wish to believe, because we can't teach you anything."

That is a grave disservice to the student. And if that's the point that is desired to be taught, then allow me to be among the first to say that I'm glad I don't understand that point.

[Difdi]

global warming

While the fact of global warming is readily obvious to anyone who cares to look, the points of contention in the matter are:

A) Whether humans are having a major influence on it or not.

B) Whether or not warming is a bad thing.

There's quite a bit of evidence that not only is the warming not significantly influenced by human actions, but that it might be beneficial overall.

People panicking about every molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, while simultaneously overlooking the effects of water vapor, and ignoring the fact that the Earth has been in a cooling trend for thousands of years...well, there's not a lot of room for rational analysis when people are panicking.

[Zyanya]

Here we go again

This is called 'scientific method' -

Step 1 - Make a hypothesis based on observations of the world around you.
Step 2 - Make predictions based on hypothesis.
Step 3 - Test predictions.
Step 3 - Evaluate results of test and either reformulate hypothesis, or continue with testing.
Step 4 - Once hypothesis has passed the tests, it is now a theory.

To be a theory, a hypothesis MUST BE TESTABLE. It must meet the standards of falsification, meaning there must be a way to test it that CAN DISPROVE IT.

To be testable, you must be able to A) make a prediction based on the hypothesis and B) be able to test the prediction. In addition, C) the results of the test must be repeatable. This is called 'peer review' and 'replication'.

If you cannot do any of the above, IT IS NOT SCIENCE. At best, it is philosophy.

You cannot do any of the above with creationism. It is a philosophy, not a science.

You can prove evolution. It has been observed, you can make predictions, you can test the predictions and get results that can be replicated. It is a scientific theory. It is not a law because it does not meet the definition of a scientific law just like gravity does not. Scientific laws are essentially short and sweet, and can generally be expressed mathematically. Because there are so many factors at work in gravity, just like with evolution, it cannot be simplified to the point of scientific law.

It does not belong in a science classroom. There is no rational or logical justification for it to be in a science classroom.