Religious agendas posing as "academic freedom"

[CancelMyService]

That's what I was getting at, if you want to have like a comparative studies class on creation stories, fine, but don't teach it in science class and get kids' heads full of spiritual hokum taught as fact.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

So then teach them how to be discerning, how to test hypothesis, how to observe.

Saying "This is absolutely how it is. Memorize this fact." Does nothing to help a student learn how to..well, learn.

Teaching a student how to spell, how to write, and how to do math is not something with a lot of wiggle room. They need to know how to do that correctly. Once they learn that, they can sort though evidence, facts, other people's hypothesis for themselves. With science, in addition to being open minded, one has to learn how to think and evaluate. There IS wiggle room, in that one can consider all sorts of ideas. Teach him to do that, and you won't NEED to tell him which is the correct thing. He can figure it out on his own. Isn't that more useful?

There are so many things I was taught as fact as a child that we now know was wrong. Just about all of it in the field of science. Science is a field that requires mental flexibility. Should Creationism be taught as the last word, the final fact? Of course not. But I see nothing wrong with presenting it as one of many ways of thought. I mean, it is what it is.

No, I'm not a Creationist, if that's what you are all thinking. I am in love with the the idea of star nurseries, exploding universes, creatures morphing and improving over the eons. I feel sorry for anyone who lacks an appreciation for it. In fact, I don't see it as evidence of a lack of a God. Just the opposite.

That's what's cool about being an Episcopalean, we get to believe in dinosaurs. Well, that and no grape juice.

[Amethyst Hunter]

This is, sadly, a classic Dominionist example of the "parallel world" that they're trying to build - that is, they are trying to indoctrinate children (aka The Future) who will grow up believing this garbage and who will (they hope) pass it down to THEIR children, and ad nauseum.

Basically, they're breeding critical thought out of people and breeding unquestioning obedience into them, in the hope that the rest of us will eventually die out (whether by natural means or their means - and don't think for a second that they wouldn't *love* to see all the groups of people they hate (i.e., anyone who is non-dominionist by their standards) "condemned to God's damnation") and put them that much closer to their *implicitly* stated goal: total dominion over the earth.

Even if creationism were a viable belief that could be taught in schools (which I don't believe it is - there's a time and a place for that and it's called Sunday School/church), it would still be poisoned by these people because they CANNOT tolerate any sort of creative thought whatsoever; it challenges their authority, and to dominionists, authority IS God. (This is why they are very heavy on the whole "The man is the head of the woman" business)

So if you attempt to theorize why a God might create such and such, it would get slapped down faster than a mosquito that's just kissed a bug zapper. To dominionists, their mindset is "God did this and then He did that, and then He did this and THAT IS 100% EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THIS YOU HEATHEN SINNER?!" Because, you see, God may well have created the earth and its solar system in 7 days, but what one fails to take into account is that God's concept of time is a whole lot different than our human perception (and I think that God Himself even says as much in the Bible) - so to God, "7 days" might actually end up being something like "7 million YEARS." A dominionist believes that God did this in *exactly* 7 human days, our standard week, and anything else is literally heresy and possibly punishable - at worst, by torture/death.

That's why creationism does NOT belong in schools. It's an unchanging, unyielding and stagnant philosophy that has nothing of value to offer - whereas actual scientific theories are, while for the most part dependably solid, always shifting and changing even on the slightest level to reveal new things to those who study them. I would even go so far as to say that creationism is a "dead" philosophy because of its very bland and rigidly-set nature, and that actual science is a "living" philosophy because it's always changing and evolving.

Incidentally, there are a good deal of scientists who do believe in a God, or a Creator-being of some sort, and have shown that such belief is not incompatible with their field. (I happen to agree that the way the earth system is set up indicates the possible existence of a Creator; where I take issue is WHOSE creator did it - I guarantee you the type that dominionists believe in is *not* any Creator you want anything to do with.)

[AFPheonix]

So then teach them how to be discerning, how to test hypothesis, how to observe.

Saying "This is absolutely how it is. Memorize this fact." Does nothing to help a student learn how to..well, learn.

Teaching a student how to spell, how to write, and how to do math is not something with a lot of wiggle room. They need to know how to do that correctly. Once they learn that, they can sort though evidence, facts, other people's hypothesis for themselves. With science, in addition to being open minded, one has to learn how to think and evaluate. There IS wiggle room, in that one can consider all sorts of ideas. Teach him to do that, and you won't NEED to tell him which is the correct thing. He can figure it out on his own. Isn't that more useful?

There are so many things I was taught as fact as a child that we now know was wrong. Just about all of it in the field of science. Science is a field that requires mental flexibility. Should Creationism be taught as the last word, the final fact? Of course not. But I see nothing wrong with presenting it as one of many ways of thought. I mean, it is what it is.

Unfortunately young earth creationism and Intelligent Design have been debunked multiple times by utilizing the scientific method, so they still have no place in a science class. They're fine in a comparative religion class with other creation stories from other cultures. Evolution itself, defined as allele shift in a population over time has been one of the best tested and proven theories yet. It's absolutely the cornerstone of modern Biology today. Of course, it, like any other theory can be discarded if something pops up. So far, nothing has and the extremely large body of evidence has supported the theory.
Now, if we're going to lump in abiogenesis, that's a whole different kettle of fish that drags in multiple other areas of study including physics, chemistry and geology, and there's still a lot of stuff at the hypothetical stage. It's pretty exciting stuff though, and it has turned Newtonian physics on its ear in places.

I've taken a lot of science classes though, and every introductory one and just about everyone in high school started with a chapter on the scientific method and what science can and cannot explain. I should hope that other children had the same sort of intro to this that I did.

[Slytovhand]

Well - we've got another debate here, which is the same as the ID/Creationism debate, so I don't really want to go into that side of things (in which I've posted my thoughts, which just coincidentally happen to match up with RK's!). Science classes should, at least just briefly, touch upon the ideas as to why it's not perfect.

One of those, which is what the Creationists will jump upon, is that Carbon-dating isn't perfect, and has been shown to be way off target on some occasions. (of course, Creationists are likely to seize upon any discrepancies, and treat them as the be-all and end-all to the matter, without allowing for a rational explanation for those errors, nor for the counter balances in place - like dendrochronology or thermoluminescence, etc etc...I'd love to know what they do with red-shift ).

But - yes - from the original article, the idea of teaching the ability to question what you are being taught is a good idea! (yay for the principle expressed), by boo to the people pushing the point (and the agenda). Teach them what is actually wrong with scientific principles (eg - the close-minded attitude that sometimes goes with it. Science needs to remember it's place in the world - eg, god can never be disproven, so it's rather stupid to say that god doesn't exist, here's the proof! *and no - I'm not saying that's what goes on in the classrooms, just trying to point out that belief in the supernatural doesn't have anything to do with belief in the natural).

Oh - btw - I love Stellar Nurseries.. just goes to show god (small 'g' - for whatever you choose to insert by way of name/s) is artistic as well


Slyt

[RecoveringKinkoid]

Hey, you all might like this, I found it while poking around the internet looking for articles on the subject. Thought it was interesting.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=5&gl=us

Let me say for the record I am about as certain as one can be that the universe probably started out with the Big Bang. I think the evidence to support it is compelling to say the least. Why am I only 99 percent certain as opposed to 100 percent certain?

Because it's still a theory. A theory with an extremely high probability of being correct, buta theory nonetheless. It's not like we can reproduce the exact phenomenon in a lab. And nobody on earth witnessed it.

I do not want to be guilty of the close mindedness I see so rampant in the scientific community and acadamia. So I will I leave that 1% of doubt in my head to continue to question and dream.

[Zyanya]

So then teach them how to be discerning, how to test hypothesis, how to observe.

Learned the above in third grade science class. They do. The dominists however, don't want them too. That's why they are trying to present Creationism as science when it clearly does not meet the well-known and oft published standards of science.

[lordlundar]

Zyanya, there's a part missing from that chart you posted. There should be an arrow going from the report findings to ask questions.

True science works on the principal that a theory is wrong and you work to prove it wrong. Once that's done, then you prove the new theory wrong. And so on and so forth. Accepted theories simply haven't been proven wrong yet, though there is an effort to do so.

Creationism and intelligent design teach that the theory is right and any attempt to disprove it is flawed for the simple attempt. All that does is stifle creativity under the assumption that someone will have a hit of divine revelation or similar.

So I say as a compromise, any place that teaches Creationism/ID instead of proper science functions without ANYTHING that came about with the application of true science. Whoops! There went the light bulbs, pretty much anything synthetic, and their books as well. Heck, lets go for improved manufacturing techniques which all came about from advances in science through hard work. Guess it's back to a log cabin and chalk pads. No wait, those came about the same way. Guess it's oral teaching out in the woods. Should be fun to watch when there's a thunderstorm.

Simply put. You want to teach Creationism/ID as the only means, you have to abandon ANYTHING that came about from proper application of science, otherwise you are nothing more than a hypocrite.

[Zyanya]

Zyanya, there's a part missing from that chart you posted. There should be an arrow going from the report findings to ask questions.

Couldn't find one with that, didn't feel like drawing it. Figured what I did find was good enough to demonstrate the Creationism is most certainly NOT science.

True science works on the principal that a theory is wrong and you work to prove it wrong. Once that's done, then you prove the new theory wrong. And so on and so forth. Accepted theories simply haven't been proven wrong yet, though there is an effort to do so.

Not exactly, but close enough.

The problem is, there is no experiment you can design to test creationism. Therefore, it is simply not science.

There is no way to observe creationism. Therefore, it is simply not science.

I can design an experiment to test evolution. I can even observe evolution on a micro-level by simply looking out the window, and on a macro level if I had a microscope powerful enough to see bacteria.

Evolution has survived every attempt to disprove it.

Oh, and for the record, hey, creationists - EVOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY THEORY REGARDING THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Evolution is actually NOT opposed to creationism. For all creationists know/ can prove, evolution is the means the 'creator' used to get the variable life forms. Anyone who thinks evolution is the opposite of creationism needs to learn a thing or three about the theory of evolution.

The 'big bang' theory has to do with the origin of life. It stands in opposition to the theory of creation. NOT evolution.

/rant

Creationism and intelligent design teach that the theory is right and any attempt to disprove it is flawed for the simple attempt. All that does is stifle creativity under the assumption that someone will have a hit of divine revelation or similar.

Indeed. Which is their point, exactly.

[Depot Denizen]

I frequent a science board - one that focuses on astronomy. We get threads like this from time to time.

Lordlunar is correct. When a presenting a theory, the scientist is fighting an uphill battle all the way. The scientist has to prove that his methods are correct, that the data is accurate, and the results are more or less conclusive.

Papers are brought up for review by peers who gleefully attack it and point out flaws and weaknesses. If the theory holds, then all is well. If it is disproven, then back to the drawing board. Some times a theory will need a few tweaks here and there - but that is part of the process. If the evidence does not support the theory, change the theory and go from there.

Creation "science" however, does not use this. It starts from the basis that their idea is right, and that it is up to science to disprove them. Evidence is ignored or labeled as false if it doesn't fit the theory. The scientific method simply doesn't exist when it comes to dogma. The theory doesn't change.

The Discovery Institute is a such an offender. It masquerades Bible dogma as scientific theory, and even has their own little museum. Creationism is masked as "Intelligent Design" as if that gives it more credibility. I wouldn't oppose teaching creationism in a comparative religion class (I took such a course in community college, it covered a variety of creation myths) but it has no place in a science classroom.

[EDIT] Zyanya also brings up a good point that I missed - observation and falsification. Can the theory be falsified? Can it be observed? As an aside, the theory of Evolution has changed, in light of discoveries that are made along the way.

[AFPheonix]

Because it's still a theory. A theory with an extremely high probability of being correct, buta theory nonetheless. It's not like we can reproduce the exact phenomenon in a lab. And nobody on earth witnessed it.

The definition of a scientific theory is a hypothesis that has survived testing. "Merely" a theory? Being a theory is the highest status an idea can earn in science.
Sorry, but that is really one of my biggest pet peeves. There is no such thing as fact in science vocabulary.
The big bang is still very much being debated. But it is a far different theory than evolution, which even in this thread and in the creationism thread has been quite well defined.

As kids get older, yes I support the teacher bringing in things like Scientific American to show different schools of thought on stuff like this. Hell, I think it would be a fabulous idea to set up a debate in physics courses and have kids pick different stances to argue and set up a decent explanation as to why their hypothesis is better supported by the evidence we have now.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

There is no such thing as fact in science vocabulary.
The big bang is still very much being debated.

Hell, I think it would be a fabulous idea to set up a debate in physics courses and have kids pick different stances to argue and set up a decent explanation as to why their hypothesis is better supported by the evidence we have now.

I couldn't agree more on both these points. Maybe I didn't do a great job explaining my point, but this is pretty much it. Thank you.

[Boozy]

So Louisiana school teachers are now free to teach children that the moon landing was a hoax, Lizard People are ruling the world, and there are aliens in Roswell?

Of course not. They don't actually mean "freedom". They most certainly do not mean "academic". They mean "Think what we tell you to think. Do not use your brains. Do not rely on logic and the scientific method, for it will lead you to question us. We are your Dominionist overlords."

This is frightening, guys. These kids are going to get to vote one day.

[Slytovhand]

Hell, Boozy - those kids are going to be president one day - of the world's largest arsenal of nuclear and biological weapons!!

APF - I like the idea of the kids setting up a debate in school... I could see some backlashes though...

LordLundar - actually - science need not be out of the picture as you suggest just because ID takes on a more prominent position in community thinking. It came about because of qualified and serious professional scientists (mostly physicists and astrophysicists) looked around and figured it couldn't all be by chance, so hypothesised that it was 'designed'. So, science has a very real and relevant place in the scheme of ID.

And interestingly enough, The Big Bang and Creationism or even ID don't necessarily need to stand in opposition to each other. ID quite happily accepts the Big Bang as a good theory - they just add in a step before it.

What would peeve me in Louisiana, is that there would only be 1 version of Creationism taught. I bet you they wouldn't teach any of these stories! (for those choosing not to go look - it's titled "Native American Myths of Creation" - and I'm not even going to do a search for any other types of creation myths to complement it from the rest of the planet). After all, they're just as valid.

Slyt

[AFPheonix]

The debate topics should only be on journal-submitted ideas. The teacher should nix any side that attempts to bring a religious or supernatural idea to the table, and explain why (cannot be proven scientifically, therefore is not science).
I'm a big fan of giving kids the tools to think critically. It's an ability that can serve anyone in any walk of life.