Religious agendas posing as "academic freedom"

[the_std]

But but but... AFP... Then the students will start asking QUESTIONS about why the bigwigs do things the way they do... And the students will want to FIX things... And then the bigwigs will have to give up their millions of dollars a year!...

Situations like this instantly turn on the sarcasm in me.

[AFPheonix]

Well, there's always a hitch in my evil plans somewhere

[lordlundar]

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.

Slyt

I have to respectfully disagree slyt, but not on the concept. Instead I have to disagree on the perspective.

Science is about constantly challenging the world around you, both what you were taught and what you observe. ID took the concept and used it to support their viewpoint. The problem is that when proponents of ID are challenged, they act no differently than creationists, rejecting any challenges as unfit science because they can't refute it.

Proponents of ID only use science for their own purposes, then reject the same practice when it no longer suits them. They are little more than hypocrites who abuse science, not properly use it.

[Slytovhand]

Well - yeah... I know what you mean. Over in the ID/Creationism debate I was getting that sort of tendency. As I said there (and will say again here), my problem was that I learnt about ID in philosophy, as part of a philosophy degree, from the Dept of History and Philosophy of Science at Melbourne Uni... thus, the angle I got was a bit different (as I found out when I googled it...). At the time of my debates over there, I wasn't aware of the close connections with the religious groups involved.

Also, as I said over there, ID is far more of a boon to us pagans than it is for Xtians (and, if they really want to read it proper, it sort of destroys a few of their agendas in the process... cos it would or should mean that humans aren't at the top of the ladder, and aliens are around somewhere - quite possible who are also higher on the ladder than us )


APF.. while I'm still liking your ideas of bringing in such debates from 'reputable' journals, the kids are still going to ask the bigger questions that science isn't going to touch. I would think there needs to be a debate on exactly why those questions aren't touched, and see if there is anything that can come from that. And if some religious questions can't be looked at, why do some scientists use various religious texts to validate some claims? Or at least head them of in that direction (eg the flood??)


Slyt

[AFPheonix]

APF.. while I'm still liking your ideas of bringing in such debates from 'reputable' journals, the kids are still going to ask the bigger questions that science isn't going to touch. I would think there needs to be a debate on exactly why those questions aren't touched, and see if there is anything that can come from that. And if some religious questions can't be looked at, why do some scientists use various religious texts to validate some claims? Or at least head them of in that direction (eg the flood??)


Slyt

If I were a science teacher, I would actually welcome a discussion on that, if nothing else than to give the kids something to chew on next time they're in Sunday School and their teacher's trying to sell them the idea that the Genesis account of Creation is literally true.
I'd probably explain much as I did in the Creationism thread: that religion and science have different jobs to do. Science is limited to only that which we can measure and that which is found in the realm of nature. Religion deals with supernatural issues and the ultimate questions about why we are here and our ultimate purpose. Attempting to use religious ideas to explain scientific principles is as shortsighted as trying to explain God and the supernatural with science.
I'm afraid I don't really understand your last question. Are you referring to Creationist scientists who try to use the fossil record to show that the flood occurred worldwide? Because that has been good and debunked a long time ago.

[Slytovhand]

I'm afraid I don't really understand your last question. Are you referring to Creationist scientists who try to use the fossil record to show that the flood occurred worldwide? Because that has been good and debunked a long time ago.

Yeah - sort of that sort of thing.

I'm wondering.. what do you mean by 'good and debunked'? Cos from my understanding, the fossil records do nicely indicate a large-scale level of flooding across the planet (not sure if it's the same time period though). And that's why every major civilisation or history of people has some sort of flood story (obviously, they exaggerated just how much water there actually was...).

One other sort of thing I mean is... the burning bush miracle. I do recall hearing that there is a particular type of shrubbery (a nice pretty one, to go next to the first one....) that has a particularly volatile liquid come gas produced. When the stones from the animals happen to get rammed together and spark, it ignites the volatile gasses - yay burning bush... yay 1 miracle! Which means... either there was a miracle and no-one need look any further for an explanation other than the supernatural... or someone who thinks something happened, now lets see if there is a 'valid' explanation for it.

Would you put that into your science class?


Slyt

[AFPheonix]

Yeah - sort of that sort of thing.

I'm wondering.. what do you mean by 'good and debunked'? Cos from my understanding, the fossil records do nicely indicate a large-scale level of flooding across the planet (not sure if it's the same time period though). And that's why every major civilisation or history of people has some sort of flood story (obviously, they exaggerated just how much water there actually was...).

One other sort of thing I mean is... the burning bush miracle. I do recall hearing that there is a particular type of shrubbery (a nice pretty one, to go next to the first one....) that has a particularly volatile liquid come gas produced. When the stones from the animals happen to get rammed together and spark, it ignites the volatile gasses - yay burning bush... yay 1 miracle! Which means... either there was a miracle and no-one need look any further for an explanation other than the supernatural... or someone who thinks something happened, now lets see if there is a 'valid' explanation for it.

Would you put that into your science class?


Slyt

For the flood questions, here's some good layman's articles on it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

Because I'd most likely not be teaching just children from Christian homes, no, I would not go into Christian mythology. If children wished to come to me after class then we could probably put together a research project together to work on outside of class time. Besides, separation of church and state and all.

[Slytovhand]

Thanks APF... I'm reading through the hoax one at the moment - I love the names this guy uses (all 3 - not just the one they point out...) Mr Asholian, Vladimir Sobitchsky, and Allis Buls Hitian. hehehe D

I was thinking more of going into all mythologies without particular exclusion. I don't think Separation of Church and State applies to education. And if you left things to research projects out of class time, I could see some people getting upset - rather than havng a research assignment given where groups of students sus out a particular mythology and see how evidence stacks up for or against (and - no, the kids can't do it on their own religion )

[Boozy]

I was thinking more of going into all mythologies without particular exclusion. I don't think Separation of Church and State applies to education.

The "church" in the well-known phrase "separation of church and state" does not refer to the study of comparative religion, which is what I think you're confusing it with.

Separation of church and state must apply to the public education system, or it becomes almost pointless to apply it anywhere else. It doesn't mean that we can't talk about religion in schools; it just means that kids can't be indoctrinated in one particular religion.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I must be too simplistic; to my mind, you teach science in Science and creation myths in Religious Education. Am I missing something here? O_o

[AFPheonix]

I was thinking more of going into all mythologies without particular exclusion. I don't think Separation of Church and State applies to education. And if you left things to research projects out of class time, I could see some people getting upset - rather than havng a research assignment given where groups of students sus out a particular mythology and see how evidence stacks up for or against (and - no, the kids can't do it on their own religion )

It would because public schools are funded by taxes and thus are overseen by the government.
I would consider having a discourse about one religion's mythologies without talking about others to be promoting one religion, and thus against the idea of separation of church and state. Besides, I would consider it to be a waste of time compared to actually talking about science. It is a science class after all, not a philosophy or comparative religions class. I'd have more than plenty material to go over without dragging Mosaic mythology into it.

But, as I said, if a student wanted to talk about it after class on his own time, then that would be fine with me.

[Slytovhand]

Umm - I think I may have mis-interpreted what APF said in regards to the Separation of C & S bit, hence why I said what I did in that bit...

Oh yes... I am quite familiar with the 'promoting' side of such things... I went to one of those public schools, and even in the 'comparitive' religion class, other's beliefs were almost ridiculed. Certainly, they're always referred back to that dominant religion...

As for why we're discussing it in science and not in religion (assuming the school has such a class) - because the OP is all about putting in more 'critical thinking' ideas to science, so that creationism gets a look in - as well some other religious ideologies or opinions, and trying to pass them off as scientific. I'm just seeing some of the possible 'legitimate' ways to do this, or some of the potential backlash that could come of it... not all of their plans would pay off as they want them to (if you had a teacher with the nerve and talent to try it out )

Could you imagine what would happen if all those little school kiddies who ferverntly believed something and ridiculed something else, had it pointed out to them by their own logic that what they believed was also just as 'ridiculous'??? I think the questions they would then be asking their parents might be enough to induce a change of attitude..... (well - ok, no it wouldn't.. hence the bill in the first place... but I can dream )