Creationism to get place in Wisconsin classes

[qizmoduis]

Are these people saying they want Darwin banned from the classroom? I thought they just wanted creationism taught as well.......a little different from the Galileo example. Nobody (as far as I can see) is talking about banning thought, just including another.

In many cases, they have tried to get evolution removed from the curriculum. In ALL cases, they are trying to get non-science taught in science class. That's the issue. About the fairness issue: the only way to be fair is to teach what is correct. It would be grossly un-fair to the students to teach them creationism (or any other myth) as an alternative to evolution, because that would be a lie. And it isn't science.

 

[Makalakumu]

Personally, I just dont think this is a place where its necessary for the government to step in (is that what ya'll want? or is this just a gripe session?). If the people of the state want it, well its their loss. I just think we should be very careful about where and when its necessary for us to "not allow" our fellow countrymen to do what they want, as long as its legal.

On one hand, I don't think the state needs to interfere. I think that people who support evolution have got to stop letting Creationist take pot shots on science and on Evolution. People need to take the time to refute this stuff. It's not hard, creation science is an absolutely horrible theory! Some of the claims they make are totally outrageous! Making people understand the point that Evolution is best theory we have is is the best way to kick this crap back to the intellectual backwater that it belongs.

On the other hand, perhaps the state has no choice but to be involved. Science means knowledge and intimates an understanding the real world, therefore the teaching Creation Science, which is theology, in a science class, basically discredits all other cultural myths by claiming that this myth is reality. In a public school, you couldn't have a more powerfully philosophical sanctioning of religion. This type of thing makes the whole "under god" debate trivial.

 

[loki09789]

Upnorth,

Many here, including you have been open about being 'politically active' as well as members of churchs, faith based value systems. You are motivated by your faith based values in how you proceed publically. How is this any different? I know you don't agree with the ideology (and neither do I honestly), but as a citizen what gives you the right to impose your values on this community? What would you do if you were a teacher in this community and were there to meet the needs of the community?

If, as a Citizen, you believe that people have the right to self expression and this community votes to have the Judeo/Christian Creation idea presented along side (though not in Science IMO) in their children's education how is that any different than that community talking about their American ideas being presented along side communism/Nazism? How is it any different from the Native American schools teaching their faith/mystic based ideas of creation within the curriculum as part of culturalization/heritage training about the local and global values they either grew up with or will experience as they grow up?

As a citizen, we have the right to vote/lobby and so on equally, regardless of what other people think. Do the defenders of civil liberties on issues of "Quarentining Dessent" and other issues seem to be lobbying for a "Educational Ruling class" to lead the masses because they don't know what is good for them? Isn't that a violation of civil liberties as well as an affront to the good old Judeo/Christian idea of "free will" where you can do what ever you want but you will suffer the pos/neg results of those choices?

I have feeling that this vacuum discussion is more empassioned than the reality will end up being. You will have a bunch of half attentive teens taking a prefab quiz at the end of a unit on "Creationism" with questions like "What day did God create the Heavens and the Earth?" (which some will get wrong) just like they get asked questions like "Who did the Bodhidarma study with after he shed all his earthly richs?" (which some will get wrong) and the state rationale behind the 'Creationism' unit won't be to recruit new followers but to educate students on the different value systems and moral structures that influence their own community and have influenced history.... just like we study WWII or some other cultural/global event.

The thing to remember here is that PUBLIC education is more about indoctrinization than it ever will be about 'enlightenment.' Just go back to most school mission statements where ideas like 'citizenship' are mentioned. That is a goal that will conflict at times with the enlightenment goal that many educators personally adhere to more so than the citizenry development IMO.

It is truly ironic to me that in past discussions about 'truth' the idea that it 'depends' comes out, but on this issue a clear stance of absolute right is coming out. I guess I can learn something from this stuff after all.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

(though not in Science IMO)

That, I think, is the crux of the matter. No-one here has said "people should not be able to talk about their religion/religious beliefs" - the problem is presenting a non-scientific idea in a science classroom, as a scientific theory.

Again, presenting creationism in a religious studies class, or even social studies class ("some people in the USA believe _____") is perfectly well and good.

But presenting a faith-based concept as science is doing a disservice to faith and science.

 

[raedyn]

here, here Feisty!

 

[loki09789]

That, I think, is the crux of the matter. No-one here has said "people should not be able to talk about their religion/religious beliefs" - the problem is presenting a non-scientific idea in a science classroom, as a scientific theory.

Again, presenting creationism in a religious studies class, or even social studies class ("some people in the USA believe _____") is perfectly well and good.

But presenting a faith-based concept as science is doing a disservice to faith and science.

And, again, they have the right to vote/lobby and negotiate those terms within the civil liberties that protect all of us, regardless of outside opinion. If they say they want it in Science class (is that what they are saying?) and it passes with those terms...viola! They get it. Just like the KKK can get a permit to have a parade through your town.

I don't agree with it personally, but I am not about to say that they are 'wrong' as citizens for doing this. They are within their rights, as are the 'anti-creation education' element that can vote/lobby/petition to have it reversed. The system is there - who wants it more will win.

Simplest solution, offer it as a separate elective. When low attendance forces them to drop the course.....it's done'

I read through the article and there is no specific statement that says that it had to be taught in science class. The only comment in the article was the inclusion of various models/theories. Where and how they are presented could be negotiated it seems.

 

[loki09789]

What makes you think these people are Educated? Why do you think they have the background to make these decisions? They may, or they may not. From my experience with school boards, these folks are average joes and janes. Very few of them have any scientific training if at all. How are they qualified to determine what should be taught in science?

I wouldn't blast the Native Americans from preserving their culture anymore then I would a Fundamentalist Christian. Their culture does not belong in a science classroom, though (the exception would be when discussing how a culture impacts the real world). By its very nature, science is cultureless (or it should be). Science attempts to look at the world through an objective lense in order to glimpse what is really out there.

The fancy stories cooked up by the human imagination do not belong in the science classroom. Science is discussing the real world and is therefore fact based.

Science studies and sifts through what can be observed and supported. Whether that defines 'real' is up to you. Scientific theory may be able to explain how things like emotions are biologically/systematically exist as chemical creations/secretions or reactions, but it can't explain 'real' to the person who is feeling it in a satisfactory way IMO.

There are things now that we call 'Scientifically proven' that may be defined as unreal or 'superstition' in time to come as well. Look at the shift in views on dinosaurs/neanderthals....name it right within science itself.

Science creates its own culture - cultureless is impossible. The God of Science is Reason. Right now that has proven pretty successful in building techinological progress but not all that much more successful in creating personal fulfillment than what was there before.

Technology/Science killed the 'warrior traditions' that seems to be romanticized at times here. It 'dehumanized' the individual and his efforts on the battlefield and reduced him to a statistic instead of a name to be remembered in song or tales of 'legend' (something else that scientific study will put in a test tube and reduce to a statistic). I consider myself a rational person, but we all crave a little mystery in the world - look at the refabrication of the Victorian Christmas, Thanksgiving,....or any other 'custom' that kids grow up celebrating in school as well as home. I don't see this as any different or anymore pervasive.

Remember too that these people are not throwing away the scientific method, only embracing something they believe as a 'sign' that God transcends sciencific explanations.

I know my own fair share of scientifically/technically trained people that are walking contradictions - this isn't all that different.

 

[Rich Parsons]

That, I think, is the crux of the matter. No-one here has said "people should not be able to talk about their religion/religious beliefs" - the problem is presenting a non-scientific idea in a science classroom, as a scientific theory.

Again, presenting creationism in a religious studies class, or even social studies class ("some people in the USA believe _____") is perfectly well and good.

But presenting a faith-based concept as science is doing a disservice to faith and science.

Yes, I had a World History Class that covered the religions and the Empires they created, or the countries that used them. This was covered from the historical point of view, and I have no problem discussing this as history. I do have a problem when there is no data, none at all, other than a book written and re-written and miss-transcribed, that requires you to have faith, to be taught as science.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. There are, inevitably, contradictions that appear in a democratic society. many of these center around education, the most obvious intellectual and ideological battleground.

2. It is a matter of conscience for teachers to teach what they understand to be true, whatever the 'community standards," of the moment happen to be. If they fold on this, they are not only lying about what they know to be true (and if there is anything essential to teaching it is this: do not teach what you know to be a lie), but they are teaching students that folding under community pressurte is the right thing to do. One had thought that, from a conservative viewpoint, teachers were meant to not only teach skills and information, but to set moral examples for kids to learn from.

3. Defining this as a freedom of speech issue is absurd. The question is this: should we allow a minority of loud-mouthed, bullying Protestant fundamentalists supported by wealthy nutjobs and organized Christian pressure groups (check out Bob Jones University! is Oral Roberts still claiming that a 600-foot Jesus threatened his life over fund-raising? Jimmy Swaggert still haanging out in motels with hookers? Falwell still claiming that 9/11 was God' punishment for the ACLU?) to dictate public school curriculums?

4. It is an absurd, shameful denial of the last 500 years of progress, as well as the founding principles of this country, to give in to these yahoos. Surrendering modern thought is exactly what we criticize the people of countries like Iran for doing.

 

[loki09789]

1. There are, inevitably, contradictions that appear in a democratic society. many of these center around education, the most obvious intellectual and ideological battleground.

2. It is a matter of conscience for teachers to teach what they understand to be true, whatever the 'community standards," of the moment happen to be. If they fold on this, they are not only lying about what they know to be true (and if there is anything essential to teaching it is this: do not teach what you know to be a lie), but they are teaching students that folding under community pressurte is the right thing to do. One had thought that, from a conservative viewpoint, teachers were meant to not only teach skills and information, but to set moral examples for kids to learn from.

3. Defining this as a freedom of speech issue is absurd. The question is this: should we allow a minority of loud-mouthed, bullying Protestant fundamentalists supported by wealthy nutjobs and organized Christian pressure groups (check out Bob Jones University! is Oral Roberts still claiming that a 600-foot Jesus threatened his life over fund-raising? Jimmy Swaggert still haanging out in motels with hookers? Falwell still claiming that 9/11 was God' punishment for the ACLU?) to dictate public school curriculums?

4. It is an absurd, shameful denial of the last 500 years of progress, as well as the founding principles of this country, to give in to these yahoos. Surrendering modern thought is exactly what we criticize the people of countries like Iran for doing.

So your saying that a professional, given a mantle of responsibility and trying to effectively, responsibly carry out that duty while balancing the social desire and his/her personal beliefs should stick to his/her guns and not let the 'majority' sway his decisions?

Careful, your sounding a little "BUSH LIKE" here. Change "religious whackos" or what ever the derogatory term you used was to something that describes the "anti-Bush" types and you have the same thing. Stick to your guns, stand by your convictions and plans and don't apologize for doing what you think is right......

 

[Makalakumu]

Careful, your sounding a little "BUSH LIKE" here. Change "religious whackos" or what ever the derogatory term you used was to something that describes the "anti-Bush" types and you have the same thing. Stick to your guns, stand by your convictions and plans and don't apologize for doing what you think is right......

Don't you think that you might be over simplifying this comparison?

Science is what it is. Saying something is science when it doesn't fit the definition, even when you have a group of people behind you doesn't change the definition.

I think that you are getting hung up on the concepts of culture and the real world. Your perceptions are yours and yours alone, yet a scientist believes that a real world exists outside your perceptions. Science attempts to glimpse this world.

See what I'm saying?

upnorthkyosa

 

[loki09789]

Don't you think that you might be over simplifying this comparison?

Science is what it is. Saying something is science when it doesn't fit the definition, even when you have a group of people behind you doesn't change the definition.

I think that you are getting hung up on the concepts of culture and the real world. Your perceptions are yours and yours alone, yet a scientist believes that a real world exists outside your perceptions. Science attempts to glimpse this world.

See what I'm saying?

upnorthkyosa

And even within science, you can find disputes on what, how, who what when and where are defined, measured and what the compiled data really means. When you simplify 'science' as the 'thing' that is doing the work, the thinking and the idea generation you are actually personifying a 'thing' when it is people who are disciplined (disciples?) in science that are doing it. It is interesting that you use the term 'science' similar to the way these backward fundamentalists are using the term "god"....

The thing is that some of these 'creationsistic' theories are being presented by credible, reasonable science types who are working from the Divine Spark concept as well. Even Carl Sagan, after a lifetime of scientific study said that it was too miraculous for it to be circumstancial.

I would say that the scientists are the ones trying to push 'reality' into only was is within your perceptive experience while the mystical believers are saying that it is more than that.

 

[heretic888]

Okay, guys, two things I'd like to chime in here...

First off, someone seems to really be into the myth of the given here.

Secondly, I really wouldn't lump the "Divine Spark guys" --- if you are talking about who I think you're talking about --- with the "creationist guys".

Laterz.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Myth of the given?

 

[rmcrobertson]

First off, one is far more qualified to teach than George Bush is to be President.

Second off, one belives that he noted "contradictions," in democratic societies, rather than asserting some fantasized superiority to anybody.

And as for the bizarre remark to the effect that Dr. Carl Sagan underwent some sort of deathbed conversion, piffle.

Here are some of his last words:

ON PSEUDOSCIENCE:

"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudoscience and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir."

-"Science and Hope," The Demon-Haunted World, pp. 26-27.

WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE NONSENSE:

"Such reports persist and proliferate because they sell. And they sell, I think, because there are so many of us who want so badly to be jolted out of our humdrum lives, to rekindle that sense of wonder we remember from childhood, and also, for a few of the stories, to be able, really and truly, to believe-in Someone older, smarter, and wiser who is looking out for us. Faith is clearly not enough for many people. They crave hard evidence, scientific proof. They long for the scientific seal of approval, but are unwilling to put up with the rigorous standards of evidence that impart credibility to that seal."

-"The Man in the Moon and the Face on Mars," The Demon-Haunted World, p. 58.

ON SCIENCE LITERACY:

"All inquiries carry with them some element of risk. There is no guarantee that the universe will conform to our predispositions. But I do not see how we can deal with the universe-both the outside and the inside universe-without studying it. The best way to avoid abuses is for the populace in general to be scientifically literate, to understand the implications of such investigations. In exchange for freedom of inquiry, scientists are obliged to explain their work. If science is considered a closed priesthood, too difficult and arcane for the average person to understand, the dangers of abuse are greater. But if science is a topic of general interest and concern - if both its delights and its social consequences are discussed regularly and competently in the schools, the press, and at the dinner table - we have greatly improved our prospects for learning how the world really is and for improving both it and us."

-"Broca's Brain," Broca's Brain, p. 12.

ON SCIENCE AND UNCERTAINTY:

"We will always be mired in error. The most each generation can hope for is to reduce the error bars a little, and to add to the body of data to which error bars apply. The error bar is a pervasive, visible self-assessment of the reliability of our knowledge. You can often see error bars in public opinion polls...Imagine a society in which every speech in the Congressional Record, every television commercial, every sermon had an accompanying error bar or its equivalent."

-"Science and Hope," The Demon-Haunted World, p. 28.

ON HUMANS AND ANIMALS:

"We must stop pretending we're something we are not. Somewhere between romantic, uncritical anthropomorphizing of the animals and an anxious, obdurate refusal to recognize our kinship with them - the latter made tellingly clear in the still-widespread notion of 'special' creation - there is a broad middle ground on which we humans can take our stand."

-"Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors," Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, p. 413.

ON VELIKOVSKY:

"In the entire Velikovsky affair, the only aspect worse than the shoddy, ignorant and doctrinaire approach of Velikovsky and many of his supporters was the disgraceful attempt by some who called themselves scientists to suppress his writings. For this, the entire scientific enterprise has suffered. Velikovsky makes no serious claim of objectivity or falsifiability. There is at least nothing hypocritical in his rigid rejection of the immense body of data that contradicts his arguments. But scientists are supposed to know better, to realize that ideas will be judged on their merits if we permit free inquiry and vigorous debate."

-"Venus and Dr. Velikovsky," Broca's Brain, p. 127

BIOLOGY AND HISTORY:

"Biology is much more like language and history than it is like physics and chemistry. ...Now you might say that where the subject is simple, as in physics, we can figure out the underlying laws and apply them everywhere in the Universe; but where the subject is difficult, as in language, history, and biology, governing laws of Nature may well exist, but our intelligence may be too feeble to recognize their presence - especially if what is being studied is complex and chaotic, exquisitely sensitive to remote and inaccessible initial conditions. And so we invent formulations about "contingent reality" to disguise our ignorance. There may well be some truth to this point of view, but it is nothing like the whole truth, because history and biology remember in a way that physics does not. Humans share a culture, recall and act on what they've been taught. Life reproduced the adaptations of previous generations, and retains functioning DNA sequences that reach billions of years back into the past. We understand enough about biology and history to recognize a powerful stochastic component, the accidents preserved by high-fidelity reproduction."

-"Life is Just a Three-Letter Word," Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, p. 92.

ON GOD:

"Because the word 'God' means many things to many people, I frequently reply [to people who ask 'Do you believe in God?'] by asking what the questioner means by 'God.' To my surprise, this response is often considered puzzling or unexpected: 'Oh, you know, God. Everyone knows who God is.' Or 'Well, kind of a force that is stronger than we are and that exists everywhere in the universe.' There are a number of such forces. One of them is called gravity, but it is not often identified with God. And not everyone does know what is meant by 'God.'...Whether we believe in God depends very much on what we mean by God.

My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts (as well as unable to take such a course of action) if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival. In either case, the enterprise of knowledge is consistent with both science and religion, and is essential for the welfare of the human species."

-"A Sunday Sermon," Broca's Brain, p. 291.

ON THEISM AND ATHEISM:

"Those who raise questions about the God hypothesis and the soul hypothesis are by no means all atheists. An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed. A wide range of intermediate positions seems admissible, and considering the enormous emotional energies with which the subject is invested, a questioning, courageous and open mind seems to be the essential tool for narrowing the range of our collective ignorance on the subject of the existence of God."

-"The Amniotic Universe," Broca's Brain, p. 311.

ON A PLEA FOR TOLERANCE:

"We have held the peculiar notion that a person or society that is a little different from us, whoever we are, is somehow strange or bizarre, to be distrusted or loathed. Think of the negative connotations of words like alien or outlandish. And yet the monuments and cultures of each of our civilizations merely represent different ways of being human. An extraterrestrial visitor, looking at the differences among human beings and their societies, would find those differences trivial compared to the similarities. The Cosmos may be densely populated with intelligent beings. But the Darwinian lesson is clear: There will be no humans elsewhere. Only here. Only on this small planet. We are a rare as well as an endangered species. Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another."

-"Who Speaks for Earth?," Cosmos, p. 339.

ON THE TRANSIENCE OF LIFE:

"Each of us is a tiny being, permitted to ride on the outermost skin of one of the smaller planets for a few dozen trips around the local star. ...The longest-lived organisms on Earth endure for about a millionth of the age of our planet. A bacterium lives for one hundred-trillionth of that time. So of course the individual organisms see nothing of the overall pattern-continents, climate, evolution. They barely set foot on the world stage and are promptly snuffed out-yesterday a drop of semen, as the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote, tomorrow a handful of ashes. If the Earth were as old as a person, a typical organism would be born, live, and die in a sliver of a second. We are fleeting, transitional creatures, snowflakes fallen on the hearth fire. That we understand even a little of our origins is one of the great triumphs of human insight and courage."

-"Snowflakes Fallen on the Hearth," Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, pp. 30-31

One can certainly understand the objection to schoolchildren being taught such things.

N.B.: The very people defended for their, "right to free speech," here, by the way--and of course that is a right worth defending--it should be noted, immediately after his death in 1996 began to publish gleeful attacks on Sagan and his life's work. Perhaps it would be best to consider who exactly it is that we're defending.

 

[Cruentus]

wow...Carl Sagan.... what a heathen bastard...

 

[loki09789]

Okay, guys, two things I'd like to chime in here...

First off, someone seems to really be into the myth of the given here.

Secondly, I really wouldn't lump the "Divine Spark guys" --- if you are talking about who I think you're talking about --- with the "creationist guys".

Laterz.

Don't get the myth of the given. In the original article the idea that multiple models/theories should be presented -according to the school superintendent. Later, another school district with a similar view mentioned including the Divine Spark theory as on of those other theories that was being presented.

My point is that even within the scientific community there is disagreement. "Science" isn't a unified body of believers all seeing the same thing when they look at the same data. There are still arguments over TRex as scavenger or TRex as hunter - when the same body of evidence is in front of these two groups. How much more diverse will the camps be when you have chemists, biologists, astronomers (of ALL the various types).....looking at different data forming opinions about the origins of life? If it isn't even a unified idea within the community it will NEVER be resolved between faith followers and science followers.

In the end, though, what powers to override the popular vote do the minority, the unorganized, the unmotivated have in this case? What powers to override the popular vote to these school officials have? We live in a democracy - if that is what they want, that is what they will get.

There have been tons of comments about how ridiculous creationism is, how it doesn't belong in science class (which was not absolutely stated as the only way it will be presented), and how it is being perpetuated by a bunch of backward thinkers....but very little mention of how we live in a country where we don't all have to agree to the same things and no one has the right to stop you from thinking the way you want...that is prejudice and bigotous. I have used the Native American analogy as another community that adheres to and teaches a faith based origin idea/creation belief but no one feels that it is acceptable to call them backwards.

 

[Makalakumu]

And even within science, you can find disputes on what, how, who what when and where are defined, measured and what the compiled data really means.

In some places yes, in others, no. In science, observations are repeatable by anyone, even your greatest detractors. In fact, scientists expect their worst enemy to comment so they can learn from those comments. The bottom line is that science is our most precious tool for examining the world. Our picture of reality is a commonality that binds all people together. It is something we all experience regardless of culture.

When you simplify 'science' as the 'thing' that is doing the work, the thinking and the idea generation you are actually personifying a 'thing' when it is people who are disciplined (disciples?) in science that are doing it.

Science is a meme. It is a tool. It is a way at looking at and determining structures in the real world. It is a way of speaking to another person and saying, do you see the same thing that I do. Repeatable observation is the basis for all science. In martial arts we know this because we are constantly asking the question, what works and what doesn't. In reality, some things are much simpler them martial arts and I can describe those things to you in a way that you (or anyone else) will see it using science.

It is interesting that you use the term 'science' similar to the way these backward fundamentalists are using the term "god"...

The only link between these two things is that they are BOTH memes. The comparison ends there. Science is internally focused. It gives you power by stating that you can actually know something. God is externally focused. The meme takes away your power by claiming that there are somethings that you cannot know. Science is the exemplification of the Light of Reason, the Fire of Prometheus, the Snake in the Garden, the Golden Apple...

Perhaps this is why the fundamentalists are so opposed...

The thing is that some of these 'creationsistic' theories are being presented by credible, reasonable science types who are working from the Divine Spark concept as well. Even Carl Sagan, after a lifetime of scientific study said that it was too miraculous for it to be circumstancial.

Attempting to dovetail the "divine spark" group into the "creation science" group is looking at the details of what both groups propose. It's like plopping a catholic down next to a muslim and saying that they are the same because they both believe in God...except in this case there are even more differences.

I would say that the scientists are the ones trying to push 'reality' into only was is within your perceptive experience while the mystical believers are saying that it is more than that.

Reality exists. It pushes its way onto you. You stick to the earth because of this reality, because of the Laws of Nature.

F = G (m1*m2)/r^2.

Scientists tell you about these laws. Evolution is also a part of our universe. Scientists must tell people about it.

 

[Makalakumu]

My point is that even within the scientific community there is disagreement. "Science" isn't a unified body of believers all seeing the same thing when they look at the same data. There are still arguments over TRex as scavenger or TRex as hunter - when the same body of evidence is in front of these two groups. How much more diverse will the camps be when you have chemists, biologists, astronomers (of ALL the various types).....looking at different data forming opinions about the origins of life? If it isn't even a unified idea within the community it will NEVER be resolved between faith followers and science followers.

In faith, disagreement is heresy. In science, disagreement is blessing. Arguing over the details does not negate the power of knowledge. The laws of our universe apply to all humans, everything IN the universe.

We can know these laws...and this is what fundamentalists are truly objecting to.

In the end, though, what powers to override the popular vote do the minority, the unorganized, the unmotivated have in this case? What powers to override the popular vote to these school officials have? We live in a democracy - if that is what they want, that is what they will get.

The majority you mentioned above may extinguish the light of reason through their democratic power, despite all attempts at education. This would be a slap in the face to everything America stands for because our founding fathers attempted to create a society in which reason prevailed over quackery. Yet, it could happen. Flip over a dollar bill and look into the Eye of Osirus. Would you stand by and let people blind that eye?

There have been tons of comments about how ridiculous creationism is, how it doesn't belong in science class (which was not absolutely stated as the only way it will be presented), and how it is being perpetuated by a bunch of backward thinkers....but very little mention of how we live in a country where we don't all have to agree to the same things and no one has the right to stop you from thinking the way you want...that is prejudice and bigotous. I have used the Native American analogy as another community that adheres to and teaches a faith based origin idea/creation belief but no one feels that it is acceptable to call them backwards.

Can you imagine the prejudice and bigotry (and not to mention hubris) of a group that could claim that their religious myths are based off of repeatable observations by anyone including their worst enemies? That their religious myths are a law of the universe that everyone obeys whether they like it or not? If you cannot see the utter contempt for diversity inherit in this effort, then I cannot help you. But this is what is at stake...ALL other cultures, beliefs, myths and people are being put to the stake and burned away, leaving only one under the trappings of something that used to be called knowledge...under the mantle of a lie.

Who would tell you the truth in this slave new world?

upnorthkyosa

 

[loki09789]

1. In faith, disagreement is heresy. In science, disagreement is blessing. Arguing over the details does not negate the power of knowledge. The laws of our universe apply to all humans, everything IN the universe.

2. We can know these laws...and this is what fundamentalists are truly objecting to.

3. The majority you mentioned above may extinguish the light of reason through their democratic power, despite all attempts at education. This would be a slap in the face to everything America stands for because our founding fathers attempted to create a society in which reason prevailed over quackery. Yet, it could happen. Flip over a dollar bill and look into the Eye of Osirus. Would you stand by and let people blind that eye?

4. Can you imagine the prejudice and bigotry (and not to mention hubris) of a group that could claim that their religious myths are based off of repeatable observations by anyone including their worst enemies? That their religious myths are a law of the universe that everyone obeys whether they like it or not? If you cannot see the utter contempt for diversity inherit in this effort, then I cannot help you. But this is what is at stake...ALL other cultures, beliefs, myths and people are being put to the stake and burned away, leaving only one under the trappings of something that used to be called knowledge...under the mantle of a lie.

5. Who would tell you the truth in this slave new world?

upnorthkyosa

1. Generalization. There are many a debate in religious study - whether between sects or within sects. There are also hertical treatment of people with diverse views on a subject (oh say like evolution.....). What if somewhere in the future, there is a way to identify, measure and show evidence of some divine scheme? Does the 'majority' or 'popular' views of some in science have the right to squash the views of others who disagree...it is happening right now. THere is a theory of an aquatic ape as part of the human evolutionary process (or a possible parallel evolution that died out) that has been laughed out of 'majority' scientific views. The Berring st. idea about the human migration of the American continent has been challenged and resisted early on.... so disagreement in Science does not automatically mean joy nor do all scientists agree when they see the same data. Conviction in your beliefs/ideas 'right' isn't only in religion. There are many 'educational superiority king/queens' out there that behave just as narrowly as religious superiority king/queens.

Oh, btw, the idea that the laws of nature are for everyone sounds a lot like "Jesus/God died for all men, regardless of time or place...." it's for everyone.

2. No, the fundamentalists are lobbying for their particular cultural view to be presented in their childrens education. Beyond that it is speculation.

3. No. The majority are not throwing away the scientific method, only seeking representation within their community. Are we a democracy or not?

4. Again, this is not a case of censoring information or limited book lists. It is a case of including a local cultural norm in the local educational system. Isn't this argument against allowing them to include their culture in there education ironic when your very argument is intolerant of their view?

5. What slave state? New World?..... If there is some grand scheme involved it is going to be an old world anachronism not an 'new world' if religion is going to rule - which I don't see in this case in any way.