Who Hates Academic Freedom?

[PureX]

Evolutionism is a religious belief about the past...not science.

I can't converse with people who are inventing language as they go.

 

[Caino]

I can't converse with people who are inventing language as they go.

You aren't going to get honest dialogue about evolution and science with a man named "6days". It's really the only topic he discusses on TOL as it is the most egregious error in the Bible.

 

[6days]

I can't converse with people who are inventing language as they go.

Yes... that makes discussion almost impossible.

 

[PureX]

Cutting to the chase, the discoveries of science have conflicted with the teachings of religion regarding the origins of life. The problem isn't science the problem is religion, more specifically Biblical idolatry; the churches original teaching of it's own infallibility in proclaiming the infallibility of books that don't even claim infallibility.

Proud, haughty religious institutions are good at confessing the sins of the world but not its own.

I don't mind so much that people prefer myth to reality so much as I mind the back-handed and dishonest ways they use or approve of in trying to get others to do the same. Especially when those others are children.

This legislation in Alabama is just another example of their trying to appear to be doing one thing when they have every intention of doing just the opposite. The problem with people who are willing to lie to themselves is that they very easily become willing to lie to everyone else.

 

[Dialogos]

Creationism is not a scientific theory, and therefor does not need to be discussed in a science class.

Censorship.

Nor does it need to be included in any way in a science curriculum.

Censorship.

Yet in backward states like Alabama,

Prejudicial, bigoted statement.

…where many of the teachers (like most of the citizens and most of the school board members) are religious zealots who reject real science in favor of biblical mythology…

Hasty generalization in addition to being a putridly hateful, bigoted statement against a people group (residents of Alabama).

…and will pressure other teachers to do the same, will be teaching creationism as though it were a "scientific theory" if they are allowed to do so.

Call to censorship.

Lets now leave behind bigoted statements and calls to censorship and discuss what is rational and logical.
It is unscientific to entirely eliminate one theory of origins and take that theory off the discussion table entirely. To do so makes “science” a dogma, not an inquisitive process of pursuing truth wherever the evidence may lead. Such an approach ends up destroying the very basis of the scientific process. If there is evidence of design and purpose in the universe it is unscientific to suppress that evidence in order to maintain an existing dogma inherent in the so-called “science” curriculum.

 

[PureX]

Science is a method of physiological inquiry. Creationism is a religious dogma. They are two completely antithetical thought processes.

 

[Stripe]

Anyone who sends their kids to school doesn't deserve them.

 

[6days]

... named "6days". It's really the only topic he discusses on TOL

So many faulty statements and poor conclusions.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=110039

 

[david.gibbs]

Sure just dont bring evolutionism into the science class without pointing out that creation may be observed and appear in our simple understanding as evolution.

 

[Dialogos]

Science is a method of physiological inquiry.

So why would a method of physical inquiry (not physiological, you misconstrue what physiological means). Scientific questions of origins are by no means limited to physiological questions.

So if science methodologically inquires as to the nature of the physical universe and makes theoretical statements regarding the origin of the physical universe, then why would a science curriculum dogmatically refuse to discuss one theory of origins and refuse to discuss evidence for that theory?

How is shutting data out of the discussion, disqualifying one theory before the fact, or silencing discussions or questions about creationism in the spirit of a discipline that is supposed to invite inquiry?

Creationism is a religious dogma.

Which religion?

They are two completely antithetical thought processes.

False.

Scientific creationism posits and defends the theory that the best explanation for the physical universe is a divine Creator based on scientific observations.

 

[6days]

Science is a method of physiological inquiry. Creationism is a religious dogma. They are two completely antithetical thought processes.

Questions for you.....
1. In the past evolutionists taught that our bodies were composed of 98% junk DNA. They claimed this was biological remnants which was evidence of common ancestry.
Should teachers have been allowed to quote Bible believing scientists suggesting that in the future, research may find purpose and function for non coding DNA?*

2. In the past some taught that the vertebrate eye had a sloppy design which was evidence against the designer argument. Should a teacher be allowed to make the opposite argument?

 

[PureX]

Questions for you.....
1. In the past evolutionists taught that our bodies were composed of 98% junk DNA. They claimed this was biological remnants which was evidence of common ancestry.
Should teachers have been allowed to quote Bible believing scientists suggesting that in the future, research may find purpose and function for non coding DNA?

Scientific theories are called theories because they are always subject to change as new phenomenological information becomes observable. Once the basic concept and process of science has been taught to the students, there would be no need to reiterate the possibility of new information changing a given theory because it would already be understood.

2. In the past some taught that the vertebrate eye had a sloppy design which was evidence against the designer argument. Should a teacher be allowed to make the opposite argument?

These arguments are philosophical, not scientific. They have no place in a high school science curriculum.

 

[PureX]

So if science methodologically inquires as to the nature of the physical universe and makes theoretical statements regarding the origin of the physical universe, then why would a science curriculum dogmatically refuse to discuss one theory of origins and refuse to discuss evidence for that theory?

Science doesn't make "statements". It develops theories based on observations, and then tries to test those theories through experimentation to see if they align with observed results.

Creationism is not a scientifically postulated theory. It is not a theory about the nature of reality based on observations of reality. It's a religious dogma, based on religious mythology, in direct denial of observable reality. And that is why it has no place in a science classroom.

How is shutting data out of the discussion, disqualifying one theory before the fact, or silencing discussions or questions about creationism in the spirit of a discipline that is supposed to invite inquiry?

Religious mythology is not observable "data". Any more than a Shakespeare play is observable "data". And creationism, a dogma based on religious mythology is not a scientific theory, based on observable data.

Scientific creationism posits and defends the theory that the best explanation for the physical universe is a divine Creator based on scientific observations.

There is no "scientific creationism" because creationism is not based on observable phenomena, it's based on religious mythology.

 

[kmoney]

USA state of Alabama has introduced legislation allowing teachers and students more academic freedom.

The preamble of House Bill 592 says "This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

"This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."


So who is opposed to this academic freedom? Evolutionists, of course. The bill allows teachers to discuss strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Teachers are NOT allowed to teach religion or the Genesis creation account..... So what are they afraid of?

What is an example of something that a teacher currently couldn't say?

What are the rules surrounding the teaching of evolution?

 

[The Barbarian]

This one has been tried before, and it failed. It is the vain hope it that it will somehow let a teacher disparage science legally.

 

[The Barbarian]

how do you explain entropy in a science class?

Or, more useful in population genetics:

 

[The Barbarian]

Sure just dont bring evolutionism into the science class without pointing out that creation may be observed and appear in our simple understanding as evolution.

Absolutely. If He doesn't create quite the way some people would like, that's not really His problem is it?

 

[6days]

Questions for you.....
1. In the past evolutionists taught that our bodies were composed of 98% junk DNA. They claimed this was biological remnants which was evidence of common ancestry.
Should teachers have been allowed to quote Bible believing scientists suggesting that in the future, research may find purpose and function for non coding DNA?

2. In the past some taught that the vertebrate eye had a sloppy design which was evidence against the designer argument. Should a teacher be allowed to make the opposite argument?

These arguments are philosophical, not scientific. They have no place in a high school science curriculum.

Haha... so philisophical conclusions that involve common ancestry are fine to discuss..... and philisophical conclusions (that ended up being correct) *allowing for a designer is not ok to discuss?

As Dialogos said, you are promoting censorship of ideas... not science.*

 

[6days]

What is an example of something that a teacher currently couldn't say?

What are the rules surrounding the teaching of evolution?

Good question... Why have a number of USA states felt the need to protect science teachers who promote discussion, and allow scrutiny of controversial topics such as man made climate change and evolutionism?
The Alabama bill does not allow for religious instruction... the curriculum still must be taught... and nobody is being forced to teach anything except the curriculum. Why are evolutionists so afraid of allowing the discussion?

Actually, kids take more interest in a subject and learn better when allowed to think for themselves and compare competing ideas.

 

[The Barbarian]

1. In the past evolutionists taught that our bodies were composed of 98% junk DNA.

In science, it's called "non-coding DNA", and in the 60s, when I was starting college, there were scientific papers about the functions of some of it. You've been lied to about those things.

They claimed this was biological remnants which was evidence of common ancestry.

Much of it is. For example, the GULO gene for producing vitamin C, is broken in primates and Guinea pigs. But the break is different in each case, and consistent in primates. Other than having evolved, it would only be possible if there were several astounding coincidences in dozens of species. Your story is as plausible as 36 people guessing the same random string of 200 numbers.

Should teachers have been allowed to quote Bible believing scientists suggesting that in the future, research may find purpose and function for non coding DNA?*

Bible-believing scientists were figuring out the evolutionary paths from these remnants, and discovering what some of them did, about 50 years ago. Your guys are a bit late, and merely copying what "evolutionists" already figured out.

2. In the past some taught that the vertebrate eye had a sloppy design which was evidence against the designer argument.

It would be sloppy design, if it were designed. But of course, it evolved. The fact that our retina is inside out, is an artifact of the development of the vertebrate eye from endoderm, while the cephalopod eye arises from ectoderm. The only way it could work for us was to be inside out, and this does reduce acuity. There have been numerous mutations that compensated for that issue, but it doesn't completely remove the problem.

Should a teacher be allowed to make the opposite argument?

A science teacher should teach what science has discovered. Making up "just so" stories to cover up, is neither honest nor scientific.