Posted on 08/25/2008 4:20:50 AM PDT by Soliton
In June, Governor Brad Henry vetoed the “Religious Viewpoints Antidiscrimination Act,” a piece of legislature authored by Sen. James Williamson and infamous fundamentalist Rep. Sally Kern.
If passed, this bill would have, among other things, guaranteed that “students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions.”
You read that correctly.
Answer on a test that the universe began 6,000 years ago with a few words from the mouth of an invisible, magical entity rather than 13.73 billion years ago with the expansion of energy from gravitational singularity? A-plus!
So it might have been if Gov. Henry hadn’t interceded. I’d like to tell Henry: Thank you from the bottom of my heart, and God bless you.
And to those of you who weren’t kicking up a fuss about the bill or at least complaining about it on your blogs: What were you thinking?
This isn’t the first time Kern and those like her have tried to insinuate superstitious nonsense into the curriculum of our state’s children, and it certainly won’t be the last.
Some of you may be too busy to follow each shot fired in the battle between the proponents of intelligent design the nom de guerre behind which creationism usually hides when its proponents seek to incorporate it into educational curricula — and its detractors.
(Excerpt) Read more at oudaily.com ...
With that statement you show you know little of science.
In science, a theory is the highest level of explanation. Proof is a term largely used in mathematics, not science.
Here are some definitions which may help you understand the difference (from a long list on my FR home page):
When you think about the complexity of even the smallest of molecules, germs, etc., it is incredible to see design with intent. I’m sorry, but it takes a HUGE leap of faith to think that a huge explosion in space billions of years ago brought order out of chaos.Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Proof: A term from logic and mathematics describing an argument from premise to conclusion using strictly logical principles. In mathematics, theorems or propositions are established by logical arguments from a set of axioms, the process of establishing a theorem being called a proof.
The colloquial meaning of "proof" causes lots of problems in physics discussion and is best avoided. Since mathematics is such an important part of physics, the mathematician's meaning of proof should be the only one we use. Also, we often ask students in upper level courses to do proofs of certain theorems of mathematical physics, and we are not asking for experimental demonstration!
So, in a laboratory report, we should not say "We proved Newton's law" Rather say, "Today we demonstrated (or verified) the validity of Newton's law in the particular case of..." Source.
These are not a part of the theory of evolution. Evolution covers only change in the genome since life began. The origin of the universe and the origin of life are two different fields of study.
Do you ride a camel to church? No you rely on science. Shame on you for being so ungrateful!
Great point. If the Darwinist are forced to choose between Math and Evolution, they'll start campainging to remove Math from the schools too. Math is very dangerous after all because it deals in absolutes right? Hmmmmmm. Maybe we should quit while we are ahead.
Well, I agree with you there. Alas, the educational system is definitely broken. Its only the very committed and occasional very bright student who manages to succeed despite it. The rest are lucky if they can multiply 3647 with 16. If that.
Islam too, is broken, but that is because its adherents agree with this ideology of violence. The bad part is, you never know when the “moderates” will turn into the fundamentalists. Youre right about that amendment.
Woof. Theres a consoling spiritual presence for you. A man who isnt trying to push his agenda at inappropriate moments, and rising above petty things. /Sarc off.
Would you guys agree that the ideal solution would be for the government not to be involved in education and have the marketplace be a bunch of competing private schools which are allowed to teach whatever they wish?
People on both sides of these threads are amongst the biggest idiots on the Internet.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on my post 68 as well.
The marketplace already exists and public schools are necessary.
Why, exactly? The conservative viewpoint would be that abolishing public schools would create a huge free market for private schooling, which would drastically drive down the cost. Saving money on property taxes would be a nice bonus. Genuine question, do you consider yourself a conservative, or just post at FR because of the volume of crevo discussions?
I have been a member since 99 and posted my first evolution article after Ben Stein lost his mind. I am a conservative, but I understand that our educated population is our greatest asset. Without public schools we would have a class system develop like Britain's in the 19th century. Poor kids simply wouldn't go to school at all. The quality of your education and your opportunities in life would depend on how much money your family had.
I believe in vouchers, but I believe in public schools too. The American dream would be meaningless without the upward mobility offered to smart poor kids through the public school system.
Most private schools teach evolution as well. The one I went to (Catholic) did.
It is only a small number of radical fundamentalists who see a problem between science and religion and who want the entire educational system in this country remodeled for their convenience.
You are correct. My question, though, is would you be on board with the ideal of abolishing the public schooling system and creating an educational free market? As you point out, the majority of private schools teach evolution and would presumably continue to do so.
Without public schools we would have a class system develop like Britain's in the 19th century. Poor kids simply wouldn't go to school at all. The quality of your education and your opportunities in life would depend on how much money your family had.
Do you believe in socialized health care as well? If not, why the difference?
You do realize that even suggesting such an amendment may one day be called a hate crime, right? I’m willing to stand by it. But laws have the potential to change very quickly. Even if McCain is elected, ‘hate speech’ laws could even make suggestions of certain amendments dangerous.
“It is only a small number of radical fundamentalists who see a problem between science and religion and who want the entire educational system in this country remodeled for their convenience.”
It’s a huge number of radical leftists who want that. I want freedom [and I’m a former environmentalist BTW]. So do most fundamentalists. Trying to find a fundamentalist opposed to freedom is like trying to find someone who thinks that landing men on the moon is a conspiracy.
Radical leftists want to keep control of public education funds, and that’s a big fat chunk of our economy.
No, I would not. Anything that would lead to educational Balkanism should be discouraged.
Science offers verifiable knowledge; religion does not. Students should be exposed to science and the world of verifiable knowledge. To be taught solely in the YECho chamber of extreme religious fundamentalism, is akin to child abuse.
And before some of the extremists on this site say that is what our current educational system is, sorry--wrong. Students are exposed to religion outside of schools and science in schools, getting both viewpoints. If you have only fundamentalist schools that exposure to verifiable knowledge is missing entirely. I do not consider that a worthy goal.
“I believe in vouchers, but I believe in public schools too”
I’m willing to compromise with public schools. At the same time, there’s a huge percentage of public school funding being slopped up by graft — especially in special ed. And I truly hope they aren’t doping up as many kids with ritallin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.