Posted on 03/20/2007 2:02:43 PM PDT by Diago
During his eight days as a part-time high school biology teacher, Kris Helphinstine included Biblical references in material he provided to students and gave a PowerPoint presentation that made links between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood.
That was enough for the Sisters School Board, which fired the teacher Monday night for deviating from the curriculum on the theory of evolution.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
All opinions, on any matter whatsoever, are shaped by the day and the culture in which they form.
That said, science is unique in human endeavor in that it actively works to remove blinders caused by that effect. Other endeavors, such as politics or religion, seem to glory in them.
It's the belief that slight, insurmountable cultural bias demolishes the truth in science or the value in modernity that is the basis of luddism.
To the extent that it's true to say science is shaped by the day and culture in which [it forms], is to make an interesting but ultimately meaningless observation. No one is capable of working outside his time and place. On the other hand, if "day and culture" were able to distort science, why does science originating in, say, pre-Victorian England, still work in post-Mao China?
One more time. Will you hold that hold to that opinion in the face of assertions that creationsists are not "anti-science"?
More relevant to the purpose of this forum, will you advocate that position as the correct political stance for passing legislation and forming public policy with regard to public support of science and the scientific community?
The hubris of scientists is to claim that the scientific method is the only way we can know anything. This puts them in the unique position of claiming the right to say which questions are meaningful.
> On the other hand, if "day and culture" were able to
> distort science, why does science originating in, say,
> pre-Victorian England, still work in post-Mao China?
Because, as I also noted, the endeavor of science (alone among human undertakings) actually takes meaningful steps to minimize the effects by, for example, insisting that observations or experiments be repeatable and reproducible.
Even so, some of the assumptions underlying Newtonian physics, that space could be adequately described using Euclidean geometry and that time progressed at a uniform rate, were clearly "time and place" sorts of assumptions that have measureable, negative, impact on the accuracy of his theory.
What assumptions do we make today?
Creationists are not anti-science unless science demands that they accept that the scientific method is the only way we can know anything. As for the peculiar term "scientific community." is that politically-speaking simply another lobby, little different in its acivities from the gay-rights lobby in trying to get the law to silence its opponents?
That's because they're just as human as anyone else.
They are just as greedy for fame and fortune as the average rock star. More to the point, they are sometime guilty of priestcraft, which is to claim magical powers.
Is that why so many scientists have their own television shows on which they appear immaculately coiffed, sometimes with their wives interjecting, "Oh! Praise Pasteur!" every few moments while the scientist tearfully warns his viewers that unless the viewers send money, that science won't like them any more?
Is it all right if they demand that the scientific disciplines be based on the scientific method, or do you demand that theologians reserve the right to overrule their conclusions if they conflict with religious dogma?
As for the peculiar term "scientific community." is that politically-speaking simply another lobby, little different in its acivities from the gay-rights lobby in trying to get the law to silence its opponents?
The Founders specifically made reference to the legitimate role of government in advancing and supporting science and scientific inquiry. You tell me if it's "just another lobby".
Of course.
Even so, some of the assumptions underlying Newtonian physics, that space could be adequately described using Euclidean geometry and that time progressed at a uniform rate, were clearly "time and place" sorts of assumptions that have measureable, negative, impact on the accuracy of his theory.
Yup. At present, we regard it as "true as far as it goes." Newton should never be underestimated, even though he modestly stated he was "standing on the shoulders of giants." We now have the advantage of standing on the shoulders of several generations of very intelligent and hard-working people who have been standing on Newton's shoulders.
What assumptions do we make today?
That will be more obvious in fifty or a hundred years.
First of all what do you mean by "creationists?" That can mean just those who believe that the account of the creation in Genesis has to be taken as it is. More broadly, it is the theological doctrine that the universe is a creation, not just something that "happened." Another part of this is the belief that the universe had a beginning and will have an end. Many thinkers from Aristotle onward, and taught that the universe always existed. Scientists who accept the latter belief might be called anti-creationists, and they can hold to this even though it seems to go against what we now know. Fred Hoyle believed this, I think. Others try the end around notion of multiple universes or consecutive universes, which is also in one form or another a way of accounting for the counter-intuitive aspects of quantum theory. The way that human beings are made indictaes that we can never be satisfied with agnosticism about untilmate things, which is why Eveolutionists and therologicnas each go beyond what they actually know at any given moment.
That's a good post.
Why do these idiots always bring up eugenics and what the Nazis did in their opposition to evolution theory? Social conservatives complain all the time about liberal teachers with agendas; why should kooks from the right get a free pass?
For the entire history of the country until quite recently you could mention God and refer directly to biblical principles concerning the origins of man because that was the kind of schools that communities "freely" chose to create since the beginning of this country.
This is no longer the case, for you must now lead children to believe that science has proven that the only reasonable explanation for their existence must be given by naturalistic science, for they are the ultimate holders of all truth about past events that they did not observe or test and the Bible is merely a book of nonsense.
It was only recently that liberals have used the supreme court to overcome the will of most parents in the name of their own secular progressive revisionism.
The only solution is to phase out and discontinue the godless government school monopoly and let the parents choose a private godless school if that is their choice. At the same time the large majority of parents will get to choose a school that they favor as well. Goodbye to the forced godless indoctrination.
It is the only just solution, because the government schools are a political monopoly as dictated by the NEA and the ACLU playbook.
I mean those who describe themselves as "creationists". You can't be that obsessed with measuring everything else by contemporaneous cultural and societal dynamics, and then pretend you don't understand that context here and now.
And you think the appropriate response to that situation is to hold science in the same contempt that liberals hold religion?
You saw nothing of the kind in my post. This only proves that some people ignore an entire post and see what they want instead.
Let's go with that, and ignore Creationist attempts to vague the term
Filed under "reasons to kill off the government schools."
Entry number 10,485,339...
Not buying it. I saw not only the entire post, but the post it was in response to that established the context. Thou doth protest too much.
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.