Posted on 08/24/2008 2:16:12 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...In February, the Florida Department of Education modified its standards to explicitly require, for the first time, the state’s public schools to teach evolution, calling it “the organizing principle of life science.” Spurred in part by legal rulings against school districts seeking to favor religious versions of natural history, over a dozen other states have also given more emphasis in recent years to what has long been the scientific consensus: that all of the diverse life forms on Earth descended from a common ancestor, through a process of mutation and natural selection, over billions of years.
But in a nation where evangelical Protestantism and other religious traditions stress a literal reading of the biblical description of God’s individually creating each species, students often arrive at school fearing that evolution, and perhaps science itself, is hostile to their faith.
Some come armed with “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments. Many just tune out.
(Click link for full article)
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Wish I could recall his FREEPER screen name. He had certainly long convinced me of his authoritative rank and positions before his retirement, IIRC.
Yeah, was about what I was speculating as well but hoped it wasn’t true. Was kind of sad to have it confirmed.
Now, exactly what constitutes government support for one religion over others is a moving target and up for constant debate. But one thing that the courts have said many times, both liberal courts and conservative courts, is that asking teachers to present religious content in school is a no-no. It doesn't matter if the majority of people believe in that content--that's not how the Bill of Rights works.
3. If the "free practice of your religion" requires you to interfere with others' pursuits--if it requires you to disrupt a classroom or start preaching on a bus or shout Bible verses during "immoral" movies--you should stay home.
So everyone else gets to freely practice their religion in public,except Christians?
Are you saying that the free practice of Christianity involves the behavior I listed? Not my version, it doesn't.
Is that anything like interfering with others' pursuits through the filing of lawsuits?
No, it's nothing like it.
The first is the free exercise of one's religion. It doesn't have to interfere with others pursuits unless they let it.
So once again, you're claiming that interrupting science class to ask "gotcha" questions of the teacher, preaching on the bus to people just trying to get home from work, and ruining people's ability to enjoy movies you think are immoral is part of the free exercise of Christianity? And that other people just shouldn't let it bother them? That's your understanding of Christ's message?
Some people are way too easily offended.
I agree with you there.
Take a look at this FR thread. It’s about Harun Yaha specifically. I stand by my arguments there: IDers are so driven to inject ID into science, they’ll approvingly quote radical Islamic propaganda if they think it advances their cause.
>>>>>>>>> Oh, I don’t doubt there are ID extremists out there, I’m not one of them and I would not use Islam in ANY way, because not only do I not need to, but Islam would be the very last place I’d look to promote SCIENCE theory.
It sounds like you think ID is a good idea because it has a religious component, which undercuts your argument that ID is science.
>>>>>>> You would be completely wrong.
And how should the scientific community respond when an individual or group wants to introduce manifest nonsense into the science curriculum?
>>>>>>>I don’t know, but AGAIN scientists dissent from darwin, and ID isn’t nonsense.
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
My gut feeling though about “nonsense” is it will take care of itself. I don’t see the dissentfromdarwin website promoting astrology though.
To defend ID as science you also have to defend astrology.
>>>>>>>>Not at all...and there may be websites out there that promote astrology but I could simply care less.
That’s what Behe said, and he’s the academic force behind ID.
>>>>>>>> I didn’t notice him here:
www.dissentfromdarwin.org but there are many more SCIENTISTS who disagree with darwinism.
There is no competing scientific theory.
>>>>>>>> Your opinion, again alot of scientists disagree.
How do you go about disproving ID? What observation would result in ID proponents all agreeing that ID is wrong?
>>>>>>>>> I don’t know but until we see censorship and lawsuits end to silence it, we can’t fully know.
That’s what happens every day in science.
>>>>>>>> Nooooo, what we DO see is lawsuits to silence dissenting opinion. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to see ‘No intelligence allowed’ to see what happens in the real world.
But that’s not what we’re talking about here, which is people trying to smuggle unscientific concepts into science class at the middle and high school level: this is manifestly NOT where scientific debate takes place. It appears deliberate: IDers want to expose children who haven’t got the background to evaluate a scientific theory — who are attempting to learn what science is — to a series of claims that are unscientific.
>>>>>>>>> Really? That’s not AT ALL the impression I get here:
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
IN FACT the last thing I see here is religious undertones!
We’re supposed to pretend, I guess. But we’re supposed to pretend they are science in the name of ... what? Fairness?
>>>>>>>>>Ummmm....nooooo, they have REAL DEGREES IN SCIENCE!
It’s called dissent from darwin and it’s a dissent BY SCIENTISTS!
That sounds like affirmative action science to me.
>>>>>>It does if you’re biased I guess.
The other pretext is that to do otherwise would be “censorship.”
Nope the lawsuits kind of confirm that all by themselves.
If you want to see how ridiculous it can get I suggest looking here:
www.catholicleague.org
www.thomasmore.org
www.aclj.org
I don’t think it’s particularly “religious” for schools to have the word Christmas on school calendars, but there’s yet MORE censorship and threats of lawsuits to REMOVE the FEDERAL HOLIDAY Christmas from the school calendar.
Science is not exempt from unobjective godless liberals. PERIOD.
I’m in favor of that sort of censorship.
>>>>>>>>OF COURSE! It fits with your worldview! Howev er it remains very un-American as well as cowardly.
Otherwise, you’d could have people trying to teach Abbott & Costello’s “Seven times thirteen is twenty-eight” routine as mathematics. It’s as close to math as ID is to science.
>>>>>>>>Ridiculous....can you show me a website espousing such math? You know with real mathmaticians with real math degrees?
It is the job of the science community to prevent this.
>>>>>>>>It appears you mean ONLY the godless liberal unobjective scientists and not these scientists:
www.dissentfromdarwin.org
You’re assuming here that science is anti-Christian or anti-God. It’s not. The number of “believers in God” is irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>No, I’m not so much talking about science here as I am INDEED talking about a culture war and survival of the west...there’s one being raged by godless liberals against anything remotely God from within, and those that are dangerously extreme that hijack God to decapitate those that don’t conform and slit throats that do conform but just not in the “correct” ways!
You truly have to be myopic to see that science is somehow exempt from such extremes; while law, education in general, journalism, history etc. are not.
You’re undercutting your own argument. If your objection to ID not being taught in science class is that there’s an anti-Christian agenda at work, it would seem that ID must be in and of itself Christian for your argument to make any sense.
>>>>>> Not at all: try to stay focused on science and not religion and you’ll understand. There can be dissenting OPINION on THEORY...in other words you could have:
1. a person not particularly religious that sees merit in ID
2. a religious scientist that dismisses ID
3. non-religious that accepts evolution
4. religious that dismiss evolution.
My personal belief is God created and evolution is one of His tools.
If evolution can stand alone on it’s own two feet, it will withstand ID, much as Abbott and Costello math will fold to real math. It doesn’t NEED lawsuits and censorship to shut out dissent from fellow scientists.
So … if there were more Muslims than Christians, would that make a difference?
>>>>>>Not where the science is concerned. Frankly, Islam is a pseudo-religious belief system that ALSO can not stand alone to the truth, INDEED what true religion would need to terrorize it’s own as well as others to get them to conform ?????
It’s not that they’re wrong in believing in God, they just misunderstand Him. They’re very VERY wrong in their understanding of Him IMO.
New Testament scripture doesn’t express such extreme faith. God gives us free will and we accept Him or we don’t, but we don’t enforce whole societies to bow to Yahweh or be beheaded. If my daughter married a Muslim man I wouldn’t have my son “honor kill” her.
But because they believe there is a God albeit a MISunderstanding of Him, doesn’t necessarily preclude them from understanding differences in darwinism and ID and getting THAT right, does it? I mean if you were truly objective?
It seems to me Islam would corrupt their view of science, just as it seems to corrupt everything, but this could be said of godless liberals because they have demonstrated to me they’re incapable of objectivity in many MANY areas.
Look...my argument all along is let ID stand next to evolution, and let the chips fall where they may SCIENTIFICALLY! I understand the religious implications, but faith there is no God is just as much a belief system. Personally, I see room for both theories. Perhaps in some instances one has more meit than the other, but let’s indeed look at that!
Science should care less if there’s a Creator or not, let science bear such a thing out on it’s own merits!
I said:
And lest we forget, we didn’t develop into some kind of “Theocracy” that shut down and shut out evolution when kids were not only thinking openly in terms of a creator but actually indeed PRAYED to Him in school!
You reply: Irrelevant.
HUH? This has been YOUR argument all along, so how is YOUR argument irrelevant?
The argument is that religious zealots need not inject ID into science...in effect turning science INTO religion and it is because of these EXACT fears...that I dispel them, that they’re now somehow IRRELEVANT?
Well they are indeed but more accurately I’d say:
UNFOUNDED.
It is axiomatic. It is impossible to have a religiously neutral education. If you do not believe this then I challenge you to describe a school that is religiously neutral.
Be sure to include:
*What days will school events be scheduled so that all students have an equal opportunity to participate and that no godless or God believing student is favored or disfavored? Friday evening? Saturday? Sunday?
*Is the school co-ed or single sex?
*Will the school allow other children to tempt some children with highly fashionable clothing that is proscribed by their religion. Will the girls wear skirts or slacks? Will the boys have short hair or long, and will their faces be shaved or will they wear beards?
*Does the curriculum have a godless or God-centered worldview?
*Which foods will be allowed or disallowed. Will the teachers and other students be permitted to tempt children to eat delicious foods proscribed by their religion?
*Will music and dancing be completely proscribed or allowed. Will some students be allowed to tempt other students with music and dance that is forbidden by their church leaders. What religious music will be allowed or disallowed? Which religious music will be studied in depth, merely mentioned, or completely ignored?
* Will art be permitted or forbidden? What topics will be allowed or disallowed?
*Which theater productions will be allowed, disallowed, or merely mentioned?
Thoughtful readers will quickly realized that many of these issues can only be decided one way or another. No matter which decision the government makes regarding these matters in its compulsory schools, the government will be establishing the religious worldview of some students and trashing that of others.
Gumlegs,
Students do **not** practice science. They are **not** investigative scientists. The actual practice of science does not come about until the most advanced classes in college and often not even until graduate school.
While it is possible to **practice** the art of science in a religiously neutral manner, it is **IMPOSSIBLE** to teach about science in a religiously neutral manner. Students **learn** about science in their classrooms. They are NOT practicing scientists.
The process of learning about science in the classroom can be presented within a godless framework...or...it can be presented within a God-centered framework. The children can learn that the physical world around them is a mere accident and that they are mere accidents of chance, or they can learn that the natural world of science reflects a rational God and that they are His children.
The government can only choose one or the other. It can teach about science in the classroom in a godless or God-centered manner. **BOTH** are religious in content and consequences and there is **NO** neutral position!
No matter what the government decides to do in its schools ( godless or God-centered) the government will **establish** the religion of some citizens and trash that of others.
There is only one possible solution that is compatible with the First Amendment and freedom of conscience: GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE EDUCATION BUSINESS!
We should begin the process now!
I know this is a foreign concept to you, but science doesn’t investigate or think about religion. There is no such thing as God centered science.
Your problem seems to be that some specific, literal statements from the Bible simply aren’t true. When the conflict between a literal reading and reality becomes too strong, they resolve it by changing their reading of the Bible and claiming that there never was a reading that conflicted with science.
There are actually quite a few, and I suspect you have come to terms with most of them. I see people on these threads that simply deny that the earth moving poses a problem with a literal reading.
In time, all Christians, except for a few FReepers, will come to terms with evolution, as they have come to terms with heliocentrism.
I'll challenge you to show me a person who didn't learn anything except what they were taught in school. All you've done is define religious indoctrination as an integral part of education. It's impossible for you to have a religiously neutral education because you simply won't allow it.
I did not say that there was "God-centered" science. This is your strawman creation and I can not defend an argument of your creation.
I **did** say that the actual practice of science can be ( and most often is) religious neutral.
While the actual facts of science are religiously neutral those facts can only be presented within one of two contexts: godless or God-centered.
In the first context ( godless), students are left with the impression that the natural world around them, and they ( as people), are mere accidents and the impersonal products of scientific laws.
In the second context ( God-centered), the same scientific facts are presented as a reflection of the glory of a rational God. In my specific religious tradition it is our duty before God to learn as much as we are capable about the scientific workings of God and to use our knowledge in His service.
Both the godless and God-centented contexts have **profound** religious, cultural, and political consequences. These consequences are **NOT** religiously neutral. No matter how the government decides, the government will establish the religous worldview of one group ( godless or God-centered) and trash that of the other.
Your problem seems to be that some specific, literal statements from the Bible simply aren’t true. When the conflict between a literal reading and reality becomes too strong, they resolve it by changing their reading of the Bible and claiming that there never was a reading that conflicted with science.
So?....Why would you care if your child attended a private school of your choice, and those with whom you disagree attended a private school of their choice?
In my own religious tradition, we have a hard, unblinking, acceptance of scientific facts as they present themselves. It is our belief that in time the differences between the Bible and science will be resolved.
By the way, if you wrote a short 1,000 word essay on the creation of the universe and man's appearance on it, and wrote it in a manner that a very primitive people could understand it, how do you think you essay would sound? Do you think your essay to this primitive people would seem as magically and unbelievable as Genesis?
Genesis was not a revelation for us. It was a revelation to a very primitive people. Of any of the world's creation stories it is the **only** one that makes any logical sense, and, in fact, presents a story that rather closely matches what we know today actually occurred.
There are actually quite a few, and I suspect you have come to terms with most of them. I see people on these threads that simply deny that the earth moving poses a problem with a literal reading.
So? If their children attended private schools of their choice, and your children attended private schools of your choice, why would you care? Personally, I would simply write them off as being eccentric in the manner that the Amish are eccentric.
The problem with government schools is that the government must choose between their worldview and yours! The government has the police power to force your worldview on them with **profound** religious consequences.
And...Remember!...Any government powerful enough to use police threat to force your worldview on them is powerful enough to force their worldview on **you**!
In time, all Christians, except for a few FReepers, will come to terms with evolution, as they have come to terms with heliocentrism.
In time, maybe they will....but...It is **not** constitutional for government to destroy the religious belief of their children!
It is axiomatic. A religiously neutral education is impossible.
My allowing it or not allowing can not be applied to this axiom. It would be like me wishing that the tooth fairy would come tonight.
By the way if you think a religiously neutral education is possible, please describe one for us.
Please include:
*What days will school events be scheduled so that all students have an equal opportunity to participate and that no godless or God believing student is favored or disfavored? Friday evening? Saturday? Sunday?
*Is the school co-ed or single sex?
*Will the school allow other children to tempt some children with highly fashionable clothing that is proscribed by their religion. Will the girls wear skirts or slacks? Will the boys have short hair or long, and will their faces be shaved or will they wear beards?
*Does the curriculum have a godless or God-centered worldview?
*Which foods will be allowed or disallowed. Will the teachers and other students be permitted to tempt children to eat delicious foods proscribed by their religion?
*Will music and dancing be completely proscribed or allowed. Will some students be allowed to tempt other students with music and dance that is forbidden by their church leaders. What religious music will be allowed or disallowed? Which religious music will be studied in depth, merely mentioned, or completely ignored?
* Will art be permitted or forbidden? What topics will be allowed or disallowed?
*Which theater productions will be allowed, disallowed, or merely mentioned?
Thoughtful readers will quickly realized that many of these issues can only be decided one way or another. No matter which decision the government makes regarding these matters in its compulsory schools, the government will be establishing the religious worldview of some students and trashing that of others.
Sorry, it is not axiomatic. It’s a little sematic game your playing that tries to paint any expression of thought or idea that is not an explicit affirmation of God as a denial of God.
I need to be more specific. The above should read:
While the actual facts of science are religiously neutral, those facts can only be presented to students in the classroom within one of two contexts: godless or God-centered.
Please remember that students are incapable of being working and practicing research scientists. This level of practice is usually impossible until after the upper division courses in college and, most often, not until graduate schools. Students on the lower levels are accumulating facts, and the context within which those religiously neutral facts are presented is not religiously neutral.
OK!...Then it should be **easy** for you to describe a religiously neutral school.
Again the following are only a **few** of the issues you would need to address:
*What days will school events be scheduled so that all students have an equal opportunity to participate and that no godless or God believing student is favored or disfavored? Friday evening? Saturday? Sunday?
*Is the school co-ed or single sex?
*Will the school allow other children to tempt some children with highly fashionable clothing that is proscribed by their religion. Will the girls wear skirts or slacks? Will the boys have short hair or long, and will their faces be shaved or will they wear beards?
*Does the curriculum have a godless or God-centered worldview?
*Which foods will be allowed or disallowed. Will the teachers and other students be permitted to tempt children to eat delicious foods proscribed by their religion?
*Will music and dancing be completely proscribed or allowed. Will some students be allowed to tempt other students with music and dance that is forbidden by their church leaders. What religious music will be allowed or disallowed? Which religious music will be studied in depth, merely mentioned, or completely ignored?
* Will art be permitted or forbidden? What topics will be allowed or disallowed?
*Which theater productions will be allowed, disallowed, or merely mentioned?
It’s still a just a semeatic game trying to paint any expression of thought or idea that is not an explicit affirmation of God as a denial of God. You’re never going to get any support for your idea parading around a litany of loaded questions. If you really want to convince people to condsider your ideas then you need to find some better tactics and reasoning. If you just like hearing yourself prostheletize, then carry on. Right now you just sound like a religious zealot desperatly searching for some martyr status.
Please avoid the other semantic game you play: it's not the schools that are compulsory, it's education.
Precisely.
And it’s not just science either. It’s across the board.
(Frankly I can see the difference as well.)
then they should be taught the findings of science without all the crap about nonexistent controversies.
Your logic is as flawed as what you regard as science.
The tuition at government schools is ZERO! Do you understand that this is price-fixing? If a private company tried this the CEOs would be in prison! Is it any wonder then that in my county there are **no** private schools? If government owned government grocery stores, and gave food away for free, how many private grocery stores do you think we would see?
Ok....So?...Government creates and extremely hostile economic environment for the creation of private schools. When private schools don't exist, the government forces children ( under threat of armed police action) into religiously non-neutral “schools”. They are **compelled** by threat of police action to attend a **GOVERNMENT** religiously non-neutral school!
Then **if** a parent is lucky enough to have a private schools in the area, to escape the government soul killing death grip the parent must pay twice. The parent must pay the government school tax and then extra in the form of private school tuition. I surely would **not** call that religiously neutral. I call it a “Freedom of Conscience” tax!
And....No citizen can escape paying taxes for the government religiously non-neutral schools ( misnamed “public” schools).
Sounds like **lots** of police force to me backing up those religiously non-neutral government schools.
If people didn't like the food at the free grocery stores, we'd see lots of private ones. The fact that your county has no public schools tells me that either your neighbors are satisfied with the product they're getting for free or they can't afford to pay for private schools--in which case the existence of such schools isn't going to help them very much.
Everybody pays taxes for something they don't like. People who don't read pay for libraries. People who don't drive pay for roads. Liberals pay for the war. Conservatives pay for food stamps. If you want to make an argument against public schools or against compulsory education, go ahead, but the fact that religious people have to pay for them doesn't carry much weight.
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.