Anti-Science School Boards in Florida

[ZOS23xy]

It harkens back to a comment I made to a co-worker who was talking to me about the "last Days" to come and babbled about the second coming and what it entailed.

I said that the word "rapture" doesn't appear in the Old or New Teastaments.

"Really?" he said, "You'll have to show me where."

These kinds of people deny real factual hard evidence for assumed faith, a wisp of an idea and a mis translated phrase that was misunderstood 400 years ago.

It's like trying to get Muslims to understand that the bit about getting 40 virgins for a suicide act isn't in the Koran either--it's part of a language and folk lore basis in the Islamic World.

*sigh*

 

[Lex]

Why can't science be OF God? My pastor seemed to think it was.

 

[ZOS23xy]

The study of physics and astronomy is kind of mind boggling, but to some people who want the universe to be less than 5,000 years old, it is also disturbing to consider yourself a small insignifigant speck in a vast expanding universe. Better that the the earth is small, you and God are closer to one another and you can feel good about the return of the Christ.

 

[Qua]

A number of county school boards in Florida are rejecting the State's new science curriculum, which mentions Evolution as being the basis for the diversity of life on the planet. (since this article was writting it looks like the count is up to about 12 counties).

How can we maintain our competitive edge in this increasingly complex scientific world if we continually reject the teaching of science in our public schools?

Discuss.

The teaching of science does not mean the teaching of evolution. Darwin's theories aren't the basis for any of modern scientific thinking (post-enlightenment . That said, I find it inherently frustrating as a Catholic that many Christian groups insist on being literalist and cannot see that there's no theological reason why evolution disproves the notion of a divine hand in shaping the world.

American students have a ludicrously low understanding of basic chemistry or physics, or the rationale behind them. Both of which are far more important than evolution to maintaining our scientific edge. When was the last time you saw a lawsuit on behalf of the Ideal Gas Law? Why is one theory considered so integral for learning science, when in fact it is not?

Why can't science be OF God? My pastor seemed to think it was.

I wonder that same thing. I was taught evolution in my Catholic high school, and nothing was refuted or "clarified" other than perhaps it is an instrument by which the Christian God worked his method of creation.

EDIT: And intelligent design is nothing more than stupid pandering, even in the view of conservative Catholics...there is no reason why religion and evolution should be mutually exclusive. The issue is the taking of Biblical texts as scientific fact, as I'm sure is clear. And the notion by many that evolution DISproves the existence of a God, when it does no such thing in the eyes of contextualist religions such as Catholicism

 

[rob_just_rob]

Yes, that seems to be working for you at the moment - give it another 100 years though and the Chinese will be better at that too.

"You"?

 

[ManlyBanisters]

"You"?

It had to be you,
It had to be you,
I looked all around and finally found...

I take it I fucked up and you're not American then

Most humble apologies...

Why can't science be OF God? My pastor seemed to think it was.

It can, see my post and what JustAsking responded with. Try convincing the xchool boards of that tho', eh?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

The US has a federal system in place and yet many seem so very opposed to it, to want to undo it even. Why is that?

Americans only like the federal government when its distributing money.

 

[JustAsking]

We are aware that the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood as depicted in the Bible and not the Colorado River as scientists tell us? If this is happening at the national level why not the local level?

The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah’s flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Parks Service Sticks With Biblical Explanation for Grand Canyon

Sargon,
I see what you are saying but fortunately science doesn't work by "appeal to authority", which is another way of arguing that something must be true because someone important said so. There was a time when the State of Georgia's legislature wanted to legislate the value of PI to be exactly equal to 3. Naturally, this is ridiculous since the value of PI is not a matter of opinion, it is a property of nature.

Scientific theories are similar to this because theories are also not a matter of opinion once they reach the maturity and status of an established theory. Theories are judged simply by their utility in being able to explain past observations and suggest the results of future ones.

There has been no successful challenge made to the scientific community suggesting that the earth is only thousands of years old or that its geology was formed only by recent events such as a single great flood. It remains as a theological notion.

Finally, to answer your question exactly, the reason why Flood Geology is not taught at the local level is because it is not considered science. By its own practice, it stays outside the boundaries of scientific inquiry avoiding any serious challenges. Therefore it is more of a "popular" theory or a theological notion than a scientific one.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Most of the ones who squeal about not wanting evolutionary theories taught in school really have no idea what they are squealing about. Their preacher, Brother Billy Bob told 'em that them there evolution books say we was borned right out of a monkey's snatch... and they believe it, they don't want no one to teach 'em the facts to the contrary. The bible says it's wrong. Brother Billy Bob can point out to you which scripture says that evolution is devil-teachin'.

 

[Meniscus]

...Isn't there a national curriculum in the USA as there is in the UK?

No, as others have said, each state sets its own standards. For example:

Curriculum and Instruction
K-12 Content Standards
Science

Local school districts are responsible for meeting the standards. Meeting the standards is quite a challenge, to put it mildy, especially areas with high poverty and/or crime rates. Many school buildings are in a state of disrepair. They often can't afford up-to-date materials like books, media, and lab equipment. They can't attract and retain quality teachers. There is often a lot of tension between the state and the local districts with regards to how to overcome these problems in order to meet the standards.

Then introduce a national curriculum where what's taught is the standard scientifically accepted.

That's easier said than done. If the State of Florida can't agree on it's education standards, it would only be that much harder to get the entire U.S. to agree on a single, nationwide curriculum. Rather than solving the controversy, it would intensify the controversy, and probably introduce many new controversies that haven't come up yet.

Also, I trust many states, including the Florida (or, more specifically, the Flordia Department of Education) to do a better job of setting standards that I would the federal government, at least with the current administration.

...the current US administration would support the inclusion of Intelligent Design, etc. in the science curriculum because they are pandering to their right wing conservative base. If there were a national commission charged with creating a curriculum, it would be loaded up with "political officers" just as all the government scientific advisory groups have had.

Right.

Also, I agree with what Jason said about NCLB and what JustAsking said about American attitudes towards the federal government. Also, JustAsking is correct about evolution being a fact and a scientific theory.
Scientific theories don't "prove" anything. They're not meant to. Rather, they provide a rational explanation for observable, measurable phenomena. Scientific theories must be supported by evidence, but they don't always explain everything, because we never have all the facts. Evolution is a particularly strong theory, because it has survived the test of time. Not only did it fit the facts that Darwin had available to him at the time, but it still works after 150 years of scientific discovery. In fact, everything we've learned in the past 150 years (e.g., genetics) does nothing to discredit the theory of evolution--quite the contrary, it provides additional support for the theory.

The teaching of science does not mean the teaching of evolution...Why is one theory considered so integral for learning science, when in fact it is not?

Are you suggesting that we should not teach biology or just that evolution is not an important aspect of this brach of science? In either case, I have to disagree with you. Otherwise, I agree with everything else you wrote.

I strongly encourage everyone to watch this video. It's long (nearly 2 hours), but it clearly explains why intelligent design is not a scientific theory, and, in the process, why evolution is such a good theory (and, really, the only scientific theory we have on speciation).

YouTube - Ken Miller on Intelligent Design

 

[Guy-jin]

How can we maintain our competitive edge in this increasingly complex scientific world if we continually reject the teaching of science in our public schools?

Discuss.

There's a reason California is as rich as it is, and only a part of it has to do with our incredible agricultural produce.

I'll be blunt with you: I'm happy that we don't have a national curriculum, because shit like Creationism would inevitably be on it, and places like California, which are far more progressive than a lot of the country, would be forced to teach it. Other places doing things like that improves our competitive edge as a state, and I do so enjoy being part of by far the best state in the nation.

I anxiously await your flames, unwashed masses. :biggrin1:

 

[JustAsking]

Why can't science be OF God? My pastor seemed to think it was.

Lex,
Most mainstream denominations do think that scientific inquiry is a kind of sacred pursuit. It comes from the notion that God created an elegant and orderly world that operates by natural laws. God communicates with us through his Word and through his Creation. Studying both of these are ways to understand or experience a relationship with God.

Finally, Jesus implores us to be his hands and feet in his absence and address misery and suffering in the world. Science has been one of the ways we use our God given talents to create better ways of addressing hunger, disease, and shelter, and avoiding natural catastrophes.

So it is no surprise that many hospitals, where medical science is developed and applied, are built by Jewish and Christian institutions.

 

[Qua]

Are you suggesting that we should not teach biology or just that evolution is not an important aspect of this brach of science? In either case, I have to disagree with you. Otherwise, I agree with everything else you wrote.

Neither, I was drawing a distinction between teaching scientific thought and scientific fact. I put it in easily misinterpretable terms there. The imparting of the scientific method of thought and analysis is in my opinion the more important goal of scientific education to the imparting of facts, and the stressing of evolution above methodical chemistry and such to me seems a tad silly when it is unimportant in that respect. I find the hang-ups over evolution to be trivial when it's role in creating scientifically minded individuals is slight compared to the chemistry, physics, and biology outside of evolution (there's a lot to be learned that's independent of it and not reliant on it) that needs major work in US schools. Basically, I was saying that the teaching or not teaching of evolution needn't necessairily cause the US to lose its scientific edge, so long as the other areas of science are stressed as they should be (which admittedly, they usually aren't in cases where evolution is condemned and thus most of science looked at suspiciously). They should teach evolution, no contest from me there. I just thought the notion that evolution on its own making or breaking our scientific edge is fallacious.

 

[whatireallywant]

I was in school in the 70s and early 80s, and was never taught evolution in school. The teachers kind of hem-hawed around it saying it's "just a theory" because most of the people where I grew up (including my family) were strict creationists. I only got any information about evolution from my reading science books on my own (science was my favorite subject in school and I did a lot of reading of science for my own enjoyment).

Although it made sense to me, I couldn't tell my family about reading these books, and the information in the books, because some of my relatives were very hostile toward the whole idea of evolution.

They're probably doing the same thing in the science classes where I grew up now as they did then.

 

[Axcess]

JustAsking is very difficult for many mainstream fundamentalist Christians
to match evolution with their faith . I don't blame them . According to the evolution theory we evolved from animals , In a way evolution is saying that we are animals too. Christians believe that god the creator created animals apart from humans . Humans were created as image and likeness as god.
The idea is that humans are superior to animals , humans aren't animals .
The evolution from their point of view is a problem to their dogmas.

 

[JustAsking]

Neither, I was drawing a distinction between teaching scientific thought and scientific fact. I put it in easily misinterpretable terms there. The imparting of the scientific method of thought and analysis is in my opinion the more important goal of scientific education to the imparting of facts, and the stressing of evolution above methodical chemistry and such to me seems a tad silly when it is unimportant in that respect. I find the hang-ups over evolution to be trivial when it's role in creating scientifically minded individuals is slight compared to the chemistry, physics, and biology outside of evolution (there's a lot to be learned that's independent of it and not reliant on it) that needs major work in US schools. Basically, I was saying that the teaching or not teaching of evolution needn't necessairily cause the US to lose its scientific edge, so long as the other areas of science are stressed as they should be (which admittedly, they usually aren't in cases where evolution is condemned and thus most of science looked at suspiciously). They should teach evolution, no contest from me there. I just thought the notion that evolution on its own making or breaking our scientific edge is fallacious.

I see what you are saying, qua. And I think you are right in some respect. Huge amounts of biology, medicine, and biochemistry can be learned without the need for understanding evolution. You could ignore evolution in the high school biology curriculum in leiu of teaching other stuff in biology and still have plenty left over to be teaching at that level.

In fact, this is what is happening these days anyway. Often evolution is avoided in science class so as to not stir up a hornet's nest of "the stupid" from parents. Also, more and more kids are being coached in fundamentalist churches and summer camps to disrupt the science class with specific challenging questions that annoy the teacher and distract the students.

Finally, my opinion is that part of our problem in the US is that our children are scientifically illiterate when it comes to the practice of science and the nature of how we know things through science. It is this ignorance that allows more than half of our population to be easily swayed by such arguments as: "Its just a theory", or, "Its never been proved.", or even more idiotic, "Were you there a million years ago?"

I could easily make a case that science literacy might be more important to learn at the high school level than acres of detailed information about biological processes. Unless one is going on to college and study biology, its more important to know how science works and informs us than to know about something about oxygen transport across membranes, etc.

The science literay allows people to make better decisions about public policy as part of the American electorate.

I was in school in the 70s and early 80s, and was never taught evolution in school. ....They're probably doing the same thing in the science classes where I grew up now as they did then.

Yes, this is exactly what is happening.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

JustAsking is very difficult for many mainstream fundamentalist Christians
to match evolution with their faith . I don't blame them . According to the evolution theory we evolved from animals , In a way evolution is saying that we are animals too. Christians believe that god the creator created animals apart from humans . Humans were created as image and likeness as god.
The idea is that humans are superior to animals , humans aren't animals .
The evolution from their point of view is a problem to their dogmas.

I might be missing something here - but I don't see 'mainstream' and 'fundamentalist' as two tags one can apply at the same time.

My religion (RC) accepts that humans evolved and are part of the primate family and also maintains that humans are apart from animals (in that humans have a soul and animals do not - don't blast me personally for that, that's what I understand my Church's position to be on the difference).

 

[Axcess]

I might be missing something here - but I don't see 'mainstream' and 'fundamentalist' as two tags one can apply at the same time.

My religion (RC) accepts that humans evolved and are part of the primate family and also maintains that humans are apart from animals (in that humans have a soul and animals do not - don't blast me personally for that, that's what I understand my Church's position to be on the difference).

That we elvolved from animals ( from primates ) and that we have souls but the rest of the animals don't have souls , that don't make sense to me .
I mean fundamentalist christians , yes the mainstream term doesn't apply here well.

 

[Qua]

Yes I agree JA, and unfortunately, the fact that science has informed us that we evolved has made people who cannot accept that fact and reconcile it with their belief in divine creation distrust in scientific methodology and thinking and created the notion that science and faith are incompatible. Similarly, many Darwinists reach an oppositely flawed conclusion that evolution and science completely disproves the existence of a God and proves the futility and incorrectness of organized religion and a belief in a higher power.

One of the nicer things about attending a school that permitted discussion of religion in the classroom is that it was easy to explain that the two can mix with no true contest between them, and that they in effect operate in different arenas when it comes to discerning truth in life. EDIT: Not that I think discussing religion in the public school classroom is a good solution.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

That we elvolved from animals ( from primates ) and that we have souls but the rest of the animals don't have souls , that don't make sense to me .
I mean fundamentalist christians , yes the mainstream term doesn't apply here well.

Well - firstly we are not evolved from primates, we are primates. We are evolved from a proto-primate species - have a common ancestory with the apes, monkeys and lemurs (and other members of the 'homo' genus who have (it appears) become extinct).

I don't see how this is contradictory with the idea of one branch of the family having a soul and the others not. I mean we are straying wildly off topic here - we'd have to start discussing what a soul is - Is it part of the physical? Is it purely spiritual? A combination? Was a step on the ladder of human evolution the development of a soul? And there are many who argue against the existence of a soul at all.