Creationism in West Bend’s Schools?
There is a brewing “controversy” regarding a few of the candidates for the West Bend School Board regarding creationism. The entire controversy stems from answers to a single questionnaire.
So… what do I think about this little kerfuffle? First, I think it’s a manufactured controversy by some zealots on the Left who are looking for an issue to oppose some specific candidates. As I have said in the past, there is a single important issue in tis election: the budget. That’s why eight candidates filed for two seats. That’s why the community is in upheaval. That’s why the district is facing very tough decisions. But, of course, the lefties can’t get any traction in the community opposing candidates who want to control the district’s spending, so they manufactured the creationism issue to get their base riled up.
Second, the creationism issue is a non-issue because the case law is pretty settled. We can’t teach creationism. And even if one or two of the board members wanted to, it would never make it onto the agenda - much less be passed. There isn’t any threat of this happening or any real possibility of the district entering a legal battle over it. As I said, it’s a manufactured controversy.
Third, should creationism be taught in school? Yes, but in context. I would be in favor of introducing the concept that many belief systems have alternate theories of creation. Kids should know that there are alternate theories out there if they are to have a well rounded education. But I don’t think it’s appropriate for teachers to drill down on any particular creationist theory. Still, for people who think this is a big issue, they teach it at home. I seriously doubt that any ardent Christian or Muslim or Atheist is going to be somehow poisoned by learning about each other’s beliefs.
Again… the major issues facing the district are centered around one issue: the budget. How we prioritize spending and manage the district’s issues are of paramount concern. Those who want to rant about creationism are either intentionally trying to distract from the real issues or are zealots (on either side).
Tags: wisconsin, politics
Owen
I think you nailed it all right on the head, in total agreement.kerfuffle ? catchy , see if I can work that one into conversation today.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1046 hrsI am more interested in schools taking an honest look at evolution. It is a theory that has some real problems.
As a Christian I don’t want the state teaching creationism because, I don’t think they would do it well or right, etc. I would not mind if they just noted that, in addition to the theory of evolution, there are other theories such as I.D. – which by the way has tons of non-religious adherents.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1052 hrsI think the budget is the most important item. Owen thinks it is. But is it for all candidates? Can someone enlighten me? Is Dave Weigand husband to Mary?
Posted by Charlie Hillman on February 04, 2010 at 1053 hrs
This is why I support Ziegler. It is not enough to have a knee jerk reaction to budget. You must have financial expertise and the ability to convince.So, what you’re saying is you want children taught that the world is 6000 years old?
Posted by Swamp Gas on February 04, 2010 at 1055 hrsBut is it for all candidates?
Having spoken to most of the candidates… yes. It dominated every single conversation.
Is Dave Weigand husband to Mary?
Yes.
Posted by Owen on February 04, 2010 at 1055 hrs4.So, what you’re saying is you want children taught that the world is 6000 years old?
No. Do you have a reading comprehension issue? I thought I was pretty clear.
Posted by Owen on February 04, 2010 at 1057 hrs@Swamp Gas
Just as an FYI, you are referring to “New Earth” creationists. Not all Creationists agree on the “6,000 year” number. There are also “Old Earth” Creationists as well that use a MUCH older age.
And as Owen said, you also appear to either have a reading comprehension problem. Or (my addition) are just willfully ignorant.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1105 hrsRespectfully,you have it wrong Owen.
The stealth candidates you support have the agenda-and the fact it is brought to light puts their candidacy at risk.
Your response is similar to the Obama administration “Move along- there’s nothing to see her”
It doesn"t sound anymore convincing coming from you
Those of us who can see thru the smoke aren’t willfull or ignorant-just informed
and I still haven"t seen an explanation as to how you can overlook Doug Zieglar as a conservative
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1132 hrs
with credentials far beyond “ya Boy’s’Mark,
As I said in my column, Ziegler has impeccable conservative credentials. I’m just unwilling to throw my support to someone who won’t disclose his position on the recent and pertinent issues facing the district.
As for your other comments… let me get this straight… you think that the teaching creationism is the most important issue facing the district? You think that even if two ardent creationist zealots win a seat on the board that they will be able to push their agenda? Who’s naive here?
Posted by Owen on February 04, 2010 at 1135 hrsJoe,
What problems do you think there are in the discoveries about evolution or the theory of evolution?
Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and is not accepted by scientists. The Dover case made it quite clear that ID was Creationism in drag. Science has theories. Religions have doctrines. They are not similar.
Owen,
I’m glad to hear that you have talked to the candidates and that they have no intention of trying to bring their religious doctrines into public school classrooms.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1137 hrsMy longstanding view is that creationism or intelligent design or whatever should be included in the curriculum for instructional purposes. To wit: while many scientists — perhaps even a “consensus” — believe in evolution there are other views as well. Here they are. Read. Think. Make up your mind.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1159 hrsOwen
no one who knows me thinks I’m even a little bit naive
street smart and some other really bad adjectives have been used- just not that one
You can support whomever you want. it’s just that you strike me as a “better man”
type of person and I find your logic on the Zieglar versus others argument to be….... unfulfilling.you know the budget- while most on this board don’t.
I’m not using the old “get on the board yourself canard because i have neither the time or patience to do what those 7 do 2 mondays per month- plus committee meetings- plus respond to what ever rumor someone on either side of any issue dreams up .
The fact is, it looks really simple on the outside- and as Tim found out- not so simple on the inside.That point had never been raised by you.
Just that he abandoned principleYou like history- didn"t Lincoln say- “when the facts change- i change my mind. What do you do?”
and your candidates position on the issue of teaching religious theories in tax supported schools - and that’s what they are- leaves me cold.
and will leave others cold as well
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1202 hrsGeorge,
How is it instructional to include something that has nothing to do with science in a science class? Would you be upset if the science teacher walked through ID/Creationism and explained step-by-step why they have nothing at all to do with science and are not valid alternative theories, why they are not science at all? Do you think there might be parents who would be upset if a discussion of ID/Creationism as science showed why it was not science and why it was shown to be wrong by science?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1207 hrsFree Lunch,
Your observations are strawmen. You twist my words and therefore I assume you don’t actually expect a response.
When schools start teaching the mandated curriculum on labor unions, I would favor telling students about the impact of public sector bargaining and the resulting fiscal mess government is in along with the perspective that government workers need to be represented by unions to protect their rights. At the end of the day I’d hope students could think enough to draw their own conclusions.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1235 hrsGeorge-
Your analogy is flawed.
Let’s go back to the basic question. How is it instructional to include ID or Creationism when neither one is scientific or supported by evidence? How does it teach critical thinking?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1249 hrsCreationism and ID are religion, plain and simple. If you want to teach them in science class at Good Shepherd or Cabrini or Holy Angels, that’s fine - go for it! They don’t however, have a place in a public school science class.
That said, I agree with Owen, it ain’t ever gonna happen, so it’s kind of a non-issue.
THAT said, having read Mary’s writings in the WBDN over the past year or so, I think it’s a bit naive to believe Dave’s ideas are that much different and he wouldn’t eventually, if on the board long enough, lead us down the path Mary and Ginny have been foaming at the mouth to take us down.
That’s reason enough to vote Ziegler or Marquardt.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1252 hrsThere’s a difference between instruction and indoctrination.
As part of the curriculum students should learn about creationism and ID.
They also should learn that “settled science” in such areas as global warming is not quite so settled.
They should learn to evaluate various pespectives and draw their own conclusion.
As fo further misrepresentations of my position, I will not check the box below.
And yes, Owen is correct that it ain’t gonna happen.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1319 hrsCreationism in any form, new, old or dressed-up in drag as ID is still religious doctrine.
It doesn’t belong in a public school.
It belongs in Sunday school.
Thanks for your concern about my reading comprehension.
Posted by Swamp Gas on February 04, 2010 at 1409 hrsOnce again Owen, you hit the nail on the head here. Too bad not everyone seems to follow your logic. It makes perfect sense to me and is a philosophy that we need to apply equally to other offices.
Posted by Joey on February 04, 2010 at 1504 hrsIf we decide to only teach factually supported and proven science in schools, then I guess the theory of macro-evolution and the big bang theory are both out. No proof of either one. While we show that there is micro-evolution within a species, there is no definitive answer as to how, or even if, macro evolution occurred. Same goes for the creation of the universe. If it’s science, then please explain to me what existed prior to the “big bang” and what caused this “bang” to occur? Show your work… this is science after all, right?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1512 hrsAll this hysteria reminds me of what was done to Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad. Do we need this divisiveness in our community? No, I don’t think we do either.
Mike Maley and friends are afraid of conservatives who believe differently then he about offering good education to our kids and balancing a school budget without forcing the hand of the taxpayers. He likes the status quo.
Thanks, Owen for your good insight into what the liberals are attempting to do.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1519 hrsMary, did you just compare your husband to Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1527 hrs
She did, and rightfully so. It’s trolls like you that cause most of these issue to blow up, PJG. Do you have any worthwhile and thoughtful comments on the issue? On any issue? I’m not really seeing anything close to the substance that created your namesake. I see a troll… that’s about it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1554 hrsConservatives should be terrified of the Weigand guy. Just think about the legal bills when the city loses its first lawsuit.
Owen, I assume by this:
“Third, should creationism be taught in school? Yes, but in context. I would be in favor of introducing the concept that many belief systems have alternate theories of creation. “
That it should be taught as the pseudo-scientific BS that it is?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1611 hrsWhy do people keep writing “alternative theories” like there are any?!
A “theory” has a very specific meaning in science - and creationism/ID are most definitely NOT scientific theories!
And to “thefamilyguy”: we ~have~ seen macro evolution occur, many times in fact (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html).
For those of you who favor teaching creationism/ID in science class let me ask you this: would you favor a biologist teaching your sunday school students at the local church about evolution? Theology (creationism/ID) is for church and science (evolution) is for science class.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1635 hrsFamily Guy -
You have been misinformed about evolution and about cosmology. You may also be confused about science, since science, while it is factually supported, is never proven. A scientific theory is the best explanation available for the evidence, an explanation that also makes predictions that can be tested. Science tests. It doesn’t prove.
The evidence is clear that life has been changing over time on earth. It is also clear that those who deny that the theory of evolution is valid are not scientists and are not engaged in the study of the history of life on earth.
Your question about the Big Bang appears to be based on a lack of understanding of science. Based on what physicists know at this time, there is no way to identify a _before_ the Big Bang. It is, for the universe, the beginning. The fact that scientists cannot say what the singularity from which the universe arose was like before the first Planck interval does not undermine what we have discovered about the universe since the Big Bang occurred.
The Big Bang explains what we have observed. It makes predictions that have been tested and shown to be correct. It is the explanation that physicists accept because there are no other scientific explanations that take the available evidence into account or make such predictions. The last competing hypothesis, Steady State, failed because the observations showed that the predictions of what would be found if Steady State were accurate proved erroneous. Science tests and discards inaccurate ideas.
There are questions throughout science, that’s why scientists are still looking for more evidence in every discipline, more things to explain what we don’t yet know. We do know that widely-accepted scientific theories that turn out not to be right tend to be wrong in small ways: Newton’s mechanics were not right, but they are still a good enough approximation for most engineers most of the time. We know that there are problems with quantum mechanics, but it is still the best description available. Eventually, with enough new evidence, a better theory can be expected to be developed. Darwin’s discoveries about evolution were done without an understanding of genes, so genetics improved the theory of evolution, but the basics of variation and natural selection still remain.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1635 hrsI love how in Conservative-land a theory is something LESS THAN a fact. It’s not. In real life, it’s different than a fact, but it’s an equally important part of the scientific method. It’s certainly not the same as a random guess made by insane perverts several thousand years ago, which is what creationism is.
Also, perhaps creationism is less important than the budget now, but if somebody is a creationist, doesn’t that tell you something about their character?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1640 hrsJoey @19: You misspelled “orifices.”
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1641 hrsSven, I don’t know if that was a bad joke, but if it was, it went right over my head. I definitely meant “offices.” Political offices.
Also, jesusisjustalrightwithme, it’s just as wrong to apply anything broadly to “Conservative-land” as it is to apply anything broadly to everyone in “Liberal-land.” You speak as though liberals are somehow void of these fallacies that plague conservatives. In reality, a lot of the debate preceding your comment was between conservatives, who don’t happen to all be marching to the beat of the same drum…
Someone’s belief in creationism tells me little more about their character than their belief (or lack thereof) in God.
Posted by Joey on February 04, 2010 at 1653 hrsJoey,
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1659 hrs
I never mentioned liberals, so I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about. I think liberals are fill of ridiculous beliefs too. But I do think that anyone that would self-identify as a conservative or a liberal certainly is marching to a particular drum, a drum that’s making some totally retarded beats.“Someone’s belief in creationism tells me little more about their character than their belief (or lack thereof) in God.”
So it tells you they’re naive and they believe in things without evidence? Yeah, that’s what I meant.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1701 hrsjesusisjustalrightwithme,
You’re right, you didn’t mention liberalism. I could have said “Moderate-land” or anything else. My only point is that the labels are way too broad to be saying that everyone holding that title believes a certain thing (in this case, that a theory is something less than fact).
I’d self-identify as being pretty conservative overall, but certainly not on everything. I don’t see how that means I march to the beat of anyone’s drum.
I guess you just sound really cynical to me. I think there are some really intelligent people who believe some really stupid things and I’m okay with that. Intelligence doesn’t always lead people to the right answer.
Posted by Joey on February 04, 2010 at 1706 hrsI’m not moderate either. I’m a free thinker. I decide what I think is best on an issue by issue basis, though guided by a consistent philosophy. But self-identifying as liberal or conservative or Democrat or Republican is an admission that you adhere to certain ideas. One of those ideas for conservatives is belief in the supernatural, unless they qualify their conservativism otherwise. If you don’t believe that, you shouldn’t self-identify as a conservative IMHO. It’d be a better world if more of us thought for ourselves instead of along pre-determined lines.
All that said, I think you know exactly who I was talking about when I made my comment.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1716 hrsI do know who you were talking about when you made the comment and I still think it’s wrong. And that’s my free-thinking opinion.
The problem with “free thinkers” is they often snub everyone else for supposedly boxing themselves into one position on every issue. No matter how freely you think, you probably have a position on a number of issues. Put enough free thinkers who have enough common positions together and you have a classified group that gets a label, like it or not. In reality, the Republican Party has everyone from Olympia Snowe to Michele Bachmann; the Democrats range from Ben Nelson to Russ Feingold. “Conservative” could mean you think taxes and spending should be cut or you’re pro-life or you’re in favor of free trade, but not necessarily all of those things.
Maybe I’m wrong, but you seem to find labels to be intrusive rather than doing what they’re intended to do: identify as well as possible where someone stands. They’re far from perfect. They don’t pigeon-hole anyone into any position on anything. But they do help provide some frame-work for where people stand. It’s fair to say you can make some general assumptions about how a person with that label may feel about a given issue, but that doesn’t mean all of those people using that label think the same way about everything and it certainly doesn’t make sense to say they all identify theories the same way.
And saying conservatives all believe in the supernatural is pretty ridiculous. That has nothing to do with “conservative” thinking. You safely say that religious conservatism embraces Jesus Christ, but I’ve known plenty of conservatives who were atheists, Jews, agnostics, etc.
Posted by Joey on February 04, 2010 at 1729 hrsBelieving that evolution created DNA is equivalent to believing that the operation system on your computer was created by itself.
Evolution is more a fairy tale then is intelligent design.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1731 hrsBelieving that evolution created DNA is equivalent to believing that the operation system on your computer was created by itself.
Evolution is more a fairy tale then is intelligent design.
And you know this how? Because it’s what you want to believe? Just because you don’t understand how science works doesn’t make it wrong.
Evolution should be taught in science classes. Creationism should be taught in religious classes - be they history, theology, world cultures, whatever. I also think public school curriculum should include brief histories of the major religions in a completely unbiased way, as so much of understanding the world is understanding religion, but maybe that’s just me.
Evolution is science, creationism is faith. Teaching creationism in a science classroom would be like teaching Monty Python and the Holy Grail in a Medieval History classroom.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 1936 hrsAny way you look at it, I think these “creationist” labels are just being put out there to distract from the real issues the District is facing. It is not coincidence that the labels are being applied to the more fiscally conservative talking candidates. I wonder if the individuals that are making this into an issue would be raising the issue if the same candidates were the incumbent and voted with the majority on the budget / tax increase last year?
If this is the issue West Bend is going to hang its hat on and focus on, there is little hope the community will be able to fix the real issues facing the district. Anybody have the answers to the WEAC questionnaire? I hear they were just as targeted but in other directions.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 2107 hrsowen
how does one stop getting email notifications?
if you check the box initially are you doomed to get updates?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 2113 hrsthese “creationist” labels are just being put out there to distract from the real issues
Right. As we all know, religious fundamentalists have a long, strong track record of being upfront about their motivations as school board candidates and demonstrating restraint and respect for legal precedent upon being elected.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 2145 hrsSven, remember, there is an equal track record of those who talk very tough on finances and change when they get elected… People change when they get elected - its a fact of life.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 2200 hrsMary
Thanks for the comment.I’m for thinking way,way outside the box
-One school-and end the extra cost and the charade of having 2 when we have one just for sports
-heavily incentivized pay for the best teachers and and firing the incompetents
-the elimination of teaching to the tests
-full federal funding for no child left behind or abolishing it all together
I don’t agree with all the decisions the board makes-and beleive they should be bolder than they’ve been.
Having said that-I’ve 2 of my friends serve as Board president in the last 10 years and can tell you that the general population has absolutely no clue what the job entails or how restrained the board is in it’s actions
I would have voted for every cut the board passed on in late fall-including cutting the teachers- at the same time I would have moved the levy to the max-
as a businessman-those measure’s would have given me some flexibility where i could get it- and made the community fully aware of the magnitide of the cuts coming
I hear nothing from the rights candidates that leads me to beleive they have an origional thought on the issue’s.
And the reason the creationism issue is so deadly to the 2 candidates is that it paints these candidates with the same broad brush that conservatives do to folks like me
I’m for tearing the institution apart and starting over. The difference is what I would want in it’s place.
(and it’s ok about the name mixup-my sainted irish mother called me Mike sometimes -usually when she was mad at me)
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2010 at 2335 hrs
-Joey:
I guess you just sound really cynical to me.
About someone with a moniker ‘jesusisjustalrightwithme’. Ya think?
For the record, I think the big bang theory is just as much a leap of faith to believe in as any God or Gods and if creationism is not a ‘theory’ (and I agree it is not) I would argue that the big bang idea is not a theory either. There is no evidence, it is just an explanation that fits a few facts so that people can argue a higher being did not create the universe. At least evolution has enough evidence to be called a theory.
Christianity absolutely should be taught in school… in Social Studies classes along with the other major religions of the world. Creationism should not be taught in public schools except, perhaps as George Mitchell suggested, in a Philosophy class or as a contrast to make kids think.
MM
I’m for tearing the institution apart and starting over. The difference is what I would want in it’s place.
Perhaps you are in the wrong painting. Would you say that some, many, or most liberals agree with you on this?
I agree with you 100% on this and I realize we may want some different things in its place, but if majorities of conservatives and liberals both consider it time for major change in education, why isn’t that the focus of debate? Liberals are ‘painted’ as favoring the status quo of throwing more and more money at education as it currently stands, because that is what liberals have demonstrated in their actions. I applaud you stepping out of mainstream liberal doctrine while keeping many/most of your liberal ideas, but I am irritated by the implied condemnation of conservatives for ‘painting you to be a liberal’ so I give less weight to your words. Just say something like: ‘I disagree with my liberal colleagues on this issue’ in the beginning and I for one would not paint you in with the locksteppers.
I am most interested in what you would put in to ‘Mark Maley public education’ that you think conservatives would disagree with. That sounds like a fun and potentially fruitful discussion.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 05, 2010 at 1506 hrsTUERQAS wrote: “I think the big bang theory is just as much a leap of faith to believe in as any God or Gods…”
Then you don’t understand the science behind the big bang theory.
“... There is no evidence.”
This shows CLEARLY that you don’t understand the big bang theory.
Look up ‘backround microwave radiation’ - you’ll learn about a ~prediction~ that the big bang theory made decades ago. This prediction took decades before the evidence was found and the prediction satisfied - exactly how science should work.
There is a lot more to it than just “an explanation that fits a few facts”.
Do yourself a favor and learn about the big bang theory before you opening your mouth on the subject and showing the world your ignorance….
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 05, 2010 at 1517 hrsthe big bang idea is not a theory either. There is no evidence
FYI, this makes one sound like a deeply silly person who is unfamiliar with the very concept of science much less the issue in question.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 05, 2010 at 1533 hrsJoe Agnost. Here is one of many excerpst I could pull. This is from “all About Science”
Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called “Hubble’s Law,” named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the “light elements” Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it’s just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.“4In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein’s static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the “genuine cosmic Rosetta.” Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term “the Big Bang” during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.
Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the “First Cause”? We won’t attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question:The background microwave radiation was still just a fact found to fit the theory. It is also one of only two facts that actually support the theory. Just about every article I have read on the big bang since high school (where, of course, it is taught as fact) has a paragraph on how the creation of the universe is a place where science and philosophy(religion) meet.
The child of a greater being creating our universe from his toy chemistry set is just as plausible as the big bang if you go by the facts. Something blew up. It explains the Hubble theory and residual heat just as well as ‘singularity’ and scientists who have spent their lives studying the conundrum admit it… Except for Joe agnost the scholar. For someone so sure of himself, you have a somewhat incongruous moniker.
Grow up Joey.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1000 hrsSven:
FYI, this makes one sound concept of science.
Thanks Sven for saying that. Oh wait, that is not what you meant? But, those are your words. Oh wait, there is more I chose not to copy down and that changed the context? Goose, gander…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1011 hrsTuerqas:
Grow up Joey.
I’m assuming that was meant for Joe Agnost…
Posted by Joey on February 08, 2010 at 1019 hrsYes, my apologies to you. I liked your comments above.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1024 hrsNo worries, I thought so. Either way, worse things have been said about me.
Posted by Joey on February 08, 2010 at 1026 hrs
Tuerqas
Thanks for the note
I accept.
just need to focus on my basketball team for the next few days.Then- the “vision” thing
games Monday and Thursday with snow in between
MHM
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1143 hrsIn the interest of fairness- i had coffee with Dave W-last week
I appreciated his willingness to sit down and discuss the issues
Although the school board positions are supposed to be non political- it seems that everything in West Bend is now political- and ideological
we agreed that the problems we faced in the district are primarily fiscal and had a very good discussion about not only the problems but also some possible solutions.
I no longer see him as a stick figure in the battle of good vs evil
and that’s a very good start
It’s a shame that we can’t do things like this more often- face to face
My suggestion- listen to the candidates idea’s and their vision for the district
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1209 hrs
and make a reasoned choice-then do it again in AprilOverall, this provides a good argument FOR VOUCHERS.
All of those aethists and left-wing nuts hell bent (no pun intended) on keeping any concept even remotely related to Christianity can put their money where their mouth is…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1321 hrsVery fair and commendable on your part, Mark.
Posted by GAMazy on February 08, 2010 at 1340 hrs Smeety,
Why do you want to ignore the First Amendment? Don’t you benefit from it?
Why would you assume that the religious doctrines that would be taught in public schools would suit you if you were able to get the government to start teaching religion in school?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1427 hrsWhy do you want to ignore the First Amendment?
I never made such an indication.
Why would you assume that the religious doctrines that would be taught in public schools would suit you if you were able to get the government to start teaching religion in school?
I don’t assume. That’s why I want vouchers to choose…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1435 hrs
- - - - - - -
but you do present a nice strawman.
- - - - - - -
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Smeety,
Vouchers come with education standards. How many church schools that want to teach creationism will take the voucher if the education standard requires that science be taught?
Do you want your tax dollars to go to anyone who claims to be running a school, no matter what they teach?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1520 hrsVouchers come with education standards. How many church schools that want to teach creationism will take the voucher if the education standard requires that science be taught?
Science is taught in all high schools, by definition.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1538 hrsFree Lunch,
Why wouldn’t we leave that up to the person with the Voucher? (AKA their money)
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1545 hrs
If parents want their kids to go to a school where they teach it (or not) so what?
Ohhhhhh that’s right! Just as long as it’s something you agree with then spending my money is Okee Dokee....if the education standard requires that science be taught?
... and I’m fine with teaching Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, as long as it is made clear that is it taught as just that ... theory…
but my point is that if we can weed out all of the left-wing nuts out there that are too paranoid to discuss such things as the theory of creationism with vouchers…at least in the schools my kids attend
of course, where would all these left nuts be without my money?
... but, I digress…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1550 hrs
Smeety, you almost talk as if you are confused about what a theory is in science. Theory does not mean a guess or even just a hypothesis to a scientist. When scientists call something a theory, they are generally saying that it is a very robust explanation of the evidence gathered to date and a strong predictor of new evidence to be discovered.
The theory of evolution has been that way. It takes all of the evidence about evolution into account and explains what has been happening in life on earth and makes predictions about new discoveries we should look for. The most important prediction that Darwin implicitly made (since he had no idea what genes were) was that there would be something like genes and that they would have imperfect replication. Both of those were necessary for his theory to work, both are true.
Yes, I’m fine teaching what a theory is in science and why the theory of evolution is so successful.
Now, why would I pay tax dollars to send a child to a school that refuses to teach science?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1604 hrsWhere did you get that I am confused about a theory?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1609 hrsNow, why would I pay tax dollars to send a child to a school that refuses to teach science?
That’s a good question that I’ve been trying to figure out. Darwinism is unproven theory, yet is practically a religion to left wing nuts and aethists. Yet the insistence to teach this unproven theory in the schools, with no mention whatsoever of alternative theories, is almost cultish.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1622 hrsSmeety asked “Where did you get that I am confused about a theory?”
Because you said:
I’m fine with teaching Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, as long as it is made clear that is it taught as just that ... theory…
Darwin originally developed the theory of evolution from the facts about evolution that he had available at the time. In the century and a half since then, more facts about evolution have been discovered and the theory of evolution has been refined and become more robust. Just as there are facts about illness and a theory that does its best to explain why certain illnesses are caused by bacteria and viruses, so there are facts about evolution and a theory which does its best to explain why evolution happens.
It would be impossible in school to discuss the theory of evolution without discussing the facts of evolution that led Darwin and the scientists who followed to develop the theory as we understand it today. It is necessary to show a sample of the facts, appropriate to the educational level of the students, to help students understand why the theory of evolution was developed.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1626 hrsWatch for it Smeety……..
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1628 hrs
Won’t be long before someone suggests you run for School Board………………Smeety, scientists don’t prove theories. There is no such thing as a proven or unproven scientific theory. You need to learn what a scientific theory is. The theory of evolution is extremely well supported by the facts, the evidence about evolution.
The theory of evolution is the only scientific theory about the history of life on earth. Don’t complain about ‘alternative theories’ not being offered. There are no such things.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1631 hrs@ Free Lunch:
I think you may be the one who needs to better understand what a theory is…
My point here was not to rehash evolution theory. I am merely stating that VOUCHERS would allow people to decide for themselves about opening their children up to alternate theories other than the theory of evolution.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1637 hrsSmeety, scientists don’t prove theories.
They don’t? Tell that to Sir Isaac Newton…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1640 hrsThe theory of evolution is the only scientific theory about the history of life on earth. Don’t complain about ‘alternative theories’ not being offered. There are no such things.
You aethists sure are vigilante…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1641 hrsThis has been a great example of how these left-wing nuts push so hard for
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1719 hrs
control over our First Amendment rights. It’s not Darwin’s Laws of Evolution.
It’s not Darwin’s Fact of Evolution. It’s Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. It’s
UNPROVEN. It’s THEORY. Yet, these people insist to their core to insult the
religious beliefs of Christians in the name of science. These nutjobs insist
on using OUR MONEY to teach OUR CHILDREN unproven THEORY. And they
take it a step further by not even acknowledging other possibilities exist. This
is what the Soviet Union and China were known for back in the day.
- - - - -
But back to my original statement… this is why we need more vouchers in Wisconsin.
Let these institutions that are poorly run (WB) finally fail so that students can learn….Smeety -
Aren’t you busy.
As I said, there are not alternate scientific theories about the history of life on earth so your demand to be allowed to teach an alternate theory is meaningless.
Newton’s laws of motion are not theories. They were not proven. Newtonian mechanics happen to be an approximation of a better approximation, quantum mechanics.
<em>You aethists [sic] sure are vigilante [sic]<em>.
It is important to be vigilant about erroneous claims.
Yes, Smeety, in #69 you have remined us again that you will not bother to understand what a scientific theory is and that you will repeat your mistaken claim after you have been corrected. I explained to you why you were mistaken in your understanding. It appears that your mistake is intentional.
I pointed out that there are no other scientific theories because there are not. You cannot point to any such scientific theories.
Any school that fails to teach about evolution is badly run. It would be irresponsible to let such schools get taxpayer money: directly or through vouchers.
As I recall, the Soviets were also opposed to teaching about evolution for a time. You can learn about that failed alternative by looking up Lysenko. It was a failed claim.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 1849 hrs<em>You aethists [sic] sure are vigilante [sic]<em>.
Are we back in high school English class? Correcting spelling? Usually when liberals try to avoid arguing they do a better job than that…
Free Lunch, the grammar vigilante. Actually, vigilante is a good word to use. Bring up religion, or the abject lack of firm scientific proof relating to certain theories, and you’ll have the secular torch and pitchfork vigilante left chasing you like a pack of vicious hounds. 3-7-77
As far as physics goes, little direct knowledge of what occurred during the beginning of the universe is available. Light being what it is, only the dimmest echoes of that bright light begotten from nothing will ever be visible to us. To speculate that some external force acted to create something from nothing is the height of heresy in the secular church.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 2004 hrsOk- Question for all of the creationists on board here. Honest question, because I have been having this discussion with a minister friend of mine: young earth creation or old earth creation? How old is young/ old earth? He is an “old earth” person. He believes that God created the universe, and evolution took over from there.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 2053 hrsAny school that fails to teach about evolution is badly run. It would be irresponsible to let such schools get taxpayer money: directly or through vouchers.
Once again ... proof that we NEED to expand vouchers in Wisconsin. These wingnuts that subscribe to a theory and demand only this one unproven theory be taught.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 2108 hrs
Parents don’t need this type of indoctrination of their kids by these left wing lunatics.“Let these institutions that are poorly run (WB) finally fail so that students can learn” Smeety, hence the reason to run creationism ($2mil lawsuit) and rather than raise the school tax levy, cut it by 5%: To destroy the public school system in WB.
And the rest of your crew believe the same? How many of you survived being taught by “left wing lunatics” in the public education system? Not, Owen. Never went. Not good ‘nuf.
85% of those WB teachers vote Republican, boys.
TAXTOTHEMAX - some of your grammatical errors are awful similar to Owen’s
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 2131 hrs@Elizabeth I guess I can go with the old earth idea. The Bible is full of stories and parables. The first day…. well how long was that day? Since light came first (sort of what the big bangers tell us, isn’t it?), it was definitely not a solar day. Why should we even assume that God operates on the same time scale that we do? I like the intelligent design concept. Something was created from nothing…a whole universe in fact. Perhaps there is some plan in the way it has played out, and some design behind the complicated and improbable set of laws and physical behaviors that define it. Why is that so impossible to believe?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 08, 2010 at 2332 hrsI am a firm believer in ‘the Bible is a bunch of parables’ concept. God created the world, the entire universe in ‘7 days’. If a believer in the Christian God wants to believe that means the earth is 6000yrs old despite excellent evidence that points to the world being far older, that does not make them either a deeper believer than me or a crackpot religious fanatic.
Heck, they don’t go around killing people for virgins in heaven and I don’t see many liberals calling Muslim fanatics wingnut, crackpot, etc. or ridiculing them. I bet you’ll never read swampgas on a Muslim blog writing: ‘So, what you’re saying is you want children taught that if you murder women and children just because they are unbelievers you get a bunch of virgins given to you in heaven?’
I believe there are higher beings and maybe he/they may have taken some small notice of us, but I am not even sure we are the final product of this earth and I believe ‘made in his image’ could mean as little as that he gave us the ability to adapt and grow on our own. I believe it is far more likely that Christ took our form so we could comprehend him rather than he already looked like us. Angels and devils could be the product of another world a million years ago for all anyone knows.
One thing I clearly believe, however, is that the creation of the universe is a philosophical debate not a scientific one. The big bang theory requires just as much faith to believe in than God. The theory of evolution is fairly well established, and conveniently, the facts that support it fit easily in to a creationist view (many think evolutionary facts fit even better in to a ‘design by a higher intelligence’ than random evolution).
That really is what is missing from Science class. Just the simple observations that the big bang theory and evolution theory both require belief in a supernatural event in their beginnings so the idea of God is not incongruous to Science. All the perfect reoccurring patterns in the evolution of flora and fauna are just as likely to be explained by a supernatural force guiding it than by random chance. No discussions of which Gods or sect of God has the best creation theory, just the observation.
This is the result/indoctrination of NO GOD in schools. Things that cannot be explained must be explained without using the idea of God. You don’t have to teach the resurrection of Christ as fact or that God made the world in seven earth solar days to say that belief in a higher being explains the creation of the universe even better than the big bang. Because of that indoctrination most liberals (not necessarily scientists), even the ones that go to church on Sunday, belittle the faith of others as ridiculous and backwards and that any believer is a fool before word one escapes their lips.
Hardy belief in the big bang theory is just as foolhardy as belief in God.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 0953 hrs4-Life
TAXTOTHEMAX - some of your grammatical errors are awful similar to Owen’sWhy thank you!
Like I said before, you elite big thinkers would rather focus on that rather than the point. Might be someday I’ll be as smart.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1016 hrsI agree with most of what you just said TUERQAS. Perhaps the part of us that God created in his image is the part that gives us a soul, and a conscience, and the free will to make decisions on our own, more-so than the biological part. Clearly the part of us that allows us to be moral and to consider the future is quite different from the way the rest of life on earth perceives it’s place in the world.
Life on earth is extremely complex, and each system dovetails perfectly with every other system. Evolutionists believe that a single celled simple organism mutated, against all odds, to form new, stable, and more complex forms of life. Any alteration or removal of a required link in the chain of life causes the whole system to collapse. To think that this amazing system developed purely by random chance in a “million monkeys at a million typewriters” fashion is certainly no less a stretch than to believe that there was some intelligence perhaps guiding the process along. It is no more far fetched than believing that some stray cosmic ray altered the DNA of a fish causing it to one day extrude lungs and crawl onto the land.
A big stumbling block for macro-evolution without external action, is that many complex biological systems rely on each part to function or the whole system fails. Remove a protein, or an organ, or a single autonomic function and the machine ceases to operate. To assume that all these functions randomly began all at once is quite a big belief. If evolution was bicycle to automobile, then cylinders, spark plugs, gasoline supply, and carburetor fuel air mixture would need to have developed simultaneously…. remove a single piece of that puzzle and you have a non-functioning pile of steel.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1046 hrsScientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are “scientific law,” “hypothesis,” and “theory.”
In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.
Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:
Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton’s laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle’s law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.
Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity’s effects. But from the law, we derived the theory of gravity which describes how gravity works,what causes it, and how it behaves. We also use that to develop another theory, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.
An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.
A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part—the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.
An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.
A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1104 hrsSome scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.
A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that theories do not become laws. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:
Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:
Start with an observation that evokes a question: Broth spoils when I leave it out for a couple of days. Why?
Using logic and previous knowledge, state a possible ansser, called a Hypothesis: Tiny organisms floating in the air must fall into the broth and start reproducing.
Perform an expierment or Test: After boiling some broth, I divide it into two containers, one covered and one not covered. I place them on the table for two days and see if one spoils. Only the uncovered broth spoiled.
Then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Publication: “Only broth that is exposed to the air after two days tended to spoil. The covered specimen did not.”
Other scientists read about your experiment and try to duplicate it. Verification: Every scientist who tries your experiment comes up with the same results. So they try other methods to make sure your experiment was measuring what it was supposed to. Again, they get the same results every time.
In time, and if experiments continue to support your hypothesis, it becomes a Theory: Microorganisms from the air cause broth to spoil.
Useful Prediction: If I leave broth open to the air, it will spoil. If I want to keep it from spoiling, I will keep it covered.Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next open container of broth will spoil. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever left a cup of broth open for days and it did not spoil, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out.
Real scientific theories must be falsifiable. They must be capable of being modified based on new evidence. So-called “theories” based on religion, such as creationism or intelligent design are, therefore, not scientific theories. They are not falsifiable, they don’t depend on new evidence, and they do not follow the scientific method.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1105 hrsWhich does not necessarliy mean they are any less likely to be the way things all started, they are just not “scientific”
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1107 hrsI bet you’ll never read swampgas on a Muslim blog writing: ‘So, what you’re saying is you want children taught that if you murder women and children just because they are unbelievers you get a bunch of virgins given to you in heaven?
I’m not fluent in Arabic so I do not read, nor post, on Muslim blogs.
If I did you shouldn’t be surprised if posted something along those lines. However - I would be more circumspect.
TUERQAS - you really presume much about my spiritual beliefs.
Are you a divine power or something?
Posted by Swamp Gas on February 09, 2010 at 1131 hrsDespite my obviously naive country bumpkinishness(I beleive in God), I did already know all that. In fact, I tried to say much the same thing yesterday to smeety on why creationism is not a scientific theory, but my entry code backfired, I lost it all and it was just too much to rewrite.
I did forget about the hypothesis stage, though. So to clean up my opinions above, I do believe that the hypersensitivity to NO GOD in schools is why the big bang is called a theory rather than a hypothesis. It really does not have enough observable facts to be a legitimate theory, especially since the initial inception is predicated on a supernatural event. Atheists couldn’t base their opinion that all believers are fools on a mere hypothesis, though, so it was granted the name theory. Evolution is certainly a scientific theory, but the observable facts can point at least equally towards intentional design.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1131 hrsNo swampgas, I am a mere human, leave your digital recorder at home.
I have observed that, in general, people who ridicule others religious beliefs are either 1) atheists, 2) zealots of a specific belief, or 3) heavy hypocrites.
If you are not a christian you fall under 1 or 2. If you are a Christian you are either 2 or 3. I assume from your last comment that you are number 3 because 1 or 2 would have been much less likely to have elicited the last comment.
You do not believe that the earth is 6000yrs old and you think people who do believe that are ridiculous and/or stupid. It is hypocritical to think that others are stupid for their faith while you are secure in yours. It is hypocritical to judge others if you believe in just about any Christian sect sans fanaticism. I could go on, but how am I doing so far?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1146 hrsSorry, if you are not a christian you could be any of the three, not just 1 or 2.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1148 hrsYou do not believe that the earth is 6000yrs old and you think people who do believe that are ridiculous and/or stupid.
How does belief apply to this situation? The physical evidence shows that the earth is about 4.55 billion years old. Claiming otherwise requires one to ignore all of the physical evidence about the age of the earth and implicitly insists that God intentionally misleads us. That may be why the vast majority of Christians belong to denominations that accept scientific discoveries about cosmology and biology. They have no reason to pick a fight with science and no need to call God a trickster.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1202 hrs@ elovrich: what is the source of your definitions? I’m curious to what source wrote evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1321 hrs
- - - - - - - - -
My intention here was not to debate the theory of evolution. As I wrote back in #59, I’m fine with high schools teaching the theory of evolution as long as it is defined as theory.
Question for you aethiests out there:
(I preface by admitting I don’t know how specifically this is taught in religious schools.) If the theory of evolution is taught from 1-2pm and a class on the Old Testement is taught from 2-3 pm, is that acceptable? or is the mere mention of God in the schools what is offensive?
- - - -
And as I wrote earlier, my point is merely that parents, Christian or otherwise, certainly don’t need these winguts dictating what kids do and do not learn in the schools… vouchers is the vehicle to get there…If the theory of evolution is taught from 1-2pm and a class on the Old Testement is taught from 2-3 pm, is that acceptable? or is the mere mention of God in the schools what is offensive?
I’m not an atheist, but here goes:
No, it’s not acceptable, because you’re talking about apples and oranges. Evolution is a core component of biology, and of science; teaching biology without evolution is sort of like teaching Chemistry without math. Teaching the Old Testament, on the other hand, throws support behind a specific religious doctrine, which is unacceptable and not a function of a public school.
To put it another way, would you be okay with an hour of classroom time devoted to Buddhism’s Thirty-seven Qualities conducive to Enlightenment? Or an hour on the Darshanas? Or Shintoism? If not, why?
To continue, the “mere mention” of God is perfectly acceptable. I’d fully support an hour of comparative religious studies, as long as the class is not dogmatic in nature—that is, as long as it’s a class that teaches all of the world’s religions from an academic standpoint and doesn’t position any of them as being more or less valid. Because again, that’s simply not the role of a public school.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1336 hrsI understand your point, NYTexan… and my ‘counterpoint’...
If Buddhists want to get together and start up a private school, teach the necessary criteria, and devote an hour a day to Buddhist studies ... I am more than fine with that. I encourage this. This is what the First Amendment means to me….
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1341 hrsI’m not sure how that’s a counterpoint. If you’re saying that Buddhists can teach religious doctrine in private schools, then doesn’t the same thing hold true with Christians?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1354 hrsSmeety,
In a private school anyone can teach any religious doctrines they choose. I was under the impression that you were asking about teaching the Old Testament in a public school, which you know can only be done in a comparative religion or other secular context.
The theory of evolution is based on the facts of evolution. Those facts will be taught in a science class. Science is not a court of law. It does not ‘prove beyond a reasonable doubt’. Theories are not proven, except in the sense that they are tested.
Even if your Christian academy were paid for by vouchers, it would have to teach evolution throughout biology class because “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”. This is the name of a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky which criticised the anti-evolution creationism and espousing theistic evolution. The essay was first published in the American Biology Teacher, volume 35, pages 125-129.
Those who reject evolution, reject science. The people who demand the teaching of an alternate theory do not know what they are talking about. There is no other theory. It does not exist.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1401 hrswell… you asked the following question:
To put it another way, would you be okay with an hour of classroom time devoted to Buddhism’s Thirty-seven Qualities conducive to Enlightenment? Or an hour on the Darshanas? Or Shintoism? If not, why?
and I responded:
If Buddhists want to get together and start up a private school, teach the necessary criteria, and devote an hour a day to Buddhist studies ... I am more than fine with that. I encourage this. This is what the First Amendment means to me….
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1403 hrs
That’s pretty straightforward.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
And of course I’d expect Christians to be afforded the same….Those who reject evolution, reject science. The people who demand the teaching of an alternate theory do not know what they are talking about. There is no other theory. It does not exist.
Once again ... Christian parents do not need these wingnuts telling our kids what they should learn in school with our tax dollars…
Vouchers, vouchers, vouchers ... to private schools, public schools, let these wingnuts spend their own portion of tax money on their beliefs…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1406 hrsSmeety;
The reason I posted the definition I did is because there seems to be some confusion over the term ‘theory’. In the scientific context ‘theory’ does NOT mean conjecture, or guess. A theory, in the scientific meaning of the word, is something that has been shown to be repeatable on numerous and seperate occasions by numerous and seperate individuals. In this sense of the word, these theories are ‘proven’ to be correct in that the same results occur over numerous trials.
Creation, as used in the religous or biblical sense, by definition cannot be proven as a scientific theory; it occured one time, cannot be repeated or duplicated under peer review, and is not falsifiable. The big bang is also not a scientific theory for the same reasons, it cannot be duplicated or verified through peer review.
Evolution, on the other hand, can and has been proven and is a full-fledged scientific theory, in the sense of the word having the meaning of something that is proven, repeatable, and falsifiable.
Here is the argument to make about evolution since it is proven science that, for instance, humans living near the equator will have darker-pigmented skin than will humans living in higher latitudes. Why? Who or what designed not only the human physiognomy, but that of all of the other species of plant, animal and microbe? Or, are we to believe that all of this falling into place is sheer randomness? Biology does not have a Unifying Theory like the other hard sciences do. There is no sure way of knowing if a giraffe has a long neck because it lives where there are tall trees, or or it lives where there are tall trees because it has a long neck, all that is proven is that the tall tree and the long neck go together, and a giraffe with a short neck was eased out by one with a long neck.
The Theory of Evolution does NOT preclude a god/supreme being/intelligent designer. It simply is a proof and explanation of HOW we got where we are, not WHY.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1451 hrsTUERQAS - here is what I said in my original post:
So, what you’re saying is you want children taught that the world is 6000 years old?
From one very simple question you seem to have drawn a whole pile of conclusions and inferences about me. All of them either erroneous or cluelessly foolish.
Has anyone ever told you that you have a tendency to be judgmental? Or maybe compulsivity?
If I were you Id save that business for The Almighty.
Posted by Swamp Gas on February 09, 2010 at 1455 hrsHow does belief apply to this situation? The physical evidence shows that the earth is about 4.55 billion years old…
Free Lunch,
It applies only as a matter of faith and degree of faith. For someone who believes in a Christian faith (and generally humans have a need to have faith in something) it is not such a stretch to just take the Bible’s word that God created the world in seven days, man-interpreted physical evidence to the contrary.You have faith that heat created first the entire universe and then life on our earth. There is zero proof of that. Both theories have to resort to a leap of faith idea to get them started. No life has been created from inorganic material by human scientists. It is not duplicatable or provable. Yet you believe them so you believe in them. If you take the first step of faith to believe in a Deity, it is quite simple to explain a lot of things that science has major problems with. Origins science takes just as much faith to believe in than any deity.
As I said before I believe that God set the whole thing in motion and thus deserves credit for ‘creating’ the earth. But I do not ridicule atheists for their beliefs in BBT and evolution, nor do I ridicule Christians whose faith is such that they desire to believe that the earth is 6000yrs old. When we are in heaven, one of us will laugh it off at the bar as an honest mistake.
Smeety you seem to have been having a different conversation than the rest of us this whole time. No one thinks that religious beliefs should not be taught in a private school. If you were suggesting an old testament class in a private school no one was ever disagreeing with you. It read to all of us that you were suggesting an OT class in a public school and NYTexan answered you well and honestly.
About vouchers, there are many people who have no children that would love a voucher to not pay public school taxes. Live with it! If you wish to pay more to send your kids to a private school because they teach your beliefs, pay the freakin’ tuition and shut up about it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1505 hrsHas anyone ever told you that you have a tendency to be judgmental? Or maybe compulsivity?
Yes, both, more than a few times in my life.
And yet SG, I notice that virtually all of your comments that I can remember (not of the tongue-in-cheek post variety) ridicule, or condem, usually from a liberal slant, without ever really giving your actual beliefs. Probably just so you can claim things like this when other commentors call you on it.
For instance, you still have not defended yourself by declaring what you believe, only that I am way off base.
I question how what you believe would make my comments look cluelessly foolish, but the world may never know. Your Zorro cloak of mystery is still wrapped firmly about you, ready to swoop down and make another slashing wit comment.
Keep up the good works, Christian… or not. I do not know… and I have been so chastened that I dursn’t challenge your incorruptibly high position again.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1518 hrs@elovrich:
Where did you get your definition of theory? (pardon me if I missed your source)
- - - - - - - - - -
Scientific TheoryIn the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]
A scientific theory is a type of deductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1702 hrs@ Smeety:
Yes, that is a scientific, theory, more than just conjecture or wild-assed guess.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1705 hrsI’m just wondering where you found a definition of theory that includes:
All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt…
... because at the moment the very foundation of your argument is unfounded…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1720 hrsSmeety,
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1724 hrs
If you see a contradiction between your definition and elovrichs’, it is because the ‘definition’ by elovrich was an illustration of the creation of a theory using the Scientific Method. Not really a definition of Scientific theory as yours is above. They are actually different terms so it is not specifically an apples to apples comparison. The two different definitions do not contradict each other so much as overlap each other.The two different definitions do not contradict each other so much as overlap each other.
Where is the source that states a theory has been “proven beyond a reasonable doubt”?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1729 hrsOops, Sorry Smeety, I did not go back far enough in Elovrich’s original definition, but I think your conclusion is still erronoeous. The theory of evolution is a proven theory. The fact that those same observable truths that prove the theory fits nicely with a creationist philsophy is what is not taught in schools.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1732 hrs... then what is the proven definition of the beginning of life?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1741 hrsDo you read anyone else’s comments? See comment 96 and ask a better question.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1748 hrsTuerqas,
Respectfully, you are incorrect, sir. If evolution is proven than this should be an easy question…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1754 hrsWe can certainly disagree because this has already been answered and I think I am correct, but I have already stated my beliefs that
1) The beginning of life is a hole in the theory of evolution and to embrace the theory of evolution one must make a leap of faith to believe in it.
2) I have taken that leap of faith snd filled that hole in the theory with God willing the initial creations. The rest of the theory of evolution is pretty much fully compatible with the philosophy of Christian creation.
3) Elovrich pointed out that theories are required to be malleable enough to accept new data. Maybe there will be an experiment by man some day that will ‘create’ life and be duplicatable. That would certainly boost belief in evolution as a theory separate from God’s creation. To be a theory strong enough to be accepted as ‘true’ does not require that all facets of the theory are 100% correct. Otherwise it would not be malleable. It would be a scientific law. Only fools claim that at this point.Besides all that, semantically, asking for the definition of ‘the beginning of life’ is a very poorly worded question. When, how, where, or what was the beginning of life would be a much better question. From what standpoint, (It cannot be from a dictionary perspective, the dictionary does not define phrases) are you asking for a definition, etc.
I can answer that from my perspective, because I believe God created the universe and set the essence of life as we know it in motion and let nature (that he set the rules for) take it to fruition(evolution). From a strictly evolutionary standpoint, the answer is currently heat and radiation. It is a weak spot in the theory, but it is open for further proof.
Obviously you did not want those answers though, because I have already answered it from both of those perspectives. So I ask more directly; What in tarnation are you askin’ fer?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1827 hrsAbout vouchers, there are many people who have no children that would love a voucher to not pay public school taxes. Live with it! If you wish to pay more to send your kids to a private school because they teach your beliefs, pay the freakin’ tuition and shut up about it.
Taxes for schools are collected to be spent towards educating the children of a community. Why is it that you feel this education MUST come from a secular school that teaches a curriculum based wholly on the non-existence of religion as it applies in any way toward education? We all agree that certain basics are important for every adult to know. Math, reading, science, computers, etc. As long as the schools teaches those educational basics effectively, what would be wrong with allowing parents to select what type of moral education they would like to have included in that? Give each family a voucher that allows them to direct the taxes assigned to educating their child to any school they choose. I’ve never understood why people stand so adamantly against a parents right to choose.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1828 hrsTFG, so what are you saying? That if you have kids you should have a say, and that only people without kids do not? or that people wihtout kids could still have a say even though it does not apply to them? Yeah.
Personally, I would hate for my tax money to go to a school that teaches Muslim extremism. That out? Then where is the line drawn? I would also hate for whatever current members of Government to sway back and forth in its religious beliefs, hence policies. That is what the separation of church and state is all about. It is about not allowing any one group from indoctrinating the masses.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1837 hrsthe non-existence of religion
I’ve never seen a public school curriculum that implies that religion does not exist. It would be very nice if you could direct us to a school district that actually does as you accuse.
I’m not opposed to a parent’s right to choose, but I am opposed to allowing a school to collect tax dollars if it won’t teach biology properly. I expect to have standards of education that any school that is collecting tax money will have to follow whether they are getting it directly or through a voucher.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 1942 hrsTUERQAS…
16 words that make-up a simple question.
I sure hope you don’t have a blood pressure condition.
I don’t generally have anything to say around here unless it has to do with hunting or outdoor stuff. I’m puzzled? Liberal slant?
Incidentally - have I challenged or questioned your belief system?
I don’t have to defend my belief in The Almighty to you or any other mortal.
And what does Zorro have to do with this discussion?
You’re not into that Peyote practice are you?
Posted by Swamp Gas on February 09, 2010 at 1955 hrsI would hate for my tax money to go to a school that teaches Muslim extremism
We can always make extreme examples. Perhaps we could use common sense. Hm, now there is a thought. We could say “Gee, that school has a class in sewing suicide vests… maybe that’s inappropriate”. Common sense stuff, do we really need to specify every possible permutation?
That is what the separation of church and state is all about.
There is no such thing. It’s not in the Constitution at all. Freedom of religion IS in there though. I think a pretty good case could be made to show that modern secularism has many aspects of a religion. It’s not one I want my kids forced into.
the non-existence of religion
I’ve never seen a public school curriculum that implies that religion does not exist.
Neither have I, nor did I imply that. You can’t take a few words out of a sentence and expect it to retain it’s meaning. For example:
I’ve never seen a public school
You haven’t? How could you miss them, they are everywhere. Are you blind?
See how that works? Feel free to re-read that sentence. It is quite correct. I think parents should be allowed to choose a school that offers the students access to more than the secularist theories. If you don’t believe in religion, fine… it should be your right to send your kids to secular schools, and my right to practice freedom of religion by sending mine to a Catholic one… without suffering economic penalties because you don’t approve.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 2035 hrsWhy is it that you feel this education MUST come from a secular school that teaches a curriculum based wholly on the non-existence of religion as it applies in any way toward education?
There is the entire sentence. You are still making a claim that you cannot back up with evidence. The curriculum is not based on the non-existent of religion as it applies in any way toward education.
I think parents should be allowed to choose a school that offers the students access to more than the secularist theories.
What do you mean here? What is a ‘secularist theory’?
It’s not in the Constitution at all.
You forgot that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” comes first in the first amendment. You are free to teach any religion you want and I support your right to do so. You are not free to get the government to teach that religion for you.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 2059 hrs“Congress shall make no law” hardly applies to the government paying for it’s mandate that my child be educated to a certain standard. They are not making a law teaching religion, nor are they forcing anyone to subscribe to a particular religion. They are simply allowing me my Constitutional rights within the framework of the mandate that they created, and they are allowing you, yours.
I could make a better case that the government is putting up roadblocks to my free exercise of religion by forcing me to educate my kids but then not paying for that education because of the fact that I wish to include religion, and you don’t.
As to my statement, outside of a historical context, secular schools do not generally offer mention of religious beliefs as they impact science, or ethics, or law, or morality, or even sex education. I am absolutely correct on that.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 2118 hrsThe courts have routinely disagreed with your claims about the First Amendment. They bend over backward to keep government out of religion and religions out of government. I don’t see how you can undermine it from one side only.
Religious beliefs do not impact science. They have almost nothing to do with law in this country. Those beliefs are often tied to ethics or morality, though the ethical systems that arose in various cultures appear to have less of a range than the religions that developed. I don’t see your point at all.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 2223 hrsYou are not free to get the government to teach that religion for you.
This statement would be true if Christians didn’t pay taxes.
Still waiting for some aethist to prove how the world was created…
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 09, 2010 at 2233 hrsThis statement would be true if Christians didn’t pay taxes.
No, the statement is true, whether you like it or not. You don’t get to demand that taxpayers pay to have children taught religious doctrine.
Still waiting for some aethist to prove how the world was created…
Didn’t you pay attention in science class? Earth was formed as the solar system was being formed. Here is the first page of a discussion about how the solar system formed. Sure, scientists are still trying to discover more about the origins of the solar system, but useful scientific tools like the Hubble Space Telescope are helping us learn more about the universe and the origins of structures in the universe.
Don’t forget that the vast majority of Christians belong to church bodies that accept the discoveries that scientists have made about the history of the universe, earth and life on earth. They want to learn about God’s Creation. They don’t refuse to learn. Scientific theories have been tested (that is the sense of prove that is valid when discussing science) and shown to be correct up to this point. The great thing about science is that every discovery can lead to more interesting questions. Doing an experiment that leads scientists to ask more questions is success in science.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0839 hrsThe courts have routinely disagreed with your claims about the First Amendment.
Not at all. SCOTUS has upheld the idea of tax supported vouchers being used to pay for religious schools on several challenges. For instance: http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/06/28/loc_supreme _court.html
So you see, your government does support my right to choose my own religion and to have my children educated in an environment that is not hostile to my beliefs… even if you do not. The only sticking point now is the income test, but I imagine that will eventually change too. You have the right to believe and publicly argue that only secularists should be allowed to decide what my children are taught… but don’t say that the courts agree with you… that part is not true.
As to your other point, religion played a huge role in the development of our legal system, all the way back to it’s inception as English Common Law. Long held Christian beliefs on murder, theft, false witness, adultery, profanity, property and even having weekends off… they all have played a huge role in the formation of our cultural mores and our legal system. You can deny that, but it would be wrong too.
Clearly religion has a great impact on the morals and ethics that I teach my children as opposed to the moral beliefs that secularist schools would impose on my family. Religious beliefs also impact science. My kids understand the operational biology and physics of the natural world.. both in physics and in the biology of life and it’s creation. They understand the complexity of that system, and they are smart enough, on their own, to see that there is not this imaginary and insignificant randomness about the universe that secularists believe in. You would have them learn that only your unproven theories are correct. I would have them learn that nature is not a random roll of the dice. Gott wurfelt nicht, as a great scientist once said.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0904 hrsFree lunch:
There is the entire sentence. You are still making a claim that you cannot back up with evidence. The curriculum is not based on the non-existent of religion as it applies in any way toward education.
The courts have routinely disagreed with your claims about the First Amendment. They bend over backward to keep government out of religion and religions out of government.
My, don’t we get to have our cake and eat it too. Because I agree with your second statement, I take umbrage at the first. Maybe I can see where you interpreted TFG’s statement differently, though. I believe you think TFG stated that schools actively teach that religion does not exist and that is not what he is saying. He is saying (and I think I am right because I agree and it is what I have been saying) that schools teach everything without even mentioning religion.
My nephew was learning about Plymouth Rock and the landing of the Mayflower a few years back. I am a history major so we talked about it. His teacher taught them that they came to America to avoid persecution…Not religious persecution, just persecution. When you take religion wholly out of education, you can often make it lose its context. It is also a heck of a lot harder to instill values without the context of religion. It may not be any harder to teach, but it is harder to instill.
SG, 16 words?
I don’t have to defend my belief in The Almighty to you or any other mortal.
Of course not, but that unwillingness makes you a lot less interesting when belief in the almighty is a germane topic of the conversation. Unless the reader is a fan of the commentor who just chimes in with scorn or criticism, but offers nothing else. It is okay for you to do that. You can pretend that what I have said to/about you makes me look silly, but with no statement of what you believe, I will continue to believe what I do about you and others can all make up their own minds on each of us.
Incidentally - have I challenged or questioned your belief system?
My mother believes that the world is about 6,000yrs old and I respect her and her ideas, so let’s say that you have challenged my sphere of influence. Uninterestingly enough, you have still both offered some sort of scorn or insult in evey comment and offered not a single belief of your own… Until you change that I will not respond to your comments on this thread again.TFG, yes my example was extreme and if you want me to outline examples of past historical religious abuses through indoctrination by different Christian sects only, I would be glad to do that. Maybe religion could not subvert this modern day society, but I would put my money on the side of religion versus average Joe any day. Just to skim, though, if religious views were to be allowed in school tomorrow, would there be a line drawn and where would you draw it? Example: Protestantism, seeing an opening, drops their tuition prices and builds or buys out 10,000 new schools. People with loose or no affiliations see the attractive pricing and think hey, at least it has religion in the curriculum. All you have to do is join the church. Whether it is purchased absolutions or cheap education, adverising works.
Meanwhile, with vouchers, the parents of kids pay less in total dollars than someone with no kids, because they have no way of reducing their costs. They don’t get to pay the church costs, they have to pay the Government costs. I am not really against a partial offset of costs to move your kid to a private school, but most people screaming voucher think that they should get enough credits that they should pay no more (or even less if the school they have their kids attend is cheaper) than everyone else and that includes people with no kids. I disagree with that. As long as there is a public option that everyone is required to pay for, people with kids should not be the ones that get to opt out of paying their share of that option. That makes no sense.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0919 hrsTFG and FL, please pardon my refereeing, but now TFG is on a tangent. FL never stated that the Judicial branch did not support your right to choose your religion or your school. It has, however, upheld any and every ban of any feature of reilgion that every crackpot has ever dreamed up in a public school. That was FL’s point and I agree with it.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0929 hrsMy nephew was learning about Plymouth Rock and the landing of the Mayflower a few years back. I am a history major so we talked about it. His teacher taught them that they came to America to avoid persecution…Not religious persecution, just persecution.
That is sloppy work on the part of the teacher and makes no sense. Religion is often a central feature of history. How can a student make sense of history without a discussion of causation?
When you take religion wholly out of education, you can often make it lose its context.
Agreed, particularly for things like history or literature. Teachers who are unwilling to discuss religion in any context need to learn how to teach better.
It is also a heck of a lot harder to instill values without the context of religion. It may not be any harder to teach, but it is harder to instill.
I’m not convinced on that. It seems to me that teaching children how different societies have arrived at their values is more useful. It can help them see that these values are not arbitrary, but developed over time by a society based on its experience.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 0948 hrsI’m not convinced on that. It seems to me that teaching children how different societies have arrived at their values is more useful.
I admit that is my opinion through observation and conversation, not a scientific fact. I guess part of that opinion is based on the tools that I know my friends and family who are more religious use versus the tools friends and family who are decidedly not religious use. I agree with the tools more often used by religious people because I think they work better. I also believe that there has been a measurable drop in both religion and a corresponding drop in manners, courtesy and morals most commonly associated with ‘religious teaching’.
I also agree with your assessment of the teachers on religion. Unfortunately, again in my opinion, the indoctrination is already such that teachers, with the advice of administrators, many times teach the path of least resistance. Any reference to religion is a potential hotbed that is best avoided. Egads, what if there is a Muslim in your class when you teach history about the crusades!?!
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1111 hrsEgads, what if there is a Muslim in your class when you teach history about the crusades!?!
I would love it. That student wouldn’t let the teacher ignore the religious and political foundations of the crusades. Other students shouldn’t either.
I want to see how a school teacher could deal with the Reformation wars, particularly the Thirty Years’ War, or Cromwell while ignoring religion.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1148 hrsPersonally, my history major focused on pre-19th century history and my BS is Grade 7-12 Broadfield social sciences. I went to HS at West Bend West and taught there one semester. Despite glowing recommendations from Mr. Everix and another guy who I can’t remember, I did not get the permanent job.
So I WOULD HAVE LOVED IT TOO! Dang it. Teaching culture has shrunk in my eyes. There seems to be much less challenging of ideas and much more this is what is to be taught and more importantly how it is to be taught these days. That is how I felt in going from student to teacher in any case.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1240 hrs@ smeety re:post 100
I’m just wondering where you found a definition of theory that includes:
All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt…
... because at the moment the very foundation of your argument is unfounded…
Sorry that is has taken so long to get back to you. The definition protin of my original post was in the first part:
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.
In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The part you have quoted has nothing to do with the definition of what a scientific theory is, but rather comes after a list of several specific theories. All of which are in fact proven beyond any reasonable doubt.Now, saying that the Theory of Evolution is accepted beyond reasonable doubt will also require my saying that the Theory of Evolution, while presupposing that that live began at some point and developed from there, does not put forward ANY hypothesis (see the difference between theory and hypothesis?) as to how that first life began.
Can you present any reasonable argument against the Theory of Evolution? Anything that defied that natural selection, adaptation, speciation, and genetic drift are the causes of the diversity of life on earth?
TUERQAS said that the beginning of life is a hole in the Theory of Evolution. I would disagree with him on this point, because of the fact that the ToE only addresses how life evolved once it came into being, and is/was not intended to answer the question of how it began in the first place.
This is why belief in intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1533 hrsTUERQAS said that the beginning of life is a hole in the Theory of Evolution. I would disagree with him on this point, because of the fact that the ToE only addresses how life evolved once it came into being, and is/was not intended to answer the question of how it began in the first place.
I concede that point, but with the stipulation that I personally think an explanation of the beginning of life should be a basic requirement for the ToE in the first place. And there are at least hypotheses concerning it putting forth a vague amalgam of heat and random radiation that I was not aware was not ‘part’ of ToE.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1707 hrsTUERQAS,
Why would you expect that about evolution? Do you require someone who develops a theory of mechanics to include an explanation of the origin of the universe? Is quantum mechanics a failure because those who developed it did not know how the universe began? Should we have ignored Newton’s original stab at it because he was completely in the dark about the universe’s origins?
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 10, 2010 at 1839 hrsHey, I prefaced it with ‘personally I think’. I was not trying infer that many people do or ought to think that, or even that it is fully rational.
As long as that is clear, the reasoning I personally used when stating that above was that I do believe in God. In my mind, there is no question that a higher being had a hand in creation. ToE could have developed just as far as it has with God in the theory. There is nothing(that I can think of) in ToE that disproves the presence of God, yet atheists, agonstics (and bears, oh my) point to ToE as both a proof that God does not exist and a reason for calling pretty much anyone who does believe in God names such as fanatic or wingnut, fool, weak minded, gullible, etc.
When used in that way by anyone, words like hypocrite and idiot foam to the top of my mind. The only reason that the theory and BBT) do not say that God is the best hypothesis for how life and the universe began is that some idiots thought that it was somehow inappropriate to use a figure of faith in science where proof is the Almighty. So what do they say instead? More or less that they have faith that a ‘singularity exploded’ and that heat and solar flares caused spontaneous combustible life to begin. If you are going to use ‘faith’ in your theory, why not put the best faith-based explanation forward?
i.e. this has nothing to do with all theories, like what you mentioned above. Besides, quantum mechanics is not a timeline based developmental theory. I admit I know virtually nothing about quantum mechanics, but the theory isn’t about a baby quantum that grows up in to a full grown mechanic one day is it? Quantum mechanics is not timeline based. I believe it is more important to have a beginning for a theory that concerns a timeline than to explain a phenomenon or anything else that does not contain a developmental aspect. To me that was an apples to oranges comparison in the first place.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 0912 hrs...yet atheists, agonstics (and bears, oh my) point to ToE as both a proof that God does not exist and a reason for calling pretty much anyone who does believe in God names such as fanatic or wingnut, fool, weak minded, gullible, etc.
Bullshit. Few people point to the theory of evolution as proof that god doesn’t exist. To wit, plenty of Christians (and members of other religions around the world) are quite comfortable with the theory of evolution. I mean, the theory of evolution is ultimately just a description of a process. It doesn’t seek to explain where the universe came from, or whether there is a supernatural power.
I think what you’re trying to say is that people point to the theory of evolution as proof that creationism is nothing more than a bunch of hooey. Which is indeed correct.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1055 hrsWhatever, NYT. You can admit that many people of faith have no problem with evolution because it really does not conflict with anything except a literalist interpretation of their faith’s version of creation, good for you. It has been a recurring point of mine throughout this thread.
If you are an atheist and you do not believe the ToE helps explain that there is no God, you are in the minority of atheists. If you are not an atheist, but know someone who considers themself an atheist on intellectual grounds, I pretty much guarantee that if you asked questions about how the earth and humans came to be if not by God, they would expound to the limit of their knowledge about how ToE and the BBT are proofs that God does not exist.
I never said the ToE was developed by atheists specifically as a proof that God does not exist or anything of the sort, I am saying it is how it is used by atheist laymen today. if you think that is wrong, I would say you are the one full of bull(or ignorance on the subject).
ToE is certainly a proof against a literalist translation of creation by the Christian Deity of a 7 day creation. On the other hand, since terms like epoch, carbon dating, or even millenia were unfamiliar terms in the BC era, I am not surprised a book written then did not include them.
Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 11, 2010 at 1120 hrs
Total Entries: 17428
Total Comments: 110057
Total Trackbacks: 1068
Most Recent Entry: 07/30/2010 01:00 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 07/30/2010 06:00 pm
Total Members: 9746
Total Logged in members: 4
Total guests: 74
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 07/30/2010 06:44 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Current Logged-in Members: djmamayek laker Rich2 Steve-O
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).