New Mexico Bill Seeks to Protect Anti-Science Education.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by appleguy123, Feb 3, 2011.

  1. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #1
    More @ Source
    Just imagine if we saw a headline like:
    Bill seeks to promote teaching the subjunctive mood as a controversial literary device.
    Or Bill seeks to protect the teaching of the treble clef as a controversial musical object.
     
  2. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #2
    Parents teach their children what they want them to believe. When they do it by influencing the schools and the books and the laws, it affects everyone else's children too.
     
  3. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    I think a lot of those parents need to ask themselves why they are so threatened by their children knowing more than they do. Are they really that insecure?
     
  4. SuperCachetes macrumors 6502a

    SuperCachetes

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Location:
    Away from you
    #4
    "Anti-science education" is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one... :rolleyes:
     
  5. codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #5
    I just hope we pull over so China doesn't rear-end us when they go zooming by in the fast lane.
     
  6. Bill McEnaney, Feb 4, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011

    Bill McEnaney macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    #6
    Well, if people who doubt the theory of evolution can support their opinions with scientific evidence, they're hardly being antiscientific when they do that. Sometimes some scientists act as though that theory is the biological golden calf.

    Imagine that you're a bird biologist who wonders whether all swans are white. You grab your Macbook and its digital camera, go to a huge breeding ground for swans, where your computer counts the million unique white swans it sees with that camera. That many white swans give you excellent inductive evidence that all swans are white. But your laptop never notices the shy black swan who hides each time he sees the camera. Since there's at least one black swan, not all swans are white. However much inductive evidence you collect for a scientific theory, your inductive argument for that theory is always inconclusive because even if the theory is true, one counter-example would be enough to disprove it conclusively if there were one. Nobody can prove that a truth is false because nobody can prove that a self-contradiction is true. But I don't contradict myself when I say that evolution theory might be false. The white-swan swan theory might be false. In fact, it is false.

    If there is a counter-example to evolution theory, do I suppress that counter-example, or do I teach students to be scientific enough to assess the evidence for the theory and the evidence against it? Even Richard Dawkins, hardly an objective expert, admits that a counter-example to evolution theory would show conclusively that the theory is false. Would I be anti-scientific if I pointed out a genuine counter-example to that theory, would I be anti-scientific or just biased?
     
  7. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #7
    If a counter example is ever peer-reviewed and published in a journal, then yes it should be taught. Until that time, the teacher should be teaching empirical science and not fairytales.
    The things you said could apply to any theory. Should teacher's be free to teach the stork theory of reproduction to their students? After all, a single stork bringing a child to a mother could put a chink in the armor of that reproduction theory.
    What about the germ theory of disease? Should its iron age equivalent(demonic possession) be thought on equal ground? All we need to find is one demon possessing a sick person.
    Evolution is extremely easy to disprove, but it hasn't been done yet. A single fossil in the wrong place, one example of irreducible complexity, inexplicable DNA dissimilarities between related species. There's a reason it hasn't been done yet.
     
  8. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #8
    It makes sense to me as a lot of religious and folklore explanations have been proven to be wrong. I am religious myself but I recognize that not all religion is accurate and it is possible to do harm if you do not teach the 'scientific' aspects (such as the age of the Earth). The spread of mis-information is a dangerous topic, especially in regards to pseudoscience. People die from it actually. Check out the whooping cough epidemic...IMO the drop in herd immunity, which is usually the culprit for disease epidemics/endemics of previously 'irradiated' diseases via widespread vaccination, can be (at least) partially attributed to people who have been advocating the 'dangers' of vaccinations (eg: Jenny McCarthy).
     
  9. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #9
    I think some Christians are so terrified someone will prove there is no god that they deny the reality of science. the whole creation thing is so much denial. but waving a 3000+ year old book around is not exactly proof.
    But the stupid thing is all these Christians sure don't mind using all the technology associated with this science they deny so much.
     
  10. torbjoern macrumors 65816

    torbjoern

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    The Black Lodge
    #10
    Yeah - like "educational television".
     
  11. torbjoern macrumors 65816

    torbjoern

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    The Black Lodge
    #11
    Except for the Amish people ;)
     
  12. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #12
    even they are starting too. they just won't use it the same way we do. but they are starting to need doctors because of the genetic problems of inbreeding.
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13
    Texans fight back…

    NEWS ALERT: Texas Republicans deny snow in Dallas saying, "scientists are undecided".

    Related: May be GAY snow.

    From Twitter. :D
     
  14. Bill McEnaney, Feb 4, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011

    Bill McEnaney macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    #14
    Good points, but many atheists and others seem to ignore an important point. Evidence against evolution theory might not be evidence that God exists. I seem to remember that in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume says something like this, "Even if God designed the universe and created it, evidence for design doesn't prove conclusively that the designer still exists. He might have designed the universe, created it, and then died of exhaustion." Inductive arguments for design probably are just as inconclusive as inductive arguments for evolution theory. But that potential inconclusiveness hardly proves that every kind of theism is a fairytale.

    Many atheists, including Dawkins, attack oversimplified caricatures of Judeo-Christian theism and then insist that God doesn't exist or that there is probably no God. But if I prove conclusively that there's no bearded old man in the sky who wants mankind to grab his finger, I haven't disproved Judeo-Christian theism. Judeo-Christian theism, at least sophisticated versions of it, aren't that anthropomorphic.

    Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said that Catholicism's enemies don't hate the Catholic Church. Instead, they hate their misconceptions about it. A similar point applies to atheists who oversimplify theism when they compare God to an invisible Santa Claus who gives people Christmas presents.

    Those atheists ignore another point, too: If God exists, His existence explains the existence of everything other than God. If He explains the existence of everything except Himself, He explains the existence of natural science because natural science isn't God. Nobody can use natural science to conclusively disprove that God exists if natural science couldn't exist without God.

    Even atheistic natural scientists talk as though they believe that natural objects have purposes. They talk about what philosophers call "natural teleology." Even if there's no God, natural objects tend naturally to do some things. Hearts pump blood. Kidneys clean it. DNA represents genetic information. Adrenal glands secrete adrenalin. Plants lean toward the sun. Plants aren't intelligent. Neither are the other natural objects I've just mentioned. But plants and many other natural objects at least seem to behave purposefully. Medicine tells me what kidneys do. It does doesn't prove theism. It doesn't even disprove it. But scientists talk often as though science presupposes a metaphysics that supports Intelligent Design Theory.
     
  15. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #15
    LMAO. If it is gay snow then we will have to boycott shoveling it.
     
  16. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #16
    based on what I can see in the bill is it is CYA for the schools. It is not like it is really going to effect teachers either way. The ones that are "anti-Science" already are that way. This just protects the school from law suits and protects the ones who teach evolution from nut case parents. Of course the media is going to blow up out of proportion
     
  17. StruckANerve macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    Rio Rancho, NM
    #17
    I can't believe not a single one of the Local news outlets even mentioned this story. Why do conservatives want to make our children dumber?
     
  18. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #18
    We were never talking about the existence of God. We were talking about whether or not Evolution should be taught as a controversial scientific theory because it is possible to disprove it. God would have no place in a biology classroom, even if he were real.
     
  19. torbjoern macrumors 65816

    torbjoern

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    Location:
    The Black Lodge
    #19
    So as to oppress them, of course. That's what religion is for.
     
  20. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #20
    What is truly 'newsworthy' and what is actually on the news have no relation whatsoever.

    "We report on irrelevant and useless events and you get to decide just how stupid they really are."
     
  21. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #21
    Oh Bill Bill Bill.....

    What you are describing is how science works. A theory is only the accepted explanation for as long as it isn't disproved. Unlike faith and dogma it doesn't rely on people just accepting it without any evidence to back it up.
     
  22. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #22
    Darwinian evolution is not "controversial". Its legitimacy is based on self-evidently broad scientific consensus. The controversy rather lies with the clumsy and weak attempts to undermine it on the part of creationists. Creationism is not science, and it can not be used to criticise scientific principles on equal terms. Discussion over.
     
  23. Bill McEnaney macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    #23
    Many don't want, say, public-school science teachers to teach that some evidence might support Intelligent Design Theory. Since they conflate that theory and creationism, they think that a public school's biology teacher would indoctrinate his students with religious doctrines by only mentioning that some evidence might support Intelligent Design Theory. No, God's existence or his nonexistence isn't the topic of this thread. But I haven't digressed.

    Let me add another point that I forgot to include a post or two ago. I'm a Catholic and a scientific realist. A scientific realist believes that natural science gives an increasingly accurate description of both the natural world and natural events. We get genuine knowledge from natural science. But induction gives absolute certainty only when a counter-example proves that an inductively justified conclusion is false.

    It's one thing for biologist to teach creationism when he should teach evolution theory. It's something else to suppress discussions about whether God might at least help explain why there's something rather than nothing.
     
  24. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #24
    The question of why there is something rather than nothing also does not belong in Biology. It's cosmology.
    Is there peer-reviewed and published evidence against Evolution or for ID? If there is, I agree that those aspects should be taught. If not they should stay in church and not in the realm of biology where empirical evidence matters.
     
  25. Bill McEnaney, Feb 4, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2011

    Bill McEnaney macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2010
    #25
    Queso, Queso, Queso. I want to agree with you. But I think you're reminding us of what scientists should do that they sometimes don't do. My point is partly that bias might make some scientists keep believing some false theories.

    I can't agree with your, your in my opinion, inaccurate definition of faith. To many scientifically-minded people, including you(?), may believe that only natural science could supply any evidence for theism if there could be any evidence for it. Unfortunately, people who do that ignore plenty of evidence, e.g., philosophical arguments for theism and medical records about people who may have gotten miraculous cures.

    Vist the hospital at the shrine in Lourdes, France, where you'll find many doctors who search for purely natural ways to explain why some pilgrims recover. That medical team includes even some atheists. The Lourdes shrine is a Catholic shrine. Do you think a Catholic hospital at a Catholic shrine would hire atheistic doctors if the Catholic staff there had the kind of faith you describe? Some might, but I doubt that most do. Even Saint Peter tells his readers to give a reason for the hope that's in them. He wants them to argue for what they believe. He's not asking them to be obscurantists, let alone gullible morons.

    Check this (http://therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf) out.
     

Share This Page