Christian Group: Teaching science violates religious freedom

[The Rich Port]

Ah, yes, The Revisionaries covers the Texas School Board.

I love it how nutritionists and chemical engineers are passing judgement on evolution. Funny how you don't seem to get very many biologists of any stripe doing that.

Whatchou talkin' 'bout.

Nutritionists are scientist-esque.

You would think they would shun these experts as elitist ivory-tower Asperger atheists, but those Texans are modernizing.

It's embarrassing and it annoys me.

Don't nutritionists and chemical engineers have Codes of Ethics that tell them not to go outside of their true expertise because it would be a disservice not only to their profession, but to the public as well?

I'm a Pre-Social Work major, you don't see me running for the local school board on a damn social engineering platform.

[Imsogone]

Evolution isn't entirely irrefutable.

It makes sense and it has evidence backing it up, and that's why it's what is taught.

Alternatives otherwise offered have just never measured up to it's standard.

Usually because the people who present it have ulterior motives besides the expansion of knowledge.

I'm not sure that "Certain key elements of living cells are so complex that they can only have been designed and put in place by an external actor with sufficient power to do so" represents an "expansion of knowledge."

I'm not sure how that can be deemed sensible. Even though believers maintain the "omni-ness" of deity the fact that it can be conceptualized is by definition limiting. If you can put it in a box, it's not infinite and not omnipresent, not omniscient, not omnipotent. Since Christians have put these limits on their deity and he(sic) perforce has permitted this, then clearly his intellect is not sufficient to put a hole in a donut. Only limitless complexity can maintain complexity and evolution answeres this.

[Shnercropolis]

I'm not sure that "Certain key elements of living cells are so complex that they can only have been designed and put in place by an external actor with sufficient power to do so" represents an "expansion of knowledge."

I'm not sure how that can be deemed sensible. Even though believers maintain the "omni-ness" of deity the fact that it can be conceptualized is by definition limiting. If you can put it in a box, it's not infinite and not omnipresent, not omniscient, not omnipotent. Since Christians have put these limits on their deity and he(sic) perforce has permitted this, then clearly his intellect is not sufficient to put a hole in a donut. Only limitless complexity can maintain complexity and evolution answeres this.

I don't think any Christian claims to fully understand God. What you're saying is equivalent to saying that all politicians understand economics: most understand a little bit, but mostly the follow what other people tell them.

[Imsogone]

I'm not sure how that can be deemed sensible. Even though believers maintain the "omni-ness" of deity the fact that it can be conceptualized is by definition limiting. If you can put it in a box, it's not infinite and not omnipresent, not omniscient, not omnipotent. Since Christians have put these limits on their deity and he(sic) perforce has permitted this, then clearly his intellect is not sufficient to put a hole in a donut. Only limitless complexity can maintain complexity and evolution answeres this.

I don't think any Christian claims to fully understand God. What you're saying is equivalent to saying that all politicians understand economics: most understand a little bit, but mostly the follow what other people tell them.

I'm not sure how your drawing your politician analogy from this (especially since we're all pretty sure that most politicians don't understand squat about much of anything, especially what they say they believe). I was making the point, not at all subtly I thought, that the deity people worship is an invention of the people worshipping him/her/it/(them) - an invention designed pretty much to mirror their own prejudices. As to the existence of an actual deity, independent of the boxes people create for him/her/etc., that's really a moot point and not really relevent. What is relevent is that these Peckans are attempting to impose their invented deity's biases on the rest of the people in their state in the spurious guise of freedom of religion.

[Genivaria]

I love it how nutritionists and chemical engineers are passing judgement on evolution. Funny how you don't seem to get very many biologists of any stripe doing that.

Whatchou talkin' 'bout.

Nutritionists are scientist-esque.

You would think they would shun these experts as elitist ivory-tower Asperger atheists, but those Texans are modernizing.

It's embarrassing and it annoys me.

Don't nutritionists and chemical engineers have Codes of Ethics that tell them not to go outside of their true expertise because it would be a disservice not only to their profession, but to the public as well?

I'm a Pre-Social Work major, you don't see me running for the local school board on a damn social engineering platform.

I feel I should point something out about the word 'nutritionist'.

Some use the terms "dietitian" and "nutritionist" as basically interchangeable.[1] However in many countries and jurisdictions, the title "nutritionist" is not subject to professional regulation; any person may call themselves a nutrition expert even if they are wholly self-taught.[2] In most US states, parts of Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom, the term nutritionist is not legally protected, whereas the title of dietitian can be used only by those who have met specified professional requirements. One career counselor attempting to describe the difference between the two professions to Canadian students suggested "all dietitians are nutritionists, but not all nutritionists are dietitians."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritionist

[Greed and Death]

The suit will be dismissed calm down people.

[Imsogone]

The suit will be dismissed calm down people.

Of course it will. But who doesn't love an argument? Blood pressure raised, adrenalin flowing, dudgeon high. It's all fun, except when it's not.

[Myrensis]

I love it how nutritionists and chemical engineers are passing judgement on evolution. Funny how you don't seem to get very many biologists of any stripe doing that.

Whatchou talkin' 'bout.

Nutritionists are scientist-esque.

You would think they would shun these experts as elitist ivory-tower Asperger atheists, but those Texans are modernizing.

It's embarrassing and it annoys me.

Don't nutritionists and chemical engineers have Codes of Ethics that tell them not to go outside of their true expertise because it would be a disservice not only to their profession, but to the public as well?

I'm a Pre-Social Work major, you don't see me running for the local school board on a damn social engineering platform.

It doesn't really matter to Creationists. They'd throw someone with a degree in Political Science out there as a 'scientist' who disagrees with Evolution and Climate Change. Really anybody with some kind of higher education, regardless of field. I'm pretty sure I saw one presentation from the Discovery Institute with a lawyer rambling on about how flawed and wrong evolution is.

[Regnum Dominae]

It's not just Kansas...

[Imsogone]

Whatchou talkin' 'bout.

Nutritionists are scientist-esque.

You would think they would shun these experts as elitist ivory-tower Asperger atheists, but those Texans are modernizing.

It's embarrassing and it annoys me.

Don't nutritionists and chemical engineers have Codes of Ethics that tell them not to go outside of their true expertise because it would be a disservice not only to their profession, but to the public as well?

I'm a Pre-Social Work major, you don't see me running for the local school board on a damn social engineering platform.

It doesn't really matter to Creationists. They'd throw someone with a degree in Political Science out there as a 'scientist' who disagrees with Evolution and Climate Change. Really anybody with some kind of higher education, regardless of field. I'm pretty sure I saw one presentation from the Discovery Institute with a lawyer rambling on about how flawed and wrong evolution is.

I have a BSc. ... in Business. That means I qualify as a scientist by these standards.

[Blasveck]

It's not just Kansas...

Why so I live in this godforsaken country?

And why are these people given the power to decide what will be in our science books?
Why?

[Regnum Dominae]

It's not just Kansas...

Why so I live in this godforsaken country?

And why are these people given the power to decide what will be in our science books?
Why?

Basically, because Texas is such a large state, so textbook producers have to make lots of textbooks for it, they will sell the Texas textbooks all across the country.

Science education in this country is a fucking travesty.

[Imsogone]

It's not just Kansas...

Why so I live in this godforsaken country?

And why are these people given the power to decide what will be in our science books?
Why?

And it's not just science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/educa ... texas.html

[Regnum Dominae]

Why so I live in this godforsaken country?

And why are these people given the power to decide what will be in our science books?
Why?

And it's not just science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/educa ... texas.html

That is... beyond idiotic.

I had a Christian fundamentalist, creationist, 8th grade history teacher who spent more time attempting to indoctrinate us than actually teaching, and I hardly learned anything that year. Subjecting students to that for their whole educaitonal career would be mind-numbingly stupid.

[Menassa]

It's not just Kansas...

Why so I live in this godforsaken country?

And why are these people given the power to decide what will be in our science books?
Why?

Shame, religious's got no place in public schooling.

[Blasveck]

Why so I live in this godforsaken country?

And why are these people given the power to decide what will be in our science books?
Why?

Shame, religious's got no place in public schooling.

Sure it does.

Give the kids a religious studies class or something.

Religion has no place in the Science classroom.

[Maineiacs]

It doesn't really matter to Creationists. They'd throw someone with a degree in Political Science out there as a 'scientist' who disagrees with Evolution and Climate Change. Really anybody with some kind of higher education, regardless of field. I'm pretty sure I saw one presentation from the Discovery Institute with a lawyer rambling on about how flawed and wrong evolution is.

I have a BSc. ... in Business. That means I qualify as a scientist by these standards.

I have a BA in theatre. Maybe I should run for Texas school board. I'm as qualified as any of these jokers.

[Tatooene]

As a Christian, I don't mind that evolution is taught in schools, especially since it is such a prevalent belief in the US. My only point is that it is still a theory, and should be treated as a theory, not a fact. And there should be at least a brief, non-condescending discussion of creationism, since a fairly large minority still believe in it. Even if they don't believe in creationism, it would still be beneficial to students to learn what a good number of others believe.

[Seitonjin]

Shame, religious's got no place in public schooling.

Sure it does.

Give the kids a religious studies class or something.

Religion has no place in the Science classroom.

I agree. Poeple must at least have basic knowledge on major religions.

But applying it to science is heresy upon the faith I believe and utter nonesense.

[Menassa]

Shame, religious's got no place in public schooling.

Sure it does.

Give the kids a religious studies class or something.

Religion has no place in the Science classroom.

As an elective maybe.

[The Scientific States]

As a Christian, I don't mind that evolution is taught in schools, especially since it is such a prevalent belief in the US. My only point is that it is still a theory, and should be treated as a theory, not a fact. And there should be at least a brief, non-condescending discussion of creationism, since a fairly large minority still believe in it. Even if they don't believe in creationism, it would still be beneficial to students to learn what a good number of others believe.

Then why not teach kids the hundreds of other creation stories? These are public schools in a secular nation, and we should be teaching kids things that have nearly been proven, and have concrete evidence instead of what some religious text says.

[Blasveck]

As a Christian, I don't mind that evolution is taught in schools, especially since it is such a prevalent belief in the US.My only point is that it is still a theory, and should be treated as a theory, not a fact. And there should be at least a brief, non-condescending discussion of creationism, since a fairly large minority still believe in it. Even if they don't believe in creationism, it would still be beneficial to students to learn what a good number of others believe.

1. Learn the definition of scientific theory, please.
2. Evolution is a fact. It happens. You can't stop it from happening.
3. I don't care what the minority believes. The minority is wrong.

[Bodobol]

As a Kansan high school student, I will say that this saddens me, but doesn't shock me.

[Dakini]

As a Christian, I don't mind that evolution is taught in schools, especially since it is such a prevalent belief in the US. My only point is that it is still a theory, and should be treated as a theory, not a fact.

You know, I feel like science teachers should spend a fair bit of time explaining what it means when we talk about theories in science. Granted, evolution is a fact as well as a theory (it is a fact that things evolve, but there is a theory to explain how it happens).

It would certainly be a much better use of class time than...

...a brief, non-condescending discussion of creationism...

...and other non-scientific nonsense.

[The Parkus Empire]

As a Christian, I don't mind that evolution is taught in schools, especially since it is such a prevalent belief in the US. My only point is that it is still a theory, and should be treated as a theory, not a fact. And there should be at least a brief, non-condescending discussion of creationism, since a fairly large minority still believe in it. Even if they don't believe in creationism, it would still be beneficial to students to learn what a good number of others believe.

I think that you aren't really familiar with evolution or science in general, and so should probably not speak on the matter.