Arizona State Superintendent puts Creationist on panel to review standards on teaching of Evolution

[Sano]

Science is only science if it's printed in a peer review journal?

I said if it has valid data and stands up to scrutiny, meaning if it's objectively good science, then it will be published. There's a lot of pseudo science and junk science out there, which is not published because it's either so poorly made rife with methodological errors and biases that it's not defensible to publish, or it's intentionally misleading/false. I see a lot of creationist and flat earthers claim that there's some sort of conspiracy going on but it's complete bullshit. If it's good science, it will be published. If you could support a creationist theory with sufficient evidence you would win the nobel prize. Science is all about correcting mistakes and science is constantly changing.

 

[Seano]

Allow me to rephrase so that you can better understand what I am saying becasue you seem hung up on the "you guys" thing.

I think the thing you need to come to terms with is that you don't have a monopoly on what is and what isn't accepted. Just because a portion of the scientific community forms a consensus that means nothing for the rest of us free people. If we would like to present, to our children in their science curriculum, all the scientific evidence showing a world wide flood occurred, or that (macro) evolution is unproven, or the spiritual nature of the universe who are you to tell us we can't teach that to our children?

I don't agree 100% with this but I agree with a lot of it.

I'm just more along the lines of everyone having representation. Thats the point of a board. To allow the ideas deemed worthy by a majority and to disallow those deemed unfit by the majority.

To tell people they simply can't be part of the process because of what they believe is bigotry.

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Every so often some nut who feels threatened by science gets elected and wants to impose his/her religious views on other people's children in science class. We have seen this shit before. Luckily there are smart religious scientists who can fend off the dumb nuts from fucking with legitimate science education.

 

[Quequeg]

I thought there was such a thing as separation of church and state in America?

 

[ocean size]

Like if you would like the government to change the name of public school to "marxist academy"

I'm glad to see you are still at it wolfy

 

[Satanical Eve]

Joseph Kezele, the president of the Arizona Origin Science Association, is a staunch believer in the idea that enough scientific evidence exists to back up the biblical story of creation

I'm about to have a fucking aneurysm over here. In no way shape or form should Joseph Kezele have any input into science curriculum. Public Schools should not be the place to teach the story of creation because that is what private schools are for.

Lastly the earth is not 6,000 years old and creationism is a myth and always has been

 

[nac386]

I don't agree 100% with this but I agree with a lot of it.

I'm just more along the lines of everyone having representation. Thats the point of a board. To allow the ideas deemed worthy by a majority and to disallow those deemed unfit by the majority.

To tell people they simply can't be part of the process because of what they believe is bigotry.

You are actually in full agreement with me, not him. You basically just quoted me word for word.

 

[Seano]

Are you agreeing with my post? I can't tell.

I'm less open and shut on it. I don't see a problem with religion being studied in a scientific way. Like TCK said, studying the historical relevance of it using scientific process, i.e.:the great floods etc.

I wouldn't want a specific religion being stressed as superior or righteous.

 

[nac386]

I'm less open and shut on it. I don't see a problem with religion being studied in a scientific way. Like TCK said, studying the historical relevance of it using scientific process, i.e.:the great floods etc.

I wouldn't want a specific religion being stressed as superior or righteous.

I agree that it should. That absolutely happens in the scientific community. They study the relevance of those stories and the likelihood of them being true all the time.

It's just that the curriculum that is taught in schools is not based on trying to prove or disprove anything. The curriculum that is taught in schools is the consensus that has been decided on by thousands of scientists with no specific agenda at all.

Studying the science behind specific religions would be a great elective. Lots of kids would be interested in taking a class like that. But the biology curriculum is not really the place for agenda-driven science.

TCK is talking about evidence of a great flood for some reason in a conversation about evolution. Evidence of a great flood is for history class, not evolution. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[nac386]

I think the thing you need to come to terms with is that you don't have a monopoly on what is and what isn't accepted. Just because a portion of the scientific community forms a consensus that means nothing for the rest of us free people.

Free people, you mean free from facts? Free from science? You say the oddest things. How are you under the impression you are somehow more free? Because you believe the ancient text version of reality instead of the scientific consensus version?

If we would like to present, to our children in their science curriculum, all the scientific evidence showing a world wide flood occurred, or that (macro) evolution is unproven, or the spiritual nature of the universe who are you to tell us we can't teach that to our children?

Why would a great flood be in the science curriculum in relation to evolution?

What is scientific about the "spiritual nature" of the universe?

It doesn't sound like you are talking about a science curriculum at all. You are free to believe whatever you want, but you are not free to insert random beliefs into a science curriculum if the consensus is that those beliefs are untrue. You can express your beliefs, you can advocate for your beliefs, but you are not guaranteed to have them in a curriculum.

 

[nac386]

@Seano I don't know if you've seen this, but this is Francis Collins. He's truly brilliant, he's truly a good man, and he's very Christian. He led the Human Genome Project here in Maryland at the NIH. He's now the Director of NIH.

In this video he talks about science and religion, why they clash, but why they don't have to. He looks at science and faith as answering two different questions. Science answers how, and faith answers why. I'm paraphrasing obviously.

He says that now we have the best possible evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution that Darwin ever could have imagined. That answers how, but not why.

He also plays guitar and sings at events, not very well, but it's fun and makes him seem like a down to earth kinda guy. He's an inspirational guy in a lot of ways, especially for people who have faith but want to understand and appreciate science.

 

[sub_thug]

All you can do is show information that convinces you. You can't show information that verifies it with certainty for the rest of us. Therefore it's perfectly fine to be discussed, debated, and taught to our children.

This is an inaccurate statement. We can show mathematically that the earth is round and orbits the sun. We can mathematically show that the earth is older than 6,000 years old by the cooling temperatures of space. The problem is not the evidence, but rather the people who refuse to believe it.

 

[Squarechoke]

@Seano I don't know if you've seen this, but this is Francis Collins. He's truly brilliant, he's truly a good man, and he's very Christian. He led the Human Genome Project here in Maryland at the NIH. He's now the Director of NIH.

In this video he talks about science and religion, why they clash, but why they don't have to. He looks at science and faith as answering two different questions. Science answers how, and faith answers why. I'm paraphrasing obviously.

He says that now we have the best possible evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution that Darwin ever could have imagined. That answers how, but not why.

He also plays guitar and sings at events, not very well, but it's fun and makes him seem like a down to earth kinda guy. He's an inspirational guy in a lot of ways, especially for people who have faith but want to understand and appreciate science.

Collins is a person that has a very healthy relationship to his religion on an intellectual level. His view is easy to make sense of and to respect, even though I don't share all of it.

 

[TheComebackKid]

I said if it has valid data and stands up to scrutiny, meaning if it's objectively good science, then it will be published.

Is it your position that all "good" science will be published and accepted by the scientific community and if something isn't published then it is, by default, not good science?

Furthermore, regardless if that is true, is it your position that a free people should only be able to teach science that is approved by the scientific community regardless of what the broader citizenry thinks?

There's a lot of pseudo science and junk science out there, which is not published because it's either so poorly made rife with methodological errors and biases that it's not defensible to publish, or it's intentionally misleading/false. I see a lot of creationist and flat earthers claim that there's some sort of conspiracy going on but it's complete bullshit. If it's good science, it will be published. If you could support a creationist theory with sufficient evidence you would win the nobel prize. Science is all about correcting mistakes and science is constantly changing.

Well conspiracy aside it is true that mainstream scientific journals, publications, universities, and organizations often funded by sources that have agenda's and are looking for certain conclusions. It would be foolish to blindly assert that the scientific community is the one area in all of life free from compromise, bias, agenda, and corruption.

 

[TheComebackKid]

This is an inaccurate statement. We can show mathematically that the earth is round and orbits the sun. We can mathematically show that the earth is older than 6,000 years old by the cooling temperatures of space. The problem is not the evidence, but rather the people who refuse to believe it.

And people can show that the sun is small, local, and orbits the earth through math and studying the sun rays. I would fully expect you to reject such a notion and assert that people cannot show the sun to be small and local but that's like...your opinion man.

Also, looking at cooling temperatures does not "prove" anything. You can use it as circumstantial evidence to support your theory but then people like me would just argue that you are assuming a fixed rate of cooling and of temperature through out billions of years that you haven't actually established. Therefore your theory is not proven by simply looking at cooling temperatures. That is called a leap in logic.

The problem with blindly accepting the scientific communities assertions is that you end up accepting their leaps in logic right along with it. And instead of teaching kids how to explore, ask questions, reconsider, and discover you end up creating indoctrinated drones that never ask questions or reconsider.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Free people, you mean free from facts? Free from science? You say the oddest things. How are you under the impression you are somehow more free? Because you believe the ancient text version of reality instead of the scientific consensus version?

What I mean by free people is the American people that have constitutional rights and liberties which includes, or should include, teaching our kids whatever we want.

Why would a great flood be in the science curriculum in relation to evolution?

Because the competing scientific theory to (macro)evolution in regards to the origin of man and species includes a great flood that can be researched, studied, and argued scientifically.

What is scientific about the "spiritual nature" of the universe?

Nothing. It's the study of the spiritual nature of life and existence that is scientific.

It doesn't sound like you are talking about a science curriculum at all. You are free to believe whatever you want, but you are not free to insert random beliefs into a science curriculum if the consensus is that those beliefs are untrue. You can express your beliefs, you can advocate for your beliefs, but you are not guaranteed to have them in a curriculum.

I never argued that anything is or should be guaranteed to be in a curriculum.

 

[Sano]

Is it your position that all "good" science will be published and accepted by the scientific community and if something isn't published then it is, by default, not good science?

Furthermore, regardless if that is true, is it your position that a free people should only be able to teach science that is approved by the scientific community regardless of what the broader citizenry thinks?

Well conspiracy aside it is true that mainstream scientific journals, publications, universities, and organizations often funded by sources that have agenda's and are looking for certain conclusions. It would be foolish to blindly assert that the scientific community is the one area in all of life free from compromise, bias, agenda, and corruption.

My position is that shit science is shit science. Doesn't matter where it comes from. It doesn't have to be published in a well respected journal to be true either, but it certainly lends to the credibility.

No, not conspiracy aside because you are using the exact same old rhetoric of bullshit conspiracy of prosecution. Journals are international. Brazil, Englad, US, Spain, Germany, Scandinavia so on. As someone who lives in perhaps the least corrupt country in the world, and as someone who have been a part of research studies and spent countless hours on reading literature, I can tell you for a fact that we don't have any "mainstream agenda" and corrupt influence crippling our sciences here. Still, no quality evidence for creation to be found.

To reiterate, it's the people who revolutionize that win the prizes. Make a solid case for creationism and you will win the nobel prize.

 

[ocean size]

I don't agree 100% with this but I agree with a lot of it.

I'm just more along the lines of everyone having representation. Thats the point of a board. To allow the ideas deemed worthy by a majority and to disallow those deemed unfit by the majority.

To tell people they simply can't be part of the process because of what they believe is bigotry.

I don't think anyone would dispute the person's right to serve on the board as a Christian.

But if I am a Christian and don't believe in fractions, I'm not a good candidate for the math curriculum board. If I am Buddhist and I think the world is flat, I shouldn't be chosen to decide what kids learn in geography class.

It isn't everyone's right to be selected to be on a board. That's like saying it is everyone's right to be in the president's cabinet.

 

[japman40]

What else is new. I start off in a lot of threads with a sensible and moderate position. Then somebody says something insane, so I point it out, then I'm called a marxist/SJW/etc for pointing out something that is obviously ridiculous. This is the only environment that I'd ever be considered anywhere close to any of those things.

There's a lot of idiots in this forum. You just learn to ignore them based on their name after a while. Except for ripskater, I find him funny for some reason. Everything he says cracks me up

 

[japman40]

Why not? I doubt he's the only person on the board. All opinions should be represented.

Science isn't opinions