Child Abuse or Science Education?

[keyser soze]

What do you think? Is this or is it not teaching fundie religious practices and ideas to youngsters?


Alternative science education, religious indoctrination, or child abuse? You decide. (http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/2012/04/alternative-science-education-religious.html)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGxBUyHbn2E&feature=player_embedded



Let me point out that the first speaker, Creationist Ken Ham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham)infalalible, unerring word of God., does NOT present his argument against Evolution as an alternative theory that may be incorrect, but deserves to be evaluated.

He presents it as inarguable fact, and does so while mocking the VERY idea of evolution to a room full of very impressionable, extremely young children who are still in that very trusting stage of their lives, where they believe that grownups know everything.

Now Ken Ham, and his Crocodile Dundee wannabe cohort Buddy Davis, do NOT present evidence that is backed up by scientific research and has been exposed to rigorous peer review by their peers, no they present their argument based SOLELY on their faith that the Bible is the infallible, unerring word of God.

That is not science, and should NEVER be presented as such, yet we are seeing the effort to force it into our public school classrooms in states all over the south. The latest being Tennessee, which has JUSTpassed a law (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/law-allows-creationism-to-be-taught-in-tenn-public-schools/2012/04/11/gIQAAjqxAT_story.html) forcing public school teachers to teach "alternatives to mainstream scientific theories" to subjects such as evolution and global warming.

The reality is that there is NO reasonable alternative to evolution in science. At least not a version of "science" which does not glean its facts from a book written thousands of years ago by primitive desert people.

These people do not even understand the mechanism behind how science works, which is easily explained in the following comic.


http://i.imgur.com/armRr.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/armRr.jpg)
So I ask again, are these people teaching a reasonable alternative to science, indoctrinating these children into a mindset which rejects science education, or is it simply child abuse?

I think you know my answer.


http://theimmoralminority.blogspot.com/

The 'authority' of scripture??? History, science etc.....may as well 'believe' in the 'trickle down theory of economics'....:rofl:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1xUiuZvUuw&feature=endscreen

[dadakarma]

102

[Alias]

Albert Einstein believed in Intelligent design. I agree with Albert.

[spunkloaf]

Albert Einstein believed in Intelligent design. I agree with Albert.

There certainly is an elegance to the universe, but it is hard to say that there is intelligence to it.

[Alias]

There certainly is an elegance to the universe, but it is hard to say that there is intelligence to it.

Einstein said there was. Einstein said there is an intelligence to the universe that makes man's look very small or something to the effct. Google "Einstein and intelligent design" and you will probably find the quote.

[dadakarma]

Einstein said there was. Einstein said there is an intelligence to the universe that makes man's look very small or something to the effct. Google "Einstein and intelligent" and you will probably find the quote.

Right. That doesn't mean Einstein was a creationist, though.

[Alias]

Right. That doesn't mean Einstein was a creationist, though.

It means Einsteing believed in Intelligent Design. Period.

[dadakarma]

It means Einsteing believed in Intelligent Design. Period. No it doesn't. Say it again and again and you'll still be wrong.

[Alias]

So basically, your argument from the OP is Christians are stupid and don't understand science. Right?

[Alias]

No it doesn't. Say it again and again and you'll still be wrong.

Why, of course. I understand, dear.

[dadakarma]

So basically, your argument from the OP is Christians are stupid and don't understand science. Right?

I didn't write the article in the op and I didn't post it, stupid. Ask Keyser.

[Alias]

I didn't write the article in the op and I didn't post it, stupid. Ask Keyser.

Okay, you don't agree with the OP. Now we're getting somewhere.

[dadakarma]

Okay, you don't agree with the OP. Now we're getting somewhere.

Walking in circles sometimes creates that illusion. :)

[spunkloaf]

It is dangerous to have fortified beliefs, no matter what they may be. People are taught to think a certain way, then they are confronted by things in life which challenge that. It creates conflict and it makes us all dumber. My advice to anybody is to believe in nothing...not even science. Instead, be open to all sensible ideas. One day we may discover something which turns both science and religion completely upside down.

The biggest problem with stupid people is they think they are intelligent.

[Alias]

Walking in circles sometimes creates that illusion. :)

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him play checkers.

[Alias]

It is dangerous to have fortified beliefs, no matter what they may be. People are taught to think a certain way, then they are confronted by things in life which challenge that. It creates conflict and it makes us all dumber. My advice to anybody is to believe in nothing...not even science. Instead, be open to all sensible ideas. One day we may discover something which turns both science and religion completely upside down.

The biggest problem with stupid people is they think they are intelligent.

I agree with that. Having an open mind is a much more interesting life.

[keyser soze]

It is dangerous to have fortified beliefs, no matter what they may be. People are taught to think a certain way, then they are confronted by things in life which challenge that. It creates conflict and it makes us all dumber. My advice to anybody is to believe in nothing...not even science. Instead, be open to all sensible ideas. One day we may discover something which turns both science and religion completely upside down.

The biggest problem with stupid people is they think they are intelligent.

While I agree with your basic premise I'd say that science doesn't require 'belief' as it's based in fact. Religion is based on belief...science is not a religion no matter how many times the creationists say it is...repeating the same incorrect statement over and over doesn't change it to a correct statement...unless you watch Fox News... :0) Or you live in Kentucky...

[Alias]

While I agree with your basic premise I'd say that science doesn't require 'belief' as it's based in fact. Religion is based on belief...science is not a religion no matter how many times the creationists say it is...repeating the same incorrect statement over and over doesn't change it to a correct statement...unless you watch Fox News... :0) Or you live in Kentucky...

Can a Christian who believes in ID (intelligent design) be a scientist in your opinion?

[spunkloaf]

What do you think? Is this or is it not teaching fundie religious practices and ideas to youngsters?

It certainly is. What is most offensive is not WHAT is being taught, but HOW it is being taught. I could care less if these adults are trying to teach kids that eating toilet paper makes them smarter.

The fact is they are abandoning logic and reason, and using the social discipline-reward system to fill these kids' heads with information.

Most humans want to have a place in their community, and they want to be recognized as such. It's a social need which inadvertently creates the perfect leverage for social engineering.

In fact, we see it all around us. On this very forum. Person A may make a statement which person B may not like. Person B may shoot down the statement not with logic or reasonable debate, but by mere verbal punishment. This effect can become compounded when persons C, D and E encourage person B and join in the scourging on person A. The end result is that the community's collective pride and confidence are strengthened at the expense of logic, reason, and understanding. Stronger and dumber.

[wingrider]

It certainly is. What is most offensive is not WHAT is being taught, but HOW it is being taught. I could care less if these adults are trying to teach kids that eating toilet paper makes them smarter.

The fact is they are abandoning logic and reason, and using the social discipline-reward system to fill these kids' heads with information.

Most humans want to have a place in their community, and they want to be recognized as such. It's a social need which inadvertently creates the perfect leverage for social engineering.

In fact, we see it all around us. On this very forum. Person A may make a statement which person B may not like. Person B may shoot down the statement not with logic or reasonable debate, but by mere verbal punishment. This effect can become compounded when persons C, D and E encourage person B and join in the scourging on person A. The end result is that the community's collective pride and confidence are strengthened at the expense of logic, reason, and understanding. Stronger and dumber.
I concur, this happens quite frequently on this forum lately..

[keyser soze]

It certainly is. What is most offensive is not WHAT is being taught, but HOW it is being taught. I could care less if these adults are trying to teach kids that eating toilet paper makes them smarter.

The fact is they are abandoning logic and reason, and using the social discipline-reward system to fill these kids' heads with information.

Most humans want to have a place in their community, and they want to be recognized as such. It's a social need which inadvertently creates the perfect leverage for social engineering.

In fact, we see it all around us. On this very forum. Person A may make a statement which person B may not like. Person B may shoot down the statement not with logic or reasonable debate, but by mere verbal punishment. This effect can become compounded when persons C, D and E encourage person B and join in the scourging on person A. The end result is that the community's collective pride and confidence are strengthened at the expense of logic, reason, and understanding. Stronger and dumber.
Well said and I concur....

[spunkloaf]

While I agree with your basic premise I'd say that science doesn't require 'belief' as it's based in fact. Religion is based on belief...science is not a religion no matter how many times the creationists say it is...repeating the same incorrect statement over and over doesn't change it to a correct statement...unless you watch Fox News... :0) Or you live in Kentucky...

Science can be construed as a religion in many ways. In fact the only thing separating science from traditional religion is the methodology of the way information is accepted. In science, information must be observable, recordable, and must endure scrutiny. With religion it must be handed down as traditional wisdom, and is not welcoming to scrutiny.

To humans, both are just ways of defining a working idea of what lies beyond.

[Alias]

It certainly is. What is most offensive is not WHAT is being taught, but HOW it is being taught. I could care less if these adults are trying to teach kids that eating toilet paper makes them smarter.

The fact is they are abandoning logic and reason, and using the social discipline-reward system to fill these kids' heads with information.

Most humans want to have a place in their community, and they want to be recognized as such. It's a social need which inadvertently creates the perfect leverage for social engineering.

In fact, we see it all around us. On this very forum. Person A may make a statement which person B may not like. Person B may shoot down the statement not with logic or reasonable debate, but by mere verbal punishment. This effect can become compounded when persons C, D and E encourage person B and join in the scourging on person A. The end result is that the community's collective pride and confidence are strengthened at the expense of logic, reason, and understanding. Stronger and dumber.

I agree. Mocking and ridicule are not adequate debate points.

[keyser soze]

Science can be construed as a religion in many ways. In fact the only thing separating science from traditional religion is the methodology of the way accept information is accepted. In science, information must be observable, recordable, and must endure scrutiny. With religion it must be handed down as traditional wisdom, and is not welcoming to scrutiny.

To humans, both are just ways of defining a working idea of what lies beyond.
We part ways on this...science is not belief...belief is what separates religion and science. I find it irritating that there is an effort to equate the two as being religious...it's ridiculous. That's a general statement not aimed at you per se.

[Alias]

Science can be construed as a religion in many ways. In fact the only thing separating science from traditional religion is the methodology of the way accept information is accepted. In science, information must be observable, recordable, and must endure scrutiny. With religion it must be handed down as traditional wisdom, and is not welcoming to scrutiny.

To humans, both are just ways of defining a working idea of what lies beyond.

I have been studying macro-evolution lately.

[Alias]

We part ways on this...science is not belief...belief is what separates religion and science. I find it irritating that there is an effort to equate the two as being religious...it's ridiculous.

I've met people who are just as religious about science as others are about Jesus. Scientific knowledge changes every day. You may believe butter clogs your arteries today, and 5 years from now another scientist will tell us butter makes you smarter, but still clogs your arteries.

[dadakarma]

Science can be construed as a religion in many ways. In fact the only thing separating science from traditional religion is the methodology of the way information is accepted. In science, information must be observable, recordable, and must endure scrutiny. With religion it must be handed down as traditional wisdom, and is not welcoming to scrutiny.

To humans, both are just ways of defining a working idea of what lies beyond.

Preposterous. Am I reading this correctly? The differences lie in how the information is perceived?

Science is verifiable. Religion is not. Hearsay, faith and 'what it sez in the bible' do not equate to empirical evidence and tested theories. That's the difference.

[wingrider]

really ?? explain the principles of electricity.., gravity, and magnetism.

[Alias]

Preposterous. Am I reading this correctly? The differences lie in how the information is perceived?

Science is verifiable. Religion is not. Hearsay, faith and 'what it sez in the bible' do not equate to empirical evidence and tested theories. That's the difference.

The Bible speaks of "Time, Space, and Matter" in the very first verse.

[wingrider]

The Bible speaks of "Time, Space, and Matter" in the very first verse. yes it does.

[dadakarma]

really ?? explain the principles of electricity.., gravity, and magnetism.

Awww, wingrider, don't cry.

104

Tell it to Jesus.

:roflmao: ....

[spunkloaf]

Can a Christian who believes in ID (intelligent design) be a scientist in your opinion?

As long as one thinks scientifically, of course such a person could be a scientist. I've known plenty of Christians who are also scientific. My ninth grade science teacher went to the Catholic church I attended. Einstein made references to God (I'm too lazy to look up his specific beliefs). Just keep in mind that if you're already convinced of the conclusion, your mind will filter information to fit that resolution.

[Alias]

Awww, wingrider, don't cry.

104

Tell it to Jesus.

:roflmao: ....

Now we see that you have no argument and reply with the standard moonbat ridicule. Pitiful thing. You'll find your place eventually.