Texas governor appoints creationist to chief spot at State Board of Education [Archive]

Outsider

07-12-2009, 06:57 PM

I think we should black list anyone that believes in "god". It's "for the children" after all.

No, but we should black list anyone that doesn't have a firm grasp of modern scientific consensus. Especially ones with ulterior motives, and clearly doesn't know what she is talking about.

Witness her ignorance of science here (http://salon.glenrose.net/default.asp?view=plink&id=9470) (the MP3 under John Yeaman, after the 3/4 mark)

Transcribed:

McLeroy: Thank you. Ah, Miss Lowe?

Lowe: I’m sorry I’ll make it brief. When you studied geology did you study about the theory of graduated accumu. . . gradually accumulated geologic columns … you know … that obviously the strata developed over millions of y... did you also learn about polystrate fossils?

Yeaman: Well fossils are in those layers.

Lowe: Did you learn about polystrate fossils?

Yeaman: Not specifically but . . .

Lowe: That would be a really interesting thing for you to . . . to look into

Yeaman: Good.

Lowe: Polystrate fossils

Yeaman: OK, Thank you

Lowe: See how that fits in with the theory of the gradually accumulated geologic columns.

Yeaman: Good, thank you.

Lowe: Welcome.

The "theory of gradually accumulated geologic columns" (or uniformitarianism, it better known name) has been discredited for a while now. But it was the first time the idea of a young earth was challenged. The point of the above exchange was that in her smug efforts to show up Mr. Yeaman, she failed to realize she was attempting to instill doubts about a theory that's not part of modern consensus in geology and paleontology. Out of touch.

trumptman

07-12-2009, 07:08 PM

Come to California, our firm grasp on science only has us $26 billion in the hole. You can enjoy a 9% sales tax, a 9% state income tax and no creationists on the state board of education.

Please vote with your feet and dollars. Leave the hell hole that is Texas and come bail out California. We will welcome you with open arms that when when you open yours in return, we can steal your wallet.

FloorJack

07-12-2009, 07:14 PM

Outsider

07-12-2009, 07:34 PM

I'd be interested to hear what views and believes are incompatible with public service in education. How far down the organization tree should should the thought police enforce the new thought crimes (pre-crimes?)?

It depends. If she was up for a janitorial job then she is very qualified (maybe over qualified). Head of the state BOE? That's up for debate. If her views dictate what she's dictating what to include in textbooks and school curriculums, and those views are incompatible with accepted science, for example, then she has no business in that position. But the elected-by-the-people governor is appointing this person so... democracy in action?

I don't know what you mean regarding your second sentence. Is that a Minority Report/1984 reference?

FloorJack

07-12-2009, 07:44 PM

It depends. If she was up for a janitorial job then she is very qualified (maybe over qualified). Head of the state BOE? That's up for debate. If her views dictate what she's dictating what to include in textbooks and school curriculums, and those views are incompatible with accepted science, for example, then she has no business in that position. But the elected-by-the-people governor is appointing this person so... democracy in action?

I don't know what you mean regarding your second sentence. Is that a Minority Report/1984 reference?

Accepted science? How far down the rabbit hole do we go on that? It used to be "accepted science" that "stress" caused stomach ulcers. Then some "radicals" found that it was a bacteria and could be cured with antibiotics.

What about history or economics? Do we want a society that excludes people because they are not mainstream? Should someone be automatically black balled because of that they think?

Bizarre!

Outsider

07-12-2009, 07:53 PM

By accepted science, I mean general consensus among scientists, and not regurgitated ideas and 'theories' that have already been disproven, like creationism and the idea of a young earth.

jazzguru

07-12-2009, 08:10 PM

This is a [expletive] travesty.

I was about to say the same thing about the fact that this thread was even created (no pun intended) in the first place.

Except without the profanity.

groverat

07-12-2009, 08:17 PM

I think we should black list anyone that believes in "god". It's "for the children" after all.

What?

Come to California, our firm grasp on science only has us $26 billion in the hole. You can enjoy a 9% sales tax, a 9% state income tax and no creationists on the state board of education.

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8837/derail.jpg

It used to be "accepted science" that "stress" caused stomach ulcers.

Stress can lead to a weakened immune system which makes it more likely that a commonly-present bacteria will cause the ulcer. I would like to see some backup for your assertion that it used to be "accepted science" that stress directly caused ulcers .

What about history or economics? Do we want a society that excludes people because they are not mainstream? Should someone be automatically black balled because of that they think?

It is not a matter of not being mainstream, it's a matter of whether or not one supports the teaching of basic science and whether or not that support is related to the job. In this case, it is very strongly related to the job.

Outsider

07-12-2009, 08:25 PM

I was about to say the same thing about the fact that this thread was even created (no pun intended) in the first place.

Except without the profanity.

Well you clicked it. You can't unclick it. If profanity bugs you so much, why even acknowledge it? It's not like you had to type it out to quote me.

groverat

07-12-2009, 08:37 PM

Flounder

07-12-2009, 08:39 PM

I think we should black list anyone that believes in "god". It's "for the children" after all.

Evolution has no opinion upon the existence of non-existence of God. Evolution and the Christian faith are in no way mutually exclusive. They are separate topics. Therefore, religion has zero reason to be part of evolution curriculum.

FloorJack

07-12-2009, 08:46 PM

Evolution has no opinion upon the existence of non-existence of God. Evolution and the Christian faith are in no way mutually exclusive. They are separate topics. Therefore, religion has zero reason to be part of evolution curriculum.

But other people, based on their constitutional right to freedom of religion, think otherwise. Right or wrong. (double meaning there!)

Are you against the bill of rights?

Outsider

07-12-2009, 08:56 PM

What's wrong with the thread? I think the influence of those who distrust science is very important and very topical with regards to how it impacts science education at a time when the US trails economic rivals in science.

So you are thinking about this recent survey (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/07/68494044/1) too?

groverat

07-12-2009, 09:03 PM

FloorJack:

But other people, based on their constitutional right to freedom of religion, think otherwise. Right or wrong. (double meaning there!)

Are you against the bill of rights?

I can't speak for Flounder, but... what the hell are you talking about? Was someone here saying that people shouldn't have the right to freely practice their religion?

Outsider:

I hadn't seen that survey, but I'm surprised it's not a higher percentage.

Flounder

07-12-2009, 09:10 PM

But other people, based on their constitutional right to freedom of religion, think otherwise. Right or wrong. (double meaning there!)

Of course that's right. And super for them. But why in the world would that mean we have to cater to those beliefs in the public school system? Indeed, the Constitution requires we don't.

Evolution does not give any opinion on any religious belief - or lack of religious belief. This is demonstrably and plainly true. And since evolution gives no opinion whatsoever, not catering to those aforementioned people does not mean that others ARE being catered too.

Why in the world would we inject something that is not biology at all into biology class? Biology class is for biology.

FloorJack

07-12-2009, 09:11 PM

FloorJack:

I can't speak for Flounder, but... what the hell are you talking about? Was someone here saying that people shouldn't have the right to freely practice their religion?

Yes. The topic of this thread, started by you, is "Texas governor appoints creationist to chief spot at State Board of Education". Did you forget? You are against his appointment based solely on his religious beliefs. If you exclude people from public service based on their religion then you are against the free expression of it.

trumptman

07-12-2009, 09:23 PM

Regardless of whether or not one accepts the established science of evolutionary biology, it makes no sense to appoint someone to a position of authority when that person opposes the venture she is supposed to be guiding.

The person was appointed to the state board of education, not the state board of teaching evolution.

Must a party dogmatically accept 100% of what is taught in schools with no dissent if they are to serve on the board? If the answer is no then why would this particular exception be any different than any other exception?

If public beliefs are at odds with institutional beliefs, is it the responsibility of the institution to stand in opposition to the public it serves or is it the responsibility of the institution to adapt to the public it serves? If it doesn't serve the public need as the public desires and the public withdraws the sanction of that institution, what happens then?

trumptman

07-12-2009, 09:24 PM

Flounder

07-12-2009, 09:45 PM

Yes. The topic if this thread, started by you, is "Texas governor appoints creationist to chief spot at State Board of Education". Did you forget? You are against his appointment based solely on his religious beliefs. If you exclude people from public service based on their religion then you are against the free expression of it.

I don't think the assertion is that groverat is opposed based solely on her religious beliefs, but that she wants some of her religious beliefs injected into the school system. The article linked to claims that Gail Lowe advocates for creationism in the classroom. I have to say, the link used to back up this charge does not seem to accomplish its intended task. If, however, that accusation is correct, and she has advocated for creationism in the classroom, that is an eminently valid reason to oppose her appointment.

trumptman

07-12-2009, 09:51 PM

I don't think the assertion is that groverat is opposed based solely on her religious beliefs. The article linked to claims that Gail Lowe advocates for creationism in the classroom. I have to say, the link used to back up this charge does not seem to accomplish its intended task, but if that accusation is correct, that she has advocated for creationism in the classroom, that seems to me an eminently valid reason to oppose her appointment.

So is the point then only that it "makes no sense" and some people should be upset because of this or should there be some recourse with regard to legal or public policy to make sure it couldn't happen?

Flounder

07-12-2009, 10:01 PM

So is the point then only that it "makes no sense" and some people should be upset because of this or should there be some recourse with regard to legal or public policy to make sure it couldn't happen?

The point is that appointing an individual who has expressed a desire to change school curriculum in a way that is 1) detrimental to children's education and 2) unconstitutional is a poor choice.

trumptman

07-12-2009, 10:35 PM

The point is that appointing an individual who has expressed a desire to change school curriculum in a way that is 1) detrimental to children's education and 2) unconstitutional is a poor choice.

So the mere expressing of the desire would be unconstitutional or acting on it would be unconstitutional?

Are public officials allow to make poor choices and face the voters for that or should it be against the law for them to make a poor choice?

Flounder

07-12-2009, 11:01 PM

So the mere expressing of the desire would be unconstitutional or acting on it would be unconstitutional?

My sentence clearly communicates the actual change of the curriculum is what I'm asserting would be unconstitutional. I'm not sure how you would think I would hold the position that expressing the desire would be unconstitutional, because that would obviously be silly and quite clearly misread my sentence.

Are public officials allow to make poor choices and face the voters for that or should it be against the law for them to make a poor choice?

Of course they are allowed to make poor choices. Indeed, that is the position, that Rick Perry has made a poor choice. That is my (and I can't speak for groverat but I would guess it is his as well) point. It was a poor choice.

Have I said anything that indicates poor choices by public officials should be against the law? I'm fairly certain I haven't, because again that's obviously silly.

groverat

07-13-2009, 07:32 AM

Floorjack:

Yes. The topic of this thread, started by you, is "Texas governor appoints creationist to chief spot at State Board of Education". Did you forget? You are against his appointment based solely on his religious beliefs. If you exclude people from public service based on their religion then you are against the free expression of it.

I think she's a poor choice because she rejects a basic scientific tenet and advocates the inclusion of pseudoscience in the science curriculum. Whether her motivation is religious or not is her business. I don't care what kind of church she goes to or if she even goes to church at all.

trumptman:

Must a party dogmatically accept 100% of what is taught in schools with no dissent if they are to serve on the board?

Dogmatically? No.
One needn't hold any dogmatic beliefs about evolution or biology to do a good job in her position. The problem is her fervent belief in pseudoscience and her active desire to inject pseudoscience into the scientific curriculum.

If public beliefs are at odds with institutional beliefs, is it the responsibility of the institution to stand in opposition to the public it serves or is it the responsibility of the institution to adapt to the public it serves?

I suppose the entire problem can be boiled down to the use of the word "belief" instead of "propositions backed by evidence". It is the role of science educators to teach subject matter that most accurately reflects verifiable reality.

If it doesn't serve the public need as the public desires and the public withdraws the sanction of that institution, what happens then?

They are free to home school their children or enroll in one of the many private school options there are.

Thankfully, it is not so melodramatic as all that.

Northgate

07-13-2009, 02:30 PM

Only in the United Fucking States of America!

Taskiss

07-13-2009, 02:34 PM

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

.. if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.

God not only plays dice, He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen.

Outsider

07-13-2009, 03:27 PM

groverat

07-13-2009, 03:34 PM

Science without religion is just fine.

trumptman

07-13-2009, 05:09 PM

My sentence clearly communicates the actual change of the curriculum is what I'm asserting would be unconstitutional. I'm not sure how you would think I would hold the position that expressing the desire would be unconstitutional, because that would obviously be silly and quite clearly misread my sentence.

I'm just trying understand the purpose of the thread and comment. I don't want to believe either to just be a rant. Most people don't say something is bad and then advocate no course of corrective action.

Of course they are allowed to make poor choices. Indeed, that is the position, that Rick Perry has made a poor choice. That is my (and I can't speak for groverat but I would guess it is his as well) point. It was a poor choice.

Have I said anything that indicates poor choices by public officials should be against the law? I'm fairly certain I haven't, because again that's obviously silly.

Again just checking to make sure that the only issue is grumbling about the choice and nothing more.

Dogmatically? No.
One needn't hold any dogmatic beliefs about evolution or biology to do a good job in her position. The problem is her fervent belief in pseudoscience and her active desire to inject pseudoscience into the scientific curriculum.

A desire is not an action though and so I am trying to determine if you just are complaining about the poor choice or believe action should be taken. Also I asked the question broadly. If anyone has a fervent belief in a curricular area should their be action against that or just complaints?

I suppose the entire problem can be boiled down to the use of the word "belief" instead of "propositions backed by evidence". It is the role of science educators to teach subject matter that most accurately reflects verifiable reality.

The state board doesn't teach science though. It oversees all education and so I am asking for clarification on the principle expressed regarding the matter.

They are free to home school their children or enroll in one of the many private school options there are.

Thankfully, it is not so melodramatic as all that.

A percentage will do this, but increasingly we are seeing public institutions out of alignment with the public interest. I mentioned California not to derail the thread but as a bit of fun regarding the fact that on ballot measures the public spoke and now the public servants haven't listened. You clearly believe that in this matter, the viewpoint being lobbied at by the governor is in a minority and thus I am asking if the majority have an obligation to support that.

Science without religion is just fine.

Science alone is completely amoral. While the morals that guide it do not need to be exclusively religious or even religious at all, something moral does need to guide science.

groverat

07-13-2009, 05:35 PM

A desire is not an action though and so I am trying to determine if you just are complaining about the poor choice or believe action should be taken.

Action? I think she should be campaigned against and replaced by a properly Democratic process.

At no point have I discussed any actions to be taken against her, so I'm confused as to what you might be referring.

Also I asked the question broadly. If anyone has a fervent belief in a curricular area should their be action against that or just complaints?

A broadly-asked question cannot have a very specific answer. What is it you mean by "action"? Assassin squads?

The state board doesn't teach science though. It oversees all education and so I am asking for clarification on the principle expressed regarding the matter.

The state board has a hand in choosing textbooks and developing curriculum, which are two activities that need people involved who do not have a fundamental distrust of the science that should be taught.

A percentage will do this, but increasingly we are seeing public institutions out of alignment with the public interest.

Increasingly? I doubt that is in any way quantifiable. Overly vague and overly broad.

I mentioned California not to derail the thread but as a bit of fun regarding the fact that on ballot measures the public spoke and now the public servants haven't listened. You clearly believe that in this matter, the viewpoint being lobbied at by the governor is in a minority and thus I am asking if the majority have an obligation to support that.

Science is not a matter of popular vote. Science education should not be a matter of popular vote, either.

Science alone is completely amoral.

This is absolute nonsense. There is nothing supernatural or even inexplicable about moral behavior and thought.

trumptman

07-13-2009, 06:10 PM

Action? I think she should be campaigned against and replaced by a properly Democratic process.

At no point have I discussed any actions to be taken against her, so I'm confused as to what you might be referring.

Then we are in complete agreement about the process. I didn't claim you demanded action. I simply asked question to fill the vacuum. You've done that and we are in agreement on the matter, thanks.

A broadly-asked question cannot have a very specific answer. What is it you mean by "action"? Assassin squads?

I didn't want to presume or put words into your mouth. You stated your view about the election as the solution.

The state board has a hand in choosing textbooks and developing curriculum, which are two activities that need people involved who do not have a fundamental distrust of the science that should be taught.

Does a lack of belief in evolution mean that someone distrusts all fields of science? That brush seems a bit broad. Are they going to choose physics textbooks that don't teach because of their evolution views?

See this is why I keep asking questions though. You keep stating a prequalification, but appear to have no mechanism by which you would demand it be enforced. You would just note that after it wasn't enforced, that it was a poor choice and you hope the next election will bring a better result.

Increasingly? I doubt that is in any way quantifiable. Overly vague and overly broad.

I don't. I've already stated the election. Large numbers of Americans have protested against the amount of debt and spending going on and have shared that view in larger numbers in polls.

Science is not a matter of popular vote. Science education should not be a matter of popular vote, either.

I fully understand this point which is why I kept asking the solution. The only one you have stated up to this point it to remedy it in the next election which means allow a popular vote to fix the problem. If you believe some other action besides that is necessary, please state so.

This is absolute nonsense. There is nothing supernatural or even inexplicable about moral behavior and thought.

I didn't say moral thought is impossible without religion. Please point to where I said that. You didn't quote the rest where I stated religion may INFORM morals but is not exclusive or necessary.

However morals and ethics are separate from science. Scientific action does need to be governed by those who help determine our morals and ethics as a society. The fact that science can do it doesn't determine if it should. That is left for other fields.

jimmac

07-13-2009, 07:34 PM

Call me old fashioned but I happen to think there's a very good reason for the seperation of church and state. I also happen to agree with this statement by Taskiss :

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Most people don't get this. The universe is a big enough place for both. We really don't understand everything. Not even close. Everytime we think we do we find out just how much more there is to learn ( or how much we didn't know ). I'm pretty much on the science side of things however I don't have a problem with people having beliefs. The universe ( or now the multiverse ) is a big place and modern theory says anything that can happen does happen somewhere in some parallel world. That means there could be some design to things as well.

We may be close to GUT ( Grand Unified Theory ) but I'd be willing to bet real money that there'll still be mysteries beyond that. That will give us our first real framework understanding of the way things work but there's much more to it than that.

However about education and the church they should stay seperate. If you want to educate someone about the world that's what schools are for. If you want to educate someone about a belief that's what churches are for. There are so many different beliefs they need to be unbiased in school. That way if someone wants their children to grow up with a particular belief their parents can choose the church for them until they're old enough to choose themselves. That way also you aren't stepping on someone's personal choice.

I don't know why some people have such a difficult time getting that. It's not a difficult concept.

I don't have a problem with Ms. Lowe as long as she keeps her beliefs out of the mix ( perhaps people from Texas have a better understanding of Ms. Lowe's personal history and wither or not she'd be capable of this ). The minute she crosses that line however it's wrong.

vinea

07-13-2009, 11:18 PM

But other people, based on their constitutional right to freedom of religion, think otherwise. Right or wrong. (double meaning there!)

Are you against the bill of rights?

Are you against the intent of the Founders for the government NOT to impose religious doctrine on folks? Preaching creation is a point of religious doctrine. Teaching evolution as a scientific theory is not.

Did you know that Jefferson wrote his own bible, ripping out all the supernatural bits? That the purpose of the freedom of religion was to make sure one Christian sect couldn't impose it's doctrinal will on another?

I suppose that you can argue (like Jazzguru attempts to) that science is religion and therefore freedom of religion applies but that requires quite a bit of...what was the phrase? "Expansion" of the term religious belief...

groverat

07-14-2009, 07:33 AM

trumptman:

Does a lack of belief in evolution mean that someone distrusts all fields of science?

One doesn't "believe in evolution" any more than one "believes in gravity".
The issue here is not her personal beliefs. I don't know how many times I have to say this. The issue here is her desire to inject pseudo-science into the science curriculum.

You keep stating a prequalification, but appear to have no mechanism by which you would demand it be enforced.

I don't think anyone who advocates teaching non-science in science classrooms should be put in any position like this. That goes for those who advocate creationism in the science classroom or numerology in the science classroom or astrology in the science classroom.

However morals and ethics are separate from science.

No, they are not. The only rational morals and ethics we can have come from scientific thinking.

Taskiss

07-14-2009, 10:26 AM

You are making a huge assumption there.Those assumptions are not mine, they belong to Einstein and Hawking.

Outsider

07-14-2009, 10:53 AM

Those assumptions are not mine, they belong to Einstein and Hawking.

I was talking about the assumption that a god even exists. Einstein identified himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views) an agnostic, but not a "crusading atheist". Hawking seems to use "god" as a metaphorical device a lot in his layman's books.

Taskiss

07-14-2009, 11:05 AM

I was talking about the assumption that a god even exists. Einstein identified himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views) an agnostic, but not a "crusading atheist". Hawking seems to use "god" as a metaphorical device a lot in his layman's books.From your source -In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.As far as Hawking and other prominent scientists are concerned, what I consider telling is that they don't discount the possibility of a supreme being.

Agnosticism is just a way to leave one's options open. One can't know, one must believe. That's why the mystery exists.

trumptman

07-14-2009, 11:05 AM

trumptman:

One doesn't "believe in evolution" any more than one "believes in gravity".
The issue here is not her personal beliefs. I don't know how many times I have to say this. The issue here is her desire to inject pseudo-science into the science curriculum.

Please go ahead and keep saying it. Things that don't make sense still won't even when repeated. Please explain how a desire should keep someone from a job. The reason you repeat the strawmen is because the principle issue is being avoided.

I don't think anyone who advocates teaching non-science in science classrooms should be put in any position like this. That goes for those who advocate creationism in the science classroom or numerology in the science classroom or astrology in the science classroom.

Yet the only way, by the reasoning put forward to solve this is with an election. By that reasoning, science is under the control of politics.

No, they are not. The only rational morals and ethics we can have come from scientific thinking.

Eugenics is made possible by such reasoning. This is why science is governed by other areas of thought. Science is no different than any other amoral aspect of our society.

Outsider

07-14-2009, 11:55 AM

From your source -As far as Hawking and other prominent scientists are concerned, what I consider telling is that they don't discount the possibility of a supreme being.

Agnosticism is just a way to leave one's options open. One can't know, one must believe. That's why the mystery exists.

Of course. No real atheist discounts any possibility. Even that Elves, unicorns, and leprechauns might somehow exist.

Lots of people describe themselves as "agnostic" and reject being labeled as an atheist because it sounds less threatening, more reasonable, and not as dogmatic. The perception is atheists are close minded, and "militantly" deny the existence of deities, and agnostics are open minded and leave their options open. The reality is that atheism is simply the absence of belief in supernatural gods because of the lack of evidence. Most self described agnostics are either agnostic atheists (a -prefix being non, gnostic - meaning having mystical knowledge) or agnostic theists. (A)gnosticism deals with knowledge, (a)theism deals with belief.

agnostic atheists - No belief in god(s) and has no special mystical knowledge.

agnostic theists - Has a belief in god(s), but has no special mystical knowledge.

theists - Has a belief in god(s).

Flounder

07-14-2009, 12:39 PM

Please explain how a desire should keep someone from a job.

Because if a person has expressed a desire/intention to inject something into biology curriculum that 1) isn't biology and 2) is unconstitutional, it is reasonable to infer that they will work to follow through on the stated desire/intention and attempt to implement it.

These would be bad results for the education of children in Texas. Thus, a crappy appointment.

trumptman

07-14-2009, 12:55 PM

Because if a person has expressed a desire/intention to inject something into biology curriculum that 1) isn't biology and 2) is unconstitutional, it is reasonable to infer that they will work to follow through on the stated desire/intention and attempt to implement it.

These are bad results for the education of children in Texas. Thus, a crappy appointment.

This shows that FloorJack was right on with his precrime comments.

This is literally criminalizing thought, not using thought to determine the severity of a crime as is done with something like degrees of murder or murder versus manslaughter. This is thought as crime.

How can something that hasn't even happened yet be a bad result?

Wow!:wow:

Flounder

07-14-2009, 01:19 PM

This shows that FloorJack was right on with his precrime comments.

This is literally criminalizing thought, not using thought to determine the severity of a crime as is done with something like degrees of murder or murder versus manslaughter. This is thought as crime.

How can something that hasn't even happened yet be a bad result?

Wow!:wow:

I do not understand these comments at all. It's not criminalizing anything. It's merely saying that if a person proclaims they want to implement poor and unconstitutional changes to curriculum, that is not a person that should be put in a position to do just that.

For example, upholding the constitution is a requirement for being a U.S. Congressman. If someone running for congress had previously declared their desire and intention not to uphold the Constitution - for whatever reason (I hate America, my religion won't allow me to, little green mean told me not to)- I certainly would never want that person as a congressman.

If someone was interviewing for a job as a janitor and said they intended not to mop the floor, or they intended to mop the floor with bacon grease, again for whatever reason, that individual wouldn't be a good hire as janitor.

Thus, if someone has stated they would like to change biology curriculum to include 1) material that isn't biology and 2) is unconstitutional, in my opinion that is a poor choice for the job.

How else in the world are we supposed to judge people, if not by what they tell us they intend to do? How could one ever make a hiring decision? How the heck could one ever even narrow down the pool for interviews?

As groverat has said, it has nothing to do with a person's religious beliefs. It's about what they have stated they wish to accomplish.

The behavior you seem to be objecting so vociferously to is precisely what is happening in the senate judiciary committee today. Senators are examining what Sonia Sotomayor will do as a SC justice and making a decision about whether or not she's qualified.

I fail to see how a entirely ordinary process that happens millions of times every day is "criminalizing thought."

Members of the republican party are grilling Sonia Sotomayor right now about her "wise latina" comments and what desires and intentions they think those comments reflect. Do you object to that? I sure as hell don't. If so, I'd like to hear how that situation is different from the one we're discussing right now.

What if Sonia Sotomayor stated an intention to overturn recent supreme court precedent expanding 2nd amendment rights? I presume you would find this as grounds not to confirm her to the supreme court. But, to use your line of reasoning, how can something that hasn't even happened yet be a bad result?

trumptman

07-14-2009, 02:09 PM

I do not understand these comments at all. It's not criminalizing anything. It's merely saying that if a person proclaims they want to implement poor and unconstitutional changes to curriculum, that is not a person that should be put in a position to do just that.

The point though is that you claim that the person should not be put in that position. This is the point of the questioning, an action is suggested and no one here will fess up to the action. The ideal state is noted and what... wished into being?

For example, upholding the constitution is a requirement for being a U.S. Congressman. If someone running for congress had previously declared their desire and intention not to uphold the Constitution - for whatever reason (I hate America, my religion won't allow me to, little green mean told me not to)- I certainly would never want that person as a congressman.

This is not the entire Constitution, just like education does not consist entirely of teaching evolution. This is akin to saying, because there is some disagreement on an amendment, that instead of using the assigned processes, they simply cannot serve.

One person on a state education board cannot simply pick out biology books, demand the funding for them, distribute them throughout the state and declare all the biology teachers must teach exclusively from them.

Thus, if someone has stated they would like to change biology curriculum to include 1) material that isn't biology and 2) is unconstitutional, in my opinion that is a poor choice for the job.

You might have a point if that were the ONLY job the state board of education engaged in. However it covers all aspects of education. She might be 100% wrong for picking an evolution textbook, but 100% right for hundreds of other decisions. No person is the perfect in all areas. As long as they are willing to consult expertise, work within the system and live with the results of votes on decisions they are fine for the job.

How else in the world are we supposed to judge people, if not by what they tell us they intend to do? How could one ever make a hiring decision? How the heck could one ever even narrow down the pool for interviews?

It is called speech for a reason. All are allowed to participate in the system. As long as they don't destroy the system or DO anything illegal they are fine.

As groverat has said, it has nothing to do with a person's religious beliefs. It's about what they have stated they wish to accomplish.

There is nothing wrong with wishing to accomplish it as long as it is done within the agreed upon framework aka the Constitution. When there are Constitutional disagreements it goes before the courts. As long as a person commits themselves to following rule of law rather than rule of mob, we are fine.

The behavior you seem to be objecting so vociferously to is precisely what is happening in the senate judiciary committee today. Senators are examining what Sonia Sotomayor will do as a SC justice and making a decision about whether or not she's qualified.

The criteria for each job is different. Part of being qualified as a judge is attempting to render decision impartially. The other two branches are directly elected for a reason and appeal for our votes by declaring they will advocate for our positions.

I fail to see how a entirely ordinary process that happens millions of times every day is "criminalizing thought."

The second it goes beyond labeling the choice to saying advocating for a choice disqualifies you from service, that is the line that shouldn't be crossed.

Members of the republican party are grilling Sonia Sotomayor right now about her about "wise latina" comments and what desires and intentions they think those comments reflect. Do you object to that? I sure as hell don't. If so, I'd like to here how that situation is different from the one we're discussing right now.

Not at all because she is being put in a position where she has a lifetime appointment, can never be recalled and can never again have politicians or the populace pass judgment on her again.

This Governor will come up for election again soon and can be judged by his actions and the actions of the people he has appointed. That will NEVER happen again for Sotomayor.

So to put it plainly, we can wait for actions on others because we can judge them after those actions.

With Supreme Court judges people do spend time on intent because afterwards, we can do nothing about their actions.

What if Sonia Sotomayor stated an intention to overturn recent supreme court precedent expanding 2nd amendment rights? I presume you would find this as grounds not to confirm her to the supreme court. But, to use your line of reasoning, how can something that hasn't even happened yet be a bad result?

Only because once she is confirmed, nothing could ever be done to stop those actions. I cannot donate to her opponent. I cannot sue to have her decisions overturned. I cannot vote against her.

There are only nine people in the entire country for whom this is true. They are the exception to the rule. The rule still applies for everyone else.

Flounder

07-14-2009, 02:48 PM

One person on a state education board cannot simply pick out biology books, demand the funding for them, distribute them throughout the state and declare all the biology teachers must teach exclusively from them.

But having that person heading a state education board does make it more likely. Again, in my opinion this would be a bad result. I like to make bad results less likely. Therefore, I feel the choice is poor.

She might be 100% wrong for picking an evolution textbook, but 100% right for hundreds of other decisions. No person is the perfect in all areas. As long as they are willing to consult expertise, work within the system and live with the results of votes on decisions they are fine for the job.

Certainly no one is perfect in all areas. In my opinion however, what she promotes is extremely detrimental to the education of children in Texas. Therefore, I think it's a poor selection.

It is called speech for a reason. All are allowed to participate in the system. As long as they don't destroy the system or DO anything illegal they are fine.

And where have I said they aren't? She has been duly appointed, and thus she must do her job. And of course I am allowed to participate in the system as well. I am allowed to advance the position that she is a poor choice for the state education board because she has expressed the desire to make changes I consider wholly unacceptable.

There is nothing wrong with wishing to accomplish it as long as it is done within the agreed upon framework aka the Constitution. When there are Constitutional disagreements it goes before the courts. As long as a person commits themselves to following rule of law rather than rule of mob, we are fine.

And where have I said otherwise? I don't disagree with that statement at all. She can wish to accomplish creationism in biology class to her heart's content. Likewise, I can think this would be both detrimental to education and unconstitutional and therefore wish she had not been appointed to the state education board to my heart's content. The above statement doesn't have anything to do with my opinion that she's a poor choice.

Only because once she is confirmed, nothing could ever be done to stop those actions. I cannot donate to her opponent. I cannot sue to have her decisions overturned. I cannot vote against her.

There are only nine people in the entire country for whom this is true. They are the exception to the rule. The rule still applies for everyone else.

Again I'll go back to my example of the janitor. The applicant for janitor states his desire to mop the floor with bacon grease. He's not the only janitor for the building, but he says he's going to do his best to make it happen.

Again, using your line of reasoning, how can something that hasn't even happened yet be a bad result?

This hypothetical janitor is otherwise the best applicant for the job, yet somehow this would seem like a poor hire to me.

Your comments seem to border on saying I shouldn't be allowed to assert this woman was a poor choice for the state education board, and shouldn't be hired. They appear to me closer to advocating criminalizing thought than my comments.

Flounder

07-14-2009, 03:18 PM

Suppose an individual is up for an appointment to an influential position in the civil rights division of DOJ. She asserts her desire to keep those uppity blacks under control. She is otherwise qualified for the job.

I submit this would be a poor hire.

But again using your line of reasoning, how can something that hasn't even happened yet be a bad result?

I could go on like this forever..........

groverat

07-14-2009, 05:27 PM

trumptman:

Please explain how a desire should keep someone from a job.

If the desire they hold runs contrary to the purpose of the job, then that desire should keep someone from the job. I don't see why it wouldn't.

Yet the only way, by the reasoning put forward to solve this is with an election. By that reasoning, science is under the control of politics.

That reasoning does not follow at all.

Eugenics is made possible by such reasoning.

By what reasoning, specifically?

Using an example of scientists doing something immoral/amoral as a sign that science itself is immoral/amoral is just as fatuous as using the Inquisition to argue that religion itself is immoral/amoral.

Flounder

07-14-2009, 06:05 PM

If the desire they hold runs contrary to the purpose of the job, then that desire should keep someone from the job. I don't see why it wouldn't.

ding ding ding!

trumptman

07-14-2009, 11:37 PM

But having that person heading a state education board does make it more likely. Again, in my opinion this would be a bad result. I like to make bad results less likely. Therefore, I feel the choice is poor.

What would be the citation or proof for that claim? It is much likely that millions of Americans who hold religious views and even advocate for them manage to do their jobs daily without co-mingling their public and religious lives.

Perhaps we were right not to elect that Catholic Kerry fellow and perhaps electing that John Kennedy fellow was a mistake as well. They are Catholic and clearly couldn't keep the two aspects of their lives separate.

Certainly no one is perfect in all areas. In my opinion however, what she promotes is extremely detrimental to the education of children in Texas. Therefore, I think it's a poor selection.

I understand your opinion. Apparently the point of the thread is to state it and advocate no course of action.

And where have I said they aren't? She has been duly appointed, and thus she must do her job. And of course I am allowed to participate in the system as well. I am allowed to advance the position that she is a poor choice for the state education board because she has expressed the desire to make changes I consider wholly unacceptable.

Absolutely.

And where have I said otherwise? I don't disagree with that statement at all. She can wish to accomplish creationism in biology class to her heart's content. Likewise, I can think this would be both detrimental to education and unconstitutional and therefore wish she had not been appointed to the state education board to my heart's content. The above statement doesn't have anything to do with my opinion that she's a poor choice.

Claiming it will be detrimental to education is an opinion as well.

Again I'll go back to my example of the janitor. The applicant for janitor states his desire to mop the floor with bacon grease. He's not the only janitor for the building, but he says he's going to do his best to make it happen.

The analogies do not work here because you keep giving examples on the lowest rung and have them applying action instead of making policy in concert with others.

Again, using your line of reasoning, how can something that hasn't even happened yet be a bad result?

This hypothetical janitor is otherwise the best applicant for the job, yet somehow this would seem like a poor hire to me.

Bad analogy

Your comments seem to border on saying I shouldn't be allowed to assert this woman was a poor choice for the state education board, and shouldn't be hired. They appear to me closer to advocating criminalizing thought than my comments.

I find that conclusion a a strange one. I have simply noted that the language keeps referencing action but will not state what that action should be.

Suppose an individual is up for an appointment to an influential position in the civil rights division of DOJ. She asserts her desire to keep those uppity blacks under control. She is otherwise qualified for the job.

I submit this would be a poor hire.

But again using your line of reasoning, how can something that hasn't even happened yet be a bad result?

I could go on like this forever..........

I fully understand that you could go on creating bad analogies forever.

trumptman:
If the desire they hold runs contrary to the purpose of the job, then that desire should keep someone from the job. I don't see why it wouldn't.

The reason that there is a failure to see this is because a litmus test has been mislabeled as a qualification. A qualification for the job is not a litmus test in one part of one subsection of one subject within the entire field of education. Did your job application ask you about your beliefs in evolution when you applied to be a teacher?

That reasoning does not follow at all.

It was stated that the only way to remedy the poor choice was an election.
By what reasoning, specifically?

Using an example of scientists doing something immoral/amoral as a sign that science itself is immoral/amoral is just as fatuous as using the Inquisition to argue that religion itself is immoral/amoral.[/QUOTE]

By what reasoning, specifically?

Using an example of scientists doing something immoral/amoral as a sign that science itself is immoral/amoral is just as fatuous as using the Inquisition to argue that religion itself is immoral/amoral.

Amoral and immoral are not the same thing. Eugenics is scientific reasoning free from the constraints of other fields of study. Morality itself is a societal construct that places us above the animal kingdom.

Flounder

07-15-2009, 06:56 AM

Calling them bad analogies doesn't make them any less apt.

Flounder

07-15-2009, 07:17 AM

What would be the citation or proof for that claim? It is much likely that millions of Americans who hold religious views and even advocate for them manage to do their jobs daily without co-mingling their public and religious lives.

Perhaps we were right not to elect that Catholic Kerry fellow and perhaps electing that John Kennedy fellow was a mistake as well. They are Catholic and clearly couldn't keep the two aspects of their lives separate.

And here is the crux of the matter.

I have not, at any point in this thread, advocated that someone's religion is a litmus test. I haven't because that's absurd, and I would never support such a notion.

The litmus test is if they have stated a desire to inject creationism into biology class. I have not claimed, and do not claim, anything else.

Allow me to quote myself from page one:

The article linked to claims that Gail Lowe advocates for creationism in the classroom. I have to say, the link used to back up this charge does not seem to accomplish its intended task. If, however, that accusation is correct, and she has advocated for creationism in the classroom, that is an eminently valid reason to oppose her appointment.

The analogies do not work here because you keep giving examples on the lowest rung and have them applying action instead of making policy in concert with others.

Indeed, that's precisely what the analogy in my next post - which you off-handedly dismiss - addresses.

Taskiss

07-15-2009, 07:42 AM

Of course. No real atheist discounts any possibility. Even that Elves, unicorns, and leprechauns might somehow exist.Yet, how often do those imaginary constructs enter into scientific dissertations?

The importance of processes of the creation and intelligence of the physical laws of our universe is evident by the consideration made by the most brilliant scientific minds, past and present. They don't discount that God exists.

I'm thinking those that DO discount the existence of a creator are of lesser intelligence, pretty much by definition.

groverat

07-15-2009, 08:13 AM

trumptman:

A qualification for the job is not a litmus test in one part of one subsection of one subject within the entire field of education. Did your job application ask you about your beliefs in evolution when you applied to be a teacher?

I am an English teacher and, thus, have no impact on science curriculum.
Her job is to oversee the development of the entire curriculum.

If I were to interview for a job and tell the principal that I think consonants shouldn't be taught and that all kids should make up their own letters to free themselves from the fascism of "traditional language" I don't think that principal should hire me.

Amoral and immoral are not the same thing.

True enough, which is why I separated them with this guy: "/"

Eugenics is scientific reasoning free from the constraints of other fields of study.

Howso?
Eugenics is an idea rooted in a vision of what "should" be. It is an artificial process.
The only reason one would view that as "scientific reasoning" is that it was done by scientists.

Selective breeding and selective repression of genes has been done since recorded history, the religious just called it "ethnic cleansing" or "removing impurities".

Morality itself is a societal construct that places us above the animal kingdom.

Other animals have morals, as well, and it is ludicrous to say otherwise.

jimmac

07-15-2009, 08:53 AM

Morality itself is a societal construct that places us above the animal kingdom.

I'd take issue with this as well. What makes a distinction between us and the animal kingdom is our level of self awareness.

What's really surprising is that recent research has shown the level of self awareness for some animals is much higher than previously thought.

Other animals have morals, as well, and it is ludicrous to say otherwise.

This is correct.

Outsider

07-15-2009, 09:41 AM

Yet, how often do those imaginary constructs enter into scientific dissertations?
Not anymore because those entities have been discounted.
The importance of processes of the creation and intelligence of the physical laws of our universe is evident by the consideration made by the most brilliant scientific minds, past and present. They don't discount that God exists.

I'm thinking those that DO discount the existence of a creator are of lesser intelligence, pretty much by definition.

Of course (nearly) nobody discounts a god exists. If proof of a supernatural being comes to light, I'm sure it will be front page in scientific journals.

In the mean time:
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/uploaded_images/AtheistEve2-756165.jpg

trumptman

07-15-2009, 01:39 PM

And here is the crux of the matter.

I have not, at any point in this thread, advocated that someone's religion is a litmus test. I haven't because that's absurd, and I would never support such a notion.

You would just declare that those who don't engage in the notion to be exercising a poor choice.

The litmus test is if they have stated a desire to inject creationism into biology class. I have claimed, and do not claim, anything else.

I never said you did. I said all the terrible analogies were easy to make up and more like strawmen in that they are much easier to knock down then the main argument.

Indeed, that's precisely what the analogy in my next post - which you off-handedly dismiss - addresses.

Your analogy deals with the lowest person on the ladder directly applying action all day long as their job.(Limited to several basic actions) The real example involves someone serving on a school board who will never teach a single day during the course of their entire appointment. If the kids are the floor to which they will apply bacon grease as it were, they will never touch a floor.

And finally, yes I call them bad analogies preciously because they are less apt to apply.

trumptman:
I am an English teacher and, thus, have no impact on science curriculum.
Her job is to oversee the development of the entire curriculum.

If I were to interview for a job and tell the principal that I think consonants shouldn't be taught and that all kids should make up their own letters to free themselves from the fascism of "traditional language" I don't think that principal should hire me.

It is interesting that you see the point when defending yourself, but not when defending this person. Two points, first as an English (Congrats on surviving that up to this point BTW) teacher, you could not influence science curriculum but you certainly could influence English curriculum. Your selection of texts could attempt to blatantly bring in religion into the classroom. There have been clear examples of this, lawsuits related to it, etc. Yet in no form or fashion did your district ask you to disclose your religious beliefs or private activities related to it.

This is because regardless of your beliefs in this area, you are capable of separating the two and most people are capable of doing exactly what you do, ie acting professionally.

True enough, which is why I separated them with this guy: "/"

Hmmmm.... must be one of those in between areas, I've always seen that as both could substitute for the other but are included together. Cool enough.

Howso?
Eugenics is an idea rooted in a vision of what "should" be. It is an artificial process.
The only reason one would view that as "scientific reasoning" is that it was done by scientists.

Selective breeding and selective repression of genes has been done since recorded history, the religious just called it "ethnic cleansing" or "removing impurities".

As you note it has been done throughout history with plants and animals. However it is considered wrong to do it with humans. Taking evolution and artificially manipulating it is not considered bad in the plant and animal realms but is in not in the human realm. If we thought a population of pigs might have a virus, we could kill them all without remorse. If controlling the breeding of animals and not allowing control of their own bodies with regard reproduction is considered just fine in the plant and animal realm.

Are you saying all these ideas are just fine within the human realm and that terms like "ethnic cleansing" are just religious biases?

Other animals have morals, as well, and it is ludicrous to say otherwise.

What we call their morals are merely behaviors that are not associated with pure competition for survival. Since evolution dictates that is the sole directive of life, we consider anything outside of that curious. However deep judgment is not what is going on with these animals. It is nothing more than instincts that cannot easily be associated with attempts to survive by our reasoning and understanding. Often deeper study shows how it is still those types of actions, but just our misunderstanding that was the cause of the problem.(Example, sharing)

Flounder

07-15-2009, 01:52 PM

You would just declare that those who don't engage in the notion to be exercising a poor choice.

See, now that implies that I really am using someone's religion as a litmus test. I am not. I have said this repeatedly, yet there continues to be the implication that this is my desire. I would appreciate it if you would stop implying that I would.

Your analogy deals with the lowest person on the ladder directly applying action all day long as their job.(Limited to several basic actions)

OK, i'm going to quote myself again: I would like to know how

Suppose an individual is up for an appointment to an influential position in the civil rights division of DOJ. She asserts her desire to keep those uppity blacks under control. She is otherwise qualified for the job.

deals with the lowest person on the ladder. Indeed, here we have someone who is undoubtedly a member of a team. I have made examples from low-level (janitor) mid-level (position of influence in the civil rights division of DOJ) and high-level (supreme court). I specifically chose such a broad range as it illustrates the prevalence and pertinence of my point. Indeed, it is omnipresent over every hiring decision.

As groverat said

If the desire they hold runs contrary to the purpose of the job, then that desire should keep someone from the job. I don't see why it wouldn't.

It's a very simple, and wholly unremarkable point.

groverat

07-15-2009, 02:41 PM

trumptman:

It is interesting that you see the point when defending yourself, but not when defending this person. Two points, first as an English (Congrats on surviving that up to this point BTW) teacher, you could not influence science curriculum but you certainly could influence English curriculum. Your selection of texts could attempt to blatantly bring in religion into the classroom. There have been clear examples of this, lawsuits related to it, etc. Yet in no form or fashion did your district ask you to disclose your religious beliefs or private activities related to it.

This isn't about her religious beliefs. There are plenty of Christian educators who have no desire to put pseudoscience into science curriculum. If this were about her religious beliefs then I would have to advocate the removal of everyone involved in science education who believed in creationism. I do not. That would be absurd.

Is this about her religious beliefs? No, it's not.
Is it about her stated desire to inject pseudoscience into the science curriculum? Yes, it is.

This is because regardless of your beliefs in this area, you are capable of separating the two and most people are capable of doing exactly what you do, ie acting professionally.

I sure am. And she might be. But she has already expressed a desire to not do that, which is the entire point. Had she not already worked to inject pseudoscience into the science curriculum this discussion wouldn't be happening.

As you note it has been done throughout history with plants and animals.

It's been done throughout history with humans, as well. Selective breeding is not anything new, and nor was it new in the early 20th century.

Taking evolution and artificially manipulating it is not considered bad in the plant and animal realms but is in not in the human realm.

Artificial selection most certainly can be "bad" in the plant and animal realms.
"but is in not in" ... I don't know what you're trying to say there.

If we thought a population of pigs might have a virus, we could kill them all without remorse. If controlling the breeding of animals and not allowing control of their own bodies with regard reproduction is considered just fine in the plant and animal realm.

In some situations, yes.

What we call their morals are merely behaviors that are not associated with pure competition for survival.

And this is different from human morality?

Since evolution dictates that is the sole directive of life, we consider anything outside of that curious.

Evolution dictates what is the "sole directive of life"? Preservation of the individual? What?

(Evolution dictates things?)

However deep judgment is not what is going on with these animals.

What is "deep judgment"?

Flounder:

It's a very simple, and wholly unremarkable point.

But my name is next to it so it must be fought against 'til the death.

Taskiss

07-15-2009, 02:49 PM

Of course (nearly) nobody discounts a god exists.Nevertheless, the most renowned scientists of today and in the past consider it seriously enough to include it in their published scientific dissertations.

Why shouldn't schools?

groverat

07-15-2009, 02:57 PM

Nevertheless, the most renowned scientists of today and in the past consider it seriously enough to include it in their published scientific dissertations.

No. What you are finding are quotations from popular articles, not scientific journals.

Outsider

07-15-2009, 03:01 PM

Nevertheless, the most renowned scientists of today and in the past consider it seriously enough to include it in their published scientific dissertations.

Why shouldn't schools?

Because that's not science.

trumptman

07-15-2009, 03:08 PM

See, now that implies that I really am using someone's religion as a litmus test. I am not. I have said this repeatedly, yet there continues to be the implication that this is my desire. I would appreciate it if you would stop implying that I would.

Since it is not part of the job qualifications, part of the interview process and not part of any application that would be filled out at various levels, exactly what would you call it when you apply this criteria for selection that is outside the process?

OK, i'm going to quote myself again: I would like to know how

Suppose an individual is up for an appointment to an influential position in the civil rights division of DOJ. She asserts her desire to keep those uppity blacks under control. She is otherwise qualified for the job.

deals with the lowest person on the ladder. Indeed, here we have someone who is undoubtedly a member of a team. I have made examples from low-level (janitor) mid-level (position of influence in the civil rights division of DOJ) and high-level (supreme court). I specifically chose such a broad range as it illustrates the prevalence and pertinence of my point. Indeed, it is omnipresent over every hiring decision.

That criteria would be part of a hiring process though. Public agencies at all levels state that their organizations do not discriminate by race and they also state this for religion. So if someone stated they would be racist, they could not be hired due to it being within the job criteria to not act in this manner.

Here it the provision from the application for my own district

________________________is an equal opportunity employer and shall not discriminate
against employees, job applicants, students/parents, or community on the basis of gender, race,
color, religious creed, ancestry, age, marital/parental status, disability, sexual orientation, or Viet-
nam-era veteran status. District programs and activities shall be free from unlawful discrimination.
(BP4030, BP0410)

Please find for me in there shall not have publicly advocated for curricular changes based off one's religious beliefs.

It's a very simple, and wholly unremarkable point.

The very remarkable point is that the two of you advocate criteria that is not part of the job selection process and consider this appropriate but not a litmus test.

trumptman:This isn't about her religious beliefs. There are plenty of Christian educators who have no desire to put pseudoscience into science curriculum. If this were about her religious beliefs then I would have to advocate the removal of everyone involved in science education who believed in creationism. I do not. That would be absurd.

Is this about her religious beliefs? No, it's not.
Is it about her stated desire to inject pseudoscience into the science curriculum? Yes, it is.

How do you know if those Christian educators have no desire? Since it isn't part of your job to ask and since they act professionally, it is a presumption. They could go home each evening and spend hours stuffing envelopes, working on phone banks and donating cash to causes. You would only be able to claim something if they acted unprofessionally.

Has this appointment acted improperly or unprofessionally? Has she gone beyond lobbying?

I sure am. And she might be. But she has already expressed a desire to not do that, which is the entire point. Had she not already worked to inject pseudoscience into the science curriculum this discussion wouldn't be happening.

The rest is a side issue that detracts from the thread. I'll leave it for another time and even be done with this one for now. I believe my points have been made clear for anyone who would read them.

groverat

07-15-2009, 03:18 PM

trumptman:

How do you know if those Christian educators have no desire?

I don't. Did I ever say I could?

My first sentence in this thread:
Regardless of whether or not one accepts the established science of evolutionary biology, it makes no sense to appoint someone to a position of authority when that person opposes the venture she is supposed to be guiding.

Since it isn't part of your job to ask and since they act professionally, it is a presumption. They could go home each evening and spend hours stuffing envelopes, working on phone banks and donating cash to causes. You would only be able to claim something if they acted unprofessionally.

Sure. What does this have to do with anything at all?

Has this appointment acted improperly or unprofessionally? Has she gone beyond lobbying?

Not as far as I know. Did I ever say she had?

Taskiss

07-15-2009, 03:59 PM

No. What you are finding are quotations from popular articles, not scientific journals.Because that's not science.References to God are common in books, lectures, and scientific publications by Hawking. And, yes, it is science. Hawking described himself as "not religious in the normal sense" and he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws". I don't think he necessarily believes in some gray haired european looking dude floating on a cloud, but that's neither here nor there.

Even if God is only used metaphorically, the facts are evident - science, as presented by the most distinguished of scientists, includes the existence of a supreme being in the framework of the presentation. That hasn't held science back. Religion and scientific accomplishments aren't incompatible, as a history of the world shows. In fact, the greatest period of scientific revolution in history occurred simultaneously with profound advances in contemporary theology.

I don't know why some people are threatened by religion...by using God and science in the same sentence (or the same classroom), but I do know that the finest thinkers aren't.

jazzguru

07-15-2009, 04:01 PM

References to God are common in scientific publications by Hawking. And, yes, it is science. Hawking described himself as "not religious in the normal sense" and he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws". I don't think he necessarily believes in some gray haired european looking dude floating on a cloud, but that's either here nor there.

Even if God is only used metaphorically, the facts are evident - science, as presented by the most distinguished of scientists, includes the existence of a supreme being in the framework of the presentation. That hasn't held science back. Religion and scientific accomplishments aren't incompatible, as a history of the world shows. In fact, the greatest period of scientific revolution in history occurred simultaneously with profound advances in contemporary theology.

I don't know why some people are threatened by religion, but I do know that the finest thinkers aren't.

Excellent post. Very well said.

groverat

07-15-2009, 05:06 PM

References to God are common in books, lectures, and scientific publications by Hawking.

What reference to god exists in a "scientific publication" by Stephen Hawking?

I don't know why some people are threatened by religion...by using God and science in the same sentence (or the same classroom), but I do know that the finest thinkers aren't.

Who is threatened by religion? I am merely correcting a misstatement on your part.

I don't know why religious people are so eager to exaggerate the supposed faith of scientific luminaries.

Flounder

07-15-2009, 07:31 PM

Well, we're officially going around in a circle, and I'm tired of having arguments and motivations repeatedly assigned to me which I have repeatedly and clearly stated are not the case.

My point has been made, and I'm quite confident it's been made well.

Taskiss

07-16-2009, 08:33 AM

What reference to god exists in a "scientific publication" by Stephen Hawking?"A Brief History of Time" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_brief_history_of_time)However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason -- for then we should know the mind of God. (p.193)

To a much lesser extent, the book by Hawking "God Created the Integers: The Mathematical Breakthroughs That Changed History" qualifies, though I doubt there's more than a passing reference and I've not tread the book. I'm just throwing that in 'cause I lke the name.Who is threatened by religion? I am merely correcting a misstatement on your part.Not correcting, that would require citation. Perhaps you're challenging my assertion. Since the book I referenced is in the genre "Popular science, sometimes called literature of science" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science), I'd say you're on the hook now for supporting citation.I don't know why religious people are so eager to exaggerate the supposed faith of scientific luminaries.Please show where there was any exaggeration. I've can backup anything I've asserted with links.

jimmac

07-16-2009, 09:09 AM

You would just declare that those who don't engage in the notion to be exercising a poor choice.

I never said you did. I said all the terrible analogies were easy to make up and more like strawmen in that they are much easier to knock down then the main argument.

Your analogy deals with the lowest person on the ladder directly applying action all day long as their job.(Limited to several basic actions) The real example involves someone serving on a school board who will never teach a single day during the course of their entire appointment. If the kids are the floor to which they will apply bacon grease as it were, they will never touch a floor.

And finally, yes I call them bad analogies preciously because they are less apt to apply.

It is interesting that you see the point when defending yourself, but not when defending this person. Two points, first as an English (Congrats on surviving that up to this point BTW) teacher, you could not influence science curriculum but you certainly could influence English curriculum. Your selection of texts could attempt to blatantly bring in religion into the classroom. There have been clear examples of this, lawsuits related to it, etc. Yet in no form or fashion did your district ask you to disclose your religious beliefs or private activities related to it.

This is because regardless of your beliefs in this area, you are capable of separating the two and most people are capable of doing exactly what you do, ie acting professionally.

Hmmmm.... must be one of those in between areas, I've always seen that as both could substitute for the other but are included together. Cool enough.

As you note it has been done throughout history with plants and animals. However it is considered wrong to do it with humans. Taking evolution and artificially manipulating it is not considered bad in the plant and animal realms but is in not in the human realm. If we thought a population of pigs might have a virus, we could kill them all without remorse. If controlling the breeding of animals and not allowing control of their own bodies with regard reproduction is considered just fine in the plant and animal realm.

Are you saying all these ideas are just fine within the human realm and that terms like "ethnic cleansing" are just religious biases?

What we call their morals are merely behaviors that are not associated with pure competition for survival. Since evolution dictates that is the sole directive of life, we consider anything outside of that curious. However deep judgment is not what is going on with these animals. It is nothing more than instincts that cannot easily be associated with attempts to survive by our reasoning and understanding. Often deeper study shows how it is still those types of actions, but just our misunderstanding that was the cause of the problem.(Example, sharing)

What we call their morals are merely behaviors that are not associated with pure competition for survival

Then you clearly need Reeducation.

Try this book for starters :

http://www.jeffreymasson.com/animal-books/when-elephants-weep.html

When Elephants Weep

For over 100 years a chasm has separated animal lovers-who know that their dog, cat, horse, or parrot have complex emotional lives - and scientists, to whom attributing any emotions to animals has been equivalent to heresy. And while a groundswell among a new generation of scientists has begun chipping away at this traditional taboo, and animal lovers eagerly consume whatever they can find about the subject, no one book has yet gathered all the available information into an engaging and authoritative portrait of animals emotional lives. Not, that is, until now.

And it's about more than emotion. It's about self awareness.

Sorry read your post before I logged in. But had to reply to this one.

groverat

07-16-2009, 09:46 AM

Taskiss

07-16-2009, 10:36 AM

Taskiss:

"A Brief History of Time" is explicitly written for a non-academic audience. That's the entire point of the book's existence.

A quote from the Wikipedia article you linked to:
A Brief History of Time attempts to explain a range of subjects in cosmology, including the Big Bang, black holes, light cones and superstring theory, to the nonspecialist reader.Quite a jump that assertion makes, moving the audience from "nonspecialist" to "non-academic". Nope, that assertion is full of fail, groverat.Indeed. You haven't actually read any of this and you think it means something because he uses the word "god" in popular publications. As if the word "god" gives credence to any supernatural reality supposedly connected to the three-letter combination.Your challenge was unusually broad, that's not my fault.What reference to god exists in a "scientific publication" by Stephen Hawking?Still, I qualified the reason I included it - I like the name. It's catchy. Again, and I'm really sorry, but fail, sorta. I won't belabor the point though, but I do suggest you read the disclaimer I put on the assertion again if you want to argue about it.Anyone wishing to understand how fatuous it is to quote that section of A Brief History of Time would do well to read that Wikipedia article, because it reveals just how shallow the logic is that equates these types of popular publications to actual scientific literature.Another fail. I've already allowed (in previous posts) for God to be used as a metaphor as a valid structure within the delivery of scientific presentations. Which, contrary to the thrust of your arguments, is the entirety of my position, as I've also explained in a previous post.

Still more, I've read the book. I suggest folks do that instead of doing the wiki thang. Nothing like going to the source!

Religion doesn't threaten science and there's no valid reason to segment them, other than your personal opinion. "God" and the works of a possible creator/supreme being has been used to counterpoint scientific theory quite eloquently by modern scientists, and your insistence that "it makes no sense" is contrary to the publications of very respected scientific experts.To quote just one sentence from it:
Popular science is a bridge between scientific literature as a professional medium of scientific research, and the realms of popular political and cultural discourse.

I'll ask again:
What reference to god exists in a "scientific publication" by Stephen Hawking?Specifically, in context to this thread, "Popular science" is an excellent teaching medium, as your posts suggests.

You're trying to change descriptions and meanings to further your argument. How 'bout you stick to facts? "Popular Science" is a genre of scientific literature. "A Brief History of the World" is absolutely a presentation of science, an introduction of some very complex scientific theories to the public, and I've backed up my assertions with unambiguous citation. Please do so with your challenges, and the keyword is "unambiguous". Re-defining words really doesn't qualify as "unambiguous". In fact, it's the definition of ambiguity: "uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language ".

groverat

07-16-2009, 10:41 AM

How 'bout you stick to facts? "Popular Science" as a genre is science.

So is Science Fiction.

We must take seriously the possibility of dragon lords.

Religion doesn't threaten science and there's no valid reason to segment them, other than your personal opinion.

Religion threatens science, quite plainly. Is that not what this thread is about, the religious beliefs of an individual leading them to advocate the destruction of science curriculum in the public schools?

Taskiss

07-16-2009, 11:04 AM

So is Science Fiction.

We must take seriously the possibility of dragon lords.Again you attempt to subvert the discussion with mischaracterizations. If you don't want to discuss this intelligently, just say so.Religion threatens science, quite plainly. Is that not what this thread is about, the religious beliefs of an individual leading them to advocate the destruction of science curriculum in the public schools?That's what you apparently asserted by starting the thread, then you posted "Who is threatened by religion?" as if there was no threat, then now you assert there IS a threat?

What is lacking in your argument is citation. I've shown evidence that there is no threat.

groverat, I think I sufficiently responded to your assertions when I posted:science, as presented by the most distinguished of scientists, includes the existence of a supreme being in the framework of the presentation. That hasn't held science back. Religion and scientific accomplishments aren't incompatible, as a history of the world shows. In fact, the greatest period of scientific revolution in history occurred simultaneously with profound advances in contemporary theology.Your fears are unfounded, groverat. The European Renaissance (14th–17th centuries) is my evidence.

jimmac

07-16-2009, 06:50 PM