Posted on 07/03/2008 9:10:12 PM PDT by Soliton
When a science director loses her job, it seems lots of people have an opinion about it.
But after all, it's one woman and one job.
"It's because this is really about what kind of education Texas students get in their public schools," Kathy Miller of the Texas Freedom Network said.
Evolution supporters like Miller are thinking about the bigger picture in regards to what happened to Comer.
The Texas Education Agency told Comer she had failed to remain neutral in the evolution versus creationism debate.
"It's kind of like asking the science director to be neutral on whether the earth is round and revolves around the sun," Miller said.
Miller said the idea of a divine creator is a religious idea, not a scientific one, which is why it's not in Texas textbooks.
(Excerpt) Read more at news8austin.com ...
ping for later
There is no possible way that the government schools can teach about the origins of life and of man in a religiously neutral manner. Teaching about man's beginnings from a god-less point of view is **not** religiously neutral. Teaching about the earliest humans from a God-centered point of view is not religiously neutral either! And there is no way that government school can teach both a God-centered and godless point simultaneously.
The fight over evolution, intelligent design, and creationism is merely one of likely **thousands** of way that the most powerful political gets to tyrannize and trample conscience of the other.
Get rid of government schooling! They are a First Amendment and freedom of conscience nightmare!
How about they just teach science and let the various folks whose oxen are gored squeal to themselves?
1) Government forcing “just science” ( within a god-less worldview framework) on immature children is not religiously neutral for many families.
2)Government forcing a God-centered worldview regarding the origin of man is not religiously neutral to many families.
3) And...Of course is impossible for the government to both.
The solution of course would be to start the process of privatizing K-12 education. Let principals, teachers, and parents mutual agree upon whether the private school will be godless or God-centered in its worldview. Both views have profound religious, political, and cultural consequences for the child.
“How about they just teach science and let the various folks whose oxen are gored squeal to themselves.”
Ping.
You asked me a question. I will ask you a question.
Why don't we end these philosophical K-12 wars ( on this an thousands of other non-negotiable issues) and begin privatizing universal education with vouchers and tax credits?
By the way, I “believe” in evolution and taught it ( minimally) to my homeschooled children within a God-centered philosophic framework.
Science has always been "godless" in the sense that it seeks natural causes for phenomena. That goal and the accompanying methodology was codified by Newton in his Principia. There are thousands of religions, denominations and cults teaching all kinds of things that are incompatible with the findings of science. Even the left wing has its share of rubbish and pseudoscience. If you try to be neutral toward every ideology, you are left with nothing.
Even math has its controversies. Is pi "normal"?
Go for it. The first step is to get elected on that platform.
T%hat would be to easy. Have physics teachers teach physics, and Chemistry teachers Chemistry. If there is a call for a world religions class then offer that, or philosophy class as well.
It would be nice if the schools could remain neutral, but do we really want our children taught that Islam is on par with Christianity, that Buddhism is as valid as Christianity?
Does anyone want there children being taught Wiccan?
I have suggested that to her before, she has never once responded.
My husband and I attended Catholic K-12 schools and Catholic university. At no time was science “god-less”.
Yet....I have a doctorate in a health profession and my husband has Ph.D. in biochemistry, worked for an international chemical company, and is the holder of 6 patents. Two of our kids hold B.S. degrees in mathematics, and the older one has a masters in math.
Science in our family never was, is not now, and never will be god-less.
The **point** is:
Should government government be **forcing** on children a god-less worldview with regard to science ( in this case, evolution)?
Answer: NO! Doing so is trampling the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Solution: Begin privatizing K-12 education. Get government out of the education business because education can **never** be religiously neutral.
I am doing my part here on these message boards.
As it is now, the waiting lists for charters and vouchers and tax credit programs are **enormous**. The Milton Friedman polls show that the percentage of parents who would choose a government school for their child over charters, private, or home schooling is in the single digits. Legislators can not stand against that level of pressure.
Also....It is becoming plain there is no such thing as a religiously neutral education in science or any other subject (even teaching about Pi.) Government needs to get out of it, not only because of the philosophical conflicts over evolution but also a few thousand other non-neutral other topics as well.
( By the way, I “believe” in evolution but filtered through a God-centered worldview.)
Then you will no doubt be able to provide examples of phenomena you study in science where God is the explanation. And you will no doubt share with us the methodologies you employ to arrive at your conclusions that God explains the phenomena under study.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The entire natural world, all natural law, and even mathematics reflect the glory of a rational God. ( Even Pi.) Somehow my husband I earned doctorates and 2 of our 4 children excelled in math applying a God-centered worldview.
When subjects ( science and non-science) are taught using a godless religious worldview the students are taught that God is irrelevant. An irrelevant God is **not** religiously neutral. There are non-neutral consequences to this philosophy that are profoundly religious, cultural, and political as well. These non-neutral consequences effect the child, his life, and all of society, and government as well.
That schools are not religiously neutral is no longer a unique idea. It is now widely accepted by many conservatives. It is becoming evident that government schooling can not be reconciled with the First Amendment. Will the Supreme Court ever rule on this? Who knows? If they do I hope that we have judges who will strictly interpret and apply the Constitution.
It is time we ended the evolution wars! Enough already! Begin the privatization of universal education and these eternal conflicts over evolution and thousands of other issues will melt away like ice cream in July.
If God is relevant to the practice of science then you will no doubt be able to provide examples of phenomena you study in science where God is the explanation. And you will no doubt share with us the methodologies you employ to arrive at your conclusions that God explains the phenomena under study.
Sorry, js1138, I am not getting into a philosophic discussion about whether God can or can not be shown to be working in science. That is between you and your God or non--God. Only you and your conscience can resolve this for you.
The **point** is that government schools can have only **one** of two religious worldviews: God-centered or godless. Neither is religiously neutral. Both have profound religious, cultural, and political consequences.
The origins of man can **NOT** be taught in a religiously neutral manner because there are only 2 ways to teach it. One is that evolution is God-centered and God-directed ( this is the philosophy that my Ph.D research chemist, and holder of 6 patents, and I share) and the other is godless. Both have profound religious, cultural, and political consequences. Just as it impossible for me to prove that evolution is God-directed, it is also impossible for you to prove that it is **not** God-directed. It is a question that can not be subjected to scientific investigation. Your belief is based upon faith just as much as mine.
There is only **ONE** solution to ending the eternal philosophical wars in government education: Privatize education. Begin the process.
Finally, my husband and I and the two of our 4 children who are educated in the sciences are living proof that it is completely possible to be highly successful in the sciences and believe in God, and believe that God directs all things ( including evolution). There are scientist by the **thousands** who are also believer, and are highly successful in their scientific pursuits.
The **real** bullies here are the people on **both** sides of the evolution question who want to shove their worldview down the throats of other people's children. Work to get rid of the government schools and neither side will be able to do that.
Agreed. But then (until we can, at some presently unforeseeable time in the future, transition to private education) it's O.K. to simply teach evolution as a scientific theory in biology, independent of world-view, and allow students to deal with any (if any) attendant world-view issues as they wish? Right?
I ask 'cause I'm a little confused. You distinguish yourself from the "bullies" pushing the notion that evolution has, and should be taught as having, necessary and obvious world-view implications. But at the same time you seem to be almost implying that it can't possibly be taught independently of world-view implications. This puts you, in a way, pretty close to the "bullies".
So can we get a clarification? Until such time as your preferred educational model is achieved, will you join is in denying the "bullies" and insisting that evolution be taught in a straightforward, but non-ideological fashion?
The earth being round has nothing to do with me being or not being a bully.
That the education of children is **never** religiously neutral is an axiom has nothing to do with me or anyone else being a bully.
Evolution can NOT be taught independently of worldview. This is axiomatic. It is true in the same way as the earth being round is true. Either godless or God-centered each will have non-neutral religious consequences.
The solution is to get government out of the education business because NO education is religiously neutral. It is impossible! This is true for evolution as well as a thousand other "flash-point" issues.
So can we get a clarification? Until such time as your preferred educational model is achieved, will you join is in denying the "bullies" and insisting that evolution be taught in a straightforward, but non-ideological fashion?
I will not join either side.
I am disgusted with them both. Each wants the power of compulsory ( that means police threat) government schools to force their worldview down throat of other people's children, and they want their taxpaying neighbor to pay for the propagation of their anointed worldview, as well.
End the curriculum and school policy wars! Get government out of the education business.
straightforward, but non-ideological fashion?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK...So...Let’s say a government school does this, and they scrub God as the creator from the curriculum.
Do you get it?
This is teaching that God is irrelevant and of limited or no importance in the study and application of science. This is **NOT** a religiously neutral lesson and doing this has cultural and political consequences for all of us as well!
Sorry...but there is only **one** solution that respects the freedom of conscience of all. Get government out of the education business. Let parents, teachers, and principals decide these matters quietly and amicably in the private setting of a private school.
Your attitude pretends there is nothing to chose, for instance, between the following three possibilities:
1) The biology teacher insists that everything in the textbook and official curricula concerning evolution is a load of nonsense 'cause Goddidit all.
2) The biology teacher insists that evolution disproves God and students should just accept that their religious beliefs are nothing but myths.
3) The biology teacher explains that scientists consider the evidence persuasive that diverse living things share a common ancestry. If students raise the issue of how this relates to religious beliefs, the teacher explains that there are many widely differing opinions on this, and each student is fully entitled to their own. If they choose to reject evolution for some religious or philosophical reason, or for any reason, or for no reason, that's perfectly fine. They only expected to understand (not necesarily accept or believe) the basics of the subject because it's part of science and therefore part of the curriculum.
It would be obvious to most people that these approaches are VASTLY different. But you insist that nothing can be done until the Utopia. This forces you to pretend there's no difference, and no reason in the meantime to even strive for the third option, and to correct or penalize teachers who opt for either of the other two.
You self-righteously posture at decrying the "bullies" who would misuse the science curricula to advance their ideologies, but then, like a criminal coddling liberal, you turn around and insist they can't help doing so -- that it's even impossible for them to avoid doing so -- and so obviously we really can't blame them, or hold them responsible, or hold them to a proper professional standard.
I think your argument here only holds together on the assumption that students, generally older teenagers by the time they learn anything about evolution (if the subject is even covered at all) are almost unbelievably stupid.
My perception is that most kids in public schools understand that it is generally considered inappropriate, and fraught with legal difficulties, for their schools and their teachers to address religious issues, whether in advocacy or opposition.
But your argument fantastically assumes that children are utterly unaware of this underlying context, and would therefore infer that a failure to affirmatively mention God is equivalent to an affirmative denial of God.
Anyone who says there are only two possibilities in a complex situation is a fool.
But if you want to teach God directed evolution as science, you will no doubt be able to provide a specific example of an event in evolution that was God directed and the circumstances under which the direction was observed.
The actual observation is that change is no more directed than the toss of dice. Of course it is possible to believe that dice are directed, but that is religion, not science.
There are only **2** worldviews: God centered and godless.
So...while their might be great variety of teaching within the structure of these worldviews ( godless or God-centered) the overall worldview will be one or the other. Both have profound religious, cultural, and political consequences.
But if you want to teach God directed evolution as science, you will no doubt be able to provide a specific example of an event in evolution that was God directed and the circumstances under which the direction was observed.
If you make that demand of the God-centered worldview then you must make that demand of the godless worlview. The godless worldview proponent must prove that evolution was **not** under the direction of God.
OK prove to us that the creation of the universe, the appearance of life on earth, and evolution of man did **not** have any influence from God.
Do you see? **Every** sentient being falls into one or the other worldview. They either view life through the worldview lenses of godless or they see life as God-centered. This includes **all** schools. It is axiomatic!
The existence of God or His non-existence can not be subjected to scientific examination and therefore any belief about His existence or not can not be proved or disproved.
What I see are a **lot** of bullies on both sides who wish to use compulsory government schools to force their worldview on other people's children. Compulsory means that the government can and does use police action to force kids into the school and to force citizens to pay for it.
Then discussion of God has no place in science or in a science classroom. That is my point. I'm glad you agree.
and the point applies to science classrooms in private and religious schools also. Science has no relevance to religion.
**Your** religious belief would design a school that excluded God from the science class room.
My husband and I attended Catholic elementary, high school, and universities science classes where God's direction, God's order, and God's purpose was reinforced in all things ( including science).
Please remember that my husband is the holder of a Ph.D. in biochemistry, the holder of six patents, and research team leader for a major chemical firm. I hold a doctorate in a health profession.
I'm glad you agree.
No, I do not agree. Although I am a believer in evolution, if I were to open a private school, our religious beliefs would be reinforced in every class ( including science.)
However....Unlike the bullies on both sides of this issue I have no desire to use government police threat to force my worldview on other people's children.
and the point applies to science classrooms in private and religious schools also. Science has no relevance to religion.
Hiel Hitler!
The existence of God or His non-existence can not be subjected to scientific examination and therefore any belief about His existence or not can not be proved or disproved.
You are the author of both of these statements, and yet you see no problem. Why would an entity which cannot be subjected to scientific examination be relevant in a science classroom?
In that case, both of you should know enough about science and the scientific method to know that since The existence of God or His non-existence can not be subjected to scientific examination and therefore any belief about His existence or not can not be proved or disproved, discussion of God has no place in the science classroom, other than to say that science can't address God because any belief about his existence or not cannot be proved or disproved.
You are asking this question because of your worldview.
A religious person would ask the following question:
” Why would God be absent from **any** class? “
I am completely respectful of those who hold a godless worldview. I **respect** their desire not to have God interjected into the subjects their children are learning in school.
I am also respectful of those parents who **do** want their religious beliefs reinforced throughout the curriculum.
The solution is give parents choice! It is time to stop the philosophical bullying. Begin privatizing universal K-12 education.
No, because I have a normal understanding of logic.
Why would an entity which cannot be subjected to scientific examination be relevant in a science classroom?
Parents already do have a choice. They can send their kids to private schools or home-school them.
(However I agree with you that this choice should be rendered finacially neutral.)
Another choice is to supplement public school education with religious instruction and context at home and at church.
You believe the above because of your religious worldview.
Scrubbing God is **not** religiously neutral, neither is including Him. There is **no** way to resolve the conflict.
My husband and I acquired the bulk of our educations in Catholic Universities, high schools, elementary schools. We know first hand that it is possible to learn science within a God-centered worldveiw. Science and the natural world reflect the glory of a rational God.
Please! Let's stop the bullying from both sides. Privatize K-12 education. If parents want an atheistic Secular Humanist worldview, great for them. If parents want a God-centered worlview then wonderful.
It is surprising, Amelia and js1138, when I suggest that we end the bullying and privatize education, I never get a challenging response from a creationist or an ID person. I only get these challenges from those who feel “discussion of God has no place in the science classroom,”
Amelia you did generously add:
“( other than to say that science can't address God because any belief about his existence or not cannot be proved or disproved.”
Profound, maybe. But such worldview differences do not pervade and determine the substantive content of ALL knowledge, and you come very close to pretending they do.
Arithmetic, for instance, isn't determined by world view. 1+1=2 for the atheist as well as the theist. Additionally, notwithstanding your hysterics, atheists and theist have little evident problem agreeing on much, much more than this. For instance there's no apparently world-view distinction on the question of how plants synthesis carbohydrates from sunlight, despite the fact the the details of photosynthesis were worked against the backdrop of the Darwinian controversies, and some aspect thereof remain poorly understood.
Indeed science as a whole -- as far as the particular content of it's facts, principles and theories; not the largely questions regarding the relation of God to His creation -- is largely world-view independent. Even wrt to evolution the vast bulk of the controversialism comes from outside identity groups. Within science this is very little cleavage on ANY purely scientific debate that falls along atheist/theist lines. The very occasional exceptions (e.g. big bang theory versus steady state) tend to prove the rule, in that atheists now have no problem accepting the big bang even though it was initially somewhat identified with theists, or rejecting the steady state model even though it was initially somewhat favored by non-theists.
In short there is a VAST diversity of world-view orientations among working scientists, yet this almost never determines their stand on particular theories, and even in the very rare cases where it does (to some limited extent), that differentiation never survives subsequent clarification and investigation of the the problem.
So why do you insist that science must be world-view determined when scientists themselves don't find this to be the case?
Why would an entity which cannot be subjected to scientific examination be relevant in a science classroom? Even in a church school?
This is a talking point that I believe likely originated with the NEA. Let's examine this.
Parents have the choice to **ransom** their children from the government schools. If they can not afford to do this then they are under police threat to submit to the will of the government.
What can we call the extra paid to liberate a child from the government indoctrination camps?
* Ransom
* A Freedom of Conscience Tax
* A Freedom of Religion Tax
* A Freedom from the Government Religion of Secular Humanism Tax
* An Escape from the Government Godless Indoctrination Tax
That you are asking this question reflects your godless worldview.
Those who share a God-centered worldview are asking, “Why would you scrub God from the classroom?”
I can only say that we must stop the bullying on both sides on likely thousands of issues on which there can **never** be compromise.
Could you compromise on have God in science class? No, you can not, nor should you!
Should those who believe in a God-centered worlview compromise? No they can not, nor should they.
If you consider the use of logic and the application of the scientific method to be "bullying" I'm not sure what point there could possibly be in attempting to discuss this issue with you.
Your own words have already proven you wrong.
Science itself is not worldview determined but how it is **taught** absolutely is worlveiw determined. How it is taught is framed in a godless worldview or framed in a God-centered worldview. This is axiomatic.
Some scientists learned their science in classrooms that upheld a godless approach to teaching.
Other scientists learned their science in classrooms where God's hand was acknowledged in all things.
My Ph.D. biochemist, holder of 6 patents, worldwide lecturer, author of many papers published in the leading journals, research team leader for one of the world's leading chemistry firms holds to a God-centered worldview.
My husband and I attended a highly ranked and well respected Catholic university. Graduates from its science programs were accepted into the world's most prestigious science programs. So....It is possible to hold a God-centered worldview and be highly successful in science and in the applied sciences. ( Ditto for the graduates of our Catholic high schools)
Let parents, teachers, and principals determine whether the science taught in the classroom will be framed in a godless or God-centered worldview. Privatize education.
How many of the patent applications and journal articles mention God?
You are correct, to a certain point. Where you are incorrect, in my opinion, is in your use of a definite article (the) as opposed to an indefinite article (a) before the word school (bolded above.)
I spent 12 years in Catholic schools and know for a fact government force could keep me in school.
In the beginning I truly hated school and tried to get out of it any way I could, including one morning going back down the stairs as the others were going up, hiding behind the convent fence and then running dow the block to hide on a neighbor's bricked in stoop.
The neighbor eventually found me, ratted me out to my mother who proceeded to march me to the principal's office. Sister Mary Gemma has already called my mother to find out why I wasn't there when I had been seen on the mandatory schoolyard line to march into the building.
Sister informed me that my daddy would be arrested if I did not attend school, and scoffed at my attitude that since he was a policeman he couldn't be arrested.
That was 1966 and I was in 1st Grade.
Things are no different now, some 40+ years later. The government still mandates some form of eduation, public or private, with the use of police force.
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight. [a];
The above explains why a science class scrubbed clean of any reference to God in in conflict with Christian belief. Christians are commanded to acknowledge God in all things.
Do I as a Christian want to use the threat of government school police action to force my belief on other people's children? NO, I do not.
Do I think that those subscribing to the godless worldview should force their worldview on other people's children? NO, I do not!
Both worldviews can not be taught simultaneously, therefore get government **OUT** of the compulsory education business. Let's start the process of privatizing the schools
I’m simply asking for a rational answer to a simple question, one posed by your own conflicting statements.
Why would an entity which cannot be subjected to scientific examination be relevant in a science classroom? Even in a church school?
* Ransom
* A Freedom of Conscience Tax
* A Freedom of Religion Tax
* A Freedom from the Government Religion of Secular Humanism Tax
* An Escape from the Government Godless Indoctrination Tax
Unfortunately the taxpayer gets no reprieve from having to support the government establishment of the godless religion of Secular Humanism in the government schools.
What I am posting is a **powerful** argument that **will** be picked up by the larger conservative press.
While science itself is neutral the teaching of it can **never* be. The classroom will teach science within a godless worldview framework or it will use a God-centered one. Neither is religiously neutral.
Stop the force! Let parents choose.
WRONG answer.
You totaly ignored the point of my post.
Address my point and then I will address yours.
But...Let parents decide. Some prefer a godless worldview ( such as you, Amelia). My parents and my husband's parents preferred a God centered point of view.
Let the taxpayers decide as well! Begin instituting tax credits so that taxpayers can support the religious worldview of their choosing.
please! Let's stop the trampling of freedom of conscience.
By the way, I doubt if any children ever read anything my husband published.
Also,... the scientists were completely free to read his work or not. The government did not force these scientists into a prison-like buildings, confine them to hard plastic seats, and order them to listen to or read his work.
Sorry you feel that way.
This is a powerful argument that has already been picked up by the mainstream conservative press. Cato did a nice essay on the issue of freedom of conscience.
In other words, no, your husband did not feel compelled to mention God in his patent applications or his journal articles - probably because such mention would have been irrelevant.
I suppose that meant that your husband was being a hypocrite and denying his faith, since Christians are commanded to acknowledge God in all things, or maybe it didn't?
Some prefer a godless worldview ( such as you, Amelia).
Actually, you have no idea what my "worldview" is, unless your "doctorate in a health profession" included training in reading the minds of people you've never seen, which doesn't seem likely.
You are still refusing to address my point.
That refusal is weakening your own argument. Sit back a few minutes and reread my post, I would expect someone with your intelligence to get the point as it was pretty point blankly made.
You are still refusing to address my point.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The point is that government mandates education.
A child will attend a religiously non-neutral government school that preachers and will indoctrinate him in the government religion of Secular Humanism unless the parent can do the following:
Ransom their child by paying a freedom of religious conscience tax in the form of private school tuition or homeschooling expenses and lost income of the mom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.