Eugenie Scott on proposed science standards--do they limit academic freedom?

[benthemiester]

She is also the cosigner of the third humanist manifesto. She is a secular humanist who's own group overtly advocate purging the world of spiritual and religious beliefs. According to there site, they want to utilize a k through 12 program to basically proselytize children into naturalism. Is it a coincidence that the NCSE that she is a director of, also has their own k- 12 program for teaching evolution. She is also the brain child of the Clergy Letter Project and endorses it fully.

[MrMZaccone]

@benthemiester Faith based religion is a lie. Without substance or consistent standards, without a basis in fact or rationality, it cannot provide ANYTHING beyond what can be provided by critical thinking and science ... period.

[benthemiester]

@MrMZaccone "it cannot provide ANYTHING beyond what can be provided by critical thinking and science ... period"

Have you ever heard of love between a man and women or parent and child? How does science prove that this love actually exist and is not simply illusory or based on merely instinct or chemical reactions of the brain? If the later is true this would mean that anyone who ever cried over a heart ache would have to be mentally ill or ignorant.

Have u ever cried over a heart ache?

[DarwinAwardsInc]

@benthemiester "chemical reactions of the brain"

proving the chemical reactions IS proving that love exist, dumbass.

[benthemiester]

Scott is not a scientist. She is an activist. The NCSE was set up as a public relations campaign to advocate Darwinian evolution. I believe she wrote a paper on the female menstrual cycle but only wrote about other peoples field work not her own. I cant find a paper study where she actually did her own field work. Her body of work is pathetic especially for the position she's in. All of her awards have been for her role in advocating the teaching of evolution as a non contestable fact.

[MrMZaccone]

@benthemiester Darwinian evolution needs no advocate. It is the ONLY explanation for the facts that stands up under rational scrutiny. YOU are the one who is not a scientist.

[benthemiester]

@MrMZaccone I never said I dont believe in evolution, natural selection, genetic drift etc. I merely dispute the assumptions of molecule to man macro evolution according to the modern Darwinian synthesis.

[MrMZaccone]

@benthemiester What "assumption" (like evolution is just an assumption, yeah right!) would you prefer? Anything you can come up with has less evidence than current evolutionary theory. Where does that leave you?

[benthemiester]

@MrMZaccone The modern synth is dead. Why do u think the Altenberg 16 summit was convened? The modern Darwinian synthesis will be replaced with epigeneitcs and self organization models. Its already happened. The limitations of natural selection & random mutation is now being openly questioned and disputed by even the most devout EVO DEVO'S. Even Massimo Pigliucci is calling for relaxing assumptions of the current synthesis. The problem is, how do scientist tell the gen public they were wrong?

[MrMZaccone]

@benthemiester OK. Perhaps I've just misunderstood you but I see no problem in this. It's still not that great a change in direction.

[chodaboy51500]

I'm beginning to think it best to let Texas go. Let them secede. Let everyone who wants religion taught in school move there so their children can be brought up as good christian drones. Let them recess into and agrarian society so the rest of this country can excel and become a world leader in science.

If they want to be stupid let them be stupid by themselves and leave the rest of us to learn.

[screaminguitars]

Whoa,Whoa,Whoa @chodaboy, I got kids goin' to highschool in texas... I promise I would move if I could, but that's not the point. If you think this problem is that isolated or can be isolated via borders, then you havn't been paying attention.

[chodaboy51500]

I agree it isn't isolated, which scares me. I hope the science teachers there are fighting the BS. At least your children have a rational parent.

[RadarKat73080]

Fact is not based on popular opinion. Schools should teach kids, among other things, to think for themselves.

[chodaboy51500]

No. School is not to teach kids to think for themselves. School is there to teach the basics, the foundations of our learning. Thinking for themselves comes AFTER school.

How can you teach a subject when you put the students in control of the class, to think what ever the hell they want.

Fact is just an observation made and recorded. It has nothing to do with opinion. Theories are an explanation of the facts.

[RadarKat73080]

You are confused. See my first sentence.

[chodaboy51500]

I read your first sentence correctly and I still agree with it. Fact has nothing to do with opinion its just a thing observed and recorded. interpretation is where opinion comes in.

I still do not agree that school should be for teaching kids to think for themselves. They already do that. School is to teach kids to think correctly. Thinking freely is useless if you are not first taught to think critically.

[chodaboy51500]

If meaning "think for themselves" as in learning to thing properly and critically for themselves, then yes, I agree.

But established science should be taught just as that established science.

[RadarKat73080]

Agreed.

[artgoat]

THIS is the proposed standard that is giving Donald McLeroy hairballs? He's just making it more obvious that "teach the weaknesses" is code-speak for creationist indoctrination. Definitely, though, if "teach the weaknesses" becomes a standard, I hope that science teachers really LEAN on the weaknesses of Creation "Science."

[unaka2012]

Go Eugenie Go!