Monkeying with SB2692

 “A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
   – Albert Einstein

            I am constantly amazed at the continual attempts of people of one faith to persuade people of another faith, or none, to dump their beliefs in favor of their religion. Do they honestly believe that by dropping by my home, un-announced, that I will be so enamored with their message that I will abandon a lifelong belief system in favor of theirs?  If so, what does that have to say about the strength of my character?  Do they really want someone so week willed to be a member of their religion?  Anyway, some people, who feel compelled to share their beliefs, are working to convert heathens wherever they find them. 

     This kind of thing is particularly pernicious when it comes to public school.  I am talking about groups that are attempting to give creation myths equal time in science class rooms.  The latest attempt is currently being made in Florida by Senator Ronda Storms and Representative Allen Hays.  Senate Bill SB2692 is another thinly veiled attempt to teach children in Florida creationist ideas on the origin of man.  The language is quite clever, and doesn’t actually say anything about teaching creationism.  It simply states that teachers or students who hold different views besides the scientific theory of evolution can not be discriminated against.  It claims to be an academic freedom act. You would think that such a bill would be in reaction to some serious problem in Florida with the persecution of people that hold alternative view points on the origin of man.  Or maybe there are many different scientific theories on the origin of man; and that there are serious issues with teachers not being allowed to teach one scientific theory over another.  You would also be wrong.  It is an attempt to open the door for teaching creationists views in school with out any repercussions.   Can anyone tell me what it means to “to have the right to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full rangeof scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution”?   There is a “full range of scientific views”?  These are not the words used by anyone concerned with science. “View” it is just another word for opinion.  Someones opinion that is not based on evidence is a mater of faith.  Faith does not belong in a science class room.  No one gets an A on a biology exam by answering: “God did it, so it’s a miracle” to every question.
            Remember when someone wants to teach religion in school they are not concerned about their own children, they already get all the faith education they want in church.  They want to teach your children their religion in school.  This is not about different view points, or diversity or equal time for different opinions.  If this were true then the entire science curriculum would turn into a theology class on comparative religions and their myths on the origin of man.  Which religion or creation belief is it that Senator Storms wishes to teach your children?  Hindu?  Muslim? Christian?  Buddhist?  The writers of this bill are attempting to address concerns from specific religious groups with an agenda. The agenda is to further their religious beliefs by indoctrinating your children into their church.  I am sure that this is done for the best of reasons.  I am sure that they view this as a duty to god to save people from an eternity of torment in hell.  I am sure that the Taliban would also wish to have a word about your school curriculum.  Who decides what is included?  Who decides how much science should be in science class or how much faith?
            Science is about teaching a theory that is provable through independent experimentation.  Not a consensus of opinion from whoever happens to have the loudest mouths, or the largest campaign contributors. Science education is far too important to monkey with faith. (Pun intended)  It would be great if Pi = 3 but don’t try to teach it in math. Church and home is the proper venue for faith based education. 

            This is not a new tactic for proponents of creationism, or as it is becoming known as “intelligent design”.  Please explore this site for more information on a similar incident in Kansas in 2005.

            My favorite part of this bill is paragraph (7) “This section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.” 

Then what is its purpose?  It asks that all beliefs be treated equally.  Should all theories scientific or otherwise be presented as just as objective and rational as any other?  Once the door is open all bets are off, anyone can teach anything.

All in the name of science

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.”

  • Galileo Galilei

More news:  Now the same group is going for the Florida house check out House Bill 1483


4 thoughts on “Monkeying with SB2692

  1. Archvillain says:

    You cannot establish science through legislation. If you could, then any scientific discovery could be undone by legislative fiat.

    “Be it resolved that, by a majority vote in the House of Burgesses, objects on Earth shall fall at a constant velocity. This law further mandates that the Speed of Light be abolished in favor of Aristotle’s declaration that light has an infinite velocity. The House further establishes that Galileo’s proof of heliocentrism- having failed a court test (Catholic Church v. Galileo Galile, 1616)- shall be rendered void, and Aristotelian Geocentrism shall be the Law in the Commonwealth.”

    That little example is where the proposed Bill eventually leads. Long before we get to that point, however, we’ll get to the point where the United States loses the technological edge over the rest of the world which we currently enjoy. What’s next, legislating the teaching of alternatives to the Theory of Gravity? How about a nice little jaunt into State-mandated teaching of Lysenkoism (look it up, then remove the authors of this Bill from office).

    “It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.” -RAH

    Don’t think it can’t happen here. Check out the laws of the Puritan colonies in America prior to 1700. It already has.

    Remember the Four Boxes of Liberty

  2. Through what scientific method did you come to your conclusions? When was the last time you observed the creation of the universe? Do you genuinely believe that science is so monolithic that there can be no opposing hypotheses? (How’s that for a synonym for view?) Just some questions.

    All this crying about losing our technological edge. How does anyone’s view on the science of our origins effect technology? Was Pasteur any less of a scientist because he was a creationist? Just a few more questions.



  3. “Do you genuinely believe that science is so monolithic that there can be no opposing hypotheses?”

    The above statement proves that the author does not understand science method. Scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Science is not a thing that can be described as monolithic, only religion can fit that description. Science is a method of investigation, not a dogma. In Science everything and anything is questioned and independently verified. Bring opposing hypotheses for testing, if it can be verified to be true consistently and independently then it will be adopted as a proven theory. If a theory can not be verified through testing or extrapolating hard data then it is a mater of faith.
    There is nothing wrong with faith. I have faith that my wife loves me; I don’t need to chemically analyze it for proof. Faith is an important part of life, love and happiness. It simply is not science. Putting faith into scientific method undermines the method itself. No one would think to put faith into mathematics, you can’t solve an equation by praying, or hoping the problem will turn out right. But you can have faith in the ability of a mathematician, or a scientist. You can believe that his skills are god given, but to hold that all theories are just as valid and be presented equally in the name of science is to undermine and eventually destroy the method that is used.
    No one seriously proposes that each faith provide equal time to all religious points of view in church. Why would a religious group demand equal time in a science class room?

  4. spudgun says:

    Yea, you know what? I stopped believing in the tooth fairy years ago.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: