People do keep tabs… Funny thing is some people think that a Catholic could in principal accept evolution this means some how that we reject ‘creationism’. Such is not the case and indeed we are not free to reject creationism as such. Now today’s popular image of the 6 day creation, the current version of which I believe was first described in the late 1800s… That’s another matter.Hard numbers? Just go on the internet and you will find a ton of articles, with one showing a map, where “creationism” is being taught in public schools. The anti-religious are watching you. They have every single target identified. They name names. That’s why a few post here because those who disagree must be forced to conform.
Who cares if a lot of kids don’t graduate high school or that a good portion of the country is functionally illiterate as long as they believe this one thing? And they will not rest until full compliance is achieved.
Peace,
Ed
You know , I really do feel sorry for people who just love to argue for the sake of arguing, who split hairs with every paragraph. Those reading my posts here will judge whether I have spoken the truth or not. It is not my purpose to convince everyone because some people cannot be convinced of anything.,Linus, the number of people who read this thread is not at all correlated with the number of bad science teachers, or the number of science classrooms where bad science is being taught. Surely you can understand that?
Fair enough. We add that:
Let’s set that issue aside. If a scientist, outside of the classroom, wishes to express his or her own opinion on any issue, I don’t think there’s a problem.
- How many science classrooms teach bad science?
- How many science classrooms teach bad philosophy / philosophy that shouldn’t be taught in a sciene classroom?
But let’s try and actually get hard data for the two questions I posed above. That’s the only way we can determine whether this discussion is worthwhile.
I don’t love argument for the sake of argument. I love discussion because it is, in my opinion, the best way to figure out the truth. I don’t understand why you’re not trying, as I am, to simply figure out what exactly is going on in science classrooms. Don’t you agree that the more data we have, the better able we will be to have a discussion about the issue?You know , I really do feel sorry for people who just love to argue for the sake of arguing, who split hairs with every paragraph. Those reading my posts here will judge whether I have spoken the truth or not. It is not my purpose to convince everyone because some people cannot be convinced of anything.,
I just did - unfortunately, the information that comes up is (obviously) very skewed in one direction. We’re trying to find objective, verifiable data (to the extent that it exists) to answer an empirical question.If you just " google " this topic - spiritual dangers to college students - and similar ones you will find plenty of references dealing with the O.P. and similar concerns. So just make the effort. Linus2nd
I do not believe that your OP will do any good. In fact I believe that it will do more harm. It comes across as considering all science to be pseudo science and can easily be considered to be lumped in with a number of other “science is evil” threads on these and other boards. It is simply giving fuel to the fire for people that for one reason or another have a real problem with science.I never said no people think science is bad, I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. But I think most people think science is good, very productive. I’ve asked you to actually check out the link to the Magis Center. Don’t you think Fr. Spitzer know what he is talking about?
And no, I have not read through each post, I made my point in the O.P. I am surprised that you found it so objectionable. Can’t please everyone. Some people just like to argue. What else can I say?
Over 1,600 folks have stopped by. Very satisfactory. My O.P. will do some good in spite of nay sayers. Linus2nd
I don’t think you can make those kinds of assumptions. Many of those stopping by may very well be like me that stopped by the thread to defend science for the umpteenth time.The numbers of those who have stopped by are now over 1,700. Obviously many parents have personal reasons to be concerned. This is not to say that all those stopping by are parents but we can assume a goodly number are and we can assume that a certain number of those are non-parents, perhaps students who also recognize the need.
The problem is not limited to teachers teaching bad science, I mean those who stretch their teaching beyond the proper limits of science. I’m sure that doesn’t occur except perhaps when it comes to discussing evolution, ethics, medical practices, certaing subjects in life sciences, etc. The problem surfaces also in spontaneous remarks by teachers and instructors which are not part of the course cirriculum and the social interactions that occur outside the classroom, sponsered lectures, that kind of thing. Linus2nd
Quite right!I don’t think you can make those kinds of assumptions. Many of those stopping by may very well be like me that stopped by the thread to defend science for the umpteenth time.
And if I just “google” alien abductions, I will get thousands of pages describing them and the people that claim it has happened to them. Doesn’t make it true.You know , I really do feel sorry for people who just love to argue for the sake of arguing, who split hairs with every paragraph. Those reading my posts here will judge whether I have spoken the truth or not. It is not my purpose to convince everyone because some people cannot be convinced of anything.,
If you just " google " this topic - spiritual dangers to college students - and similar ones you will find plenty of references dealing with the O.P. and similar concerns. So just make the effort. Linus2nd
P.S. The thread now has over 2,000 hits, that is up 300 from this morning alone. Not a bad four or five days. I would invite those viewing to contribute their own experiences and concerns.
The OP is doing a great deal of good by bringing this up. The anti-religious are doing an excellent job of tracking each and every school that does not conform.I do not believe that your OP will do any good. In fact I believe that it will do more harm. It comes across as considering all science to be pseudo science and can easily be considered to be lumped in with a number of other “science is evil” threads on these and other boards. It is simply giving fuel to the fire for people that for one reason or another have a real problem with science.
Accurate science instruction should be the goal and I believe that for the majority of educators that is the goal. When the title of the post is protecting your kids from scientific gibberish that is not bringing an issue to light. That is an attempt to stir the pot and further an agenda.The OP is doing a great deal of good by bringing this up. The anti-religious are doing an excellent job of tracking each and every school that does not conform.
Am I saying science is evil? No. That is an unfounded, emotional remark, but that’s where this usually goes. From another forum:
“It makes me ill that there are people that hate education so much they want to usurp the process with this religious creationism. IT is not science it is religion!! It does not belong in schools. Kids spend 6 hours a day in school, That leave18 hours for parental religious propaganda!!!”
That is the other side of the story.
You know something’s irrational when people resort to accusing others that they think science is evil, hate education, are anti-knowledge, and are the “victims” of religious propaganda.
That is why every single time it goes in that direction, my confidence in teaching in public schools, especially in science classes, drops another notch. In other words, those who insist I bow down tells me this is not about science AT ALL. It’s about promoting a worldview. Period.
So to all those people who are carefully watching all Christian/conservative web sites looking for “wrong” statements about their belief system, you’ve only convinced me that accurate science instruction is not the goal.
Peace,
Ed
Can you identify this agenda? It seems to me that there is good evidence of two things: The State deciding what kids should learn even if the material means exposing kids to things before they are mentally or emotionally mature enough to understand them. And are objectionable to parents:Accurate science instruction should be the goal and I believe that for the majority of educators that is the goal. When the title of the post is protecting your kids from scientific gibberish that is not bringing an issue to light. That is an attempt to stir the pot and further an agenda.
There are people that argue science is bad. There are people that argue religion is bad. There are people like myself and many others that believe both have a place and both are great and necessary, especially if science remains in its proper place. The question that is being brought forward is whether or not what the OP brings up is even a legitimate concern, or merely an attempt to bash science. I am yet to see any evidence of the former.
You have engaged in a lot of rash judgment. I never suggested that teaching science or learning science was anything but good. If you read through my posts, it should have been obvious that I am referring to the anti-scientific indoctrination our children are subjected to under many formats while away at school. You seem incapable of understanding what you read or perhaps you would just prefer to interpret what you read in a biased manner.Accurate science instruction should be the goal and I believe that for the majority of educators that is the goal. When the title of the post is protecting your kids from scientific gibberish that is not bringing an issue to light. That is an attempt to stir the pot and further an agenda.
There are people that argue science is bad. There are people that argue religion is bad. There are people like myself and many others that believe both have a place and both are great and necessary, especially if science remains in its proper place. The question that is being brought forward is whether or not what the OP brings up is even a legitimate concern, or merely an attempt to bash science. I am yet to see any evidence of the former.
I just wanted to respond to this. I found the essay on google books and was able to read a bit of it. I hope by quoting Dolan here you’re not implying that just because of the school is specifically Catholic v your average secular public school, test results and achievements are better because of “the moral values and practice of faith.”And it’s not just anecdotal, as Cardinal Dolan points out here:
“The evidence is not just anecdotal. Researchers like Helen Marks (in her 2009 essay “Perspectives on Catholic Schools” in Mark Berends’s “Handbook of Research on School Choice”) have found that students learning in a Catholic school, in an environment replete with moral values and the practice of faith, produce test scores and achievements that reliably outstrip their public-school counterparts.”
I don’t think you read my posts carefully enough. But you are welcome to your opinion. The public will do the same. I feel quite confident that those with college bound children will make the proper decisions and act accordingly. Linus2ndI’m not agreeing or disagreeing with you yet, but I think it would be helpful to provide some more concrete examples of “scientific gibberish” and philosophical indoctrination happening in schools. News articles, papers (but from credible sources), etc.
(FWIW, I’m not counting blog posts written by militant atheists bemoaning Creationism taught in schools. They may be atheists, but they do have a point in protesting something that has clearly Christian (and non-Catholic Christian at that) undertones in public schools.)
Again, still not disagreeing with you, but I have to also express how skeptical I am that there is a widespread problem of schools and universities subtly indoctrinating students with philosophical and political ideas through science classes. Why? I know this is just anecdotal, but I have never experienced anything like this, or have known anyone to experience this. Having attended both parochial and public schools, none of my science instructors had subtle philosophical agendas. At least in my state, there are statewide standards imposed on both public and parochial schools as to what should be taught in science and social studies classes, tested at the end of the year. AP classes, which have the same curricula and textbooks across public and parochial schools nationwide, have even more rigid standards. How can you have time to veer off the lesson plan when you are worrying about your students knowing the concepts well enough to pass standardized tests?
There’s more room for individual professors to inject their own agendas at the university level, but this simply hasn’t happened to me at the classes I took at both state and catholic universities. If anyone has had a different experience, I’d be interested to hear it. Even then, 100 level classes are also standardized to the extent that one of their main purposes is to prepare students for exams like the MCAT and GRE.
So, if we can assume that science education has some level of standardization, the implication would have to be that if there is some malicious agenda underlying science education, it would have to be a widespread problem.
TL;DR: I’m arguing public and parochial schools, at least in my area, pretty much teach the same things.
If that is the case then " they " have not read all of my posts above. My case is based on the ligitimate concerns of responsible individuals beginning with Fr. Spitzer, former President of Gonzaga University. Then I have referred the readers to reserch form " google " under specific headings. There are also books in the Catalogue list under " books, " at the EWTN web site which deal with the same types of concerns.I don’t think you can make those kinds of assumptions. Many of those stopping by may very well be like me that stopped by the thread to defend science for the umpteenth time.
Thank you. We believe in creationism insomuch as we believe God created everything. It is not Church teaching, however, that Genesis 1 is completely literal and that it only took a weekPeople do keep tabs… Funny thing is some people think that a Catholic could in principal accept evolution this means some how that we reject ‘creationism’. Such is not the case and indeed we are not free to reject creationism as such. Now today’s popular image of the 6 day creation, the current version of which I believe was first described in the late 1800s… That’s another matter.
Again, I take offense to some of these comments. Here it feels like you’re degrading me for not thinking there’s as much of a problem.I have shown you where to look for further infomation and proof, you refuse to do it. That is your problem not mine… Linus2nd
And that’s a completely different story! When I hear “gibberish,” I assume you’re being anti-science and want schools to teach our children YEC. Hearing your actual target, I now need to search for information because I do not know too much about this issue. But please, do NOT just tell me “Look at the OP”When I refer to scientific " gibberish " in the title of the O.P. perhaps I could have used a term like " the New Atheism, " which is being spread across campuses througout the world. Perhaps that would have been better. But I certainly had not intention of questioning the legitimate teaching of science. Linus2nd
I certainly did not mention this, nor have I encouraged its discussion.Thank you. We believe in creationism insomuch as we believe God created everything. It is not Church teaching, however, that Genesis 1 is completely literal and that it only took a week
You are overly sensitive. To disagree is not to degrade.Again, I take offense to some of these comments. Here it feels like you’re degrading me for not thinking there’s as much of a problem.
Again, I apologize for not being more explicit. Again, I have given my reasons in the O.P. and invited you to explore the Magis site. And later I suggested other places to look. I continue to encourage you to do so. Linus2ndAnd that’s a completely different story! When I hear “gibberish,” I assume you’re being anti-science and want schools to teach our children YEC. Hearing your actual target, I now need to search for information because I do not know too much about this issue. But please, do NOT just tell me “Look at the OP”
No, that is not what I meant at all. I have in mind more the " off the cuff " comments by instructors where they attempt to foist their personal opinions onto innocent " skulls full of mush. " That amounts to a form of child abuse, even if the child may be 18, 19, they are intellectually and perhaps theologically innocent. Linus2ndMaybe everyone in this thread needs to take a step back and just think for a moment about what the real points of contention are.
The main question seems to be empirical: are science teachers teaching “bad,” “pseudo,” &c., science?
No one would say that a science teacher teaching creationism is any different from a math teacher teaching students that 2 +2 = 5. Everyone agrees that science teachers should teach science.
The only issue is an apparent accusation that some (unstated) amount of science teachers teach “bad” science. It seems to me that someone needs to do some research and find some hard numbers (if there are any). I think we should all be suspicious of anecdotal evidence. We need hard data.
Please avoid the " E " subject, it is banned and this thread should not be closed. This thread as established is not meant to be a spring board to the " E " subject. If the moderator stops by I hope he will blame specific offenders and not the thread itself.People do keep tabs… Funny thing is some people think that a Catholic could in principal accept evolution this means some how that we reject ‘creationism’. Such is not the case and indeed we are not free to reject creationism as such. Now today’s popular image of the 6 day creation, the current version of which I believe was first described in the late 1800s… That’s another matter.
Nonsense. That is over reactive, overly sensitive. No such thing was implied in any thing I have said. Linus2ndI do not believe that your OP will do any good. In fact I believe that it will do more harm. It comes across as considering all science to be pseudo science and can easily be considered to be lumped in with a number of other “science is evil” threads on these and other boards. It is simply giving fuel to the fire for people that for one reason or another have a real problem with science.