Yet another reason to keep idiot politicians out of education
With all the revelations about the massive fraud perpetrated on the world by global warming eco zealots, it's a surprise they have any credibility left.
But apparently - proving once again that global warming is an eco zealot cult - some legislators in South Dakota want to force public schools to teach said eco zealotry alongside real science...
...you know - much like religious types want creationism (cleverly packaged as "intelligent design") taught alongside evolution in science classes.
Now, for the record, I don't mind religious education in public schools - BUT NOT TAUGHT AS SCIENTIFIC FACT. If a child and the parents want said child to take a class about religion - no matter what religion - I have nothing against this. I do, have a problem, however, with people who want to pass religion off as science and want to teach it side-by-side.
Much like I have a problem with global warming being taught along side real science as a "scientific theory."
Oh and by the way? ASTROLOGICAL? WTF????
The debate on global warming is about politics. It's about power. It's about the power to destroy. It certainly shouldn't be taught in schools as "scientific theory." Given the amount of fraud - both intentional and erroneous - involved in this issue, politics need to be kept out of science. It's caused enough problems already.
But apparently - proving once again that global warming is an eco zealot cult - some legislators in South Dakota want to force public schools to teach said eco zealotry alongside real science...
...you know - much like religious types want creationism (cleverly packaged as "intelligent design") taught alongside evolution in science classes.
Now, for the record, I don't mind religious education in public schools - BUT NOT TAUGHT AS SCIENTIFIC FACT. If a child and the parents want said child to take a class about religion - no matter what religion - I have nothing against this. I do, have a problem, however, with people who want to pass religion off as science and want to teach it side-by-side.
Much like I have a problem with global warming being taught along side real science as a "scientific theory."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that instruction in the public schools relating to global warming include the following:
(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;
(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and
(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena; andBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Legislature urges that all instruction on the theory of global warming be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances.
Oh and by the way? ASTROLOGICAL? WTF????
The debate on global warming is about politics. It's about power. It's about the power to destroy. It certainly shouldn't be taught in schools as "scientific theory." Given the amount of fraud - both intentional and erroneous - involved in this issue, politics need to be kept out of science. It's caused enough problems already.
Posted by Nicki at 2/27/2010 11:55 AM 
Categories: Environment,academic asshattery
Tags: environment environmentalists schools
Categories: Environment,academic asshattery
Tags: environment environmentalists schools
A minor dissenting point, if it please her graciousness...
Evolution is a theory too, not scientific fact, so teaching a theory of intelligent design which adheres to the laws of nature (Conservation of Energy, Entropy etc...)would not be so egregious. In my opinion, to DISREGARD some type of explanation of WHERE exactly the matter that existed before the big bang (or whatever) came from simply because to discuss it means youhave to include the possiblilty of a creative entity behind the formation of the universe is more of a "cult" type teaching than including the possible scientific basis for ID/Creationism/Whatever you wanna call it...
Otherwise...spot ON! "Climate Change" is a farce, a proven farce....why not just teach Ponzi Schemes as a viable Economic system...oh wait...they DO teach about Social Security/Medicare...don't they?!
Reply to this
Sorry, darlin'
Evolution is FACT. Much like gravity is FACT, even though the theory of gravity is used to scientific explanations of the effects of gravity.
Scientific theory in this case is much different from the conjecture you refer to.
From Wikipedia:
Evolution is a fact in the sense of it being overwhelmingly validated by the evidence. Frequently evolution is said to be a fact in the same way as the Earth revolving around the Sun is a fact.[15][16] The following quotation from H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" explains the point.
The National Academy of Science (U.S.) makes a similar point:
Philosophers of science argue that we do not know anything with absolute certainty: even direct observations may be "theory laden" and depend on assumptions about our senses and the measuring instruments used. In this sense all facts are provisional.[1][18]
Reply to this
Not so much madam,
As I conceded later in this post..micro evolution is proven, not so with macro-evolution. There is nothing in the fossil record to prove macro-evolution. So while species do "evolve" in the sense that they make incremental changes over time to be a new and improved version of the same animal (like how a Ford F-150 of 2010 vintage nowhere near resembles it's ancestor the 1948 F-1 half-ton), or even a slightly different animal (think of those gawd-awful Explorer Sport Trac or Chevy Avalanches...is it a truck...is it an SUV?), nothing proves the THEORY that one animal will "evolve" into another animal entirely...like our F-150 somehow becoming a Nuclear Power Plant.
(sorry about the crappy analogies..it's 4am...)
Secondly, to accept the entirety of evolution as fact, you have to accept that this is the ONE instance in the known world where the simple laws of entropy and conservation of energy do NOT apply. Absent any outside influence, things do not naturally move from less to more complex, nor do they move from lower energy states to higher energy states....just the opposite.
I'm sure you've heard of the analogy of the swiss watch and the paper bag, right? If you disassemble a functioning swiss watch, and place all the parts together in a paper bag, they will NEVER reassemble themselves into a functional timepiece again. Yet you believe that life here on earth came about just that way. That way back in the beginning, just the right amounts of "raw material" was ejaculated from the big bang and clumped together in the paper bag we call Earth, where over time, in defiance of the Law of Entropy, the raw material put themselves together into living stuff, and then in further defiance of said Law, the original life has been 'evolving" into steadily more complex and "advanced" life forms ever since?!?! And I'm the wild-eyed, slack-jawed nincompoop because I believe that the Laws which govern the physical world HAVE to apply in this instance as well. That just because to NOT buy into the evolutionist point of view implies that there MIGHT be that God all the crazy bible-thumpers go on about?
Astro-physicists will tell you that in the instant BEFORE the "Big Bang" all of the energy and matter that would make up the known universe was contained in on single infinitesimal point in time and space, called the "singularity". That is, according to the "theory", where all the energy in the universe came from. Sounds a little like the Creation "myth" from the Book of Genesis to me. And that little "story" was written long before Kelvin, Carnot or Newton came along.
And it's not like Wikki is an unimpeachable source....
Reply to this
Actually there is plenty of evidence for macroevolution. This is a whole paper on it, if you feel like reading. There's also a creationist critique included, as well as the reply from the author of the paper.
And here's information on the false argument about entropy as well as some physical facts.
Reply to this
Well, we COULD go back and forth, each linking supporting documentation until the cows come home. And in the end, neither of us will change our minds. I choose to beleive that I'm NOT the random end product of cosmic chance. I also can't get past the fact that WHATEVER the mechanism, the elusive answer to the question "Where did all of the "stuff" (energy and/or matter) in the universe come FROM...before the big bang" points me to some outside agent.....God in other words. If there is no God, IMO, what reason would there be for silly things like moral absolutes? And where the heck do those absolutes come from in the first place?
So label me as whatever....I beleive what I beleive; it makes me what I am. As do you!
Reply to this
You are correct about each of us believing what you believe, which is why I will never debate issues of faith. I will, however, submit that moral absolutes exist regardless of God. I am a moral person. I have a rational, thinking mind, and I have values, and I act accordingly. I know objective good from bad, and I don't believe in a God per se, because I haven't seen any rational, scientific evidence to support his existence. That is my choice - the choice of my functioning, thinking, reasoning mind - and as you said, that is fine. But I absolutely resent the idea that religions somehow have the market cornered on morality. Moral absolutes are absolutes for a reason. They exist because we exist, not because some being in the sky told us they do. I have raised good, moral, independent thinking children. I help those in need whenever I can. I try to be a kind human being, because those are the right things to do. Period. I don't need God, or the Bible or any priest or preacher to tell me those things are right. I find it insulting that so many people who do believe in God think they somehow are more moral than those of us who do the right thing because it's the right thing.
Reply to this
Whoa there...
I was simply saying that the mere existence of moral absolutes (rape is ALWAYS wrong, as is the killing of innocents...) argues for an objective standard OUTSIDE human existence. If moral "absolutes" are no more than the product of society, or or a rational, thinking mind, then they cannot, by definiton, BE absolutes. Because they are then human constructs, and as such are subject to modification by individual humans. The fact that ALL civill societies have frowned throughout recorded history on raping and killing memebers of that society, (moral absolutes) argues that the definition of "evil" transcends cultural differences. That it is, in fact ABSOLUTE. To be absolutely evil, it must ave an objective standard of moral "good" to compare it to. What is that standard? I submit that it can't be a product of a human mind, no matter how rational or logical. It has to exist OUTSIDE the human frame of reference, or else it would be subject to interpretation.
You are 100% correct that you don't need a religion, or a book, or even God to tell you what is right. Or to coerce you into doing the right thing. But why is it the "right" thing? "Right" for whom? Do you determine what is "right" for you? DO you let society determine that? What if what you determine to be a right action conflicts with another person's determination of the "right" action for them? All this points to some objective standard of right and wrong that we humans don't get to define.
And I am most definately NOT saying that I am more moral than you, and join in your loathing of the religiously self-righteous. All I'm saying is that your desire to make what you and I would consider morally sound decisions, and pass this trait on to your kids, is prompted by something OTHER than your own rational self-interest. It's not even driven by an over-arching interest in civility, or society or whatever. It's driven from within...and I contend that drive is placed within each human by.....something external to humanity.
Reply to this
I have to disagree. They are absolutes because they are a function of being a human being! Those who condone rape, murder, torture, etc. of innocents are consciously acting contrary to what being human is. Animals act instinctively for their own survival. Man - in search of some higher weirdness - sometime chooses an existence contrary to it.
The absolute objective standard of moral good is life itself. Period. It is rational self interest that determines that standard - the standard of our lives. I could give a shit about society. I don't care what others say or think of my actions, because my logical mind knows what is right and does it.
I just wrote my thoughts down in a blog I'm about to publish. Please don't think I'm attacking you. I'm not. I'm putting my thoughts down as to why I say what I say and think what I think.
OK?
Reply to this
Oh and as for the SD law-makers...the horrid effects of Global Warming have slushified what passes for their brains.
Reply to this
Actually Shifty, evolution is a fact that can and has been proven. The only part of it that has not been proven and may never be is the transition of one species into another through evolution. As an example at one time the horse was no larger than a small dog. While he has evolved to what he is today, he is, however, still a horse.
Reply to this
I stand corrected...micro-evolution (incremental changes within a species) IS scientific fact... MACRO-evolution (One species "evolving" into another species .... say Chimp to Human....) is still theory.
Not many will make that fine distinction straigharrow, and those who push Darwinism as "settled science" in the public schools will hardly admit that caveat. The political agenda dictates that because, to use your example, horses have gotten bigger over time, it MUST stand to reason that the ENTIRE theory of evolution is true, and ALL life originated from a rather fortunate glumping together of certain "building blocks" way back in the primordial ooze.....THEREFORE we humans are no more special than say a snail darter.
Even if that weren't yet another glaring example of science being prostituted to serve political masters, it still doesn't explain where the "building blocks" came from in the first place....
Reply to this
"Even if that weren't yet another glaring example of science being prostituted to serve political masters, it still doesn't explain where the "building blocks" came from in the first place...."
Well, why didn't you just say that was what bothered you about it? Al Gore invented the building blocks. You can catch up on it in his upcoming film "An Illegitimate Truth".......No, wait, he already did that one. Oh, I remember it now. "The primordial ooze that spawned its inventor Al Gore" That's just the working title. I think the front runner for the title is likely to be "THE SLICK AND SLIMY".
I hope that helps.
Reply to this
Oh thank God...as long as the Goreacle explains it all...complete with GRAPHS and whatnot....all will be well!
Reply to this
seriously it was taught to me as a theory and not proven fact, but then I went to real school before they became indoctrination centers.
Reply to this
Starightarrow...
that's how it was taught to me also...as the Theroy of Evolution....again back in the stone ages when I was in school.
Reply to this