Who Hates Academic Freedom?

[6days]

USA state of Alabama has introduced legislation allowing teachers and students more academic freedom.

The preamble of House Bill 592 says "This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

"This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."


So who is opposed to this academic freedom? Evolutionists, of course. The bill allows teachers to discuss strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Teachers are NOT allowed to teach religion or the Genesis creation account..... So what are they afraid of?

 

[StanJ]

I can't really see any freedom in this if all of it is based on science? That's not freedom, that is academic blackmail.

 

[chrysostom]

I hate academic freedom
especially at religious institutions
and
the man who invented that phrase was recently buried
but
his academic freedom lives on
unfortunately

 

[PureX]

USA state of Alabama has introduced legislation allowing teachers and students more academic freedom.

The preamble of House Bill 592 says "This bill would require the State Board of Education, local boards of education, and staff of K-12 public schools to create an environment that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.

"This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."


So who is opposed to this academic freedom? Evolutionists, of course. The bill allows teachers to discuss strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Teachers are NOT allowed to teach religion or the Genesis creation account..... So what are they afraid of?

This is just another ruse intended to force creationism into the science curriculum. That isn't "academic freedom", it's proselytizing trying to disguise itself as academic freedom. Creationism is not science. It is not "scientific", and it does not belong in a science curriculum, nor does it need to be discussed and debated in a science classroom. Putting it there only encourages deliberate confusion and dishonesty.

 

[chrysostom]

This is just another ruse intended to force creationism into the science curriculum. That isn't "academic freedom", it's proselytizing trying to disguise itself as academic freedom. Creationism is not science. It is not "scientific", and it does not belong in a science curriculum. Putting it there only encourages deliberate confusion and dishonesty.

how do you explain entropy in a science class?

 

[PureX]

how do you explain entropy in a science class?

Entropy: a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

 

[chrysostom]

Entropy: a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

and academic freedom allows you to misrepresent what entropy is

the truth is entropy is the system's ability to get work out of the energy it has
and
while the energy it has remains constant
entropy continues to increase indicating that the ability to get work out of the system is decreasing
thus proving creation

 

[6days]

This is just another ruse intended to force creationism into the science curriculum. That isn't "academic freedom", it's proselytizing trying to disguise itself as academic freedom. Creationism is not science. It is not "scientific", and it does not belong in a science curriculum, nor does it need to be discussed and debated in a science classroom. Putting it there only encourages deliberate confusion and dishonesty.

Like the evolutionists in Alabama, you misrepresent. Read the op again. "This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."

If you were a teacher, do you see any wording in there that would force you to discuss Biblical creation? No

 

[Caino]

Will they be allowed to discus the errors of the man made scripture? What about the issue of making a graven image out of the redacted writings of the Hebrew priest and how that has retarded science and religion for thousands of years now?

Will such a class allow the discussion of talking donkeys, unicorns or millions of species on a boat for a year or Chinese Jews?

 

[chrysostom]

Will they be allowed to discus the errors of the man made scripture? What about the issue of making a graven image out of the redacted writings of the Hebrew priest and how that has retarded science and religion for thousands of years now?

Will such a class allow the discussion of talking donkeys, unicorns or millions of species on a boat for a year or Chinese Jews?

I thought that was your job

 

[6days]

I can't really see any freedom in this if all of it is based on science? That's not freedom, that is academic blackmail.

Welcome to TOL!

 

[6days]

Will they be allowed to discus the errors of the man made scripture?

Sure in a religion class.

 

[PureX]

Like the evolutionists in Alabama, you misrepresent. Read the op again. "This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."

If you were a teacher, do you see any wording in there that would force you to discuss Biblical creation? No

Creationism is not a scientific theory. It requires no discussion or debate in relation to science. And if this bill is not about creationism, what is it for? Science teachers already teach the basics of scientific inquiry. They don't need a new bill saying it's ok.

 

[6days]

Like the evolutionists in Alabama, you misrepresent. Read the op again.*"This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."

If you were a teacher, do you see any wording in there that would force you to discuss Biblical creation? No

Creationism is not a scientific theory.

Neither is evolutionism....

You didn't answer the question I asked you.*

 

[PureX]

Like the evolutionists in Alabama, you misrepresent. Read the op again. "This bill would also allow public school teachers to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of all existing scientific theories covered in a science course."

If you were a teacher, do you see any wording in there that would force you to discuss Biblical creation?

Yes, this is the wording (highlighted) that is intended to be a backdoor ratification of creationism as a "scientific theory". Creationism is not a scientific theory, and therefor does not need to be discussed in a science class. Nor does it need to be included in any way in a science curriculum. Yet in backward states like Alabama, where many of the teachers (like most of the citizens and most of the school board members) are religious zealots who reject real science in favor of biblical mythology and will pressure other teachers to do the same, will be teaching creationism as though it were a "scientific theory" if they are allowed to do so. Which is what I believe this legislation is intended to do.

Otherwise, there is no reason whatever that this legislation would be needed. As any science teacher, anywhere in the country, can already teach the basic criteria of scientific theory and practice.

 

[PureX]

Neither is evolutionism....

The theory of evolution is not an "ism", because it's not a philosophical (or theological) theory, nor a cultural meme. Creationism is an "ism", evolution is not. You desire to place them on the same intellectual ground reveals your dishonest bias in this matter. The same dishonest bias that is behind this bill in Alabama.

 

[chrysostom]

I am all for academic freedom
but
that must include truth in packaging

a parent should know what you are teaching their kid

how do we find that out?

 

[Caino]

Yes, this is the wording (highlighted) that is intended to be a backdoor ratification of creationism as a "scientific theory". Creationism is not a scientific theory, and therefor does not need to be discussed in a science class. Nor does it need to be included in any way in a science curriculum. Yet in backward states like Alabama, where many of the teachers (like most of the citizens and most of the school board members) are religious zealots who reject real science in favor of biblical mythology and will pressure other teachers to do the same, will be teaching creationism as though it were a "scientific theory" if they are allowed to do so. Which is what I believe this legislation is intended to do.

Otherwise, there is no reason whatever that this legislation would be needed. As any science teacher, anywhere in the country, can already teach the basic criteria of scientific theory and practice.

Cutting to the chase, the discoveries of science have conflicted with the teachings of religion regarding the origins of life. The problem isn't science the problem is religion, more specifically Biblical idolatry; the churches original teaching of it's own infallibility in proclaiming the infallibility of books that don't even claim infallibility.

Proud, haughty religious institutions are good at confessing the sins of the world but not its own.

 

[6days]

The theory of evolution is not an "ism", because it's not a philosophical (or theological) theory, nor a cultural meme.

Evolutionism is a religious belief about the past...not science. Neither atheists or theists should object to science being taught in the science classroom. *Science helps improve our lives through improved medicine and new technologies. Biological science studies things such as mutation rates, cell function, adaptation, sexual and natural selection, genetic drift etc etc.
Religion creeps into the science classroom though when evolutionists want their beliefs about the past taught as science.

Questions for you.....
1. In the past evolutionists taught that our bodies were composed of 98% junk DNA. They claimed this was biological remnants which was evidence of common ancestry.
Should teachers have been allowed to quote Bible believing scientists suggesting that in the future, research may find purpose and function for non coding DNA?

2. In the past some taught that the vertebrate eye had a sloppy design which was evidence against the designer argument. Should a teacher be allowed to make the opposite argument?

It seems this discussion really is about academic freedom. Evolutionists want a system where kids are taught what to think....and not taught how to think.

 

[6days]

I am all for academic freedom
but
that must include truth in packaging

a parent should know what you are teaching their kid

how do we find that out?

I agree.
As Christians we should be very involved in our children's education.