Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » A REVELATION
  • A REVELATION

    Filed at 6:47 am under by dcobranchi

    I think this one sentence pretty much sums up the whole problem with the g-schools, both in the UK and here:

    All the teaching unions have opposed academies and many see the “parent power” message as divisive in home-school relations.

    And, yes, I recognize the cognitive dissonance of me calling for parents to exercise more control over their kids’ education at the same time I decry the push to teach ID in the schools.

    Hence, I will no longer fight the creationists/IDers on the basis of the fact that they’re not teaching science. If the majority (of Kansans, for instance) want their kids to be ignorant, fine. I will continue to fight against it though to the extent that it tries to establish religion (i.e., Christianity) in the schools as some state-sanctioned faith. Since I believe that is really ID’s raison d’etre you won’t see me joining Behe’s army anytime soon.

    11 Responses to “A REVELATION”


    Comment by
    Anonymous
    May 9th, 2005
    at 7:22 am

    And Daryl, I’m not interested in pushing for ID in schools. But tell me, if you were a teacher and I was your student and I rejected the Big Bang theory, would you allow me to bring in info that highlighted Russell Humphrery’s theory on the basis even though he is on the board for ICR? How would you try to reason with me that there is no center or an edge to the universe; that the universe has no boundaries? How could you argue with me when you can’t prove it and the reasoning from the Big Bang proponents was made based on the fact that it is just too random to believe that the earth could be the center? At what point, would I as a student know more about the in’s and out’s of theories before you wouldn’t even know which of my ideas came from evolutionary proponents or creation proponents? Don’t you see how easy it is for students to trip up the teachers in the realm of ideas? Don’t you see teachers actually cannot prevent students from discussing and learning about theories that originate in the creation realm? The only thing the govt. schools can do is keep students in outdated textbooks and prevent parents from “outwardly contaminating” the curriculum. ID will be taught in schools via the students at home and then the students will introduce the concepts at school. The only alternative would be to build “indoctrination camps” after children are separated from their parents as in China when it comes to anti-communist ideas. Free speech and intellectual freedom have to win unless our country takes drastic measures to take away our’s and our children’s civil liberties. This is what happens to the issue of school prayer. It can’t be legislated, but it can happen in many cases when the students put it there. If students really wanted to pray, they could not be prevented in any way.
    Annette


    Comment by
    Daryl
    May 9th, 2005
    at 8:05 am

    I’m at work so can’t address all your questions. But this one is a piece of cake: How could you argue with me when you can’t prove it and the reasoning from the Big Bang proponents was made based on the fact that it is just too random to believe that the earth could be the center?

    The Big Bang theory established credence in the late ’70s because it (and it alone) accouts for the 3 K microwave background radiation (ok 2.75 K), which IS almost exactly uniform throughout the heavens.


    Comment by
    Anonymous
    May 9th, 2005
    at 12:49 pm

    Thanks, Daryl. CMB is something that I have to be able to know something about if I’m going to argue against the Big Bang. As a student of Walt Brown, I already knew that that the temperature of CMB was 2.73 K (nearly absolute zero) and that it is uniform. The Big Bang theory did not predict this radiation (Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research Bulletin, 1994).
    and: “History also shows that some BB cosmologists’ ‘predictions’ of MBR temperature have been ‘adjusted after the fact to agree with observed temperatures.” William Mitchell, “Big Bang Theory Under Fire,”Physics Essays, Vol. 10, No. 2, , June 1997.

    If the view of the distribution of matter being fractal is correct:
    “The foundations of the big bang models would crumble away. We’d be left with no explanation for the big bang, or galaxy formation, or the distribution of galaxies in the universe. (Professor of Astrophysics Peter Coles.

    CMB is uniform. Many think that it came from evenly spread matter soon after a big bang:

    “But this uniformity is difficult to reconcile with the obvious clumping of matter into galaxies, clusters of galaxies and even larger features extending across vast regions of the universe, such as ‘walls’ and ‘bubbles’.” Ivan Peterson, “Seeding the Universe,” Science News, Vol. 137, 24, March 1990, p. 184.

    More:
    “The theorists know of no way such a monster could have condensed in the time available since the Big Bang, especially considering that the 2.7 K background radiation reveals a universe that was very homogeneous in the beginning.” M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe Gets Larger-Maybe,” Science, Vol. 238, 13, November 1987, p.894.

    Walt says that such uniformly distributed matter would hardly gravitate in any direction; even after tens of billions of years, galaxies would not evolve. Meaning the Big Bang did not-apparently- generate the CMB. It could be CMB is just simply radiation from space heated to its limiting temperature by starlight.

    A Russian cosmologist in Gorky believes the speed of light was 10 billion years times faster at time zero. He attributes CMB and most redshifts to this rapidly-decreasing speed of light. If the speed of light was not constant–there is no scientific law that requires it to be constant, only assumptions- -then the Big Bang theory crumbles away.

    From Hawking and Ellis, “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time”: “However we are not able to make cosmological models without some mixture of ideology.”
    They are saying that the Copernican principle is a mixture of ideology. This is not coming from anything that is observable, but based on ideas that SOME people think to be true. The idea behind the Copernican principle is that we are on this planet as a result of random processes only–not by the choice of an Intelligent Designer. And randomness you know is what evolution is based on.

    Now to bring this back around: The universe looks much the same in every direction (isotropic)–especially when we look at CMB. This could be a result of homogeneity, and it is consistent with the Copernican principle. But logic does not require the opposite to be true–that homogeneity is a result of isotropy.
    The Copernican principle based on the homogeneity that is inferred, means that our 3-dimensional universe has no edges or center. That there are no places that are “special” because if there were, there would be different observations and measurements–violating the Copernican principle. Humphreys deals with this while rejecting the Copernican principle and modern cosmological models, he also deals with CMB and the role of Einstein’s General Relativity. Therefore, based on what I know about this matter and Humphreys’ work, you could not persuade me that the universe does not have a center and edge as he theorizes based on CMB. See: Humphreys “Starlight and Time”

    Daryl, do you have any doubt that I could make the typical science teacher’s head spin without using info that could be identified as creation material? Any doubt that I could present ideas that are located in peer-reviewed science journals and still succeed in teaching ID to the students? Of course as a parent, via a creation club that could take place at the public school; I could “contaminate” not only my own children’s minds, but those of public students–perhaps only thru my child as a participant in the club. Or you could consider that these children’s minds were not being “contaminated” but expanded with ideas that challenged their thinking and modern scientific theories. Daryl, do you really believe children are meant to be “filled” up with some identified and limited sources of a body of knowledge? If so, then the knowledge can become contaminated as referred to in the article link you dedicated 🙂 to me recently. Or do you believe that it is superior for children to become independent thinkers and discoverers? Is mental regurgitation superior to individuals employing critical thinking?
    Annette


    Comment by
    Daryl
    May 9th, 2005
    at 1:06 pm

    Impressive demonstration. So what? Presumably anyone attending a “creation club” was already of that bent. But you didn’t mention God once. So, you get kicked out of the creationist’s club along with the evolutionists.

    Sorry, Annette- it still doesn’t fly. ID may someday be mainstream science. But today is not that day. Creationists want to short-circuit the scientific process via a political route in order to teach the biblical version of creation in the g-schools.

    Just read the summaries from the Kansas Scopes II “trial” if you have any doubt.


    Comment by
    Amy K
    May 9th, 2005
    at 1:26 pm

    Daryl, I’ve been following the Kansas hearing. I haven’t read anything about religion or creation in it. I’ve mostly just heard criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolution from a scientific point of view. Please provide a link to what you’re referring to.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    May 9th, 2005
    at 1:57 pm

    redsta...t.com/

    For example:

    Intelligent design proponent William Harris, left, speaks to attorney John Calvert of the ID Network. “Part of our goal,” says Harris, “is to remove the bias against religion in our schools.” Posted by Hello
    # posted by Pat Hayes @ 7:17 AM 1 comments

    “Evolution is a great theory,” says board member Kathy Martin, “There are alternatives. Children need to hear them. We can’t ignore that our country is built on Christianity, not science.” Posted by Hello
    # posted by Pat Hayes @ 7:11 AM 3 comments
    Saturday, May 07, 2005


    Comment by
    JAMM
    May 9th, 2005
    at 2:10 pm

    How do you know the majority of people in Kansas want ID? Has there been a referendum? It is only a vocal few who are getting the press. There are people who are convinced that man never went to the moon. Do we give every group who disagree equal time in education? When would these kids have time to learn their math tables?

    If these people want to teach ID to their children, then they need to afterschool. When ID has been through the empiral process, it may join a place of honor with other SCIENTIFIC theories.


    Comment by
    Victoria
    May 9th, 2005
    at 2:48 pm

    Do not think that public schools are not already pushing a “religious” agenda. Secular humanism, atheism and socialism have been part of the g-schools since they were established. Why should schools be allowed to promote the view that there is no God (for example in the teaching of evolution) while the view that there is a God or could be a God is excluded?


    Comment by
    Daryl
    May 9th, 2005
    at 2:56 pm

    In 1852 they were teaching secular humanism, socialism, and atheism? Amazing. Besides, I doubt you could find one g-school that explicitly teaches that there is no God.


    Comment by
    Anonymous
    May 9th, 2005
    at 5:25 pm

    Daryl wrote:>> Presumably anyone attending a “creation club” was already of that bent. But you didn’t mention God once. So, you get kicked out of the creationist’s club along with the evolutionists.>>>

    Well, sometimes creationists are guilty of the same things they accuse evolutionists of. There are occasions when scientists who believe in a creator or an Intelligent Designer suffer a type of discrimination from other creationists. When it comes to movements that rest heavily on organizations or individuals, real science can suffer. As to date, I have not been able to find a a critique of Walt Brown’s Hydroplate Theory at AIG or ICR. It is my opinion and also that of Walt Brown, that where he has his own organization and is independent, his work is overlooked by those two organizations. I suspect this type of discrimination is happening by other creation/ID organizations as well. Walt Brown has been arguing against the feasibility of the Canopy Theory for 30 years. That theory is no longer being put forth. Henry Morris has yet–to mine and Walt Brown’s knowledge-to retract it. I did come across something from Snelling(?) at ICR that said something to the effect that the theory was no longer being supported, but not a retraction of nature.
    If scientific information that reflected a creationist/ID view would be discriminated against in a creation club, because God wasn’t mentioned, then that would be unfortunate. However, I don’t see this scenario being typical. About people at those meetings already being of that bent, I don’t think that is necessarily true. When it comes to origins, teens are at the point in their lives where they are asking the hard questions. Creationists are saying they have those answers. Not to mention, the public schools are so adamant that their is a certain body of knowledge that is prohibited for students to examine for themselves, that alone will strike interest in the forbidden fruit for them. Usually any thing you tell a child that is off-limits, strikes a chord of interest in them. It is best in my opinion, to present all the evidences and lay it all out in the table and help students to understand what factors in the scientific realm there are that just can’t be dismissed–just as you did with CMB to me. Now, that doesn’t mean that evolutionary science or creation science has everything all wrapped up, they obviously don’t. But I do think there needs to be some honest criticism of exactly where the different theories are falling short, and less people trying to protect their own pet theories. The only solution is an educated grass-roots movement. An education and thorough examination of the science in both the creationist and evolutionary realms by individuals.

    Daryl wrote: >>Sorry, Annette- it still doesn’t fly. ID may someday be mainstream science. But today is not that day. Creationists want to short-circuit the scientific process via a political route in order to teach the biblical version of creation in the g-schools. Just read the summaries from the Kansas Scopes II “trial” if you have any doubt.>>

    You would be correct to say it is not mainstream to challenge the pet theories of the day and find those scientists, who are not evolution proponents, in peer review journals. You are incorrect to say that it has to be mainstream to get into the public schools. According to the poll in the article link you dedicated to me, design and purpose is a belief that is mainstream, not randomness and chance. If creationists were trying to short circuit the scientific process, you and I could not be able to have any real discussion about things such as CMB and the Big Bang, now could we? I am willing to drop the ID label. I don’t think that label needs to be thrown in; that can be worked around. Really, the label has purposes other than discussion of “real science”. It’s terminology in order to connect with other like-minded individuals or to intentionally for positive purposes to stir up controversy–in my opinion.
    Annette


    Comment by
    Anonymous
    May 11th, 2005
    at 2:49 pm

    Daryl wrote:
    >>I will continue to fight against it though to the extent that it tries to establish religion (i.e., Christianity) in the schools as some state-sanctioned faith. Since I believe that is really ID’s raison d’etre you won’t see me joining Behe’s army anytime soon.>>>

    And:
    >>Creationists want to short-circuit the scientific process via a political route in order to teach the biblical version of creation in the g-schools. Just read the summaries from the Kansas Scopes II “trial” if you have any doubt. >>> >>>
    As example, Daryl included the snips below:

    >>Intelligent design proponent William Harris, left, speaks to attorney John Calvert of the ID Network. “Part of our goal,” says Harris, “is to remove the bias against religion in our schools.” Posted by Hello
    # posted by Pat Hayes @ 7:17 AM 1 comments

    “Evolution is a great theory,” says board member Kathy Martin, “There are alternatives. Children need to hear them. We can’t ignore that our country is built on Christianity, not science.” Posted by Hello
    # posted by Pat Hayes @ 7:11 AM 3 comments
    Saturday, May 07, 2005>>>>

    Now, Daryl, do you understand you are not being equal in your treatment of religious views?
    There are people who believe that evolution supports that there is no God. There are scientists that are atheists and there are science teachers and parents who are atheists all who could be evolution proponents. No doubt for some, the fact that they are atheists and believe in evolution are coincidental. However, I think you could find that there are atheists who came into atheism because of an evolutionary worldview. I know of a formally religious person (an evangelist)who became an evolutionist and then became an atheist. Getting back to where you are unequal in your treatment: Would you try and push evolution out of the public schools on the basis that there are people out there who have a certain worldview and who see and promote the IMPLICATIONS of their personal worldview which is BUILT on an evolutionary (perhaps scientific) framework such as yours? If a teacher pushed for students to reject the concept of a personal God because evolution doesn’t support it, would you look to exclude evolution from ps on the basis that someone is promoting their personal views as what they consider a part of science teaching? Wouldn’t it be true to say there are individuals that are promoting evolution and looking to establish a state-sanctioned belief?
    So, if you don’t fight ID on the basis of they’re not teaching science and you realize your double standard when it comes to religious beliefs, what will be the leg that you stand on when it comes to fighting ID?
    Just curious. 🙂
    ~Annette