Separation of Church and State? (Page 6)

If anyone here is religious, and does not think religious organizations are trying to advance their agenda and have their personal and political views taught in school... well you are being disingenuous.

If you are a secularist and do not thing there is an agenda being advanced and personal and political views being taught in public school... you are being disingenuous.

It isn't about a flyer, or a pledge, or homosexuality, or when dinosaurs walked... it is about both sides using the public education system to advance an agenda... it certainly isn't about math, English, history, physics, biology, chemistry, civics, economics.....

I don't have a problem with GW... that there are greenhouse gasses holding in reflected heat, that CO2 is a GHG, or that the composition of our atmoshpere is changing, and that man most certainly is impacting out environment... however I do have a problem with Chicken Little conclusions, fear mongering for drastic measures, and the assumptions that we fully understand the problems or the solutions... more over that the government is the only body that can save us as long as we give them more money and more control over things.

I'm not trying to hijack here... what I'm saying is that this is happening now in discussions. What happens in public is mirrored in school systems. The discussion is at a point now that if you do not buy everything about Climate Change hook line and sinker you are just marginalized as ignorant or religious or both. Even that number you throw out... like that is the definitive proof that is all that is needed to know... it isn't science, it's debate. Like I would have to be a moron to not agree with 97% of the scientific community.

I realize what you were trying to say that there is no controversy, but there is controversy as to what the science means. But the argument is presented that if you agree with "A", then you have to agree all the way to "Z". Again, I seriously doubt the subject is being presented in school in a scientific manner in school. I do tours at my plant for anyone that wants them. We get regular people, but we also get a lot of school kids all the way from home schoolers to engineering majors.... you would not believe some of the stuff we hear. The same talking points throw out by the "pro" GW camp as you would expect hearing from the "anti" GW camp.

I was a skeptic. I like Carl Segan's books and he got me thinking with his very reasonable approach. So I learned for myself.... but it is difficult at this point to find good data since it has become such a political hot potato. Sometimes I suck at getting to a point.

All I mean is that there is so many things that can be improved in the school system, and so much work to be done and so much knowledge to cover... but we as a society are stuck in a cultural war, and we fight it on all fronts, and the school system becomes a battle ground, and all the troops are mobilized because someone handed out a flyer.

If we could just focus on the fundamentals and get back to teaching those well, and leave all these wedge issues to the pulpits, talk shows, comedians, internet, and higher learning... I think we would all be happier and more productive with our precious tax dollars and children's time.

That is exactly what I would hope for, you can't always change their mind, but you offered up a reasonable approach to discuss and to learn without dismissing their idea completely. 

Thank you.

From the perspective of scientific inquiry, simply saying you agree or disagree is completely missing the point. If you disagree, then you have to propose either an experiment that disproves the prevailing model, or offer a model of your own that explains the facts as they are known and predicts some outcome based on a future experiment. Simply saying "I agree with the scientists" or "I disagree with them" completely misses the point of what science is and what it does.

We are not talking about whether or not you like a book or movie that 97% of critics liked or disliked. We are talking about creating a model of understanding the world around us that fits the data and makes predictions about future data possible.

And honestly, most good scientists are disagreeable. They set out to first learn about the existing models, and then to make their name by disproving them with new models. Ironically, if they live long enough to have created the new dominant model, they may end up trying to disagree with their old selves. It is this tension between models that advances science, not taking popularity polls.

I think one can have a debate about the global warming and have an intelligent discussion that is driven by science and data.

Evolution debates can only present either a scientific argument or a theological argument. Intelligent Design is not science.

I don't doubt that the majority of what happens is the same thing that happened when I went to school... shear boredom.

Those from one side have a cow when they see anything they disagree with... and those from the other side do the same. It's happening in school because it is happening in our society. It is becoming more and more divided. And those divisions are held by the parents, the faculty, and the school administration. To think that our public school system is some neutral Switzerland in the middle of all this would be a bit naive.

Of course Christian organizations are trying to advance their beliefs... of course schools are trying to get kids to embrace homosexuals.... (not that there is anything wrong with that) Of course kids are being taught cultural values that may not jive with their parents. It isn't some sinister conspiracy... it is just where our society is these days.

But again I say... since society can't agree on which societal norms should be taught with tax payer money, then those things should be put to the side for much more important things we can agree on like the 3Rs. They should either be preparing to enter college where they can learn about what ever they want with their own money, or they should be preparing to enter the work force so they can buy cable so they can watch the Discovery channel. Public school isn't the end all be all of a persons education... it is the beginning.

I understand that Gear... I keyed on it because it is one of those talking points thrown around like so many are in debates today. But Shane is much more intelligent than some parrot regurgitating talking points and I probably should not have singled that out.

But it is an interesting number that is continuously referenced. How many scientist agree with the theory of Relativity? Really, has there been a poll? How many peer reviewed parers agree? How about Quantum Mechanics, string theory? Why is it that we don't know the percentage of scientists and papers that agree with other theories except for GW... or CC, or AGW, MMGW. It's just a silly stat that has nothing to do with scientific debate, nor have I ever seen a recognized polling organization officially verify the claim. Just sayin'.

Perhaps. Maybe I suffer from a bad view from my vantage point where I am now compared to where I was then.

The thing about statements like that (X% of scientists agree...) is that it lumps all scientists in one box. I don't care what ALL scientists (or even MOST scientists) think. I care about the ones who know about the science in a particular area (e.g. the prevailing theories, the evidence supporting those theories, why alternative theories are not as likely, etc.). Just as my opinion in an area outside my expertise is not worth very much (I don't, for example, have anything useful to say about whether getting a PSA for men is going to be a good idea or not to screen for prostate cancer - a current controversy), while my opinion about my field is actually pretty good (I can tell you the history of and evidence for and against antidepressants in kids, for example). I don't care what most geologists or astrophysicists think about global warming, or evolution. For those, I will look to climatogists and biologists, respectively.

I am not certain if this is what the above comment was suggesting, but homosexuality is not a "cultural value." It is a trait that some people are born with, just as some people are born with blue eyes or brown hair.

The value in question here is the value of an individual, based on traits over which they have no control. The only value in the case of homosexuality that is being taught by the school system is the value of an individual. An agenda that everyone ought to be on board with.

Anti-homosexual organizations seek to devalue the individual based on this inherent trait and treat them as less of a person than people without this trait... as evidenced by the vehement lobbying such groups do against bills like ENDA and for bills like DOMA and DADT.

Well, duh!  I can help with this problem.  It's the one that I believe!

To some people it is a cultural value... and yes to some it is a choice. Not to me, but to some... and if it is to some, then it is controversial. I can't claim to be an expert on this since I have no real stake in it, but I have seen many examples brought up about homosexuality being introduced to very age inappropriate students. Not that I think there is a problem with homosexuality... but why are we discussing it with 2nd graders? Why are we discussing sexuality of any kind with 2nd graders? Again I can't claim 1st hand knowledge of the examples, so I don't know that exact details, but when I see stuff like that I think it is troubling.

We can obviously teach respect, individuality, and diversity at any age all without ever discussing sexuality. And I also understand that things do not change without grief... nobody is ever going to accept change over night and with open arms, so of course this or any other such subject is going to ruffle feathers and they will just have to get over it. Obviously, by the puberty years it becomes a legitemate issue.

But I will say this too, and I don't mean any disrespect... but when ever gays are given attention in the media, it is not always good. It seems there is a law now that no television show can be on with out homosexual representation, and they have to be flambouant drama queens. Then about every city has a gay pride parade and usually there is a lot of latex and leather involved with the occasional sex toy. And being Bi-curious is celebrated these days... notice I didn't say gay, I said bi-curious... meaning a choice. I do know a lot of parents and look at face book pages of girls kissing girls all the time just because they know guys like it... (not that there is anything wrong with that) A lot of parents have problems seeing their little Jack and Jills expressing any sexuality hetero or homo.

I don't personally have a problem with any of it... but again, public schools mirror society, and when this subject comes up in school, there are a lot of examples parents draw from that don't make them real warm and fuzzy about the subject. Not all of that behavior is a trait and some of it is most definitely a choice. It clouds the issues. I'm not saying I agree or condone that, I'm just saying it is, and that is going to be a sore subject to many. These are just observations, not judgements.

It isn't just your number. I don't know who or when, but it has been thrown around for a long time and it changes frequently. At first is was scientists, then it was climate scientists.... right like you are going to get a job in climatology if you don't tow the line... yours is peer reviewed papers. I've also seen different numbers... all over 90 though. I just find it silly that is all.

And like Gearboy mentioned, healthy science is about critical thinking and finding flaws. Scientists make a name by discovering a new theory.... then other scientists make a name off of discrediting it... and this goes on and on like you have shown with the process... and yes eventually at some point a consensus is reached or it is tossed. But theories are not judged by a score, or by a majority. I just personally find it silly to use such statements because it really means nothing. The same way you can get any statistical set to say anything you want it to say. It's sound bit science, it does not really mean anything.