... Shouldn't education be about teaching students how to think, not what to think? ...
Indeed, education in logic and being able to form proper valid conclusions from objective empirical evidence is the foundation for learning to deal with hokus-pokus, misrepresentation, hype and falsehoods.
Learning how to form rational conclusions with an open mind while remaining skeptical of any claims that have no supporting evidence.
... even the controversial ones? ...
Curiously ...
There is
NO controversy among the science disciplines that science is based on objective empirical evidence no matter where the conclusions lead.
There is
NO real controversy among geologists that the earth is old, very old, over 4.5 billion years old. People who claim there is a controversy are those who are deluded by irrational thought and conclusion not based on evidence.
There is
NO real controversy among climatologists and geneticists that there was no world wide flood and that climate change is happening. People who claim there is a controversy are those who are deluded by irrational thought and conclusion not based on evidence.
There is
NO real controversy among biologists that evolution explains the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the living world around us. People who claim there is a controversy are those who are deluded by irrational thought and conclusion not based on evidence.
... The creation issue was involved in science education at least somewhat more 50 years ago than it has been in the last couple of decades. ...
And (even if true, which I doubt) it is never too late to stop going down the wrong road. There were many things that were taught that are now known to be false or wicked. They used to teach that slavery, segregation, that women's place was in the home, etc etc etc.
That it was taught does not make it true, it just means that mistakes were made, mistakes that we can correct.
The U.S didn't become what it is today, either by accident, or by a scientific knowledge that was superior to the rest of the world. It became what it is largely because of a whole host of knowledge, (history of human nature, desire of personal liberty, etc.) all of which had little or nothing to do with science. What the U.S. has accomplished up to now, is largely taken for granted, both within and without the U.S
Because a rational logical base was used, one that challenged beliefs and opinions, one that proceeded with an open mind to change, rather than a clinging to the past and old ideas.
Interferes? Liberty and limited government are built around the concept "endowed by their creator".
The declaration of independence is not the constitution.
quote:
... and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, ...
The god referenced in the declaration is "nature's god" -- the deist god. Deists believe that you use education and knowledge to find out what you can, not to limit what you should think or know.
Dawkins isn't from the U.S. Though he does seem to increasingly be the premier spokesman for the three things that this O/P of yours is about; scientific study, militant atheism, and extreme political liberalism.
But it also should be obvious to you that the U.S. was at least partially FOUNDED on what Dawkins goes into childish rants about. I would hope that would make it obvious to many that Dawkins opinions on U.S. politics mean absolutely nothing.
Completely irrelevant to the argument -- attack the argument not the bearer of information that disturbs you.
The US was founded on freedom of ALL beliefs -- as clearly dictated in the constitution -- rather than on any particular set, and any belief otherwise is self-delusion.
There are climate scientists all over the world who disagree with the atheist, liberal view of global warming, and have written articles and books about it. It's not good for the U.S. to shield students from these other points of view. Even if students are indoctrinated with only the correct conclusions on current issues, hearing only one side does nothing to prepare future adults to think for themselves on issues that will be important to U.S. survival that will be prominent later in U.S. existence.
There are pawns of large corporations who are paid to disagree. The predominant consensus of over 90% of climate scientists is that climate change is due to human sources, mostly pollution from large corporations.
This number is growing, as it becomes increasingly obvious that climate change is happening.
Or perhaps a history lesson, not only for government representatives, but for politically militant members of the scientific community.
If it were real history, not make believe tea-party history, you might find that we know more facts than you do. Getting a PhD at a university is not just science education, and it is certainly more than what we get in high school.
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
