Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America

There are differing opinions among U.S. residents concerning what they would like to see the U.S. do, or become. So there would be differing opinions on what could be "bad" for the U.S. Your opening statement only seeks to further eliminate something from education. Shouldn't education be about teaching students how to think, not what to think? By teaching them a broad spectrum of an issue, even the controversial ones? 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. The U.S. government is having a much harder time paying its bills now than it was 50 years ago.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. Interferes? Liberty and limited government are built around the concept "endowed by their creator". 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. 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. Or perhaps a history lesson, not only for government representatives, but for politically militant members of the scientific community.

All the O/P was about was eliminating something.

False. Religion figured prominently in U.S. foundings. So does atheism, so do proponents of global warming. Just like going into science without Darwinist dogma?

quote:

---

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

---

50 Top Astronauts, Scientists, Engineers Sign Letter Claiming Extremist GISS Is Turning NASA Into A Laughing Stock!andhttp://www.americanthinker.com/...gainst_global_warming.html

quote:

---

It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.

---

Because science has become political. There's way more power and money in shouting down religion than there is in actually doing science.Also;The Great Global Warming Swindle - Wikipedia

Evidence includes written history. The scientific community obviously chooses to sometimes ignore or replace written history when it clashes with a proclamation of the past that science wishes to make. There's not always objective empirical evidence for every question about reality. The time has come to realize that science has been taken over by political special interests. It's no longer a "disinterested pursuit of knowledge", and needs to be policed for what it has become. I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the U.S. is getting more and more religious, it’s actually getting more and more secular, Every statistic shows it. Statistics also show that some new, BAD things are happening, in a perfect correlation with religiousity going down, such as increased drug use, legalized gambling, less productivity etc.. Co-incidence, according the scientific community probably, but some are thankful that they’re not completely in charge of political decisions. But it’s what the constitution is based on. I know the extreme left doesn't agree, as don't many non U.S. residents. Are you from the U.S? Some participating in this thread are, some aren’t. Some don’t have their location listed by their name, you being one. When I see a non-religious, non resident of the U.S. claim that weakening religion in the U.S. would be good for it, I wonder if it could be because they’d love to see the U.S. brought down to the level of their own country. The words stupid, ignorant, insance, wicked are sophisticated scientific information? Oh, and there are no pawns in the scientific community who aren’t paid by the special interests of atheism and liberalism? Now all we need for a scientific community takeover of the political process is for it to become increasingly obvious to the general public. Here is link showing the results of a survey taken to find out how scientifically literate tea party members can be. At least he was honest enough to report his (surprising to him) findings.

No, the first step would be to make sure they know that science isn't the only source of knowledge, that when the U.S. was founded, and it was being determined what would be good or bad for it, that science had very little to do with it. Teaching them how to think, not what to think, as one example, would be to make sure they understand what Federalist Paper #10 was about, including the definition of what a 'faction' is. That's for sure, if we give in to atheist, liberal, global warming factions, all the irreversible problems it is sure to cause could have been avoided if only those who allowed it to happen had known something about the tyrannies of history. No, history shows that it did. I'm not sure if the scientific community is attempting to revise that or not, however. If they are, it shouldn't be taught as fact. That's not controversial. I'm sure most atheists/liberals in the scientific community consider any discussion about U.S. financial problems to be "drivel" because most of them don't have even a high school level knowledge of economics. Of course not, I'm sure atheist liberal courses on critical thinking would include nothing more than science, and have little to do with history, economics, morals, etc.

Climate scientists aren't completely in charge of U.S. political decisions, and their opinions of what is bad or good for the U.S. is of minor importance. Of course, if they didn't have information of the special interests that opposed them, I wouldn't think they'd have much credibility.

The tone of the O/P is loaded with all three. Only those who are completely blinded by all three wouldn't be able to see it.

You use the word "empirical" as if it's a foolproof, scientific only term. Let's see what dictionary.com has to say about the word;1)derived from or guided by experience or experiment.2)depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.3)provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.Particularly regarding #2, the tyrants of the religions of 250 years ago could correctly say the evidence of their religion was empirical. Says you who desperately wants to run U.S. politics according to atheist/liberal beliefs, and not one other scientific poster on these forums has questioned you on that so far. You're not going to answer my question about where you're from?

They always support what I claim, just because there is opposition to them doesn't make them invalid. The good professor probably got contacted by someone in control of his job, or his life, telling him to get busy and fix his mistake, if he knows what's good for him.

There is often a lot of difference between what someone claims himself to be, and what he writes. But todays deists don't show themselves to be any different from atheists anyway. Very little similarity between todays deists and those few who were involved in U.S. founding.