What is discouraging however, is that you can fail a biology test for not believing in the TOE.
No, as CathSci already pointed out to you with a direct quote from the article.
In the late 1980's, I obtained a copy of the California Framework for Science Education. It also stated that same position quite explicitly: the objective of science education is
not to compel belief, but rather to require
understanding of the material.
For example, in the early 1980's the US Air Force trained us in Communism. We were right in the middle of the Cold War and the Air Force was requiring us to learn Communism. Was it their intention that we believe in Communism? No, quite the opposite. It was their intention for us to
know our enemy.
Frankly, I think that every single creationist be required to study and learn evolution thoroughly. If they really want to fight against and defeat evolution,
then they absolutely must learn everything they possibly can about their enemy. Instead, we find that creationists have no understanding of evolution nor of science, so their attacks are ineffective, assinine, and do much more to discredit their own Christianity. Their attacks are ineffective because they only attack a contrived strawman caricature that they name "evolution"; they never come close to touching the real thing. Their attacks are assinine because they don't understand science, so they make claims that are mind-bogglingly ridiculous. And they discredit Christianity because non-Christians see the foolish claims they make and the dishonesty of "creation science" and mark off Christianity as something that they could never seriously consider. Plus, when creationists finally learn the truth about "creation science" and can no longer evade it, they suffer a crisis of faith which has resulted in many becoming atheists of the worst kind, an anti-Christianity atheist bitter about how his former religion and lied to and betrayed him.
Now please compare the Framework's position of requiring understanding without compelling belief, with what "creation science" does when it gets into the classroom. There, the creationist materials are centered on requiring the student to believe. In particular, the materials repeated require the student to choose between the Creator and "atheistic science". These are public school materials, mind you. A documented case of this occurred in 1981 in Livermore, California (
No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/Livermore.html), where some of the elementary-grade students followed the instructions and, finding the creationist side so ridiculous, chose to become atheists.
As far a his bouncing the ball comparison with evolution, well he is really stretching his parallelism.
Didn't you read that part?
quote:
The Limits of Science
The morning after his Mickey Mouse gambit, he bounced a pink rubber Spalding ball on the classroom’s hard linoleum floor.
“Gravity,” he said. “I can do this until the end of the semester, and I can only assume that it will work the same way each time.”
He looked around the room. “Bryce, what is it called when natural laws are suspended ” what do you call it when water changes into wine?”
“Miracle?” Bryce supplied.
Mr. Campbell nodded. The ball hit the floor again.
“Science explores nature by testing and gathering data,” he said. “It can’t tell you what’s right and wrong. It doesn’t address ethics. But it is not anti-religion. Science and religion just ask different questions.”
He grabbed the ball and held it still.
“Can anybody think of a question science can’t answer?”
“Is there a God?” shot back a boy near the window.
“Good,” said Mr. Campbell, an Anglican who attends church most Sundays. “Can’t test it. Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it. It’s not a question for science.”
Bryce raised his hand.
“But there is scientific proof that there is a God,” he said. “Over in Turkey there’s a piece of wood from Noah’s ark that came out of a glacier.”
Mr. Campbell chose his words carefully.
“If I could prove, tomorrow, that that chunk of wood is not from the ark, is not even 500 years old and not even from the right kind of tree ” would that damage your religious faith at all?”
Bryce thought for a moment.
“No,” he said.
The room was unusually quiet.
“Faith is not based on science,” Mr. Campbell said. “And science is not based on faith. I don’t expect you to ”believe’ the scientific explanation of evolution that we’re going to talk about over the next few weeks.”
“But I do,” he added, “expect you to understand it.”
Please point to where you think that he was comparing evolution to that bouncing ball. The precise paragraph, sentence, or phrase.
Shouldn't you have actually
read the article before making comments about it?
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
