Tennessee to teach the controversy

[SixNein]

I'm just asking how the bill might be used to promote religious opinions over scientific ones. So far nobody's answered, or even addressed, that question.

Depends upon what you mean by religious opinions. Do you mean endorsements of religion or religiously motivated opinions?

The bill does not allow endorsements. But creationist arguments short of endorsements would be permitted.

For example, go here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Many of those arguments would be legit under this bill. Obviously, the ones directly endorsing a creator would not. They would have to stop short of claiming a creator.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students
understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths
and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being
taught.

Scientific weaknesses of what theories? I'm assuming that means evolution, since that's the only theory that was mentioned. What weaknesses are there in the theory of evolution?

 

[Q_Goest]

I'm just asking exactly how the bill might be used to promote religious opinions over scientific ones. So far nobody's answered, or even addressed, that question.

Hi ThomasT. The video provided in the OP shows how lawmakers are interpreting this bill which is no doubt, a bit different than how you are reading it. What they are saying is that evolution is controversial which they've written into paragraph (2) along with a few other topics they don't like. Here's the statement made in the bill:

(2) The teaching of some scientific subjects, including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy; and ...

So basically, this is a bill which states that teachers shall be allowed (not prohibited is the wording in the bill) to help students critique evolution and other "controversial" scientific theories. If you're a creationist working as a teacher, this bill offers you the opportunity to say to your class that evolution is not a proven fact, that it's controversial and should not be taken as the only possible theory regarding how various species came into being on this planet. It doesn't allow you to teach creationism but it does allow you as a teacher to suggest that evolution is not accepted by the scientific community (controversial) and other theories are potentially the correct ones.

The bill stops short of forcing teachers to say that evolution is controversial. It doesn't say teachers are required to state that evolution is not widely accepted. It does however, offer the individual teacher the right to suggest this and that's what the creationists are after. Listed in the bill are the rights the teacher has to say evolution is controversial:

(c) ... Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

(d) Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authrity, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.

That's where the problem lies. The problem is that it gives teachers a legal right so critique evolution. Teachers are being given a legal right to suggest that evolution is not how species came about on this planet. "So what" little Johnny might ask, "are the other theories of how people came into being?" I'm sure the teacher will field this question with zest if they believe in creationism.

 

[Hobin]

A well-written reply, Q_Goest.

 

[ThomasT]

The problem is that it gives teachers a legal right to critique evolution.

I just watched the video. It improved my perspective on this. It will be interesting to see if this leads to more teachers introducing intelligent design and creationism into science classes. The bill is worded vaguely enough that it can be interpreted to allow that, while avoiding any lawsuits that might happen if it required that ID and creationism be presented in science classes.

But suppose that some group of scientists decided to challenge (what I assume is a more or less common practice in Tennessee schools of) the presentation of ID and creationism in science classes, on the premise that ID and creationism aren't scientific but rather religiously based positions. Would any lawsuit like that be possible?

 

[D H]

That's where the problem lies. The problem is that it gives teachers a legal right so critique evolution. Teachers are being given a legal right to suggest that evolution is not how species came about on this planet. "So what" little Johnny might ask, "are the other theories of how people came into being?" I'm sure the teacher will field this question with zest if they believe in creationism.

According to a recent survey (http://www.livescience.com/11656-13-biology-teachers-advocate-creationism-class.html), about 13% of high school biology teachers already advocate for creationism in their biology classes, 28% actively teach evolution, while 60% just don't touch evolution or creation. It's just too controversial given the weird beliefs in this country.

Those silent teachers are just as much a win for creationists as are the 13%. Maybe more so. That 13% will eventually result in a lawsuit.

 

[SixNein]

I just watched the video. It improved my perspective on this. It will be interesting to see if this leads to more teachers introducing intelligent design and creationism into science classes. The bill is worded vaguely enough that it can be interpreted to allow that, while avoiding any lawsuits that might happen if it required that ID and creationism be presented in science classes.

But suppose that some group of scientists decided to challenge (what I assume is a more or less common practice in Tennessee schools of) the presentation of ID and creationism in science classes, on the premise that ID and creationism aren't scientific but rather religiously based positions. Would any lawsuit like that be possible?

Outside of the video in post one, the following video covers the debate leading up to the vote on the bill:

http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=196&clip_id=3989&meta_id=73331

 

[leroyjenkens]

about 13% of high school biology teachers already advocate for creationism in their biology classes

I want creationism taught in a few classes and videotaped so I can see it. I've been curious for years how you would even teach creationism in a biology class. We could bring back America's Funniest Videos just for this.

 

[russ_watters]

But suppose that some group of scientists decided to challenge (what I assume is a more or less common practice in Tennessee schools of) the presentation of ID and creationism in science classes, on the premise that ID and creationism aren't scientific but rather religiously based positions. Would any lawsuit like that be possible?

This is exactly the purpose of that opening paragraph in the bill and the source of a catch-22 for the creationist crowd: If they didn't define evolution in the bill to be "controversial", then there would be no reasonable basis for challenging it in school (since it isn't), so it would be much more problematic to do so. The factual deck is stacked in favor of evolution in reality. So defining it to be controversial makes it impossible for a curriculum director, for example, to say "no, that's not controversial, so you can't challenge it". Writing it into the bill stacks the deck against evolution.

But the catch-22 is that the list of examples in the law lays bare the purpose of the law. Makes it tough to sneak by people that you are attempting to undermine evolution when you say so right in the preamble to the law.

 

[Bobbywhy]

I'm just asking exactly how the bill might be used to promote religious opinions over scientific ones. So far nobody's answered, or even addressed, that question.

I believe the above question by ThomasT is a very important one. Q_Goest has posted a superb explanation of some of the objectionable aspects of Tennessee House Bill 368 and Senate Bill 893. So, at the risk of repeating material that has already been posted, below are some examples of how the bill can be used to promote religious opinions over scientific evidence. This list is not complete; there are even more criticisms.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam indicated that he opposed this so-called “monkey bill,” but he refused to veto it. Instead, he allowed it to become law without his signature. Haslam released this statement: “The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion. My concern is that this bill has not met this objective.”

Opponents point out that there is no scientific controversy in the subjects mentioned in the bill, but only a political and religious one, therefore "teaching the controversy" would only be appropriate in a social studies, religion, or philosophy class.

Direct opposition to this legislation comes from the following organizations:

• The American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dr. Alan Leshner, Chief Executive Officer of AAAS, wrote a letter to Tennessee Representatives DeBarry and Naifeh of the House Education Subcommittee that articulates the potential harm to science education if this Bill becomes state law:

Dear Representatives DeBarry and Naifeh:
On behalf of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world's largest general scientific society, I am writing to provide input on the scientific questions raised by HB 368. There is virtually no scientific controversy among the overwhelming majority of researchers on the core facts of global warming and evolution. Asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of these concepts when there are none will only confuse students, not enlighten them.

The core principles concerning both evolution and global warming have been subjected to substantial scientific scrutiny. They have been tested and retested for decades, and their scientific merits have been consistently reinforced. Assertions to the contrary are incompatible with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.
The science of evolution underpins all of modern biology and is supported by tens of thousands of scientific studies in fields that include cosmology, geology, paleontology, genetics and other biological specialties. The concept of evolution informs scientific research in a broad range of fields, including both agriculture and medicine, which significantly affect our everyday lives.

Scientific observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence. Indeed, our understanding of the greenhouse effect goes back more than a century.

HB 368 states that students should be taught to think critically, but such thinking is already inherent in the way science is taught. To truly benefit the students of Tennessee, teachers must present the best peer-reviewed research; only in this way will students gain the strong understanding of science necessary to compete for high-skill jobs in an increasingly high-tech world economy.

We encourage you to continue to support a rigorous scientific education curriculum in Tennessee schools by rejecting HB 368. Founded in 1848, AAAS has a longstanding interest and expertise in science education. We stand ready to assist you.

• The National Center for Science Education. Eugenie C. Scott, the executive director said that "Telling students that evolution and climate change are scientifically controversial is miseducating them. Good science teachers know that. But the Tennessee legislature has now made it significantly harder to ensure that science is taught responsibly in the state's public schools."

Josh Rosenau, also from the National Center for Science Education said “The sponsors say that it's meant to improve science education and do all sorts of wonderful things. I think they'd say that it cleans your floors too, if you asked them. The effect of the bill, regardless of what they might want to say that it does, would be to make it harder for parents and teachers and administrators to make sure that science was being taught accurately in science classes. It would open the door to creationism, it would open the door to climate change denial, and to other sorts of pseudosciences being introduced into Tennessee classrooms. The concern is that this sends a signal to teachers that certain subjects are controversial--subjects that are not scientifically controversial--things that are subject to political controversy, perhaps, but that in the science classroom are not controversial and shouldn't be treated that way.”

• The American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, which said “it (the HB 368 law) is cover for teachers who want to teach creationism or intelligent design.”

• The U.S. National Academy of Sciences of Tennessee, including Vanderbilt University medicine Nobelist Stanley Cohen, has written a letter objecting to the measure, saying it could force teachers "to emphasize what are misdescribed as the scientific weaknesses of evolution." Larisa DeSantis, a scientist at Vanderbilt University, told MSNBC that, “what it does is bring the political controversy into the classroom, where there is no scientific controversy.” Three prominent scientists from Tennessee, all members of the National Academy of Sciences, wrote a letter published in the Tennessean newspaper that derided the legislation as "misleading, unnecessary, likely to provoke unnecessary and divisive legal proceedings." In fact, the eight Tennessee members of the National Academy of Sciences wrote a statement to the Tennessee House Education Committee saying "By undermining the teaching of evolution in Tennessee's public schools, HB 368 and SB 893 would miseducate students, harm the state's national reputation, and weaken its efforts to compete in a science-driven global economy.

• The Tennessee Science Teachers Association. Here is a letter from the President of the TSTA, Becky Ashe:
“On behalf of the science educators of Tennessee represented by the Tennessee Science Teachers Association (TSTA), I write to you as their President to express my grave misgivings about House Bill 368 being introduced by Representative Bill Dunn at the Education Committee meeting. This bill purports to encourage our State's science teachers to teach "scientific controversies" and to protect them from administrative discipline if they choose to do so. HB 368 singles out evolution as an example of a "scientific subject" that "can cause controversy." The bill states that "teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught."

“We are in complete agreement with this last statement and are confident that good science teachers throughout our State are already doing this in an educational environment supported by their administrators. Therefore, this bill is unnecessary. However, this proposed legislation's major flaw implies that there is a scientific controversy surrounding evolution. As teachers and developers of other teachers, the members of TSTA recognize some communities’ contextual climate regarding the teaching of evolution. However, we also recognize that the scientific theory of evolution is accepted by mainstream scientists around the world as the cornerstone of biology and as the single, unifying explanation for the diversity of life on earth. This bill is an anti‐evolutionary attempt to allow non‐scientific alternatives to evolution (such as creationism and intelligent design) to be introduced into our public schools. Scientific theories must provide natural and testable explanations. Creationism and intelligent design fail on both counts because they invoke supernatural ultimate causes (e.g. God, or an unspecified "intelligent designer") that cannot be tested by the tools of science (e.g. no one can disprove the existence of God). These ideas are religiously motivated (directly countering Section 1e of HB 368) and have been shown time and time again (from court cases in Arkansas and Louisiana in the 1980s to the Dover, Pennsylvania, intelligent design trial in 2004‐05) to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

We therefore urge you and your colleagues to vote against this legislation; a proposed law that is unnecessary, anti‐scientific and very likely unconstitutional. Thank you for your attention and consideration.


Becky Ashe
President, TSTA 2011‐2013
Exec. Director Curriculum & Instruction
Knox County Schools
865.594.1705 or becky.ashe@knoxschools.org”

• The National Association of Biology Teachers.
The NABT expressed its opposition to Tennessee's "monkey bills" — House Bill 368 and Senate Bill 893 — in a letter to Governor Bill Haslam. The bills, which if enacted would encourage teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of "controversial" topics such as "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning," have passed their respective houses; it is still necessary for discrepancies between the two versions of the bill to be reconciled before the legislation is sent to the governor.

In its letter, NABT's Jaclyn Reeves-Pepin explained "We feel that the wording of this legislation clearly allows non-scientific explanations for topics such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming and human cloning to be introduced into the science classroom," adding, "Concepts like evolution and climate change should not be misrepresented as controversial or needing of special evaluation. Instead, they should be presented as scientific explanations for events and processes that are supported by experimentation, logical analysis, and evidence-based revision based on detectable and measurable data."

The letter concludes, "We respectfully request that you reject HB 368 and SB 893 in support of science education that imparts to students an understanding of science based on the key components of the scientific method and content agreed upon by scientists and professional educators. As an organization dedicated to biology education, we are confident that students of your state are best served when curriculum reflects these issues appropriately and maintains scientific integrity in the science classroom."

• The Americans United for Separation of Church and State notes that the group who helped author the bill, The Discovery Institute, “Describes itself as a think tank 'specializing in national and international affairs,' (but) the group's real purpose is to undercut church-state separation and turn public schools into religious indoctrination centers." In a statement the group also said the bill will “encourage public school teachers to discuss the alleged ‘controversy’ over evolution and offer them legal protection if they teach creationist concepts.”

•National Earth Science Teachers Association.
March 16, 2012
Tennessee State Senators
Tennessee State Representatives
Governor Bill Haslam

Dear Tennessee Leaders,
On behalf of the thousands of geoscience teachers represented by the National Earth Science Teachers Association, I write to express my grave misgivings about Senate Bill 893 and House Bill 368, currently under consideration by the Tennessee General Assembly.

These bills misrepresent key scientific concepts and principles, and would undermine the education of Tennessee's students. The bills present topics including evolution and global warming as scientific subjects which "may cause controversy" or "debate and disputation." These ideas are not scientifically controversial, and when taught correctly, do not cause debate or disputation in science classrooms. The only controversy, debate, or disputation about the legitimacy of these concepts occurs in the political arena, and these disputes do not belong in science classrooms.

NESTA affirms, along with the National Science Teachers Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the Tennessee Science Teachers Association, the American Geophysical Union, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers, and other leading scientific and educational organizations, that evolution is central to biology and to the Earth sciences and that it is an essential component of science classes. Furthermore, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence, NESTA agrees with the positions taken by many other organizations and leading scientists that Earth's climate is changing, that human activities are responsible for much of the warming seen in recent years, and the science of climate change is a fundamental part of Earth science education.

These bills encourage teachers to emphasize what are misrepresented as "scientific weaknesses" of evolution and climate change (among others). In practice, this term is often applied to scientifically unwarranted and widely-debunked attacks by creationists and others attempting to cloak a political agenda in the guise of science. While scientific research continues to illuminate how evolution and climate change influence the world around us, there is no scientific debate about whether they do so, and these bills are wrong to suggest otherwise.

By undermining the teaching of evolution and climate change, and by singling out science classes for special scrutiny, HB 368 and SB 893 would damage the scientific preparation of Tennessee’s students, harm Tennessee's national reputation, and weaken its efforts to participate in the 21st century economy.

We therefore urge you and your colleagues to vote against this legislation, and ask that the Governor veto this legislation, if it reaches his desk. This proposed law is unnecessary, anti‐scientific, bad for Tennessee’s future and very likely unconstitutional. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Dr. Roberta Johnson
Executive Director
National Earth Science Teachers Association

A few more entities that have published objections to the new law:

• The American Institute for Biological Sciences,
• The Knoxville News Sentinel
• The Nashville Tennessean
• The National Association of Geoscience Teachers
• The Tennessee Science Teachers Association

 

[russ_watters]

..."teaching the controversy" would only be appropriate in a social studies, religion, or philosophy class.

Many have been alluding to this and I've been struggling with it because IMO, the biggest barrier to scientific literacy in the US isn't the lack of mandatory biology, physics and chemistry classes in high school, it is the the lack of understanding of what science is. Taking a high school science class equips you to memorize what an Authority says and parrot it back, but it does not help you determine who you should listen to/if the message is worth listening to.

In 8th or 9th grade, I took a class called "Phsyical Science", which is an introduction into science, with one unit (about a month, iirc) on what science is followed by units on chemistry, astronomy, geology, etc. to introduce the different science topics. I don't think that's good/deep enough. I specifically remember learning accuracy vs precision and the scientific method, but most people (non-science oriented) don't retain that kind of thing. In addition, learning these basics at a superficial level does not get extended to recognition of science in our daily lives. I think a full-year junior high or early high school level course, simply titled "Science" is needed. It would teach (perhaps intermingled with each other):

-The history of the development of science, to provide a broad historical context for understanding the importance of the scientific process and how it came to be. I think non-scientific people will respond to the narrative teaching better than a strictly nuts-and-bolts one.
-The nuts and bolts like the scientific method and accuracy vs precision.
-The political/social implications, again with historical perspective.

Through this, kids would learn:
-To recognize what is and isn't science. This section could be broad enough to include strictly scientific (cold fusion) and not strictly scientific (9/11 conspiracy) crackpottery.
-To understand and recognize the use of and attacks against science for non-scientific purposes. Includes:
-Kings mixing astronomy and astrology, alchemy vs chemistry
-The persecution of Galileo
-Einstein's letter to FDR/the mixing of nuclear power and nuclear weapons in politics.
-The space race and the Cold War -- and the general issue of NASA's fortunes following politics.
-The ongoing, one-sided war between science and religion: with an emphasis on the fact that science is winning despite not participating in the fight.
-Science ethics/science disasters; the Titanic, the Challenger, the Concorde, Pier 34 collapse in Philly (why listening to your engineer can keep you out of jail).

Keeping creationism out of the classroom - any classroom - only does us limited good because it never enables kids to hear a response to the issue in a controlled environment, guaranteeing the only place they'll learn about it is at home or in church. It needs to be taught, but in the context of a class about the concept of science, not a class learning science subjects.

 

[Hobin]

-The ongoing, one-sided war between science and religion: with an emphasis on the fact that science is winning despite not participating in the fight.

This comes awfully close to saying people should just teach "Science good. Religion bad." in the classroom. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you about what you stated in itself, but I wouldn't encourage people to teach it like this. Not with so many people being religious, as that would only lead to such people getting *more* defensive and "oh noes teh scienzors is out to get us!".

 

[SixNein]

This comes awfully close to saying people should just teach "Science good. Religion bad." in the classroom. Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with you about what you stated in itself, but I wouldn't encourage people to teach it like this. Not with so many people being religious, as that would only lead to such people getting *more* defensive and "oh noes teh scienzors is out to get us!".

I've been wondering if this line of thinking is a mistake. Mostly, people tend to try to diffuse the problem between science and religion; however, things may be better off if those groups were simply laughed to scorn.

 

[mathwonk]

those of us from tennessee are, well, totally embarrassed by that fact, and have been for decades. except in reference to bill monroe and earl scruggs.

 

[turbo]

those of us from tennessee are, well, totally embarrassed by that fact, and have been for decades. except in reference to bill monroe and earl scruggs.

You have some excellent musical representatives!

 

[Bobbywhy]

Religion and science are different ways of understanding different realms-one spiritual and the other physical. Attempting to place them in opposition needlessly reduces the potential of both to contribute towards understanding.

Here is an excerpt from “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” published by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine:

“Science can neither prove nor disprove religion. Scientific advances have called some religious beliefs into question, such as the ideas that the Earth was created very recently, that the Sun goes around the Earth, and that mental illness is due to possession by spirits or demons. But many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science. Thus, it would be false to assume that all religious beliefs can be challenged by scientific findings.

As science continues to advance, it will produce more complete and more accurate explanations for natural phenomena, including a deeper understanding of biological evolution. Both science and religion are weakened by claims that something not yet explained scientifically must be attributed to a supernatural deity. Theologians have pointed out that as scientific knowledge about phenomena that had been previously attributed to supernatural causes increases, a “god of the gaps” approach can undermine faith. Furthermore, it confuses the roles of science and religion by attributing explanations to one that belong in the domain of the other.

Many scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies have increased their awe and understanding of a creator. The study of science need not lessen or compromise faith.”

 

[Hobin]

I've been wondering if this line of thinking is a mistake. Mostly, people tend to try to diffuse the problem between science and religion; however, things may be better off if those groups were simply laughed to scorn.

To be fair, that more or less *is* what happens where I live (in the Netherlands), I simply don't think it'd be, well, smart when 44% of the population are YECs (i.e. the USA).

 

[Bobbywhy]

To be fair, that more or less *is* what happens where I live (in the Netherlands), I simply don't think it'd be, well, smart when 44% of the population are YECs (i.e. the USA).

What is a "YEC", please?

 

[Hobin]

What is a "YEC", please?

Ah, my apologies. YEC stands for Young Earth Creationist (or Creationism).

EDIT: Here's the source, by the way: http://www.gallup.com/poll/27847/Majority-Republicans-Doubt-Theory-Evolution.aspx

 

[SixNein]

Religion and science are different ways of understanding different realms-one spiritual and the other physical. Attempting to place them in opposition needlessly reduces the potential of both to contribute towards understanding.

Here is an excerpt from “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” published by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine:

“Science can neither prove nor disprove religion. Scientific advances have called some religious beliefs into question, such as the ideas that the Earth was created very recently, that the Sun goes around the Earth, and that mental illness is due to possession by spirits or demons. But many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science. Thus, it would be false to assume that all religious beliefs can be challenged by scientific findings.

As science continues to advance, it will produce more complete and more accurate explanations for natural phenomena, including a deeper understanding of biological evolution. Both science and religion are weakened by claims that something not yet explained scientifically must be attributed to a supernatural deity. Theologians have pointed out that as scientific knowledge about phenomena that had been previously attributed to supernatural causes increases, a “god of the gaps” approach can undermine faith. Furthermore, it confuses the roles of science and religion by attributing explanations to one that belong in the domain of the other.

Many scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies have increased their awe and understanding of a creator. The study of science need not lessen or compromise faith.”

I think any religion can be falsified through science because religions make claims that are testable. If one were to remove the dues ex machina from religion, one would wind up with a story about people trying to grapple with life through some kind of philosophy. You would no longer have a religion. Dues ex machina is what causes conflict between religion and science, but it's central to any religion. After all, dues ex machina is the entire point of religion.

 

[russ_watters]

This comes awfully close to saying people should just teach "Science good. Religion bad." in the classroom.

In a science classroom, it really is that straightforward. In a philosophy/english classroom, you can still teach the literary content of religious texts. In Social Studies, you can teach the beeliefs and cultural aspects.

 

[russ_watters]

Religion and science are different ways of understanding different realms-one spiritual and the other physical. Attempting to place them in opposition needlessly reduces the potential of both to contribute towards understanding.

Here is an excerpt from “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” published by the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine:

That's basically a very tactful way of saying that while science can't prove everything about religion wrong, many/most attempts by religion to explain phenomena with scientific implications are wrong and as science advances, its territory expands and religion's territory contracts.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Religion and science are different ways of understanding different realms-one spiritual and the other physical. Attempting to place them in opposition needlessly reduces the potential of both to contribute towards understanding.

Statements like this baffle and dismay me. When religions make factual claims or teach beliefs based on factual claims then they enter the realm of science. Factually correct understanding of any subject can only come from a rational interpretation of the evidence at hand, something that religions do not actively engage in. Furthermore it is monumentally fallacious (and again I'm dismayed to see it pronounced so often) to imply a segregation along the lines of science dealing with "just the physical world" when many if not most attributes of religions fall under scientific disciplines. Factual statements about the world clearly enter the arena of the natural sciences. Social statements, beliefs and practices enter the arena of both the natural and social sciences. Commonly I hear people say things like "science might be able to explain chemicals but it can't explain love, companionship and community" which is patently untrue. Neuroscience, psychology and sociology all strive to understand and thus develop things that religions frequently claim to themselves e.g. morality, personal and collective well being, social behaviour etc.

So once you realize that religion's factual claims about the universe are in the arena of the natural sciences and that social claims/practices are in the arena of the natural and social sciences then all you are left with is what you have already said; the so called "spiritual" side of things. But without a proper definition of what that means and any evidence that it is separate to physiological, psychological and social phenomenon you are stuck with the fact that the relationship between religion and science is not one that allows them to be separate, nor can they occupy the same place in both individuals and society.

 

[SixNein]

Tennessee is gearing up to pass a new bill:

http://www.care2.com/causes/tenness...and-holding-is-a-gateway-sexual-activity.html

Apparently, hand holding is a gateway to sexual intercourse.

 

[ThomasT]

Religion and science are different ways of understanding different realms-one spiritual and the other physical. Attempting to place them in opposition needlessly reduces the potential of both to contribute towards understanding.

Though I like your posts and hope you continue contributing, I disagree with this. What does spiritual realm refer to, objectively, wrt what actually exists outside of the emotional disposition and socialization of people who speak of spirits and a spiritual/supernatural realm?

Science, on the other hand, has clear cut objective criteria for ascertaining the truth of any statement about our world. Wrt the definition of the term evolution, the criteria are clear and unambiguous, and the fact that evolution occurs is indisputable -- though certain aspects of the specific mechanism(s) wrt which evolution proceeds are an open scientific question.

The important point, I think, is that religion is not a means or method to understanding our world. It is, rather, a set of unfalsifiable myths upon which a certain political structure and set of social traditions has been built. This apparently gives a certain comfort to those who choose to adhere to those traditions, but not to those who understand the basis of those traditions in a scientific way.

 

[ThomasT]

Tennessee is gearing up to pass a new bill:

http://www.care2.com/causes/tenness...and-holding-is-a-gateway-sexual-activity.html

Apparently, hand holding is a gateway to sexual intercourse.

Wow. What's up with Tennessee? You actually live there? If so, you have my sympathy. Just kidding in a way. No matter where you might go, there are pockets of this kind of thinking. The religious stuff, the anti-science stuff. I grew up with it.

But as Russ and others have noted, science advances on it's own merits. It isn't dependent on blind faith. If you want to build a bridge, or a building, or a machine, or get at the truth of some apparent statistical trend ... who you going to call?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Spiritual stuff: why are we here, where did we come from, where do we go when we die? etc.

 

[ThomasT]

Spiritual stuff: why are we here, where did we come from, where do we go when we die? etc.

Neither science nor religion answers these questions. Maybe that's what spiritual means, ie., unanswerable, ie., meaningless. If you want to believe that the controlling agent is a human-like supernatural being with infinite powers, which is in conflict with another human-like supernatural being with infinite powers, both residing in their own domains, one domain which you will pass on to if you believe in it, and the other which you will pass on to if you don't believe in the other, then good luck with that. To me, these beliefs are a product of the social acceptance and furtherance of ignorant ancient mythology.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Spiritual stuff: why are we here, where did we come from, where do we go when we die? etc.

These are ambiguous, poorly formed questions. "Why are we here" firstly fails to define what here really means and secondly begs the question that there is a "why" that is not a "how". To explain further: the human race exists because it evolved on a planet that formed etc etc. Science can continue to endeavour to explain the processes of our history but until we have evidence of a purpose asking why is loading the question.

"Where did we come from" is a similarly bad question because when people ask it they tend to have some vague notion of divinity/supernatural purpose behind it. I say that because the answer of: the species evolved and across tens of thousands of years we spread across the globe and due to a variety of factors developed a variety of civilisations.

"Where do we go when we die" is probably the worst formed as it presupposes a "we" disconnected from life. It is an excellent example of begging the question. "I" insofar as my conscious mind ceases to exist when I die, it doesn't go anywhere and asking where it went is like asking "where does a flame go when blown out?" On the other hand "I" insofar as the physical body (that gives rise to me when it is healthy and awake) will probably be harvested for its organs and usable tissues before being cremated and the ashes scattered. "I" won't be around to see and confirm that but those are my wishes and my family has promised to carry them out.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Responding to russ_watters, post #142, to Ryan_m_b, post #143, and to ThomasT, post # 145.

Gentlemen: Thank you for your stimulating comments and interesting questions.

Albert Einstein supported the compatibility of some interpretations of religion with science. In an article originally appearing in the New York Times Magazine in 1930, he wrote:

“Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of
the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which
neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same
necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the
age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these
values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one
conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict
between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not
what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain
necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human
thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships
between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between
religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of
the situation which has been described.”

It seems to me that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. Science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete.

Both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching human experience. Science is closely tied to mathematics which is a very abstract experience. Religion is more closely tied to the ordinary experience of life. As interpretations of experience, science is descriptive and religion is prescriptive.

For science and mathematics to concentrate on what the world ought to be like in the way that religion does can be inappropriate because that may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world. For example, in the sixth century B.C, Pythagoras, familiar to geometry students for his Pythagorean theorem, taught that the essence of the universe could be found in music and in numbers.

The reverse situation where religion attempts to be descriptive can also lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. One example is the now defunct belief in the Ptolemy planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views.

Many religious beliefs do not rely on evidence gathered from the natural world. On the contrary, an important component of religious belief is faith. This implies acceptance of a truth regardless of the presence of empirical evidence for or against that truth. Scientists cannot accept scientific conclusions on faith alone because all such conclusions must be subject to testing against observations. Thus, scientists do not “believe” in evolution in the same way that a person with religious faith “believes” in God.

The religion and science community consists of those scholars who involve themselves with what has been called the "religion-and-science dialogue" or the "Religion-and-science field." The community belongs to neither the scientific nor the religious community, but is said to be a third overlapping community of interested and involved scientists, priests, clergymen, and theologians. Institutions interested in the intersection between science and religion include the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, the Ian Ramsey Centre, and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science.

IMO
• The starting point of every debate (like this Tennessee law) should be that America has separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment.

• Everyone of every faith is entitled to have and practice their religious beliefs.

• Since I am an antitheist I consider beliefs in spirits and Iron Age myths to be unreasonable and irrational.

• Cooperation between individuals and groups breeds trust. Compromise is the key to progress in resolving differences. Both cooperation and compromise are essential for the successful advancement of our society and our nation.