Creationists Portray New Science Standards As "Big Government"

[cbayer]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/michaelschulson/7275/creationists_portray_new_science_standards_as__big_government___/

September 1, 2013 2:24pm
Post by MICHAEL SCHULSON

Back in 2011, a team of scientists, science educators, and policymakers began drafting new guidelines for science education in the US, which debuted this past winter as the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). For the most part, they focus on “critical thinking and communication skills”—on teaching the “habits and skills that scientists and engineers use day in and day out,” and not just long lists of facts.

You’re probably thinking, “This sounds great!” After all, there’s plenty of evidence that America’s science education is lagging behind other countries, and these kinds of standards hadn’t been updated in almost 15 years, which, by the timescale of scientific progress, is about a century. And what could be more important than teaching critical thinking to young people?

Not everyone is pleased. Over at WORLD magazine this past week, Casey Luskin’s argument for why conservative evangelicals should be distressed about the new standards offers a useful portrait of how anti-evolution writers stoke fear—and a helpful demonstration of why the NGSS is so badly needed.

Luskin is an attorney, a writer, and a staff member at the Discovery Institute, an intelligent design think-tank. (I recently reviewed a book by Luskin’s boss. In what might seem like a conflict of interest, Luskin did, too.) Writing under the title “Darwinian Dictates,” Luskin explains:

Public education curricula in the United States have traditionally been controlled by local and state boards of education, but under newly crafted national guidelines called the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), K-12 public school students across the country may learn essentially the same uniform science curriculum, one that proselytizes for Darwinism.

more at link

[shenmue]

1. Proselytizes?

The nerve! This is all about the fundamentalists trying to push their religious doctrine.

I can't stand those people.

[cbayer]

4. Yeah, proselytizes for a uniform curricula actually based on science!

Can you believe the nerve, lol.

[dballance]

2. If they actually taught "Critical Thinking" they'd be sunk.

I think they are embarking upon their undoing. If they actually teach the skills of critical thinking then their religion will not stand up to that standard.

Silly myths from over 2,000 years ago will not stand up to real science. Not stand up to what we can now understand through science. Through testable and falsifiable experiments and observations.

The Earth still rotates around a star and is not the center of the universe. No matter how much earlier people believed that to be the case.

[cbayer]

5. Well, critical thinking doesn't eliminate religion and the stories may sill stand up,

but it will deeply challenge some of the notions of the fundamentalists - like literal interpretation of the bible.

[dballance]

7. You Think?

Surely critical thinking will challenge the notions of fundamentalists as you say. It is very hard to read the Bible and say it is a completely inspired literal work that was more or less dictated to the people who wrote it by some perfect, divine being. Most people these days don't even know that scholars are pretty well in agreement that the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were not really written by any of those people who were said to be disciples. They are simply named for them to give them credibility. People have no idea that in early Christianity there were many sects that didn't adhere to the faith as we now know it.

The Old Testament/Torah is so full of evil and inappropriate actions of a God that it's really hard to see why people wanted to believe in that particular deity. If you were not one of his chosen people then you were pretty much crap to be dispatched or used. Hence the nicer, more loving, all-inclusive New Testament. One of the major follies of the Torah is that it proclaims that there is a people chosen by the almighty God. That all others are basically worthless. Why an all-mighty God would who created all of the universe and humanity would allow this is never addressed.

Sure, that made a lot of sense in that period most call the Bronze Age. Back when humans had not the foggiest clue about chemistry, biology or even the fact the Earth is round, not flat.

So I won't disparage those people because they lived life based on what they thought was true. Just as we do today. Perhaps some day our conceptions of the world and universe will be looked upon as so quaint and so wrong. But so much in line with what we knew at the time.

But neither will I promote their primitive beliefs into a reason for who we are and why we exist. We have a lot better understanding of things than people of 2,000 years ago. The real scientists and physicists will tell you, without reservation, that we don't understand everything. That there are great discoveries to be made still. None of those has to do with some mythical being who turns the cranks and wheels of the universe.

Yes, it is terribly unsatisfying to our sense of order to think about the universe in terms of quantum mechanics and how the highest entropy wins out. Lowest enthalpy and highest entropy were things I learned long ago in chemistry and physics classes. When entropy wins out there is no sense of calm order. Perhaps Einstein was incorrect and "God" does play dice with the universe.

What's in store for us in the next roll of the dice? I look forward to that.

[cbayer]

9. It always makes me chuckle to think of how people will see us in the future.

We feel so confident that we know so much, just as everyone has before us.

You don't have to promote anything. I had a talk with my DH last night and the two words that we decided were critical were courtesy and tolerance. Everyone see the world differently and the degree to which they see it through a scientific and/or religious lens is completely individualized. As long as someone's beliefs don't impinge on you they should not matter.

Entropy is a great concept. I remember first learning it too, and I was struck with how it is a metaphor for life in general.

I also look forward to the next roll of the dice.

[dballance]

10. Courtesy and tolerance.

I think you are a wise person.

[cbayer]

11. That is very nice of you to say.

I used to say respect, but generally got the response that respect has to be earned and became convinced that this wasn't the right word.

Anyway, thanks so much. I very much enjoy engaging with you.

[dballance]

12. As my grandma used to tell me...

Honest compliments never costed me nothing. But they usually repaid very well.

[cbayer]

13. Grandma wisdom can be the best.

Great advice, imo.

[okasha]

14. One of my undergraduate anthropology professors

was fond of speculating about anthropologists a couple millenia ftom now digging through a 20th century landfill and finding innumerable small inscribed vessels made of glass and metal. They would then go on to write the definitive monograph on our religion based on worship of the Divine Twins, Coca Cola and Pepsii Cola.

[cbayer]

15. And then there poor dismissed RC.

[longship]

3. Casey Luskin is an utter idiot.

The Discovery Institute is funded by loonies.

Steve Novella of Skeptics Guide to the Universe has spoken on the podcast and blogged plenty about Luskin. Bob Novella claims he blogs in his free time while working at IHOP. Hey, Casey! Table 14 needs more syrup!

The only appropriate response to these people is ridicule.

[cbayer]

6. I know. Perhaps they will go the way of his beloved dinosaurs and go extinct.

I can only hope.

First, bring me some of those delicious blueberry pancakes!

[longship]

8. Casey!! More blueberry on table 12! Quick!

SGU, the best podcast in the universe.