Would The President of C.O.P.E. Please Stand Up?

[Jorge]

Well, Jorge is correct in saying that science classes teach science, which consists of a method and the findings produced by that method. It appears that Jorge wishes to designate the scientific method as a worldview paradigm or some such, in order to point out that it FAILS to be properly embedded within a religious context irrelevant to, if not outright antithetical to, the practice of science itself.

So Jorge repeats, endlessly, that reality threatens his superstitions (indeed, trivially refutes them at every turn), and he wants reality to GO AWAY and wants everyone else's children to learn that where evidence fails to support Jorge's superstition, evidence doesn't matter. Oh yeah, and he probably wants prayers to his god to open every science class, and every attempt made (however silly) to insert Jesus into every other sentence. I've seen some of the "Christian" home-school science and history texts, and they don't even pretend to educate students about facts or evidence, where such things interfere with proper indoctrination.

**************************************************

Phank : you seem like a nice lad but, truthfully, you simply
do not know what you're talking about. You make numerous
errors not the least of which is to utilize at least two sets of
standards. Let me spell that out for you.

Materialism / Atheism is a religious position and it is the
only religious position allowed to be presented in
public schools, 'secular' colleges, most workplaces, etc.
All other positions are censored to the point that EXPELLED
is a real threat that has been exercised hundreds of times.

You need to (1) recognize this and, (2) accept it as fact.
Until you do so, you have no hope of actually making
any progress on this issue.

Now, as to Tiggy, I'll ask you kindly to leave me alone
until you get your facts in straight and in order. Thanks.

Jorge

[Tiggy]

************************************************

Good grief, man - I even highlighted your error (bolded and green color).
What else do you want me to do - send you a telegram with pictures in crayon?

I want you to honestly answer the questions and tell me what the straw man premise was, and what facts I got wrong.

Go ahead, prove me wrong ... show us where the letter states that we want to include
"Biblical Genesis Special Creation" as you claim in your post ... go on, we be a'waitin'.

Learn to read Jorge. I didn't say your letter states you want to include "Biblical Genesis Special Creation". I repeated verbatim the letter's demand that the standards include testing methods for competing hypotheses, then asked you what test methods for the Biblical Genesis Special Creation hypothesis you had in mind.

If you have no way to test your Biblical Genesis Special Creation hypothesis then you agree it shouldn't be taught in schools, right?

- T

[phank]

Materialism / Atheism is a religious position and it is the
only religious position allowed to be presented in
public schools, 'secular' colleges, most workplaces, etc.

Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Jorge simply doesn't seem to grasp that just because some religion makes a scientifically testable claim, that does NOT mean science thereby becomes a religion. It means the religion has invaded a territory that doesn't belong to it.

Science is not a religious enterprise. Science makes NO comment about the supernatural, because that lies outside the boundaries and competence of science. Failure to invade inappropriate territory does NOT make science religious, it means science has integrity, and can ONLY work by maintaining that integrity.

Jorge, I understand how offended you are that science doesn't pray at your god, or include your god in every theory, or distort its findings to force-fit them into your religious requirements. You need to TRY to understand that science doesn't appeal to any gods (including yours) because science is not a religion. It is a method. And the method WORKS, and the method works PRECISELY for the reason you attack it - because it is objective about the universe and you aren't willing to tolerate objectivity.

(And incidentally, wherever "supernatural influences" have been possible to operationalize, they have been and the studies have been done. They've always turned up negative, but the point is that your god isn't expelled, your god is imaginary and science keeps determining this indirectly, by being true to the scientific method.)

[Jorge]

I want you to honestly answer the questions and tell me what the straw man premise was, and what facts I got wrong.

ALL wrong, Tiggy ... ALL wrong!

Learn to read Jorge.

Sales of Irony Meters must be going through the roof right about now (see below).

I didn't say your letter states you want to include "Biblical Genesis Special Creation". I repeated verbatim the letter's demand that the standards include testing methods for competing hypotheses, then asked you what test methods for the Biblical Genesis Special Creation hypothesis you had in mind.

If you have no way to test your Biblical Genesis Special Creation hypothesis then you agree it shouldn't be taught in schools, right?

- T

***********************************************

THIS IS WHAT THE LETTER CONTAINS :
"Accordingly, we believe the Framework and Standards must (1) describe methods of testing historical hypotheses in historical sciences by seeking the best of competing explanations"

THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE (DISHONESTLY) ADDED :
"Please describe for us the scientific method of testing the hypothesis of Biblical Genesis Special Creation that you want the standards to include. Describe how to test that the universe and all life in it was created only 6000 years ago, and that a global Flood killed all life except for a few mating pairs only 4500 years ago. Please list the observations that would falsify the hypothesis."

(1) In the letter we never presented nor asked for what you added.
That is why you are in error and creating straw-man falsehoods.

(2) We DO advocate presenting alternatives to a Materialistic / Atheistic
worldview which is the sole paradigm that our kids are being force-fed
(a process also known as 'being indoctrinated'). All we want is a
"religiously neutral" teaching environment, not the present environment
in which there is a religious monopoly (Materialism / Atheism).

(3) One alternative to a purely Materialistic / Atheistic worldview is
Intelligent Design. Numerous books and papers outline this alternative.
Begin with two things: (a) allow teachers to present and discuss the
shortcomings of Evolution (something that today is verboten!) and,
(b) allow teachers to present the Theory of Intelligent Design together
with its shortcomings. EDUCATE, don't indoctrinate.

By the way, do you know who said this? Answer without looking it up.

“A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing
the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”

Jorge

[Jorge]

Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Jorge simply doesn't seem to grasp that just because some religion makes a scientifically testable claim, that does NOT mean science thereby becomes a religion. It means the religion has invaded a territory that doesn't belong to it.

Science is not a religious enterprise. Science makes NO comment about the supernatural, because that lies outside the boundaries and competence of science. Failure to invade inappropriate territory does NOT make science religious, it means science has integrity, and can ONLY work by maintaining that integrity.

Jorge, I understand how offended you are that science doesn't pray at your god, or include your god in every theory, or distort its findings to force-fit them into your religious requirements. You need to TRY to understand that science doesn't appeal to any gods (including yours) because science is not a religion. It is a method. And the method WORKS, and the method works PRECISELY for the reason you attack it - because it is objective about the universe and you aren't willing to tolerate objectivity.

(And incidentally, wherever "supernatural influences" have been possible to operationalize, they have been and the studies have been done. They've always turned up negative, but the point is that your god isn't expelled, your god is imaginary and science keeps determining this indirectly, by being true to the scientific method.)

*********************************

Good grief, man ... PLEASE GO AWAY !!!

Jorge

[phank]

Hey, I gotta say I just LOVE point #12, which whines that children start being exposed to their world at an early age. As they progress through school, the information presented about the world not only increases in both depth and breadth, but the students start being exposed to how people learn about the world. In higher grades, they not only understand something of the scientific method and something about most of the fields of science, they are starting to learn that all of this knowledge fits together into a coherent, consistent picture of the universe. How horrible! The cumulative approach to understanding is WRONG, because, because...because it offends Jorge's religion, which holds that cumulative knowledge of science is BAD RELIGION! By the time they leave public school, they are in mortal danger of knowing something.

[phank]

*********************************

Good grief, man ... PLEASE GO AWAY !!!

Jorge

Ah, the universal one-size-fits-all YEC response to knowlege, logic, evidence, and reason. I must admit, Jorge is a master. He has it down to the bare bones essence.

[Tiggy]

ALL wrong, Tiggy ... ALL wrong!

Sales of Irony Meters must be going through the roof right about now (see below).

Cowardly evasion by Jorge noted.

THIS IS WHAT THE LETTER CONTAINS :
"Accordingly, we believe the Framework and Standards must (1) describe methods of testing historical hypotheses in historical sciences by seeking the best of competing explanations"

THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE (DISHONESTLY) ADDED :
"Please describe for us the scientific method of testing the hypothesis of Biblical Genesis Special Creation that you want the standards to include. Describe how to test that the universe and all life in it was created only 6000 years ago, and that a global Flood killed all life except for a few mating pairs only 4500 years ago. Please list the observations that would falsify the hypothesis."

(1) In the letter we never presented nor asked for what you added.
That is why you are in error and creating straw-man falsehoods.

I didn't add that to the letter Jorge. I ASKED you to explain what such a test for a Biblical Creation hypothesis would be.

You obviously don't have one, so we can't present your YEC hypothesis in schools. Glad you agree.

- T

[Cerebrum123]

Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

Jorge simply doesn't seem to grasp that just because some religion makes a scientifically testable claim, that does NOT mean science thereby becomes a religion. It means the religion has invaded a territory that doesn't belong to it.

Science is not a religious enterprise. Science makes NO comment about the supernatural, because that lies outside the boundaries and competence of science. Failure to invade inappropriate territory does NOT make science religious, it means science has integrity, and can ONLY work by maintaining that integrity.

Jorge, I understand how offended you are that science doesn't pray at your god, or include your god in every theory, or distort its findings to force-fit them into your religious requirements. You need to TRY to understand that science doesn't appeal to any gods (including yours) because science is not a religion. It is a method. And the method WORKS, and the method works PRECISELY for the reason you attack it - because it is objective about the universe and you aren't willing to tolerate objectivity.

(And incidentally, wherever "supernatural influences" have been possible to operationalize, they have been and the studies have been done. They've always turned up negative, but the point is that your god isn't expelled, your god is imaginary and science keeps determining this indirectly, by being true to the scientific method.)

I don't have anything other to say than this. Do you know, or maybe are you Non-Stamp Collector (aka NoSco) that J.P. Holding has dealt with? I ask, because I have only seen one other person use that analogy(I will admit, I basically live in a bubble, so that analogy might be more popular than I thought ).

[rogue06]

The analogy is popular

[phank]

I don't have anything other to say than this. Do you know, or maybe are you Non-Stamp Collector (aka NoSco) that J.P. Holding has dealt with? I ask, because I have only seen one other person use that analogy(I will admit, I basically live in a bubble, so that analogy might be more popular than I thought ).

Beats me. I thought that one up abougt 15 years ago, and I've used it from time to time. I've subsequently seen others use the same phrase, so I suppose it's an easy one to think up.

I hope the point of it is not lost though. In creationland, everything is a religion, from not collecting stamps to not believing in imaginary gods to not affirming the consequent.

And since the whole point of Jorge's letter is that NOT teaching religion IS a religion (!!!), it seems appropriate.

[Tiggy]

The analogy is popular

Closely followed by "atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color".

- T

[Ansgar Seraph]

"In what way does science establish materialism as a paradigm for anything more than science, Jorge?"

I only have time to respond to these few points of your post.

You're asking the wrong question. It is not "science" that establishes Materialism as a paradigm, it is a materialistically-based/centered system that does this. That system is heavily promoted and passionately defended by people such as the NCSE, the ACLU and many others. Believe whatever you wish but it all boils down to the fact that this is NOT a war pitting 'your' science against 'our' science, this is in fact a war of ideologies ... of religious beliefs. Until you grasp and accept that fact, you will be aiming at the wrong target.

I'm sorry, Jorge, but your organization was responding to a proposal concerning science standards. If you are going to argue that this isn't a question about science but rather about ideology then I am afraid that it is you who is aiming at the wrong target. What specific standards being proposed by the Next Generation Science Standards draft are the focus of your objections? Are they science standards or are they ideological claims? Without specifically stating what statements in the draft are objectionable, how can we do anything but assume that your objection concerns actual scientific statements made in the NGSS draft?

"You have direct evidence of numerous people who espouse methodological naturalism
as a scientific technique but reject metaphysical naturalism as a paradigm."

Yes, I have the evidence that you speak of. But I also possess the knowledge that most people don't have a good understanding of these things. As one example, most people do not realize that:

(1) MethNat is the logical operational extension of MetaNat;

(2) As a corollary to (1), in practice there is no distinction between a MetaNat and a person that merely espouses MethNat.

Let's stop here and ponder. "[I]n practice, there is no distinction between metaphysical naturalism and a person that merely espouses methodological naturalism."

This is directly contradictory with the words of Ms. Lassey. She wrote that methodological naturalism is "a logical assumption when dealing with experimental physical science in the present-day world." Are you claiming here that there is no distinction between Ms. Lassey's logical acceptance of methodological naturalism and her being a metaphysical naturalist? I don't think she would appreciate that!

And you're going to run into this problem constantly if you insist on this false premise. Is it logical to assume that a hail storm is caused by natural processes or do I have to scientifically allow that this particular hail storm is equally likely to have been directly caused by God? At every scientific point, methodological naturalism is assumed . . . and this is only challenged when that same technique is applied to "sacred cows." Our friend Roland routinely asks you about the nature of meteorological phenomena and I assume that you are a methodological naturalist when it comes to rain, hurricanes and the like. Does that mean that, in practice, there's no difference between you and a metaphysical naturalist?

(3) MethNat is completely unnecessary for a believer in God to conduct real science.

What is C.O.P.E.'s definition of "real science," please?

(4) Besides all of that, the fact remains that our children in public education receive one and only one paradigm for how to view the universe - a materialistic paradigm. That is why EXPELLED exists ... that is why EXPELLED is a real threat with hundreds of people having lost (or being denied) jobs, tenure, publication of their work and so on. That is why a huge number of people live in fear - yes, fear - of openly expressing their true beliefs at their workplace (as is their constitutional right to do).

No, "Expelled" exists because, as I wrote before, you are entitled to your own beliefs but not your own facts. That means failure to perform at a certain job will have consequences and, as has been evidenced here and elsewhere, one cannot invent untruths in order to make it appear that he or she was punished for a belief (i.e., Sternberg, Gonzalez, Crocker, et al.).

Now, if you wish to dispute the fact of (4) -- this fact being that there is social indoctrination at all levels into a Materialistic worldview, with serious consequences for non-compliance -- then we can end this talk right here and now. I say that because there is absolutely no sense in discussing anything with a person that denies what is abundantly true.

If it is as abundantly true as you claim, there would hardly be the need for a public policy lobby! But, seeing as I would prefer you addressed the other points I raised in my post, I see no need to discussing "social indoctrination," anyhow. Unless you can show actual standard proposals that demonstrate said indoctrination, it seems that you are "aiming at the wrong target."

I must end this post by stating that this post reflects MY PERSONAL VIEWS and not necessarily those of COPE so please do not pass this on as anything other than MY OWN (Jorge's) views. Thanks.

I'd be careful, here. You are the president of this organization, directly discussing a letter that your organization distributed to Board of Education members. Your views do reflect on your organization when you are talking about relevant subjects. Just a heads-up.

ETA: I've got no intention of passing this conversation on but it is a public forum!

—Sam

[rogue06]

I'm sorry, Jorge, but your organization was responding to a proposal concerning science standards. If you are going to argue that this isn't a question about science but rather about ideology then I am afraid that it is you who is aiming at the wrong target.


—Sam

I wonder if the Kansas State Board of Education is aware this isn't about scientific standards but is about ideology instead.

[phank]

I wonder if the Kansas State Board of Education is aware this isn't about scientific standards but is about ideology instead.

I wonder if some of the board members make the distinction at all. This entire letter complains that failure to couch science in religious terms in and of itself constitutes religious terms!