Texas State BOE - Shrewd (not)- Religion as Science (Howe: buy, camps)

[blakesq]

You said: "global warming should be discussed because responsible citizens (what we want our children to be) do want to take care of the planet, and we should all be working on how best to do that." Hence, you are in favor of teaching your religion as science. Because it is not a scientific fact that global warming is soley (or mostly) due to man, nor is it anywhere near scientific fact that man can do ANYTHING to cool the earth, especially with a cap and trade scheme, buying hybrids, and/or getting rid of our electric system and replace it with windmills.

Just wanted you liberals to see how you are fine with your own religion being taught in school, just not religions you don't like.

Originally Posted by G Grasshopper

Creation "science" is not a theory. It is religion. The public misuses the word "theory" when they think it is the same thing as a "hypothesis". A hypothesis is just an educated guess, with no evidence really backing it up. A "theory", in scientific terms, has very extensive evidence backing it up. A theory is as close as we can get in science to fact. (Most scientists would say that science is always in a state of flux, and there really isn't much "fact".) Evolution has the weight of years and years of solid, scientific evidence behind it. Global warming has a lot of evidence behind it, but not enough, in my opinion, to make it a theory in the same way that evolution is, and there is some conflicting evidence. So I believe that Creationism, and all religious thought, should not be taught in the public schools as science. Evolution should definitely be taught, and global warming should be discussed because responsible citizens (what we want our children to be) do want to take care of the planet, and we should all be working on how best to do that. I agree with TexasHorseLady that when you invite religion into our public institutions, you are also inviting the public institutions into religion. They should be kept separate. The framers of the Constitution knew what they were talking about.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by blakesq

You said: "global warming should be discussed because responsible citizens (what we want our children to be) do want to take care of the planet, and we should all be working on how best to do that." Hence, you are in favor of teaching your religion as science. Because it is not a scientific fact that global warming is soley (or mostly) due to man, nor is it anywhere near scientific fact that man can do ANYTHING to cool the earth, especially with a cap and trade scheme, buying hybrids, and/or getting rid of our electric system and replace it with windmills.

A complete nonsequitir. The poster said they want global warming should be taught in schools-- It is a scientific theory that's got plenty of evidence behind it. But then you say someone this is a religious point of view. Religion isn't (and shouldn't be) put under any type of scientific scrutiny. Global warning has received plenty of scrutiny-- Enough for it to be called a scientific theory. And yes, there is minority dissent when it comes to Global Warning which is worthy of mention in a science class. Whether or not man can do anything about the current state of global warming has NOTHING to do with whether or not it should be factually included in science classes.

It seems that you are using a rhetorical technique here and creating a false logical syllogism. The global warming debate is a scientific/political one. Creationism is not up for scientific debate as there is no observable proof that any credible scientist would put forth- nor would creationism hold u to any type of scientific scrutiny.

You can't pretend that teaching global warming in science classes is the same as teaching the parables of Jesus as history. Just because you don't like where the Global Warming Evidence is pointing, doesn't mean that you can call it religion.

A ridiculous argument. And off-topic.

My concern is that theocracy is being pulled in to the science, English and social studies curriculum in Texas schools. Don't pretend that more progressive viewpoints are akin to religion to level the playing field.

It's amazing how much of this conservative rhetoric is simply untrue and just parroted from what major conservative media personalities say.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by blakesq

Just wanted you liberals to see how you are fine with your own religion being taught in school, just not religions you don't like.

To be clear, teaching comparative religion in school from an unbiased viewpoint is valuable and helps us understand others. A little understanding of cultures other than our own would be a very good thing.

However, screaming over and over that progressive view points are a religion is ridiculous and untrue.

I am politically progressive, but my religion remains Judaism.

[blakesq]

Just to be clear, liberals are fine with teaching their own religion as science in schools (global warming, driving hybrids will cool the earth, cap and trade will cool the earth). Note, this is not taught as a comparative religion, but as religion disguised as science.

Originally Posted by mlassoff

To be clear, teaching comparative religion in school from an unbiased viewpoint is valuable and helps us understand others. A little understanding of cultures other than our own would be a very good thing.

However, screaming over and over that progressive view points are a religion is ridiculous and untrue.

I am politically progressive, but my religion remains Judaism.

[TexasHorseLady]

How about teaching global warming theory, pro AND CON, in the schools? Everybody on board with that one?

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

How about teaching global warming theory, pro AND CON, in the schools? Everybody on board with that one?

Of course, but you also have to explain what the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence points to.

[Trainwreck20]

Of course, but you also have to explain what the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence points to.

The problem is, there is no overwhelming evidence. There are elaborate studies that show we are be contributing to GW (but not to what degree), but there are some very basic things that are being ignored, too. The earth has warmed and cooled for millenia prior to our impact, and specific aspects of GW are ignored because they do not fit the desired outcome (ocean damping of CO2, for one).

Although comparing GW to religion is a bit of a stretch, there are aspects of GW that seem to be taken on 'faith'. In any case, I prefer to have my school curriculum established as far as possible from legislators as possible.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

The problem is, there is no overwhelming evidence. There are elaborate studies that show we are be contributing to GW (but not to what degree), but there are some very basic things that are being ignored, too. The earth has warmed and cooled for millenia prior to our impact, and specific aspects of GW are ignored because they do not fit the desired outcome (ocean damping of CO2, for one).

Although comparing GW to religion is a bit of a stretch, there are aspects of GW that seem to be taken on 'faith'. In any case, I prefer to have my school curriculum established as far as possible from legislators as possible.

I am in no way a global warming expert. Where the scientific evidence leads, it leads. This issue is obviously very politicized to everyone's detriment. There may be a high cost of ignoring it however.

I do find this equating liberalism with religion interesting. You never hear progressives or liberals claim that their political beliefs are a religion. (I'm sure there are one or two lunatics out there who do, but let's keep this in the realm of the real world.) I think conservatives make this attack because conservatisim has become so tied in to the religious right that you can't separate the two any more.

[blakesq]

I make this attack because liberals hate religion, yet they worship at the altar global warming. How else can you explain the cap and trade fiasco that liberal democrats are pushing, WITH NO EVIDENCE that it will do ANYTHING to cool the earth....that's right....FAITH.

Originally Posted by mlassoff

I am in no way a global warming expert. Where the scientific evidence leads, it leads. This issue is obviously very politicized to everyone's detriment. There may be a high cost of ignoring it however.

I do find this equating liberalism with religion interesting. You never hear progressives or liberals claim that their political beliefs are a religion. (I'm sure there are one or two lunatics out there who do, but let's keep this in the realm of the real world.) I think conservatives make this attack because conservatisim has become so tied in to the religious right that you can't separate the two any more.

[mlassoff]

Originally Posted by blakesq

I make this attack because liberals hate religion, yet they worship at the altar global warming. How else can you explain the cap and trade fiasco that liberal democrats are pushing, WITH NO EVIDENCE that it will do ANYTHING to cool the earth....that's right....FAITH.

Yes, you have said this three or four times. I really don't understand your fixation. It's not constructive.

Again, as a practicing Jew and progressive I completely reject this. I don't hate religion at all. I am not comfortable with Christian hegemony being paid for with my tax dollars. Hopefully you can differentiate between my point and your ridiculous exaggerations about liberals and GW which serve to help no one.