Who should set science curriculum ?

[McCulloch]

Who should determine the science curriculum in publicly funded schools?

[Neatras]

It's actually easy to demonstrate color to Helen Keller.

For instance, you could use low-intensity lasers so that she could detect the differential in temperature from each laser, and associate each one with its corresponding wavelength.

Or, you could use several identically-textured wooden models, then have one with an indistinct compartment containing an object. While Helen wouldn't have good success guessing which model contains the object, relaying to her that the green model contains it would give her reason to accept the existence of color when another test participant successfully identified the green model every time. You can change the test any number of ways, but the simple fact is there is a repeatable, testable method for demonstrating color's existence, even to the blind and deaf. Science gives us a way of accessing information and disseminating it no matter ideological, cultural, or biologic boundaries. And those advancements continue to this day.

Religious zealots would have us believe their faith gives then such a "sense". Or they would argue the "blind" lack the sense to have faith. It's a shame, but this warped analogy to blindness only shows how desperate the religious are to claim their side as being an authority on wisdom, when in reality they co-opt whatever science they want, and then talk down to everyone else without demonstrating any intellectual prowess at all.

Or would either of you, Monta or Cusick, like to propose a test that we can use to empirically verify the existence of your god? I anticipate one of you will answer that by declaring, a priori, that existence = gawdisreal, but that just goes to show the sheer limitation of faith. I've already shown how science can demonstrate color to the blind, which causes your earlier argument to suddenly pack less of a punch.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 17 by Bust Nak]

"But there is a way to prove that the sky is blue and grass green!"

There was no way to prove it to Helen Kellar.

No one can convince somebody else that a piece of classical music is beautiful and worth lots of $$ to go and hear it. A child certainly would not be interested but different when he grows up develops his appreciation of music.

As Neatras explained that is not true. Heck, we even know the ultraviolet light exists even though none of us can see, we can still detect it using the scientific method. Contrast that with the religious concept of God which relies on "faith".

[Neatras]

Goodness, I feel like we could keep going. Just testing her against other humans can have errors. They might be deceiving her (the way some people deceive others by demanding they have faith). The solution? Use science to give her the tools to verify color's existence. You could do this with a color-sensitive optical camera and a Nintendo 64 rumble-pak. Then, strap it to her arm. When she holds an object, the varied vibrations will indicate what color the object she's holding is. Now, have her perform any of the mentioned tests and watch her ace them with near-perfect accuracy.

So not only can we demonstrate physical phenomena by comparing a functioning sensory organ to a non-functional one, we can also use tools to verify the results ourselves and lessen the severity of the impairment. Contrast this with faith, which has no method of demonstrating itself empirically, obviously leads billions of people to the wrong conclusions, and is waved around as some kind of virtue. This is because religion has controlled discourse over the mind for millennia. But nos science can step in and take stock of the situation.

And the best part is: the religious zealots can't do anything to stop science's progress except by kicking up dust.

[Monta]

[Replying to post 21 by Neatras]


"Religious zealots would have us believe their faith gives then such a "sense". Or they would argue the "blind" lack the sense to have faith. It's a shame, but this warped analogy to blindness only shows how desperate the religious are to claim their side as being an authority on wisdom, when in reality they co-opt whatever science they want, and then talk down to everyone else without demonstrating any intellectual prowess at all. "

Some of the things you say make sense dome are nonsense.

What do you mean by ' Or they would argue the "blind" lack the sense to have faith'?
I've never heard 'they' who would say things like that; perhaps you assume that's what they think and made it up?

The only talking down I hear is here on these forums. I find that some may disagree with religious people but they have respect for their views.

Science can brag as much as they want but only yesterday it was science rubbing two sticks to make fire.

[JP Cusick]

What do you mean by ' Or they would argue the "blind" lack the sense to have faith'?

I have to explain - which is that they are harping on Helen Keller as physically blind instead of them talking about the real point that they are spiritually blind, and morally blind, and blind to the truth and reality of God and blind to the Gospel.

Helen Keller had great faith, including that she wrote an excellent book about her faith.

A person is even more blind when they do have eyes but they refuse to see and they refuse to understand.

They refuse to look, refuse to investigate, and refuse to appreciate the reality of our Father God.

Science can brag as much as they want but only yesterday it was science rubbing two sticks to make fire.

This is really funny.

Cheers.

[Bust Nak]

"But there is a way to prove that the sky is blue and grass green!"

There was no way to prove it to Helen Kellar.

Yes there is. With a spectrometer for example.

No one can convince somebody else that a piece of classical music is beautiful and worth lots of $$ to go and hear it. A child certainly would not be interested but different when he grows up develops his appreciation of music.

That's a subjective matter, not an analogy to the color of something.

[Bust Nak]

I have to explain - which is that they are harping on Helen Keller as physically blind instead of them talking about the real point that they are spiritually blind, and morally blind, and blind to the truth and reality of God and blind to the Gospel.

That's the point, Helen Keller as physically blind but we can still demonstrate phenomenon visual to her, there is no need to dismiss her with "do your own homework and look at the sky to see the blue and look at the grass to see the green..." You say we are spiritually blind, yet there is nothing you can demonstrate your case.

They refuse to look, refuse to investigate, and refuse to appreciate the reality of our Father God.

You say that but when we ask you what it is that we should be looking at, you have nothing to show.

[JP Cusick]

I have to explain - which is that they are harping on Helen Keller as physically blind instead of them talking about the real point that they are spiritually blind, and morally blind, and blind to the truth and reality of God and blind to the Gospel.

That's the point, Helen Keller as physically blind but we can still demonstrate phenomenon visual to her, there is no need to dismiss her with "do your own homework and look at the sky to see the blue and look at the grass to see the green..." You say we are spiritually blind, yet there is nothing you can demonstrate your case.

Sir - I would never dismiss Helen Keller as she was a great historical figure whom I greatly admire.

She was able to see without her eyes.

You are trying to misuse her to take claim as credit for your self which you do not have.

You have eyes to see and yet you demand some evidence to be put in front of your seeing eyes as the only proof acceptable to you, and that is because you refuse to see anything otherwise - you refuse to see outside of your limited eyes.

You are refusing to use the vision demonstrated by the great Helen Keller who saw what you claim that you can not see. She was not spiritually blind, and she was not morally blind, and she was not blind to the truth and reality of God.

It was science that taught me that the sky is not blue and the grass is not green, and our eyes are only seeing an illusion, because the grass absorbs all the colors from the sun and the grass rejects the color green, so the reason we see the color green in grass is because the grass is rejecting the color green, and the sky is not really blue because it is just light reflecting off of the dust and light penetrating the atmosphere which gives an appearance of blue to our eyes, but they are not green nor blue to science. FYI.

They refuse to look, refuse to investigate, and refuse to appreciate the reality of our Father God.

You say that but when we ask you what it is that we should be looking at, you have nothing to show.

That is because you and others are hung-up on your physical eyes and vision which are inadequate and in many cases just blind to the realities.

Our vision has to go beyond or transcend the physical limitations of our human eyes.

Einstein said it like this = "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

In example = the "Big Bang" is proof of the creation day, and "evolution" is proof of intelligent design, but people reject that vision because they refuse to see and refuse to understand.

So no - it is not a matter of giving anything to look at - it is a matter of people's stubbornness and rebellion and their unwillingness to look beyond their petty perception.

[micatala]

Citation needed. I have read a lot of posts in the Science and religion section and from what I have seen creationists are the only ones conflating evolution with atheism.

Here is one of many examples given in the comment #11 above by "Neatras" as if you did not see that one while passing on this same page.

He is demanding that evolution does not need a god, and is thereby Atheistic.

It is just ridiculous to argue about something so painfully obvious and decisive.

My view is that Atheism being so morally bankrupt then the Atheists simply do not have any moral backbone to stand up for their own beliefs and their own doctrines.

Atheism is indeed deathly challenged by the truth of God.

The bolded claim is contrary to simple logic.

Explaining the growing of grass does not require a god. Would we conclude that the biological explanations of grass growing are thereby atheistic?

The Psalms say god provides food for beasts, and provides wine to gladden human hearts. Are the owners of vineyards and the producers of wine therefore atheistic? Are hunting lions atheistic?

This is clearly a bankrupt argument, and is deathly challenged by simple logic.

[JP Cusick]

Explaining the growing of grass does not require a god. Would we conclude that the biological explanations of grass growing are thereby atheistic?

There are two (2) sentences quoted above.

The first sentence above is Atheistic, the second sentence is not.

The problem is that those two sentences are put together as if the first is irrelevant to the question in the second sentence, and it is not irrelevant.

Atheism is not just no-God, because Atheism is anti-God.

The saying that "God is not needed", that "God is not required", these sayings are anti God.

If it were true Atheism as no-God then the biological explanations of grass would be neutral without any reference to God.

If it were the no-God of Atheism then the first sentence would not be attached nor included with the second sentence.

And this distinction is why the aggressive Atheism against God (anti God) is just brainwashing and indoctrinating the minor children in schools and thereby creating an immoral and uncivil society progressing today.