Oklahoma: the earth really is 6,000 years old

I envision the day when science prevails over magik, magic, miracles and the like.

That day will probably arrive sometime next century. Just last week, I posted a short diatribe about Florida’s plan to subtly introduce Intelligent Design Creationism into the public school curriculum. Florida’s proposal would protect teachers who chose to ignore 150 years of scientific study and focus instead on the “theory” that we are here solely because God (or Allah, or Vishnu, or the Goddess, or the Weaver) willed it.

Not to be outdone, the Education Committee of the Oklahoma House of Representatives has advanced HB 2211. Unfortunately, the only mainstream media story I could find was this opinion piece. However, the blogs have been howling.

There is a key difference between the Florida and Oklahoma proposals. Instead of allowing teachers to decide what to teach, the Oklahoma bill leaves that decision up to the student. Really.

If the initial analyses by the editorial page and the blogs are correct, the bill would prohibit schools from interfering with students’ religious beliefs even if those beliefs contradict accepted learning. This quote is directly from the aforementioned opinion piece:

The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.”

In other words, a geology teacher could ask: “Approximately how old is the Earth?” The correct answer, according to the best scientific evidence, is about 4.55 billion years. Under the provisions of OK HB 2211, an answer of “6,000 years” would be perfectly acceptable too. (I refuse to post a link to young earth “evidence.” Feel free to look it up on Google.)

Now, I am going to have some fun with an absurdo ad reductum argument. Imagine similar logic applied to other classes.

World history:
Q: What factors led to the fall of the Soviet Union
A: An officially atheistic society is always doomed to failure. That was the sole cause of the collapse of the Communist system.

Math:
Q: Solve the following equation for the value of X and show your work: 2X + 10 = 60.
A: 2X = 60 – 10
A miracle occurs
X = 25 (or whatever)

Science:
Q: Describe the process of photosynthesis.
A: God takes care of the needs of all plants and animals through his divine omnipotence.

Literature:
Q: Discuss the role of religion in Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle.
A: It is a flawed argument because Bokononsim challenges my religious beliefs.

Economics:
Q: Define the Law of Supply and Demand.
A: The invisible hand of God will supply all Christian demands.

Philosophy:
Q: Compare and contrast the ethical systems developed by John Stuart Mill and David Hume.
A: The only valid ethical system is found in the Bible.

The point is that allowing religious beliefs to supercede legitimate teaching in one discipline opens the door to the application of the same logic across the curriculum. Public schools are not Bible schools. There are private schools that will avoid discussing Evilution altogether and your kid can serenely ignore anything that is not Biblical. Of course, they will only be admitted to Bob Jones University.

With such lax standards, is it any wonder why American students continue to lag behind in math and science compared to the rest of the world?

Chris

But it's okay to discuss ID

Today we have an edumacation twofer. For starters, here’s a dirty little secret for high school students: All of those high minded things you learned about freedom of speech are fibs. Those freedoms don’t really apply to you until you are clutching that diploma. The school’s discipline tentacles are long and unforgiving.

Exhibit A: Appeals Court Weighs Teen's Web Speech

To sum up the article, a high school girl in Connecticut was barred from serving on her school’s student council for *gasp* using a vulgar word to describe her school administrators. These “douche bags” (her words, not mine) cancelled postponed a concert she helped organize. She posted her comments on her blog. Predictably, the administrators in question were not amused when they discovered that they had been likened to a feminine hygiene product.

The student has sued the school for violations of her civil rights and a lower court has already sided with the school district. Schools do have the right to restrict freedom of expression if it is interfering with school work or discipline. The intent was to give schools the right to break up protests, protect against potential violence, and other disruptive behavior.

This young lady called an unspecified person a bad name on-line from a computer that was nowhere near school grounds. The school is whining that other students might actually read the student’s comments. They really do not specify what sort of impact this might actually have on the process of teaching in the school, though.

Honestly, I think that someone needs to grow a thicker skin and get over a petty insult.

Here’s two pieces of advice for high school students who actually want to criticize their schools.

First: Make it perfectly clear that your voice deserves to be heard. The public school is a government agency and therefore is subject to citizen criticism. Indeed, your voice is the most important because you are the ones most directly impacted by school board and administration decisions.

Second: Come up with a more creative insult. “Soul-crushing censorship-loving jellyfish” comes to mind. (Biology bonus: Jellyfish have no spines.)

Now we move from Connecticut to Florida.

The good folks running education in Florida are lining up for the predictable results that we have already seen in Kansas and Dover, Pa. A state senator has proposed legislation that would protect teachers who choose to ignore a century and a half of scientific study and subject their students to “intelligent design.” Specifically, the bill (called of all things) the “Academic Freedom Act” would protect the right of public school teachers to "objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding chemical and biological evolution" according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Basically, if the bill somehow passes and is not challenged in court, every single public school student in Florida is in danger of ending up with a “biology” teacher who refuses to teach evolution because that teacher cannot reconcile the “absolute truth” found in the Bible with a whole body of scientific research. Won’t those students be surprised when they take their first college biology class?

I’m not going to spend a whole lot of effort arguing the evolution point. This video sums it up pretty well.

And if you need to reconcile a belief in the supernatural and solid scientific theory, please look up the definition of “metaphor.”

“We don’t need no education”

Chris

Voting for Jesus

While reading POAC today, I came across this link. As I listened to these ladies, who I am sure are very nice people, two things came to mind. First, there is way too much religion in politicking. Second, the Internet has become the single greatest resource for anonymous libel campaigns. I will address the lies that have been propagated regarding Barack Obama later. For now, you can read the facts here and here.

There are two false premises going on in this video clip. One is that it is desirable to base American law on holy scripture. The other is that only Christians and Jews have a right to hold public office in the United States.

I once had a bumper sticker on my car that read, "If you want a country run by religion, move to Iran." That pretty much sums it up. Granted, it is disingenuous to assume that a legal code based entirely on Christian teachings would be tantamount to introducing Sharia Law. On the other hand, consider the similarities between these two sentences:

Recently, 12 states in northern Nigeria instituted laws based on teaching in the Koran.
Recently, Kansas attempted to institute laws based on teaching in the Bible.

Before the comments section blows up: It's not like anyone is calling for amputations and floggings for violations of the law here. Instead, the domestic movement toward a theocracy is much more subtle than that. This leads to the second fallacy noted above.

It is illegal to require a religious test for American public officials. At least that's the official verdict. The First Amendment is pretty clear on this point. The text reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The church's meddling in affairs of state led directly to Europe's wars of religion, pogroms, and inquisitions. The Founders were not looking for a repeat performance in the New World. Maybe they did not foresee the diversification of religion, but it happened.

Moreover, it is outright discrimination against non-Christians to assume that the legal code should be based on the Bible. Non-Christians are a growing minority and are theoretically protected under the First Amendment. The slippery slope starts with the indoctrination, er... teaching of school children Creationism rather than the scientifically accepted version of the beginning of life. If shenanigans like this continue, expect to see more from folks like this.

Theocracy efforts are doomed from the start. Theocrats practice a form of institutionalized discrimination. Granted, the discrimination is subtle. (How many non-Christians/Jews hold elected office?) Even as we become more accepting of alternate metaphysical world views, there is still a notion that a non-Christian will never be a presidential nominee because such a person would never be elected.

If the American race riots taught us anything, it is that a people facing institutionalized discrimination will eventually rebel. Then we will face a slightly bigger problem to deal with than whether or not it is legal for two men or two women to get married, as is specifically prohibited in a handful of Bible verses, notably in the Book of Leviticus. Of course, the practice of slavery is also sanctioned in the Book of Leviticus. Here is a humorous reaction to that particular argument.

Cartoon by Daryl Cagle. (I hope he doesn't mind the repost.)

If all of this sounds like a veiled attack on Mike Huckabee, it kinda is. The man is rather funny in a good way, but wanting to amend the Constitution so it is up to God's standards has me more than a little concerned.

As for the ladies in the video, they are certainly welcome to their opinions and it is not too difficult to guess for whom they plan to vote. I just think they should get out and meet a few people from outside of their own church sometime.

Chris