Would Newton be allowed to teach science in public schools?
| January 29, 2017 | Posted by DLH under academic freedom, Adminstrative, Constitution, Education, Evolution, governance, Intelligent Design, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society |
“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
The USA’s Founders required the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, including:
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Yet now we have US Senators coercing government officials of establishing atheistic materialism in public education, by accusing Education Secretary Betsy DeVos of supporting Intelligent Design in schools.
See:Trump’s Pick for Education Secretary Refuses to Disavow Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools
Billionaire heiress Betsy DeVos is a champion of the school privatization movement. . . .
she refused to disavow the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. . . .
(Senator Sheldon) Whitehouse (D. RI) said to DeVos: “You and your husband have contributed to Thomas More Law Center, touting itself as the sword and shield of people of faith, which has repeatedly promoted fake science, even going so far as to represent the Dover Area School District of Pennsylvania in a lawsuit over the adoption of a biology textbook including intelligent design.” . . .
DeVos demurred. “I think it’s pretty clear that the expectation is that science is taught in public schools, and I support the teaching of great science, and especially science that allows students to exercise critical thinking and to really discover and examine in new ways,” she said. “And science is to be supported at all levels.”
Should we not uphold the scientific method with Open Science of allowing all hypotheses and testing them against objective evidence – And unalienable rights both to believe or not?
12 Responses to Would Newton be allowed to teach science in public schools?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yes, we should. Does that mean we should teach flat Earth against round Earth or astrology alongside astronomy in the science class?
So you agree there is an “unalienable” right to not believe?
OT:
Newton was a rare genious, but also a mild crackpot, busily searching the Bible for hidden code, and suggesting God occasionally interferred with planetary motion, to explain the anomalies his theories could not explain.
Suggesting this genious found the thumb incontrovertable proof of God, is nothing more than suggesting the flagellum is also incontrovertable proof. And then you could also include the, inexplicable immune system, the inexplicable blood clotting physiology, the inexplicable complexity of the brain, the inexplicable etc, etc.
This approach to science actually explains nothing, it almost takes pride in its ignorance, because you reach a point at which the inexplicability can be placed in God’s lap and no further study be necessary; sorry, I call this lazy.
The question, ‘Would Newton be Allowed to Teach Science in Public Schools?’ On a very very limited basis I would say yes. He would be strictly told to exclude mention of God, or any divine motivation, or causes. He would be restricted to pure optics and kinematics. He would be denied any right to any even obtuse referance to any sphere of investigation outside this purview.
He would also be allowed to comment on contemporary England, its economic (he was a collector of Royal thithes as Harbour Master for a while, very lucrative), and social condition, and maybe its political health; he was an MP I belive.
rvb8 as to:
“suggesting God occasionally interferred with planetary motion, to explain the anomalies his theories could not explain.”
So do you agree with Leibniz that Newton’s view of God was too low?
Of supplemental note to God getting it right the first time:
Verse:
Yes, of course Newton could teach science, so could any other believer, as long as all they taught was the science, not their beliefs.
An article in Christianity Today summarizes polls and data about pastors. Demographic changes, why they enter and why they leave, etc.
This paragraph caught my attention:
“Also, more Americans—particularly in evangelical and black Protestant congregations—enter the pastorate as a second career. They switch from a range of former career fields, with law, botany, physical therapy, public affairs, and music education ranking as most popular (and somewhat unusual) pathways to the pulpit, according to the State of Pastors results.”
Law, PT, public affairs and music teaching make sense in terms of applying an existing skill set. Botany stands out as a complete shift of skills. Studying nature close-up leads to a desire to teach people about the source of nature. But why only botany? Why not biology? Maybe the culture and bias toward evolution is less powerful in academic botany, leaving more room for open thought?
Seversky- life arising from not life, a universe arising from a singularity,RM and NS producing the great wealth of diversity we see in life today, these things are all beliefs, so why are these beliefs allowed to be taught in schools.
Maybe these are not beliefs and you have the evidence to prove these beyond a reasonable doubt , I await the evidence.
I heard something about a March for Science in Austin. Does anyone know what that is about?
More on topic, I wonder how many science textbooks have this quote from George Gaylord Simpson:
“Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind.”
Compare the above quote to the following:
“Man is the result of a purposeful process that did have him in mind.”
How can the former be more scientific or less religious than the latter?
Was Simpson teaching science, not his beliefs?
Marfin @ 7
There are beliefs and there are beliefs. There are those that are well-founded, those that are unfounded and a whole spectrum in between. Science strives for well-founded beliefs or explanations and should be honest enough to not pretend to a higher degree of confidence that is warranted.
I would hope that abiogenesis is not being taught in high school science classes as anything more than a possibility that is under investigation but which is far from being a well-established theory.
The Big Bang theory in cosmology is a much stronger inference based on the available evidence from physics and astronomy.
I would also hope that students are being taught that evolutionary theory is now a lot more than just RM+NS and is based on multiple lines of evidence from paleontology, geology, genetics, molecular biology, botany etc.
None of them should be claimed to be absolute, complete and incontrovertible Truth but they are a lot more than just wild guesses.
But there is one defect in creation which God did remedy: Our sin, remedied by His death on the cross.
Phinehas @ 8,
Excellent point!
I would add that Science is a rigorous method of study and experimentation. It is emphatically not a collection of immutable knowledge.
Unfortunately, many people in various fields have become personally attached to their theories and ideas, defending them with unshakable tenacity alone. As Max Planck once famously wrote . . .
It was apparent to Dr. Planck that many people in scientific fields are as opinionated and close-minded as the most dogmatic of priests.
-Q
Seversky- Seriously do you think that in the average classroom that students are being taught anything but abiogenesis when it comes to the origin of life.Do you think for a moment that the text books say that up to this point it has been shown that it is so improbable as to be realistically impossible that life could have arisen by chance from non living materials and the science does not support abiogenesis.You may say the science supports it but man has using the best minds, the best equipment, and vast sums of money have shown it cannot be done , but the text books say chance probably did it.So is aboigenesis a belief or well supported science .
I said RM/NS are the mechanism as to how we got the great diversity of life , the other things you mentioned are not mechanism for evolution.Jerry Coyne in why evolution is true stated that ” the raw materials for evolutionary change come from RM , THATS ALL THE RAW MATERIALS” , so if RM can be shown not to produce these raw materials then evolution has nowhere to go as it has no raw materials to use to evolve with . So please show me how RM produces these raw materials as the millions of RM expiraments done in countless science labs around the world have never produced and NEW raw material to work with , fruit flies being a case in point.Now do you think these things are taught in classrooms. I think not.Beliefs are being taught, not the facts, the beliefs of materialist scientists, orthodoxy is being taught because if the teacher drift away from the orthodoxy of the text book they can get in serious trouble.
Students are not encouraged to question evolution , big bang or all the other orthodoxy buy they should be as a quick google search will show you that these thing are being questioned in the real scientific world.