So some religious nut jobs are suing the UC school system claiming they're being discriminated against because of their anti-intellectual behavior. Uhh, isn't that what higher education is supposed to do? Come to think of it, isn't that what lower education is supposed to do too?
The Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 schools, filed a federal lawsuit Thursday claiming UC admissions officials have refused to certify high school science courses that use textbooks challenging Darwin's theory of evolution.

Yeah, well science courses that don't teach science ought not be certified as science courses. If you're dumb enough to believe creationism--good for you. That's your right. But you've got to accept that it's not science.

So go build your own schools and teach your own hooey, but don't expect the rest of the world to heed your nutty claims. If you want respect in the scientific community, go do some actual research and prove your claims. Develop some testable hypotheses and then test them. That's science. What you're doing is whacked out religious nuttiness. And once again, that's fine. But your religion has no place in science class. It belongs in religion class. One day it'll be taught in ancient history classes and third graders will wonder how a civilization that could send a man to the moon and clone sheep could ever be so stupid.


Blogger Evan Jones  said...

I agree with you wholeheartedly about not allowing what amounts to classes in religion to count as classes in science, whether to satisfy requirements for college admission or as prerequisites for particular science classes. The title of your post is very effective. It reminds me of a headline in a legal newspaper some years ago. A Taco Bell in San Francisco posted an English Only sign in the kitchen. Several non-English speaking employees were subsequently fired for continuing to speak Spanish. The headline came from a question directed to the judge by a very frustrated attorney. "Your Honor," he asked, "how do you say 'burrito' in English?"

I think you stepped over the edge in your conclusion, however. Your belief in Science amounts, essentially, to a religion. Call it a religion of Intellect or Reason. In the space of my lifetime, that religion has taught that the planet Venus is cloud-covered and cool, that smoking is probably good for you (an AMA pronouncement reported in the Scientific American sometime in 1949,) that the continents are fixed firmly in place, that electrons are little marble-like things, and a host of other wrong guesses and premature conclusions taught to me in various Science classes. Science does not hesitated to ridicule those who hold contrary positions, whether inside or outside the establishment. In those cases where Science has finally adopted contrary positions as part of its credo, it has not felt obligated, in many cases, to withdraw the ridicule. Once condemned, always condemned.

It is no use saying that Science is a method which progresses slowly toward the truth in order to excuse its inconsistencies or mistakes, because Science is both method and institution. If, as institution, it claims to possess Truth, then despite all its prowess as a method it falls strictly within a bewildering array of competing religions. Nor is Science the only religion that embraces Reason or Intellect.

So, part of what you say I agree with, but the rest I find myself hoping I misunderstood.

Thursday, September 01, 2005  

Blogger digdug  said...

Hooray for you, science in science class and voodoo for the camp-fire!

Monday, November 28, 2005  

Post a Comment  |  Back to Hey Paul.