Centralizing Science In Public Education

Back in March 2012,  Tennessee State Senate voted 25-8,  which passed an academic freedom bill, SB 893.  This trend was not isolated, other states like Texas in 2009, which 15 member panel omitted the language of students being able to critiquestrengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories, such as evolution, inserted into the science standards a requisite for students to critically analyze and evaluate “all sides of scientific evidence” which was even better language to have the students follow than before!

Texas Science Standards since 2009, go by this philosophy…

“In all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental observation and testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those explanations so as to encourage critical thinking by the students.”

Opponents for academic freedom were shocked and dismayed because they are very concerned about how creationists and intelligent design proponents expose Darwinian evolution’s weaknesses. But isn’t analyzing and evaluating what science is all about? Yes, in most other theories this is a common practice, but not Darwinian evolution nor climate change as we will get into further detail in just a moment.

Other states like Mississippi and Louisiana, have passed their versions of the academic freedom bill for teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical to Darwinism.  Seven states in total, so with these major loses (but not for science) the opposition has embraced centralizing science into their fold of standards rather than leaving up to the states to decide.

In world magazine, James Devine writes…

“As kindergartners and high-school students return to public schools this fall, a team of 41 writers will be busy editing national curriculum standards that, as early as next year, could change how science teachers instruct their classes. The so-called “Next Generation Science Standards,” which all 50 states will have the option of adopting or not, are intended to provide a universal framework for science education. They explicitly emphasize Darwinism and climate change.”

So not only do opponents of academic freedom want teachers to indoctrinate evolution to the students but also have teachers indoctrinate students with the view that man is solely responsible for any warming trend that is currently happened or happening on the planet in modern times.

However, there has been interesting publications about climate change in the last couple of years, even last week. For example, in the Journal of Science, Luke Skinner in his article, “A Long View on Climate Change” writes about political ramifications using short-term graphs, he draws his reader’s attention using evolution’s time frame that several major climate swings over long periods before humans appeared in the standard geological timeline.  He then questions scientists’ ability for understanding all what goes on like the mechanisms and the uncertainties in proxy estimates; for instance, what factors are nonlinear?

He writes…

“If the goal of climate science is not just to predict the next 50 to 100 years of climate change, but also ‘to tackle the more general question of climate maintenance and sensitivity’, then arguably we must do so within a conceptual framework that augments the notion of climate sensitivity as a straightforward linear calibration of climate gain, with the possibility of nonlinear feedbacks and irreversible transitions in the climate system,” he explained.”  

“An exclusive consideration of the highest (e.g., decadal) register of climate variability might be adequate for most political time frames and may suit the urgency of immediate mitigation and adaptation challenges,” he ended. “However, it falls short of the wider scientific challenge that faces humanity, as well as a moral horizon that extends much farther into the future.”

A few days ago in Nature,  five scientists were critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which is where the opponents of academic freedom rely on to make a case for centralizing a certain viewpoint about climate change to the students.

“This IPCC-like focus might be attractive to ‘elite actors’, from natural scientists to national governments, but it omits many other important stakeholders and knowledge-holders, including indigenous people, businesses, farmers, community partnerships and fishers,” they said.  “What counts as legitimate knowledge, and how it is generated, influences its practical effectiveness.”

Switching gears now to Darwinian evolution, where not even other natural causes cannot be considered under this “Next Generation Science Standards” because they fear it might lead them to creationism or intelligent design. Which is interesting considering, in a 2008 poll where it discovered only a quarter of public high-school biology teachers claim to be strong advocates of Darwinism. This is another reason opponents of academic freedom want centralization of science standards. If these centralized science standards get passed by the states it will then supercede existing state laws on science standards.

Totalitarianism in the form of centralization of public school science standards would be disastrous! Rather these things belong on the local level where has been for so many years. The proposed national standards reflect another push by leftist elitists to squelch independent thinking and force the unwashed masses into uncritical acceptance or in another words, blind faith.

The states who refuse to pass such standards may be pressured into it by federal money being withheld, perhaps some Universities will not accept students from those states.  A requisite for students to critically analyze and evaluate “all sides of scientific evidence” is what science is all about!  

2 thoughts on “Centralizing Science In Public Education

  1. Other states like Mississippi and Louisiana, have passed their versions of the academic freedom bill for teachers and students to discuss scientific evidence critical to Darwinism. Seven states in total, so with these major loses (but not for science) the opposition has embraced centralizing science into their fold of standards rather than leaving [sic] up to the states to decide.

    Creationists fear that national science standards will be drafted by agency heads and science advisers who are familiar with the scientific subject matter. As opposed to state and local politicians who are mostly scientific boobies,[1] many with religious agendas.

    If anyone doubts this, he should look at the states that have enacted soi-disant “academic freedom” laws and policies. All of them are on the bottom rung of states in science knowledge.[2] That should tell us something.

    Unfortunately, this will have a ripple effect. The lower the state standards, the fewer of their students will be able to qualify for major universities,[3] and the fewer who will wish to enter upon knowledge-based careers. This perpetuates their ignorance and continues to adversely affect incomes, health ratings, child poverty, and other quality-of-life measures.

    We don’t have to guess what will happen when science standards fall and students are misinformed. It’s already happening. Last year, the US again issued 85,000 H-1B visas to foreign technical people because—even with the unemployment rate over 8%—there are not enough domestic graduates to fill the available positions. Next year will be the same—and the H-1B quota always fills up in the first 3 or 4 months of the quota year.

    Apparently, this is what Michael desires. Creationists thrive on ignorance; knowledge frightens them.

    ==============

    [1] North Carolina has legislated how much the Atlantic can rise. Louisiana wants to prohibit hybrids of human and other cells, even though this is how a number of widely used drugs are manufactured.

    [2] Louisiana and Mississippi in particular are at the bottom of the heap.

    [3] The University of California, for example, refuses to accept students from Christian high schools that have inadequate science curricula, and this has been upheld in court.

  2. However, there has [sic] been interesting publications about climate change in the last couple of years, even last week. For example, in the Journal of [sic] Science, Luke Skinner in his article, “A Long View on Climate Change” writes about political ramifications using short-term graphs, [sic] he draws his reader’s attention using evolution’s time frame that several major climate swings over long periods before humans appeared in the standard geological timeline. He then questions scientists’ ability for [sic] understanding all what [sic] goes on like [sic] the mechanisms and the uncertainties in proxy estimates; for instance, what factors are nonlinear?

    Once again, Michael shoots himself in the foot. The point of the Science article is that climate change may well be worse than we had thought by using only a single measurement of sensitivity, and not considering non-linear[1] rises or tipping points.[2]

    Skinner states that not all climate changes are the same, and that we are not aware of some factors that influence them. On the other hand, the additional factors that the newer models are beginning to incorporate have almost all made global climate change projections worse, not better. Such as aerosols, jet-stream drift, and intercontinental dust transport.

    Michael points to global warmings in the past,[2] that were just as large as we now witness. However, the most rapid warming that ever occurred took 20,000 times as long as this one to reach its peak. That makes anthropomorphic climate change unprecedented for the havoc that it can wreak.

    A few days ago in Nature, five scientists were critical of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change …

    Another example of the fraud that Michael perpetrates on his readers, whom he hopes will accept his deliberately false reading of the Nature article without bothering to read it. Does he really think we’re that stupid?

    For what reason were the Nature authors critical of th IPCC? Because of their methods? Noooo. Because of their data? Noooo. Because of their interpretations? No, no, and again no. They were critical because the IPCC had not broadcast their warnings sufficiently strongly to make the the public, business, and government aware of the grave dangers of climate change. The authors complain that the IPCC has operated too much by themselves as a scientific study group, and thinks they should involve other stakeholders much more in planning for the changes to come, in assessing possible costs,, and in suggesting possible remediation steps

    .

    So once again Michael attempts to deceive us. First by a deliberate misreading of the science, and then, without pausing for breath, by falsifying the subject matter of complaints about the IPCC. Creationists seem to have no shame in the pursuit of their goals.[3]

    Climate change will not destroy life on earth. But it will destroy Michael and his grandchildren, and drag the rest of us along as well. Remember what Dietrich Bonhoffer said about the Nazis: For evil to triumph, all that is necessary is that good men do nothing. For climate change to destroy humanity, the same principle applies.

    ==============

    [1] Michael sees oblivious to the basic mathematical concept of a non-linear function—that it rises faster than a linear projection., thus increasing global warming faster than previous linear projections. Michael frequently commits such mathematical solecisms.

    [2] Tipping points also increase the amount of global warming. Worse than that, they make it much more sudden with less-predictable timing, giving little time to prepare for the changes.

    [3] It is always amusing that, in order to refute scientists’ finding he must accept their (non-creationist) background theories. Here, for example, in order to use evidence of prior warming episodes against the current one, Michael must accept that they must have happened at times before the creation of the earth according to his beliefs.

    [3] It’s mystifying to know what creationists’ goal is in regard to climate change. One could be forgiven for thinking that they would be in the forefront of preserving the environment, since God commands us all to be stewards of creation. Climate-change denialism is thus a denial of their duty under God’s commandment. But they don’t even attempt to justify it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s