[quote author=“Iisbliss”]This leads me to another thought…carry this trend out another 50 years or so…
current generations not believing in science, science being discredited.
America has always attracted the best and brightest from the world, enabling our technology to grow. We sucked the major minds out of Europe durning the 1900’s.
Now, we don’t emphasize education except for the elite, we discredit the very science that gives our technology a leading edge on world markets, we don’t grow new inhouse great minds, we treat being intelligent as a crime, we pull everyone down to average mediocraty.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world is catching up. So what will this trend do to America in 50 years? Cripple us?
Will we be in some kind of horrific Dark Ages with too much power and no intelligence? Will WE become instead of a light to the world a terrible power of darkness?
“America has always attracted the best and brightest from the world, enabling our technology to grow. We sucked the major minds out of Europe durning the 1900’s.”
That is true, to a point. The mass of Americans are the dregs of the Earth - myself included. America is an empire that was populated after the conquest. A rare thing. Most of us are the castaways of the rest of the world - especially trouble-making religious fanatics. The Puritans didn’t leave England because they were victimized, but because their sicko culture lead to the English Civil War and Cromwell. In short, well-to-do people do not emigrate. Why would they? The poor do most of the emigrating and big ol’ empty America has been a popular destination. America was never a “light” of the world. We were simply who we were. The dregs of the Earth come to take advantage of a big empty continent. I’m a proud dreg myself.
you miss the mainstay of the fundamentalist faith, they don’t care what happens to this earth.
since when Jesus comes, they will get a new one.
They don’t really care about other people, they do good works for the sake of laying up “points” in heaven so they can be rulers in the new earth, and have eternal life.
They don’t really worry about the future of anything but themselves.
And since that entire future is in the Book of Revelations, its pointless to argue on moral ground with them.
This is the heart of the crime of religion, egotism.
Instead of self- analysis, and improving themselves and the world around them, they look to follow a set of pre-determined “rules” that will make sure they never have to face total self-awareness in the face.
Religious texts are generally liberally sprinkled with statements that point out that true path to God lies through knowledge. I would guess that most religious leaders realize this but prefer to downplay knowledge as a path because their ‘flock’ will no longer need them.
[quote author=“Frank Armstrong”]Since Reason doesn’t seem to move the numbers of people who could use some moving, why not try shame, i.e. “You should be ashamed to stand by doing nothing while your God’s beautiful creation, the earth, is destroyed for fun and profit! You are letting God down!”
This might work for moderates but it will never work for fanatics that pray for the End Times.
I agree that attempts to support evolution quickly move into eye glazing territory. Lately, I have been going another way. Rather than defending evolution or attacking ID, I have responded by talking about science.
“Let us remember what science is. Science is just the practice of explaining the world around us by way of the things we can see and measure. That’s it. It is a fairly recent invention - and it is a point of view that the writers of the Bible were unconcerned about. They were not interested in explaining in ways that can be measured.
“If you want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design in school, then we can talk about that. Perhaps a class in comparitive religions. But it has no business being taught in a science class.”
I think science has done a poor job of explaining itself in the last century. There has been a dangerous level of arrogance. The teaching of science has been in too many cases, the teaching of an ideology. Consider the basic classroom overview of Galileo that I was taught:
“The great scientist Galileo discovered that the earth and the planets revolved around the sun. The evil superstitious church believed that everything revolved around the earth. The wicked Pope put Galileo in jail to keep him quiet. Fortunately for us, the pure light of science has washed away the evil superstition of religion.”
And while that’s ideologically true, it ain’t factually accurate. The Pope was more than aware of the makeup of the solar system - this priest named Copernicus had laid it out pretty well years before Galileo. The church was concerned with control of the masses. They just wanted Galileo to shut up. They wanted to control that bit of information.
Which doesn’t let the church off the hook by any means. But teaching all us malleable little children the ideology of the great authority of science while foregoing the facts, set science up for a fall as we entered this post-modern era of ultimate relativity and the end of authority. Science is viewed as just another ideology - just another belief system. How much better if we’d been taught the true story of Galileo with the lesson that the church authority conspired to keep the masses ignorant in order to keep them in control.
So push science but push the plain facts of science - not the ideology. Science is not just another belief system. Science is based on factual measurements. And don’t get drawn into the evolution vs. ID rumble. This is an attack on science - evolution is merely the battlefield on which it is being waged…thekeez
Jersey, rather than start by trying to discern your audience’s acceptance of the scientific method, I’d start with an assumption of the audience’s complete ignorance of the scientific method and then proceed to educate them about it, to begin with. Given that most high school graduates are ill-prepared to receive a college education, it is dangerous to assume that your pupils even understand what you’re talking about. Once they have been brought up to speed as to what the scientific method consists of and why it is fundamental to scientific inquiry, you’ll have a better understanding of which pupils accept or reject it.
By the way, this reminds me of years ago, when I was taking an introductory course in archaeolgy and two of the students in my class blurted out that they had a problem with the discussion of prehominid fossils, due to their religious indoctrination. The liberal moderate professor then cautiously danced around the subject, so as not to further offend them…at the expense of the education of the rest of the class, of course.