What will the incoming administration mean for science education in the United States? In particular, what impact might Betsy DeVos, the pick for secretary of the Department of Education, have on what is taught in our nation’s science classrooms?
A few loud voices dismissing science can be enough to intimidate teachers into diluting their treatment of evolution and climate change, permanently short-changing a generation of science learners.
Scientists who believe in old universe origins and evolution have put men on the moon, revealed an extraordinary universe, revolutionized modern medicine, created a multi-billion dollar biotech industry, produced mountains and mountains of knowledge on how the world works, how biology works, how life works. Creation “scientists” have produced a giant wooden boat in rural Kentucky. Who do you want your children learning from??
Marc Van Gilst is correct!
The scientific method stands upon a created universe. Galileo: “Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe”. Re-affirmed by Einstein: “What I’m really interested in is whether God could have made the world in a different way; that is, whether the necessity of logical simplicity leaves any freedom at all.” Faraday, esteemed a genius by Einstein: “The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances”. Balance these startling assertions against these men’s advice to keep an open and unbiased approach – and we have three certainties. 1). If it is scientific, it may be expressed mathematically. 2). The Word of God is the final and foundational authority. 3). We may draw rational conclusions – about a rational universe.
Climate alarmism fails on every count. We live on a rationally created planet more than four thousand million years old. Atmospheric CO2 must have always been present, since carbon reliant life was always present. Minimum required? Possibly 0.0002 atm.? – but higher is necessary for complex life. Simultaneously and concurrently, climate must have never exponentially run on to extremes, causing extermination. By estimation of geologic deposits, over that incomprehensible time, of the order of 12, repeat, of the order of 12 atmospheres CO2 or its equivalent were sequestered in our strata and our waters. Carbon is non-renewable other than by re-supply from Space or from the Earth below. Volcanism being an obvious source.
This is the story for carbon – a minor greenhouse gas. Carbon, supplied by comets and volcanoes, certainly could not have remained steady! So if our climate is governed by carbon gases, where is the mathematical expression of climate science which proves rate of carbon gases emission from volcanoes is proportional to the temperature adjustment requirement of the globe?
Further, even if, by some surreal co-incidence, carbon was finely tuned into the system – were water vapour, ozone, nitrous oxide, and all other greenhouse gases concurrently fine tuned to the system? More: did the sun mysteriously act unlike other observed stars and decide to not fluctuate in output at any time?
Fairy tale science. Unmathematical, unempirical.
Four thousand million years, every fear of ‘climate science’ a certainty— exponential runs, CO2 evaporating from the waters, extensive ice cap melts, triggering, through isostasy, massive volcanism, more CO2, more heat input, triggering more melting, more atmospheric carbon ……… then, at length, carbon runs short ……. the world begins to freeze….. on and on.. The one certainty of geology. This planet was doomed. Like the billion billion other blasted ruins of Space.
“Heaven is my throne….. Earth.. .. my footstool….Out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.” We live in a rational universe.
What mechanism kept the planet from ruin? The Bible specifically links magnetism and climate (JOB 38:24) and concurrently makes the sun the main control. Einstein was puzzled by our magnetic field and thinking people remain puzzled. All conductors in motion within a magnetic field generate electric current and thus set up a secondary field. Therefore, our circulating oceans (salt water is conductive) contribute to our magnetic field. Oceanic circulation is influenced by the shape of the ocean basins and ….. climate. Atmospheric circulation presumably is interlinked. The geomagnetic record shows an undeniable, mystifying link between palaeoclimate and frequency of magnetic field reversal. New discoveries about the sun point to a possible mechanism of temperature moderation ………. . Empirical, mathematical, rational. The sun is in control and we feed back our requirements. Geologic history makes sense. Please feel free to learn more, CreationTheory dot com . Or go direct, “Climate Moderation Magnetic Interaction Sun – Earth”. (Philip Bruce Heywood.)
You said it yourself, the word of God is final. The Bible says the Earth is 6,000 years old. Therefore, none of what you said makes any sense.
Just a few Bible quotes:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (1 Timothy 2:12)
“This is what the Lord Almighty says… ‘Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” (1 Samuel 15:3)
“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)
What is wrong with teaching science , climate change etc. alongside religion , creationism and climate change denial. On the latter all the climate change denial arguments I read are very very dubious but if there are some that are legitimate , just present both cases in a class!
Science still has many gaps. What science does however is admit those gaps very openly. Further when science makes mistakes, they are discovered and new theories form. I personally can’t say that about religion, however since I am not everybody , again why not teach main religions/creationism etc. As US is a christian nation it makes absolute sense to spend more time on Christianity and other compatible ideas.
I think school vouchers are a great idea BUT they have to be paired with minimum standards and good information to base parent’s choices on.
Considering that republicans control both houses of parliament and the new president is alike. I can confidently state that the battle for scientific thinking against creationists and science deniers has been already lost a while back.
Conservatives thrive on the ignorance of people and they worked hard for decades to achieve that goal