Religion in the Public Schools - Part II of II

Like I have always stated, it is time to prove it. Eugenie Scott is not only the Executive Director of NCSE but is also a public signer of the Humanist Manifesto III. So a person who is running a “neutral” agency that influences the science curriculum of the 50 states and is a signatory of the Humanist Manifesto will not permit her philosophy to dictate the direction of the NCSE? Is the Golden Gate Bridge for sale?

Straight from the Humanist Manifesto:

“Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.”

Okay, that’s fine. However, the next stance is contradictory to the first and bears a striking resemblance to what the NCSE stands for.

“Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.”

So the Humanist Manifesto values match the goals of the NCSE and are reflected in the Wisconsin DPI standards for science education. Nice version on neutrality.

Next exercise, go to the About page on the AHA website. Of course it is just a philosophy and not a religion but for the fun of it take their mission statement and substitute the words Humanist and Humanism with your choice of religion. Of course though, it isn’t a religion at all right?

It just talks like a duck, walks like a duck, looks like a duck, so it must be an ostrich.

Any further questions? Try reading their version I and their version II (modified after Nazism proved to be a bad human idea) if the picture isn’t crystal clear.

Let’s see in Version I the founder says:

“In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate. … To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present.” (emphasis mine)

Yup, humanism is not a religion at all. Obviously the founder was mistaken. The Public Schools are obviously neutral. If you believe that still, I can sell you the rights to being King of Atlantis and you can charge all the nations of the world who sail on the Atlantic Ocean. Hmmm, what would a fair price be for that?

Religion in the Public Schools - Part I of II

No matter the statements made about how the public school system is neutral on the topic of religion it amounts to little more than a public relations spin. To proclaim such a standard is pushing a blatant falsehood or con game on the population. I will be blunt in my statement. There is no neutral group or individual that includes humans in its numbers.

Each person brings their own set of ideas, bias, world view and opinion into whatever they do. It takes incredible discipline to separate out your stances from your work and remain neutral. That degree of discipline is quite rare and where it does exist, it sure will not get air time. Those who strive for the air time are those who want their opinions and bias heard.

Anyone that pays attention to what is being taught in the public schools knows the answer to the next question. Are the public schools neutral on the topic of religion? Obviously, the answer is a resounding no. It is the height of naiveté to believe religion and views on morality could ever be separated in a public school setting. To remove one that was taught for 150 years and declare “no religion” will be supported is a rather weak sales pitch. But it is a sales pitch bought because many do not pay attention to what their tax dollars are being spent on.

Is there any proof of religion in education? Quite simply, the answer is yes. The NEA long has had the stance of driving out the influences of Christianity and the parents because the group felt it knew better than the rest on how to raise a child. Is there a document trail to support my statements? Yes, there is.

On the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction website in the science section, they have issued their statement on the topic On the Nature of Science and the Teaching of Evolution and have stood by it since 1982. In their list of resources, they cite the National Center of Science Education (NCSE) and some of their articles. Let us follow the trail though shall we?

The NCSE comes straight out and says what it stands for right away on the homepage of their website.

“The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) defends the teaching of evolution in public schools. We are a nationally-recognized clearinghouse for information and advice to keep evolution in the science classroom and "scientific creationism" out. NCSE is the only national organization to specialize in this issue.”

On their website, they declare themselves to be neutral on the topic of religion. Give me a break, no group or agency is neutral. The NCSE is led by Executive Director Eugenie Scott since 1987 in a small building with about 10 or so staff members on-site. Can we draw the conclusion that since the position statement of NSCE is they are neutral on religion that the Executive Director is neutral too? Logically, we can’t. Would it be fair to say the opinions and bias of the Executive Director would have an impact on the operations of NCSE? Since that is how any business or group is run, obviously yes.

to be continued...

Time Demand Crunch - Part II of II

Can fresh unfossilized dinosaur bones be found outside of Alaska and other frozen areas? We only need to look to Montana for our answer. Way back in 1990 Mary Schweitzer found dried blood cells in unfossilized T. rex bones. Blood cannot last more than a few thousand years at best. Of course, honestly reporting observations carried with it the price of losing her job.

We can also look to the ground and see what the dinosaurs left us in their tracks. There has been much debate about whether or not the human looking footprints next to dinosaur footprints were real near the Paluxy River. However someone got the genius idea to ignore the human looking footprints and take some measurements and get some data. The measurements supported the initial observation of the dinosaur tracks follow the river bed. Since it is agreed the Paluxy River has maintained its current course for only a few thousand years, it begs the logical question of did the dinosaurs follow the river or did the river follow the dinosaur tracks? The only probable answer is the dinosaurs followed the river sometime in the last 4000 years or so.

But is there more concrete proof of dinosaurs having been around so recently? Again, yes there is. When the sites in Montana were observed closely, the coulees formed there are limited to a 3,000-70,000 year old time frame based on solid science with the variation depending on your viewpoint. The problem is hadrosaur or duck-billed dinosaurs laid eggs in the exact same place which has them living between 3,000 – 70,000 years ago and not 65 million years ago. The shorter timeframe is consistent with the findings of the RATE study and the radioactive carbon in diamonds.

While this same scientist was at a fossil dig in Montana, unfossilized shells were found, dinosaur eggs were found in hard dirt (not rock) and the evidence was apparent dinosaurs have lived recently. But the leader of the expedition was certain hard soil you could displace with a paintbrush had to be rock because the dinosaur eggs had to be from 75 million years ago. So from this we can conclude that when something walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be an ostrich. Oh yeah, that isn’t how the phrase goes. Shhhh, don’t tell the leader of the expedition.

When you look at the data and the evidence though, the amount of time required for their assumptions is not available. So logically that would force the ToE into a small enough timeframe where it would have to be measurable as the rate of Evolution would have to exceed the rate of extinction. I try my best to remain neutral on a topic but also remain skeptical of claims. It is time to produce the proof or remove it from the text books.

The math just doesn’t add up. They seem to be running out of time.

Time Demand Crunch - Part I of II

Revisiting the topic of Origins of Life, I’ll lay it out at the basic core level. Real science operates on the scientific method and requires proof before a hypothesis is given credibility. On the topic of Origins, proof is impossible to attain as we obviously weren’t there to witness it.

However, you will have many different sides claiming they “know” the unrecorded past and must be right. Like the majority of the “evidence” used, the positions are based on assumptions and opinions. The debate topic must come down to the data and the proof. If it remains about opinions, then it is no better than debating whether you like Wolverine or Iron Man better.

The greatest challenge to the Theory of Evolution is the burden of proof. It assumes new genetic material has been added to a single cell to transform that one cell into every animal and plant we see today. The primary answer to the challenge is all those changes take a lot of time to do or somehow magically occurred in radical jumps. Do the evidence and the data support the assumptions of large amounts of time or go against it? Is there a time demand crunch?

In a previous article Inconsistent History in 1^st Grade, I brought up the research regarding ‘mitochondrial Eve’. When the ‘age of Eve’ was calculated based on observed data not assumed data, the answer came to about 6000-6500 years. That timeframe makes sense when compared to the human population growth curves and the sticking point of recorded history only goes back 5000 years. Any statements making claims beyond what is recorded history is guesswork.

By herself, ‘Eve’ does not provide enough data to constrain the time demands. How about we give ‘Eve’ a diamond to match? In particular, recent studies on diamonds have determined the existence of ¹⁴C or radioactive carbon. This study called RATE went through the process of having natural diamonds crushed then tested in a blind, valid test and the results came back positive for radioactive carbon. Merging this up with my prior article on the Positives of Radioactive Carbon 14 Testing means there is a hard cap of less than 90,000 years for the ToE to work within. The ‘light’ reading work done prior to the RATE can be found here.

Let us turn to the popular dinosaurs and what they can add to this time issue because they are assumed to be 65+ million years old.

One group of men including a geologist traveled to Alaska to search for dinosaur fossils. What they found were un-fossilized dinosaur bones, partially petrified bones and some that were frozen. While this by itself doesn’t set an age, it does create an issue. Frozen dinosaur remains in Alaska would indicate they lived until the ice age. That throws off the standard time line just a tad.

To be continued...

Now That Takes the Cake

Now That Takes the Cake

In this category I have lampooned a variety of actions of others. But this is my first set of prosecutors to roast. This is one of those cases where one can conclude the prosecutors are overreacting to a minor infraction.

This Are You Thinking? award will be going to the prosecutors from this story found here:

“MCARTHUR, Ohio - A judge in southern Ohio must decide whether to send a man to prison for sharing a Little Debbie snack cake. The case involves 21-year-old Timothy Caudill, who last year was held in a residential community corrections program in Nelsonville for breaking into a bar.

While there, prosecutors said he bought the oatmeal creme pie from a vending machine and shared it with a fellow inmate who was on restriction and wasn't allowed access to snacks.

Prosecutors in Vinton County have asked Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Simmons to revoke Caudill's probation and put him in prison for nine months.

Caudill's attorney Claire Ball said that's outrageous. Ball says keeping Caudill out of a state prison would leave cell space for a more serious offender.”

Okay, Timothy Caudill should have followed the rules better. Rules are rules especially when you are incarcerated but the punishment should equal the crime. I am one that believes in the death penalty. Life for a life is the rule of thumb on that. But 9 months in jail for sharing half of a Little Debbie oatmeal crème cake sounds very excessive to me.

From a basic standpoint, does half an oatmeal crème pie count as a snack? It may be just a tad bit more filling than a Hostess Twinkie with about the same amount of nutritional value. There isn’t much to either.

If the prosecutor really wants an appropriate punishment for this massive crème pie crime, have Mr. Caudill do community service in a soup kitchen handing out food that actually does have nutritional value.

If the prosecutor does get this guy to sit in jail for 9 months because of half a crème pie, what are the punishments for speeding, graffiti, or murder? They make Sharia Law look tame.