Here’s an abstract from a current meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS), along with a transcript below if you don’t have a magnifying glass. This was sent to me by an attendee (who wishes to remain anonymous) of the annual meeting of the Division for Planetary Sciences of the AAS.
When I read this, I was flummoxed: why would a scientific organization present an abstract about a homeschool course trying to comport science with religion? It’s essentially a statement pushing one view of theology: that there’s no conflict between these areas, when in fact other people disagree. It has nothing to do with science itself.
This abstract does not belong in a scientific meeting. As the authors note, “The role of science educators is to teach science, not to impose worldviews.” But what are these authors doing but imposing a worldview—science and religion are BFFs—on the children who read their book? Here’s a transcript of the above (indented; my comments are flush left):
CONTROL ID: 236537
TITLE: The Crossroads of Science and Faith
ABSTRACT BODY: Abstract (2,250 Maximum Characters) : We have recently completed a 4-year project to produce a textbook for students that uniquely addresses the needs of the Christian homeschool community. It is also relevant for students of other faith and non-faith backgrounds. Two elements are at work: parents want their kids to become mature adults adhering to the faith of their upbringing, and students are challenged when they don’t understand how to rationally discuss their beliefs in relation to many current scientific discoveries. To add to the polarization, a few scientists have spread an atheistic naturalistic worldview together with their teaching of science as if it was part of science itself. As a result many parents avoid materials they consider controversial and students later come to believe they must choose between science and their faith. The key to bridging this gap are professional astronomers who hold to a Christian worldview and who can speak both languages, understanding the complexities of both communities.
This, of course, buttresses one of the main goals of Christian homeschooling: to avoid exposing children to anything that might damage their faith or make them question it. In truth, I seriously doubt that in public secondary schools children are exposed to “atheistic worldviews” that supposedly make them choose between science and faith. The reason young people exposed to science leave their faith is, I suspect, mainly because science teaches them to question, to doubt, and to trust evidence. Taken seriously, the produces an erosion of faith. And that’s why people like this book’s authors are so desperate to get to the kids before they have that exposure. The book is, in fact, a form of brainwashing: imposing the parents’ religious views on the children. The abstract continues:
The role of science educators is to teach science, not to impose worldviews. Science is well received by Christians when it is presented not as a threat to faith, but rather as a complementary way to understand God, leading to a more integrated view of reality.
“A more integrated view of reality”? This, of course, presumes that the tenets of Christianity are aspect of reality. Why can’t the authors just present the science without any mention of faith? Why wouldn’t that be “well received”? Again we see a concerted effort by religious scientists to avoid at all costs letting the kids think for themselves about how the science affects the worldview they’ve been fed.
Our textbook boasts four hallmarks, providing students with: 1) An understanding of the relationship between faith and science with the goal of helping students to identify and integrate their own worldview. 2) Scientifically reviewed and accurate astronomical information. 3) Examples of scientists who have wrestled with science/faith issues and come to a coherent relationship between the two. And 4) exercises for the students to interact with the material in both faith and scientific areas. We hope this will be a resource to help parents who hold tightly to particular ideologies to be less closed to current scientific discovery and more excited about how new discoveries can bolster and enable their faith. We will present an overview of our materials, the positive experience we have had so far in testing our materials, and our goals for future training within the homeschool and church communities. For more information about the textbook see, http://www.glimpseofhissplendor.com/
CURRENT * CATEGORY: Education CURRENT : None
AUTHORS/INSTITUTIONS: S.D. Benecchi, Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona, UNITED STATES; G. Kober, GSFC/NASA, Greenbelt, Maryland, UNITED STATES; P. Gossard, Carin University, Langhorne, Pennsylvania, UNITED STATES.
Note that three of the four “hallmarks” have nothing to do with science itself, but represent efforts to assure students that they can have their astronomy and Jesus too. The book tells students about scientists who have managed to comport the incompatible naturalistic and supernaturalist worldviews, but not about those scientists, like Steven Weinberg, who haven’t.
Such is the nature of religious homeschooling in this nation, and I abhor it. Perhaps there’s a rationale for homeschooling if you think your kids aren’t getting good academic instruction in the local schools, but the main reason in the U.S. is not that, but to keep children enclosed in a religious cocoon so, when they enter the real world, they’ve been thoroughly and irrevocably indoctrinated.
The textbook, as described on Benecchi’s website, is The Crossroads of Science and Faith: Astronomy Through a Christian Worldview. All three authors are described as “having been raised on a Christian home.” As described on the site, the motivation for writing this group was to stem the attrition of Christians from their faith because they learn about science. As I’ve noted before, one of the main reasons young Christians leave the church, at least as discerned by a Barna Group poll, is that “churches come across as antagonistic to science.” The book’s description:
Statistics show that a large number of students who claim to be Christians abandon their faith during their college years. While there may be many reasons for this sad abandonment of faith, research shows that confusion about science and faith issues play an important role in this outcome.
The motivation of the authors in writing this textbook is to change the statistics mentioned above by preparing students to engage in courteous and thoughtful dialogue with respect to science and faith issues. They also seek to equip students to defend their faith with sound reasoning and confidence while they learn about the remarkable science of astronomy.
Interesting the emphasis the authors place on the need to make the PARENTS feel better . . . rather than suggesting that the parents quit proselytizing and let their children decide on their own what to believe. Reading this was CREEPY. I thought Halloween was last week?
Children decide on their own? But what if the children make the wrong decision? Who can take that chance? After all, we’re not talking about a career choice, or even some life or death choice, but something much much graver. We’re talking about avoiding eternal torture, about keeping your children out of Hell. That is the problem that the kind of Christians who homeschool are trying to address. Throwing science and children’s ability to know and choose under the bus is a trivial price to pay, given their worldview.
Of course, they suffer some cognitive dissonance, but their fear is greater. Never underestimate the role of fear in religion.
Fear is 75% of religion.
With the other 25% split approximately evenly between ignorance and social control.
I would doubt that set of %s. 65% makes better sense as deriving from the natural human inclination for supersense thinking, perhaps even more. 25% sounds closer to the mark for the social dynamic of control (relating to those skeptical of the belief who don’t buck the dominant mode), with maybe 10% due to any angst fears. Whether those variables change much for other Tortucan-friendly belief systems (orthodox Marxism comes to mind) is an open question.
Perhaps this is true of Christians generically, but there is no way it’s only 10% for fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are mostly about fear. Everything revolves around fear for fundamentalists… fear of Hell (which is real for them), fear of God (who is inscrutable and might send you to Hell), fear of The Other (who might corrupt you and send you to Hell), fear of your religious peers (who might judge you insufficiently pious or orthodox and shun you), fear of yourself (your weaknesses might betray you and send you to Hell), etc.
“Fear” is the main concept that comes to mind when I think of my childhood and young adulthood in a fundamentalist church.
And fear is definitely behind the majority of religious home schoolers.
I don’t detect this fear aspect in either the apologetics of the Kulturkampf religious subculture I’ve studied, or those of its members I’ve personally interacted with, and certainly isn’t the salient factor in seeing how the the authors of the astronomy volume being discussed in this thread construct and defend their worldview.
If you have some cognitive or social analyses that suggests a significant role for such fear, I would be most interested in them (to add to #TIP dataset (www.tortucan.wordpress.com). There is certainly a hellfire tradition in especially protestant eschatology and preaching (which lives on in the Hell House gigs etc) but as a useful indicator of how the Kulturkampf network operates and sustains itself, I think dwelling on the fear issue is missing more prominent elements.
The dynamic of antievolutionist apologetics doesn’t turn at all on fear aspects, but rather on a systematic cognitive knack for not thinking about things they don’t think about. That “Tortucan” factor I explore in the #TIP project (www.tortucan.wordpress.com) is not restricted to creationists, just spectacularly well illustrated by them. It is that internal cognitive process that is at the heart of things; it simply manifests in the way it does once filled in with specifica content (in thir demographic, conservative largely Christian apologetics).
This reminds me of several of the Science shows created by Frank Capra that toward the end of some of them made it sound like religion was neatly ensconced with the science thus presented. It was creepy how it seemed to do that. Seems we are going backwards to the 1950’s on this. Any rough edges from science jus gets cut off.
I think its good that they do so. Let’s get these materials ‘out in the open’ and discussed by professional scientists at national meetings. Point out their flaws, not just any factual errors but the inherent problems with the pedagogical approach. Who knows, some of the publishers might actually listen to the criticism. Yeah, I know, I can dream.
Our national scientific organizations should welcome homeschool students, teacher/parents, and publishers to come and learn what research is going on. To join the mainstream community and participate in the national conferences where they can experience the um, “joys” of open peer review of ideas firsthand. Hopefully we can be mature enough so that when we see some crappy homeschool poster put up by a 17-year-old in an open session, we keep our criticism constructive rather than personal/religious. But I think it would be a very good thing if such people got the sort of constructive criticism we give each other at these national meetings.
I agree. The best outcome would be that homeschooled student presenters identify major flaws in their arguments if they propose metaphysical concepts that can not be falsified by any scientific means.
“identify major flaws in their arguments”
…and then a miracle occurs…
Criticism: I think I should have been more explicit here in step 2.
In Finland everyone accommodates the teachers who run the national school system. No private or home schooling allowed and they get top marks.
About time for Neil de Grasse Tyson to come out strong on this kind of shit. Something more than just a tweet please.
Those who home school can destroy their own kids if the choose – free country, as they like to say. I am sure they will be accepted at Liberty U. to continue their useless education.
Or we could just ban homeschooling. Even secular homeschoolers are rarely qualified, and religious homeschooling (which makes up the big majority of homeschoolers) borders on abuse.
I totally agree. Ban homeschooling, except in those incredibly rare cases where there may be no alternative, and then it must be very carefully regulated.
Homeschooling is, by definition, harmful to at least some extent, in that it prevents children from having the social interaction which traditional schooling offers. Of course, that’s the point.
Ban or not, it definitely needs more rigorous oversight. Because of my fundamentalist background I know a lot of homeschooling parents. With the exception of one family I know who has done an exceptional job, they are mostly failing horribly at it. Even setting aside the indoctrination aspect, they just aren’t doing a good job of teaching them even basic things like math and english. Some of them have let their children go to public high school, so they can be in band or play sports or whatever, and the majority of those kids are very far behind and find it difficult to keep up.
It’s kind of absurd, really, when you think of all the training that professional teachers go through before they are allowed to teach in public school to think that just some random person can “wing it” and do just as good a job. Perhaps you can homeschool your children from kindergarten to 3rd grade without doing lasting damage to their education, but beyond that it’s mostly a farce.
Well republicans tend to think that public school teachers are overpaid and have cushy jobs in the first place, so is it really any surprise that conservative parents think they can ‘wing it’ with little training and without spending full time at it?
Good point.
I’m not even sure about K through 3rd grade. Kids will never be more capable of absorbing things at those very early ages. It’s just how brain development works. Though I must admit that, in my fairly recent experience, I don’t know of any schooling organization, public or private, that does a good job at taking advantage of that.
But even with that negative opinion I wouldn’t, didn’t, think that it would be better for my to try and school my kids through those years myself. Instead my wife and I continued teaching them as we had before K in addition to the school they were attending.
Last I read 75% of home schoolers are Christian, and not just any Christianity, but the hard line types who go to Liberty University.
That’s quite correct, though many homeschooling trade organizations and writers either don’t explictly acknowledge their creationist proclivities, or gloss pass it. Similar issue pertain to the curricula potentially offered in religiously-based charter schools (as Zach Kopplin & others have been tracking).
They have been taught to understand the Fallen (us), and apostates etc. just won’t understand them or what they are doing to “save” us.
Actually, it’s surprising that it is not tried. Since we love to do everything on a state by state decision, a more liberal state, such as California should try outlawing home schooling.
I wonder – how far does home schooling go. Is it K – 12? I don’t see how that can be good for anyone, even if your parents are teachers.
AFAIK yes K-12…if the kids even go through that far. If you look at the Amish and Mennonite communities in PA, I believe they have permission from the state to stop educating their kids at age 14. I.e. at the end of Freshman or Sophomore year of High School. Though I’m not sure that allowing the kids to exit the school system early is a ‘religion’ exception so much as it is a ‘farmer’ exception.
CA has an interesting approach that might end up reducing nontraditional education organically, through the use of incentives rather than penalties/regulation. The top 10% of high school graduates gain automatic admission to either the UC or Cal State system. This is a huge incentive for both parents and kids to get good grades. But to qualify for this auto-admission, a school (or homeschool program’s) curricula and textbooks must be vetted and accredited by UC, and they don’t accredit textbooks like the one discussed here. So there may be some grassroots pressure from parents for even private fundie schools and homeschooling designed programs to use more traditional science and history texts and curricula. Look up the ACSI vs. Sterns legal case for some background on this. (Side note: another interesting factoid to come out of that case is that there are a surprisingly large number of moderate parents who send their kids to religious schools for ‘secular’ reasons such as concern over safety or education quality. When these parents see their school not beeing accredited by UC, they actively push back on the school to change their program to become accredited. So no, fundie private schools are not just full of fundies who care nothing about mainstream University acceptance and attendance).
Such a mixed bag from state to state. In the end, where does that leave the kids. Not in good shape I should think.
I can give you a living sample of crazy schooling right here in Iowa. Very small town of South Page – population maybe 150. Yet they continue to maintain a K-12 school. Last I heard, enrollment this year is 115. Many of these students are from farm area around the town because there are not even that many kids in such a small town. Graduating High School class for this year will be five.
How they continue to do this is beyond me to understand but the more important question is why? The state regulation allows this but it has to be a very poor education – many of the teachers are part-time and students have to go to other larger schools to participate in any activities. Makes no sense.
Yeah I knew a woman who was in a graduating class of 4, also from Iowa farm country. I was a one room school for a large number of grades. However the issue of the pros and cons of public secular school consolidation is a subject for another thread. 🙂
@ Randy Schenck
” a more liberal state, such as California should try outlawing home schooling.”
Compulsory public education was the norm, and truancy laws were enforced against parents who kept kids at home, until the 1960s, when “unschooling” became a trendy viewpoint. The first court case allowing homeschooling, (with restrictions), was in 1965 in New Jersey. It didn’t take off until 1983, when the Home School Legal Defense Association (described on its website as a “Christian organization”) was formed, to promote homeschooling and defend homeschoolers in court. By 1993 homeschooling was allowed in all 50 states. The HSLDA’s finest achievement was in 1994 when they led the defeat of a bill that would have required all teachers in the U.S., including home educators, to have teacher certification. They remain the central force in defending homeschooling.
Thanks for that. Very depression history of home schooling. I discussed the situation just above about the little town of South Page and the school size there. Has to be just as poor as home school and this does not get into all the religious schools that are sometimes not so good either.
A religious family I know homeschooled their very bright kid and sent him off to Calvin College (Christian Reformed Church). I’ll wait and see how he turns out, but I don’t have high hopes.
That is probably unfeasible on several fronts. What is much more feasible is to remove the possibility of avoiding full-time schooling at schools with state-controlled examination criteria. You can teach the kids after hours, at home, that the Moon is made of green cheese, and that only Barbarpapa has ever walked there, but at some point they’re going to have to answer questions about what Neil Armstrong found under his boots. (OK – Harrison Schmidt would be a better example, but for basic education I’ll stick with Armstrong.) Worse – the special snowflakes who say that Barbarpapa got cheese on his boots will fail the exam.
To mangle a popular saying, you can chose your opinions, but you can’t choose your facts.
One of my children and his spouse are atheist homeschoolers (of two elementary – aged children and one kindergarten – aged kiddo) and very well – supported in this endeavor of theirs by their eastern Iowa / Iowa City / University of Iowa community.
Both parents have degrees in elementary education; child’s business is thus:
http://www.taprootnatureexperience.org involving after – school programs and week – long summer camps. Parents also operate a 72 – acre farm of organically raised animals, vegetables and fruits.
They and I just wish there were more such educators. There are not.
Blue
His own biological kiddos’ present socializations … …
http://www.flickr.com/photos/16034226@N08 .
Blue
I’m all for homeschooling — provided the parents are qualified, and the children are required to take and pass “critical thinking” every couple of years. There must be tests to demonstrate compliance.
If the parents are serious about providing a good education for their children, they will have no problem with that.
Crossroads indeed. The roads of science and faith lead in entirely different directions.
Crossroads are magical places where the voodoo spirits call loas tend to hang out. You know, Maitre Carrefuor and Baron Samedi. I guess at the crossroads of Faith and Science, Baron Newton can also be summoned.
There’s a similar superstition in Christianity. It’s why in medieval times people were often hanged at crossroads. If their soul didn’t go to the appropriate afterlife, they were stuck there because they wouldn’t be able to decide which road to take and therefore couldn’t go off and haunt anyone.
The other reason of course being that it gets the message “misbehave and we will kill you” to people travelling on both roads. For the same reason, part of the ritual (I choose the word carefully) of hanging, drawing and quartering was the display of the quarters at the gates of the appropriate town. Frequently they were dipped in tar, or smoked, to make them last longer.
Ah, the lovely underpinnings of the Public Relations industry.
Yes, exactly. There were even executioners known for their skill in providing a good show, who would be brought in at great expense for a notable execution. Men who had worked out how to keep the body alive for longer under torture, and who could get the heart out and display it still beating fora few sseconds, for example. Just sick.
Sick. well, by our standards. But by the standards of the people in control then, the more important question was “is this effective propaganda?”
In a modern context, and writing on Saturday morning, the question might be better put as “is this effective terrorism?”
Good point. And look what happened just a little while after you wrote that. 🙁
Another game changer, and it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Sad to say, but just because some people are thorough-going malicious bastards, doesn’t necessarily make them incompetent idiots.
<P.I remember having similar, extremely depressing thoughts examining a piece of finely engineered German chemical equipment a few years ago. It was a prototype gas chamber at Dachau KZ.
Yeah. Some of those evil doctors who experimented on prisoners and patients (and not just during the Nazi era) made medical breakthroughs. 🙁
I think of them – and the jews and homosexuals who died in their experiments – every time i pull on the immersion suit and other survival gear I’m required to wear on my way to jobs outside the tropics.
The forced sterilizations here till the 1970’s. And the Tuskegee Experiments let black men die of syphilis instead of treating them.
No one was charged with murder by neglect.
Aren’t people lovely? [slashdot] I, for one. welcome our feline overlords.[/slashdot]
Bargaining demons at crossroads. Don’t do that as in Christians lore. Also used on Supernatural.
I’m quite shocked by the organisation using such phrases as “the sad abandonment of faith.” That kind of judgment is not the place of educators imo.
Religion is irrelevant to astronomy. It should be taught the same whatever the religion of the parents of the students.
What exactly has been done to make this book Christian-friendly? Do they say, for example, that God makes it look like the universe is billions of years old by putting the light from distant stars into our eyes? If a parent wants to give their child that idea, there’s nothing we can do about it, but I’m not sure a prestigious scientific organisation should be assisting them.
The book seems to be divided into two chunks. The first addresses science and faith in a general way. If you are brave enough, and I caution you to steel yourself, you can read a sample science and faith chapter here. Hint: the word “scientism” is used repeatedly.
The science bit seems a bit more straightforward, acknowledging that the universe is old and so on and in my brief skimming doesn’t seem to present falsehoods. What they do is to have sidebars where they examine how various astronomers have reconciled such facts with their Christian beliefs. You can read a sample chapter of the science part here
Thanks so much for this. 🙂
I haven’t read the science chapter yet, but I read the first one. It took more than steeling myself to get through it! How anyone could possibly imagine this chapter has a valid place in a science book is beyond me.
Amongst other things I learned that I might be an atheist because my father abandoned me (he didn’t) and I’m angry at God, and the Chinese and other Eastern cultures aren’t good at science because they’re polytheists.
Unbelievable. SMH.
I wonder when someone will nail them for leaving out all those other religions, and Christianity is an Eastern Religion too. They forget.
Sounds like a good door stopper of a book. But trash otherwise. Yet more ammunition for those who want to mix state and religion on every level.
Generally, at such meetings, the abstracts are not vetted. Thus this abstract is purely the view of the authors.
I’ve no doubt you’re right!
You gotta have a look at the chapter gluonspring provided Coel. It’s going to take me a while to get over reading it. The knowledge it’s being used to educate young people is very concerning.
I know what you mean, I’m shaking my head and my fist too… :).. That chapter is appalling, how can so-called scientists write such crap? Before dissing polytheists they might want to look up that primitive lot that lived in ancient Greece. They didn’t do too bad did they? And what the hell is that rubbish about Evolutionism? Eeuugh, I need a drink.
It’s ghastly. After all the talk about not enforcing a worldview, that’s exactly what that chapter does in spades!
[quote]But, but, but … OUR worldview is right, so we can’t possibly be accused of ramming it down the children’s throats and into their minds as if that were something objectionable.[/quote]
Yeah! And they accuse atheists of arrogance. It’s probably the most annoying thing about very religious people – how sure they are that they’re right even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Who needs evidence when you’ve got faith.
It’s at the root of the problem.
While abstracts may not be vetted at the larger AAS meetings, the planetary science meeting is small enough that all abstracts are read and approved by the scientific organizing committee. Why did the committee think that such religious propaganda was appropriate for a science meeting?
If you have the stomach for it, you can read a sample chapter from the textbook here:
http://www.glimpseofhissplendor.com/sample-science-faith-chapter/
I wonder if the executives of the AAS knew about this endorsement. If they did so, it is both jaw dropping and quite depressing.
Homeschooling is largely an attempt by right-wing religion to insulate children from secular influences. I consider this movement a major factor in the perpetuation of ignorance and irrationality.
It’s worth noting that the book has two sections, a “science and faith” section which is, as you imply, stomach churning. It has a separate “astronomy” section that is not quite as stomach churning, though it includes sidebars on how Christian astronomers deal with billion year old galaxies and the sort.
Sample of Part I Science and Faith.
Sample of Part II Astronomy
I think the tropes about the great stellar distances and the age of the universe are that God could vary the speed of light. He could also made the universe with galaxies already far apart. Oh, and I suppose He made stars at various stages of formation and maturity and death, 6000 years ago.
And he could have created the universe last Tuesday, with fake memories in everyone’s mind that they’d had a childhood, etc. No way to disprove that!
Yes, but even he wouldn’t have any way of knowing that, though he remembers that he created the universe last Tuesday, Queen Maeve actually created the universe last Thursday, complete with YHWH falsely thinking that he was the one who had created the universe on Tuesday, two days before YHWH even actually existed.
b&
Geez, you couldn’t be more wrong. It was actually Brahma who created the Earth tomorrow, complete with a reverse arrow of time but arranged are memories in such a way that we think we’re moving forward. We’re not even here and neither is Queen Maeve or YHWH.
The sample from ‘Science and Faith’ has this rather worrying bit:
“Evolutionism asserts that all life is the result of purely natural unguided, unsupervised processes.
The important distinguishing point about this worldview is that the processes are controlled
only by natural laws and random chance with absolutely no initial or continuing input from a supernatural being.
…
Evolutionism masquerades as objective science, when in reality it uses a scientific theory to propagate a philosophical idea (see Chapter 3).
*It is rare that a person would admit to a worldview of scientism or evolutionism. Most of the time, you will find these worldviews conflated with objective science. Conflation means to bring together or to combine two separate ideas into a single idea. For example, a biology teacher might be teaching about the scientific theory of evolution and comment on the gullibility of people who believe in the existence of God. In this case, the teacher is conflating the science of biological evolution with the philosophical worldview of evolutionism.”
I, and I think pretty much all readers here, would agree with the ‘all life is the result of …’ “worldview”. I’d call it ‘understanding evolution’, or ‘naturalistic’, though I don’t say “I am an evolutionist”. But I don’t think that ‘masquerades’ as anything. It is the science; inserting a “supernatural being” (their term) is in opposition to “objective science”.
And then they follow up with a strawman of a biology teacher commenting on the gullibility of believers.
When I read the astronomy chapter, I thought the book would be harmless, even if the interviews with Christian scientists were pointless as far as I was concerned. But this chapter looks like something that no scientific organisation should be linked to in any way.
Blah that’s worse than I expected*…they should definitely have their book discussed at the AAS conference!
*And what the frak is a discussion of evolution doing in an astronomy book anyway?
And what the frak is a discussion of evolution doing in an astronomy book anyway?
Don’t be fooled. They look like they’re offering specific advice for specific fields, but the real target is and always has been science at its foundations. And since the strongest and most dangerous science of evolutionary biology is the one that strikes at the heart of human exceptionalism, which is pretty much one of the main themes of the creationist story, you bet your backside it’s going to get pride of place in any discussion on strategy, for the same reason generals get more focus than grunts.
“But this chapter looks like something that no scientific organisation should be linked to in any way.”
I wouldn’t go that far, but it’s definitely out of place for astronomy. Just skim-reading the pages makes it clear it’s about philosophy, more specifically epistemology. I think the term “evolutionist” is meant to focus more on the philosophical fallout from the theory (i.e. the naturalism and atheism) than on the theory itself. Of course, they might conflate the two later, but that’s pretty much par for the course, I should think.
Of course, this tactic of fleeing to philosophy when science comes calling is nothing new. It’s a regular attempt to undermine science from its foundations so that student doesn’t have to do homework, as the second and third sentences make clear:
“A worldview can be defined
as the unprovable, implicitly accepted set of fundamental beliefs that determines how you
understand your purpose and place in the world; in other words, how you make sense of life. Your
answers to big questions such as “What is the meaning of life?” and “Is there a God?” are determined
by your worldview.”
There’s even a hint of the “science is based on faith, so we’re just as good as you” argument in the word “unprovable”, too. They’re not willing to let science get away with any kind of evidence or reasoning when they can just decide those are leaps of faith, and therefore no better than their belief in Big Consciousness waving his hands.
Glad to know, though, I can take it as read that violence-loving aliens are invisibly, intangibly, inaudibly watching me on reality TV, waiting for me to go on a rampage. I’ve decided I don’t need evidence for that claim, so magically I don’t. Also, I’m a dragon in human disguise. This philosophy lark is fun!
Wait a minute, why can’t I breathe fire? 😀
The AAS doesn’t endorse the abstracts that are submitted. Those are the responsibility of the author.
The AAS may not endorse the abstracts, but the scientific organizing committee reads and approves every single submissions at this small meeting. Why did the committee think that such religious propaganda was appropriate for a science meeting?
Does the AAS ALSO present abstracts of books by folks like Stenger on the other side??
And does the textbook itself mention them??
I’m sure they would, if someone submitted such an abstract to the “education” section of the meeting.
I have been to a number of large science meetings where there are a few posters put up from Creationists. Their abstracts are published in the associated science journal, along with the science abstracts. The olde American Zoological Society was one that comes to mind.
I once had a poster of mine assigned right next to a Pons and Fleishman cold fusion poster.
They never showed up but it made my day…so many more visitors to my day and area of the poster session! 🙂 The organizers also had great fun penning and posting a note on their board about their no-show.
Great story!
There was some concoction up at Wednesday’s “Puzzle Of Earth’s Uninterrupted Habitability” conference in London, which appeared to be made from printed out and cut up web pages. I didn’t read it in any depth (and my camera couldn’t even get a focus on it – too many waving leaves of paper) but it appeared to be making reasonable point about the likely importance of the magnetosphere. But it certainly didn’t make the point clearly.
No-show from the originator too. Or if they were there, I never saw them “presenting” their thesis to anyone.
You know…of all the disciplines, astronomy should be the one most antagonistic to religion.
Before modern astronomy, the heavens were, literally, the physical abode of the gods. Even after people figured out that the Earth is round, we still had the celestial spheres, with the most important gods on the other side of the outermost sphere looking in on us. Our greatest heroes, when they died, would be set amongst the stars — and the poetic forms of that remain today with phrases such as, “A new star is born,” or, “Her star is on the rise.”
But we’ve now gone and looked into the homes of the gods, even knocked on their doors…and found…nothing.
Literally, nothing: vacuum, pure emptiness.
And the stars themselves are amazing, yes…but they’re just variations on the same theme as our own Sun — and we’ve figured out that it’s “merely” a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace.
It was only after the astronomers went and looked for the gods in their abode that the theologians banished the gods to a netherworld of an alternate dimension you can’t actually travel to physically — as Jesus himself did in the Ascension.
For anybody to suggest harmony between astronomy and religion…is so utterly bizarre it truly boggles the imagination. What next — harmony between vintners and teetotalers?
b&
Yep… It’d be hard to find a scientific discipline more unforgiving of religious sentiment than astronomy.
Dangit I’m going to to have to read the book though. Curious how they think astronomy changes when you look at it through a christian world view.
Aw hell…forgot it was a textbook and just saw the price. Oh well.
The sample chapters linked to in an earlier post were very helpful. About what I expected. I mean, to accept the clear findings of science, and yet remain believers in a pre-scientific outlook (or -sigh- worldview), what else can they say?
So much for the Tower of Babel. What exactly was God worried about there?
Angel strikes. Like birds flying into skyscraper windows, you know?
b&
😀
Technically the sun isn’t a gas, because most of it is ionized particles. Instead, its a miasma of incandescent plasma. 🙂
I think the lyricist might have a valid objection in this case….
b&
Actually no, TMBG changed the lyrics to the song after being informed of this point, because they’re nerdy and wanted it their song to be scientifically correct. What I quoted is actually their replacement lyrics, not anything I made up.
Hmpf. Hadn’t heard of a revised version. I like the way the old one scans, but I can certainly respect their desire for scientific correctness.
b&
Google “the sun is a miasma” and your first seven hits will be you tube videos of TMBG singing it.
This happened years ago, Ben. You’re showing your age. 🙂
I obviously am…but it’s not a revision to the original lyrics. It’s a new song entirely, an answer to their classic…and quite good, as one would expect!
b&
You know…of all the disciplines, astronomy should be the one most antagonistic to religion.
I disagree. The cosmos has certainly captured the imaginations of religious people from all over the globe, but it is, when you get down to it, the stage on which the human drama plays. It doesn’t really matter what size it is or what’s in it, since it is only there as something to put humans in.
No, the the discipline most antagonistic to religion is the one that strikes at the heart of our ideas of human beings. This is because nigh all religious tenets, doctrines, and stories revolve around – indeed, would be nothing without – the overwhelming idea that a human and a lump of haematite are fundamentally different things.
That is why the history of science has progressed as it has: it knocked down the duality of the grubby earth and the perfect heavens first, and then it knocked down the duality of the dead earth and the living creatures on it, and then it knocked down the duality of “animalistic” animals and “dignified” humans, and then it knocked down the duality of the fleshy body and the abstract mind. Now, it is knocking down the duality of the robot-like brain and the free-spirited, morally important soul. At every stage, the front line has always been the core of humanity, even though that front line has been pushed further and further back until it almost collapses on itself.
And who’s going to care about flaming balls of plasma billions of miles past a dead vacuum when there’s people telling kids they’re nothing but atoms, pond slime, and monkeys, huh?
Bugger. Sorry about the double “the” in my second para. What a silly mistake to make.
That’s the perspective I was approaching it from. Astronomy came first, and it ripped the rug out from underneath the whole edifice. Then the religious tried to keep everything else going, suspended on nothing…you just analyzed it from that perspective, of how even the heart of the everything else suspended on nothing has been taken out as well.
b&
Except for the seething infinity of virtual particles.
Actually … here’s one for a particle physicist : are Republican Presidential candidates skulls actually filled with true emptiness, not mere vacuum? This suggests worthwhile and productive experiments …
I think it’s commonly accepted that the blowhards are airheads, thus explaining all the hot exhaust that comes out of the Foggy Bottom.
b&
Whaddayaknow, I had no idea Foggy Bottom referred to anything but the State Department.
…not to be confused, of course, with the Soggy Bottom Boys….
b&
I have heard them. 🙂
Good — because that’s one of the best movies in recent history, and if you hadn’t heard them, I’d flog you with a wet noodle until you had remedied your deficiency.
b&
Whew, dodged a bullet! Er, noodle.
It’s been a while…might be time to watch it again. 🙂
Been some time since I saw it, too, for that matter. Probably too long.
There’ve been lots of settings of the Odyssey over the millennia…this one might actually be the best. Certainly a favorite.
b&
This little sidetrack inspired me to have a look at the Wikipedia page for “O, Brother…” It’s impressive how much attention to detail the Coens go into, esp. regarding the authentic music.
I love that movie. The best line:
“That lake was not my doing.”
b&
Also “I’m bone fide”
Them syreens did this to Pete. They loved him up and turned him into a horny toad.
b&
The whole thing is just one big good line.
I also appreciated “vis à vis my progeny”
Just don’t mix us up when the noodle flogging begins.
Right — I’ll be sure to spare Diane and start with you….
b&
Hey!
You! Get off of my cloud!
b&
An Atheistic worldview is part of science as the scientific method odes not allow for the supernatural and it’s not atheism that forces a choice between science and faith, that would be reality.
does not allow
Would it be slightly more correct to say that the scientific method allows for the supernatural (don’t ask me to define the term) but repeatedly fails to find evidence of it, or is this a distinction without a difference?
Now that I’ve read your comment, I think your definition works better. It’s not that it doesn’t allow for it, it’s that it produces no evidence of it.
I think you’re right. Science doesn’t rule out anything beforehand, merely follows the available evidence wherever it leads.
Which makes it even more hilarious when the abstract whines about “naturalistic” and “atheistic” worldviews in science, considering the only way to support the opposite of those positions is to go beyond or sometimes against the evidence, which is completely antithetical to science to begin with. Even the most speculative of science is limited by evidence. This is just flat-out fantasy.
What a lark, though! What’s next: how to reconcile Santa Claus with the Laws of Thermodynamics? 😀
“Naturalistic” is, IMHO, a more accurate term, since it fits neatly with “experimentally verifiable.” Any naturalistic explanation, since it doesn’t involve the supernatural, is potentially experimentally verifiable (though the experiment may be long and complex ; Wednesday’s “Puzzle” conference which I mention up-thread casually mentioned the experimental difficulties in the “Gaia -vs- Goldilocks” debate ; you’d need a number of planets the size of the Earth, around identical Suns, and 4.567 billion years … the experiment is not impossible, though currently beyond our budget allocation), and it something is experimentally verifiable then it’s not supernatural.
Or, as I’ve suggested before, “I want to stick my voltmeter probes into your god.”
Religion is a circular track and science is superhighway running on a different plane. I don’t see how these two roads could intersect.
If they did intersect, the frightened bunnies of religions would experience problems with the juggernaut of science. (I think that “18-wheeler” in EN_US ; “road train” in the dialect that gave us “‘Roo bars”)
One might even posit that the bunnies would experience an evolutionary pressure. On the back of the neck. I’m still not sure if bunnies are evolving into asphalt, or tyre rubber. But there’s something going on there.
One word: Galileo.
I too was struck by the line about how science educators should not impose world views. Because that is exactly what we are supposed to do. Science is done and best understood by the world view known as methodological naturalism: the nature of things and the events of the past can only be understood through natural causes. I am sure there are those who teach science or ‘do’ science but are also pretty religious. Let us be honest. There must be conflict in their heads, where one world view is imposed on the other. To deny this simple truth is to both live in mental conflict and to also be telling lies to one self.
Science can be taught conditionally and so avoid ‘worldview imposition.’ As in: “if you follow this procedure, you get answer X, which is consistent with what we observe…and oh by the way, you’ll get vaccines and modern electronics too. But if you follow some other procedure, you’ll get answer Y instead. Its up to you to decide which procedure you think is more valuable.”
However unless you’re teaching a class with fundamentalist science-objectors in it, this level of methodological abstractedness is probably not needed.
Maybe, maybe not. I am not conflicted even though I determine ‘correct result’ in the lab via experiment, publication and peer review while I determine ‘correct result’ in a court setting via a hand vote from 12 yokels. These are radically different worldviews about how (i.e. what methodology to employ) to make important potentially life-saving or life-ending decisions. Yet I use both in different contexts. The key is I think I have good reasons why each is appropriate for a specific context. I suspect that fundies are doing something different; they use theology vs. science in different contexts, and don’t feel conflicted so long as they think they have good reasons for using methodology 1 in context 1 and methodology 2 in context 2.
Oops, I suspect they are doing something similar. Sigh. For want of an edit function…
Well, yes, it can be taught conditionally, just as it can be fudged, misrepresented, and ignored. Assigning a value statement to this conditionality, though, is like getting drunk: you might prefer being drunk to being sober, but you can’t conflate the two. The movement of planets millions of miles away simply isn’t going to be changed by what people think, feel, or value.
As for the conflict issue: don’t confuse specialization with compartmentalization. If there are genuine reasons to tackle different subjects with different methodological tools, then you can not only comfortably put the two in the same room without a fight, you should already be able to answer questions as to why. That’s wholly different from partitioning off faith and reason, because the whole point of the latter is to erect an impenetrable wall between the two, and any such cross-comparison would be dangerous or even fatal. That’s a world of difference in approach.
Of course, a religious scientist might kid themselves into thinking their compartmentalization is specialization, but that’s no justification for us to go along with it.
An astronomy textbook catering to Christian creationists is relevant to people of other religions or none at all? No sir, I’m pretty sure it’s not.
OTOH, with a simple edit function (s/God/YHWH/ ; s/God/Allah/) and a new set of testimonies, the same book can be sold into a different market.
To misquote the Irish voting manual, “sell early, sell often”.
This new book is naturally relevant to my #TIP “Troubles in Paradise: The Methodology of Creationism” project and will be added to my 41K resource base at http://www.tortucan.wordpress.com.
The fact that such a presentation was offered at the astronomical society is hardly amazing, even full blown YEC creationists do such things, if any are members of that society. The book authors are not coming from a YEC background, but rather the (dwindling) OEC framework, and in that context the posted content on thir website is typical for that wing (where the science data are accepted at face value but then folded into a Behold the Handiwork of God perspective).
Evidently the book touches briefly on the age of universe issue on p. 99 (according to a review of it by Dan Bakken’s review for Hugh Ross’ OEC Reasons to Believe bunch) and as such YEC homeschoolers will likely not make use of it, though OEC & IDers should lap it up, as it engages in a familiar Kulturkampf battle of worldviews in the various chapter exercises shown on their samples posted on their website.
From my #TIP source methods perspective, the most useful section of the book to have read was one they didn’t post an excerpt of: the Appendix on the Star of Bethlehem. There’s been a long string of pin the tail on the supernova or rare conjunction stellar donkey writings over the years (such as at the American Scientific Affiliation) and which all stall on one fatal assumptive problem: when exactly was the Nativity for whom the Star is being sought? As I went into in some detail in the “Cuz the Bible Tells Me So” chapter at #TIP, the gospels of Matthew & Luke are irreconcilable on this point, though apologists tend to favor Matthew because they can’t move the death of Herod in 4 BCE in the way they can try and slip rollers under Luke’s census dating of 6 AD.
Consequently, seeing how the book authors wriggled around the chronology issue (or whether they acknowledged it at all) would have spoken volumes about just what exactly they aren’t paying attention to in their apologetics.
If I can keep at the #TIP project I’ll certainly be keeping track of whether this OEC volume gains traction in the non-YEC homeschooling subculture, as well as what technical & philsophical brickbats get tossed at them from secular scientists and commentators.
Oh, that “sad abandonment of faith.”
This is, in essence, Cosmos for Rednecks.
“The role of science educators is to teach science, not to impose worldviews”.
Yet they sub-title their book “Astronomy through a Christian Worldview” and seek to rubbish the worldviews of ‘scientism’ and ‘evolutionism’! How very droll!
✨