Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
nonaffiated

Are We Falling Behind In Science?

Recommended Posts

From the very first paragraph of the document you linked:

"this fundraising proposal ....."

 

Ya know... I get a lot of fundraising proposals in the mail. One thing they all have in common is they all mention money. More specifically a need for money. Do you realize what is entirely absent from this "fundraising proposal?" You guessed it.... any mention at all of money.

And your point being? Is that all you could say about the link?

Was the wedge document set up to distributed via mail or was it more of a management proposal? They tend to look pretty different, since they assume different things depending on the target audience.And contrary to what you insinuate, the document does indeed talk about funding (and does describe activities that require)

Since legislatures and school boards have taken it on themselves to make that decision. Keep in mind, not one court case on the matter of evolution/creation/design would have been possible except that creationists had FIRST gone to the legislatures and school boards.

So? That still doesn't answer the question, whether judges ought to decide on what's right or wrong in science.

School boards are to decide on what is happening at school. Shouldn't one respect the obvious wishes of a majority of parents?

Actually, IIRC, the creation side of this one was delighted when Jones got the case. Do you think some of his "bias" was the result of perjury by YEC members of the Dover School Board? How about the fact that the book in question was changed from a creationist book to an ID book by merely substituting references to creation with references to design? (Can you say "cdesignproponentists?")

Obviously some mistaken expectations there. That bias was already present, before the case.

Who from the school board was convicted of perjury?

And your misleading claims about the panda book is also dealt with here:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dover_in_review_an_analysis_of_1001826.html

 

I think it's still in question whether your reasons are obvious or good. It sounds like you're interpreting "Congress shall make no law" more narrowly than the courts do. If that's the correct interpretation, should states also have the right to do other things (abridge free speech, prohibit free exercise of religion) that "Congress shall make no law" about? Do you have any specific response to the logic used in the decision I posted, or just a general objection based on your reading of the amendments in question?

I take what the text says. States do have their own constitutions and the issues raised are addressed therein.

Lower level government may indeed make rules regarding speech, assembly etc. And they may be of a religious nature. Think of a county that may ban sales of p*rn*gr*phy, alcohol, open shops on Sundays etc.

 

The establishment clause (or similar clauses for the states) where intended to bar the state from enforcing a specific denomination/religion on people. They were never intended to enforce secularism or secularist ideologies, which in essence is exactly what they aimed to prevent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take what the text says.

The text doesn't explicitly state what it means by things like "liberty", "establishment of religion", or "due process", which is pretty much the point of having a Supreme Court in the first place.

 

Lower level government may indeed make rules regarding speech, assembly etc. And they may be of a religious nature. Think of a county that may ban sales of p*rn*gr*phy, alcohol, open shops on Sundays etc.

The court has held (and in the process confirmed that they have jurisdiction) that such laws are Constitutional if they meet some secular purpose in addition to the religious motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sources and evidence were shown in the post where I documented students in the US rank 28th in the world.... behind a bunch of nations in which Biblical creation isn't even a consideration. One will need to address that issue before we blame evolution for the decline of the US in science.

 

 

I haven't even commented on evolution in this particular discussion. The only thing I've done is address the question: "Are we falling behind in science?"; document we are hardly the leaders in science education; document that a number of nations that rank ahead of us in science education never taught Biblical creation; and provide a number of reasons (other than evolution) that we are falling behind.

 

Oh yeah.... I mentioned earlier that we lost 6 days due to weather this winter so teachers need to make up those days without students. He also have a snow day scheduled for Friday, April 18. Neither students nor teachers will be making up any of the missed time on that day either. Spending LESS time in school is NOT a way to improve education.

Still it didn't state which area and subjects of science. Theres biology, chemistry and physics, of course theres more, and the link isn't worth much without more details. Also you can learn science outside of school as well, it doesn't stop once you graduate unless any person chooses to stop learning. Not only that it shows me the age of 15 only, why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the "New Atheists"

I didn't say advocacy. Let me provide a couple examples.... AIG and/or CMI publish a creationist scientific journal in an effort to advance creation science. ICR, by it's very name claims it is involved in "Creation Research." In fact, both organizations fund creation science research. Yet both organizations also declare in their statement of faith that any evidence not in keeping with (their) literal reading of Genesis is invalid BY DEFINITION. In fact, both require a statement attesting to that belief as a condition of employment.

No scientific organization has an openly declared statement claiming the Bible is invalid before the evidence is even examined .... in direct contrast to the statements of AIG, ICR, and CMI. Not one.... anywhere ..... ever.

 

Here is an official 2006 statement from the AAAS "American Association of the Advancement of Sciences" (and there have been several such variations on this statement throughout the years)

 

Third paragraph down.

 

"Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena."

 

This is an unequivocal endorsement of the philosophical position that insofar as origins are concerned, only materialistic causes will be considered. What this means is, regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution theory, it will still be the only origins model promoted due to its self-fulfilling condition of being a "natural" explanation. In other words, sure, you can do tests and experiments and try and falsify sub-hypotheses, but you will not deviate from the official philosophy that ultimately only "naturalistic" evolutionary explanations will be considered.

 

The only real difference here is that Creationists are upfront and honest about their presuppositions. Evolutionists can not afford to do the same because they can not afford a level playing field.

 

It's an unfortunate thing to be in denial of one's own philosophical commitments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to the "New Atheists"

 

I didn't say advocacy.

 

Missing the point... I said advocacy.... You stated that the New Atheists have nothing to do with science..... Oops.. I guess they do.

 

 

 

They are a science advocacy group....

 

Why "strike two" when as I demonstrated I wasn't saying Richard Dawkins was a group, rather that was your strawman...

 

 

Or we could also go with the NCSE wink.png They state clearly on their website that their purpose is to advocate evolution and keeping Creationism (belief God created the universe), out...

 

 

That's interesting. From their home page ( ), I saw this:

"Intolerance of ignorance, myth and superstition; disregard for the tolerance of religion. Indoctrination of logic, reason, and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview."

 

Nothing about science there.

 

Not much about science there either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"New Athiests" is clearly NOT a scientific organization. They do no research; they do nothing to promote science; their activities are concentrated ENTIRELY on advancing atheism.

 

From your quote above...

 

"and the advancement of a naturalistic worldview."

 

Naturalist according to what... Oh... SCIENCE!!! aka science advocacy.

 

 

NCSE is not a scientific organization either. For the same reasons as DI is not a scientific organization. NCSE is a political/lobbying and science advocacy (why not call it what it is.... Oh because I already said so and you cannot admit it ;) ) organization with an openly declared political/social agenda. Much like the Discovery Institute which I also regard as a political/lobbying organization. In fact, DI actually does spend part of its budget (around 5%) on scientific research.

 

So the lobbying group for Design also do research, (and thus are more in tune with the scientific world than those who do not), yet the atheist lobbying group doesn't... Hmm perhaps consider the implications here ;)

 

 

No scientific organization has an openly declared statement claiming the Bible is invalid before the evidence is even examined .... in direct contrast to the statements of AIG, ICR, and CMI. Not one.... anywhere ..... ever.

 

Lifepsyop has given you one, and so did I in terms of groups that advocate only a naturalistic interpretation of science, (which by definition is claiming the Bible is invalid since it doesn't allow for the supernatural).

 

 

Neither DI nor NCSE are scientific organizations. My request was that you produce one mainstream science organization (examples the American Geophysical Union, the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Astronomical Society.... and I haven't even gotten thru the "a's." Even the scientific journals such as "Nature" would qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an official 2006 statement from the AAAS "American Association of the Advancement of Sciences" (and there have been several such variations on this statement throughout the years)

 

Third paragraph down.

 

"Science is a process of seeking natural explanations for natural phenomena."

 

This is an unequivocal endorsement of the philosophical position that insofar as origins are concerned, only materialistic causes will be considered. What this means is, regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of Evolution theory, it will still be the only origins model promoted due to its self-fulfilling condition of being a "natural" explanation. In other words, sure, you can do tests and experiments and try and falsify sub-hypotheses, but you will not deviate from the official philosophy that ultimately only "naturalistic" evolutionary explanations will be considered.

That's a redefinition from:"Science being a process of seeking plausible explanations for natural phenomena".

Actually they are positioning themselves OUTSIDE Science with that a priori exclusion.

 

The only real difference here is that Creationists are upfront and honest about their presuppositions. Evolutionists can not afford to do the same because they can not afford a level playing field.

 

It's an unfortunate thing to be in denial of one's own philosophical commitments.

Generally that is true. An admission of presuppositions I actually heard from a presenting Creationist for the first time. But it's a generally known thing in the philosophy of science, that people are by there very nature subjetive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test scores aren't everything especially that you're giving the impression that people stop learning after a test. The US is falling behind in science in what sense? Science covers a broad number of things and technology and the US is number one in military tech which is... Science. What else could there be?

The US is falling behind in science in every sense. As I pointed out, we're ahead now because we've been generating lots of scientists and engineers for most of the last 50 years. That trend has been changing as students now are not entering the fields. If we don't produce scientists and engineers, how do you think we'll maintain our leadership in science?

 

"The number of engineering graduates at the bachelor’s level in the US peaked at around 80,000 per year in the mid 1980’s, then declined to about 65,000 per year until the end of the century (Engineering Workforce Commission 2004). The number of graduates is increasing again, but not yet keeping pace with employer’s needs. To put these numbers in global perspective, it is of interest to note that China currently has 3.7-million engineering students in its pipeline.....

There are many reasons for the decline of student interest in engineering:

The curriculum is difficult ....

The curriculum is densely packed and inflexible ....

Other paths to good jobs are easier ....

Engineers treated as commodities by employers ....

Traditional entry level jobs are being offshored ....

Source: http://www.worldexpertise.com/Declining_Interest_in_Engineering_Studies_at_a_Time_of_Increased_Business_Needs.htm

 

 

Still it didn't state which area and subjects of science. Theres biology, chemistry and physics, of course theres more, and the link isn't worth much without more details. Also you can learn science outside of school as well, it doesn't stop once you graduate unless any person chooses to stop learning. Not only that it shows me the age of 15 only, why is that?

As for your request for more information about the PISA test...

Around 510 000 students between the ages of 15 years 3 months and 16 years 2 months participated in PISA 2012 representing about 28 million 15-year-olds globally.

Source: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm

 

This average age of 15 was chosen because at this age young people in most OECD countries are nearing the end of compulsory education. The selection of schools and students is kept as inclusive as possible, so that the sample of students comes from a broad range of backgrounds and abilities. .... Every PISA survey tests reading, mathematical and scientific literacy in terms of general competencies, that is, how well students can apply the knowledge and skills they have learned at school to real-life challenges.

Source: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisafaq.htm

 

Do you have a better, more objective way to determine the future trend of scientific progress than the quality and quantity of students preparing to enter scientific fields? If so, please produce it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

piasan, on 07 Apr 2014 - 1:00 PM, said:snapback.png

With regard to the "New Atheists"

 

I didn't say advocacy.

 

Gilbo answered:

Missing the point... I said advocacy.... You stated that the New Atheists have nothing to do with science..... Oops.. I guess they do.

Then you missed the point, not I. Congratulations on beating up your strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is falling behind in science in every sense. As I pointed out, we're ahead now because we've been generating lots of scientists and engineers for most of the last 50 years. That trend has been changing as students now are not entering the fields. If we don't produce scientists and engineers, how do you think we'll maintain our leadership in science?

 

"The number of engineering graduates at the bachelor’s level in the US peaked at around 80,000 per year in the mid 1980’s, then declined to about 65,000 per year until the end of the century (Engineering Workforce Commission 2004). The number of graduates is increasing again, but not yet keeping pace with employer’s needs. To put these numbers in global perspective, it is of interest to note that China currently has 3.7-million engineering students in its pipeline.....

There are many reasons for the decline of student interest in engineering:

The curriculum is difficult ....

The curriculum is densely packed and inflexible ....

Other paths to good jobs are easier ....

Engineers treated as commodities by employers ....

Traditional entry level jobs are being offshored ....

Source: http://www.worldexpertise.com/Declining_Interest_in_Engineering_Studies_at_a_Time_of_Increased_Business_Needs.htm

 

 

As for your request for more information about the PISA test...

Around 510 000 students between the ages of 15 years 3 months and 16 years 2 months participated in PISA 2012 representing about 28 million 15-year-olds globally.

Source: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm

 

This average age of 15 was chosen because at this age young people in most OECD countries are nearing the end of compulsory education. The selection of schools and students is kept as inclusive as possible, so that the sample of students comes from a broad range of backgrounds and abilities. .... Every PISA survey tests reading, mathematical and scientific literacy in terms of general competencies, that is, how well students can apply the knowledge and skills they have learned at school to real-life challenges.

Source: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisafaq.htm

 

Do you have a better, more objective way to determine the future trend of scientific progress than the quality and quantity of students preparing to enter scientific fields? If so, please produce it.

3.7 Million from China, the country with highest population, are you serious? US has about 301 million, and 65k as you say are Engineers, again only one aspect.

15 being chosen is not good for the mere fact you don't/shouldn't stop learning.

 

Heres a small piece of advice, you learn something new everyday, I'm 23 and learn about science without end still going because its interesting and I like math as well, because its straight tot he point or something to figure out which i prefer doing (also something I knew about before getting out of high school). In a way it sounds like you stop learnign at 15 and 15 years are not likely to make or do something scientific thats beneficial. Grades don't mean a lot in this case.

 

What progress, what new and amazing or beneficial stuff has any other country done in related to science. We'll start from the year 2000 to be fair. What inventions, or new methods or ways to solve a problem.

 

 

This is no way bashing but examples are required. Each country as well, I will look as well but will not post them. Sharing information is good and is a part of learning and debunking, and determining what the truth and what is false.

 

I may need to revise my statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.7 Million from China, the country with highest population, are you serious? US has about 301 million, and 65k as you say are Engineers, again only one aspect.

China has a population of 1.392 billion. That works out to one engineering student per 376 people. Using the higher number of 80,000 engineers per year, with its population of 322 million, the US is producing one engineer per 4025 people. If only 1 in 5 of those Chinese students finishes the curriculum and becomes an engineer, they're still producing over twice the engineers per capita we are. You don't see a problem with this trend? Are you serious?

 

You claim the production of engineers is "only one aspect" of the situation. However, the undergraduate curriculum of scientists and engineers is virtually identical. For that reason, the number of engineers being produced is also a pretty good indicator of the number of scientists being produced.

 

15 being chosen is not good for the mere fact you don't/shouldn't stop learning..

Who said one stops learning at 15? As it stands, that's the best metric we have to compare the performance of students from various nations. If you have a better one, please present it.

 

Heres a small piece of advice, you learn something new everyday, I'm 23 and learn about science without end still going because its interesting and I like math as well, because its straight tot he point or something to figure out which i prefer doing (also something I knew about before getting out of high school). In a way it sounds like you stop learnign at 15 and 15 years are not likely to make or do something scientific thats beneficial. Grades don't mean a lot in this case.

Thanks for the advice. I'll be 68 next month and I still learn something new every day. This isn't about grades, it's about comparing the skills of students from various nations in subjects of math and science. Keep in mind, it is the students of today who will be the scientists of tomorrow.

 

What progress, what new and amazing or beneficial stuff has any other country done in related to science. We'll start from the year 2000 to be fair. What inventions, or new methods or ways to solve a problem.

I'm not talking about right now. At present, we're almost certainly ahead in science. That said, keep in mind, the question raised whether or not are we falling behind in science. My point is that if we aren't, it's only a matter of time until we are.

 

A secondary issue was raised alleging that the removal from creationism in the classroom may be responsible. The evidence is that has nothing to do with the lack of scientific expertise in our students.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

China has a population of 1.392 billion. That works out to one engineering student per 376 people. Using the higher number of 80,000 engineers per year, with its population of 322 million, the US is producing one engineer per 4025 people. If only 1 in 5 of those Chinese students finishes the curriculum and becomes an engineer, they're still producing over twice the engineers per capita we are. You don't see a problem with this trend? Are you serious?

 

You claim the production of engineers is "only one aspect" of the situation. However, the undergraduate curriculum of scientists and engineers is virtually identical. For that reason, the number of engineers being produced is also a pretty good indicator of the number of scientists being produced.

 

Who said one stops learning at 15? As it stands, that's the best metric we have to compare the performance of students from various nations. If you have a better one, please present it.

 

Thanks for the advice. I'll be 68 next month and I still learn something new every day. This isn't about grades, it's about comparing the skills of students from various nations in subjects of math and science. Keep in mind, it is the students of today who will be the scientists of tomorrow.

 

I'm not talking about right now. At present, we're almost certainly ahead in science. That said, keep in mind, the question raised whether or not are we falling behind in science. My point is that if we aren't, it's only a matter of time until we are.

 

A secondary issue was raised alleging that the removal from creationism in the classroom may be responsible. The evidence is that has nothing to do with the lack of scientific expertise in our students.

Ok sorry, trying to get back into school since I got out of the military so thats my priority and haven't been on here for some time. If anytime we start falling behind it will very likely be noticeable. Cold War Era is a great example of increasing in science.Look how far our nation has gotten through that time despite the hard and chaotic times, plus bad decisions made. You should definently know at the age 67 almost 68. We start falling behind things will begin to collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok sorry, trying to get back into school since I got out of the military so thats my priority and haven't been on here for some time.

Been there. Done that. Got both the t-shirt and the hat. (Navy, 12.5 years, submarines) No problem.

 

 

If anytime we start falling behind it will very likely be noticeable. Cold War Era is a great example of increasing in science.Look how far our nation has gotten through that time despite the hard and chaotic times, plus bad decisions made. You should definently know at the age 67 almost 68. We start falling behind things will begin to collapse.

Yes, when we start falling behind, there will be serious problems. The trends, in terms of number of scientists/engineers being produced are clear and unmistakable. By the time we see it happening, it will be too late.

 

It's only a matter of time ........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been there. Done that. Got both the t-shirt and the hat. (Navy, 12.5 years, submarines) No problem.

 

 

Yes, when we start falling behind, there will be serious problems. The trends, in terms of number of scientists/engineers being produced are clear and unmistakable. By the time we see it happening, it will be too late.

 

It's only a matter of time ........

can't assume when, its more of an if and the chances are its not science that will be where we fall behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms