Zealots hiding in Scientists' clothing

I noticed some hoopla from the La. Coalition for Science.

They were in a tizzy because La. decided to allow 'intelligent design" to be mentioned along with evolution in high school science. Their argument is the state got what it deserves as some society won't hold a meeting in New Orleans out of scientific revenge.

The Coalition was happy to say other decisions not in keeping with theirs have resulted in economic damage to other states and that La. can expect more.

Doesn't this bother anyone? 

First, do as I want in the schools or I will hurt everyone. 

Second, others messed with us and they were injured.

Third, obey or be ostracized.

Doesn't RICO apply to this?

The reaction to Louisiana's move bespeaks of something far greater than a disagreement over what is taught in school. The mini scientists want control. Period. They insist science demands atheism, when you cut out the bull crap. 

No one, no one, and again, no one has proven global warming even exists. I can't say I have even read the working definition, it is some vague religious feeling that shifts to climate change when necessary.

There is NO proof of any connection between man and heating, if it even exists. Therefore, the theory cannot be tested. To be science, men in white jackets should be able to tell me what the weather will be, not try to explain what they missed when predictions failed.

Hence, it should not be taught in science class.

The society noted a history of law suits about this subject. Why are they going to Court? Why all the hysteria over a science teacher saying, "Many people believe behind life and evolution there is an intelligent design, a first mover some call God."  Wow, that hardly seems even worth thinking about, unless the idea is to ban God. What if it we suspected aliens? Also, is creationism a religion because many religions follow it?

The claim is that Intelligent Design is not science, and, thus must be banned from science class as religion.  To wit, the Wikki (which was hostile):

The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

Curious. I deal with global-warming pseudoscience below.

Science was developed by religious people. Darwin was a devout Christian. Einstein rejected the new physics because God would not play dice - Einstein expected an intelligent design, not chance. The Pope just said, though it is not news, the the Church has no problem with evolution - it is not contradictory. To the vast majority of people, science is a tool to push toward causes, not a religion to supplant all philosophy and religion.  

I am not sure if it is bad science to teach incomplete information, but it is poor education.  The notion that only science is taught in science is absurd. I was taught Marconi invented the radio. Not only was that not science, it was wrong.  I never heard the word "quark" until long after college. Science, please.

Students are told only the incomplete evolution theory is science, leaving the impression that evolution is a fact floating in space without beginning, proof, or inclusion in other theories.  

If you do not teach something to children, they usually do not accept it as part of the knowledge they must have.  The public schools no longer teach morality, so it does not exist. Children of morally sound parents are subjected to distress because of this. Their child rejects what is not taught in school, unless they have a strong extra-school guidance. Personally, I won't teach in public school anymore because of the degeneration of the population and fear of teachers to offer any resistance. 

The Courts have stopped prayers in the schools because some students will be uncomfortable or see something their parents do not want. This is our Constitutional plan. Yet, this is exactly what the intelligent design parents fear. A religion of small-headed science now is taught and any other ideas are ignored or degraded.  A child is unsophisticated and does not understand the academic distinctions, of the notion "theory,"  being thrown at them. 

As an analogy, Democrats are now gearing up their "fairness doctrine" to stop right-wing entertainers from expressing distasteful things like the relevance of the Constitution.  The ostensible claim is these right wing people should be countered by a left wing person. Of course, since the left cannot survive on the radio, a media devoid of emotional images and requiring logic, the end result will be country music, as the station owner can't have three hours of Alec Baldwin.  

The point is, what is the logic for a need for "fairness" in a media entertainment program that does not apply to school?

I would like a scientist to tell me how DNA was started.  If we evolved from something, what? The whole discussion of life is without any provable cause and effect. Science can't make life, so it can't exist, right?  Ban biology? The whole discussion is stupid. The organization of 'scientists"would bar Darwin from talking, if he mentioned God's nature.

No one has been able to prove evolution is true.  It is a good theory and, retrospectively, makes sense. Its a self-fulfilling theory. There are also huge holes in the theory. For example, the time frames for man's appearance and development, as predicted by evolutionary theory.  When is man going to evolve, anyway?

I recall Aristotle and Aquinas discussed first cause, so I guess we should ban their names being mentioned in science class. (Assuming the teachers ever heard of them.)

Anyway, back away from evolution and think about global warming.  Let me rephrase the wikki:

The consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is not science.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "claims of intervention in the earth's climate and fluid dynamics are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The U.S. National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[18] Others in the scientific community have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[19][20]

Seems the same to me.

No one, no one, and again, no one has proven global warming even exists. I can't say I have even read the working definition, it is some vague religious feeling that shifts to climate change when necessary. 

There is NO proof of any connection between man and heating, if it even exists. Therefore, the theory cannot be tested. To be science, men in white jackets should be able to tell me what the weather will be, not try to explain what they missed when predictions failed.

Hence, it should not be taught in science class. 

QED

If you want to use global warming in a statistics or logic class, to explain correlation does not yield causation, that would be perfect.