Creationists seek to stop the teaching of global warming

[Zeno Swijtink]

Creationists seek to stop the teaching of global warming | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Across the country, critics of evolutionary theory are introducing legislation that targets climate change and other scientific concepts.

By Bryan Nelson
Fri, Mar 05 2010 at 8:48 AM EST
Read more: CLIMATE POLICY, EDUCATION, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, GLOBAL WARMING, RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY


DIVINE COMMAND: Many creationists believe only God has the power to effect the climate. (Photo: Genista/Flickr)


Critics of the practice of teaching evolution in science classrooms are taking up a new strategy: going after the teaching of global warming.
*
The New York Times reports that a bill recently introduced in Kentucky would encourage teachers to discuss "the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories," including "evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning."
*
By linking the global warming debate with these other issues, proponents of the legislation have a two-pronged motive. First, it strengthens their legal argument. Courts have ruled that singling out evolution for criticism violates the separation of church and state, so going after global warming gives them a broader agenda and thus opens a legal loophole. Second, by riding the coattails of rising public doubt about climate science, creationists hope to legitimize their stance against the scientific establishment in general.
*
"Wherever there is a battle over evolution now, there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism," physicist Lawrence M. Krauss of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University told the New York Times.
*
And the bill in Kentucky is only the latest in a string of legislative attempts across the country with similar intent. Just this week, a resolution passed in South Dakota that called for more "balanced" teaching of global warming in public schools, citing that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life." Last year the Texas Board of Education required teachers to present all sides of the debate when discussing global warming, and in Oklahoma a bill much like Kentucky's was introduced.
*
Aside from sharing political and legal agendas, critics of global warming and critics of evolution may seem like improbable bedfellows. After all, what does global warming really have to do with creationism, and vice versa? But the two issues share a lot of cultural overlap.
*
For instance, a survey published in October by the Pew Research Center found that white evangelical Protestants were among those least likely to believe that there was "solid evidence" that the Earth was warming because of human activity. Rev. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Environmental Network, a religious group that accepts the science of global warming, noted that many Christian fundamentalists have difficulty accepting the reality of human-induced global warming because they believe only God has the power to alter the climate.
*
Yet despite the obstacles, climate scientists and educators are mounting a movement and counterstrategy of their own. The Climate Education Interagency Working Group, a group that consolidates the efforts of several federal agencies, is making a strong push under President Obama's leadership toward "climate literacy" for both teachers and students.
*
So long as science itself is not banned from the classroom, climate scientists and evolutionists alike still have one major advantage in the fight: sound, empirical evidence.

[LenInSebastopol]

Creationists seek to stop the teaching of global warming | MNN - Mother Nature Network
Across the country, critics of evolutionary theory are introducing legislation that targets climate change and other scientific concepts.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, GLOBAL WARMING, RELIGION & SPIRITUALITY
DIVINE COMMAND: Many creationists believe only God has the power to effect the climate. (Photo: Genista/Flickr)

OK, this caught me, now that I am out of the closet, thanks to V.O. (Thank you, V.O.)
The source report, Mother Nature Network, may be considered 'bias' if not suspcet, at least by more than me. So the broad brush approach may be good with large walls, and this MAYBE one of them, but when closely examined by only a little, it probably isn't. And as I have about 10 minutes before actually having a life, please allow some playful questions, comments and opinions.
For example, I can imagine that ONLY God can change the climate, but as he is out of it, won't. I realize that some claim man can as well, and even is doing so, except for the worse. But then I read and hear others that say it is not proven to be so (the man as well as the God thing) so that line and photo is to excite the reader's glands, yes?

Critics of the practice of teaching evolution in science classrooms are taking up a new strategy: going after the teaching of global warming.
The New York Times reports that a bill recently introduced in Kentucky would encourage teachers to discuss "the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories," including "evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning."

At this point I am not clear if Kentucky is doing a 'bad' thing by going down this road. I've often learned best by the compare/contrast method. Also the word 'educate' means to lead out of darkness, what could be a better method? Furthermore this method introduces several scientific approaches and modes of thinking as well as uses the 'alternative' POV. I find that greatly beneficial.
Oh, and it also allows another STATE to live their lives, even in conjunction with what most of the people of that state, I presume, feel towards the matter. What a concept!

By linking the global warming debate with these other issues, proponents of the legislation have a two-pronged motive. First, it strengthens their legal argument. Courts have ruled that singling out evolution for criticism violates the separation of church and state, so going after global warming gives them a broader agenda and thus opens a legal loophole. Second, by riding the coattails of rising public doubt about climate science, creationists hope to legitimize their stance against the scientific establishment in general.

1. God forbid we strengthen ANY legal argument. What?
2. In the market of ideas one would want to give voice to the opposition, not merely for derisive or humorous purposes, but for examination and dismissal, no?

"Wherever there is a battle over evolution now, there is a secondary battle to diminish other hot-button issues like Big Bang and, increasingly, climate change. It is all about casting doubt on the veracity of science — to say it is just one view of the world, just another story, no better or more valid than fundamentalism," physicist Lawrence M. Krauss of the Origins Initiative at Arizona State University told the New York Times.

What's with THAT guy? The 'veracity' of science doesn't exist in the real world! Science lives to invalidate itself and will continue to do so, as that is its function. The big bang is simply a theory good enough to stand until the better one comes or ALL the scientific evidence indicates better, and ALL the facts are not in yet, at least for about the first .0002 seconds of the origins.

And the bill in Kentucky is only the latest in a string of legislative attempts across the country with similar intent. Just this week, a resolution passed in South Dakota that called for more "balanced" teaching of global warming in public schools, citing that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life." Last year the Texas Board of Education required teachers to present all sides of the debate when discussing global warming, and in Oklahoma a bill much like Kentucky's was introduced.

What a country, eh? Gotta love it where folks can determine their own way independently of each other. Time will tell. So what is the urgency to have group think? They will bury all of us under it someday, or scatter our ashes to it.

Aside from sharing political and legal agendas, critics of global warming and critics of evolution may seem like improbable bedfellows. After all, what does global warming really have to do with creationism, and vice versa? But the two issues share a lot of cultural overlap.

Yes, only in America. And 'cultural overlap' is evil/bad?
I didn't think so either.

For instance, a survey published in October by the Pew Research Center found that white evangelical Protestants were among those least likely to believe that there was "solid evidence" that the Earth was warming because of human activity. Rev. Jim Ball of the Evangelical Environmental Network, a religious group that accepts the science of global warming, noted that many Christian fundamentalists have difficulty accepting the reality of human-induced global warming because they believe only God has the power to alter the climate.

Damn! Now here again is where I wish I were more white, since, by this article I cannot know what or how a white person thinks or feels AND I never will. I can only surmise, no?, that us non-whites are not capable of coming to other conclusions without the help of white folks, no?
I also find the phrase connection of "reality of..." as if it is a forgone conclusion implying that those that don't accept that "reality" are.....or should be composted?
Such arrogance may only be surpassed by....by who? Other white folks that think differently? Damn, there I go being 'racist' again. But then I can hide behind the article since I didn't bring RACE into equation. Rather Un-American of them to do so, no?

Yet despite the obstacles, climate scientists and educators are mounting a movement and counterstrategy of their own. The Climate Education Interagency Working Group, a group that consolidates the efforts of several federal agencies, is making a strong push under President Obama's leadership toward "climate literacy" for both teachers and students.

wow. The gov't is going to 'teach' me what to think as well as how to think about it. I see it's done a bang up job over the last 50 years in our gov't run schools.
So much work, so little time left!

So long as science itself is not banned from the classroom, climate scientists and evolutionists alike still have one major advantage in the fight: sound, empirical evidence.

Now all we have to overcome is the MEANING of the empirical and verifiability of same.
We DO agree! Yippee.