Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
In late July in Frankfort, Kentucky, supporters and critics of the Next Generation Science Standards clashed during a hearing over proposed changes that could be made to the science curriculum of the state’s public schools. The new science standards were developed with input from officials in Kentucky and twenty-five other states with the hope of making science curricula “more uniform across the country.”
Those who spoke in support of the new education standards said they are “vital if Kentucky is to keep pace with other states and allow students to prepare for college and careers.” Supporters feel the new standards “will help beat back scientific ignorance.” Critics—on the other hand—claimed that the new standards were “fascistic” and “atheistic” and promoted thinking that could lead to “genocide” and “murder.”
According to the Courier-Journal, nearly two dozen parents, teachers, scientists, and advocacy groups commented during the Kentucky Department of Education hearing on the Next Generation Science Standards—which are a broad set of guidelines that were developed in order to revise K-12 science content that would meet the requirements of a 2009 law, which called for educational improvement.
Blaine Ferrell, a representative from the Kentucky Academy of Sciences, said, “Students in the commonwealth both need and deserve 21st-century science education grounded in inquiry, rich in content and internationally benchmarked.” Dave Robinson, who is a biology professor at Bellarmine University, said that neighboring states had been more successful in recruiting biotechnology companies. He added that Kentucky “could get left behind in industrial development if students fail to learn the latest scientific concepts.”
But the majority of comments reportedly came from opponents of adopting the new science standards. The critics “questioned the validity of evolution and climate change and railed against the standards as a threat to religious liberty, at times drawing comparisons to Soviet-style communism.”
Mike Wynn (Courier-Journal):
Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.
“Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”
Another critic of the new standards claimed that they would “marginalize students with religious beliefs.” She said they could lead to the ridicule and physiological harm of such students in the classroom and that they could also “create difficulties for students with learning disabilities. The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them.” She added, “We are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.”
An environmental geologist who spoke in support of adopting the New Generation Science Standards said that he was “offended by comments suggesting that evolution leads to immorality and ‘death camps,’ calling it a horrible misrepresentation of scientists. He said that he—unlike many of the critics who had commented at the hearing—had actually read the standards. “Everything is actually based on evidence — arguments from evidence are actually given priority in the Next Generation Science Standards.”
According to Kevin Brown, Kentucky’s associate education commissioner and general counsel, comments made at the standards hearing “will be reviewed by department staff and summarized into a statement of consideration with formal responses. Board members will then consider the comments and responses in August and decide whether to make changes or advance the standards to legislative committees for approval.”
Robert Bevins, the president of Kentuckians for Science Education, said he expects that the board will send the standards forward without changes. Let’s hope that Bevins is right.
SOURCES & FURTHER READING
School science is hotly debated in Kentucky: New standards are called ‘atheistic,’ ‘fascist’ by some (Courier-Journal)
Next Generation Science Standards In Kentucky Draw Hostility From Religious Groups (Huffington Post)
Kentucky: Next Generation Science Standards (Kentucky Department of Education)
Next Generation Science Standards for Kentucky (National Center for Science Education)
Kentucky’s new science standards draw heated debate (The Spectrum)
Will A Denier Scrub Curriculum That Teaches Climate Science To Kentucky Schoolchildren? (ThinkProgress)
Sen. Mike Wilson | Science standards include troubling assumptions (Courier-Journal)
Science Standards Draw Fire From Ed. Leader in Kentucky Senate (Education Week)
Next Generation Science Standards In Kentucky Draw Hostility From Religious Groups (Cafe Mom)
Post lost in WordPress filter. Can a moderator free it please?
Education Chairman Doesn’t Expect Major Changes To Kentucky Science Standards
By Devin Katayama
Originally published on Mon August 5, 2013
http://wkms.org/post/education-chairman-doesnt-expect-major-changes-kentucky-science-standards
Excerpt:
The chair of the Kentucky Board of Education doesn’t expect the controversy over newly-adopted science standards to lead to a change in those standards before they’re implemented.
The Next Generation Science Standards were developed by an independent consortium of 26 states, including Kentucky, and are part of Kentucky’s 2009 education reforms. They will update what students will be expected to learn in science.
The standards are based around updated scientific research and include more lessons around climate change and evolution–among many other topics–and that has drawn criticism from some.
The state education board will get recommendations this week–formally called the Statement of Consideration–from education department officials, who have considered public comments for their report.
A spokeswoman for the Kentucky Department of Education says they received thousands of comments–mostly written–last month from residents, many who were upset about the teaching of evolution and climate change.
KDE also heard public testimony, which can be viewed here.
http://mediaportal.education.ky.gov/videos/kde-public-hearing-7232013/
The comments drew national headlines, but KBE chairman David Karem says it would be unusual for the state board to make large changes to the standards at this point.
Jon,
I attended parochial schools from 1st through twelfth grade. I was taught about evolution in biology class. The Sisters of Notre Dame had no problem with teaching evolution as science. They didn’t think their students would become atheists.
grathulin, Jon Stokes, Juliet,
Didn’t you know that davidm2575 is the world’s foremost authority on everything. He stepped into Professor Irwin Corey’s shoes after Corey retired.
He does indeed seem to have some troll like tendencies.
Jon: I find it easier to ignore people who spout nonsense. You can’t convince people with scientific evidence when their value system is based on religious dogma.
I do have a question. This was a ,meeting regarding science and what should be taught in Kentucky schools. So, when people like the good pastor say things like “Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.”
I gotta say what?? Did any of the science types there bother to ask to good pastor for evidence/facts to support that statement? This is like saying ,male pattern baldness leads to homosexuality. Equally insane and and of course, no evidence to prove this. But hey, I guess the way it works with these folks is…If I say it, it has gotta be true.
Jon Stokes wrote: “‘Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.’ I gotta say what?? Did any of the science types there bother to ask to good pastor for evidence/facts to support that statement? This is like saying ,male pattern baldness leads to homosexuality.
Not exactly the same thing. Undoubtedly some pastors in their capacity as counselors come across teenagers having declining morals due to atheism caused by evolutionary theory. You can read about Social Darwinism to get a better handle on it, but the topic is hotly debated and biologists distance themselves as far as possible from it claiming no responsibility or connection to what we do in evolutionary theory as applied to biological systems. The basic idea is that the “survival of the fittest” concept leads some teenagers into thinking that they are following their biological mandate to usurp power over others or otherwise engage in behavior that they otherwise would not engage in if a benevolent God was watching them and would judge them for their actions. One teenager involved in the Columbine massacre, Eric Harris, wrote in his journal about natural selection and said that he would like to put everyone in a super Doom game and see to it that the weak die and the strong live. On the day of the massacre, he wore a shirt imprinted with bold letters, “Natural Selection.” Obviously, much of society does not react this way to evolutionary theory, but apparently it does have this negative affect on some.
davidm2575 wrote: “Undoubtedly some pastors in their capacity as counselors come across teenagers having declining morals due to atheism caused by evolutionary theory.”
You seriously don’t want to get in to the moral decline blame game when there are countless examples of atrocities committed in the name of religion. Even the holocaust was motivated by religion, the Nazi uniform belt had “Gott Mit Uns” (God with us) on it because the Nazies believed they were doing god’s work exterminating the (evil Jesus killing) Jews.
As to atheism caused by evolutionary theory, are you nuts (or perhaps just a troll). There are plenty of religious people who accept evolutionary theory. Even 7% of the highest tier of scientists claim some kind of personal god; I know you’d think they’d know better but that’s what the statistics say.
Evolutionary theory does not make people atheists. Neither atheism nor evolutionary theory make people immoral. Religion however makes people ignorant and capable of justifying practically any act based on the idea that god or devil made or told me to do it.
grathuln – it is not a case of religion versus evolution. Teilhard De Chardin is enough to dispel that myth. But your broad brush about religion motivating Nazism, or that atheism is caused by evolutionary theory (not what I said), or that religious people justify any act by saying that god or the devil made them do it is all over the place. The truth is that some people do adopt atheism because evolutionary theory makes sense to them. They see no reason to believe in God. You mention 7% claiming a personal god, and you think that is a high number? Believe me, I’ve known many of them and I am one.
How does evolution cause atheism? I have talked to a LOT of priests (back when I was a Catholic) who are quite comfortable with religion and evolution?
Again, all these “statements” and yet no facts to back em up…. makes ya wonder.
Jill bleated: “This is an issue of separation of church and state. The state may not teach religion as science. Understanding Christian myths of how the world began are very important in our society. They should be taught in a world religion course. But a state may not impose a specific religion’s origin myths on people of their state under the guise of science.
These kids will be held back intellectually because they will not understand how science works and how it is different from their religious ideology. This leaves them at a true disadvantage in the world. If their parents feel it is important to keep a scientific understanding from their children, (and I truly wish they would reconsider that position) then they may put them in a private, religious school. But the state may not impose christian origin myths on students.”
Jill – You seem to have unwittingly accepted a double standard. “…state may not impose specific religion’s origin myths on people…under the guise of science”
Well, what do you think they’re doing with the evolution myth? Something not supported by science, only speculation, swag “science” and a collection of neatly placed “just-so” stories. Why is it ok to impose the evolution myth, but not teach about Intelligent Design observed in living things? AT LEAST give the children ALL of the facts and let them come to their own conclusion rather than sheltering the evolution myth from skepticism under the guise of “separation of church and state” (by the way, the phrase “separation of church and state” originally was talking about keeping the government’s meddling out of the church – go figure).
Additionally, there isn’t such a thing as a christian [sic] origin myth in the first place. Creation is simply the observation of the evidence of intelligent design in living things and the universe. This is hardly any kind of “myth”.
Now, evolution, on the other hand, lacks evidence but is forced to used carefully placed “just-so” stories which have no foundation in science or observation. Certain states, mine included, actually have laws that require school textbooks to be factually accurate and correct. Despite this, we still see stories in the textbooks that talk about Haekel’s gill slits on human embryos (which was proven false by the exposure of altered pictures) as well as horse evolution (which was not supported by science), or the geologic column (which of course does not exist – we can find fossilized trees that stand vertically, passing through strata that allegedly is millions of years old), or radiometric dating flaws that are still touted as truth (when we have horrible miscalculations such as the dating of a lava flow at the Grand Canyon which has the remains of an indian village as being millions of years old). But such examples are STILL found in textbooks today, used to teach our children (shudder). But people like you have the gall, have the audacity to call observed intelligent design a “myth”, even though nothing – NOTHING supports the evolution myth.
I ask, what are those supporters of evolutionism afraid of, that they simply do not allow evidence contrary to evolutionism or evidence that disproves evolutionism, or evidence of intelligent design? Perhaps they’re not 100% convinced that their adult fairytale is foolproof???
Hubert Cumberdale wrote: ” Despite this, we still see stories in the textbooks that talk about…”
Hey, look on the bright side. At least the textbooks don’t talk about the embarrassment of Piltdown man. 🙂
I enjoyed your reasonable post, Hubert. Unfortunately, most of the people here have come up through an atheistic public education system so that they really do not believe there is any evidence for an Intelligent Design model of origins. They don’t understand the difference between a uniformitarian interpretation of the empirical data versus a catastrophic interpretation. They tote the scientific dogma that there just ain’t no empirical evidence for a creation model, and they fooled the courts to agree with them because what is a judge going to do but take a scientist’s word for it, so education is now thrown back into the Stone Age level of thinking until future generations can correct the legal and scientific mistakes of this generation.
I’d hardly call Piltdown man an embarrassment, it was a hoax that even from the beginning some scientists were skeptical of (^ Miller, Gerrit S. (November 24, 1915), “The Jaw of the Piltdown Man”, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 65 (12):1). Skepticism only grew with time until it was firmly established as a hoax in 1953. It’s one of those things that happens in science, people present evidence, scientists examine the evidence skeptically and either substantiate it or disprove it. Sometimes it takes longer than it should but science inevitably gets there.
There is much in the geological and fossil data that contradicts the catastrophic interpretation: angular unconformities of sedimentary layers, erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains and the fact erosion is not uniform across the world as would be expected if it were caused by a single global catastrophic event being just 3. Modern geology however explains everything and dates the Earth as being around 4.5billion years old.
The Geological evidence is also backed up by radiometric dating, a science that has been fined tuned over 50 years to take into account contamination so science can rule out false readings that would date a sample far older or younger than it is. We also have corresponding dates from lunar rocks and meteorites. And the age of the sun based on calculations comparing it to other stars also corresponds to the Earth being roughly 4.5billion years old.
To say education has been thrown back to the stone age level of thinking is nonsense. Education has moved forward from the Biblical idea that the Bible is right and the evidence must be made to fit in with it to the evidence tells its own story which can be interpreted without trying to make it fit a dogmatic belief.
If we still believed the bible’s idea that the earth was the centre of all things then the science of astrophysics would be a mess, if it existed at all, and man would never have walked on the moon. If we still believed the bible’s idea that the earth was a round disk mounted on 4 pillars in a kind of snowglobe with the fermement surrounding it above which was heaven we may never have discovered the Americas. If we still believed the bible’s idea that god created all things as is in 7 days the science of biology would be a mess and we might not have worked the importance of DNA. If we still believed the bible’s idea that illness was due to demonic forces we’d not have modern medicine let alone antibiotics and vaccines. Every time we let go of the bible as a basis for science we make advances. Clinging to the bible holds us back.
grathuln wrote: “I’d hardly call Piltdown man an embarrassment, it was a hoax that even from the beginning some scientists were skeptical of…”
It was an embarrassment from the standpoint of it finding its way into textbooks for our students before being exposed as a fraudulent attempt by an evolutionist wanting to make a name for himself. The same has happened with Haeckel’s theories and, as someone who taught genetics to university students, I can tell you that this too is an embarrassment, having to explain to students how what they read in their high school textbooks as fact was wrong. All the things Hubert mentioned, like the equine evolution, were spot on. The fact that these things make it into high school textbooks and are difficult to get removed should give you pause and concern for what other kinds of data are presented as facts only to be discarded later as frauds or faulty reasoning based upon insufficient empirical data. The fact that you are not concerned is only because of your faith in science and the dogma with which science provides you. You trust the discipline to be on the right path, but others are a bit more skeptical, and as the movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” demonstrated, such individuals are discriminated against in the field of science.
As for skepticism from some scientists about the Piltdown fossils, of course that happened, just like it happens now, where some scientists from the beginning are skeptical of global warming, or how some scientists are skeptical that Natural Selection theory by itself is sufficient to explain the fossil record. That is the beauty of science, it teaches you to be skeptical of claims and to investigate them thoroughly rather than just believing what some authority tells you.
gathuln wrote: “There is much in the geological and fossil data that contradicts the catastrophic interpretation:…”
Yes, there are alternative ways to interpret the data, and serious problems are posed to models involving catastrophic events. However, there are also problems for uniformitarian models.
I was digging in a fossil dig once with my major professor and we were digging terrestrial animals out of a shell pit. The bones were all jumbled together and had clear scratches on them before we even came close to digging them out. The other scientists there were publishing how this was a uniformitarian event, a bend in an ancient river bed that now did not exist, and gave the evolutionary story about how long ago these bones settled in the bend of this river and came to be deposited all together. While we were digging, I looked at my professor and said, “Henry, how can this be an old river bed? We are digging the bones buried in marine shells, and look how they are jumbled up with scratches on them, and there is no dirt or humus, no twigs or leaves, nothing to indicate a river bed. This looks like a catastrophic event.” My professor just looked at me with a dumbfounded look on his face and shrugged his shoulders. We went back to digging, and over the next few years I learned to distrust what scientists published about their finds.
The truth is that non-creationist models are dismissed from science by definition, not by empirical evidence. At least be honest about the debate. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with a scientist attempting to define science in this pure way, but something is wrong when he becomes so arrogant as to say that religious people are not allowed to study the empirical data as well and provide their own empirical models and interpretations.
Embarrassment: Science progressing isn’t an embarrassment. As I’m sure you will know being a biologist up until recently the “obstetrical dilemma” remained unchallenged as to why the human brain could only get so large and why human infants are born requiring so much care. Now it appears that the assumptions this theory is based on do not stand up to scientific testing, that the female pelvis is not a compromise on efficiency etc. It now seems a baby is born just as its demands for energy start to exceed the mother’s ability to provide it. The obstetrical dilemma is still being taught at the moment but it may well become defunct soon. No embarrassment there.
I understand that you might think it embarrassing that someone was able to fool the scientific community but that’s just how things go. Science tends to admit its mistakes rather than try to cover them up and that’s one aspect of science I like – I also like the fact there is motivation to prove everyone else wrong, people win prizes and real money for coming up with new and better theories. New Earth creationism is an old theory. There is far too much evidence that it cannot explain for it to be taken seriously any more.
davidm2575 said: “But your broad brush about religion motivating Nazism, or that atheism is caused by evolutionary theory (not what I said)”
In that case maybe you misspoke when you also said:
“Undoubtedly some pastors in their capacity as counselors come across teenagers having declining morals due to atheism caused by evolutionary theory”
Note the “…atheism caused by evolutionary theory” bit, you said evolutionary theory can cause atheism, it doesn’t.
Also survival of the fittest doesn’t mean survival of the strongest, as you should also know being a biologist. It means survival of the ones best suited to the environment.
Also being a biologist you should also know about DNA and how it conforms with evolutionary theory, that when DNA was first discovered it was predicted by evolutionary theory that all living things, having a common ancestor should share DNA, they do. Had DNA not conformed to evolutionary theory then evolutionary theory would have needed to be ditched in favour of a new theory; perhaps one of spontaneous generation of life in keeping with the biblical account of creation.
Being a scientist you should also know that theories are only useful if they predict things, a problem with young earth creationism is that it predicts nothing, it merely tries to shoehorn data to fit the biblical account of things. It suggests things like the Grand Canyon was formed by a sudden release of water in a super deluge which is a merely a poorly thought out analysis of the data collected by observation not a prediction, it is also an analysis that can be and has been demonstrably proven wrong through experimentation.
Regarding your anecdote of digging for fossils perhaps you should write a scientific paper with your observations and ideas then submit it for peer review in Nature or similar scientific publication. I realise it happened some time ago but if the scientists in charge (Henry?) was any good, I’m sure he was, then he ought to have kept records of the data that you could refer to with your own interpretation of it (noting the scratches, the marine shells and the lack of leaves etc.) If records are lost maybe it would be worth a field trip to find similar data. You’re clearly capable of writing scientific papers given that you teach biology at University. When you’ve done this I’ll be interested in reading and reviewing it. Remember all theories can be disproven and if you can disprove evolution then you’ll win accolades and money.
I know about “social darwinism”, a term used to describe the apparent application of evolutionary theory to sociology. It should also be noted that the earliest sociology theory based on a “survival of the fittest notion” were published prior to Darwin’s evolutionary theory for biology; Lamarckian theory says that the struggle for survival in society results in self improvement which can be inherited.
grathuln – you seem to be quite upset with my use of the word embarrassment. I do not consider competing theories like you mention on the same level as a dishonest fraud like Piltdown where teeth are filed down by numerous scientists or the fraudulent drawings of Haeckel on recapitulation theory that plagues textbooks even to this day. If you are not embarrassed by dishonesty, fine for you, I guess.
grathuln wrote: “you said evolutionary theory can cause atheism, it doesn’t.”
Can cause atheism, yes, it does. It does not necessarily cause atheism, but in many individuals it does. Another post about that is currently stuck in WordPress. Maybe it will be freed. The truth is that evolutionary theory provides a framework for understanding the empirical world through natural processes without involving a creator. Some people are going to believe in God anyway, but many people see no reason to believe in a God when presented with the authority of government and the multitude of scientists saying that there is no reason to believe in God.
grathuln wrote: “Also survival of the fittest doesn’t mean survival of the strongest, as you should also know being a biologist. It means survival of the ones best suited to the environment.”
Of course, but when applied in a social setting, people come to think of it in many different ways. I was just giving an example of one teenager and its affect on him and being accurate to quote him correctly. I was in no way trying to justify his belief.
grathuln wrote: “a problem with young earth creationism is that it predicts nothing, it merely tries to shoehorn data to fit the biblical account of things.”
Well, testing of religious theories through science works a little differently in that the construction of the theory might arise from a text rather than empirical data. Nevertheless, the theory will make predictions of empirical data that make the theory testable by science. If we approach young earth creationism through typical Popperian science, attempting to falsify the theory, then young earth creationism is probably one of the most testable theories out there. I’m sure you can find some who approach the subject matter in the manner you describe, trying to shoehorn the data to fit, but evolutionists do the same kinds of things with their paradigm. To be honest about it, they do. In young earth models, they predict empirical clocks to show a young earth. This makes the model much easier to test and potentially falsify than a creation model that suggests an old earth on the same scale as evolutionary theory. Once agreement is reached about an empirical clock, if the clock shows the earth old, then their theory has been falsified, and if the clock shows the earth young like the model predicts, then their theory has not been falsified.
grathuln wrote: “It suggests things like the Grand Canyon was formed by a sudden release of water in a super deluge which is a merely a poorly thought out analysis of the data collected by observation not a prediction, it is also an analysis that can be and has been demonstrably proven wrong through experimentation.”
If it has been proven wrong through experimentation, then it is testable and it should rightly be considered scientifically testable. I am always amused how so many scientists will never admit to a creationist model being scientifically testable until AFTER it has been agreed upon that it has been falsified. They never apply the same level of scrutiny to evolutionary models of origins. In regards to the Grand Canyon, there is interesting work by Austin on Mt. St. Helens and the rapidity with which sediments deposit rapidly and comparing them to strata in the Grand Canyon. Also, there is evidence of polystrate fossils that pose problems. I mean, how do you have sediment supposedly taking millions of years to deposit and then a tree fossil or whale fossil traversing straight through it? Then there are things like the spectacle halos in the Colorado plateau that Gentry found and published in the journal Science indicating much shorter periods of time for deposition than published reports using radiometric dating. It is not my aim to argue the case here in this forum, but the point is that there is empirical evidence by which to consider models that might have a uniformitarian paradigm versus a catastrophic one, and so this broad brush stroke you use to marginalize other explanations like a creationist model of origins just isn’t working.
grathuln wrote: “Regarding your anecdote of digging for fossils perhaps you should write a scientific paper with your observations and ideas then submit it for peer review in Nature or similar scientific publication.”
LOL. You really do not seem to understand the peer review process in science. I highly recommend you read a book called Creation’s Tiny Mystery by Robert Gentry. I think it is available online for free. Try http://www.halos.com/. I read it more than 20 years ago. What I want you to observe is the trouble he had publishing in Science when he attempts to put a creationist interpretation to one of his studies. It really doesn’t matter if you agree with him or not, just look at the one or two sentences he has to change to make a paper publishable. It really demonstrates the atheistic bias in science and how papers are kept from being published based on a single line that might imply a creationist model.
At the time of that fossil dig, I was very involved with graduate school and publishing other scientific papers unrelated to the dig. However, there was a man who I might still be able to contact who spent a whole summer at that dig. He carefully documented everything and even gave me a copy of a full book about it to proof years ago. The trouble is that he is not a scientist, but a professor of Greek at another university. No way any scientist would publish his study from that summer, especially if he is going to contradict the guys from the Florida Museum of Natural History who published on that same dig. He and I compared notes and were in agreement that a catastrophic event happened there. What does that mean? Not a whole lot because I can’t make any bigger a story out of it. I am still perplexed how marine sediments of this magnitude buried all these terrestrial Pleistocene animals. There were two distinct layers too, not sure why. It’s too easy to say “maybe Noah’s flood.” Nah, I’m not going to go there, but I will say that the data fits better with some kind of model involving a catastrophic event than what the other evolutionists were publishing about it. They basically gave a story like Haeckel’s recapitulation drawings. It basically was a lesson to me that paradigms shape the way scientists interpret and report data. The fossils are all in the Florida Museum of Natural History right now, at least most of them. No data really lost, just reported via a paradigm that bolsters evolutionary theory.
I now seriously suspect you of being a troll. I have to admit quite a good one too so I will entertain you this one last time. Kudos.
Embarrassment and being upset. What you are doing is imposing your view of the situation onto a third party, namely the scientific community. I don’t know of any evolutionary scientist who views the Piltdown man fiasco as embarrassing. Since you’re not an evolutionary scientist, despite being a biologist, I suggest you find me a preponderance of evolutionary biologist willing to say Piltdown man was an embarrassment.
Evolution can no more cause atheism than guns can create killers. There is no causal link. I’m disappointed that as a scientist you should make such a causal links as this is indicative of faulty logic.
Many people see no reason to believe in god because there is a total lack of evidence for the existence of a god. It has nothing to do with wanting to be free of accountability; if you believe you can be saved and forgiven of all sin by simply accepting Jesus as your saviour as per the christian bible then there is a distinct lack of accountability, you die you go to heaven if you but believe even if you’re executed in Texas. The only sin that cannot be forgiven according to the Bible and most other religious texts is that of disbelief.
There is no correlation between lack of belief in a god and a lack of morality. Studies show the majority of inmates in US prisons are religious, mainly christian. The percentage of atheists in prisons is far smaller than the percentage in the free population. 20% of US citizens claimed no religion in the latest census. A poll of US prison Chaplains showed their opinion of prison atheists to be a mean of 10% and a median of 5%; an earlier poll of dubious source suggested atheists made up as little as 0.2%. Egro religious people are overrepresented in US prisons; one might argue atheists are less likely to be arrested but then another study suggests atheist are the least trusted people in the US.
I understand the peer review process very well. You publish and others question your findings and methodology. It’s a process that’s been around over 300 years. I admit that one can now publish stuff in non mainstream literature, especially via the Internet, to evade proper peer review but the practise of doing so seriously damages credibility.
Regarding your thoughts on the dig. I understand your reserve because, like the Internet, peer review can be a harsh world, not for the faint hearted. You have to have complete conviction in your analysis and be ready to be proved wrong. It takes balls. If you have any doubts you need to reconsider your position. If you agree with your Greek friend’s analysis then why not publish it and accredit him?
Remember that scientists such as Stephen Hawkins have been wrong and lost bets because of it; in 1975, cosmologist Stephen Hawking bet fellow cosmologist Kip Thorne a subscription to Penthouse magazine for Thorne against four years of Private Eye for him that Cygnus X-1 would turn out not to be a black hole. It was, so Hawking lost.
As a scientist and a biologist who teaches other teachers of biology I wonder if you teach what you claim here or what is mainstream. If you’re a maverick at least have the balls to be one so the scientific community can evaluate your views. It could be fame and fortune, but if you’re concerned about it being a career limiting move (at your stage in your career?) then maybe you should re-evaluate your ideas as you clearly doubt their veracity.
If you’d like to continue this dialog then perhaps you might let me know which University you taught biology in. If it was (is) a Florida University I admit I’m unfamiliar with your work.
grathuln wrote: “Many people see no reason to believe in god because there is a total lack of evidence for the existence of a god.”
You are begging the question here. Many interpret the empirical evidence to be very strong evidence of a Creator. Whenever someone says “total lack of evidence” it is clear to me that they follow an educational system based upon popular dogma rather than careful analysis. At the very least, you have very little respect for anyone who might interpret the data differently.
The thing that the theory of Natural Selection did was give a framework of thought that explained order and design through a process that did not involve a creator. Darwin demolished the prevailing view that species were immutable. His endless examples of artificial selection and connecting it to what surely happened in nature put that notion to rest. The empiricists who believed that everything could be explained completely by currently observable natural laws flocked to it by hordes. It is an atheistic paradigm at its core, and there should be no hesitancy in acknowledging that. You might compare the difference of opinion between scientists like Will Provine and Stephen Jay Gould in this regard. Gould attempted to establish a NOMA or magisterium where science spoke to certain matters and religion spoke to other matters. I think an atheist like Provine takes the more honest approach in saying that if Evolution is right then Genesis is wrong. When I say “Evolution” I mean the general theory of evolution — that no creator was involved in the formation of the universe, earth, life, and diversity of life observed today. I do not mean the process of evolution, which every intelligent person, creationist or not, agrees is a fact.
grathuln wrote: ” If you agree with your Greek friend’s analysis then why not publish it and accredit him?”
You still don’t understand the peer review process. Journals for religion and journals of creationism will publish it, but not a science journal like Nature. I do encourage you again to read Gentry’s book just for the understanding of the review process. I actually think his work with polonium halos as a fingerprint for how basement rocks were formed in minutes rather than millions of years to be interesting, but even if you are not interested in that, you should be interested in his demonstration of how a single sentence can prevent a creationist article from being published in a scientific journal.
When I reviewed scientific articles for publication, I would never dismiss one for a creationist interpretation, but believe me, I was in a very small minority. Usually you have three or four scientists reviewing a paper for publication, and it only takes one to prevent it from being published.
My background in science specialized in the ecology and evolution of vertebrates. I now am involved in computer software development, for more than 20 years now.
DavidM2575: “You are begging the question here. Many interpret the empirical evidence to be very strong evidence of a Creator. Whenever someone says “total lack of evidence” it is clear to me that they follow an educational system based upon popular dogma rather than careful analysis. At the very least, you have very little respect for anyone who might interpret the data differently.”
It’s not a question of interpreting the data differently, that some people extrapolate from the data and say “god” is just the old “god of the gaps” argument with different window dressing.
We don’t know how the Universe first came into being, we have some hypotheses some of which may be moving towards the theory stage but we don’t know. This doesn’t mean a god “set it all in motion” though it’s also not possible to rule it out.
What we do know so far is quite a lot that occurred a few microseconds after the big bang and none of that required a god to do anything to get what we have today. If there is a god then a) that god may have set up the big bang but was unnecessary to subsequent events, I guess being omnipotent allows a god to do impressive stuff like that; b) such a god is not going to be anything like what is described any religious texts and c) there is no evidence of such a god’s intervention in the affairs of humans.
also
“Evolution” I mean the general theory of evolution — that no creator was involved in the formation of the universe, earth, life, and diversity of life observed today.”
So now you claim you use the word evolution differently to what science and even common language uses it to mean. Evolution and evolutionary theory do not deal with how life or the Universe began. As you claimed to teach biology you really should know this and use the correct terms so that your arguments can be understood. Are you saying you’re not a young earth creationist?
“The empiricists who believed that everything could be explained completely by currently observable natural laws flocked to it by hordes. It is an atheistic paradigm at its core, and there should be no hesitancy in acknowledging that. ”
The attraction of evolutionary theory was that “Darwin demolished the prevailing view that species were immutable. His endless examples of artificial selection and connecting it to what surely happened in nature put that notion to rest.” but this was not attractive because it was atheistic because it isn’t. It was attractive because it explained the observable data so much better than the old immutable species idea.
As before there are many religious people, the vast majority of religious people (outside the USA) in fact, accept evolution as fact. Most also accept the big bang as a damn good theory. For them god set it all into motion but it all occurred in keeping with science over the scientific timescale of 4.3billion years for the age of the Earth and 13.7billion years for the age of the Universe. They don’t believe it happen by magic just under 6000 years ago nor do they believe it happen as Genesis states. Even the Pope before last issues a statement saying there was nothing in the bible that contradicts Science. Despite this people such as yourself continue to try to claim the Bible is infallible and make claims like the Noah flood happened.
If you also believe in Evolutionary theory (the stricter scientific definition) as you now seem to claim then you should surely know that restricting the populations of animal species to just 2 of each kind (unclean) and 7 of each kind (clean) just over 5000 years ago would result in far less species diversity than we observe today; that’s without taking into account all the sea creatures dying out due to change in salinity thanks to a whole lot of rain contaminating the sea. Even if you double or triple the time period to 15,000 years ago the animal kingdom still would not have “recovered” to where we are today. Such diversity of species and individuals within species only happens over millions of years.
My understanding of Dr Robert Gentry is that he is a physicist, I know of him from his work on polonium halos and New Redshift Interpretation of cosmology, works apparently outside his field of expertise, those being Geology and Cosmology respectively.
His work on New Redshift Interpretation was published in the Scientific Journal Modern Physics Letters A. It has been post publication peer reviewed and it was found lacking in 5 main areas:
1) Gentry’s model requires and allows for tweaking the figures to get the correct temperature of the microwave background radiation of the cosmos and the initial conditions where by his model can correctly derive the Hubble Relationship; he has to adjust the speeds of the various galaxies at some starting point.
2)It’s inconsistent in that it assumes that all galaxies are moving away from us and yet the density of the Universe remains constant which would necessitate matter constantly forming out of nothing. Also the shell of hydrogen atoms surrounding the universe in Gentry’s model would collapse inwards long before creating the correct background radiation levels. And while the theory requires the hydrogen shell to be quite thick and dense in order to create the observed background radiation spectrum the figures that work in the model give a shell that’s gossamer thin.
3) While Gentry claims the model is based on a Universe with a static spacetime general relativity the actual math and figures don’t jive with the underpinning equations of the theory of General Relativity by Einstein.
4) The model works for the redshift of observable galaxies nearby but fails to correctly predict observations for the redshifts of distant galaxies.
5) Gentry’s model dismisses observed abundances of elements in keeping with their atomic mass as coincidence, the competing big bang model predicts the observed abundances. Another thing Gentry’s model fails to explain is the way the age of old objects neatly fit within the natural scale of the age of the universe, again just coincidence according to Gentry’s model.
For these reason the peer review process of science rejected this model as inferior to the existing model(s).
I believe the Polonium Haloes had similar peer reviews. I’m sure I could dig it out and go over it.
For Gentry to claim the peer review process doesn’t work because it failed two of his publications is perhaps sour grapes.
Magazines such as Nature will peer review prior to publication and usually provide reasons for rejecting a paper submitted for publication, invariably it’s because it has obvious flaws. Other magazines allow authors more leeway to publish and be damned.
Even with pre-publication peer review a lot of papers pass muster because a full peer review is impractical with publication schedules, also the whole point is to allow not immediately obviously flawed papers to get an airing in the big bad world of peer reviewers.
grathuln wrote: “It’s not a question of interpreting the data differently, that some people extrapolate from the data and say “god” is just the old “god of the gaps” argument with different window dressing.”
Either you are ignorant of the empirical work by creationists, or you are not engaging in honest dialogue. You present a cop-out here that has no applicability in real life. I have never seen in real life a creationist look at some data and say, “well, I just don’t understand, I guess God must have done it.” What they do is look at the data and ask what is the best interpretation of it. You mentioned “god of the gaps” in a disparaging way, but it is perfectly reasonable to examine the data and ask what model best supports the data.
If the fossil record is filled with gaps (and it undeniably is), you can choose to believe that Natural Selection still somehow accounts for it, that maybe we just need to dig more and eventually find the data to support the theory, or you can choose to look for some other mechanism of evolution like Punctuated Equilibrium (Gould and Eldredge), or you might surmise that a creator model whereby organisms had discrete points of origin actually happened. The last option is not allowed by science but it is allowed by religion. You view that option as some kind of cop-out, mocking it as a “god of the gaps” theory, but it is only a cop-out if you operate from the paradigm, from the definition, that a creator model is not allowed.
I referred you to Gentry’s book, not to have you criticize his more recent cosmological theories, but to help you understand the review process in science. He does not even deal with those theories in that old book. Nevertheless, you will find in that book a fine example of how science should operate. Whether or not you agree with the conclusions Gentry reached, he discovered polonium halos with a very short half life that he could not explain. He looked for ways to test empirically whether the halos could have had secondary sources of intrusion. He constructed scientific tests to try and falsify various hypotheses. Ultimately, he could not explain how these halos came to exist if present geological teaching about the formation of these igneous rocks was accurate. He proposed an empirical test to falsify his theory that perhaps these rocks were formed in minutes through a process we do not yet understand. In court, when trying to decide whether creation science should be allowed in public schools, the leading geologist could say nothing more than that Gentry’s Tiny Mystery would one day be explained by science. From this comment, Gentry titled his book, “Creation’s Tiny Mystery.”
Obviously Gentry is a young earth creationist and has religion motivating much of his thought processes, but he also is a scientist and has done some fascinating scientific work. The very fact that scientists engage in criticizing his work is enough to substantiate that his work is science and not religion being cloaked as science. The fact that schools do not allow even mentioning his work is a shame. I mean, if we can talk about Lamarckian evolution and how it has been falsified in science, why not do the same with creation science? Could the reason be that it has not thoroughly been falsified yet to everyone’s satisfaction?
I think young people in schools who read his book “Creation’s Tiny Mystery” would be better educated about the empirical evidence that forms the backdrop for a young earth creationist, and they would be motivated to do more work in science. The way you hear most scientists, however, is they falsely claim that creationists discourage science and that what they do has nothing to do with science. Obviously, they will not read his book as I am pretty sure at this point you too will not take the time to read his book. Education is suppose to be about learning different ideas and concepts, but these days it is only learning about what supports the favorite paradigm.
By the way, I am not a young earth creationist. I just think science should be open to theistic models and interpretations insofar as they are testable empirically. I recognize that I am a heretic in science because I have that simple paradigm. I am willing to live with that. However, children in public schools are losing out on a good education because public schools are forbidden by law from educating our children about any of this. The information is not allowed as science because of the way scientists have defined their field of study, and the knowledge is not allowed as religion because of the current paradigm about church and state separation. Something is very wrong with this. I think from a legal perspective, education needs to move to a voucher system that allows parents to choose which schools will receive the tax subsidies for educating their children. Too many people cannot afford private education and it is all too clear that public education will not give the kind of quality education needed because of these issues.
In regards to you narrowing your definition of Evolution to exclude cosmology, geology, abiogenesis, etc., you have fallen prey to a modern indoctrination that did not exist during all my years at the university working in the field of evolutionary biology. It is a recent invention to help young students skip over the huge improbability and problems of abiogenesis. Rightly speaking, the study of origins is a model of Evolution through natural processes that would include everything from the Big Bang (if that is your conviction) or Steady State theory, all the way to the present. Never assume “Evolution” to be synonymous with “Natural Selection” or synonymous with “biological evolution.” These presumptions cause one to assume that “Evolution” only applies to a point in time after the event of abiogenesis. It is nothing more than a cop-out of inquiry analogous to the imaginary creationist saying “god did it” is the explanation. It stops scientific inquiry into how life began and the building of a fully explanatory model of origins.
These Standards will not likely change anything. I use to teach biology to the high school teachers every summer at the University of South Florida during their summer workshops. Very few if any of them had even the most basic understanding of science. I face this same problem with my own children being taught. Try to talk to a high school science teacher about a null hypothesis and you will likely get blank stares. Mention Karl Popper, and they will say who? Believe me, the typical public school teacher does not want to hear from me, a published scientist, on how science really works. They shut us out of the process of helping give our students a good education faster than you can say hello. I have to train my children how to play their game and give them what they ask for even when it is not the way they will learn it in college later.
The problem is that the school systems hire certified teachers rather than professional scientists. I am qualified to teach biology at a university, even teach the high school teachers who come to the university for continuing education, but I am not qualified to teach biology in a high school, middle school, or even elementary school. The public school system is completely broken because of bureaucracy, and these Standards are just another bureaucracy. They give other people jobs who claim they are making education better. Go to the NextGenScience.org website and see it for yourself. It is a bunch of rhetoric that will change nothing. The public school system needs to hire a professional scientist to head up their science department and charge him with keeping up with science, and perhaps help him keep up his continuing education. He can oversee other science teachers and hire those who truly understand science and can impart that knowledge to his students.
The problem with the objectors here is that science has tried to shortcut education based upon empirical data by declaring dogmatically that there is not a shred of empirical evidence supporting the idea of a creator. Rather than proving this dogma through empirical evidence, they do it by defining science as being a discipline that can never invoke the idea of a creator. By definition, the creator concept is eliminated from consideration by science and declared to be religion. Again, this is not because science has proven that there was no creator. They simply operate under the unproven assumption that there is no creator.
In contrast, religion allows for both empirical evidence and the consideration of a creator. The problem is that atheists have been successful in causing the ruling elite to remove religion from public schools through claiming that it violates the concept of separation of church and state. So what we end up is a public educational system that disallows any education about religion, and a system of science that disallows any mention of a creator. As you can imagine, this disenfranchises some people who believe in a creator, especially those knowledgeable ones who go outside the standard public educational system to learn.
Ironically, consider the man Thomas Jefferson who first used the phrase, “wall of separation between Church and State” in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists. No doubt he was for religious liberty, but in founding the University of Virginia, did he throw out all religious education? No, not really. What he did was get rid of the normal “Professor of Divinity” who usually belonged to a particular sect of religion, and instead he established a Professor of Ethics who would work to allow the ideas of all religious sects to be taught. Following is how he set it up:
—-
In conformity with the principles of our Constitution, which places all sects of religion on an equal footing, with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprise, and with the sentiments of the Legislature in favor of freedom of religion, manifested on former occasions, we have proposed no professor of divinity; and the rather as the proofs of the being of a God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of ethics; to which adding the developments of these moral obligations, of those in which all sects agree, with a knowledge of the languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, a basis will be formed common to all sects. Proceeding thus far without offence to the Constitution, we have thought it proper at this point to leave every sect to provide, as they think fittest, the means of further instruction in their own peculiar tenets.
—-
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefRock.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=1&division=div1
I realize this was for a public university, but the same principle could apply to public high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, etc. We should not be afraid of teaching religious ideas to children in school. Granted, it must be done with care, so as to properly represent different sects, but to just throw it all out will only perpetuate the kind of societal conflict we see represented here, not only in the article about the various opinions expressed at the meeting, but also in the comments of this blog.
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge. –Isaac Asimov
Thanks Elaine…
Get All Your Back To School Fear Of Science & Muslims Now And Avoid The Rush
by Doktor Zoom
http://wonkette.com/524055/get-all-your-back-to-school-fear-of-science-muslims-now-and-avoid-the-rush
Excerpt:
It’s the penultimate day of July, which means it’s almost time for the kiddies to start rolling their eyes at all the Back To School sales. And of course, it’s time for wingnuts to stock up on fear, uncertainty, and doubt for the coming school year, too. (Haha, just kidding, that is a year-round activity!) Today, tales of terror from a Kentucky panel on science standards, and from the ever paranoid Fox Radio screamer Todd Starnes, who worries about creeping sharia in a world history textbook that acknowledges the existence of Islam. The world is a scary placy, full of science and Muslims, and it’s good to know that some people are willing to take a stand and protect our children from learning anything about it.
First up, a report from the Louisville Courier-Journal about citizens’ principled opposition to teaching science facts. The state Department Of Education is considering a routine upgrade of its science standards, and a swarm of concerned parents turned out at a recent meeting to insist that teaching about evolution and climate change will usher in “Soviet-style communism.” Some highlights:
One parent, Valerie O’Rear, said the standards promote an “atheistic world view” and a political agenda that pushes government control.
Matt Singleton, a Baptist minister in Louisville who runs an Internet talk-radio program, called teachings on evolution a lie that has led to drug abuse, suicide and other social afflictions.
“Outsiders are telling public school families that we must follow the rich man’s elitist religion of evolution, that we no longer have what the Kentucky Constitution says is the right to worship almighty God,” Singleton said. “Instead, this fascist method teaches that our children are the property of the state.”
Yep, that pretty much matches every science class we’ve attended, all right. Formulate a hypothesis, design an experiment, institute a socialist dictatorship, commit suicide. Sounds like Rev. Singleton hopes to sit on the House Science Committee some day. Another parent pointed out the inexorably dangerous logic of having standards at all, and how it leads to labeling, ridicule, and eventually genocide:
At one point, opponent Dena Stewart-Gore of Louisville also suggested that the standards will marginalize students with religious beliefs, leading to ridicule and physiological harm in the classroom, and create difficulties for students with learning disabilities.
“The way socialism works is it takes anybody that doesn’t fit the mold and discards them,” she said, adding that “we are even talking genocide and murder here, folks.”
Not sure if “physiological” is Ms. Stewart-Gore’s error or the reporter’s, but we aren’t going to correct it, because that would be elitist and might lead to psychological harm and discrimination against the linguistically different. (This is also our second sighting within a week of a wingnut saying that ridicule is a first step toward genocide, if anyone’s counting — serious thinker Victoria Jackson said it too. These guys have taken the not-really-Gandhi line “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win” and made it all grimdark. Then again, Gandhi wasn’t a Christian either…)
Next Generation Science Standards Released
By Kelsey Sheehy
April 15, 2013
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/high-school-notes/2013/04/15/next-generation-science-standards-released
Excerpt:
Science education in the United States is not up to snuff.
Most high school students can scratch the scientific surface – follow instructions, conduct experiments – but few succeed at analysis and explanation, two critical components of real-world inquiry, studies reveal.
The Next Generation Science Standards aim to change all that. Released last week, the standards follow in the footsteps of the Common Core State Standards for math and reading by setting a uniform benchmark and encouraging depth over breadth in science curriculums.
“The way I imagine that it might play out is that there will be more hands-on time for students,” says David Evans, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, an organization comprised of roughly 60,000 science education professionals. “There will be deeper investigations into the smaller number of ideas, and perhaps even a better opportunity for students to formulate some of the experiments themselves.”
NSTA is one of four organizations involved in developing the standards. Others include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences and the D.C.-based nonprofit Achieve, which was also involved in the development of the Common Core standards. The organizations enlisted a team of teachers and education leaders from 26 states to help write and revise the new science standards…
Adoption and implementation: While representatives from 26 states had a hand in writing the standards, it has yet to be seen how many will adopt them.
State boards of education must agree to adopt the Next Gen approach. Incorporation of evolution and climate change, called for by the standards, could be sticking points in some states, experts say.
Once states adopt the standards, they must develop curriculums and assessments, which will be a multi-year process, Evans says. With new content comes a greater need for teacher training.
Great topic Elaine. The people of Kentucky will find themselves even farther behind if they allow the religious right to take over their public school system. As noted above, religion and religious beliefs belong in religious schools and not the public schools.
I am related to practically everybody in Perry County. My family settled there in 1830, and we want our Commonwealth back.
Kentucky’s new state motto : “We’re not Texas, but we’re trying!”
Nick S.: I don’t drink and I think horse racing is cruel to both animals and humans. I do love a good UK basketball game, though!
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Nickname(s): Bluegrass State
Motto(s): United we stand, divided we fall and Deo gratiam habeamus (Let us be grateful to God)
Official language(s) English
Demonym Kentuckian
Capital Frankfort
Largest city Louisville
Largest metro Louisville metropolitan area
Area Ranked 37th in the U.S.
– Total 40,409 sq mi
(104,659 km2)
– Width 140 miles (225 km)
– Length 379 miles (610 km)
– % water 1.7
– Latitude 36° 30′ N to 39° 09′ N
– Longitude 81° 58′ W to 89° 34′ W
Population Ranked 26th in the U.S.
– Total 4,380,415 (2012 est)[2]
– Density 110/sq mi (42.5/km2)
Ranked 22nd in the U.S.
Elevation
– Highest point Black Mountain[3][4]
4,145 ft (1263 m)
– Mean 750 ft (230 m)
– Lowest point Mississippi River at Kentucky Bend[3][4]
257 ft (78 m)
Admission to Union June 1, 1792 (15th)
Governor Steve Beshear (D)
Lieutenant Governor Jerry Abramson (D)
Legislature Kentucky General Assembly
– Upper house Senate
– Lower house House of Representatives
U.S. Senators Mitch McConnell (R)
Rand Paul (R)
U.S. House delegation 5 Republicans, 1 Democrat (list)
Time zones
– eastern half Eastern: UTC-5/-4
– western half Central: UTC-6/-5
Abbreviations KY, US-KY
Website kentucky.gov
Kentucky , officially the Commonwealth of Kentucky, is a state located in the east south-central region of the United States. Kentucky is one of four U.S. states constituted as a commonwealth (the others being Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts). Originally a part of Virginia, in 1792 Kentucky became the 15th state to join the Union. Kentucky is the 37th most extensive and the 26th most populous of the 50 United States.
Kentucky is known as the “Bluegrass State”, a nickname based on the bluegrass found in many of its pastures because of the fertile soil. One of the major regions in Kentucky is the Bluegrass Region in central Kentucky which houses two of its major cities, Lexington and Louisville. It is a land with diverse environments and abundant resources, including the world’s longest cave system, Mammoth Cave National Park, the greatest length of navigable waterways and streams in the contiguous United States, and the two largest man-made lakes east of the Mississippi River.
Kentucky is also home to the highest per capita number of deer and turkey in the United States, the largest free-ranging elk herd east of the Mississippi River, and the nation’s most productive coalfield. Kentucky is also known for horse racing, bourbon distilleries, automobile manufacturing, tobacco, bluegrass music, and college basketball.
religion was taught as a tool to over power people, not for the all good of god..
If you look at it God is a hypocrite. He murders innocent people
he pregnants an unwed mother and leaves for another man to care for the baby
He judges people all time even though he teaches us not to do so
and he has caused war for many many centuries which he is suppose to bring us piece.
So really explain to me why “GOD” is good
YOU DON’T HAVE TO SHOUT. USE YOUR INSIDE VOICE.