You mean situations where it has been shown a failure? There are many e.g.
Halton Arp has for decades contended that the Hubble expansion is a figment of the imagination citing as evidence ample examples of high redshift quasars that are physically connected to low redshift galaxies. He got in return an unsigned letter judging his research as "without value" and refusing further allocation time. A number of well-known astronomers spoke up on his behalf to no avail.
H. Arp, D. Russell, A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies, Astrophysical Journal 549, p. 802-819 (March 10 2001}
H. Arp, Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies, Cambridge University Press, 1989
H. Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science , Apeiron, 1998
Thomas Van Flandern's paper The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang, Apeiron 9,2 (april 2002) concludes:
Does this sound familiar? He continues...
Those have nothing to do with evolution. Those are cosmology.
How many times we hear the excuse that this is how science works. Not everybody thinks so because it's not how science works. If a theory can't predict something before it happens it's essentially worthless.
You're confusing scientific method with religious dogma.
A more or less accurate framework is used and developed and improved upon in science. Or discarded if an even more accurate one is devised. It's called learning and progress.
Religion is the one that is invalidated if one single variable is proven wrong. Well, certain religious. And that's the problem we seem have here.
Not what I am saying. Religion IS being taught in classrooms.
That was exactly what you were saying. You were praising the Louisiana State Education Board for what they did. But ok, lets leave it at that.
For example chemical evolution (abiogenesis, etc.) and that evolution is a blind purposeless process. The objections are therefor either on the grounds of teaching competing theories or because it could prevent teaching religion.I have no problem if religion isn't taught but either teach no religion or all religions. A claim about the origin of life is not only something that no valid scientific theory deals with and so is nonscientific but is also irresponsible.
Here's the problem.
You cannot blindly ban entire areas of research because of
your religious beliefs.
Buddhists, for example, don't care about this whole evolution, creation debate. To them it's irrelevant and, frankly, stupid.
So say now a Buddhist scientist is interested in perusing a career in microbiology where he wants to study and trace back how live formed and progressed through time. And eventually he wants to gather data, study and try to replicate all these cool things he learns. Now you want to stop his research because a small part your belief system may be invalidated by his findings(never mind the other bits in the Bible that science has systematically moved from 'fact' to 'metaphorical' in the minds of its believers). Can you see how illogical and dishonest that is?
So what is the solution?
Well, if you don't want your children studying the sciences of biology, evolution and, looking at the above, cosmology, then don't let them study it. Have them study theology instead. No harm, not fuss. Why do you have to try and try and encroach on the rights of what others want to study and research?
Sign up with Google
