I know of no one who does that.
I can think of someone who says on a regular basis that science can take a hike. I vaguely remember someone who bastardized academia to acadelmia, who made Pluto a derogatory verb. It must bet he product of my imagination that someone has claimed that a five years old could look scientists straight in the face and tell them they are wrong. And recently a good Christian here made the claim that academics breeds intolerance. Go figure.
Perhaps he's thinking of that one guy who said something on the order of, "I'm a YEC, and if science proves otherwise, I'll still be a YEC" -- or something to that effect.
No; I hadn’t that guy in mind.
I don't know ... and don't care.
Not caring about truth and accuracy?
Well, since Guttenberg invented the printing press, the dissemination of knowledge has made giant leaps. The development of the Internet has made knowledge even more accessible. I am still in awe on a daily basis about how much knowledge is available for free, and not behind a pay wall or subscription wall.
All I know is: their "functioning brains" gave us "functional science."
Truth. But every brain starts as a child’s brain. That needs to be stimulated, nourished, fed. Parents, teachers, friends, documentary maker, science promoters like Bill Nye, Stephen Jay Gould or Carl Sagan- all play a vital role in this. The desire to start a career in science can be stimulated or killed during the forming years.
Even I don't reject science.
I will take that with the proverbial grain of salt.
I suspect driewerf is overstating the matter. And because of this unnamed person, this nation has been "deprived of a functional brain"?
No, I am not. I might have misstated slightly. More accurate would have been to say that a some of the children’s brains in that class room will not develop to their full potential.
A child grows up in a community and absorbs its information from figures of authority: parents, clergy (priest, minister, rabbi, imam), teachers, trainers and coaches. When a substantial number of these figures of authority are sending out anti-science messages, that child will develop an anti-science attitude.
A few examples illustrate this:
Kent Hovind, has devoted an entire seminar named Lies in textbooks:
Do you expect this to stimulate people to start a career in science – or in any academic subject at large?
In the God’s not dead 1 movie an atheist philosophy professor (of course) is continuously attacking god and christianity and is using only his power as professor and arguments from authority. At no point does he even indicate any argument used in the past: not the “Prime mover”, not the Kalaam argument, not Pascal’s Wager. Just “famous philosophers were atheist, that settles it”. It is important to be very aware of what we see in that movie. We don’t see a philosophy professor – we see a conservative Christian actor (Kevin Sorbo) playing a script and saying lines written by Christian apologists. We don’t see a philosophy class, but the image that the writers of the movie want us to see. Hence portraying philosophy and all of higher education in a bad day light. This image doesn’t improve in de movies 2 and 3.
One such movie will not deter young Christians to seek higher education. But if it reinforces the message received from previous figures of authority, it will add a weight to the anti intellectual scale.
Another example,
I don't expect everybody to watch an hour+ video, so here is short summary.
A christian apologetic poses as an atheist philosophy professor (why are conservative Christians so obsessed with atheist philosophy professors?) in front of an audience of christian high school students and get questioned. One of his first statements is: “I don’t believe in god because I believe in science.” During the Q&A he on a regular basis produces a sciency sounding word salad. This already fortifies the anti science influences to which young conservative Christians are exposed.
After 50 something minutes he reveals who he really is, and teaches about apologetics.
A lot of the questions were origin/science related as a substitute for the notion of creation. For them being an atheist means to embrace science. By the way the christian apologetic didn't anything to refute that image. At 1:03:30 a girls asks a very telling question:" You were telling about the whole science stuff, about the multiverse and stuff I couldn't understand. Why would anybody belief all that? Is it easier for them than believing in a god? Like they're guilty?"
These students are an honest reflection of what they have been thought over the years, by their parents, their ministers, their teachers. Science is for atheists. Science is an atheist's a substitute for god. It’s either god or science (or any other academic subject for that matter).
Basically that girl's question came down to a total rejection of science as unsuitable for christians. And she was NOT refuted by anyone. She of course is just repeating what the adults around her have been telling her. Hence we witness here the closing of a potentially bright mind.
And it isn’t something new. I referred already to an early “seminar” given by Kent Hovind. Jack Chick has also produced at least one anti science, anti intelligence tract: Big daddy (
Chick.com: Big Daddy?). (Actually God is not dead 1 is just playing the same theme as Big Daddy).
So, the anti science, anti education of the conservative christians is wide spread, well documented and has a long tradition. You not knowing this quite astonishing. But now you know.
I think if even I were to change my Boolean Standards to:
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with ø
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = it's not worth dwelling on
... I would just be ignored by the population as a whole, and no one's brains are going to go 404.
Wrong. They would still display the same anti science, anti knowledge anti intellectual theme as the original ones.
Rejecting a well evidenced, empirically confirmed proposition because of an argument from authority – that is the poison, not just believing that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old or that Ramapithecus came before Homo Neanderthaliensis.
So My Boolean standards are:
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
Driewerf: ignore the bible, study and evaluate x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
Driewerf: ignore the bible, study and evaluate y
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
Driewerf: ignore the bible, start a research project.
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with ø
Driewerf: ignore the bible, study and evaluate x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = it's not worth dwelling on
Driewerf: ignore the bible, start a research project.
Let me repeat myself here:
A teacher that teaches we came from Adam, and not Magilla Gorilla, isn't going to prevent one of her students from going on to hybridize winter wheat or the edible banana, find oil, square a circle, or anything else that is pending discovery.
Do you disagree?
If that teacher is reinforcing the anti science, anti intellectual anti knowledge message from other figures of authority: parents, clergy (priest, minister, rabbi, imam), teachers, trainers and coaches, then yes it will hinder that child to develop his intellectual capacities.
And more than what the teacher teaches as fact, the most important is why he or she considers something as true. If (s)he can substantiate these statements with evidence, other than just a religious authority, then the damage will be limited. But above all the big damage is to create an attitude of obedience to an (unjustified) authority.
