FRC Wants 'Controversy' Over Holocaust, Bigfoot, UFO's, and Elvis Taught in Schools ?
![]() That's the logical implication of what Dr. Yoest said to Andersoon Cooper. Here's the relevant part of the discussion:
Now, I'm quite sure this never crossed Charmaine Yoest's mind, but her position on "teaching the controversy" could be interpreted to mean that American public school science curriculum should include treatment of the "controversy" over the standard figures cited for estimated death tolls in the Holocaust. Or, on a lighter or even somewhat comical note, on the 'controversy' over whether Copernicus might have been wrong such that the Earth really does lie at the center of the Universe. I don't think Yoest wants to advocate that Holocaust denial be taught in America's classrooms, even to be disproved ; I'll venture that assumption, bearing in mind that I still need to clarify that point with Dr. Yoest herself, and even if so I won't ascribe that position to the Family Research Council until I can get through to an FRC spokesperson who can clarify the FRC's position on these matters. So, provisionally for now, I'm assuming that the FRC doesn't advocate that "controversies" over the Holocaust death toll or about Geocentrism, how the Sun really revolves around the Earth, should be taught in public schools or included in science curriculum. I'm going to apply some common sense reasoning here in th form of a "fringe theory" dictum that controversies which get included in science curriculum must at the very least be held by substantial minorities of Americans. I'll pick an arbitrary cutoff : 10%. If fewer than 10% of Americans hold a view, then the controversy is too "fringe" to merit inclusion in school curriculum OK, now that I've got that one cleared up, we can proceed : If simply asked whether they believe in God or not, 90% of Americans will answer that they do believe in God. But, when asked if they're sure God exists or not, only 58% say they're sure. So, it would seem to me that a logical extension of Charmaine Yoest's ( and maybe the FRC's ) position would be that any science curriculum chapter addressing the controversy over "Intelligent Design" should also include a subsection entitled "Does God Exist ? : Weighing the Evidence".
Bigfoot is real So, based on Charmaine Yoest's reasoning, it would seem appropriate to include treatment of the controversy over those beliefs in public school science curriculum, and there's no question whatsoever that the curriculum should address the controversy on whether ESP is real or not - a hefty 60% of Americans believe in Extra Sensory Perception (according to a 2002 National Science Foundation poll). Case closed. But, there's one controversial area that merits, without a doubt, inclusion in the Nation's science curriculum for the fact that a higher fraction of Americans believe in the idea than the percentage of Americans who believe God does, without a doubt, exist: About 84% of Americans now believe there has been a conspiracy, by the US government and the Bush Administration, to either hide foreknowledge of the impending September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks or actively lie about the the US government role in those attacks.
For example, students in high school physics classes could translate the physics involved in the crash of a large commercial passenger jet head on into the Pentagon into both kinetic energy equations and into more challenging considerations involving applied materials science : where did the plane wings go ? Did they vaporize on impact ? Could the jet engines on the plane wings possibly have vaporized too ? What about the size of the entrance hole ? Indeed, relegating such a pervasive national belief system merely to the realm of science and physics classes could be deemed inadequate; why not interject 9-11 conspiracy theory into other classes too ? Psychology classes could weigh the testimony of witnesses who thought they saw a missile or a small plane hit the Pentagon, in light of research on the reliability of crime scene witnesses and the known ability of human memory to change in response to suggestion. And, English or literature classes could feature sections entitled "Folk narrative of the Twin Tower's collapse" and so on. The possibilities are endless. Moreover, since millions of Americans, probably tens of millions even, believe in some form of apocalyptic Christian dispensationalism ( enough, apparently, to justify a national lobby to bring on the apocalypse ) maybe the "Left Behind" books of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins should provide inspiration for science classes too. After all, the series has sold probably close to 70 million copies and has even inspired a video game- so why should we exclude apocalyptic end-times beliefs from public schools ? Themes from these books could easily be integrated into fairly simple lessons on physics and biology : x hundred million soldiers, horsemen and horses suddenly blown to bloody bits by the word of Jesus Christ, at the battle of Armageddon = an ocean of blood and gore y wide, y2 long and y3 deep. Or, what sort of heat would be necessary to melt the eyes of unbelievers right out of their heads ? Could it be done with microwaves or x-rays ? Why, or why not ?
As I've mentioned, the good staffers at the FRC's Washington offices knocked off early today, in acknowledgment of Good Friday, and I wouldn't presume to bother Dr. Yoest on a holiday, so these fascinating pedagogical possibilities will have to wait, at least, until next Monday for clarification. Stay tuned.
FRC Wants 'Controversy' Over Holocaust, Bigfoot, UFO's, and Elvis Taught in Schools ? | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 hidden)
FRC Wants 'Controversy' Over Holocaust, Bigfoot, UFO's, and Elvis Taught in Schools ? | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 hidden)
|
||||||||||||
|