Reply #150: one person's "propaganda" is another person's "truth"...

[Robert Cooper]

"Science is not propaganda."

Science is antagonistic to some religious beliefs, and thus is "propaganda" from the point of view of those who hold those beliefs.

"That is not to say, of course, that science has never been used for propaganda, nor that science has never been influenced by culture and mores. It would be salutary for some history of science to be taught along with the method, as a caution and one would hope prophylactic."

I agree, but I don't think that will resolve the issue being debated here.

"But the scientific method and the conclusions derived from its' observations are not intended to support a political doctrine or "belief" system."

I disagree. Science can only put forward natural explanations, and cannot accept supernatural explanations. I don't think anyone would disagree that this is how science is "intended" to work.

That is a "belief system" and disagrees with most religions on the causes of such things as "miracles".

"Teaching science is not "indoctrination into belief in power" it is teaching of a method and the observations derived from that method."

I'm not sure where you got that quote from. I don't recognize it as mine. But "teaching" involves more than just providing information. It also tests students to see if they absorbed the material and are fluent enough to use it. Students who provide religious "truths" in answer to questions are going to fail those questions. They will be told, in effect, that their religious "truths" are "wrong" by state employees acting in their official capacities.

How is that not an attack on the student's religious beliefs?