Intro.Common Core and next generation science standards has used federal/socialism methods to take over American education. This gives us an inferior educational structure and it has also been used to inculcate towards a left leaning social policy. This paper will prove that these policies push a religious opinion in cosmology which is unconstitutional according to how alternative explanations have been treated. This undermines the whole system in U.S. Schools.
I. Religion even in Science Curriculum is banned from the public schools.http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html from the memorandom of Judge William R. Overton
""The religious movement known as Fundamentalism began in nineteenth century America as part of evangelical Protestantism's response to social changes, new religious thought and Darwinism. Fundamentalists viewed these developments as attacks on the Bible and as responsible for a decline in traditional values."
"a) "Creation-science" means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds."
"Both the concepts and wording of Section 4(a) convey an inescapable religiosity. Section 4(a)(1) describes "sudden creation of the universe, energy and life from nothing." Every theologian who testified, including defense witnesses, expressed the opinion that the statement referred to a supernatural creation which was performed by God."
Does not the big bang theory imply creationism the same way?
"If we live in a universe full of stuff, how did it get here? And many people think that very question implies the need for a creator. But what's truly been amazing, and what the book's about is the revolutionary developments in both cosmology and particle physics over the past 30 or 40 years that have not only changed completely the way we think about the universe but made it clear that there's a plausible case for understanding precisely how a universe full of stuff, like the universe we live in, could result literally from nothing by natural processes."http://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing Lawrence Krauss
Here the famous atheist physicist admits that the big bang theory is something that came from nothing. Also if we examine closely we will see that Lawrence admits that his atheistic view of the big bang is "truly...amazing" "to many". Krauss' language is weak when he only contends that his view is "plausible".
When we see judge overton's words that the idea of something from nothing does "convey inescapable religiosity" it seems obvious that the big bang theory is religious in origin.
In fact the big bang theory was developed by a religious clergyman/jesuit priest!
"Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed (independently of Russian physicist Alexander Friedman) the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg"."
" For the question cannot be suppressed: Why does the universe exist rather than nothing? In light of the universe's origin ex nihilo, one can no longer dismiss this question with a shrug and a slogan, "The universe is just there and that's all." For the universe is not "just there;" rather it came into being. The beginning of the universe discloses that the universe is not, as Hume thought, a necessarily existing being but is contingent in its existence. Philosophers analyzing the concept of necessary existence agree that the essential properties of any necessarily existing entity include its being eternal, uncaused, incorruptible, and indestructible14--for otherwise it would be capable of non-existence, which is self-contradictory. Thus, if the universe began to exist, its lacks at least one of the essential properties of necessary existence-eternality. Therefore, the reason for its existence cannot be immanent, but must in some mysterious way be ultra-mundane, or transcendent. Otherwise, one must say that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing, which seems absurd. Sir Arthur Eddington, contemplating the beginning of the universe, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it--except myself."15 He finally felt forced to conclude, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."16
I find that most scientists do not reflect philosophically upon the metaphysical implications of their theories. But, in the words of one astrophysical team, "The problem of the origin [of the universe] involves a certain metaphysical aspect which may be either appealing or revolting."17
and as a result should not be taught in public schools.
We see this played out in a subtil way when the courts banned Intelligent Design, a system of thought which adhere's to the big bang theory
" After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. …It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. (page 64) [for "contrived dualism", see false dilemma.]"
"Next Generation Science Standards" teaches the big bang theory as part of the common core curriculum.
" All material in the universe was created in a huge "explosion," creating and defining matter and space."
The big bang theory is the intellectual foundation for the evolutionary theory.
II Big bang cosmology is intellectually dead
a. red shift is hazy
b. galaxies contradict expansion
c. Stars formation is unexplained and contradicts gas laws.
d. disproportionate antimatter
e. axis of evil
f. farthest stars are clear
"You don’t see a universe that is blurred. If you take any Hubble Space Telescope Deep Field image you see sharp images, which is enough to tell us that the light has not been distorted or perturbed by fluctuations in space-time from the source to the observer. (Robert Roy Britt, Space.com, April 2, 2003 interviewing Roberto Ragazzoni concerning the article “The Lack of Observational Evidence for the Quantum Structure of Space time at Planck Scales,” The Astrophysical Journal, April 10, 2003, co-authored by Massimo Turatto and Wolfgang Gaessler).
G. lack proof evidence for dark matter and dark energy
III. 3 Pillars of New Years Cosmology
a. universe is more magnetic than gravity based
b. universe is spinning around our planet
c. the universe has undergone a catastrophe which even affects the earth.
We know what is at stake if we do not destroy this system.....