Bill Allows Teachers to Contradict Evolution 1049
Helical writes "In an attempt to defy the newly approved state science standards, Florida Senator Rhonda Storms has proposed a bill that would allow teachers to contradict the teaching of evolution. Her bill states that 'Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.' The bill's main focus is on protecting teachers who want to adopt alternative teaching plans from sanction, and to allow teachers the freedom to teach whatever they wish, even if it is in opposition to current standards."
Sounds fine to me (Score:5, Insightful)
BAD idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Teachers need to stick to a standardized curriculum, and if they disagree with evolution, they should simply SAY so when teaching it - teachers could say "This is NOT what I think happened, but there are a lot of people that DO think this way".
Teach the information, NOT beliefs - I want the state OUT of my bedroom, and separate from religion!
political evolution (Score:2, Insightful)
Weep for our republic, fear for our children... (Score:1, Insightful)
Is the next step going to be that if I hold a strong religious and ethical belief about the speed limit, I'm not bound by it?
"...let us wear upon our sleeves the crepe of mourning for a civilization that had the promise of joy..."
I love it (Score:2, Insightful)
retarded (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't thinking of the students if they teach fairy tales. Any teacher outside of a Sunday school teaching mysticism should have their teaching papers revoked.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there some religion or another that insists on reality? So that I can claim religious persecution by these fundies?
science? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:science teachers != scientists (Score:2, Insightful)
Under Who's Watch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Without a concrete definition of whose "science" you are using, any teacher could find some half-baked textbook that proclaims to be scientific and tell the School Administrators they're teaching true "scientific" information.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Students already face an uphill battle in getting over unscientific hunches formed in childhood. Evolution, in its fullness, is a rejection of those hunches. This bill clouds the issue by allowing teachers to present a curriculum that plays to those hunches in order to serve as religious indoctrination. Think about some of the main "tenets" of ID: the notion that complexity cannot occur from iterated evaluations of simple rules--they claim things like the eye are "too complex" to have been formed via "random" mutation. This SOUNDS reasonable, until you realize that it is just a play on our intuition. It isn't true in the slightest. The same with the claim that animals or humans were elegantly designed. While there is what some scientists would call elegance in plenty of biological forms, their implementation shows signs of prior adaptations. It takes a lot of careful study to learn exactly how and why our endocrine system or our vascular system is imperfectly adapted let alone begin to think about how pregnancy is an imperfect adaptation. This is why ID is primed for the 8-12 crowd. Those critical thinking skill are just solidifying. There isn't a large movement to teach ID in colleges because the material would be rejected at greater rates.
This is religious nonsense packages as science. Nothing more.
Re:Contradict a Theory? (Score:2, Insightful)
Modern primates, including humans, evolved from a common ancestor. That tired line "Why are there still monkeys?!" is just fucking retarded. Of course you're free to present any actual evidence supporting your position...
Why limit the freedom to science? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why stop at the subject matter? If teachers think children learn best by playing outside all day long and having no homework, well aren't the teachers the ones who are supposed to know how beast to teach? That is their life long profession isn't it? Its not like we let the teachers dictate what the current state of scientific knowledge is... oh.. wait.. that is what this bill is about isn't it?
Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they're not standards anymore. That's why we have standards, so you can be guaranteed a certain level of uniformity and quality. If you don't have to follow standards then they become suggestions.
I'd like to see these people eat a big pile of USDA Grade A beef - but with flexible standards that the stores are allowed to define as to what "USDA Grade A" actually means. Would you eat it? Hell no.
Let's see how well it protects... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or does the bill only protect the "freedom" to teach material on certain selected sides of certain selected controversies?
what would spaghetti monster do? (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet that goes over real well.
Re:BAD idea. (Score:4, Insightful)
Evolution is how science explains observations, and until someone come along with a different theory with falsifiable tests and makes prediction, evolution best explains the observations.
That's it. Very simple. It's not about religion, it's not about thinking this is some sort of 'anti-belief' movement. Most people who ACTUALLY study the bible and it's history agree. The creation myths in the bible are parables. Pretty good ones, I must say.
Doonsbury had the right idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Patient: Of course, not! Why do you ask?
Doctor: You see, I have this flu shot here. If you believe in evolution, you will accept that the flu bug is constantly changing and evolving, thus your immune system will not recognize it and you'll come down with the flu. With this shot, your immune system will be up to date on the latest strain.
Patient: And if I don't believe in evolution?
Doctor: You've already had the flu once, therefore you'll never catch it again.
Patient: But that's not...that's not...true?
Doctor: As a liberal and scientist, I would never want to force another person to accept my own views and beliefs, even if they happen to be manifestly correct.
Or to put it another way:
adventurer #1: I do not believe there is a bear in that cave.
[mauling, violence, blood]
adventurer #2: So you say. But your disbelief seems not to have dissuaded the bear.
Re:Under Who's Watch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:5, Insightful)
ID is not science. It's watered-down Creationism, a legalistic attempt to sneak past the First Amendment. Read the Dover transcripts to find out just how much science there is to ID.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the kind of wedge the Creationists try to use to get their religious viewpoint into the scientific curriculum and why it was modded down. I'm only going to say this once, very loudly, so you're sure not to miss it.
THERE ARE NOT TWO SIDES TO EVOLUTION. THERE IS NO NEED TO ATTEMPT TO CLAIM THAT SOMEONE'S RELIGIOUS VIEWPOINT NEEDS TO BE PLACED AGAINST SOLID, VERIFIABLE SCIENTIFIC FACTS. RELIGION DOES NOT BELONG IN THE SCHOOLS. THAT IS WHAT CHURCH/TEMPLE/MOSQUE/WHATEVER IS FOR.
Are we clear?
Oh, and as to kids being given the facts and allowed to make their own conclusions, then I'm presuming that teaching kids all about the birds and bees and how not to get pregnant through the use of condoms should be placed up against abstinence only curriculum, right?
First Amendment? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BAD idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:2, Insightful)
I feel that I ought to warn you, the avenue of attack taken against this particular assertion is to claim that the peer review system is deeply flawed and just as dogmatic as any religion, in that 'controversial' ideas are always rejected.
I recall that Ben Stein's got some kind of movie coming out arguing along those lines.
O'course, trying to explain to these people that this is how science is supposed to *work*--that you're supposed to substantiate your controversial ideas before you put 'em out there--tends to cause 'em to ignore that argument and fall back on the "controversy" schtick.
ONOZ (Score:1, Insightful)
Wow. What would John Scopes think about this? When he was told by law he could not teach something, he replied:
This proposed law is precisely what Scopes WANTED. And now y'all are condemning it.
The pro-evolution forces used to be in favor of academic freedom. No longer.
Re:Under Who's Watch? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a human foot print is found next to a fossilized dinosaur bone, would that not prove that Evolution is wrong?
Right, now come up with an example for intelligent design. You can't, no matter what you observe you can explain it by saying God designed it that way.
The thing is, you either BELIEVE that God created everything or you BELIEVE that evolution is the reason we are here or you BELIEVE something else. There is no way to truly scientifically prove how things began. Both intelligent design and evolution are religions.
As the great prophet Groucho Marx once said, "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Evolution is confirmed by masses of predictions that have turned out to be true (i.e. evidence), intelligent design has none.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:3, Insightful)
No, there's not. "ID" boils down to "irreducible complexity," right? Okay, then: devise an experiment capable of proving or disproving whether the complexity is, in fact, actually irreducible or not.
Can't do it, can you? Guess what: that's because it's not possible to devise such an experiment. And because of that, the whole thing is not scientific!
In case you don't understand, let me explain again a slightly different way: the "good science" you cite talks about how there's a "gap" between the complexity observed in non-biological processes and the complexity of living organisms. That gap is due to the fact* that no evidence has been found for the existence of "pseudo-biological" (my term) processes that would fill it. So far, so good. But here's where "ID" goes off track: it assumes that, because no evidence has been found, that no evidence could ever be found. In other words, it presumes that it is impossible for such evidence to exist. This is not scientific! As they say on The Boondocks, "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." You can't scientifically prove that something can't exist merely by noting that it hasn't been proven that it does exist; you can't prove a negative.
But hey, it's not so bad (from your perspective): by exactly the same reasoning, science can never disprove the existence of a deity (or anything else "supernatural," for that matter). After all, supernatural stuff exists outside of science by definition, in exactly the same way "ID" does. Not only that, but for all we know, you religious folks might even be right! It just can't be proven, either way.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
The religious factions has gotten too much power over the education. End result will be that the children will grow up not knowing what makes the light work, how the picture in the TV gets there and assuming that just because the teacher said man was created from the image of God that's the only truth.
But I assume that it's too much to expect from a country that hasn't gone metric yet.
If they are scientific theories... (Score:2, Insightful)
The article has a quote:
Re:Science != Teleology (Score:3, Insightful)
Falsification not always a criterion for science (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to rain on your parade, but while ID in general does fail the test of falsifiability, your assertion that you can objectively determine if a theory is scientific by determining if it is falsifiable isn't in line with the ideas of many modern philosophers of science. It's mainly Karl Popper's idea, who rejected inductive reasoning (which is a hallmark of scientific thinking).
I'm no philosopher, so I might be doing a poor job of explaining this, but it might be worth to take a look at the Wikipedia article on falsification. [wikipedia.org]
Re:Under Who's Watch? (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear America (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks,
The Rest of the World (specifically those of us teaching our children proper scientific theory)
Re:Theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Evolution predicts we will find transitional forms in the fossil record. Fortunately, over the last four or five decades we have found a way to compliment that line of evidence; and that's the molecular record. Go look up the twin-nested hierarchy and then get back to us.
And common sense may actually be the absolute worst way to determine truth. Common sense is nothing more than a euphemism for cultural prejudices, and science centuries ago started ignoring it as a means of determining how the world works.
Think first, complain second (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't. And it doesn't have to, either. Why? Because complaints would be generated about any teacher trying to teach "ID" on the grounds that it wouldn't be protected by that "affirmative right" (since it's not scientific), and those complaints would work their way up the school administrative hierarchy to the school board (and probably beyond it, to the courts).
In other words, even if you can't challenge the teacher on the basis of whether he has a right to teach a "full range" of scientific information, you can still challenge him on the basis of whether the information he's teaching is actually within that range.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
The way the discussion is being framed is a big part of the problem - that it's an either/or situation. I've seen quotes from a number of scientists that see no conflict between faith and science; they all boil down to how you choose to define them. The sad fact is that religious zealots tend not to be persuadable.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BAD idea. (Score:0, Insightful)
That's a very good, simple and accurate point. Science class = Science taught. The real problem is that a) there's a difference between "preaching" religion and "teaching" religion and b) a sever lack of any mandatory religious courses.
It's my personnel belief that High Schools (in America) could very well use a religion course that *teaches* young adults about religion. This includes all major forms of religion (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Atheism, etc) and their beliefs. This would be the appropriate time for a teacher to teach about Intelligent Design.
What the real problem is is that the fundamental Atheists has successfully used scare tactics and FUD to get parents to believe that *teaching* about religion is the same as *preaching* religion and it's time people wake up to this tactic. Schools are places where people go to learn and not teaching them about religion is a major failing on the party of society given that EVERY society has been formed on some sort of set or sub-set of a religious code.
Because of this, these kids are walking out into the "real world" and end up being taught all about Jews, Muslims, and Christians from the likes of the BBC, CNN, and Fox. See what's wrong yet?
Re:Yes, you are (Score:3, Insightful)
One of my problems with the Science vs Biblical-Literalism debate is posts like this: anyone who is misguided is immediately suspected of being some crazy fundamentalist loon and the enemy of reason.
You can't start a productive debate by suggesting that your opponent is inherently stupid/ignorant/bigotted.
If you respond in an informed scientific way, anyone open to hearing a rational argument will respond well to you. If, on the other hand, you respond in a way that suggest science isn't for religious people, you actively encourage them to reject scientific thinking.
This polarises the debate -- meaning that it drives moderates to become extremists.
You may think you are promoting science, but you are actually promoting the rejection of science.
With friends like you, does science need enemies.
HAL.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:2, Insightful)
Evolution is a scientific theory, as such it is not perfect. Every theory, even the ones that gain 'scientific law' standing will likely have holes in them. Science is not an end all answer to everything. Its a method to prove and further our current understanding.
ID may or may not be ultimately correct, but that doesn't make it science. Its difficult to prove or disprove, you can wrap it in layers of reasoning but the basic problem is still there, even if a bit obscured. Since it cannot currently be proven or falsified, or even shown to be falsifiable, why should it get any time in science class? Philosophy or religion classes maybe, but not science class.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't really look like they had completely secular principles in mind when deciding to defect and form their own country to me.
Re:BAD idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, no. Speaking on behalf of all fundamentalist atheists everywhere, we have no problem with teaching about religion. Personally, I don't see how it would be possible to even have a significant understanding of most of Western literature (e.g., Shakespeare) without some understanding of the Bible.
The real problem is that the fundamentalist Christians don't want students learning about religion. They want teachers to be able to witness to students about Jesus. They're not interested in an intellectual discussion or about exposure to different ideas.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Just make sure kids don't think for themselves (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, doesn't it seem like there's a contradiction in there?
You'd have to do some serious mental gymnastics to convince yourself that the U.S. was founded on secular principles (or maybe not - they do tend to gloss over our religious heritage in public school these days).
You should have patience with "religious zealots". See, we evolved this way. We were born with the "God gene" [wikipedia.org] so we can't help what we believe. It's a scientific theory, so I'm sure you don't doubt it.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Better not to, really. Teachers, particularly science teachers, are usually educated, rational thinkers. They're far more likely to support the teaching of evolution in schools compared to the parent of the average child (keeping in mind here that uneducated parents, and religious whackos generally, typically have more children than educated ones). So if that information was widely available, you'd have far more idiot parents looking for similarly idiotic teachers than the other way around.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Doonsbury had the right idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:2, Insightful)
What you describe is not science but experiment. And as I seriously doubt that it would be possible for any intelligent species to conduct any experiment that last over a 1000 years (unless individuals of said species live for significantly long lifespans to reduce the number of interim generations to a manageable number). This is not a possible experiment.
However we've done multiple experiments with worms, fruit flies and bacteria (aka. lesser species) that not only display evolution, but show speciation (cite: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html [talkorigins.org]). So evolution is a fact, unless you contend that humans are not governed by the biological rules affecting all other known lifeforms. The only scientific argument left involves the process of speciation, primarily the theoretical aspects.
Science is not experiment. Science is the process we use to understand how the universe works (why is left to the theologians). Science is looking at observable phenomenon, and then making our best guess as to how it happened, then looking at more phenomena, running some experiments implied by our guess and seeing if we're wrong. We can never truly know if we are right, just that we are not wrong. (weird, huh?)
Anyway, I admire your faith. Just not your reasoning.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not correct, for several reasons.
First, there is a difference between proven and provable. "Provable" means that, given sufficient data (which could exist, but is not required to), the theory could be proven if the data were applied to it. "Proven" means that the theory in question is not only provable but also that the required data actually does exist, has been found, and has been applied to the theory. To be scientific, a thing has to be provable but not necessarily proven.
Second, extrapolation is a valid and integral part of science. Otherwise, the scientific method makes no sense: what's the point of forming a hypothesis when the rules of cause and effect don't apply? Or in other words, scientists don't have to prove each and every link in the evolutionary chain from microbes to humans to prove that evolution is a viable concept; they only have to prove any single link (or perhaps, few links) to do that. Then they can extrapolate the rest.
Third, evolution has been proven on the limited basis I just described. Speciation has been observed among bacterial populations in labs, DNA testing works (and could only do so if evolutionary theory were correct), etc.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
In case you're confused:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Considering the deist nature of many of the founders, it's fairly obvious that they were referring to a more naturistic god then that referred to in whatever scripture you might choose. I find this overall to be a rather secular statement. In case you are confused secular means "of or relating to the worldly or temporal" not necessarily "no god." The statements in the Declaration towards the Laws of Nature and Nature's God are in fact very worldly.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
You can express doubt about the theory of evolution without saying anything unfactual. You can point to "gaps" (granted, you might want to read up on recent discoveries as some of those gaps close). You can mention how rare beneficial mutations are. You can point out the assumptions made in dating fossils and in the creation of "the fossil record". If you present all the relevant facts and let the students think for themselves, I don't see how this is a problem. The way some people freak out about this, you'd think evolution was a religion.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Under Who's Watch? (Score:5, Insightful)
Biogenesis itself is a historical event and thus hard to treat scientifically. Even if you could recreate life in a test tube, that's not proof that it happened that way. So you're right, biogenesis will always be somewhat a matter of faith.
Which isn't to say we don't have plausible explanations for it, it's just not possible to directly confirm them by experiment. Our understanding of statistical mechanics makes it clear that an evolution like process could act on large populations of random polymers to favor those who self replicate.
So to conclude, you can either choose to believe that biogenesis occurred through natural processes well modeled by statistical mechanics, or that an invisible sky wizard wished us all into existence. There's no real way to prove which happened, but the reasonable choice is clear.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:4, Insightful)
If you present all the relevant facts and let the students think for themselves, I don't see how this is a problem.
If this was actually done ("all" the evidence), then no one would have the slightest doubt about evolution, anymore than someone looking at the Earth from space would still question a flat earth. The problem is that most people don't want to look at the all the facts, because reality would conflict with their world view. Therefore, they ignore the facts.
The way some people freak out about this, you'd think evolution was a religion.
People "freak out" because it's the forces of ignorance attacking the forces of truth.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:3, Insightful)
The teacher could ask "is evolution fact?" and then say "prove it". It's not really the answer you come up with in this case, but if you applied the scientific method to get there. If you can teach the students to think, they will come up with the correct conclusion on their own.
I'm not saying we should be teaching ID, or religion in any shape or form. This bill simply allows teachers to question the validity of evolution and challenge the students to think about it rather than memorize data. Isn't that a good thing?
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, I think the comparison is very apt. We can observe a lot of effects from gravity and evolution, but the EXACT causes and manner in which it happens, remain somewhat of a mystery. There is no large scientific conspiracy trying to hide the truth. There is, at most, a handful of scientists trying to make a name for themselves by suggesting alternatives. But that's true of pretty much anything. No, you're not going to find some creditable biology lab or university that says "Oh, it's definitely wrong."
These people are trying to make a debate out of what should not be one. The vast, vasr majority of scientists, the only people really QUALIFIED to look at the data and analyze it are in a great consensus. If you want to say they are wrong, and you don't need science to prove it... Then I really don't want you deciding what goes on a class specifically ABOUT science.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Under Who's Watch? (Score:4, Insightful)
There will come, from the east, a leader who shall upend the order of things and bring about a great change on the world's stage. This leader shall be a purveyor of lies but will lead his faithful to true power and his enemies the world over shall plot his death. This leader will die with the sky in his eyes and God shall smite his seeds from the Earth near his passing.
Now, let's come back in 100 years. I promise you I would, were I alive, be able to finagle this into some real world historical event. In 500 years, without a doubt. Really, prophecies are only there for stupid people.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Be careful what you ask for. I think this is a great idea. First we teach students about problem solving, deduction, and, yes, scientific method. Then we give them two examples theories, and ask them which one is scientific.
1) A theory that...
a) was deduced using the available evidence at the time.
b) makes predictions that almost always turn out to be true.
c) on the occasion that the predictions are not 100% correct, refinements are made (unless the theory can not be refined to include the new evidence - in which case it is thrown out).
d) We go back to step b) and continue to make predictions and test the theory
or
2) A theory that...
a) uses a construct to handle unanswered questions in an earlier theory
b) this construct can never be used to make predictions
c) this construct can never be proven or disproven
furthermore...
I don't expect teacher's to teach the Aboriginal ideas of creation.
Why not? One religion's ideas of creation isn't any worse then anyone else's. The only reason ID doesn't seem as crazy as the Aboriginal ideas of creation is because ID stands on the evidence of evolution.
This is a story that gets repeated time and time again throughout history. Facts are taken in. (Stars are up in the sky). We don't have a scientific explanation for it, yet, so we turn to the supernatural. (The stars are the Gods - or put there by God). Eventually we learn, and we have more facts, and we realize, "hey, it wasn't God, after all". But as our knowledge isn't limitless, there's always going to be some things we don't know. It seems to be human nature to try to fill in our knowledge gaps with supernatural explanations, but it's never turned out to be correct in the past.
I generally agree with your statement that we shouldn't tie teacher's hands. We should allow them to teach things that aren't necessarily going to be on the curriculum. However, because of the separation of church and state, religion in a public school is a special circumstance. Any curriculum that teaches religion as truth, or even a possible truth is a bad idea. And make mistake about it, ID is most definitely teaching religion as a possible truth.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
This law eliminates causes for termination, more than anything, because it does not actually grant any rights the teacher (or anyone else) already has.
And as for removing it as a cause for dismissal, that won't protect them from charges of civil rights violation.
Frankly, if someone tried to teach my daughter that ID was "fact" and evolution was "theory", I'd have them hauled in front of a Congressional Hearing for violation of my and my family's civil rights as fast as I could push the system.
What am I teaching her? Well, ID is illogical religious fanaticism - the kind that ultimately got witches burned at the stake, and that Evolution is a theory that far surpasses any current alternative explanation in logical plausibility. Since she and my wife are Eclectic Pagans, I think this is an argument that will stick.
Does that mean she isn't allowed to learn about other religions? Of course not; that's stifling her education. She's already learned quite a lot about all the major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam,
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
When did science become religion? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Abolish public education (Score:4, Insightful)
Class disparity is already a huge problem in the United States. What you are proposing would increase it even more so and result in millions of children being denied even an elementary education. You see no problem with that?
We already have private schools for children of parents who can afford them and want to segregate their children from the rest of the population for whatever reason. Proposing to abolish public education because of an issue like this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Simply fix the issue. Proposing that we bulldoze the entire building because a few windows are broken is simply ignorant.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
So which "naturistic god" did the founding fathers believe to have lived 1786 years before the ratification of the Constitution?
Your conclusions from your cited passage do not make any sense. The simple occurrence of the word "Nature" is not a pass to read any naturalistic philosophy you deem fit into the statement.
The most obvious influence for the wording in the passage you quote is the philosophizing of John Locke, which is most profoundly depicted in the last sentence with a modification of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." The "Laws of Nature" would more frequently be referred to as "Natural Law"--the basic prohibitions against murder, theft, etc., which are believed to exist even when man is in the "state of nature" without any government to say what's okay and what isn't. "Nature's God" reinforcing the divine supremacy of such laws and fits in just as well with either the deistic or Christian beliefs. The deist argues against divine intervention after the instance of creation--but both deist and Christian equally agree on the primal nature of God's laws.
There is no coded espousal of deism. And, to be honest, there is no coded espousal of any other religious view either. The architects of the Declaration and the Constitution were either Christian or raised Christian, surrounded by Christians, in the one case writing a document seceding from a nigh-universally Christian nation, in the other writing a document to govern a nigh-universally Christian nation, and in both cases, considering a larger audience of Christian nations who would be reading the document and key in supporting the new government.
I certainly hope you don't honestly mean to suggest that the Declaration of Independence was written with a mind to capitalize on King George's/England's deist sensibilities, or to rally the American's behind their common deist theologies, because I cannot begin to imagine that in the midsts of fighting a war for their own survival that these men found subtle theological pedantry to be on the list of major priorities.
It should be bloody obvious that God is mentioned as a factor of commonality. In attempting to arbitrate with a country that shares such beliefs, and trying to unite a group of independent and frequently disjoint colonies, those kinds of commonalities are nothing to be balked at.
The language does not constitute an endorsement. It constitutes and assumption.
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Under Who's Watch? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dinosaurs didn't appear until about 230 million years ago. Mammals were about 200 million years ago. Reptiles didn't show up until about 300 million years ago. So yeah, a 500 million year old mammal skull would be damned interesting since we haven't found any land plants for them to eat (assuming this is a land mammal). The Precambrian is even farther back. 542 million years ago according to Wikipedia.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not to say they weren't religious people, or that religiously influenced morals didn't inform their decisions. Both may be true, but have nothing to do with the degree to which the specific system they set forth was secular. I would argue that it is was in fact highly and intentionally so, from the very beginning.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Why don't you just prove that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, like the Bible says? That way, you can falsify "macro evolution" as an explanation for life without having to make an artificial distinction between different types of evolution.
Let us see the extraordinary evidence for the "young Earth" theory before we start arguing about "micro evolution". If you can prove that Earth isn't billions of years old using solid science, evidence and facts, no scientist will be able to argue with you. Science isn't a religion, it is a mechanism for learning things, and good scientists will not stick to their beliefs if those beliefs are proved wrong.
However, your evidence will have to be amazing, because it will have to override all of the other evidence that points to an old Earth. But since the Earth really is less than 10,000 years old, producing the evidence shouldn't present any difficulty, right? Ask your "creation scientists" why they can't prove even this one simple aspect of their "theory". No doubt a conspiracy of some kind is involved.
Careful there (Score:3, Insightful)
Likewise, you say that there is not conflict between science and religion. That is positively false. It is the fact that so many idiots in evangelicals are trying to not just ignore science, but are trying to shut it down. They are CHOOSING to stop progress by preventing America from studying the basis of our world, and will just accept words from ppl like huckabee or W. That truly is scary, and bodes badly for us.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:0, Insightful)
It's interesting you say that since the exact same wording could be applied to the opposite side of the argument for people who don't believe in evolution and think that those who do aren't reviewing "all" the evidence correctly or at all. Something similar to this is already done, hopefully, in all schools, that being that text books can only be so up-to-date and for schools that have little to no funding the books could be very old and teachers have to supplement (or correct) what is stated in the books with their own knowledge as they keep up with their own research, etc. (e.g. Pluto is no longer a planet). The fact that in this case the teachers are allowed to supplement the information with *competing* information isn't any different and it's sad to see it takes a bill/law for this to even happen. If stating competing facts and theories is already happening in other subjects (and I don't know if it is but it should be if not) then I don't see why a bill is required to allow the same thing to be done for this specific topic of evolution other than for those who have an agenda and push evolution no matter what the competing facts and theories state.
If evolution is so 100% spot on then evolutionists shouldn't have anything to worry about as far as the potential loss of students who could help them fight for their cause because the students will be able to see for themselves that the competing facts/theories don't support observation and thus will go back to evolution on their own. Isn't that what teaching is supposed to be about? Teach kids the facts and let them come up with their own conclusions. If we purposely leave out facts because of our own agendas and biasses then we are doing a disservice to the students. This pertains to ANY subject not just evolution.
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
first, we have to define terms. micro-evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. macro-evolution has *not* been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
If only creationists *would* define terms. Most creationists use "Macroevolution" to mean any evolution for which we can't provide direct living or fossil evidence. In any case, Macro evolution is just accumulated micro-evolutionary steps [talkorigins.org].
*if* you had the irrefutable evidence, you'd present it. you don't, so you, well, don't. you just proclaim it truth and fact as though that makes it so... such arrogance.
I suggest reading this site [talkorigins.org]. But you know you won't. Because your conclusion is already preordained. You have too much of your entire life invested in believing in supernaturalism.
there is some evidence for, there is some evidence against... we really don't know. that's the truth that should be taught in school.
Ah, the final weapon of the creationists. If they can find any question, now matter how small, that doesn't have a rock-solid answer, then they loudly proclaim that "HA! YOU SEE?? YOU SEE?? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE!!" Any open questions means that every theory is equally valid. It's akin to saying, "Since the Earth's horizon makes it look like a flat disk, therefore, the flat Earth theory is just as valid as the round Earth theory."
Well, every theory ISN'T equally valid. First of all, there is ZERO -- ZERO -- evidence against evolution. ZERO. There are certainly open questions about how certain things may have evolved, but that means there is a neutral question, not that it's "evidence against" evolution. So you have a Mount Everest of evidence for evolution, a large number of open questions (just the diversity of life and genetics means we're going to have a lot of open questions), zero evidence against evolution, and absolutely ZERO evidence that supports creationism. And, just to top it off, we have an entire planet-sized volume of evidence against the Earth being only 10,000 years old.
THAT is the carved-on-stone-tablet (if you'll pardon the expression) truth. If there really is a God (there isn't, but let's say), he must be constantly slapping his hand against his forehead screaming, "The bible is full of allegory, you idiots! What, do you think I could've explained physics to the damn barbarians?? Will you people use the brains I gave you, already?? It's a SOCIAL book, not a freaking science book!!"
Re:Careful there (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This happens everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an unwinnable proposition. Teaching and grading students on theories that contradict their (or their parents') religious believes is itself a form of religious education.
Bullshit. Accepting that requires teachers to pander to whatever religion the parents have, which is an establishment of religion. The best thing to do is have the parents teach the kids how to deal with the difference.
Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy (shouldn't we be teaching kids oral sex and same-sex experimentation if that's the only goal of sex ad)?
That's a religious argument - it's only being pushed by religious lobbies, and is actually less effective than condoms and the pill.
Democracy is the best form of government for every society
Then why don't we have one? Someone needs to go back to civics class.
All races and both genders are EXACTLY the same in all aspects and will be equally good at EVERY job in EXACTLY equal percentage of the corresponding population.
They are the same before the law, and you'd have trouble finding legitimate racial diffs in jobs, although some physical work is done better by men. Doesn't mean you get to tell a woman no for that construction job - you have to have a reason other than her breasts.
We don't need all our children brainwashed by the government into one single way of thinking, be it religious, political or scientific.
Says the person apparently defending the challenge to evolution going on in our schools. You preach about not indoctrinating the young while pushing an agenda of indoctrination. Nice.
Re:Sounds fine to me (Score:3, Insightful)
The Foraminifera continuous complete fossil record.
Case closed. Evolution wins, denialists are merely ill informed, and they simply and incorrectly assume that the vast body of science backing up evolution doesn't exist.
as it kills off the previous species.
GAH! Your highschool science teacher should be SHOT for letting you graduate with with a complete lack of understanding of the subject. If you want to learn how evolution evolution creates new species and how it does not "kill off the previous species", look up Ring Species. Ring Species make it a blatantly obvious fact that evolution can and does produce speciation, and how you wind up with two "child" species were all members of the "parent species" simply died of old age.
-