Anti-Evolution "Academic Freedom" Bill Passed In Louisiana 898
Ars Technica is running a story about recently enacted legislation in Louisiana which will allow school board officials to "approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories" such as evolution and global warming. The full text of the Act (PDF) is also available. Quoting:
"The text of the [Louisiana Science Education Act] suggests that it's intended to foster critical thinking, calling on the state Board of Education to 'assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.' Unfortunately, it's remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects 'including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.'"
And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
No steps forward and two steps back.
I suspect the paragraph about not being religious at all in the law will prove its downfall at SCOTUS.
A rhetorical question... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if they'll allow teachers of history and government classes to use laws like this as exercises in critical thought? (Or lack thereof...)
saying it is so (Score:5, Insightful)
doesn't make it so...
To all you anti-evolutionists and everybody else that would like to ignore the facts: Life is like game of cards, and if you want your children to play with only half a deck the rest of the world will eventually eat you for lunch, no matter what you've got in military power.
Progress is based on facts, not on faith. If you don't believe that, then next time you go to hospital think where you'd be going *without* science but just your faith: the graveyard.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:5, Insightful)
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
Re:Topical is not selective. (Score:1, Insightful)
The only reason evolution is topical is because religious types have put it in the spotlight to further their agenda.
Critical thinking requires scientific facts (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Go ahead, teach critical thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
It's effective because the parroting will fool people unable to differentiate the qualitative differences.
Re:A rhetorical question... (Score:5, Insightful)
How to build an arc for the next Katrina.
Re:Anti-Evolution in other countries? (Score:2, Insightful)
We always hear about ID and anti-evolution schemes in the USA.
Can readers in other parts of the world reflect on ID-like movements in their own countries?
How evolution-denial movements fare in Europe for example?
As evolution is considerably more widely accepted around the world [pandasthumb.org] than it is in your little pit of idiocy, such movements tend to be less significant.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it is correct to call ID a philosophical construct or to teach it in a philosophy class. I think it would be more correct to call it a political machination and teach it in a class on modern US politics.
Re:Topical is not selective. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fuck them then... (Score:3, Insightful)
keeping them ignorant and miserable is their way of keeping control over them.
Truth will set you free, they don't want you to be free.
In an open and informed discussion... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it is correct to call ID a philosophical construct or to teach it in a philosophy class. I think it would be more correct to call it a political machination and teach it in a class on modern US politics.
It's also interesting sociologically and psychologically, in that it represents of what happens when an irresistible force of scientific evidence meets the immovable object of faith.
Re:saying it is so (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:saying it is so (Score:5, Insightful)
unfortunately religious bullshit is reaching far beyond dirt farmers and the pollution of science with faith is impacting other areas, such as pharmacists who are fighting for the right to withhold medicine from patients if they personally dislike it e.g. contraception.
if it spreads much further we might see things like police officers being able to refuse to investigate crimes against people they consider sinners. (on the other hand if it gets much worse America will collapse so hard people will realise why the 1st amendment was such a good idea in the first place.)
The main reason behind this (Score:2, Insightful)
Is making common people illiterate enough to be easier to control. This has ever been the purpose of organized religion but in the communications age they had go a step further and attack science directly because science and easy worldwide communications make the most powerful weapon ever existed against religion and other bullshit (think about Scientology, politicians, lies about wars, audiophiles, etc.).
Re:saying it is so (Score:3, Insightful)
What difference does it make to a dirt farmer if he's descended from monkeys? It's just going to make him that much more depressed, and make it that much more difficult for him to get up in the morning to tend his crops.
Well a dirt poor arable farmer who doesn't believe in the malleability of species will stay a dirt poor farmer, however one who does believe in the malleability of species can selectively breed for better crops / livestock and become a dirt poor farmer with a rosette from the county show ;)
More generally it is a waste the resources of a country not to educate the minds available to their greatest potential, every country fails at this but currently the US seems to be actively aiming for universal idiocy.
Not all the great discoveries of the last century were made by individuals who came from educated middle-class families, however today in the US or indeed most of Europe the middle-class is shrinking and education is becoming scarcer.
Why only science? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not include legislation specifically allowing "critical thinking" about the holocaust, or "critical thinking" about democracy in history and social studies classes? Some good neo-Nazi and communist materials should be appropriate. And in health classes we can take time to teach about crystal healing.
I'm surprised they didn't suggest other topics in science that need some "critical thinking", such as the spheroidal Earth theory, the theory of gravity, and atomic theory.
This section of the proposed act is funny:
"D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
We don't have a religious motivation behind this, really!!
I'm sorry, but the thought that certain subjects in science (with a set of enumerated examples) need special attention from legislators in order to receive what they deem to be an appropriate level of "critical thinking" is very obviously motivated by politics and religion. I mean, why else would they be doing this? I'd be willing to bet that the current science curriculum already emphasizes the importance of building critical thinking into the understanding of science.
What this legislation is really about is providing a convenient legal pathway for pseudoscientific materials of any type to find their way into the classroom. And won't it be a nice surprise if, say, the Flat Earth Society is ready and willing to provide a glossy brochure, or textbooks for each and every student that they can take home if they like, in order to help out?
This is the same nonsense as Dover, Pennsylvania [wikipedia.org] all over again, with legislation behind it and a more thorough attempt to launder the effort of its actual intentions.
Here's a critical thought: maybe it isn't the best thing to allow a bunch of politicians to decide which subjects supposedly need a dose of "critical thinking" above and beyond what will already be in there as a matter of course.
Re:In an open and informed discussion... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:saying it is so (Score:5, Insightful)
All I'm saying is, if Louisiana wants to screw itself, let them. What difference does it make to a dirt farmer if he's decended from monkeys? It's just going to make him that much more depressed, and make it that much more difficult for him to get up in the morning to tend his crops. LET PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM. It's ok if someone doesn't want to know everything. Just because you do, and see the logic, does not mean other people do.
You selfish bastard. Aren't you glad your parents and grandparents didn't feel like you do, now? Aren't you glad they didn't throw their hands up in the air when faced with utter idiocy, and instead decided that it was a cause worth fighting for?
The main point is that Science isn't about what you believe, it's about what you can (or cannot) PROVE. Teaching students otherwise is to deny them a basic grasp of what science is all about, and since Science is the cornerstone of modern civilization, you are denying them a proper place within society. Might as well beat them with sticks and call that "mathematics". The end result is an erosion of society, since society is nothing more than the effect of its population.
While poor folks tend to have poor parents, there are many, many, many exceptions to that rule. For example, Bill Clinton was born to a poor single mother, yet because of his high-quality education, he managed to become one of the top leaders in the world. His example is by no means unique, there are many, many others.
Turn your back on any of them, and you turn your back on ALL of them, since the more idiots in this world, the more idiots the learned have to combat in order to get anything done. At a certain threshold, nothing gets done and society collapses.
This is NOT ok, it is NOT acceptable, and it's NOT "them Louisianans". For example, even as a proud Californian, I still owe a significant amount of my life heritage to Alabama since I spent much of my childhood there. Louisiana and Alabama have many of the same problems being in the "bible belt" - point being, that PEOPLE MOVE.
Apathy? Thank you, NO. This is a big deal, it should be struck down due to separation of Church and State, and even them Louisiana students should be given a chance at understanding REAL SCIENCE.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not very good philosophy, though. In fact, it's really bad philosophy, but you need to know the mistakes of the past to avoid the same mistakes in the future. Which is why it is taught in the classroom. (I say this as someone who spent four years studying philosophy--mostly philosophy of religion--and earned his bachelor's in the subject.)
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical case of religion interfering with rational thought. Scientist: "here's the facts, what conclusion can we draw from them?". Christian: "here's the conclusions, what facts can we find to support them?"
If the evidence instead contradicts your hypothesis, then either your evidence is flawed, your interpretation of the evidence is flawed, or your interpretation of the Bible is flawed.
You missed one - or the Bible is flawed. It's amazing that if you tell someone that the world's biggest desert is Antarctica, they might be sceptical and look it up, but if you tell someone some guy was born of a virgin, resurrected someone who was dead long enough to stink, fed 5000 people with a bit of bread and a fish, and made 300 pigs jump off a cliff, backed up by dubious morality like Lot leaving his daughter out to be raped and murdered and having drunken incest just to protect the angel Gabriel (who you would've thought could look after himself), killing gay people (that thing that occurs naturally as a result of pre-natal hormone irregularity), and handing the same fate to people who eat shellfish (mmm, mussels in garlic sauce. yum) they take it in a snap. Of course it happened! I know this, because I was indoctrinated with this bullshit when I was young and I haven't become mature enough to be openminded and consider if it's wrong!
"Creation Science" is a contradiction in terms, but if you are going to consider it, look up "creation myths" in wikipedia, because there's a few hundred other hypotheses which deserve equal attention before you go for the one that YOU were taught as a child. Hawaiians believe that the first animal on the planet was an octopus which is part of an alien race, and all life came from that. You need to put that on the same level as your Jesus hypothesis.
How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat? Let alone the 40000 species of frog. Those two would take the lifetimes of thousands of people, and we haven't even worked out a way to stop the lions eating the gazelles.
To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness. Rather than try to work out what happened, you leave it to scientists, then twist their words to try to fit their hard-found evidence into your convenient cop-out for performing actual rational thought.
This is where humans came from: http://www.bio-pro.de/imperia/md/images/grafiken/wanderung_homo_sapiens.png [bio-pro.de]
The time you talk of the great flood happening is roughly when humans first domesticated the dog and the sumarians learned to brew beer.
If the whole Bible was translated into wikipedia, someone would break the "citation needed" machine.
Re:saying it is so (Score:5, Insightful)
Uneducated people are weapons for dictators and extremists. The best defence we have against the rise of Hitlers, the British National Party, and all the others, is a well-educated population that can think for itself. Mass ignorance opens a population up to easy manipulation and there always seems to be someone ready to make use of them for personal gain. Believe me, you don't want scientific, historical and political ignorance in the US to become any more widespread than it actually is.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can't imagine how selective use of facts can bias a conclusion, then you're just not very creative. Facts may stand on their own, but if you start with a conclusion and then try to support it with facts, you will find facts to support it. It is far better to form a hypothesis and try to falsify it, as in the scientific method. If all you look for are the supporting facts, then you're never going to find the contradictory ones.
Of course, you make the same mistake in your post. You say we should assume the bible is false and then look for facts that derive from it. That's not what the parent said, and it's rather dishonest of you to spin it that way. The parent said that we assume the bible is true and then look for contradictory evidence. As it turns out, there's plenty to be had.
If, as you say, we assume the bible is false and it proves nothing, then there's nothing it's disproven, either, which means that there's no supporting evidence. So, by your own argument, the bible is a failed hypothesis.
Finally, I'd like to point out that your phrasing, "science was true" is meaningless. Science is not something that can be true or false. It is a methodology, a way of thinking, if you will. Either it works or it does not. You can label individual ideas that came from the scientific method as true or false, but the methodology is neither.
Mind you, I'm being liberal with my use of language. I find it scary when people use big words like charlatan and modus ponens without knowing what they mean. Here's a hint: a charlatan would be someone who pretends to be familiar with logic by using jargon like "modus ponens" because he pretends to have a skill he does not have. Someone who defends science is not a charlatan simply because he has used bad logic.
No one is allowed to Question theory? (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally walk down the middle of the isle, I would like to see teachings on both sides without the hatred from either. I don't understand what the big deal is when someone questions theories or religions. Both should be equally taught and both should be equally questioned. I feel we as a people would tend to learn more and hate less if that were the case. Religion is a necessary part of any culture as is science and learning. Whether you accept it or not religion does play a big part in keeping civilizations civil in most cases. I could cite a few that seem to have the opposite effect but for the most part it's true. I say let the religious keep their religion and teach its history along side other subjects such as civics, math, science, language and whatever other courses are deemed necessary to promote higher learning. It shouldn't be a battle, it's only knowledge.
Re:saying it is so (Score:1, Insightful)
The fact that people should believe whatever they want does not negate the responsibility of teaching students current scientific ideas -- if we want them to learn anything about science. Let people believe creationism? Yeah, of course.
They don't have to believe any aspect of the scientific interpretation. In fact, I would say it isn't even the job of teachers or school to try to make students believe the scientific interpretation. Students only have to understand what the current scientific ideas are. Their personal beliefs on the issue aren't the job of the school system.
The problem stems from the observation that some religious people don't want their children to be exposed to these ideas at all, even if they don't have to believe them. To which I say: tough. You don't have to believe the Earth is spheroidal either, but it would be foolish to teach a modern geography class without including the idea.
Likewise for evolution in biology class.
Perhaps I can interest you in my new book. (Score:5, Insightful)
You can show me gravity, but can you show me how it works? Is gravity a wave, particle or just a spacetime curvature. Show me your evidence of how gravity works and you'll have won me over! Where is your evidence for the scientifically explainable gravity? Can you scoop up some 'gravitons' for me? All you can do is predict how gravity functions most of the time.
The truth is, gravity is a function of the Jesus. Plain and simple, by declaring it a function of a higher power, we simply reduce the equations to "X==Y becuase the Jesus says so." The reason you can predict most of gravity is because the Jesus is pretty good at math and predictable of his application of Intelligent Falling. He sometimes screws up on larger scales though, explaining a few anomalies. Problem solved.
I plan to be book to Louisiana by the truck load.
I call foul on "Anti-Evolution" headline (Score:3, Insightful)
We have in this headline yet another obnoxiously-worded headline that appears to serve no purpose other than inciting verbal riot.
There is nothing remotely "anti-evolution" in the text of the law. Go read it and see for yourself (it's only a single page).
I call foul on this headline. I'm so tired of people shouting about how terrible all "those people" are, and I'm especially tired of people putting things in the worst possible light all the time.
Reading these kinds of slashdot articles is like listening to talk radio.
This decision is unwise. It promotes DEATH! (Score:1, Insightful)
Ever watch a Christian and a Wiccan argue religion? The Witch, tries to free the Christian's mind by trying to explain symbology, and other thoughts and materials outside of the bible, while the Christian, can't free his mind because, he'll, "burn in hell" if he allows himself to read or listen to the blasphemy.
So what ends up happening?
Logic get's tossed out, and the argument goes on forever.
While the Pagan want's only to remain in balance with nature, the Christian will elevate the matter to the point of violence.
This is like a giant fucking monkey-wrench into schools.
Christianity has killed more people than any other religion on earth.
Re:Topical is not selective. (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem here is that what you call critical thinking is not what most religious nuts call critical thinking.
Critical thinking means that you don't believe something without evidence.
To these people, however, it means that you can criticize things that don't agree with what you want to say.
Teaching critical thinking has nothing to do with this bill. It's critical, alright, but it's missing the thinking bit.
Re:religion and evolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Very very small mountains. More like molehills, compared to what we should have been able to find by now. What we have been unable to find is far more telling than what we have found.
What have we been unable to find then?
Radio-carbon dating is less accurate than using a random-number generator. It relies on far too many assumptions. There are other dating methods that are more likely to be close to the truth, although none of them have a particularly good track record.
What's wrong with isochron dating? It only assumes that the isotope ratios in a rock don't change unless the rock melts. FWIW carbon dating is for archaeologists, not paleontologists.
I can show you gravity in action, to your face, on video, and to crowds. Evolutionary theory is based on guesses and unproven scientific methods (such as radio dating), and fossil "evidence", which is circumstantial at best.
Gravity is both a fact and a theory. The fact is clear to everyone, and the theory is fundamentally unresolved. You may think you understand the theory of gravity, but you do not.
And all historical sciences are based on circumstantial evidence, since we have no witnesses.
Evolution is more than science for many people - including scientists. It's becomes a religious belief, and those who hold it defend it emotionally - they are as closed-minded as those on the other side of the fence. Critical discussion about and examination of all things should be encouraged.
No. Both sides do not always have valid points- sometimes you're wrong. Stupid is stupid. It isn't "religious" just to call out stupidity when you see it.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:1, Insightful)
I have allways found that story quite funny.
You see, even if you ignore the fact that to a person of 2000 years ago the "whole world" was normally just his own place and a few places nearby, a "global flood" would be impossible : where would, in the case of a global rising of the water, all that water have come from and than gone to ?
And if you regard that water as have been coming from a (very big) tsunami it would have been destructive, and allso *very* temporary, definityly not eneabeling nor forcing Noah to float around for days.
In short : If Noah actually floated around for days ontop of such a flood it must have been quite localized, not at all global. This realisation in turn would mean that there probably where scores of people not at all influenced by that flood as they lived many miles from the flood, or even at the other side of the world.
In that regard Noah's story as to be, with his family, the sole survivors of mankind looks to be, although entertaining, a very odd one.
To conclude : anyone basing a theory upon such a story is automatically suspect to me.
And what of 'religious freedom' (Score:5, Insightful)
Can I teach anything as fact based on any religion? Not just 'Christianity'.
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Kind of sad when you got to take kids OUT of public education to avoid nutcases. In my world, you got nutcase ideas (like religion) you should pay extra to have them taught at school.
Again, evolution must be taught as a theory, just as global warming, just as relativity.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:2, Insightful)
And that's why I didn't dispute it. It's just that a rigorous argument on the role of philosphy in science would go beyond the scope of this forum, whilst not providing any data relevant to the debate on evolution. Yes, it's possible that the earth was created 6000 years ago, with light from the distant stars already in transit to us to confuse us into thinking that those stars are older than they are. It's also possible that I'm a squid, and I'm typing this using my tentacles into a futuristic laptop that hacked into a government satellite to gain net access. Care to prove that wrong? You can't, but science says it's pretty damn unlikely. Science makes a few assumptions, but a philosophical argument about those assumptions belong in philosophy lessons (along with criticsm of the Bible, which I don't see being legislated into classrooms), not science lessons.
Re:Intelligently designed intellectual property (Score:3, Insightful)
I think L. Ron Hubbard would dis agree with you. He made an okay business out of selling his religion.
What sort of bullshit are you spreading? You can not be smart and productive in science and have a belief in God?
Sigh... it's folks with such limited thinking to believe bullshit like that which is sinking this country.
From the pulpit an ordained minister: (Score:2, Insightful)
Biblical scholars have recently deciphered the most ancient text written by man. Turns out it was a list of most fuckable animals Adam wrote before God got around to creating Eve.
If you're a normal rational thinking person, you should think that's damn funny. If you're an IDer, that'll probably just piss you off. But it should get you thinking. If the Bible is LITERALLY true in its creation account, then just what did Adam do before Eve? And what happened to the people God created BEFORE Adam? You know, the ones he created male and female.
Just because science doesn't agree 100% with what's written in the Bible doesn't make it wrong. The Biblical creation account is clearly a composite of several very ancient creation myths and legends from a time before anyone had any idea how things really happened. Science has given us a much better idea how all of everything came about, and sane people will find that much more reasonable than clinging to ancient myths and legends. As an ordained minister, who's studied this thing pretty deeply, I have to tell you that there is plenty that cannot be taken literally, and must be read allegorically. Intelligent Design is not science, it's not even reasonably rational, and has no business in any school, even Sunday School at church. Science can't answer whether God did or did not do anything, it can only describe things as they appear to be right now, and suggest how it got to be that way without violating current rules of reality. Science doesn't have all the answers, and probably never will, but religion doesn't have all the answers either, otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them, or so many different sects within the largest religions.
This law is clearly retarded, and obviously violates the separation of Church and State principle, since it introduces sectarian opinion sponsored by the state.
And, by the way, surprisingly, dolphins were at the top of Adam's list.
Re:I'm not so sure your thesis is correct (Score:4, Insightful)
I am neither wealthy nor influential, nor do I think that is the American Dream. Being able to own a home and provide for one's family through hard work and self reliance without interference from an oppresive Government is the American Dream. Unfortunately many are confused and think it is what you seem to think it is. Equally unfortunate is that the dream IS being threatened by an increasingly insular and incestuous Government. Like I said...it's the Government that's broken, not the dream.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because religion = critical thinking (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This decision is unwise. It promotes DEATH! (Score:1, Insightful)
> Christianity has killed more people than any other religion on earth.
With the possible exception of capitalism. Nobody has yet survived the onslaught of those who worship the almighty Dollar.
Re:saying it is so (Score:4, Insightful)
"So, maybe having a poor class with no education that believes in creationism is the way to go? And if they want to sacrifice their public education dollars in that way, let them. I won't be one of them, but if they want to, god help them."
The only problem with your reasoning is the possibility that they may outnumber you or outpower you or even outgun you. That is, most certainly, not a nice place to be.
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Science and religion != mutually exclusive (Score:2, Insightful)
The thing that annoys me about this debate is that the existence, or even correctness, of either point of view does not make the other point of view wrong.
For an example, let's use a car analogy. You push down the accelerator, and the car goes faster. You made the car go faster. You are God.
When you pressed down the accelerator, you pulled a cable, or caused an electrical signal to be sent, which opened the throttle on the engine and caused the engine to do more work. The extra work was translated into more revolutions per second of the drive shaft, which goes through the gearbox and differential to cause the wheels to spin faster, thus propelling the car along faster. This is the mechanism by which the car is caused to go faster. This is science.
Now, apply the same idea to the creation of the world, and the evolution of life. God creates the mechanisms by which creation and evolution occur, then the mechanisms perform the task in hand. Neither works without the other, the same way that the car doesn't go anywhere until you press the accelerator.
Note: I don't believe in God. I'm completely agnostic. I believe in science above all else. However, I like to think I'm intelligent enough not to write off someone else's opinions just because they conflict with my own, especially when the two are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, the loudest people who are opposed to the cooperation between science and religion tend to be the ones with the lower IQs.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:3, Insightful)
From your very own link:
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
That sure looks to me like the men of Sodom (all of them, too!) came to rape the angels at Lot's house, and Lot offered up both his virgin daughter for the mob to "do what [they] like with". Thats seems pretty much consistant with the GP's interpretation, I must say, despite a few minor errors (angel's name, one daughter not too, etc).
Moreover it's your assertion that the GP point that it's absurd to think 2 of every species fit on a boat because the bible says it was >=2 of every kind of animal/bird fit on a boat? Despite the fact that 2 or 7 of every kind of animal on a boat is still outrageous, you are basing that point on a modern definition of the words "kind" and "species", and ignoring the fact that the bible has been translated/edited so many times it's impossible to know exactly what the meaning was. The gp's point was that the bible has some very irrational things in it, and all you did was nitpick minor errors that had nothing to do with that point.
Freedom is Slavery (Score:2, Insightful)
Louisiana full of illiterates - double digit percentages - people who cannot even read or write. They're already free to be among the stupidest people in the world. Why not make them free to learn lies alongside the truth, so they can be not just ignorant, but really really wrong?
After all, god loves stupid. God made more stupid than everything else combined. Louisianans are just following their role model.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:2, Insightful)
For those interested, Pandas and "cdesign proponentsists" [wikipedia.org]
You do realize, by the way, that GP included several examples of falsifiable events that Creationism would seek to test, thus meeting one of the oft-cited criteria for something meriting the label of science. If you want to attack GP though, go for the three-part dichotomy (trichotomy?) made from the start about the Bible being the source of the hypotheses and what to do if the evidence contradicts these hypotheses. It's a rubric I could conceivably consider as a Christian, but if one has not made that leap to believing the Bible is true, why in the world would that be taught in a public school of all places, where that assumption clearly is neither proven nor accepted?
Re:And here slashdotters goes again (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare the State think that school boards should have any input on their schools curriculum? Its not the communities decision what their children should be learning.
If it ain't right by slashdot, then by god it shouldn't be taught!
No - I think that teaching science should be left to those who have expertise in science. TFA claims that such people oppose this bill. The whole reason we are getting into this mess is because schools are being forced to pander to what "the community" thinks should be taught.
Of course if the school board does their job right, this bill won't have any effect, but it paves the way for that possibility.
Seriously now, what's with all the hate at even the idea of a creator?
Okay, I'll bite: what hate?
But it also seems clear to me that believing that we are the result of neo-darwinism takes a leap of faith as great as believing in any "made up" Religion.
No, it doesn't. On the one hand we have something supported by vast amounts of evidence. On the other hand, stories that people can make up. Just because we can't prove anything with 100% certainty doesn't mean that all claims are equally plausible!
what's wrong with teaching children to discuss and god forbid, question popular *and* unpopular ideas. Isn't the real goal that children learn to think for themselves and make up their own minds?
Nothing as long as it's based on evidence, and god discussion is done in the appropriate class (i.e., philosophy or religious education, not science). There is no reason to pick out evolution specifically as needing "questioning", anymore than say General Relativity.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I knew it was seven, but it wasn't really the time and place to bring up little-known facts about the bible. Fine. 7 just makes it even less plausible.
Lot "leaving his daughter out to be raped" as "morality" (got a source for either? didn't think so) or trying to save the "angel Gabriel" (got a source for that? didn't think so).
Genesis 19:8: "19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." etc..etc.. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html [skepticsan...dbible.com] You would've thought that a prophet charged with punishing the nasty gay people for their sins would set a better example than trading his daughters as collateral for his imaginary sky friend.
Only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read.
Except that bit where I was forced to read it by a load of fundie teachers and do a GCSE exam on the subject, before joining a bible reading group.
if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?
Splitting hairs over the specific number of animals that boarded the ark is hardly a reasonable argument. If you're going to defend the story, supposed to be making the whole thing sound plausible, not say "haha, you didn't quote it verbatim".
Re:And here slashdotters goes again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok...what is wrong with this one???
_IF_ONLY_ (Score:3, Insightful)
Are topics like intelligent design and global warming, or for that matter astrology and palm reading, good topics to teach critical thinking? Of course. Topics like astrology and creationism have appeared in various editions of Fogelin's Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. The problems are two-fold:
1. With local school board control, there is little incentive to teach children informal logic. Informal logic needs topics to dissect. Sure as hell, if the course shreds astrology, some child will have an astrologer parent who threatens to sue the school board. So why take the chance of teaching children to think critically about any social topic?
2. Obviously, the intention is not to introduce the opportunity to dissect intelligent design or global warming. The teacher who values his paycheck will know which way the wind blows. (See #1 above).
And that's democracy in the most vulgar sense. Teach them what the lowest common denominator demands they be taught.
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Real science isn't about belief. When scientists try to advocate for teaching any theory (yes, even gravity) as a belief system, they get sucked into a debate that is not winnable -- exactly what the creationists want.
The justification for teaching evolution or any science is that it works, not that it is True. Evolution doesn't have to explain everything; it just has to follow scientific methods and explain more than another scientific theory. We'll still have to deal with people who claim creationism or intelligent design is science, but so far we've done ok when that is the debate.
The morality or ethical worth of scientific "facts" has to be dealt with in a different framework -- one where religion is quite relevant. And we should be advocating for schools to teach religious studies -- somewhere other than in science class.
Maybe if we could at least get people to understand that science and religion deal with different phenomena, we could make some progress.
Yes, I know that eventually science confronts some of the same cosmic questions, but it does so in a completely different approach, one that cannot and should not seek Truth.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh... you are comparing "Zero is a number" etc to "God exists"... axioms in Math and Science are "small". How does God exist? What are the scope of his powers? What is the density, length and colour of his beard? Does he have noodly appendages? Probably the most "controversial" axioms in Math (in the sense that they may not be self evident) are:
1. The parallel postulate (f a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.)
2. The axiom of choice (Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S.)
In both cases, both axioms have been assumed both true and false to create their own sets of theorems (E.g. Euclidean geometry, which everyone knows (well..) vs. Non-euclidean geometry which is used in relativity etc... these differ on wether or not the parallel postulate is accepted)
Calling God an axiom is a losing argument.
Re:And what of 'religious freedom' (Score:3, Insightful)
This sounds like a religious studies course to me. Please don't try to pass this stuff of as scientific discussion.
Re:A rhetorical question... (Score:2, Insightful)
How to build an arc for the next Katrina.
not sure what good part of a circle will do, how about an 'ark'.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometime just before the Cambrian explosion, a mass extinction event occurred, leaving the existing life forms a) stressed, and b) in ecological niches they didn't previously occupy.
The opportunities for genetic diversification were endless!
The life forms that survived the previous extinction were able (through reduced competition) to diversify in a manner that would previously have been impossible through lack of fitness, and mutations that would previously have faded out became common.
Where's the complexity in that?
Life just is (once it happens), and environment and self-replication takes care of the rest.
Sorry, no place for your Flying Spaghetti Monster here, please move along.
My take on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Believe what you want to believe, but don't ignore the existence of testable, empirical evidence. You can wax lyrical all day long about "holes" or some such in evolutionary theory, but how nonporous is your "theory?"
Alternate theories are fine, as long as they are scientific. But until you shore up some cold hard evidence marking evolution incorrect, don't deny it as the most correct theory at present.
What this school board is doing is akin to saying the theory of the earth being flat deserves as much attention and recognition as that of the earth being spheroidal. This is underhanded, misleading, and just plain wrong.
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, evolution does not contradict creationism. It only contradicts some people's interpretation of creationism. Creationism only states that God created everything. It does not in any way describe how God created anything. It does not rule out expected incremental and not so incremental changing. It does not rule out some things being created after others. It does not rule out species changing over time.
These people who fight evolution are truly ignorant. They are actually insulting their own God. As they claim God must have created everything at one step, they are also inherently claiming God could not/would not have created a dynamic system that modified itself over time to present/overcome different challenges as time went on.
If you believe in God, give God credit. Evolution sounds exactly like something God would have put in play. Read the Bible more closely. One of the consistent things in the Bible is God changing things to present new challenges to mankind. Beyond that, if God did not want evolution, then why the heck did God put genes in everyone as the basis for pro-creative continuation?? It is hard to believe that God based the transmission of life on genes unless God had the express concept of evolution in mind in the first place.
Remember, God knows everything. He set this ball in motion, God knows how his work *works* and where it will go. Evolution might throw a wrench in a simpleton's concept of creation (we are all simpletons compared to an omniscient God), but that only goes to prove how little we understand the world we live in.
InnerWeb
Re:And here slashdotters goes again (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't the real goal that children learn to think for themselves and make up their own minds?
Yeah, we should teach children to discuss and question popular ideas like the world orbits the sun. After all, surveys show a significant minority believes the sun orbits the earth! We shouldn't deny alternatives to the heliocentric model. We should study and debate them! Common sense observations contradict the tyrannical model imposed by "scientists". Let's open an honest debate on the matter. After all, it takes a great leap of faith to believe in the heliocentric model. Yet we have allowed this atheistic, naturalistic model to be accepted as "correct" and any other answer is "incorrect".
Further, by what right do the schools say "2 + 2 = 5" is "wrong"? Children should be able to explore alternatives to the popular theories of "math". It's religious discrimination as some believe that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!
"many people believe in" (Score:2, Insightful)
"many people believe in" the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I sure do. I know that there are millions of people around the world who do as well. I can't prove that, but I have faith.
Surely there must be some thick, hardcover, and most importantly, expensive textbooks which the Louisiana school board could be required to buy telling their students all about the obvious truth of the Spaghedeity.
Re:And here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)
You blur the lines, making them think "they're both just theories, there's no more evidence in favor of one than the other", when really there's a whole lot of difference between what the scientific community considers a theory, and the much broader meanings the word has in common usage.
Personally, I can totally accept that people want to educate their kids and provide them with more material to develop their critical thinking by presenting religious views in a religious studies class. In fact, I believe children should be given a solid background with regards to all major religions to foster tolerance. But this just does NOT belong in a science class.
How can we once and for all get these people to understand the meaning of a scientific theory??
Next thing we'll hear is that because we teach imaginary numbers in math class, we can teach imaginary science in science class.
Bahahaha.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps a class "How to deal with the willfully ignorant" that analyzes the various religions of the world and teaches the students to not bother with logic or rationality when dealing with an adult who believes in imaginary friends and life after death in the absence of any evidence.
Religion 'confronts' nothing. It's the produce of semi-savage cultures. Hell, the ancient Hebrews were a bunch of genocidal wackos who destroyed whole city states...men and boy children, saving the women for themselves...by order of their 'god'. That's the basis of most of Western Religion. Coarse, ignorant, cowardly and hateful. We must be teaching our children how to deal with the kinds of semi-evolved who willfully believe such schlock.
Oh, and great troll :D
I believe in the FSM, and they won't silence me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be funny if FSM devotes pooled their cash to finance a lawsuit agains LA schools requiring the inclusion of the FSM in their text book?
I wonder how much it would cost. Some cracker judge down there would probably throw it out, because FSMism isn a 'religion'. Funny how they get to pick and choose....
Re:This sums it up.. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not exactly true. Scientists are just as prone to prop up pet projects and theories as anybody else. Especially when the scientists' funding is on the line.
You can argue that the scientific method seeks to disprove hypotheses, but the scientific method doesn't actually do anything. Science is not a force of nature. It's subject to the whims of humans.
Re:And here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
evolution must be taught as a theory
And electricity, and Newtonian physics, and atomic-model chemistry, etc.
Re:Weren't schools were supposed to do that alread (Score:2, Insightful)
And there is absolutely nothing scientific about the "intelligent design" theory.
Attitudes like this stifle scientific inquiry. When "the debate is over" on global warming, or against Intelligent Design, or String Theory, then what was science becomes religion.
To my mind, a belief that is unwilling to stand up at any time to challenge is probably in some way fatally flawed.
Critical thinking is *GOOD*! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with that. But since *critical* thinking is to be encouraged, then the thoughts that must be encouraged are those that question the usually established "truths" in the child's community.
In the case of Louisiana, and other southern USA states, this means questioning religion, not science. In the case of the USA as a whole, this would also include questioning the idea that global warming might not exist or might not be caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
Critical thinking questioning science should only be encouraged in the scientific community itself, because that seems to be the only community where the scientific method is implicitly assumed to be correct. If the child has no idea of what the words "scientific theory" mean, to present arguments questioning any scientific theory will NOT cause any development of the child's critical thinking.
Re:And here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)
So if evolution was created by god, who created god then?
Also, if you're intelligent/educated enough to accept the utility of scientific rigour, on what reasonable basis (other than having being brain-washed in youth, or other cultural reasons) can one then just assume a god must exist?*
Anyway, I guess some people have a weird need to believe in fairy-stories.
* Its not reasonable to base it on apparent complexity in the universe, if one also has a philosophy of trying to adjudge truth scientifically..
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of those happened a long time ago. You can't hold that against the people who are in charge today. I'm sure everyone on /. has at least a dozen murderers among their ancestors, but I don't see you complaining about that.
A long time ago, like...less than 50 years? I'm sure I've got murderers in my ancestry but not within 50 years. Don't be obtuse.
Re:Bahahaha.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Those are exactly the words I would use to describe such people as Mother Theresa of Calcutta, or the Dali Lama. Our Children must be protected against their hate for injustice, inequity, malnutrition, and disease.
Re:And here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, though, LACK of government wasn't the problem. There was plenty of aid from private organizations and citizens that was just piling up while FEMA turned them away. It's troublesome that whenever something goes wrong people immediately jump to the conclusion that we need more government intervention, especially in this case where government bureaucracy so blatantly impeded ready and available aid from reaching the city.
Re:And here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)
On Experts... (Score:5, Insightful)
"No - I think that teaching science should be left to those who have expertise in science.
True, but are you saying that non-experts can't object? You laugh and make flat-earth jokes, but it used to be accepted science in the early 19th century that some races were superior to others. In the early 20th century, eugenics became standard fare in science circles, backed by all learned men, not just scientists. Scientists said eugenics was solid scientific truth, and so people from Woodrow Wilson to Margaret Sanger endorsed the theories in practice. Eugenics did't fall out of favor until people objected to it on moral grounds.
Humans are not machines... we do not (and truly, can not) judge all things on pure logic. There are other things we value. That's not an excuse to ignore scientific proof, but realize that, from past experience, even scientists have re-evaluated their ideas and found them wanting, even if they had good data behind them. Eugenics is an excellent example of this. Maybe we could build a super-pure, almost perfect race through breeding programs and forced sterilization of the "unfit". But we'd abandon our humanity in the process. Not all scientific issues should be settled on purely logical grounds. Not if you want to keep any semblance of free will.
Scientists and their allies don't want to hear this, but when it comes to the spread of knowledge, they have the same responsiblity as religious clergy do: they have to win hearts and minds. Simply declaring from the mountaintop "The data says this, and you will adjust your policies accordingly" is kind of a stupid thing to do with human beings, especially humans in free societies. Simply being told that they have to do something often provokes rebellion for rebellion's sake, even if, upon further reflection, they might have agreed with the scientist in the first place. If you're going to have a career in science, and you're committed to spreading that knowledge to everyone, then you're going to have to take on that missionary role. If you tell people "science says so, this is the policy, this is what will be taught"... well, your opponents are only going to dig in harder.
Part of the problem that modern scientists have is that they're so far apart from the rest of the population (in the US, anyway) on their world views. Most Americans are religious, and a huge chunk of them are deeply so. Mocking those people isn't going to help your case. When you try to convince them of a position, first tell them the truth... that you only deal in what can be proven and tested. That means that you tell the existence of God can't be proven via scientific evidence, not "there is no God, you peons". Frankly, you can't prove that either. Second, respect their beliefs, even if you don't agree. You're the minority here, by far, and so taking an authoritarian tone is only going to make things worse.
Not really (Score:3, Insightful)
"All theses right wing religious people try to play off that the word 'theory' means the same thing as a 'guess'. Thats simply not the case"
That's not it at all. They're not saying that a theory is a "guess". They're classifying a theory as less than fact, because that's how the word is defined in high school science classes, remember?
In high school, it's taught that scientific knowledge has stages:
1- Hypothesis - You formulate an idea on a problem and how to address it.
2- Theory - You actually put that hypothesis to the test by trying it via the scientific method.
3- Fact - the result if your idea was right, and the testing of the theory proved it.
However, professional scientists define theory differently. They define a valid theory as a reproduceble result of the best available data, and a working solution to a problem. "Theory" is as final a stage as it gets for them, because new data often changes the "facts".
I've heard several scientists in the media complain that we should change the way we teach the word "theory" in high school because of this issue. Because of the way it's taught, it really has two different, and somewhat conflicting meanings.
Science does search for the truth (Score:3, Insightful)
The morality or ethical worth of scientific "facts" has to be dealt with in a different framework
How does a scientific fact have a morality or an ethical worth? They are facts. For something to have a morality it implies that it is an optional action. The only reason we have morals and ethics is to guide our actions. It cannot be unethical for the moon to orbit the Earth because the laws of physics require it.
Yes, I know that eventually science confronts some of the same cosmic questions, but it does so in a completely different approach, one that cannot and should not seek Truth.
As a scientist I complete disagree with this. The whole aim of science is to find the truth of how the Universe works. While your arguments about models earlier is correct the aim is to develop these models until they match what the Universe does. We are not there yet, and may never get there, but that is most certainly the goal.
The difference between science and religion is that they seek different aspects of the truth. Science asks 'how' and religion asks 'why'. The problem we are facing in recent times is that religious extremists are attempting to answer the 'how' question and they are completely unequipped to do so in a sensible fashion.
Re:Bahahaha.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps a class "How to deal with the willfully ignorant" that analyzes the various religions of the world and teaches the students to not bother with logic or rationality when dealing with an adult who believes in imaginary friends and life after death in the absence of any evidence.
I think people like you are the reason we need to teach "critical thinking."
You are basically saying we should tell children "Evolution is right and anyone who says otherwise is an absolute idiot and you shouldn't even try to reason with them. Moreover, you should never ever listen to them. They're just that stupid."
If evolution is spot on, then critical thinking should only foster the belief. Anyone who's fully thought through a subject and argued with it's critics will KNOW the truth, they won't just "believe."
I'm no scientist, but if you want to teach children like that, you're asking them to have faith. You're saying "don't worry, we're right. Just believe, if you don't you're stupid." In teaching anything else, a good teacher will say "X is true and this is why." They won't say "X is true and if you don't think so then you deserve to be put to sleep."
Again, I'm no scientist, but I do believe that we should teach on science, rather than faith and arrogance.
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis in the scope of scientific inquiry. To be a hypothesis, there must be no assumption of truth (ha!) and it must be testable, more specifically there must be a criteria by which it can be proven wrong.
The litmus for whether a proposition should be remotely considered by science is the answer to a very simple question: What evidence, what experimental results would it take for this idea to be rejected?
Re:And here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)
Apologies if I am misquoting, but I'll go with Henri Theil: "models are to be used, not believed".
Real science isn't about belief. When scientists try to advocate for teaching any theory (yes, even gravity) as a belief system, they get sucked into a debate that is not winnable -- exactly what the creationists want.
The ideal scientists is like the ideal gas, a nice model. Most people, including those with PhDs, believe in things. Examples such as "No replacement for displacement," "goto is evil," and "Windows Sucks Linux rules" are examples of belief. One may be able to cite evidence of a larger engine being better than a smaller one with a turbo charger, and would reconsider their beliefs if a really efficient turbo charger was made. However, that stated maxim represents one of their "beliefs."
Now we are talking about K-12 education here. A very small percentage of these students will truly grasp the scientific method. While we need to teach them how to think critically, and encourage those with the potential to become scientists, in the end there is only so much you can teach them. In order to explain certain concepts, you have to make them accept certain things on faith, at least temporally.
I accept that the plastic keys on this keyboard came from crude oil. I have no idea how the polycarbons in crude oil get refined to plastic. Quite frankly I'll probably never need to know.
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Science does search for the truth (Score:3, Insightful)
When you restate the distinction as "how" vs. "why", you are making the same distinction between Truth and truth that I have made.
Moral or ethical worth can be considered for facts when they purport to be Truth, and not just true. The moon orbiting the earth may not seem an ethical question -- and I agree that it is not -- but the Catholic church certainly considered it an ethical issue when it persecuted Galileo.
My point about ethics was exactly that science doesn't get us there, and that we still have to make ethical judgments. I tend to agree that the ethical and moral judgments of religion are wrong, as in morally wrong. But science alone can't make that judgment.
Re:And here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe a small percentage of students "get" the scientific method because we don't teach the method, just the findings. And if we teach the findings as Truth, then it's our own damn fault if they get confused and have a view that religion can answer the same questions with the same Truth.
Re:And here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)
"Oh, Louisiana has a long tradition of being critical:..."
But amazingly, not a lick of critical thinking about water management strategies.
Re:Shoe on the other foot... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that, in theory, this could help students learn science better. From the comments in this story, I can see many people do not understand the essence of science and cannot think critically. By opening up the classroom to scientific debate, students could learn exactly how science works, and the limits to what it can do. It could teach them to be truly skeptical of new ideas and to think critically for themselves.
In practice, however, anti-science propaganda is pushed under the guise of "teaching the controversy" or "being open to competing theories". It's an excuse for putting the supernatural into science classrooms. It's not science at all, but pseudoscience. I'm all for discussion, but trying to convince schoolchildren that there is genuine scientific debate whether evolution occurs or not is just plain lies. This type of undermining does not make scientific understanding stronger, but makes people distrustful of science.
Re:Bahahaha.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, lovely.
But if funds are appropriated for materials criticising the theory of evolution, and knowing the common critiques and how plausible they sound to the uneducated despite being completely and utterly wrong (or even damned lies), I don't think science will be given fair treatment.
However, I don't really care.
As far as I'm concerned, any school system may teach whatever the hell they want to, and parents may or may not enrol their children in such schools.
If they are taught crap, they will remain uneducated. Or the quality of universities will drop to accomodate them.
Natural selection works in mysterious ways, and in the long run, this kind of crap will prove to be either irrelevant, or so detrimental to your schools that you will eventually be bought out by the Chinese and kept as cheap, uneducated labour force.
So yeah, go ahead, teach your kids crap. Teach them that critique without any foundation in reality is good. Teach them empty rhetoric. Hell, teach them religion, while you're at it.
People who care about education will put their kids in private schools. Or move away. Or both.
The rest will get approximately what they pay for.
And yes, I'm bitter about public schools (not in the British sense, mind you), and I intend to start a private school in my country. Someday.
Re:And here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people seem to get it wrong; "well regulated" does NOT mean "under government control" at all. It means: well-trained, in good order, prepared to strike as soon as the need comes.
Re:And here we go again (Score:3, Insightful)
We people of good will are sick and goddamned tired of the "piss down your back and tell you it's raining" style of anarchy, and we're removing the source. Have fun being powerless for a couple of generations :)"
Wow...where to start, first, the terms "effective" and "government" are pretty much mutually exclusive terms. Govt. can do some things that are so large that it wouldn't happen at all otherwise, but, let's not kid ourselves that even that is ever effective and efficient.
But, more importantly, as has been posted numerous times, the US Constitution does not grant the citizens their rights, but, it actually is there to enumerate the limited rights that the Federal govt. is supposed to have. Where in there then...is the govt. even charged with things like FEMA? Even if you take the overly expanded use of 'interstate commerce'...where the fuck to programs like FEMA and the like even come into play?
Re:And here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember Rita and how everyone evacuated and nothing actually happened?
You're kidding, right? It's like having a gun pointed at you, fired, and then saying "nothing happened" because the shooter's hand jerked at the last second and hit somebody else.
Houston dodged a bullet with Rita. Ask Beaumont and Lake Charles about their $11 billion damage bill.
Maybe I replied to the wrong person... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we all evolved from semi-savige cultures. However, we learned to leave much of the savage ways behind. Except for religion, as it comforts the simple and intellectually lazy.
Re:And here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)
The only true "right" you have is that which you can acquire by force or persuasion. The rights you have under the constitution ought properly to be called "privileges", in as far as the government as the largest wielder of the means to do violence is the only entity that can have any real rights per se. To ease it's own management of the population it grants you certain privileges such that you don't have a revolution to overthrow it ( and in a large, well-armed, organized group the revolutionaries become their own form of competing rights-haver, but at that point the difference between them and the established government is minimal ). Although, in a world such that the monopoly of violence the government has is so great that it could annihilate the entire planet thousands of times over, the threat of this scenario is minimal.
Before taking this as an argument
Re:And here we go again (Score:4, Insightful)
All the reasons so many people believe can be attributed to mass delusions or hope or inability to deal with reality or avoidance of the nature of death or the need to enforce life-extending behaviors at an early age. Evolution can be used to describe how cults like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Satanism, Paganism, and all the other isms evolved.
If someone wants to delude themselves that there is some all mighty entity that loves them no matter what and that even if they die this thing called a soul will continue, that's their choice. Delusions are very easy to foster and keep going, and spread to your children. If that makes it easier for someone to live their life and feel that they have worth, that's their problem and their wasted energy. I don't have any need to believe in a fairy tale to find value in my life or purpose. Or deal with the fact that when I die, I'm dead and nothing survives that isn't biodegradable.
Delusional people should be not allowed to use their delusions to decide what public policy is.
Re:And here we go again (Score:2, Insightful)
Many people seem to get it wrong; "well regulated" does NOT mean "under government control" at all. It means: well-trained, in good order, prepared to strike as soon as the need comes.
No, it doesn't. Look up the word "regulate".
Re:Debate is not about science. It's philosphical (Score:1, Insightful)
The core issue in this whole debate is as follows:
-Staunch supporters of evolution believe that a god and/or gods does not exist since everything came about to being by a random sequence of events
-Staunch supporters of ID/Creationism believe that a god orchestrated the design of the whole universe and nothing is random to that entity.
Imagine how each side's world's would be *rocked* if the opposing view was in fact the truth
-Pro-evolutionists would now have to be accountable to a god that they did not believe to exist. Imagine how completely their world view would change
-Pro-ID's would no longer have any hope in the beautiful after life that's promised. In fact, life would be empty existence, one without purpose to what they used to believe.
This debate isn't really about science; rather, it's about how each person does not want their belief system to be turned completely upside down. This issue questions the core of who we are. Ladies and gentlemen, this debate is existential.
No, no, no, no ,no.
There are no "supporters" of evolution, there are scientist who have objective results in repeatable experiments that demonstrate the principles Darwin first postulated. including, thanks to the short life cycles of things like bacteria, actually being able to WATCH evolution in action. There is no belief, there is FACT.
Creationist nut jobs think the earth was created a few thosands years ago, and all speices on earth sprung fully formed because god willed it so.
This debate is all about science, because idiots are trying to pass off the idea that 'god did it' as being science. And you wonder why the school systems suck so much.
Its not about religion, if it was just that this would be over. Separation of Church and State would kick in and the ID nut jobs would go back to the churches and religious history classes.
Instead religious groups are desperately trying to pass off their religion as science because their own insecurities won't let them accept anything else. They are corrupting a political process to try and get garbage taught in our schools, and more specifically our science classroom.
Heres the thing though, real science has no room for bullshit, make a bogus claim and you get called on it. Thats the great thing about science you never have to take any body's word for it. Anything that science claims you can test for your self. And even better, if you can prove the other guy wrong you get mega-credit for it.
Thats the truly wonderful part.
If you try to demonstrate how ID is not science people cry about their religious freedoms, and your a bad man for trying to suppress them.
However, if you come up with proof, real scientific evidence, that evolution is wrong. You'd get a fucking nobel prize.
Re:Bahahaha.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well the reason western is percieved as worse than eastern isnt too hard.
... hasnt done any major harm for a looong time its inherently less dangerous. Same with Shinto ... they haven't done anything aside from decorate japan in hundreds of years.
Eastern religions are ussually/mostly an ETHICAL CODE rather than a full on religion. Christianisty/Judaism/Islam are full on religions as in they have all kinda of crazy stories, gods demons and magic.
Sikhism/Hinduism has alot of that as well, i'd say a little less but thats arguable. Compare that to buddhism which has hardly any tall tales and is pretty much just an ethical code. There are some crazy stories in it too and is subject to extremism but not really. As well the rules for people are far less stringent than those places on monks which leads to fanatasism. And then there is confucianism which is purely philosophical teachings. There is no crazy magic or gods telling you what to do. They are just general guidelines that you should listen to simply because it worked for millions of people in the past. You should check it out too... The point being there is much more room for flexibility. And Taoism
So yes, eastern religions are far far less dangerous. I'd say most of the wars worldwide in the last 100 years could be attributed in part to the big 3 'western' religions.