Texas Vote May Challenge Teaching of Evolution 1306
tboulay writes "The Texas Board of Education will vote this week on a new science curriculum designed to challenge the guiding principle of evolution, a step that could influence what is taught in biology classes across the nation. The proposed curriculum change would prompt teachers to raise doubts that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry. Texas is such a large textbook market that many publishers write to the state's standards, then market those books nationwide. 'This is the most specific assault I've seen against evolution and modern science,' said Steven Newton, a project director at the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution." Both sides are saying the issue it too close to call. Three Republicans on the school board who favor the teaching of evolution have come under enormous pressure to reform their ways.
Cue the following: (Score:3, Insightful)
2. "This is why America sucks" -EuroTard
3. "Religion is the root, trunk, branches, and leaves, of all evil" -Sgt. Atheist
4. "Intelligent design is not Creationism. It's philosophical." -Closet Creationist
5. "Science is..." insert simplistic, high-school-esque view of 'The Scientific Method' -Every
6. "Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation. A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory." -Me
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Funny)
Texas is such a huge textbook market that many publishers write to the state's standards, then market those books nationwide.
No. That would never fly nationwide. It would lead to an ugly mess of boycotts and TPB for the major publishers, who are all located in Northeast America.
Texas school board chairman Don McLeroy...believes that God created the earth less than 10,000 years ago...The textbooks will "have to say that there's a problem with evolution -- because there is," said Dr. McLeroy, a dentist.
Awhawha? A dentist? And what the hell does that joker think about all of those Biology classes he took in college? Oh, wait. According to another site, Texas Governor Rick Perry, who supports teaching Intelligent Design in high school science classes, recently hand-picked that assclown from Bryan University, a Christian college in Tennessee.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Informative)
But he didn't blindly accept a literal interpretation of the bible for a vague explanation of how life works. He got off his ass, collected empirical data, and formed hypotheses. And he was a lifelong naturalist.
See this [wikipedia.org]. Scientific American also have a series of great articles [sciam.com] for Darwin's 200th birthday, you may want to check 'em out.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't RTFA, did you? Two specific proposals on the table:
Depending on what those "specific aspects" are, this could in fact be actual, hard science in these textbooks.
But this claim is bollocks... Yeah, and I don't think a photon could ever be a wave and a particle at the same time, because gosh, that just doesn't fit my preconceptions. It's more a comment that he doesn't want to believe in evolution, than anything resembling evidence.
This chairman is clearly incompetent in science -- not because he disbelieves evolution, but because he can't or won't distinguish a scientific argument from a non-scientific one.
P.S. I'm inclined to think his first category of evidence also boils down to "I don't think this could work" but since TFA lacks details I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not an attempt to falsify the teaching of evolution.
Get a pen and a paper, draw 10 of gene A organisms, and 1 of gene B. Assume gene B organisms reproduce twice as fast, and ideal conditions. Start drawing the generations. Do that until gene B becomes dominant.
Now, falsify the principle you just proved. Mathematics. Reproduction rate sets an exponential curve, the initial conditions are just the polinomial part of the equation. It's not something you can or can not believe in.
If you increase the chance of reproducing of those with a specific gene, that gene will become dominant.
You cannot falsify evolution any more than you can falsify "1 2", because that's what it really is. If you accept the fact that genes exist (even christians know about dogs I believe), and that living organisms tend to reproduce as much as they can, you're already there. (Oh, one more assumption: random genes can appear. We have evidence of that too, just talk to your doctor about the latest flu variant.)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Informative)
The lack of explanation for the beginning of life is not a limitation of the theory of evolution, but rather, is not part of the theory at all. It is a common mistake, but these are completely separate concepts. Evolution does not even try to explain how life began, just how it changes since it has been here.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
I have yet to see proof that Evolution explains how life began.
It's not supposed to.
That would be abiogenesis [wikipedia.org], down the hall to your right.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Funny)
These backwards magical-thinking buffoons have no evidence, no tests, nothing to point to a different theory; they have a book. A book they believe trumps the evidence of our own eyes and our most advanced scientific methods.
Evolutionary theory has no tests either. You have a book too: Origin of Species. You have no evidence of your own eyes because your life span is less than 100 years and the lifespan of human existence is easily less than 10,000 years. Your only "evidence" says that because Animal A has feathers and Animal B has feathers and Animal A lived a long time ago then Animal A must be related to B. How do you explain that leap of logic? That's what I call magical thinking. That is no evidence at all.
YES! YES! I agree!!!
Evolution is just theory and science is just a bunch of theories!
I also want public funds to be spent teaching the gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! [venganza.org]
We also have a book! [amazon.com]
I say all three theories (evolution, ID, F.S.M.ism) should be presented with equal time and children should be left to decide on their own!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Interesting)
6. "Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation. A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory." -Me
So let me get this straight, you think we should entertain the idea of replacing the theory of evolution with the theory that the earth is only 10,000 years old and life came about in it's current form by way of a "magic man"?
How do you go about testing the "magic man" theory?
(I'm not saying you support the "magic man" theory in any way, I somewhat get your point. It's just that they don't want to replace the theory of evolution with a better theory, they want to replace it with "magic".)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory.
The theory of evolution is just as well established as any other scientific theory that is taught in public schools, and should be treated the same way as the others.
When high school science classes start encouraging kids to question the existence of gravity, or to look for alternative explanations for electricity, then we can talk about casting doubt on evolution as well. But to single evolution out for special treatment because certain idiots feel that it threatens their personal superstitions is to condone ignorance -- which is not what science classes are meant to do.
Evolution is a law of nature, so are idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's a vote for #5 and how about not re-defining words or procedures just because some morons feel like it?
Now, Evolution is a law of nature, not a theory. Natural Selection is a theory. I have no problem with people coming up with theories that fit the scientific method, because THATS HOW YOU FUCKING PLAY THE GAME CALLED SCIENCE.
If someone wants to come up with their own words and rules and whatever, fine, go do it. If they call it science, I'm going to have a major problem with it and the people doing it.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
"Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation. A theory should always be accepted as necessarily conjectural, and all efforts should be made to falsify the accepted 'best' theory and replace it with a better theory." -Me
This isn't about attacking evolution as dogma. This isn't about attempting to falsify it. This isn't about fighting those who refuse to challenge it. This isn't about halting science by consensus.
This is about a group of non-biologists, led by a dentist who believes that God created all species as they exist today 10,000 years ago, trying to force biology teachers to teach Creationism. These people aren't even pushing for Intelligent Design — they're explicitly against that as well. They want pure Creationism taught as science.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Creationism is not science. It never has been and it never will be.
Creationism is a dark age religion nonsense that people in the 21st century should abolish. People around the world should also abolish there own primitive religions.
There is one good reason for that, among many others to do this. To make the world a better place.
The human race can do so much, and can have so good live. We don't need a world with poverty, wars and disease. The human race is on the technological point that those things can be abolished all together.
Sadly, some people are more keen to hold on there to there own greed, power and religion bad ideas then to improve the world around them.
For the record. I am an atheist and I want the world to be a better place for everyone.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Intelligent Design is not science, therefor it doesn't belong in the science books or classroom.
How hard is that to understand.
This isn't special protection of evolution, it's protection of the integrity of science. It just happens to be those trying to violate the integrity of science are specifically targeting evolution.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Although this proposal, and the people behind it, are certifiable, the idea that a theory of evolution holds some special uncriticizable position because of the 'preponderance of evidence' is just as stifling to scientific progress as the dogmatic fervor with which academia held to Newton's theory of gravitation
You can criticize the theory of evolution when you earn the right to do so.
You earn that right in a classroom, not in a church.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Asimov wrote an essay called "The Relativity of Wrong" that addresses this. The thrust of it is that scientists make errors and that perfect, absolute truth may be unattainable, but by and large each generation will come up with ideas and theories that are closer and closer to the truth.
A geocentric model of the solar system that involves orbiting bodies is a tad closer to the truth than "it's all painted on a big dome in the sky", and a heliocentric model is closer still. Explain its mechanics like Newton did and you're getting closer. Find out about Relativity and you're really getting somewhere.
Each one is "wrong", but each is less wrong than the one before it.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Funny)
OK, so we'll to agree that evolution is only approximately right, but the approximation error w.r.t. 100% right is immeasurably small unless the species in question are traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light relative to the paleontologist.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it's utilitarian. But it's based very strongly on evidence, which is what science is all about. And we're talking about science EDUCATION, not cutting edge theoretical physics. You have to start somewhere.
BTW, Newton's work is very much true in the appropriate domain. Just as with any science. There is no place for including weak nuclear interaction in calculating the motion of planets, just as there is no place for Newton's equations in calculating the probability of an electron's position in the electron cloud.
Understanding domain [wikipedia.org] is a very important science lesson you seem to have missed.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Insightful)
"BTW, Newton's work is very much true in the appropriate domain. Just as with any science. There is no place for including weak nuclear interaction in calculating the motion of planets
Bad example. You might not need the weak nuclear force, but you can't explain the observed peturbations in Neptune's orbit using Newtonian mechanics. You need general relativity.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably because it isn't taught in school. One big problem with science education is that it tends to be taught as THE TRUTH without any nuances that show why scientists regard it as reliable and useful. I understand doing this at young ages, but by the age of 12 or so, I'd think most kids can grasp and might even be interested in WHY science is constructed as it is.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
+1
I remember a few years ago there was a test, can't remember if it was national or in one particular state. The purpose of the test was to gauge scientific literacy. One of the questions asked if the reader believed that the universe was formed in a giant explosion billions of years ago. (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of the question.)
I thought that was a ridiculous way to test scientific literacy. I don't believe in the Big Bang, or evolution, or Newtonian mechanics. I accept that certain theories are supported by the overwhelming majority of evidence, and therefore probably best describe the way the universe works. The moment you start believing in something, you've got religion, not science.
Students should be encouraged to question established theories, to gather evidence and think critically about how things work. Unfortunately, whenever someone asks people to question a particular theory, it's usually because they want to push a particular truth.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Insightful)
Students need to actually learn the theories before questioning them.
Not understanding a theory before questioning it and creating your own only makes you a crank. Especially if you don't have reproducible experimental evidence to back yourself up.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Insightful)
"God did it." is not a criticism or an objection to evolution - it's an absolute rejection of a scientific theory backed by an ever growing mountain of empirical evidence that not only strongly points towards the evolution of all life on earth from a common ancestral source, but also makes religious explanations of biological origin outright laughable.
Texas school board chairman Don McLeroy is not seeking to point out the incompleteness of evolutionary theory, which no respectable evolutionary biologist would contest, but is rather seeking an opening to teach his ignorant religious beliefs as legitimate science - which they certainly are not.
Dr. McLeroy has a a BS in electrical engineering and a DDS, teaches Sunday school and is an avowed Creationist. In other words, when it comes to biology, especially evolutionary biology, the man is talking our of his fundamentalist backside.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:5, Funny)
* only applicable for sufficiently small values [of] truth(**)
(**) where "sufficiently small" means "90+% of all human activities that benefit from knowledge of physics".
Yeah sure, you can complain that GPS satellites wouldn't work without accounting for relativistic effects. But when I throw my Garmin at your head, it will travel in a parabolic path (minus air resistance) with sub-millimeter accuracy. Then I will write "annoying pedant" on your face in magic marker while you're knocked out.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right that we can never know a theory to be "right", but it isn't for the reason you describe.
Falsifiability only requires that it be possible in principle (i.e. counterfactually) to produce a counterexample. If a theory were somehow known to be actually true, it would still be falsifiable in the relevant sense so long as it were possible to imagine a test such that if, contrary to fact, the theory was false we could make a test to figure it out.
The real reason we can never know a theory to be correct is because empirical data undetermine [wikipedia.org] theory choice; that is, any set of empirical data is compatible with the truth of more than one theory.
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cue the following: (Score:4, Informative)
So SJG suggested we use the term scientific fact to keep the creotards from using a semantics argument to suggest that even scientists don't believe that evolution by natural selection occurs or explains life on our world. He proposed a definition of a scientific fact as: "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
And in that regard Evolution is a fact (and a Theory with a big T.)
Re:How about this, wise-guy (Score:5, Informative)
While Dover wasn't a precedent-setting case per se, Judge Jones final decision, in particular the elements of it demonstrating how evolution had been picked out of all the sciences for "special treatment" will be applicable if this reaches Federal court. Simply put, as much as the Fundies dishonest and fundamentally immoral argument that they're just trying to teach the flaws, they are in fact simply trying to get Creationism through the backdoor.
Let's be clear here. Creationism is dead Edwards v. Aguillard [talkorigins.org]), Intelligent Design is dead (Kitzmiller v. Dover [slashdot.org]), and now all these incredibly dishonest scam artists and their ignorant followers (most of which probably aren't even aware they're being scammed) have got left is Teach the Controversy.
Here's the news, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY OVER BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION. The number of real scientists (and no, engineers and mathematicians are not scientists) who disagree with evolutionary is so exceedingly small to be utterly irrelevant. Even one of ID's biggest formulators, Michael Behe, doesn't disagree with evolution or Common Descent.
What I'm wondering, when this is handed back to them by the courts, where will they go next? What's left after "Teach the Controversy"?
Re:How about this, wise-guy (Score:4, Insightful)
I really wanted to use my mod-points here, but this is the second comment to make the erroneous statement that "evolution" is about the start of life on Earth.
In very stern, irrefutable terms I would like to say WRONG!
"Evil-ution" makes no claims as to the origin of LIFE. "EVA-lution" is about the change in an organism over a period of time.
Oh, and while I'm at it, please don't make the mistake of assuming evolution has anything to do with humans descending from monkeys or apes. This is another common fallacy. Humans and apes share a common ancestor. Apes are not going to evolve into humans at some point in the future. Humans are not going to become GODS!
One last nit-pik: Evolution is not a path. We are not going to some higher order in the future. Evolution only says your ancestors were strong enough to get you here. Your children are not necessarily going to be around after you pass. We are here because we are strong enough to exist in the current environment. If global warming is real and the Earth changes so that humans cannot exist, too damn bad.
As someone from Alabama, let me say thanks (Score:5, Funny)
Re:As someone from Alabama, let me say thanks (Score:5, Funny)
This just in: Alabama feels threatened, drafts legislation to declare the square root of two as "the baby jesus." Overwhelming approval from all constituencies.
Re:As someone from Alabama, let me say thanks (Score:4, Funny)
They're just confirming what we already knew.
The Baby Jesus is irrational.
Re:As someone from Alabama, let me say thanks (Score:5, Funny)
No silly. Everyone knows that "The Baby Jesus" is sqrt(-1)!
Remains unbelievable (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, for the country that's supposed to be the most modern and have the best technology (all ofcourse delivered through scientific study), it remains unbelievable that evolution is even questioned.
No such thing in Europe. Not even the Vatican and the Church of England (both the foundations for the US churches) doubt evolution theory. They even support it !
Wake up, Americans :-)
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
So much for pretending to have the moral high ground.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Informative)
What is unbelievable is that Americans criticize fundamentalism in Muslim countries but they do not see the bigotry in their own culture.
So much for pretending to have the moral high ground.
Please don't use the term "Americans". It refers to many of us that do realize the complete hypocrisy and idiocy of major portions of the population. And, yes, we hate it as much as you do.
So in the future, when referring to these people, please use "Rednecks" or "Hillbilly Yokels" or "Inbred Fucktards".
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, people say "Germany invaded France in 1941," "The Brazilians have won the World Cup," "the Japanese like raw fish," "Greeks dislike Turkey" etc. all the time, without batting an eye. But when someone makes a categorical claim that includes you, you have a conniption fit? Sorry, get over it. Unless they say "each and every American, bar none, criticizes fundamentalism in Muslim countries, but.." your complaint is an empty one.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:4, Interesting)
A much bigger percentage than the number of Brazilians that actually won the World Cup, I'm pretty sure.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that people like you are the ones singling out evolution and making it "special", right? I've never taken a science class that refers to evolution as anything more than the current scientific theory of how man came to be. In a science class, we deal with the observable. Faith and belief have no place in science. We leave those at the door and pick them up later on the way out. God and his/her actions are not directly observable by men, by design. They are therefore NOT science.
The religious camp could as easily have decided to attack the law of gravity and surface tension because Jesus walked on the water. Or the Theory of Relativity because God is everywhere at once. Both cases would make about as much sense as the freaking out over evolution does.
How about this for a compromise: You teach what you want to in church, or a class on religion/philosophy, and scientists will teach what they want to in science class.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
How about this for a compromise: You teach what you want to in church, or a class on religion/philosophy, and scientists will teach what they want to in science class.
Sorry, that's just too sensible.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
Religion demands we blindly accept it, and offers nothing as proof other than your own personal belief that it's true.
Science asks that we accept it, and offers a 600 page book written over two decades exhaustively proving it using clearly observable phenomena and repeatable experimentation.
Please tell me you can see the difference.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
The Bible has survived over 2000 years, and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that it's far more than an old book of stories.
[citation needed]
The Bible is an old book full of stories, some of the stories have components, but as far as I can tell none of the theological bits have been proven. To the contrary, many of the miraculous bits have been proven to be common literary conventions of the time.
It certainly isn't fact, and it shouldn't be taught as such.
True, though it is a theory strongly BACKED by facts, where creationism isn't. It's a theory strongly backed by "faith", which means it isn't SCIENCE, and therefore should never be taught as such. Evolution is theory, but this doesn't mean it is a colloquial theory, it is tested, backed by evidence and proper logic, and serves to explain existent circumstances. Creationism doesn't fill any of these. I have no problem with it being taught in comparative religion classes, where it belongs.
Until, of course, someone comes up with a factual, and logical proof of the JudeoChristian God, based on hard empirical evidence.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, go ahead and flag me as flamebait rather than engage in intelligent discussion. And you wonder why we question the validity of your beliefs.
That's like engaging in an 'intelligent' discussion about the existence of unicorns.
Why do you care what we heathens think anyway? You get to spend an eternity in heaven laughing at us evolutionist while we burn in hell. Isn't that enough?
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
no amount of breeding of dogs has produced a non-dog
But breeding of wolves has produced a non-wolf. It's called a dog.
Re:Devil's advocate. (Score:5, Insightful)
You need to brush up on what "theory" and "proof" means in science.
And the same goes for the ones who moderated your post "Insightful".
Are you saying there's no proof? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're saying there is no proof, it's impossible to "prove" without a time machine. However, there's a tremendous amount of strong, dramatic evidence. Certainly there's far more evidence in favour of evolution than there is evidence supporting creationism/intelligent design. If that's not enough, we'll also have to take all other "theories" out of the classroom, starting with the theory of gravity. After all, we only have a large body of evidence that our model of gravity works.
What else are you willing to sacrifice in favour of trimming out all topics but the completely, irrevocably proven ones? Certainly the biology, chemistry and physics textbooks are completely laden with theories as opposed to proven facts.
Social studies, philosophy, and history have also got to go. They are the very definition of theoretical topics. Every article is written by somebody with a subjective viewpoint, and some events reported in the history books probably never happened.
Re:Remains unbelievable (Score:5, Insightful)
Common ancestry: Hera (Score:5, Funny)
Duh, her name was Hera Agathon [wikipedia.org].
His noodly highness approves!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
This will influence (Score:3, Interesting)
It's time for Catholicism to step up (Score:5, Informative)
The Catholic church is in agreement with the theory of evolution, so it's time for it to make it clear to its followers they need to support the teaching of evolution over creationism.
Re:It's time for Catholicism to step up (Score:5, Informative)
It's not the Catholics who are the problem, it's certain fundamentalist Protestants.
Please don't conflate the two.
The big problem with fundamentalist protestants is that they believe the bible to be literally true and inviolate. So if you invalidate one little part of the bible, you invalidate their entire faith.
This means that they'll defend the most ridiculous things as a defense of their faith, and supporting teaching of evolution is viewed as a direct attack on their faith.
Re:It's time for Catholicism to step up (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd actually prefer if the Church didn't weigh in on the subject at all, and admitted it's the provenance of science, not faith.
Asking the Church to promote an anti-creationist viewpoint is one step closer to having the Church's opinion taken seriously on other scientific matters.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
it has. it's the fundie protestants that are making all the noise.
Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't really believe in Noah's Flood (Score:5, Interesting)
Take oil companies. Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for them. Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are riding on it. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plants and dinosaurs, but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually pursuing such research programs?
Why don't fundamentalists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why don't they do this?
(It turns out some people actually are doing this - or, at least, claiming too. But it appears that deeply-held beliefs are easier to exploit than deeply-held oil reserves [motherjones.com].)
Re:People don't really believe in Noah's Flood (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, the obvious answer to that is that the creator carefully placed all the oil where it would be as if it were the product of ancient plants and dinosaurs; and the same goes with all the rest of the Earth's geological strata, all observable astronomical events, etc. Anything older than 4000BC (or whereever else you put the crucial date) is planted evidence.
In other words: if you believe in Creationism, you believe that God is lying to you.
There's no other conclusion to come to. Everything in the universe hangs together too well for it to be a coincidence. Either it all actually happened the way it looks like it happened, or else Someone has spent a great deal of effort arranging things to make it look that way.
There are a number of interesting aspects to this, not least of which is the idea that if the universe has been carefully faked to look the way it does, would it not be against God's will to reject all that and believe something completely different? Might Creationism actually be blasphemous?
This is, by the way, one reason why most scientists reject Creationism (both young-Earth and old-Earth; the only difference between them is philosphical hair-splitting, anyway). Contrary to popular belief, a lot of scientists are deeply spiritual people who believe strongly in their quest to explore the universe. I can easily imagine whole idea that anyone wants to simply dismiss such a wonderful, exotic, complicated thing as being a lie would be deeply distasteful to them --- it certainly is to me.
But the flood DID happen! (Score:5, Interesting)
One must first understand the story of Noah is based heavily in Sumarian lore. When civilization was first spawning it's first resou...er cities they choose to stick them in places rather convenient for growing large amounts of food and such.
One of these was near Ur and Lagash and such which just happened to be where the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers come together. Oh! By the way did you know that land there, well that land there, is a low land and in the past was prone to massive flooding.
So yes, to early civilization as the stories and tales spread out from the epicenter of humanity, the entire world DID indeed flood.
I've never understood (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood why religious folk have such a hard time with evolution. I mean, can't they just say "okay, fine, evolution is the process, and God is the architect". Far as I can see, that kind of solves it.
I do not recall any teacher or textbook saying that evolution proves that God doesn't exist. (For me, bigotted religious zealots did quite a good job of that all on their own).
I know there are those born again types who fervently believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old so they'll never be satisfied until the schools are beginning and ending each lesson with a prayer and throw out all textbooks in favor of bibles, but cummon, there have got to be SOME sane people in Texas.
Plenty of religious folk don't (Score:5, Informative)
Well, there are a lot of religious folk who don't have a problem with evolution: e.g., Catholics, pretty much any mainstream Protestant church, lots of Jews...
And in fact, many of them have taken just that tack of "evolution as process, God as architect." It's nothing new, either - Darwin's book prompted controversy in religious circles when it was first published, but plenty of religious figures accepted it then, and plenty do now.
If you're interested in reading historical religious perspectives on it, check out The Post-Darwinian Controversies [google.com], which looks at a bunch of different religious reactions to Darwin.
perhaps they shouldn't vote (Score:5, Funny)
perhaps it would be better to release the members of the board into a remote ecosystem with limited resources, and allow them to compete, whereby the most well-adapted board member is selectively chosen not to starve, and he or she at that point decides the issue of whether or not to teach evolution
if on the other hand, angels are heard singing, a bright light shines from the sky, and a booming voice chooses one particular board member while the rest perish in a scream and a flash, destined for eternity to hell, maybe that will decide the issue instead
Exhibit 'A' for the theory of evolution (Score:4, Funny)
With Chuck Norris, they can take their rightful place along with witch doctors of Africa, voodoo practitioners of the Caribbean, fundamentalists in rural Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc. and form a living human history museum of sorts, where we can bring our kids off and on to show how we used to live in the old times.
Evolution states among other things that not all members of the same species evolve/progress at the same rate. The odd century gap between these jokers and the rest of humanity is a startling confirmation of that.
Need not be said (Score:4, Insightful)
Steven Newton, a project director at the National Center for Science Education, which promotes teaching of evolution
Why would you even spell that out? I bet the NCSE also promotes teaching of water being wet and the sun being a hot thing we orbit.
silly republicans ... science is the devil! (Score:4, Funny)
Lest they be sentenced to eternal damnation and cast into hell.
Re:silly republicans ... science is the devil! (Score:4, Funny)
What is WRONG with these people? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I wish these extremist nuts would understand is that the theory of evolution does not, ipso facto, rule out the possibility of a supernatural creator. Evolution is simply an ever-refining description of how life unfolded on Earth. No one is staking any claim in the theory concerning who or what (if anyone or anything) might have initiated or guided or overseen the process. There are tens of millions of Christian clergy, theologians, and laity who accept evolution as the process that God used to achieve his purposes. Even among evangelicals, most no longer subscribe to the literality of Genesis -- they understand the "six days" of creation as metaphor. They also understand that the Bible is not meant to be a complete, literal history that can be quantified (a la Bishop Usher) to produce a firm figure for the age of the universe.
So, who are these Christians who are on the anti-evolution bandwagon? Not Christians in general. Not even evangelicals. It's a tiny subset that still insists that evolution "denies God," that the universe was literally created in six days, that species were set and defined at the moment of creation, etc. In other words, a minority of a minority of a minority, if you will. And yet, these vastly outnumbered idjits carry incredible weight and influence, especially in the heartland, and people cower in fear of upsetting them.
On "Theory" ... (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone who says, "Evolution's just a theory" should read up on what the word "theory" means within the scientific community:
Natural selection meets these criteria, as does evolution as a whole. Saying "evolution is a theory" is like saying gravity is just a theory. If you want to test gravity (and natural selection, for that matter), jump off a tall building and see if you can fly.
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, I'll bite. First of all, evolutionary theory should always be taught as the best theory that fits the available evidence. And it is the best theory. But as a good biology grad, I'm always interested in hearing about holes - so what, in your opinion are the biggest problems and holes?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Funny)
as a good biology grad, I'm always interested in hearing about holes
I think I speak for all males when I say, you're not the only one!
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
To what "problems" or "holes" are you referring? Can you name one?
No. Intelligent design creationism allows for no falsification; evolutionary theory on the other hand most certainly does. That is indeed a part of the point; ID is not science because it makes no testable predictions and is for a lack of a better term: worthless. Evolutionary theory by contrast is as has been described by many others to be the very foundation on which one can understand biology.
real science (Score:3, Informative)
never considers itself complete, always acknowledges there are holes, and looks at all anomalies as potential realignments of contemporary dogma
yes, there are plenty of closed minded scientists who scoff at challenges to established dogma. but these are human frailties, not aspects of what real science is. in the early 1980s there was an australian scientist who said stomach ulcers were caused by an infectious agent. he was laughed at. now, he has the nobel prize, and we have isolated that bacterium. in oth
Re:Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Whatever (Score:4, Insightful)
Physics/biology/etc: We think nature follows these rules and as long as we don't see evidence to falsify these rules we assume they are correct. Else you need to search for a new rule that does match all your observations.
Would you say that "the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees" is an absolute truth? How about in non-Euclydian geometry?
Re:Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Science has nothing to do with "using our own minds". I can't determine the existance or non-existance of the Higgins Bossom and my opinion about it is completely worthless, as well as any conclusions I might reach on my own using my studies, judgement, rational thought, whatever... ... because I'm not a physicist, nor do I work, investigate or experiment in the field.
That's the crux of the problem when creationists say "we want both theories to be taught, so the kid can choose for himself". The kid doesn't have the tools to prove or disprove any theory on scientific grounds, and nor should he... ... ultimately, to the common joe, science requires faith. So what's the difference between science and religion then? Science constantly delivers tangible results (as shown by the existence of cloned sheep and the Nintendo Wii) transparently, and is willing to unfold it's full body of knowledge and possibilities to anyone willing to dedicate to it.
Re:What's the attack on science? (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to be under the impression that modern evolutionary theory is in some way largely dependent on the raw data collected by Darwin. He was an excellent naturalist and an amazing observer/investigator - but this is simply not true.
It is not bad to provoke thought and questions regarding evolution. But starting with the axiom that life was created and shaped through some unseen intelligence is bad.
Re:What's the attack on science? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't want this enshrined in sanctioned science curriculum because "the cell is too complex to have evolved!" is not an evidence-based, scientific argument. Using that as curriculum will simply encourage kids to have sloppy thinking patterns and be unable to actually tell good science from bad.
Feel free to re-evaluate all the observations you want. The data and experiments are out there. The problem is that when people HONESTLY look at all the data, evolution is really the only answer. And teaching anything other than that is a disservice to our children.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There's a certain poetic justice when driving to Texas from Colorado. As you cross the border you see a small sign saying, "Welcome to Texas! Proud home of George W Bush." A few miles later, one of the first towns you drive through is named Dumas and smells like manure.
Re:What do you expect (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't realize they had these problems in Connecticut.
Re:What do you expect (Score:5, Funny)
I mean, this is the same state that gave us the amazingly anti-science George W. "I believe God wants me to run for president" Bush.
I agree'd with his statement. Clearly the Bush Presidency was divine punishment for our sinful ways.
Re:What do you expect (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, sure, and it also gave us Molly Ivins.
Still, I wonder.
Think about the places that have lots of oil. Nigeria. Saudi Arabia. Venezuela.
Now, think about how enlightened those places are in comparisons to place that built their economy mostly on the industry and ingenuity of their people. Would you rather live in Switzerland or Nigeria? Denmark or Venezuela?
The thing is, if you want to make a lot of money by digging it out of the ground, once you have enough engineers and accountants and such to fill your needs, an intelligent, educated populace doesn't contribute much to the corporate bottom line. They're a pain in the ass, to be frank. They'll complain about environmental costs you foist on them. They'll ask inconvenient questions about the financial aspects of the government's relationship to the extracting companies, like the details of leases for public lands, waivers, permits and the like.
If you're one of the major benefactors of an extraction based economy, you want your average neighbor to be as idiotic as possible. Since making this happen costs money like anything else in this world, you also want them to stay that way. What's the cheapest way of doing this?
You make them proud. You fill their heads with glorious myths and very few hard facts, until they'll fight like hell to stay ignorant.
Re:What do you expect (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you rather live in:
Norway or Uganda?
Venezuela or Bangladesh?
Saudi Arabia or Sierra Leone?
Russia or Afghanistan?
See, I can play this game too!
Re:What do you expect (Score:5, Funny)
Like the neighbor to the #1 supplier [doe.gov] of oil to the US?
Hey, you said it; I didn't...
Re:What do you expect (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bush comes from Connecticut, but pretends to be some Texas cowboy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Evolution is compatible with your believes because you are inconsistent in them, and you choose to randomly accept or reject parts of "The Book" so as to not challenge "your believes". According to the Bible god himself created all animals at once, and presented them to Adam so that he would name them. That implies that all animals were there when the first human walked on earth, and implies that animals are separate creations. And this is only a sample of the incompatibilities...
Re:More than two sides (Score:5, Insightful)
If you take every word literally, you will run into a great many problems. Not the least of which is Mark 4:31 which states "It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground." Again, this was written to be understood by the common man.
I am not inconsistent in my beliefs. It is the one who does not understand the purpose of the Bible and takes every word literally who will find himself faced with inconsistencies.
The reason the Bible does not go into detail about the creation of the Earth is obvious once you consider the purpose of the Bible: How the Earth was created simply is not important. All that is important is that the Earth is God's creation. This the Bible says clearly, explicitly, and repetitively.
Re:More than two sides (Score:5, Informative)
I am a Christian who believes the Bible. I therefore believe that "God created the heavens and the earth."
I believe this is called begging the question. It's a type of logical fallacy and is not admissible in any intellectually honest debate. Please take a moment to review "begging the question." Google is your friend.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While it's true that science cannot prove evolution, or anything else for that matter, absolutely, let's be blunt, t
Re:More than two sides (Score:4, Informative)
it's not about being right or wrong, it's about the churches losing more and more people who are realizing that this religion stuff is nothing more than control.
so the churches fight back by trying to introduce this stuff into schools.
read about the "wedge document" and see what i mean. it is not now, nor was it ever about scientific anything -- it is religious psyops designed to confuse and mislead the public about science in order to win sheep back to the fold.
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html [antievolution.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy [wikipedia.org]
Re:Compromise (Score:4, Insightful)
Jesus Christ people, you don't use an apostrophe to pluralize a noun. Fucking cut that shit out.
Screw evolution, I'd like to see basic literacy skills make a comeback.