Mixed Outcome of Texas Textbook Vote 646
The Texas Board of Education — as discussed here last week — has voted on the guidelines for textbooks in that state, which represents a large enough market to have influence nationwide. The good news is that the board dropped a 20-year-old requirement that both "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories be taught; score one for the teaching of evolution. The not-so-good news is that in a "compromise," the board also voted to require that students "in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Score one for the Discovery Institute. A Republican board member explained that the words "strengths and weaknesses" have become "code for creationism and [the similar theory of] intelligent design. So by being more clear in the language and using words that aren't seen as code words, we were able to get all of the 15 board members to agree that this is how we'll teach all sides of scientific explanation, using scientific evidence." Reporting on the Texas vote is all over the map, as a US Today blog summarizes. Some reports claim that an amendment was passed that preserves a
requirement that students study the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of common ancestry and natural selection. Other reports claim that the board also adopted language that would have students study the "different views on the existence of global warming."
not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
The not-so-good news is that in a "compromise," the board also voted to require that students "in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student."
How is this not-so-good news?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds as though they're assuming that creationism/intelligent design have scientific evidence.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the Texas law include a legal definition of "scientific evidence"? If not, then the creationists can quite easily claim to be doing "science" under their definition of the term. And it's probably going to be hard to find a Texas judge whose legal training included techniques for deciding scientific issues.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Funny)
Moreover, judges are not supposed to "take side". This means they must only "know" what they are told in the courtroom. If the other side does not challenge the creationist definition of science, the judge takes this "science" as a fact. Of course, a smart judge will poke holes at the kooky definition to make it un-credible, but hey!
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Interesting)
BING BING BING -- we have a winner. The wording was changed just enough to stop argument and allow further plundering of science education by those who 'claim' to meet the criteria for course material via 'scientific evidence'....
I live in Texas and I have to tell you that the news that makes national and world headlines from this state is never good... outside that one press release on the invention of breast augmentation. When it comes to science and the law, most people here are not really in the slot of sharp knives in the flatware drawer.
Think about it clearly: the simple fact that this is an ongoing news-making argument means that they just don't get it and will have left a back door for ID and creationism to creep it's way into school curriculum, either directly or through the school's 'emphasis' on what is said in class.
I can tell you that I'm fully frustrated that this is even being discussed. Religion belongs in some other class, not science class. The bible is not evidence. If it was then clips like this [kickyoutube.com] would be banned, and not as funny as this really is.
The whole argument about creation in the science class is disgusting. Disgusting as anything I can think of. Fscking morons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you wholeheartedly and I'm a Christian. I believe in some variant of intelligent design (I mean, if you're going to choose to believe both the Bible AND science, you kind of have to), but the only reason it should ever be mentioned in a science class would be as part of a lesson on spotting BAD SCIENCE.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Informative)
I'd like to point out that believing in a creator or designer (that is responsible for evolution) is not the same as believing in intelligent design. Intelligent Design was a movement aimed at presenting Creationism in a new light, and avoid precedent that may have been set by courts ruling against Creationism.
"Ken Miller on Intelligent Design" (he's Catholic but he testified on the side of scientists in Kitzmiller v. Dover)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg [youtube.com]
Actually the ruling in that case is very instructive on this whole thing, for what I mentioned the relevant quote is "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism." Part of the evidence was the comparisons of different revisions of _Of Pandas and People_, where they essentially used a find+replace to switch Creationism to ID.
I guess what I am trying to say is that Intelligent Design is sort of like a trademark...it has a specific meaning and purpose which is separate from what the actual words in the phrase would lead you to think (gee, I wonder why) and by calling what I have to assume is a combination of belief in God and acknowledgment of evolution "a variant of ID" you are doing yourself a disservice and might give people the wrong impression.
I learned about religion in school... (Score:5, Insightful)
In 7th grade, I learned about Christianity and creationism, as well as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, and touched briefly on some others. It was quite informative and I'd recommend it to everyone.
This was, of course, done where it belonged -- in Social Studies class, not Science. Perhaps if the people of the school boards of Texas would just agree to teach it similarly, there wouldn't be a big stink about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In 7th grade, I learned about Christianity and creationism, as well as Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hindu, .... This was, of course, done where it belonged -- in Social Studies class, not Science.
Actually, it's not all that uncommon for scientific degree programs to include a few History of Science courses, where you'd expect coverage of the important religious-vs-science disputes. Such courses wouldn't need to go into great detail about the religious belief systems, of course, but they should include enough
Call that good (Score:4, Funny)
I live in Texas and I have to tell you that the news that makes national and world headlines from this state is never good... outside that one press release on the invention of breast augmentation.,/p>
Not so good. The flat-chested girls were the only ones who would date geeks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to post the "contradictions" maybe you should post the other side of the "contradictions" so people can see both sides of this.
Answer [carm.org]
Of course, this is slashdot, and anything pro religion is wrong, anything anti-religion is right.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except your 'answer' does not explain these contradictions.
In fact, your link says:
"Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam."
So it appears to me to be saying "because these accounts are contradictory, it proves that they are not contradictory."
Of course, this is slashdot, and anything pro religion is wrong, anything anti-religion is right.
Maybe everything pro-religion should be right? Vishnu has ten avatars, Xenu destroyed the slave races in a volcano, God chose to give the book of Mormon to a 14 year-old boy on a set of gold plates which later conveniently disappeared.
But I'm guessing you're an atheist about everyone else's religion, just not the one you happen to be have been indoctrinated into.
Maybe I'm wrong and you converted as an adult from Zoroastrianism.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Give your reasoning - for the 1 or 2 people who reply missing the point or trolling, there are hundreds more that just read it, some of whom would agree with you. You're far better off saying what you think on your own terms than trying to find a way to say it in such as way that no one reading will attack you for it.
For all their obnoxiousness, the discussions on slashdot are a very good way to test the rigorousness of a belief or argument by exposing it to both reasoned debate and open hostility.
If your position is sound, a calm and reasoned exposition stands on its own merits, even if the person you're discussing it just responds by sneering.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with that particular bit of the Bible is that it's two fricken completely different stories that both got included. People who actually READ the language of the ORIGINAL agree on this. Plus there's the fact that they are both based on different Mesopotamian creation stories. Translation actually has very little to do with it in the case of the Old Testament. Many, many people still read the original language, it's the religious language of the Jews and a modern variant is the spoken language
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Interesting)
[[ How can arguably the world's number 1 science and technology leader simultaneously be so utterly backwards when it comes to teaching science compared to much of the rest of the world? ]]
Well, the US is also a very religious country so this part is quite easy to understand..
One area where the US "leads" the way also is the belief in 'little green men', I've read that 50% of the US population believe in those..
Now, each country has its 'stupidity': as you're English I would point out that having a Queen/King is a *very* stupid system!
I'm French and among our many stupidities, there are:
- we treat our elected president like a King (still much better than having a monarchy but hardly ideal)
- many believe in 'graphologie': in many case you have to take a graphologie test before being hired!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The monarchy is hardly in the same league as fanatical Christianity. The monarch does a nice job of promoting British business and keeping the rich and powerful neutralized.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Funny)
The monarchy is hardly in the same league as fanatical Christianity.
They both have really cool hats.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course it means a science teacher can properly ignore creationism and stick to scientific debate.
Judges may not fully understand science, but they DO understand that science is done by scientists and they will understand that the creationist side can't seem to find a single credentialed scientist that will say creationism is a scientific theory.
from a Texan (Score:4, Insightful)
You're assuming that the compromise wording is still code for "excuse to attack science."
It's not particularly hard to find un-biased judges in Texas.
It is, I admit, easy to find biased judges, as well, but that's not a peculiar problem to Texas.
The specific issue here is perhaps the nature of the biases you find.
But the question you're driving at is, without a legal definition of "scientific evidence", you must rely on common law, and common law in a particularly place tends to reflect the common sensibilities of that place.
Being one who believes in that government should be by the voice of the people, even when the people are not perfectly correct, I don't see this as something to be fought on terms of the kinds of us vs. them arguments prevailing in this thread. Us vs. them is wrong, even when "we" believe in "the truth", whether the truth is "science" or "religion".
Unfortunately, much though it might be uncomfortable to you and me as geeks, the best solutions to social problems tend to be social, and this is primarily a social problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I am not a biologist. But perhaps the burden is on advocates of ID to produce such evidence?
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the "how is this not-go-good news?"
Good Science is all about putting science theory and practice under scrutiny and peer review. This promotes proper investigation and revision and kills-off Bad Science through attrition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With "intelligent design", you have theologians trying to make scientific decisions.
It doesn't work.
Foo on the other shoot: The Christan Gene (Score:3, Funny)
Did anyone else see the recent breakthrough announced by gay scientist research group Pink Tiger, with their discover of the Christian gene? Fabulous send-up...
Gay Scientists Isolate Christianity Gene [thedailytube.com]
Cheers,
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, its exactly the other way around. In the evolution controversy, we have theologians (or, rather, most of the time, preachers) trying to make scientific decisions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree but having a litmus test to see who is qualified to talk about what subject isn't a good idea. While I think the evangelical movement is disturbing I don't think their views should be silenced. It is by argumentation and refutation that the public's understanding of scientific and philosophical matters is expanded.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree but having a litmus test to see who is qualified to talk about what subject isn't a good idea.
If you claim to be teaching science in school, you better know science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should also know about the inadequacies or weaknesses in the scientific theories you are teaching. It might inspire a future scientist to study and resolve those inadequacies. Teaching intelligent design as science on par with evolution is bad but avoiding the weaknesses or unresolved issues in evolution is just as bad.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Informative)
From what I understand they have issues with the probability of non-life becoming life (abiogenesis), they claim that the theory of evolution cannot account for events like the Cambrian explosion, and the last thing I seem to find as a common theme for issues with evolution is their supposition that mutations are almost never if ever beneficial.
Here is a page for the weaknesses of evolution according to some people that want to play both sides. http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/essential_weaknesses.htm [strengthsa...nesses.org]
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a page for the weaknesses of evolution according to some people that want to play both sides. http://www.strengthsandweaknesses.org/Weaknesses/essential_weaknesses.htm [strengthsa...nesses.org]
Hmmm... just looking at that page. I think they are a bit behind on the times. First, I will link to this paper:
On the Origins of Cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells [royalsocie...ishing.org] by William Martin and Michael J Russell. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 29 January 2003 vol. 358 no. 1429 59-85 (PDF of the full textlink is on the right side of the page)
Now, to address the abiogenesis points from the page you linked to:
- The extreme improbability of obtaining any specific amino acid sequence needed for the proteins of life systems.
From the origin of the Earth as a solid surfaced planet covered with water to the first fossil evidence of biochemistry is a time span of a few hundred MILLION years, with an additional few hundred MILLION years to the first free living single celled organisms. After that, we have a couple BILLION years before we see more complex life forms. On those time scales, questions of probability seem moot, given the conditions on earth.
- The high probability of breakdown by hydrolysis of amino acid chains if they were to form in the first place.
Given the right conditions and enough time, this seems probable. The paper I just linked to has a very compelling hypothesis for how to keep new biomolecules in high enough concentrations for biochemistry to begin.
- No known way to achieve 100% left-handed amino acids in proteins or the 100% right-handed sugars in RNA and DNA - all of which are universal to life systems.
- All natural processes are known to produce a 50-50% mixture of left-handed and right-handed molecules.
Again, the paper I linked to has excellent, well-supported hypotheses about how the chiralities of biomolecules was selected.
- Photo dissociation of water vapor has been a source of oxygen since the Earth formed, and there is substantial geologic evidence that a significant amount of oxygen existed in the atmosphere prior to the advent of photosynthesis. Oxygen breaks down amino acids and sugars that are postulated to have formed!
The most likely origin of life is not at the surface, where Oxygen would be an issue, but at deep sea thermal vents. This hypothesis gives the best bet for a continuous energy source and influx of raw materials.
- There is no known natural source of the information that is present in all life systems. Random processes are never known to produce information.
No one argues that these processes are random. They are well within the laws of physics and chemistry, and, in being constrained by those laws of the natural universe, are not random.
Hmmm... I could keep going, but I don't have the time right now. Basically, a lot of those supposed weaknesses have been addressed and addressed very well by biochemists and molecular biologists studying the idea of abiogenesis and evolutionary biologists, ecologists, etc. studying other aspects of biology. The theory of Evolution is one of the best supported scientific theories mankind has come up with so far. The theory of abiogenesis is certainly gaining ground, and to date seems the most likely case (read the paper I linked for a lot of reasonable hypotheses as well as compelling evidence that supports them).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're damned right evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life! It's not supposed to, though.
As for the rest of it, why do I care what Darwin himself said? If Darwin had never been born, we'd just talk about Alfred Russel Wallace. And so on. His specific ideas were a slight variation on similar ones. He focused heavily on natural selection (a notion pioneered by Malthus), for instance. The modern theory of evolution is not word-for-word what Darwin wrote. And just as he differed somewhat from his c
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Interesting)
So, where do you suppose the "Earth as a solid surfaced planet covered with water" came from?
There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter.
Notice that the field of science you are fundamentally attacking there is chemistry, not biology.
Most people accept God and science.
This anti-evolution nonsense is fundamentally anti-science. It's impossible to "just" deny evolution and/or the age of the earth. Virtually every field of science from geology to chemistry to radioactivity to physics to genetics and on and on, it all ties in and they all confirm that the earth is billions of years old and that evolution is accurate. They "just" want to deny evolution, and oh by the way they have to deny carbon dating, and deny all radioactive dating, and oh by the way ALL of geology is completely wrong, and oh gee erosion is all wrong, and oh yeah lets toss chemistry on the trash heap too because chemical weathering and other slow chemistry doesn't work either, and the global record of billions of years of meteor impacts, and the geomagnetic record, and hell all of astronomy is wrong too because there's all sorts of 10,000+ year and 100,000+ year astronomical cycles recorded in the earth, just throw out Relativity and Quantum Mechanics when they too show a billions-year old earth and they confirm the sequence and timeline of biological evolution.
It's really simple. The activists on one side is deceiving people with misinformation.
The National Academy of Science for virtually every major nation on earth has a public position statement affirming evolution and that there is indeed overwhelming evidence conclusively supporting it. Every national or international science body with a public statement on evolution says the same thing. Out of about a half million degreed biologists, 100% agree evolution is established by the evidence. If you want to go to decimal points, it's 99.9%. Out of a half million biologists, there are about 700 denialists. 99.9% vs 0.1%. In absolutely any field, you can find at least 0.1% who are just plain crackpots.
Most people accept God and accept science.
This whole thing is just a replay of the Church-vs-Galileo fiasco. Some people decided they knew how God did things, and they had the dogmatic hubris to tell God how He was and was not permitted to run His universe. Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5, 1 Chronicles 16:30, and more all say "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved" and more, and in their presumption of self-perfection in religion and in their understanding of the Bible and their knowledge of God, they forbid God to have made a moving earth. They declared Galileo equal to atheism. They declared Darwin equal to atheism.
Psalm 19
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.
The heavens and the earth uttereth speech and sheweth knowledge. All the earth is writ old, and all the evidence testifies to evolution. Galileo was right, the earth moves. Darwin was right, life evolved.
A spinning moving earth is the "how" for creating day and night and the seasons. The science of optics is the "how" for creating rainbows. And evolution is the how" for the diversity of life. God does not need to manually insert rainbows, He does not need to hand-craft each snowflake.
-
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Shush now, grownups are talking.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is trying to silence the evangelical movement. Nobody has tried to pass a law that their bible must have a sticker saying Genesis is an opinion. Nobody has demanded that they hand out Darwin tracts along with their usual ones. Nobody expects the preacher to give equal time to Darwin on Sunday.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree but having a litmus test to see who is qualified to talk about what subject isn't a good idea. While I think the evangelical movement is disturbing I don't think their views should be silenced. It is by argumentation and refutation that the public's understanding of scientific and philosophical matters is expanded.
This isn't about discussion between rational adults. This is about what we teach children. Children will believe something if the teacher says it, to the point where if one of the other students attempts to correct the teacher when they are wrong, the other children will shout that person down. I'm sure many of you have seen or experienced this directly.
This is a primary vector that allows mythology memes like Christianity to survive: indoctrinating children.
The religious memes wish to use the school vectors that they see having such massive effectiveness to spread themselves. Of course, I'm anthromorphizing a bit, but please allow me some poetic license, the metaphor holds.
These conflicts are entirely about preventing the government from indoctrinating children with false beliefs while at the same time creating mental structures that make them resistant to being educated with actual facts and reality based thought constructs.
The fact that people feel the need to lie, repeatedly and often, shows that they know, deep down, that their mythology is not true. If they truly believed their supernatural being of choice was omnipotent and all knowing, they would not feel the need to lie to further the belief and worship of it.
But of course, the whole point of evangelism for most (if not all) of these people, and the whole point of public proclamations of faith, is to desperately prove to one self that one really, truly believes.
Of course, the sad part is that the only ones who really, truly believe are the mentally damaged and insane. The rest of them are all faking it, because they know that if they stop the people who are still faking it will shun them from the herd. The cycle continues until enough people loudly proclaim their disbelief. This is why athiests are considered enemy number one to all religions.
Maybe we'll get lucky. Maybe athiests will finally reach critical mass and blow this mind cancer/meme virus out of the minds of humanity once and for all.
Looking at the sheer number of infected, though, I often doubt it.
Its sad. Humans could be something really special.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree with your points where would you say the evangelism regarding global warming in our schools fits within the paradigm of not indoctrinating our kids?
As far as your description of group psychology and religion those same points can be applied to any social group from climate scientists to the local electricians union. They are not problems specific to religion they are problems that manifest in all human social interactions.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Insightful)
That calling mainstream science "evangelism" whenever you don't like the implications is demagogy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> While I think the evangelical movement is disturbing I don't think their views should be silenced
Their view are not science, and should not be even addressed in a science classroom. There should be no mention of creationism in a biology book. Maybe in a generic science book, as a counter-example to show what untestable stuff is.
They can have theological courses, full of creationism, and other untestable "theories".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope realize that Galileo (apparently the poster boy of the science vs religion debate) was educated at Camaldolese Monastery outside Florence. Without the religious institutions who ended up persecuting him he may never have advanced our understanding of the universe as much as he had.
Science and religion have always been intertwined and the conflict between them has been very beneficial.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not really. The church has long been a powerful financial/political/educational machine, one of the few accepted carrers for children of the elite. For all those reasons, intelligent and educated people often had some involvement, at some point, with the church, apart from possible religious convictions.
That is no longer the case though, or not as strongly. We no longer have to deal with that conflict and jump though hoops to try and make science without angering paymasters / teachers / bosses.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Putting theological doctrine to the test is all well and good when it is theologians that are involved in weighing the voodoo to see what fits and what doesn't.
Fixed that for ya.
Seriously, since when has religion been about evidence?
Faith is not sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la" so you don't hear thing that challenge your beliefs. If you want to cling to a literal interpretation of a document written by a primitive group of humans that wouldn't have understood even if God HAD tried to show them exactly how he made everything, go right ahead. Meanwhile, I'll be over here thinking of evolution as how I was created.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is a ritualistic human sacrifice any different than open heart surgery? Both are performed by anointed individuals according to prescribed methods...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The difference is that your HMO does not require a referral for the human sacrifice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How is having confidence in an unproven scientific theory any different that having faith in god?
This is the sentence that shows your misconceptions about science.
One does not have "confidence" in an unproven scientific theory. Unproven theories are tested and tested and REtested. If the theory is incorrect, it's rethought and revised. A theory is NEVER "trusted" until it has stood against rigor.
On the other hand, religion is trusted because, why, exactly? Because it's written in a book?
Religion and science is are two completely different beasts. Whereas religion is deeply personal and hi
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Funny)
Name one case where a scientist has seriously demanded that any church give equal time to preaching evolution!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Name one church that has ever argued that they're entitled to $5000-$7000 a year per school child by governmental force.
Never heard of school vouchers? This is precisely what they are advocating.
The issue hear isn't freedom. You don't have the freedom not to send your kids to school, not to pay for school in this country and you never have.
This is about the rights of your kids to actually learn something about the world despite the ignorance of their parents.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Name one church that has ever argued that they're entitled to $5000-$7000 a year per school child by governmental force.
Actually seeing as churches are tax exempt for property taxes and income taxes and often sit on prime real-estate while pocketing millions of dollars I would say that they do quite well for themselves.
And I would hardly say that a single class can be held accountable for the entire school year budget. Or is it morally outrageous that the religious must spend $5k for secular transport as well?
I am happy for schools to teach creationism. But I want equal time given to the wiccan beliefs. And I want witches to oversee the wiccan corriculum.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Interesting)
I am happy for schools to teach creationism. But I want equal time given to the wiccan beliefs. And I want witches to oversee the wiccan corriculum.
I'd like to see a question like this on a religious studies exam:
"Compare the attitudes towards the creation of the universe and the origin of life from the point of view of followers of two major religions."
I remember my religion teacher doing this when I was 15/16, and IMO it made a complete mockery of any "facts" religions claimed. Great, Judeo-Christians believe the world was made by their god etc, but I have a whole book of creation stories and some of them are much cooler.
I can't remember if there were questions like that on my exam. The sample exams I can find online don't seem to have questions like that, they're a lot easier, like "Pick one from 'Describe Christian attitudes to war', 'Describe Jewish attitudes to war'" etc.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cute, but nonsensical. The person you were responding to was right- fundamentalists are trying hard to convince everyone that evolutionary science and creationism are on the same level. They've invented talking points like "intelligent design" and "strengths and weaknesses" to confuse the general public into agreeing with your statement.
But they're wrong. Evolution is falsifiable science [dumbscientist.com], and has nothing to do with theology. For example, many Christians accept the theory of evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II said [ewtn.com] "Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis."
Evolution is theologically neutral. Anyone who feels that their faith is threatened by evolution either doesn't understand evolution, or doesn't understand that science is about verifying falsifiable, naturalistic models of reality. Science doesn't attempt to reveal "truth" in a religious sense, it's simply trying to describe the most phenomena with the fewest postulates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the problem. If you read just the first part of my link, you'll see that creationism isn't even wrong. Creationism isn't bad science, because that implies that it somehow qualifies as science in the first place.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're looking at science only long enough to hear about evolution, you might get the mistaken impression that evolution is the only area where there's still any uncertainty. It does kids little good to imply that there's Solid Science and that evolution is on some lower tier of reliability. And even less good to write curriculum language like this, and then use it as an excuse to pick on the one theory that most directly contradicts your specific religious beliefs. Note from the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Document" [wikipedia.org] that those guys are gunning for evolution specifically because it's so central to the scientific, rational understanding of reality. Eliminate evolution as an accepted theory, and reality looks more like an incomprehensible chaos where reason is helpless and only mystical insight is trustworthy. Put out the brightest light, and there's more darkness to sneak around in.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Insightful)
So because you think that people who endorse creation will attempt to use this as some sort of loophole through which they can slip in arguments that don't actually stand up to scientific scrutiny, you would rather that the currently accepted theory not be encouraged to be subjected to any further scrutiny than it already has been either?
Uhmmm.. wow. that's all I can say is just... wow. Talk about cutting of one's nose to spite their face.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you being intentionally dense or do you really not understand what you're talking about? Do you really think elementary school students, in general, have the mental deveolopment and intellectual context to perform a rigorous scientific debate? Yes, kids are more clever than many people give them credit for but no, this does not mean that we can turn the Tevatron over to a bunch of 3rd graders.
Explaining the scientific method to these kids is the right thing to do. Letting their teachers stand at the front of the room and use rhetorical tricks honed over years by propagandists to brainwash those children is morally repugnant and puts the lie to everything these relgious people claim to believe in.
If you have to lie and decieve to spread the "gospel" of your religion, then it ISN'T THE RIGHT RELIGION. No omnipotent, omniescient being needs a bunch of sychophantic simpering weasels to slip pamphlets about its awesomeness into the lunch boxes of little kids. If it does, then it doesn't deserve to be worshipped.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not-so-good? (Score:4, Insightful)
The good news is that the board dropped a 20-year-old requirement that both "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories be taught; score one for the teaching of evolution.
And how is this good news? Once a scientific theory is established, we should ignore any evidence that may disprove it because it has become the accepted truth? I don't see how teaching evolution as "the truth" is significantly better than teaching intelligent design as "the truth". Science is not dogma.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Spot on. If kids are not taught to "analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student" then they're not being taught science at all. Science is the process of critiquing scientific explanations.
This could only be an issue if people fear that the teachers themselves are clueless about science. That might or might not be the case (I don't know any Texan science tea
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand how any reasonably intelligent person (and I take it that you are if you work in physics) can buy the micro vs marco evolution nonsense (akin to saying that people can walk a kilometre but walking a 100 kilometres is impossible!) - but I have seen plenty of otherwise intelligence people believe all sorts of silly things. Even such a tertiary source as
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we both know this, but lets get it out in the open. People like the one you replied to perfectly understand that the arguments they are making are bullshit. They are aware of this. Now, their conscious mind might inhibit thinking about this as much as possible, but their overall consensus mind knows the truth.
In order to defy this voice in their head that is whispering, "This is a bunch of horse shit," these people feel compelled to perform acts demonstrating their faith. This helps bolster their internal argument, and also helps with their herd status. This is common behavior in any herd and most of us do something similar, though in the case of religious beliefs it often leads people to do irrational things like give money to child molesters or have unprotected sex.
Yes, it is idiotic. Yes, they know better, but part of the problem is that they think that they're defective. They think they're different, that everyone else beleives truly and deeply (after all, you can tell everyone else believes because look at how virtuous they are) and they think that their lack of belief, their doubting voice, is an abberation. Of course, they often also know that this is not true, but there is never a way to prove it, and they fear the backlash of the tribe.
So what do you do if you're a cloest athiest, suspect everyone else is a cloest athiest, but everyone you know is really good at pretending and part of you is convinced that they all believe and that you're defective, and all of you is worried that if you come out and say, "You know, this is bullshit," that all your friends and family will shun you? You perform public acts of faith. The more shakey your belief system and the more insecure you are, the more radical your actions will be. This is why you see the people like all those Republican Senators who talk about family values and then cheat on their wives (sometimes doing so in extreme circumstances, like having homosexual trysts in airport bathrooms). This is also why you see votes like this. It is all a big smoke and mirrors act to desperately try and convince everyone (including the possibly watching and angry superbeing in the sky) that hey, they really are faithful!
As for the people who are harmed by this demonstration of faith... well, fuck those guys. Relieving the stress of fear is more important.
Some people relieve that stress in less showy ways, by doing things like coming to slashdot and copypasting tired discredited arguments from places like the discovery institute.
I guess the really sad part is, for a lot of these people their fears are justified. If they came out as athiests or even talked about their doubts, they would be socially shunned and attacked by those they care the most about, all because for their friends and family maintaining the illusion of faith and going through the motions of being a faithful person is more important than the happiness of the people they claim to love.
As a funny side note, all of this happens because the human brain was never designed to try and do the things we ask of it. It wasn't "designed" at all. It does perform many functions that serve the purpose of helping create conditions where sperms and eggs can meet and then the resulting life form can survive to breeding age though. Social things. Like going to church.
Thats right kids. God exists so that people will fuck.
Re:not-so-good? (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for your reply.
As I have mentioned, Wikipedia already has all the answers in way better wording then I would ever come up with. In fact there is an entire article just dedicated to that question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye [wikipedia.org].
Your third paragraph "magically decides that it needs to see when it has no concept of sight" seems to say that you don't understand how evolution works at all. There is no causal factor involved here. Perhaps you were just being dramatic. If you still feel confused after reading the article let me know - I work in this field (evo in general) and am happy to explain any of the details involved in evolution.
If the biblical account is confused as you say, why mention it at all. There are better sources to look to then the confused writings of people who lived a long time ago.
I know plenty of people who are Christians as well as scientists - however the great majority see it as some vague metaphor rather than a how to guide for understanding the universe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Naturally scientists are humans, and there are egos involved, however I have never seen this to turn into a major issue. What I have seen is a love of truth rather than theory - that is scientists are happier to have been corrected as the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not actually necessary to wait for fossil evidence of the origin. You can examine sequence similarity between the different proteins that are involved in photosensing in single celled organisms and multicellular organisms to point you on the way to seeing how at least the components of eyes would have originated. (The actual structure of organelles and proteins required to sense photons accurately is far more difficult than the physical structure of the
Pardon but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Pardon me, but I fail to see how not teaching the weakness of a theory, whether it be evolution or gravity or special relativity, is a win for anyone?
Re:Pardon but... (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be different if by "weakness of a theory" creationists don't mean the already refuted arguments they've been using for decades. It is a problem when I meet someone who thinks that it's a "weakness of the theory" that the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible, and they want that taught in class.
If there are weakness in evolutionary theory, creationists won't be the ones to know them, because they don't understand the theory in the first place. Many of the arguments used by creationists are false--for example their claim that there are no transitional fossils, or that we've never witnessed speciation.
They want to present these lies in class and act as if they're only presenting the weakness of the theory. They're just lying for Jesus. Every few years they have to change their wording because their tactics become known as baseless smears. Hence ID, the wedge strategy, etc.
Go Texas! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Go Texas! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Go Texas! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes!!! We should not blindly accept gravity as a fact. Serious scientists now believe our understanding of what gravity may be either incomplete, or simply wrong.
http://www.physorg.com/news85310822.html [physorg.com]
Score for who? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, score one for science. If one examines all sides of scientific evidence for those scientific explanations, then creationism and ID are left out in the cold because they are not based on science, are not scientific explanations, and thus can not be discussed.
Further, if the goal is to encourage critical thinking, then ID and creationism are in trouble because they do not stand up to critical examination.
Re:Score for who? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that both the students and the teachers have the competence, knowledge and understanding of the science in order to properly evaluate it, and that the teachers guiding such student evaluation do so in an honest and unbiased fashion.
Good luck with that.
Re:Score for who? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find that many scientists have neither the competence, the knowledge, the understanding, nor the integrity to evaluate their own field. I agree with scientific criticism and wish it were taught more.
Re:Score for who? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let say our culture eliminates itself, and after 50000 years nearly no traces of us will be left. Still somebody looking at the Genes of the animals *will* find ID. He will find that certain genes were selected far beyond natural selection (actively bred), sometimes different from what you would expect in nature, and that new genes which do not belong to the pool of a species will appear (insulin in bacteria). What i want to say: there are scientific criteria for ID, but usually proposers of ID just want to justify their superstition and therefore hesitate to define these. Would i be in their place i would also hesitate, because this has the big risk of failing spectacularly.
There's a name for what you're describing: artificial selection. It has nothing to do with "intelligent design," which is the claim that all life on earth was created (more or less in its present form) by some unknowable entity. Artificial selection is part of evolutionary theory and you would find no competent evolutionary biologist who would deny its existence.
FMS theory? IPU theory? Mmmm, PI ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can almost hear the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn supporters in Texas gearing up for the campaigns to pressure the school systems into teaching their alternative "scientific" explanations of evolution, cosmology, etc. It should be fun to watch.
And how about the people who think that the mathematicians have make pi far too difficult for kids, and want their favorite alternative value taught in the schools. Wouldn't it be fun to contemplate a world in which engineers could build things using the exact (and rational!) value of pi that was taught to them when they were young ...
I don't see how that is a bad thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone knows that scientific theory is not scientific fact. A better theory may come along and frequently does in the the sciences. Especially if this criticism examines scientific evidence as the amendment requests and not "biblical evidence" which a lot of creationism is based upon. (Lots of circular arguements that basically end with the bible said so and it's correct because it's the word of god, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.)
Hopefully it would be interpreted that way and not just be a vehicle to introduce creationism. Afterall, scientific dogma is still dogma.
Re:I don't see how that is a bad thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone knows that scientific theory is not scientific fact. A better theory may come along and frequently does in the the sciences. Especially if this criticism examines scientific evidence as the amendment requests and not "biblical evidence" which a lot of creationism is based upon. (Lots of circular arguements that basically end with the bible said so and it's correct because it's the word of god, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.)
Hopefully it would be interpreted that way and not just be a vehicle to introduce creationism. Afterall, scientific dogma is still dogma.
Bzzzt. Sorry. Theories are built by facts. They are frameworks for facts. If a theory is discarded in favor of another, it is because new facts have arisen that the original theory does not account for.
Well... (Score:4, Insightful)
The wording as described in the summary sounds fine in the abstract; I suspect the problem will come in the implementation.
As I see it, the problem with creationism and ID isn't that it's wrong, it's that it's untestable. Anything taught in the science classroom should be testable. There is a place for testable but wrong theories -- I remember learning about the aether, for example -- but things that make no testable predictions have no place. A discussion of how a popular theory (like the Ptolomeic theory of the solar system) gets disproved is quite valuable; if such a discussion was possible about creationism or ID it would have a place in the science classroom. But, as it makes no testable predictions, putting it in the same category as Aristotelean physics or Ptolomean astronomy is wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whether you want to call it proof or disproof is a matter of semantics. However, the theory of evolution makes testable predictions. Those predictions have been tested repeatedly; sometimes they've been wrong and the theory has advanced (it's not the same as it was when Darwin proposed it), and often they've been quite accurate. The most dramatic examples are things like predictions that we would find intermediate fossils of a species in between two known fossils.
If you're looking for direct observationa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When one makes a distinction between so-called microevolution and macroevolution, then there's a hint that one has been absorbing far too much ID woo.
Wasting Time (Score:4, Insightful)
Requiring students to evaluate every scientific explanation in light of the evidence that supports it will be a monumental waste of time. From the theory of gravity to the theory of the atom, spending time discussing the basis of scientific consensus will prevent students from getting very deep into any topic. I'm just glad that the most likely effect for students outside Texas is that science textbooks will be distributed in two volumes: the part Texas students are able to get through while critiquing the evidence and the rest of the curriculum all other high schools will be able to get to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Such discussions would result in students reviewing subjects in more depth, not less.
Instead of just accepting an explaination of gravity or the structure of an atom, students will need to understand how the scientific models were constructed.
For example a student will learn more about science on the atomic scale if they reviewed the his
the reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Why Science Lost (Score:4, Informative)
Superficially, the decision sounds fine - of course we want students to analyze the scientific evidence! The problem is that the creationists are going to come back with a novel definition of 'scientific' evidence that treats Intelligent Design as a scientific hypothesis, and they're going to demand textbooks that include a treatment of all kinds of nonsensical 'theories'. ID is not scientific. It has no evidence in its favor (pointing out that we lack intermediate fossils showing the evolution of the lesser red-necked Argentinian swamp leech is not evidence that it was designed). But the Discovery Institute does have another bad textbook waiting in the wings for the next round of textbook-buying decisions in Texas.
For more details, see here [scienceblogs.com].
Start calling a spade a spade (Score:5, Insightful)
It is so sad that people even allow "creationism" as a debate still. Get a real
spine and tell these people to shut up and leave the room.
Here, these words will help:
"Collective, viral mental illness"
"Collective, viral mental illness"
"Collective, viral mental illness"
(keep repeating it...)
They need treatment and counseling to address their illness. There was
no virgin birth. There was no loaves and fishes feeding thousands. There
was no man who came back to life. There was no garden of Eden. It is
grossly ridiculous to discuss the world as 6000 years old. They are stories!
There was no placement of fossils to test our "faith". And most of all, we
have zero observations to support the story of a sentient creator. Personally,
I don't know if there is a God, but collectively teaching blatant falsehoods
should be completely unacceptable and called as such every single time.
Loudly.
Men wrote the bible. It was written long after the historical figure "Jesus
of Nazareth" died. Men created the church, every church. There is absolutely
no space for discussion with "creation scientists". Those with a straight face
who "teach" such extreme views, (see for example here (if you can stomach it
without vomiting): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_CLIGJW6Ic [youtube.com] ) are
*mentally ill* and should be offered treatment.
Even if a large group of people are deluded, they are still deluded.
Critical Thinking is a Good Thing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry, but they're absolutely right (Score:4, Informative)
You are wrong. Maybe you shouldn't get your science from your preacher there, dumbass.
The Theory of Evolution makes predictions about the kinds of fossils that should be found, and guess what, we keep finding them. It has been tested and proven itself quite well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Theory of Evolution was proven? I clearly need to get out more. I didn't know that it is Theorem of Evolution now.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory [wikipedia.org]
"Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the one major sticking point for evolution is the problem of abiogenesis-- disregard the domain name for a minute and read this: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-crs/abiogenesis.html
very valid -scientific- evidence against evolution from abiogenesis
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Theory of Evolution makes predictions about the kinds of fossils that should be found, and guess what, we keep finding them. It has been tested and proven itself quite well.
Technically, those are quasi-experiments (approximately, relying on the experiments already done by nature rather than setting up your own experiment) and they are rightly seen as of somewhat lesser value than controlled experiments -- the reason being that there's a strong temptation to be so selective about what data gets considered that you'll never allow a negative result. Say you were a mad scientist who believed dogs evolved from elephants. So you predict there'll be an almost-dog-almost-elephant fo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically, those are quasi-experiments (approximately, relying on the experiments already done by nature rather than setting up your own experiment) and they are rightly seen as of somewhat lesser value than controlled experiments
You have to be careful here. Controlled experiments can also give unexpected results because of a conscious or unconscious bias somewhere. Confounding factors abound.
The classic recent example is HRT. Controlled experiments showed that HRT reduced heart disease. It's now accepted
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Sneaking in Young Earth Creationism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fine by me. I mean, it's only been in the last few years that the age of the universe has had a decimal point (I remember being absolutely amazed when WMAP returned a figure of 13.7 billion, when previous estimates had been of the '12 to 15 billion, ish' character). We still don't know what most of the dark matter is, we haven't a clue what the dark energy is. There's no reason that we shouldn't at least explain about the three different Friedmann models, the history of the cosmological constant (from Einstein's greatest mistake, to its current central importance in the accelerating universe), and the history of Big Bang versus Steady State. As for the age of the earth, one could mention the late nineteenth-century quarrel between astronomers and geologists, between those who said the Sun could be no older than a few tens of millions of years and those who said life on Earth had existed for orders of magnitude longer than that.
Similarly there's no reason why the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives to Darwinian evolution should not be discussed. There's Lamarckianism, for instance. And Lysenkoism, and a cautionary tale of its dire practical consequences for the Soviet Union.
Even the fundamental Newtonian physics could be handled in this way. Newton's theories contradict our instinctive ideas of how things work, which are closer to Aristotelian mechanics - or physics according to Wile E. Coyote. The point of it all is to develop an understanding of how science is actually done, how theories compete and how we judge between them, and why we now think this to be true, when once many people reasonably thought this instead: an understanding of science as a process by which we improve our understanding of the universe, not a list of facts that must be memorised.