Texas Bill Outlaws Discrimination Against Creationists In Academia 1251
ndogg writes "There is a Texas bill, HB 2454, proposed by Republican State Rep. Bill Zedler, that will outlaw discrimination against creationists in colleges and universities. More specifically, it says, 'An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.'"
yes but... (Score:4, Funny)
We can still laught a them loudly right ?
Re:yes but... (Score:5, Interesting)
actually, this bill is discrimination against every other religion that's out there. So I'm amazed they will try to do this. A law against "discrimination of all religions" is different than a law against discrimination of a single religion. This would be laughed out of courts and overturned pretty fast if it ever passed and was challenged.
Re:yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. If it means they can also teach creation according to Norse Mythology and Spaghetti Monster then I'm all for it.
Can they even do a whole course on Creationism? I think they'll be all out of evidence/arguments in the first lecture...
Re:yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Can they even do a whole course on Creationism? I think they'll be all out of evidence/arguments in the first lecture...
Absolutely they can! In the theology department where content of that nature belongs.
I have no qualms with religion being studied as it is an undeniably vast and rich area of human sociology and history. But it is not a science in any sense of the word.
I don't think universities should discriminate against the nature of an applicant's work, but they without a doubt should be able to discriminate based on the rigor and relevance of that work. We trust in that process to smack down crackpot tabletop fusion physicists. Why can't we trust it here? Show me a prof with scientific evidence of god (that passes muster in the scientific community) and he can teach science all day long. Kind of like when Rembrandt said "show me an angel, and I will paint you one."
Re:yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
If this passes I hope they do teach Spaghetti Monster Creationism, and debunk it in class, as a way of debunking creationism in general in a "hey doc, my...friend has this problem" kind of way.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Or it will be eventually filed under "unintended consequences" if it does pass and as a result ALL belief systems (even those the creationist/christians don't like) get to expound on their theories on how the universe came to be.
I'd say that the Greek origin myth is a hell of a lot more plausible than Genesis. According to some Greek myths, existence originated out of chaos.
Re:yes but... (Score:4, Interesting)
You'd think so... but other states (like Ohio) have in their Constitution that you must believe in a higher power to hold office. While it will never hold up (hopefully) and it's considered a "blue" law it's still in the books and it discriminates against a group of people.
Re:yes but... (Score:4, Funny)
Any higher power? How about the physics of the universe? Physics will fuck you up if you disrespect it. You best BA-LEEV!
Re:yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The discrimination is well-deserved since, in the end, the best thing anyone proposing Intelligent Design can say is, "Some mystical power, that we can't identify, test for or measure, is responsible for everything."
So how exactly is that science? If you can't identify it, test it or for it, or measure it, it's not part of what we know to be reality.
EVERY scientific hypothesis or theory ever devised fell under one or more of the above. All the theories regarding gravity, light, infections, digestion, the way objects move in a vacuum, were all tested over the centuries using the scientific method.
So tell me, how is one supposed to test for an omnipotent and omniscient being?
Re:yes but... (Score:4, Informative)
I haven't watched "Expelled", but I've heard that all the "discrimination" presented in the documentary had much simpler explanations, most if not all of the subjects failed to perform their regular duties and were terminated for both failure to perform the duties of the jobs and failure to improve on that performance after receiving several warnings.
For example, I remember, from when I looked into shortly after it was released, that one of the subjects claimed he was fired for writing a book about creationism, which was partially true. He was fired for writing a book about creationism during work hours when he was supposed to conducting unrelated research. Essentially he spent two years committing "time theft" and was completely surprised when he was fired for not doing his job.
Sadly, that documentary suffered from a severe confirmation bias and a persecution complex.
Re:yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The flat earthers deserve more respect they are closer to the right answer than the ID crowd
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm [tufts.edu]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Assholes like you try to convolute nebulous mysticism with science and pretend that the two are somehow on equal footing, and the rest of us get stuck trying to keep our children from getting taught this festering pile of lies. Come talk to me about perspective and insight when you bring along a hypothesis that is both testable and not already empirically proven untrue. Until then, you aren't offering valid criticism, you are spewing worthless bullshit.
Re:yes but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Looks like the Retardicans are up to their old tricks.
"OMG the Bible is under attack! Better get out and vote Retardican you buck-toothed inbred hicks! Nevermind that we're taking away all the funding to try to educate your kids and stealing your homes and farmland out from underneath you, its Da Bible Under Attack!"
This kind of crap makes me sick to my stomach. Seriously. Texas has this one retard by the name of Dan Patrick - he's also responsible for the ultrasound bill these fundamentalist wack-jobs crammed through. He bought off his opponent in the 2006 senate race with underpriced stock in his radio station.
To call him a scumwad is an insult to scum everywhere.
Quoting from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] - which I don't normally do, but the link's been there a good long while even though Dumb Patrick is too cowardly to put his show on podcast - On January 27, 2011 on his radio show, Patrick defended his proposed 20% cuts to Texas education funding by saying that anything but engineering and medical research is "research nobody cares about" which he "will get rid of."
Sigh.
Re: (Score:3)
And you feel that by calling Republicans "Retardican" will somehow help you convince those Republicans that they should rethink their views? Does it simply feel good?
Re:yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really feel that ANYTHING will make them rethink their views?
I like the world you live in - where all people change their opinions and beliefs once they learn new facts or contrary rational arguments. I really wish I lived there.
Unfortunately, I find myself in a world where people only use facts and arguments to buttress preconceived notions, no matter how untrue, unprovable, or illogical those notions may be. (Many of these people can be found in the Texas legislature.)
When the willfully ignorant claim intellectual superiority for no reason, it's the ultimate in arrogance. Why not hurl a few rocks their way?
Re: (Score:3)
I would agree with you, but throwing rocks reduces yourself to their level. There's merit to living a life in dignity where others around you are incapable or unwilling to do so.
It's along the same lines as: living well is the best revenge. Suppressing the urge to throttle the living shit out of the ignorant may be the most courageous thing you ever do. There is honor in that courage. To do less, is to aid in their entropy.
Re:yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you really feel that ANYTHING will make them rethink their views?
Yes. I've turned around a lot of folks on various woo topics by simply not acting like a dick. I even convinced some that the last Bush administration was really, really bad, and I didn't have yo call him Shrub or Dumbya or anything. Fancy that!
The moment you reduce any opposition to mindless robots and start name calling *you* have failed.
I like the world you live in - where all people change their opinions and beliefs once they learn new facts or contrary rational arguments. I really wish I lived there.
You do. The number of extremists on many issues is not as large as you think. Turn off the news channels and pundits and hyberbolic blogs for a while and go meet real people.
Why not hurl a few rocks their way?
Because it doesn't work, and you are now operating on a zero level of intellect. Any claim to intellectual superiority will be soundly and justifiably laughed at.
Re:yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Republican - there are still actual Republicans around. The ones who were closer to the center, who understood that the "screaming aaugh kill the government anarchy for all the low tax fairy will bring us everything we want" types are fucking insane.
On the other hand, the party has been taken over by a bunch of wack-jobs and front-group maintainers like the Kochs. The "Tea Party" types, the Ron/Rand Paul types. Those are the Retardicans.
They claim to worship "Reagan", but don't know the fucking first thing about what Reagan actually said. For instance, take the recent stuff in Wisconsin and the constant Retardican attacks on trade unions in general. What did Reagan have to say about Unions?
Here's a quote:
"They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost. They remind us that freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. You and I must protect and preserve freedom here or it will not be passed on to our children." - Ronald Reagan, Sept 1, 1980
On the other hand, where do we find people who want to abolish trade unions? Oh yeah - COMMUNISTS and SOCIALISTS and FASCISTS.
"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers' salaries and take away their right to strike." - Adolph Hitler, May 2, 1933
Benito Mussolini banned trade unions. Under Fascist corporatism, they were "enemies of the state." Kinda reminds me of the way the Republican Party works currently.
Stalin abolished all the unions. After all, under Communist rule they were "no longer necessary." And yet somehow the Retardicans say "Unions are communism."
Oh really?
The crossroads question today is, as these Retardicans reveal more and more of their true selves, will the people of America recognize them for what they are and tell them to go the fuck away?
Re:yes but... (Score:4, Informative)
they are doing this to combat the abuses that Ben Stine discusses in his documentary, "Expelled".
The abuses were all Ben Stine's [expelledexposed.com]. All the horror stories of brave creationists standing up to a massive, evil, illogical conspiracy to preach evolution, who got fired as a result were actually all people whose careers were dead-ending for unrelated reasons. After all, it's less damaging to the ego to claim you were a victim rather than incompetent. I suppose the two might not be completely unrelated: if you're so dumb as to ignore all the evidence for evolution in favor of a simpleton's interpretation of your holy book, you probably aren't a very good scientist...
Anyway, the movie should have been called "Excused" rather than "Expelled" and if the great state of texas wanted to combat abuses related to that movie, they should be investigating Ben Stine for lying.
Re:yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fundamentalism, like Fascism, is indistinguishable from any parody thereof.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with that is that science in itself doesn't claim to have 'faith' in anything; Science is about maintaining the most current explanation of how and why the measurable world works. These theories are constantly self correcting (the newer ones will supplant the older ones after being independently tested and proven).
It's not our fault that a certain slice of the (non-scientific) public has a tough time accepting this; if they feel more comfortable believing in absolute explanations of the world r
Re:yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it Ironic that you can't see how the second paragraph lumps you in with the people in the first paragraph?
As far I understand everything you complain about in the second paragraph are imaginary problems that don't actually exist:
Science hasn't broken faith with you. You've broken faith with it. You attack it based on rumors and innuendo.
You're falling into the same trap as the "morons" you dislike. You believe ridiculous fairy tales because that's what you want to believe, you either refuse to look at or consider the evidence that contradicts what you believe and you repeat lies to justify your erroneous conclusions.
Re:yes but... (Score:4)
Science is a method of study. Religion is a set of beliefs.
Dogma is antithetical to the practice of science, but is a foundation of nearly every organized religion.
First? (Score:5, Funny)
If you outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve.
Ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost all my professors believed in God. They thought the Initial Singularity, big bang, expansion, evolution of stars, and all of it was part of his design.
Re:Not really ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I believe in God, too. I guess the difference is that my particular God didn't spitefully plant all those dinosaur bones out in Utah to test my faith...
What they're doing with science is of grave concern. What they're doing with U.S. history is also of grave concern. From what I've read, they're damping down their focus on Thomas Jefferson in their American history texts (he wasn't really a Christian!), virtually eliminating slavery as one of the causes of the Civil War, and therefore moving Abraham L
Re: (Score:3)
Almost all my professors believed in God. They thought the Initial Singularity, big bang, expansion, evolution of stars, and all of it was part of his design.
Then they aren't creationists.
I'm an atheist, and think all the assorted theists out there are wrong. But that doesn't have to enter into the classroom. You can believe in a god and still do a damn good job of teaching astronomy or physics or biology or whatever else.
Creationists though... That's going to cause a problem. Creationists generally believe in a young earth, and a literal interpretation of Genesis, and generally oppose the idea of evolution.
That might not be much of a problem if you're teach
Re:Not really ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
The ark was actually found on top a mountain, albeit broken in half.
No it wasn't.
We know that the Mediterranean basin cracked open and flooded the desert a while back, in the area where all that shit happened.
No it didn't.
You may want to argue on the basis of facts, not a half-remembered mishmash of sensationalist stories. Of course, if you're a creationist, you can't do that and still hold on to your beliefs, so never mind.
Re:Not really ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
And if you actually read that article, you'll see that "the Mediterranean basin cracked open and flooded the desert" is an absurd exaggeration. It also happened much longer ago than the Biblical Flood happened (or would have happened, if there were any truth to the story at all.)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/100428-noahs-ark-found-in-turkey-science-religion-culture/
Again, exaggeration; the facts reported in the article in no way equate to "The ark was actually found on top a mountain, albeit broken in half." Fundamentalists have a long habit of seizing on to any archaeological evidence that might possibly fit their beliefs, shoehorning it into place, and then proclaiming that it proves all their fairy tales are true. Years ago, someone (I wish I could remember who, so I could give proper credit) satirized this brilliantly:
Two thousand years in the future ...
A major religion centers on the saga of a Savior-figure, a little girl -- seemingly normal but destined for greatness -- who ascended into heaven, traveled to a distant and magical land, spoke to animals and inanimate objects, battled monsters, and ultimately defeated a great illusionist (the Prince of Lies, perhaps?) in a battle of wits and willpower. For centuries, adherents of this great faith have searched for evidence of the literal truth of their beliefs, but none has ever been found.
Recently, archaelogists working near the middle of the region once occupied by the great North American empire known from ancient records as "Oosa," in the province of "Kanzs," have discovered the wreckage of a primitive dwelling and a fragmentary sign which linguists have reconstructed as spelling out the partial phrase "othy's House".
This proves it! It's all true! Dorothy was real!
Re:Not really ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
This was on the History Channel.
The History Channel also played a program about how the Masonic order was secretly a cult run by the alien Reptoids and the Illuminati to take control of the US government. This was followed by a program about ghosts. I don't think "was on the History Channel" lends much in the way of credibility in the last five to ten years.
Re: (Score:3)
1: They found an ancient wooden structure on top of a hill, last I heard it was most likely a temple rather than a boat.
2: It still is nowhere near large enough to have carried 2 of every animal.
3: the Mediterranean is BELOW the damn desert, no way for it to break open and flood the turkish highlands.
4: just because some events in the bible were inspired by actual events in some cases in no way validates any of its supernatural BS.
Republicans = Hypocrites, again (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how the same party that had Rand Paul insisting that desegregating lunch counters was "unconstitutional" is now trying to create affirmative action for fundamentalist retards. I guess it's only OK to protect the rights of white Christians, not everybody else...
Re:Republicans = Hypocrites, again (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont think you know what affirmative action is, and calling an entire party "hypocrites" based on one man's opinions is quite absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just another example, not the only example.
Reading comprehension... it's not just for fun any more!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, his old man, the guy who thought that Abe Lincoln shouldn't have tried to end slavery.
We're well aware that the Pauls are nothing more than vile bigots dressing things up in crap Libertarian phraseology.
Re:You are mistaken (Score:4, Insightful)
So Paul thinks the 14th Amendment isn't part of the Constitution? Most people ignore the FACT that the democrat party supported segregation and the republicans opposed it.
The Democrats lost the South, which was overwhelmingly Democrat, precisely because they opposed segregation, and the Republicans gained it by supporting segregation.
Sure (Score:5, Interesting)
No problem (Score:4, Informative)
Cheating? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cheating? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to denigrate the ingenuity of the ancients -- they were, after all, essentially identical to us today and no less clever -- but the only advanced technology evidenced by the Pyramids is the technology of the inclined plane and the wheel. There's a reason ancient pyramid-shaped buildings are found around the world, and it's because it's amenable to ramps.
There are no legends of Atlantis, except those created in the last couple centuries. There is, however, the writings of Plato where he created the concept of Atlantis, and explicitly said it was a made-up thought experiment and totally not real. For over a thousand years, everyone knew that. But then people who had never read Plato decided it must be a real place, and invented all kinds of stuff like that nonsense about "crystals".
The hieroglyphs [catchpenny.org](new link to get past Tripod) are just a case of your brain pattern matching for you. You forgot to mention the jet craft that doesn't look like it'd fly very well, and the "UFO" that would make the helicopter and jet plane obsolete. It's not like in context it says "Then we used our awesome [helicoptor glyph] to fight against the enemy's [jet fighter glyph], with the help of our friends from the sky in their [UFO glyph]. It only makes sense as language if you interpret as the Egyptologists do, as one set of writing superimposed on another. But I guess this is the one place where evidence for the Egyptian helicopter exists, in the middle of a bunch of gibberish babbling, and such fundamental technology just wasn't mentioned anywhere else.
And no, they did not know about genetics. The X and Y chromosomes differ [google.com] by a lot more than a "rib". What they "knew" was that what they were writing was not intended to be taken as a science textbook.
Re:Cheating? (Score:4, Interesting)
You try dragging a 55 tonne block up an inclined plane using only a wheel.
Um... it's not that hard. That's the whole point of having an inclined plane. I even saw a documentary where a small group of archaeologists were able to do it. It doesn't even take huge numbers of slaves to do it like sibling said; that just helps when the scale of the entire project is so large. There were far fewer slaves and a lot more well-paid skilled workers involved than commonly thought, anyway.
And that astronomical calculator is very impressive. But it doesn't demonstrate any technology we don't already know the Greeks had -- all the necessary geometry, astronomy, and machines were present. It's just remarkable for its degree of sophistication. It does not in any way imply that the Greeks -- much less the Egyptians -- had super-advanced technology. Hell, we know the Greeks had invented the steam engine in the aeolipile, but couldn't think of any practical use for it.
They did not have helicopters.
I knew FSM wouldn't forsake me (Score:3)
...other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms
Finally! Now I can submit all those Pastafarianism papers for publication.
Secession (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Well "Secession" is a reserved power under the Tenth Amendment. Just as any of the EU States can secede from the Union, so too can any of the US States.
The argument is especially strong in the case of Texas, which was an independent republic (like Vermont), and never part of the original Articles of Confederation. Texas is free to leave whenever it wishes.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe they were free to leave the first time. But what about when they were readmitted to the Union - I'm sure part of the readmitting of the confederate states would have involved no future secession.
And many constitutional scholars disagree with your proposition that any of the US States can secede from the Union.
Re:Secession (Score:4, Informative)
No not so much (Score:3)
That issue was settled back in 1865 with a little event called the Civil War. The Civil War was NOT about slavery, as many think. Slavery was one of the triggers, but the war was not fought over it in any way. The war was over the question of if union membership was permanent. The Confederate States wanted to leave and be their own nation since they were unhappy with what the federal government had been doing, slavery laws among them. The US decided that no that wasn't ok, it was rebellion and a war was fou
Fair enough (Score:3, Interesting)
If they are, say, art professors, or theology professors. But if they are scientists, then this is stupid. Believing in creationism is a sure sign of a bad scientist. You can't be a good scientist and believe in creationism any more than you can be a good scientist and deny the existence of gravity or atoms.
On the bright side, if they extend this to outlaw discrimination against believing any stupid thing then it'll make getting a job really easy. If an interviewer asks you about something you don't know, just claim you don't believe in it. If they don't hire you, sue them. Profit!
Re:Fair enough (Score:4, Insightful)
1. The vast majority of them did their work before 1859.
2. The list is of scientists who believe in God, not those that believe in creationism
3. For a number of them the 'God' that they believed in was not the Evangelical, Literalist, Christian God, which is the god of creationism
4. Including Einstein in that list is simply wrong; they admit as much when they point out that he did not believe in a personal god.
Sadly, your arguments are par for the course for creationists.
Re:Fair enough (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe that I am quoting this website .. but I think you should try telling your point of view to these scientists for a start.
(a) All of the scientists on that list are long dead. This is not a coincidence. Science ... um ... evolves, and what Bacon or Newton believed about a universe about which they knew far less than we do today is irrelevant to the modern practice of science. We take what is useful from their work -- which is a great deal, to be sure -- and discard that which time has shown not to be useful -- which is also a great deal.
(b) In the specific case of Einstein, religion's been trying to claim the guy for a long time, but he made it quite clear in a number of statements toward the end of his life that he wasn't having any. The fact that fundamentalist types have to twist his words and deliberately ignore most of what he said about the subject to make their point is a clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
(c) Religion != creationism. There always have been, are, and most likely always will be a great many religious scientists doing good scientific work. In order to do this, they must be willing to accept the logical conclusions of the evidence available to them, and if those conclusions conflict with their beliefs, modify their beliefs accordingly. People who can't do this -- which, given the overwhelming evidence for evolution, means at this point pretty much all creationists -- are incapable of doing actual science.
Re: (Score:3)
No
Wow, that's a persuasive, well-reasoned argument you've got there.
I read what you wrote and the continued use of generalizations, assumptions and projections on your part continues continues to amaze me.
Your continued use of assertions without any evidence or application is pretty amazing too, I assure you.
And before you write me off as a right-wing conservative religious nut, I am actually a lefty, liberal, non-religious nut.
If so, you're doing your side of the debate a great disservice. By conflating religious belief with creationism, you're falling into one of the fundamentalists' classic traps. You've got a brain; use it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a list of scientists who believed in God, not scientists who were creationists. Most of them predate Darwin and his work -- a time period where being a creationist would be a lot more reasonable. Nearly all of them predate the development of evolutionary biology and the discovery of substantial evidence of long-term evolution and speciation. Only Planck and Einstein are reasonably modern.
Texas is not alone (Score:4, Funny)
Texas doesn't have a lock on stupid legislators. Look what we've got over here in North Carolina: Legislator says the state needs its own currency http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/17/1059132/legislator-says-the-state-needs.html [newsobserver.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus H! From the article:
So, these are the people making economic policies -- wow, the educational qualifications an
Preach it! But the "wrong" type ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I say "preach it!". It being intelligent design.
Not the "God made the world in 6 days, rested on the 7th and it is all described in the Bible".
I just want to see just how fucking angry and upset these Christian retards become, if there was a course called "Creationism 101" which taught that the Spaghetti Monster created the world yesterday, that Allah (God, the Islamic version) created the world in six days as per the Koran, that Yahweh created the world in six days as per the Torah, that Brahma [wikipedia.org] and Vishnu [wikipedia.org] created the world, and then left the Christian God out of the curriculum.
I mean - the Christian God is already covered by Yahweh and Allah, so why waste time on that.
And the Creationists should be happy, because their "Anti Evolution" point is taught, which is what they want. They keep claiming they just want people to know that evolution isn't the only option.
Re: (Score:3)
that Yahweh created the world in six days as per the Torah
If you include that particular creation myth you haven't really left out the Christian version, since they're based on the same text. The first five books of the Bible, including Genesis, are common with the Torah.
Still, it's not a bad idea, with or without the Christian version. Bonus points for bringing in someone to teach each myth with sufficient sincerity and charisma to leave the students with the impression that they're all equally valid (and thus all equally nonsense, since they can't all be true).
Re: (Score:3)
AFAIK Evolution is not a belief "system" whereas Creationism is. Why do I think like this you may ask?
If scientist came up with a new and more consistent theory regarding our origins more or less all scientists would ditch the old theory (Evolution) in light of the new theory WITHOUT any issues. With belief system this would NEVER be the case.
As a scientist I am appalled that these kind of laws are put in place because it shows how little science is really understood in the world. Can we do anything about t
real story (Score:5, Informative)
why is everyone freaking out about this? (Score:3, Insightful)
This should be obvious. Someone should not be discriminated against because they disagree on any subject--as long as their research and performance don't suffer.
There are a ton of loony professors around in all subjects and no one freaks out about that.
I guess all the people of slashdot would rather stifle any differing opinion--that's rather sad.
big loss (Score:5, Insightful)
conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.'"
That's a big loss.
So politicians now define what an "alternate theory" is? Sorry, but ID is not a "theory". It's hogwash, bullshit, dumbfuck, nonsense, insanity or any of a selection of similar terms. It is not even a theory, and definitely not a scientific theory.
To cut a long discussion short, it lacks an important part: Falsifiability.
If creationists want to have their delusions discussed by honest people, they have to make one concession first, and that is the willingness to be convinced that it's all hogwash, bullshit, nonsense, you get it. They need to say "my theory proposes X and Y, and it forbids Z. If Z can be shown to be true, my theory is a piece of crap and I'll stop plastering it everywhere and brainwishing my kids into believing it."
Science is full of faults and bad theories - but it has an uncanny ability to rid itself of them. Creationism (in both its pure form and it's ID camouflage) has been debunked hundreds of times, practically every time a real scientists so much as takes a good look. And yet it's still thrown around, largely unchanged. That is not science, that is fanatism.
And by regulating science not on the ground of proper scientific conduct, but on grounds of ideology, those politicians have just delivered an excellent proof that they are not to be trusted with truth, facts, knowledge or in fact anything, least of all running the place.
When will we have our Tharir place to rid ourselves of this caste of no-gooders who have turned everything that was once good about our democracy against us and are driven by nothing but greed and power?
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that life exists here now is not necessary and sufficient proof that this theory is correct... life could have also originally arrived here on a chunk of rock from space.
The fact is, however, that we just don't know... and most likely never will.
Life exists here, so there mu
Re:big loss (Score:4, Interesting)
I posted on here a while back a way to make ID a scientific theory by making it falsifiable. A lot of people took that to mean that I supported ID, which wasn't what I was saying at all. I was just tired of hearing the above quote over and over when it was quite obvious how to make it falsifiable.
You can read the whole thing in my Journal, but in a nutshell:
1) ID is not Young Earth Creationism (YEC), though it is primarily used as a smokescreen by YECs.
2) ID is the belief that evolution is mostly true, but that something "interfered" with evolution, allowing it to overcome the statistical challenges to evolving more complicated life.
3) To put it in probabilistic terms, consider the world as being a giant casino filled with slot machines, and every time a jackpot is hit in a slot machine, a new species evolves. ID is the claim that someone is interfering with the odds on the machines, evolution is the stance that enough jackpots will be hit without interference.
4) Put in those terms, it becomes statistically falsifiable (to arbitrary levels of confidence). One simply needs to determine numbers for hitting jackpots / speciation and compare them against the record of events. Or even better, going forward, keep track of the genomes of all species on earth, and see if mutation and speciation rates match theory.
5) It is possible to develop a statistical method that determines to an arbitrary level of confidence, if species A could have evolved from species B given time duration T.
One very important point that got lost in all the noise is this: we will need a statistical method to determine intelligent design no matter what. Ignore the whole evolution thing - as our skills with genetic engineering move forward, it will be critical to be able to tell if West Nile 2012 is an intelligently designed species or not.
Hasn't This Happened Before (Score:4, Insightful)
Where politicians started dictating what is and isn't legit science and ultimately killing scientists that didn't agree?
Activist hacks vs. Academic freedom (Score:5, Informative)
This story makes me think of David Horowitz and his skewed take on academic freedom. I encourage everyone to read or listen to him debate prof. Peter Steinberger of Reed College in which Steinberger explains precisely why approaches like this go directly against the principles of academic freedom: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2210/ReedCollegeSteinbergerDebate082806.htm [studentsfo...reedom.org]
Audio version here: http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/winter06/columns/noc/steinberger.html [reed.edu]
Sharia 2.0 (Score:3)
FSM? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm conflicted on this...
On the one hand, if there was no news about this bill, then it *might* just die off. Special interest groups often propose outlandish bills to generate publicity. Suddenly their cause gets millions more people aware. They very well might be a fringe group, but .05% of 300M people is still a large group.
On the other hand, it's very easy for special interest groups to push bills through because of the lack of scrutiny. No one else may care, so rather than fighting a seemingly innocuous addendum, politicians just OK it.
It be interesting if thousands of people suddenly wrote their Congress folk and representatives suggesting that similar provisions in the law be afforded to followers of the FSM. After all, if the existing anti-discrimination law is not sufficient and creationists are being harassed, then certainly the followers of the FSM should also get protection.
In defense of creationists (Score:5, Interesting)
Forrest Mims is a creationist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Mims [wikipedia.org]
I read his engineering notebooks and built circuits out of them. I will be forever grateful to him for that. It was the most fun I ever had in science, and I learned a lot of useful stuff.
It blew me away when I found out that a guy that smart and cool was a creationist. But there are a lot of engineers who believe in Bible-belt creationism.
If Mims were proposed to teach an engineering course, there's no doubt that he's qualified. If he were to teach a biology course, maybe not. If he were to teach a general science course, I don't know.
But that's a decision for the department to make, not the Texas legislature.
This doesn't prevent us from laughing at creationists.
Creationism is NOT A THEORY (Score:3)
Re:Fair enough. (Score:5, Insightful)
So your biology department is not allowed to bias decisions when hiring against potential faculty members who don't believe in the basic tenets of biology?
Re:Fair enough. (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure they can, they just can't call say why. "Applicant smelled like bad tuna. Do not hire."
Re: (Score:3)
it is discrimination against impolite people. You should says "the applicant seemed to not understand the basic principles of logic, do not hire" to cover your ass completely
Re:Fair enough. (Score:5, Funny)
It is discrimination against women! You should give them a drug test and then fake the results.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There are an exceedingly tiny number of scientists, yes. But then again, there are a small number of historians who don't believe in the Holocaust, either. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists, and in particular scientists who work in fields related to evolutionary studies, who accept evolution.
Beyond that, this bill is crap. Even if it were passed, it couldn't survive a constitutional challenge. Yet more time-wasting from the anti-intellectuals in Texas, land of the tragically relig
Re:Fair enough. (Score:4, Interesting)
Having a wide array of scientific opinions is healthy. Creationism/ID is not science. As Carl Sagan observed, "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains leak out."
Or do you think advocates of phlogiston should be given equal time, or any time, at physics conferences?
Re:Fair enough. (Score:5, Informative)
So would you not hire Einstein because he said, "God does not play dice with the universe"
That's called quote mining, and is a quick sign that the rest of your post is pointless stupidity. Einstein had a tendency to use poetic statements to attempt to illustrate principles he was trying to communicate.
He also said:
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
That sounds pretty much like he falls into the category of "not a creationist", no matter how much you quote-mine and misrepresent things. The same applies to the rest, so yes, you are a dumbass, but it's mostly because you use either poorly researched or deliberately misleading statements to attempt to prop up a failed point.
Re: (Score:3)
re-read hawking. his current writings imply (and even say) he does not buy the concept of god.
einstein also was misquoted or misunderstood. he also did not really believe in anything close to the religious view of god and none of the revered scientists ever believed *in any certainty* in a god. at best, they all *wished* for one, as most humans *wish* for nice things. none are on record saying they had any confidence at all - just wishes. go read what they wrote and think about it in that context; and
Re:Fair enough. (Score:4, Interesting)
So would you not hire Einstein because he said, "God does not play dice with the universe"
Which actually is a quote with zero theological content. That isn't Einstein saying "Obviously QM is wrong, because the Bible doesn't say it is right", its Einstein saying, basically, "QM is flawed because nature is deterministic; QM isn't, therefore QM is incomplete". The former interrelation would rightfully disqualify him as a scientist, the latter is part of the normal discussion that makes science tick (see the argument related to the quote between Bohr and Einstein... heady stuff... and not theological in slightest). Einstein was probably an atheist.
This argument isn't about rhetorical flair.
Often the term "God" is used in a naturalistic way. Just like atheists can use the word "soul" in such a way that is devoid of Christian meaning.
And this isn't about just barring people with religion. No one would really argue that, since their are qualified scientists who hold some flavor of religious faith. Its about being "anti-science", or not being actually skilled in the field you are appying for. How can I be a biologist when I don't actually have a scientific position on it, and, unscientifically, reject evidence based on a very old book that has nothing to do with biology for evidence, or facts, or anything else related to the field? I want to be a professor of Computer Science, but I think that computers are actually run by little gremlins with abacuses, and no amount of logic, evidence, or theory will ever convince me otherwise. Should I be hired? Probably not.
Are you even remotely qualified to argue their assumptions, much less deem them unqualified to teach in their respective fields?
Argument by authority. If the statement isn't based on science, it doesn't matter how big a scientist the speaker is. If Einstein stated that his computer is run by little gremlins, then yes, I could easily dispute it. If any of these people you cite had scientific, evidence based, proof of the existence of a god, then we'd be having a much more interesting discussion. But being that there is no such thing as a bona-fide "God Expert", then, yes, I can debate with them on the subject, and completely disagree with them with no fear of being any more wrong than disagreeing with a crazy person at a bus stop. Ultimately being a famous, accomplished, scientist doesn't make you right on every issue, or make your ideas unassailable. In the aforementioned Einstein quote, he was proven rather soundly wrong by Neils Bohr, for instance. If there is a God, he does play dice.
Now if a scientist suddenly decided all of QM was wrong because "God can't play dice", then he wouldn't be qualified for the field, now would he?
Re: (Score:3)
Would you hire a PhD historian who was a Holocaust denier to teach in your department?
Re: (Score:3)
Politically motivated Pseudo Fairness (Score:5, Interesting)
To be sure, discrimination is the whole point of academia, that is discrimination on basis of academic merit. People who cannot show academic rigour are vigorously discriminated against (e.g. they will not get tenure, they will not get their articles published in the mainstream journals, and they will not get recognition). Only in that way are shoddy work and pseudo-science kept at bay. Most of the time.
And yes, that's all very "elitist" because Joe Sixpack simply no more capable of judging is someone is or is not academically capable than he is of analysing a mathematical proof, a statistical test, a laboratory result, or judging if a medical diagnosis is right. If Joe Sixpack were so clued-up he'd be hired as a researcher or a professional. Only he isn't, for excellent reasons.
As Creationism lacks all and any academic merit, it is no more than reasonable to be able to refuse people who subscribe to it from joining the Biology faculty.
Despite its name, "Evolution Theory" is not a mere "theory". On the contrary. There is both an enormous existing body of solid and well-documented evidence for Evolution Theory, and it is corroborated on a continuous basis by just about every on-going field research (from bacteria to beetles to birds to elephants and all kind of plant life). This makes it a *well-tested* and *well-verified* theory, which is why it is at the basis of contemporary Biology.
It wouldn't be a problem is a creationist joined a liberal arts faculty, the maths faculty, or the civil engineering department. Those academic fields are sufficiently fare removed from creationism that they will not be impacted.
But for those who would join the Biology faculty the standard is somewhat higher: they must first show that they know in detail that they know what they are talking about (as in passing exams). After that, if they wish to dispute the foundations of the subject area they wish to don a mantle of authority on, they must first *disprove* with specificity what they dispute, in a scientifically acceptable way. For example in the course of their PhD research.
Then and only then can they be admitted (and they usually will be).
All this is needed to ensure that no *religious* arguments creep into the debate, because religion has no overlap with science and should not be confused with it.
Most of the world gets this, only the US (well certain groups within the US) is in the unique position that it starts blurring the line again centuries after the separation between Church and State and the decoupling of Theology from the Sciences during the Renaissance. It is interesting to note that in this the US finds itself in the company of Islamic Extremists, who too wish to assert the authority of their particular interpretation of word of their particular deity as paramount over reason, dispute, or evidence.
BELIEF, sure. But research? (Score:3)
Look, I don't think anyone should be discriminated against based on what they believe. If you believe in Jesus, or Allah, or Krishna, or Xenu, or aliens hiding behind a comet, that's fine, that's just a basic freedom in our country, to believe whatever you want. But how can you research these things outside of the context of history, anthropology, sociology, or psychology? I.e. not as human phenomenon, but physical phenomenon?
I mean, I believe in God and Jesus, but can you imagine if I submitted a paper
Re: (Score:3)
It would simplify a lot of proofs though.
What is pi to 37 trillion decimal places? 3, its in the bible.
P = NP? Yes, God told me so.
Of course there is. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good idea (Score:5, Informative)
Since you can't possibly prove or disprove it... open end.
Wrong.
Creationism is not falsifiable. Therefore, it cannot be considered a scientific theory. And *that's* the end of it.
Re: (Score:3)
That word does not mean what you think it means. "Theory" in a scientific context does not mean the same thing as "theory" in the vernacular.
Actually creationism need not be disproven before it is dismissed because it is not even falsifiable. Therefore science doesn't have the tools to deal with it. Philosophy does.
It is possible that creationism is true; we just don't have any way to test its claims using the scientific method. Evolution is scientific fact. Existence of a creator is outside the purvie
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, so I can have my "theory" that the internet is a series of tubes driven by hamsters? Or that you're actually a frog from space? Since you can't disprove a theory..... oh wait. You can disprove theories, can't you? You just can't logically prove them. Hmm.
Actually, gravity is *not* a theory. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a law. The difference is that a law is typically a direct relationship supported by empirical evidence. If you drop something, it falls. Newton worked out all the numbers. Sa
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, no, I don't like it, because you got it ass-backwards. A theory must be falsifiable before it can be even admitted. If you make a theory that cannot be disproven, that's not bad science, that's not science at all. Not even wrong [wikipedia.org].
Re:Good idea (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, evolution is not a theory.. It is just still called "theory of evolution" to appease all of the religitards
It is a Theory. The important thing is that a scientific theory, which is a combination of confirmed facts with reasoned and supported generalizations, is completely different from what a layperson thinks of when he hears the word "theory."
Gravity is "just a theory"; it's still stupid to believe that you can jump off a forty-foot ledge and fly by flapping your wings.
Re: (Score:3)
Creationism is, in fact, falsifiable. God could show up and explain he didn't do it.
Generally, by 'falsifiable', science means 'disprovable', which creationism is not, and hence not science. There is no testable theory to demonstrate that.
But, strictly speaking, it could be falsified, because it states an entity did something, and for that to be false, all we would need is for that entity to say so.
We are talking about 'history', not 'science' at that point, and God is a primary source, in fact, the only
Re: (Score:3)
Back into the dark ages with you, Americans! you've never been very bright anyway...
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe Texas should just secede and be the place where all the nut jobs live.
That'd be kinda hard to move all the Californians there, wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
You don't seem to know many creationists then.
I used to be a Christian/creationist (it's how I was brought up), but am no longer.
However, I know a few people that are highly intelligent as well as religious. The human brain is very good at compartmentalising various things, and therefore holding completely different sets of standards for different parts of life. Religious people can still make very good mathematicians and scientists.
For example. the head of the Computer Science dept at my old University was