![Education Education](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/education_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Science Science](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/science_64.png)
Map of Publicly-Funded Creationism Teaching 544
Capt.Albatross writes "At Slate, Chris Kirk presents a map of schools in the USA that both receive public funding and teach creationism. It also shows public schools in those states where they are allowed to teach creationism (without necessarily implying that creationism is taught in all public schools of those states). There is a brief outline of the regulations in those states where this occurs, but the amounts involved are not discussed."
Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Interesting)
For all the trash that gets talked about Texas in this regard, it barely registers here, and only for some sort of "Responsive Ed charter school" that a Texan might explain better - sounds like it's not the normal school system.
Louisiana and Tennessee OTOH - ouch!
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:4, Informative)
To be fair, what the image is showing is deceptive. Both states you mention have "teach the controversy" laws that apply to Public Schools, while Texas is showing the specific charter schools.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, what the image is showing is deceptive. Both states you mention have "teach the controversy" laws that apply to Public Schools, while Texas is showing the specific charter schools.
To be fair, no one has ever accurately characterized Slate.com as being biased towards red states.
Re:not affiliated, I just think they're teh funnae (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:4)
By the way, atheists don't care what other people believe as long as they keep it to themselves. Atheism doesn't have to be taught and it is NOT a religious worldview.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Interesting)
What I find interesting on the map is the lack of "other religious" institutions that also support the ideology. They don't list muslim schools in VA, MD, or DC, or those in TN, or WI(many of which get public funding or falls under vouchers. But they list the various christian denominations...odd...how very odd. They don't list the Jewish schools either.
Re: (Score:2)
What I find interesting on the map is the lack of "other religious" institutions that also support the ideology. They don't list muslim schools in VA, MD, or DC, or those in TN, or WI(many of which get public funding or falls under vouchers. But they list the various christian denominations...odd...how very odd. They don't list the Jewish schools either.
Maybe the Muslim and Jewish schools don't waste time teaching pseudoscience?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the Muslim and Jewish schools don't waste time teaching pseudoscience?
Not sure if troll, or willfully ignorant. Even up here in Canadaland, you find Muslim schools teaching pseudoscience. Not so much the Jewish ones unless they're ultra-orthodox.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, let me rephrase that: do you have specific evidence that Muslim schools in the US are using public money to teach religiously-motivated pseudoscience? Because if they are, please, by all means name and shame, and complain to the NCSE and ACLU and appropriate school boards. I can pretty much guarantee that no actual scientist is going to defend them.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:4, Informative)
The Quran does not contain a complete chronology of creation, and Muslim scholars do not believe in Young Earth creationism.
The primary gap between Islam and Evolutionary Biology is the origin of man, which is treated as directly the result of actual intervention by God.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Informative)
Sola scriptura [wikipedia.org] , upon which Creationism generally relies, is a decidedly Western, Protestant idea. Other Christian denominations and other Mosaic faiths have additional sacred traditions they rely upon that prevent scripture from being the exclusive source of absolute truth, from being interpreted completely literally, or a combination of the two.
But if you can cite examples of public funds being used to teach other faiths' creation myths as scientific fact in the Untied States, please feel free to post them.
Re: (Score:3)
"Dictating what religious values they may or may not teach would itself be a an establishment of religion."
Thanks for being honest enough to call creationism what it is... the teaching of religion.
Here's a radical idea you might like... we could set up whole institutions, independent of the government, whose primary purpose is to teach religion to people. We could amend the Constitution to forbid the government from interfering with these institutions... hell, we could even make them tax exempt, to really
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How is that odd? Muslims and Jews aren't the fanatical threat to freedom and education that Conservative Christians currently are in America.
Really? Apparently you've never run across a your average non-westernized muslim(or standard conservative muslims), they're more than happy to shove their opinions down your throat. While doing so, they'll also demand that you directly accommodate them. Jews generally are happy to not shove their opinions down your throat on their religious issues, and the more conservative are generally happier to enclave themselves up and run their lives according to how they want to run them.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Insightful)
If there's a map of public schools with forced Muslim or Jewish teachings, please share it.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Insightful)
From your first link:
What's your problem? There were Muslim civilizations, the several successive caliphates radically changed the middle east over a millennium etc.
Your SFGate article is over 5 years old, one of those "Community content" articles than isn't written by a reporter or checked by an editor -- the author was a regular NewsBusters contributor and the article is filled with a bunch of links to WorldNetDaily. So yes, "FAUX news... DISMISS" is probably in order.
Teaching children that Islam exists, that its tenets are X, Y and Z, and that Muslim people actually participate in American society without murdering anybody(!) would probably be considered acceptable public school curriculum in most places. I can find no credible evidence of "indoctrination" or forced religious observance in your links, as opposed to teaching Biblical Creation, which nobody debates is happening and is a forced religious observance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
$50 says there's a US history textbook in the same school that discusses Puritans, Calvinism, Quakers etc. It almost certainly discusses philosophers like Locke and Thoreau. It might even discuss how Baptists were persecuted in Virginia until Thomas Jefferson put an end to establishmentarianism (though it probably didn't use that word) with his wall of separation between church and state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Many (most??) Public Schools are teaching Islam Tolerance and how great Islam is
I don't really give a shit what they teach in Humanities, Philosophy, World Religion, or other such courses. The issue is what they're teaching in SCIENCE class.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Insightful)
I went to school in the 70's using 1950 textbooks. We had a chapter in history covering Islam and the 5 pillars of Islam and various cultural aspects of Arab and Islamic culture. It covered nearly everything you listed. Big deal. It's history, should we deny Islam even exists?
Should we refuse to teach our children about cultures and societies outside European history? Just because you're a bigot and hate Islam doesn't mean children don't deserve to know about history including that other cultures and religions exist. Here's how you need to think about it in your bigoted language, if you don't teach kids about Islam and it's history they might get converted later because they know nothing about the religion and have no basis to evaluate it's claims.
As someone that grew up in the 70's I can say with absolute certainty that religion in classrooms, creationism in particular isn't about protecting the children of those who believe in that silliness, it about trying to convert other peoples kids to their way of thinking. This whole drive to put young earth creationism into the school system is all about proselytizing other peoples kids and it always has been. It's so transparent it's not even funny because more than half the people campaigning for it home teach their kids to try to avoid them learning anything about the world that might test their beliefs. Funniest part about it is that sheltering their children in such a manner more often than not backfires horribly when those kids turn away from religion after they realize they've been lied to. Those parents that it backfires on inevitably end up convincing themselves that they need to shelter someone elses kids (gotta save them) even more than they did their own children and they become the principle campaigners for BS like intelligent design. It's all a perfect example of how to teach kids exactly the opposite of what they want and it's beautiful irony when their kids turn their backs on religion entirely as a result of directly misleading them about science.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't teach anything about Christianity? Are you kidding? Almost 50% a typical history class discusses European history from the roman empire to the reformation and it's ALL about Christianity. The dark ages is almost entirely about the rise in power of the catholic church, the reformation is all about Luther and the rise of Protestantism including Henry and the creation of the church of England. The Renaissance is all about the rise of the nation-state and the reduction in influence and power of the christ
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently you've never run across a your average non-westernized muslim(or standard conservative muslims), they're more than happy to shove their opinions down your throat. While doing so, they'll also demand that you directly accommodate them.
Most Americans I know could say the same thing about the average fundamentalist Christian. God knows I (an unrepentant atheist and blasphemer) wouldn't want to live in any majority-Muslim country, but in the US, the only people campaigning to have religion taught in biology class are Christians.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-westernized muslims are fairly rare here in the US.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:4, Insightful)
As a gay person, I can't count (without resorting to computer assistance) the number of days that the Christian domination of American politics has prevented me from receiving equal treatment under the law.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:4, Interesting)
Employment protection (notable lack of people getting fired for being straight around here, oddly enough), marriage, etc.
But yes, of course, you're right, some days my car brakes down and that is worse for the given day than systematic discrimination. I had a burst pipe in my house recently, and that was fucking awful! But such occurrences are fairly uncommon, and the real point was that there are more days that have been ruined by Christan dominion than I can readily count. I know it's shocking that the worst part of your day for most days could be "society massively and systematically discriminates against me" -- I don't even particularly blame you for thinking that way. You're just another person who has never actually been forced to think about being part of a discriminated-against minority, and so you naturally assume that issues like "will I ever be able to get married (nowadays: in my home state)?" or "will I ever be able to come out to my coworkers without worrying that I'll be fired for who I am, rather than continually coming up with reasons for why I'm not interested in a blind date with that girl they know who would be a 'perfect match' for me?" are trivial background noise, rather than real issues that can and sometimes do keep me awake at night.
And of course that's without even mentioning the particularly horrid (but thankfully decreasingly common) instances where homosexuality leads to assault or murder.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Testimonials from AC's claiming (unspecified) grievances are pretty much worthless. Be specific or go home.
For example, what "equal treatment" did you lack that ruined your day, every single day?
I'm not that AC, but the right to marry, visit a sick "spouse" in the hospital with equal het rights comes to mind. Tax law. Hell sodomy is still illegal in some states. But only if you are gay in Texas and a few others:
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/1-the-10-states-illegally-make-sodomy-illegal-plus-4-only-if-youre-gay/politics/2012/03/09/35913
Personally I think it's nasty, but I don't think the federal, state or local government should be deciding which sex acts are OK.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Insightful)
Is your day that easy to ruin?
Is it Sunday?
Can I buy a beer?
Well damn, my day's shot.
Re:Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Insightful)
I lived in the middle east, 6 or 7 years, and I have no fucking idea what you are talking about. The closest anyone ever got to that was someone trying to convince me not to drink beer - who also happened to be someone who drank beer. You could get the kind of impassioned plea off any 'reformed' alcoholic. Not only did most Muslims I met bend over backwards to make me feel welcome, I've never so much as had a conversation about religion. Do you know what most people think about religion? They don't give a flying fuck about it, nor do they even want to, as long as you aren't an asshole. It's something only shitheads make into an issue, and they are relatively easy to spot, so in an international effort of solidarity, we tolerate the shitheads, and humour them collectively, hoping that they will eventually go away.
Re: Texas Barely Registers (Score:2, Insightful)
It's odd because the law doesn't say "Christianity is off limits but everything else is ok", it says "no establishment of religion". It's equally wrong for a public school to teach Islam, Judaism, or any other religion outside of a general historical and cultural sense. That's the scope of private school, of which many such schools legally exist, near most of the people posting here.
All athiests and anti-theists who specifically attack Christianity and not other religions are just as bad as the ones in Chri
Re: Texas Barely Registers (Score:5, Insightful)
So to be an upstanding Atheist in your world, one must equally trash all religions all the time, regardless of the issue or region?
The issue here is that Christian fundamentalists have commandeered science curricula in publicly-funded schools to teach creationism. If we were talking about cartoonists in Norway caricaturing Mohammed and still bashing Christians, then you'd have an actual point.
Creationism is a concept, I might add, that both Judaism and Islam are proponents of, however, neither Jewish nor Muslim groups or schools are pushing creationist content to children in publicly-funded schools anywhere in this country (USA). It's Christian fundamentalists that are overstepping their bounds. Hence the desire to single them out.
Furthermore, Christians are the majority in this country and have enjoyed an historically unequal sway on government and policy, so you damn well better accept the fact that Christians will take more heat when overstepping their bounds as it affects more people.
Re: (Score:2)
The alternative is not teaching either one. I asked nephews in northern Michigan when they were in 10th grade what they had learned about evolution and got nothing but a blank stare back. The topic had never been covered in all their science classes up to that point, I don't know if it even got touched on the last two years. In those same schools I learned about evolution in 3rd or 4th grade (about 1972)
Re: (Score:2)
Louisiana and Tennessee OTOH - ouch!
That map is extremely deceptive. The green dots are ALL the public schools in that state. They are allowed to but that doesn't necessarily mean they do and it would be unconstitutional to pass a law banning it. My guess is that most the schools in LA and TN don't. The red/orange dots are PRIVATE schools that accept school vouchers. That is a school voucher debate not a creationism debate. Personally I am supportive of vouchers to allow students to pick the school they would like to attend. That actually s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see why Texas gets ragged on so much. Live here, love it. Mostly wholesome Christians, most of which I've met believe in evolution...because it's logical.
I think it's ok to fund it, as long as everything is taught or easily available to learn about. I don't really see how you could fill a whole class, or even an hour to teach how evolution works.
Maybe I'm just a product of bad education in that way...idk. I've not met many people who don't believe in evolution. And I've never met anyone in Texas who
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see why Texas gets ragged on so much.
Because the large blocks of fundamentalist xtians have repeatedly managed to gain enough way on the state school board to have their religious views forced into textbooks.
While not a native, I too live in Texas and would agree that most Texans I know are decent and fair-minded people. But the religious nut bags who seem to feel that it is their right to force their beliefs into every corner of the life of every Texan are making us look bad.
I think it's ok to fund it, as long as everything is taught or easily available to learn about.
So teaching lies is OK in your book?
I've not met many people who don't believe in evolution. And I've never met anyone in Texas who things same-sex marriage should be banned. Most people I've met here(born and raised here) think it's criminal that is isn't legal already.
You need to get out more. If
Re: (Score:3)
Lol, the only evidence for young earth/old earth creationism is a certain tradition of biblical interpretation; the bible itself makes it look extremely unlikely that it's teaching young earth/old earth creationism. The bible only teaches that God created, but to read it as saying how and when is inept and demonstrates a complete failure of basic Biblical Hebrew and reading comprehension skills.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, science is about building a hypothesis and checking the facts to see whether they sync up. If they do, nice, your hypothesis stands... for now. If they do not, it's time to change your hypothesis.
The problem I have with "religious science" (I'll use the term loosely here) is that they are coming from the wrong end. They have their "truth" and now they're looking for evidence that supports it. That's a bit like saying "I know who did the murder, now let's check whether we find evidence that convicts hi
Re: (Score:2)
Worth noting: the orange dots are teaching it as well, rather than merely being allowed to teach it (which is what the green dots mean). Texas is far from the top of the pile, whether we're talking per capita or not.
Map (Score:5, Funny)
on presumably a flat earth
amounts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
For an attack piece nigh bereft of any actual science. Well shit, if that's what the uber-left-wingers consider "science," I don't guess I can fault the uber-right-wingers for disagreeing.
Why does opposition to teaching pseudoscience with public money need to be considered a "left-wing" thing? I don't consider myself a left-winger, but I am a scientist, and I certainly find it infuriating that we're wasting tax dollars on this shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it have to contain actual science? Surely the readership here is well aware of the religious roots of Creationism, and the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.
It is appalling that this malarkey is taught in schools using public money.
somebody help me out (Score:3)
First read the bills slate.com gives as evidence.
http://ncse.com/files/pub/lega... [ncse.com]
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bill... [tn.gov]
Now, show me where it says, "teach creationism".
I'm not saying they are wrong, and that LA/TN aren't teach creationism; but those laws seem to protect teachers from getting fired for teaching [locally controversial] science the way I read them (as long as they don't explicitly say, "you're religion is wrong").
Re: (Score:3)
In your first link:
It's been made clear that teachers are permitted to bring Bibles into the science class as "other instructional materials." Bobby Jindal [salon.com]
Washington, you have a problem (Score:3)
What happened to you U.S.A? You used to be cool.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In the US, states have the primary responsibility for education.
That works out ok for states like Massachusetts who have a well educated population and liberal government; their schools are absolutely world-class.
http://www.mass.gov/governor/p... [mass.gov]
Arizona (Score:2)
Arizona: As many as 15 schools that teach creationism may be participating in the state’s tax credit scholarship program for disabled children or children attending underperforming schools. (Arizona has not released a list of private schools that have received students on this scholarship.)
READ: There are 15 schools in Arizona that teach creationism (*sigh*), and they are apparently eligible to receive tax credits for certain disadvantaged students on a scholarship, but there's no data that says any of these schools actually have any of those students.
The Slate doesn't mention this, but there's a WAY bigger loophole.
You can, in Arizona (as well as a lot of other places) donate up to $200 per person (or $400 per household, IIRC) to a school fully tax deductible from your state taxes. As long
Re: (Score:2)
....in case it wasn't clear in my post, you don't actually need a child in school. Anyone can donate $200 to a specific school in Arizona (grade school, high school, charter school) and reduce their Arizona tax liability by $200.
Re: (Score:2)
"Public" schools include charter schools, many of which have non-secular curriculum. Money is fungible, so giving them $200 for "arts" means they can not spend $200 of their total budget there, giving them $200 to do whatever they want with as long as their total budget for the arts is over $200.
And, since the state pays you back $200 for doing it, it is, ultimately, the state's money.
In the end, the school is $200 richer, to do with whatever it pleases, I'm exactly where I started, with $0 spent after reb
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? (Score:2)
They are disadvantaged: they don't know evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
So, as long as it's a valid school, you can use state money (in a roundabout way) to pay for their creationism.
That's hardly unique, though - contributions to approved* religious institutions are tax-deductible, presumably on the basis that many religions require tithing (by those who can afford it, anyway), and taxing people on their religious contributions would be interfering with their religious practices. That's always been my assumption, anyway; maybe it was part of a deal to get the income tax enact
Creationists Lack Faith in God (Score:2)
So? (Score:3)
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
More what?
Stoning of adulterers?
Slavery?
Animal sacrifice?
Other things Bronze Age religion requires?
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
I turn wine into water... Uh oh.
Re: (Score:2)
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
Cold Coors Light. [youtube.com]
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe GP's point was that the more theories there are, the better - and I agree. Hell, let's chuck all the 'theories' in there, right down to the last turtle.
I'll explain:
While the Earth is a whole hell of a lot lot older than ~6,000 orbits, it does provide one benefit: You get to force students to think outside the box. Show them what crap science looks like. Towards that end, we really ought to force the little rugrats to think - long and hard; the earlier, the better. Meanwhile, maybe as a reaction, this will spur the school boards to bring back a few things that have been missing from public schools for way the hell too long: Logic, Rhetoric, Scientific Methodology, Critical Thinking, and (actual) Debate. I learned all of this in Catholic school around 6-8th grades, whereas most public high schools don't even bother (let alone at the lower grades). Basically, I want to see this Creationism stunt force the schools into teaching kids to question everything they're told, and more importantly, giving them the tools to actually do it.
Let's face it - nowadays, kids are basically taught to do what they're told in matters that are critical (e.g. civics, science), but to be overly-creative in superfluous matters (art, sex, etc). Maybe in a perverse way, this push for creationism, such as it is, will reverse the slide.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Throwing invalid and in many cases demonstrably false claims at students who don't have the background to see the invalidity is ludicrous. I mean, why single science out? Why not teach Holocaust denial in history class? After all, wouldn't that challenge students too? Perhaps you could also teach 2+2=5 and French verb conjugation in English class.
Schools are supposed to teach science, like any other subject, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Teaching students that somehow just because someone calls some nonsense claim a "theory" is not teaching at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
Pointing out that some nasty people believe nasty things is not the same thing as saying "And another theory is that no Jews were killed by the Nazis, and those who claim it is are members of Jewish conspiracy to enslave God-fearing Aryans."
The same goes for saying "And another theory is that God created humans 6,000 years ago, and it's just as legitimate as the claim that we evolved from a common ancestor billions of years ago."
Creationism isn't a theory, not in the scientific sense, so teaching it as a legitimate theory is teaching children a falsehood.
Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)
/* kids are basically taught to do what they're told in matters that are critical (e.g. civics, science), but to be overly-creative in superfluous matters (art, sex, etc). */
First, art and sex are not superfluous. If they are, you need to reassess your life's priorities.
But more importantly, Art, Music, and Drama departments are usually on the "hit list" when schools go looking at their budgets, deciding what to cut. I WISH we were encouraging more kids to be overly-creative in those so-called superfluous matters, because those art kids end up being the philosophers of your generation. If you haven't noticed, Art, Music, Literature, Drama are all bastions of "liberal democratic thought" and are thus on the chopping block, just like STEM. Both foster unfavorable "group think."
Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)
does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
No but my liver does. Always knew the damn thing was evil.
Re: (Score:2)
If Christ turns water into wine, does the Anti-Christ turn wine into water?
Que syrah syrah, what ever will be will be.
Re: (Score:3)
But, the New Testament doesn't really go into the creation of species, so Christians default to the Old Testament.
The Old Testament doesn't go into the creation of species either. It says that God made animals. It doesn't say how.
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? The universe being created implies a creator, which is not a simple solution as it leads to the question of where did the creator come from? With the simplest solution that the creator must of had a creator which leads to... Might just as well say it's turtles all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you go ahead and make that tired old argument.
We don't need to - the Supreme Court already made it for us, long before most of us were born. If you're unhappy with this, start working to repeal the 14th Amendment.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite a stretch to go from teaching in a public school what the Holy Bible says about creation and having that as another creation story along with abiogenesis (which has less proof)
There is less proof for abiogenesis then there is for Christian creationism? Tell me, exactly what is the proof for Christian creationism?
Re: (Score:3)
Why just the Holy [sic] Bible? If you're gonna drag one fantasy in, drag them all. Ancient Egyptian creation myths. Japanese and Chinese creation myths. Greek and Norse creation myths. Bring 'em on! Flying Spaghetti Monsters! Douglas Adams' Great Green Arkleseizure!
They're all as plausible as the Christian version, so why not teach them all?
Re:here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Just can't let the 'I hate Christians' thing go can you?
It's not a "I hate Christians" thing. It's a "I hate dishonesty" thing. If you're teaching something in a class that claims to be a science class, then you are supposed to be teaching the scientific method (the core of "science") and things that have been learned and proven using the scientific method. Instead, if you are teaching creationism, you are not only teaching something that does not stand up to the scientific method, but you are also teaching that things that have been very well proven using the scientific method are wrong. This is dishonest. If you want to teach creationism or any other aspect of any other religion, that's great, just be sure to label the class "theology" and not something related to science.
How would you feel if, instead of something that Christians came up with, they were teaching Scientology as if it were fact? Do you think teaching that humans on earth came from the evil lord Xenu belongs in a science class? Regardless of which aspects of which religions are right or wrong, it belongs in a theology class, not a science class. Or, to make another analogy, should a school be teaching about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire in a math class? Regardless of whether what they're teaching is right or wrong, that topic belongs in a history class, not a math class.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
See, this is why we need good science education. You don't even know what science IS. Its aim is not to "prove things without a doubt."
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Science makes statements about the natural world. The supernatural is not something that can be tested.
To wit, an omnipotent being could have created the Earth and the whole universe 10 years ago, or 10 minutes ago, complete with people who have implanted memories of things that happened 20 plus years ago, and tons of evidence that make it look like the Earth is billions of years old. How can we tell the difference? How can we tell whether the Earth was created by some omnipotent being 100 or
Re:here we go again (Score:5, Insightful)
people still pick up a fossil and say "nope, this must be the sole explanation."
No, they pick up a fossil and say "this must be the sole explanation that does not rely on introducing multiple additional non-testable hypotheses". I know you're upset that scientists won't simply wave their hands and say "God did it" in response to anything we don't understand, but that's not really how the scientific method works. Technically, we haven't actually proven that the entire universe isn't actually the complex masturbatory fantasy of a pimply 13-year-old superintelligent extradimensional being, but we don't feel guilty about discounting that explanation when we're trying to figure out how modern life forms originated. If we didn't apply this parsimonious approach to scientific investigation, we'd still be using candles and horses and enjoying a 25% infant mortality rate.
Re: (Score:3)
simultaneously disproving higher intelligence and God as existing?
You don't even have a clue what that means.
Until those are true, evolution is simply a short-sighted theory that explains one possibility of our existence and creation and it doesn't even reach past 3 dimensional physical physics.
4 dimensional physics including time. That claim is completely irrelevant since evolution only deals with one dimension, that of time, and that is the only dimension that it should deal with since it is a theory of how life changes over time. Whether that life exists in three spatial dimensions or some completely different structure is irrelevant to the theory.
We've created antimatter, time dilation effects, anticipated multiple alternate dimensions, etc and people still pick up a fossil and say "nope, this must be the sole explanation."
Because those things have no bearing on the problem. Did you need to consider multiple alternate dimension
That's not evolution (Score:3)
That's not evolution. Evolution is observed by microbiologists and others every day. You've just set up an unrealistic strawman up and stuck a label on it as if it's the only case. What motivated you to do it and why should we take your word on anything after such an attempt at manipulation?
Oh come on now - you are not thirteen years old are you? There's no excuse for su
It's Not Hate (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not hate to want factually incorrect, archaic, dropped-from-the-mainstream facets of Christianity removed from public education in Tennessee and Louisiana.
Only the literalist interpretation of the Bible demands such teachings, but such followers are caught between their own sense of reason and their own faith. Those followers feel if they bend on this, and say the Bible is not perfect, it is the same as denying their entire faith. Most versions of Christianity no longer hold such literal interpretations, so based on the map, it may be a Baptist thing?
Re:Land of the dumb, home of the uninformed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever even been to upstate New York?
Re: (Score:2)
aka Land of the Derp, home of the homeless.
Re: (Score:2)
I weap for thee...
Hey, you misspelled "weep" while calling other people dumb and uninformed. What a maroon!
Re: (Score:3)
A lot worse than it seems (Score:5, Insightful)
Nearly half of all Americans believe that humans were placed on earth in their current form, magically by the hand of God Himself, with no evolutionary changes or modifications every occurring. And the number is rising.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/218... [gallup.com]
Do you want to know what brings about the biblical apocalypse? Ignorance of the natural world in which we live. Buckle your seatbelts, because the ignorant are starting to drive this bus we call civilization, and the last stop is not utopia.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you want to know what brings about the biblical apocalypse? Ignorance of the natural world in which we live. Buckle your seatbelts, because the ignorant are starting to drive this bus we call civilization, and the last stop is not utopia.
I hate religion as much as the next godless heathen, but really now.
Surely you don't think climate change is a direct result of belief? At worst, fantasies about the afterlife can make the world appear more disposable to the god-bothered, but I don't think it's churchy mumbo-jumbo that drives hyper-capitalism.
Something else has led the west to overproduce, overconsume, overbear and overlord. And the causes and reasons are rather more prosaic than heavenly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd consider the argument that 'may teach' mumbo-jumbo is exactly the same as 'do teach' mumbo-jumbo. The threshold of accepting mumbo-jumbo has already been crossed. The implementation is secondary at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
That is just silly though. I'm sure your state has passed some extremely ass-backward laws. Probably means every citizen in your state is ass-backwards too, right? The government is elected by majority but speaks for all. The implementation and enforcement of laws is itself a check/balance.
Re: (Score:2)
You should care - it seems that Hawaii is not an US territory anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
(Uhm... that's all I wanted to say)
Re:the real news (Score:4, Insightful)
Why just 3 theories? What about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What about the Universe being sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure? Those "theories" are just a plausible as your Christian or your Simulation theories.
Evolution, on the other hand, makes testable predictions, something none of your other "theories" can claim, which makes then not theories at all in the scientific sense.
I suggest you go back to Grade 9 science class. You obviously need a refresher.
Re: (Score:2)
85-92% of people think evolutionists are wrong depending on how you measure it since every religion in the world disagrees with it.
"Every religion in the world"... with the exception of, e.g., the major mainline Protestant denominations and the Roman Catholic church. Many of the largest Christian church bodies internationally are just fine with Darwinian evolution, and a world evolutionary/geological history consistent with modern scientific consensus. The people who disbelieve evolution because of their religion --- though quite vocal, and powerful in the US --- are far from representative of today's major world religions.
Re:My Problem is Darwinian Evolution is Disproven (Score:4, Funny)
"disproves"
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no "solid, indisputable proof" that anything has ever occurred. All things in the world may be disputed, that's called "falsifiability."
Teaching Christian Fundamentalism however, requires accepting a priori that the Bible is the only source of solid, indisputable proof, and that any attempts to prove it right or wrong are pointless.
Re:Theory of evolution does need to be challenged (Score:5, Insightful)
There's actually more logical evidence and less holes in the theory at the universe is a giant simulation.
Righto, matey. GIve me some testable predictions of your Simulation theory.
Evolution? We predict that organisms will change in response to changing conditions and we have observed it in action with the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Prediction followed by confirmation.
Your turn.
Re:Yet more reasons to abolish public education (Score:4, Insightful)
Further, a longitudinal study comparing Montessori and public schools shows that a large amount of our social pathologies can be traced back to pedagogical methods used by public schools.
Not only that, a cross-cultural neo-Darwinian study showed that a substantial number of semi-literate subpar I.Q. holders believe that multi-syllabic language tokens show utility in promoting an argument.
I suppose that explains your post?
Re:let's analyze this (Score:5, Informative)
Evolutionists want to teach evolution because they don't like religion.
No, that's wrong. Evolutionists want evolution taught because it is the best explanation was have for observed and verified facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which of the 3 has more basis in logic and science?
None because all of your premises are ridiculous jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
The Christian fantasy and the simulation fantasy don't solve anything. They just say: "You can't ask questions about X because {the deity / the simulation} has declared it just so."
That's not a scientific theory and it certainly doesn't explain or solve anything.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be breaking any bigotry stereotypes though.
Re:So why does it matter? (Score:4, Insightful)
So why do we get so uptight about a few people wanting us to believe...
I have no problem with people believing whatever fantasies float their boat. I have a huge problem with their wanting to force said fantasies on kids under the guise of teaching science. As the post below said, teaching creationism in science class = child molestation.
Re:Sorry but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry but why is creationism something that shouldn't be taught?
Creationism should not be taught in science class because it is not science.
It can be taught in a class on mythology. Or comparative religion. Just not in a science class.
Has it been disproven?
It's not science, so it's neither provable nor disprovable. You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Great Green Arkleseizure or ancient Egyption creation myths. Should those be taught in science class?
As such it's still valid to teach it as a possibility
No, it's not. Science class is for teaching scientific theories, not creation myths.
Once you start banning ideas and theories from being taught you go down the path of censorship and book banning.
So it's OK to teach about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Great Green Arkleseizure, etc? Or are you one of those steekin' censors?