Freedom of Information Requests Turn Up Creationist Materials In Schools 479
An anonymous reader writes: In 2008, Louisiana passed a law that was designed to let teachers introduce creationism into public classrooms alongside evolution. Zack Kopplin, a student at the time, decided to fight the law by sending Freedom Of Information Act requests to the schools, asking for anything mentioning creationism or the law itself. While most ignore him, he has received documents showing a clear anti-science stance from school officials. "In one, which appears to contain a set of PowerPoint slides, there's a page titled "Creationism (Intelligent Design)" that refers students to the Answers in Genesis website, along with two other sites that are critical of that group's position. In another, a parent's complaint about a teacher who presents evolution as a fact is met by a principal stating that 'I can assure you this will not happen again.'"
The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Insightful)
A generation or two of youth that are prejudiced against scientific understanding. Our future leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? The following generations might just as well embrace scientific methods and knowledge exactly because their leaders talk rubbish.
The counter trend will follow.
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that schools don't teach science. They "proclaim truths" (without actually going to the trouble of step-by-step proving every single one), then require students to repeat those memorized proclamations to "pass". Teaching science is teaching the scientific method, and teaching it in practice.
Want students to learn evolutions for real, to the point of never, even, being ABLE to believe religious bullshit? Here's how: help them discover evolution themselves. First make them know falseability better than their own names, by guiding them through discovering newtonian mechanics or something like that. Then, when they've mastered the scientific method, switch from classic physics to classic biology, presenting them the same raw data Darwin had collected, and require them to figure that one out by following the same standards. And presto: now you have a generation that both embraces the scientific method and cannot deny evolution.
Until educational standards are that high though, sorry, but for the vast majority of people science and religions will remain similar and roughly interchangeable: someone in the pulpit speaking about esoteric stuff, and listeners blindly accepting (or pretending to) it as such "because authority", and because that's what's socially expected from them.
Already done that way (Score:2)
Already done that way - Galapagos finches
The general population are not as stupid as Hollywood suggests - people who cannot tell the difference have other things wrong with them as well. Now there are lay preachers who see science as their enemy in increasing the size of their flock (or franchise for the more cynical prosperity worship type) who will
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, and IMHO, it's been working terribly. Teachers don't understand the process, children get confused as to expectations and the "answers" are typically only vague representations of the actual knowledge that is supposed to be communicated.
I agree that inquiry based learning should be included as part of the curriculum, but a heck of a lot of learning should also be done using traditional methods. Little Johnny doesn't re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Climate change is another area of "science" that's closer to religion than it is to actual science." yet another daft observation.
"They're taking a rational look at science, seeing that in many cases it is just a new form of religion," - you have no idea what you are talking about.
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Informative)
" yet it was never (and likely never will be) directly observed." -
That's totally untrue. There's a kind of butterfly which loves to sit on the trunks of birch trees, and has a colour that makes it practically invisible to predators on that background. There comes industrial pollution and birch trees are not white anymore but more or less gray, with the butterflies clearly visible. Within a few generations, very strong natural selection made them change their colour to a dirty gray. Then things get cleaned up, no unlimited emissions from power stations, birch trees get whiter, guess what: The butterflies got whiter.
Re: (Score:2)
That's totally untrue. There's a kind of butterfly which loves to sit on the trunks of birch trees...
At this point, even speciation (in plants) has been directly observed. Too bad the post to which you were responding stated that the Big Bang was never directly observed, not evolution ;-)
Or the E-coli long term evolution experiment. (Score:3)
Ah, evidence. (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, but it does indeed. It shows that variation does in fact respond to environment. It's only one piece of the puzzle, though. No one claims that the peppered moths, by themselves, prove evolution. There's a lot more to it than that.
Take that variation, for example, and you can link it to speciation - which we can observe today. Heard of 'ring species'? The Larus gulls are several subspecies where variants live in a ring around the Arctic. The Herring Gull in the U.K. can interbreed with the American Herring Gull, and the American can interbreed with the Vega Gull in Russia. And so on, until you come to the Lesser Black-Backed Gull in the Netherlands. It basically can’t breed with the Herring Gull. Hybrids are extremely rare and don't seem to be fertile, like mules.
So, is it a separate species? You could breed it with its relative to the East, and so on. But what if, say, the Vega Gull went extinct? Would you have separate species then?
Now, imagine such variations happening across time instead of (or as well as) space, and you’ve got an idea how species actually do form, instead of the ’saltationist’ strawman that many try to imply.
The thing is, we have so gotten conclusive evidence. Here's one you can partially check on your own body. Lay your fingers on the side of your jaw. Now, trace along the edge up to the very top of the jawbone. Notice how close your fingers are to your ear canal. Inside the inner ear are three bones, the ossicles: malleus, incus, and stapes. They are carefully arranged to transfer sound energy from the eardrum to the cochlea as efficiently as possible. How could such an amazing mechanism arise?
It turns out that a classification of dinosaur called the therapsids had two jaw joints. The therapsids are known (by several independent lines of evidence) to be ancestral to modern mammals... and we have a basically complete fossil record of the gradual transition of one of those jaw joints into the modern bones of the inner ear. Fossils representing over a dozen separate stages have been found. Note that intermediate steps were all advantageous, though not as efficient or optimized. Some transitional forms did help amplify sound energy but didn't work while the animal was chewing. We still have problems with that under some circumstances (try to listen to someone while eating celery) but the separation is far more developed now.
(Note that some have even cited the ossicles as 'irreducibly complex'. The more central figures of the ID 'movement', like Behe and Shermer, haven't done so... but I suspect that's because they know enough of the detailed fossil record to dissuade them.)
Or, my absolute favorite - the twin nested hierarchies! Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere..." This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible.
Now, this process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups. When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones, see below) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution. (Little-known fact: Linnaeus, who invented the "kingdom, phyla, genus, species, etc." classification scheme for living things, tried to do the same thin
No, you weren't. (Score:3)
You were taught that abiogenesis exists as a hypothesis (note, not a theory [berkeley.edu], and that scientists are actively researching it.
If you want to convince me otherwise, I'm afraid you'll need to de-anonymize and specify the school and timeframe involved.
Re: (Score:3)
uh, no. the point of evolution is that it's not miraculous.
evolutionary changes occur as a species adapts to its environment, either because the environment has changed or simply because the species is becoming better adapted to an unchanged environment.
if a random variation (as occurs all the time due to sexual reproduction and mixing of genes) or even a mutation (e.g. due to radiation or exposure to mutagenic chemicals - but note that most such mutations are fatal, not beneficial) provides a greater chan
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Insightful)
Attacking his every statement with an ad hominem only hurts your argument.
At what point do statements become so ridiculous that they should be ridiculed rather than people wasting time trying to refute them? Does someone who claims the Earth is flat deserve a (time consuming) detailed, rational argument with references to the science? Same goes with someone claiming evolution is not fact. I have no time trying to convince a crazy person that they have not been abducted by aliens - mainly because they are crazy and will never change their mind anyway. Nor do I have time trying to convince religious nuts that evolution is fact, for the same reason.
Re: (Score:3)
You shouldn't be trying to refute them. You should be presenting arguments for the fence-sitters that read the post who might be swayed by your argument.
Yes, there is a set of people who will never be convinced no matter how persuasive your argument is. A much larger group of people sit somewhere towards the middle who very well may be persuaded ever so slightly by a well r
Re: (Score:3)
>So now you move from ad hominem attacks to conflation, associating rejection of evolution with flat earth and alien abductions.
You're right, it's certainly possible that somewhere among the thousands of claimants of alien abduction is one that actually WAS abducted and did not just had a case of sleep paralysis. It should not be conflated with things which are conclusively refuted like flat earth or evolution denial.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop that [laurencetennant.com]
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Informative)
That is not "essentially happening". Let's fleshen out your example:
You are tasked with recording the temperature of every day of 1962, at noon (apparent solar time). Every day you take a temperature measurement, and describe when and how it was taken. You release the data and the description of your method. Good work! You've just given some data to the science community, which is a lovely thing to do, and everyone rightly thinks you're a real hoopy frood.
Now, the years pass and someone wants to use your data, as they are very interested in the temperatures in your part of the world in 1962. They take your numbers, and look at how they were collected. They notice that you used a "Blogg's Perfect Thermometer", which a year after you made your measurements were shown to be poorly calibrated. The researcher then finds the likely amount the thermometer is off by (by whatever method they can - testing lots of those thermometers, etc.), and then uses that to correct your data. Now your data is even more accurate! You should be very happy.
Then, someone else looks at this data, and notices that you took the temperature at mid-day, not apparent solar time. To fix this, they use another source of temperatures to work out the difference on each day apply it to your data. Your data is now even more accurate! Yay! Happy times!
At no point did anyone simply look at your data and go "fuck it I don't like this let's change it" - they saw errors in the measurement methodology, quantified them, and corrected each point. The end result is more accurate data. The most recent climate-related data correction you are probably referring to was the buoy measurements, which showed a difference between ship-born measurements and the buoys' measurements. They're both measuring the same thing, so clearly there is some calibration issue or another problem in the methodology, as they should be returning the same values. They identified the problem and calculated the difference, and could then choose to apply it to the shipping temperatures, or to the buoy temperatures. Either is fine, as they are interested in the change of temperature rather than the actual temperature itself. They chose to change the buoy temperatures as the data set is less. That's it. At no point was anything dodgy done, though I can imagine to someone who doesn't want their findings to be believed would see something shady in it. That speaks more of you than of the scientists :)
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't need to directly observe something in order to prove that it exists. That notion is a load of hooey propagated by someone with no scientific knowledge or experience.
I have never been to New York City. There's a chance that I might never go. But I have seen ample evidence that it exists that I don't need to actually go there to accept as indisputable fact that it is real.
The key there is evidence. I don't reject the evidence of New York City's existence simply because I don't want to believe that it's not there. If, on the other hand, someone were try to believe that the city of Atlanta doesn't exist, I would take strong exception to that because I've been there and I know firsthand that it does exist.
The problem with Creationists--and the reason it has NO place in a science class--is that they expect people to reject all evidence for a universe billions of years old and all evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct in favor of another idea for which ZERO evidence exists, an idea for which mountains of evidence in fact disproves. That is the antithesis of science.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with Creationists--and the reason it has NO place in a science class--is that they expect people to reject all evidence for a universe billions of years old and all evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct in favor of another idea for which ZERO evidence exists, an idea for which mountains of evidence in fact disproves. That is the antithesis of science.
No. The problem with creationism isn't that it's idiotic science, the problem is that it is not science at all but religion. If you teach that instead of or in addition to the scientific theory of evolution, I might as well demand that they teach my personal theory that the earth is really just a ball of smeg on someone's wiener.
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an old joke, told by Dave Allen (can be found on Youtube):
The Pope is discussing with an atheist, and the Pope says: "You atheists are like a blind man, searching in a dark room for a black cat that isn't there!" - and the atheist replies: "Well, we are not so different, in fact - you Catholics too are like a blind man, search a dark room for a black cat that isn't there; but you believe you've found it!"
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with Creationists--and the reason it has NO place in a science class--is that they expect people to reject all evidence for a universe billions of years old and all evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct in favor of another idea for which ZERO evidence exists, an idea for which mountains of evidence in fact disproves. That is the antithesis of science.
This is where you completely misunderstand those who believe in a supreme being. They DO see evidence of existence every time they go to Church, Synagog, Mosque, Temple, etc. Grandma recovered from cancer, it's a miracle from God. Bobby is alcohol free after 5 years, by the grace of God. I'm successful and not on the street, because I go to Church. etc etc. Just like you have been to Atlanta they have been in the presence of God. So for them there's plenty of evidence of the existence of God and that their life long religion, or the one that took them in when they were down, shows them the power of "faith" every day.
Faith, the belief in things not provable, is extremely powerful and it doesn't help one bit when science relies on it for some of their biggest theories, such as string theory and a few others.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with Creationists--and the reason it has NO place in a science class--is that they expect people to reject all evidence for a universe billions of years old and all evidence that the Theory of Evolution is correct in favor of another idea for which ZERO evidence exists, an idea for which mountains of evidence in fact disproves. That is the antithesis of science.
This is where you completely misunderstand those who believe in a supreme being. They DO see evidence of existence every time they go to Church, Synagog, Mosque, Temple, etc. Grandma recovered from cancer, it's a miracle from God.
And conveniently how angry they were at God earlier for giving Grandma cancer in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to call Godwin on that string theory remark
Re: (Score:3)
Faith, the belief in things not provable, is extremely powerful and it doesn't help one bit when science relies on it for some of their biggest theories, such as string theory and a few others.
You were doing fine up until the point where you equated religious faith with scientific hypothesis. The two are alike in only the most superficial way. They are unalike in the most important ways. Only a fool would fail (or refuse) to note such distinctions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1/ He is not suggesting, he is writting something
2/ He is not writting that observation is not a critical aspect of science, he is writting that indirect observation is also a valid observation.
"Several thousand years ago..." (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Insightful)
While we can't observe a new Big Bang (the last one happened 13.7 billion years ago), we can observe the results from the Big Bang. We can for instance observe the redshift of far away stars and galaxies. We can also observe the cosmic background radiation. The Big Bang gives a very consistent description of what we can tell about the cosmos around us, and no alternative explanation comes even close.
But you would probably also claim that the explosion of the Krakatoa volcano in 1883 is "just untestable speculation passed of as fact", because no one survived who saw the actual magma coming out of the mountain. And the reports of a big smoke cloud, tsunamis and earth quakes could have been caused by something else. And we don't even know if they really happened, because all we have are just written reports, like the Bible, right? And going to Krakatoa and finding large layers of volcanic ash which buried the remainings of people and houses and animals and which look as if they were around 130 years old are so very indirect that the actual volcanic eruption still can be called "speculation" in your world, right?
The same goes for Climate science. We have the daily weather report, but the theories that allow us to predict the weather (yes, the single event, and not just the long term average), are "closer to religion than to science"? We have complete daily weather data (yes, the actual measurements done by real humans with real instruments) for some regions of the world starting in the early 18th century, and for most of the world starting in mid-19th century, and drawing them in a diagram and describing the resulting long term average as going upward is "closer to religion than to science"? Please elaborate!
Maybe what you picture for yourself as science has some serious flaws, but that's the problem with the picture of science you have. Not a problem of the sciences.
Re: (Score:2)
Call me when you see people killing each other over the validity or not of the Big Bang theory.
No one has to "respect" science. Anyone who claims that science is infallible does not understand science at all. What children are taught is the scientific method which is easy to understand and stands for itself. Observation, questioning, hypothesis, experimentation, checking to see if your experiment falsifies your hypothesis or not. That's it. There is no more than this.
The method is quite perfect - it has
Re: (Score:2)
Calling... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, most people don't know what the big bang theory really says. It says the universe is expanding and cooling. It says nothing about how it was created.
Then:
It is not "untestable speculation". Science is about making observations. Then proposing an explanation for those observations (hypotheses). Then testing those hypotheses. These can often be tested by other observations. It happens all of the time. In 1927 an expanding universe theory was proposed based on observed red shift of certain objects in the sky. In 1929 Hubble was able to verify the red shift and show that the further away objects were from earth the larger the amount of shift. Again, this fits with an expanding universe. In 1948 physicists speculated there would be cosmic microwave background noise signature of this expansion. In 1964 Penzias and Wilson happened across this cosmic microwave background noise (which they weren't even looking for). Well, the case for the big bang theory got a little stronger. No test tubes were harmed in the making of this observation.
What has not been found yet is anything that makes the big bang theory incompatible with what we observe.
Can we go back in time and observe the beginning of the big bang? Of course not. Can we duplicate it? No. Can we make observations? Yes Do those observations show that the observable universe is expanding over time? Yes. Do you have a better theory than the big bang theory (one that can be tested)? No.
People act like scientists just get together in a big room and make up theories and present them as fact. No, scientists make observations, create hypotheses to explain their observations and then come up with ways to test those hypotheses. And sometimes those tests simply involve other observations.
Science has it's struggles. Yes there are those who have their pet theories and are willing to fund research that is favorable to their cause. But, in the long run, scientific method takes care of that. In the end, what can be observed will trump what can be bought. The all powerful Roman Catholic Church lost the 'Earth is the center of the universe' argument because of what could be observed. Of course, we later learned that the Sun isn't the center of the universe either. But that did not change the fact that the Earth was not.
Anyone who thinks science is just another religion, doesn't understand science (or religion).
Re: (Score:2)
Who's right and who's wrong is a matter of "perspective."
As much as it has the "cool, open minded factor", that's wrong.
"I know this is infuriating to scientifically minded people, who believe in absolute, measurable truths."
You know what a strawman argument is, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
"No, it's not. Now what?"
It still is. You can stand in the middle of a railway and let a train pass over you. The result won't be a matter of perspective.
There are, of course, assertions that there are debatable. But then there also are assertions that are either right or wrong, not a matter of perspective.
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Funny)
It still is. You can stand in the middle of a railway and let a train pass over you. The result won't be a matter of perspective.
Actually, that's where relativity theory comes in. After the experiment, the train is in a relatively better shape than you are.
Re:The Dark Age returns (Score:5, Insightful)
scientifically minded people, who believe in absolute, measurable truths
No, scientifically minded people don't believe in absolute measurable truths. Scientifically minded people believe in the scientific method. The scientific method doesn't measure "truths", just what is the closest thing to it using the method we have. Scientific method, and ergo scientifically minded people, are open to those measurable "truths" to be revised and improved as new discoveries come along.
You're free to now use the scientific method. You're free to try to find answers in other ways. That's not the issue.
The issue here is trying to teach your way, which is at best pseudoscience, in a SCIENCE class. How about we let them teach evolution in church and religion class?
But be honest with yourself and admit what you don't know.
That is closer to what a scientifically minded person would say. Science doesn't claim to know everything, for sure. Science is just saying that this theory [of evolution, big bang, etc] is the best theory we have come up with using what is observable and following the scientific method, and until/less something better comes along, we'll use that to continue our search for answers using the scientific method.
Again, you're free to believe in theories that don't follow the scientific method, and use that as your basis to search for truth. You might even succeed in finding answers that way. That's not the point. The point is to teach that outside of science class. Science class is about teaching people to find answers our through the scientific way.
Re: (Score:3)
My kingdom for mod points!!
This!!
Scientists don't "believe" period.
Scientists look at the universe of observations and develop models that best describe those observations. If other observations come along, they adjust the model. If the model can be used to develop predictions, they look for those predicted outcomes, and if different outcomes happen, the model is changed.
Evolution is the best model to describe a huge volume of observations about species. Scientists don't "believe" in evolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Scientists believe things all the time. How could you possibly say otherwise?
Here is a sampling peer-reviewed scientific papers where scientists state what they believe. All I did was search Google Scholar for "we believe".
"We believe that these carcinogens have in common a ring system sufficiently planar for a stacking interaction with DNA base pairs and a part of the molecule capable of being metabolized to a reactive group: these structural features are discussed in terms of the theory of frameshift mut
Friday already? (Score:4, Funny)
I thought Dice saved the flame-baiting articles for Fridays.
I wonder... (Score:2)
or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
Just as real. Perhaps we should agitate for it and show these zealots who cry for fairness what they are really about.
Doonesbury (Score:3)
Not so crazy about Trudeau after his PEN remarks, but this nails it:
http://stupidevilbastard.com/2006/01/doonesbury_takes_on_creationism/ [stupidevilbastard.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not so crazy about Trudeau after his PEN remarks
Penalty? Peruvian Nuevo Sol? Penitentiary? Public Education Network? Polyethylene Naphthalate? Partly chopped-off penis? What the fuck is PEN?
Face it America ... (Score:2, Insightful)
You have an epidemic of stupidity.
Congratulations, the discourse in your country is being controlled by a bunch of drooling idiots who have decided that no matter the physical evidence, they will simply go "la la la" and continue to say "teh god did it, thank you baby jeezuz".
So you know all those ignorant morons in the Middle East? The ones who want to bring back stoning and women being property? The ones who are such a threat to your freedoms?
Well, those people are your future.
The screeching mob of uned
Re:Face it America ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Entertaining, but incorrect.
There is a vocal minority of people with faith-based beliefs that override reasoned thought. They are not in charge. There are a few elected politicians who are morons, and a larger swath of electorate who share those beliefs, but that's still a minority of the population. The USA has more than 50 states, territories, and outlying areas, each with their own local government structure.
In Louisiana, a similar issue has been dealt with in the courts previously [wikipedia.org] and the federal judiciary seems to have been reasonable enough in deciding that the law is unconstitutional.
This newer law seems to have the same goal as the 1981 law, and will likely face similar challenges. The nation is not made up of morons. It actively recognizes and points them out, which sometimes makes it appear that way, though.
Well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything presented in PowerPoint is easy enough to ignore, dismiss, or sleep through.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it is the perfect delivery mechanism for people who don't think rationally (school boards, management, etc.)
Gasp! (Score:3, Funny)
are found to sponsoring that belief set for the education of their children.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they make parochial schools for. This was done in public schools, meaning people without those beliefs are also paying for it.
Re: (Score:3)
parochial schools
Agreed, but these private schools are only available at a premium in many locales, placing them outside the budget of many poor Southern families, ironically where the Creationist belief set is most prevalent.
Look, this is not an argument for the presence of any god in the classroom. It just seems clear there are going to be pockets of the population in some school districts where belief in the almighty approaches 100%.
Unfortunate, yet not unexpected.
Re: (Score:2)
Then teach your kids creationism in church or at home.
That's fine, but what does it have to do with the science curriculum in public schools?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious. Are there parts of the public school curriculum to which you object? Or are the things you're against more part of the public school administration and management?
Drug-Resistant Virii, Lysol-resistant bacteria (Score:4, Interesting)
So, I believe all you have to do is ask an "intelligent design" person why God is creating Drug-resistant Virii, or creating bacteria that doesn't die when you hit it with lysol.
Just ask anyone who works in a hospital. Hospitals are LOSING a battle against infections, because the bugs are getting smarter and tougher versus our ability to kill them.
So; why is God doing that? He's going out of his way to do that, since obviously, it would be heresy to suggest that the bacteria is evolving, right??
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not just microorganisms. I'm reasonably sure Pekinese and French poodles weren't around a couple million years ago.
Return of the Luddites (Score:2)
Trying to eliminate a set of knowledge backed up by proofs that has benefited mankind enormously under the guise of following a particular religion's ideas (not all religions mind you) is beyond just stupidity.
This sort of idea of one group trying to force all others into a false belief system is also what was behing the rise of "Kings" and "devine right" of Kings and tyrants.
Animal/plant breeding == evolution (Score:3)
One might fruitfully discuss and debate sentience and self-awareness, and how humans seem to have made a quantum leap above other animals in that regard (though nature videos and pet lovers continually indicate more levels of intelligence in animals than previously thought). But that's still ongoing natural selection - SOME species was bound to make that leap, and kill off all of its competition, and since we're the ones who are left, it must have been us.
Good sign (Score:2)
What's wrong with the example given (Score:4, Insightful)
It is likely that students in Louisiana are going to come across the arguments made by "Answers in Genesis" sooner or later. Don't you think it would be a good idea for them to exposed to those arguments AND the counter-arguments at the same time?
Re:The people (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a way to distinguish between forcing a personal view and allowing a personal view to be arrived at.
NOBODY is running into schools and telling kids there is no God and they must be taught that, and they must write that down in their books, and they must read only textbooks that say there is no God. Nobody. Not even in the science lessons.
But creationists are doing exactly that for their belief, and far outside the scope of religious studies (science is science, maths is maths, geography is geography, religious studies is where you study religions).
Atheists probably value personal choice more than ANY other group of people. Nobody says "You cannot teach that religion" except other religions. Atheists say "You can teach all religions - including atheism and agnosticism and pastafarianism - fairly, inside a religious studies class".
It's like saying that pacifists aren't choosing a side in the war and promoting their countries military. Of course they're not. But neither are FORCING you / your kids to be pacifists too.
Re:The people (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not an Athiest (I'm Jewish), but even I don't want religion taught in schools. When people say "teach religion in schools" (outside of some comparative religion/philosophy class), what they really mean is "teach Christianity in schools." Try teaching Islam in a public school and you'll see all of those "we need to put religion back into public school" advocates go crazy.
I might be religious, but I try not to force my religion on others. I'm willing to discuss it with others if they ask questions, but I don't discuss it in a "my religion is so great, you need to convert now or else" manner. To me, religion is a personal matter and definitely not something for public schools to cover in a science class. You want to believe that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago when God sneezed it into his cosmic hanky? Go right ahead. You can even tell your kids that at home. Just don't try teaching MY kids that in public school because you can't deal with your kids learning about evolution.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not an Athiest (I'm Jewish), but even I don't want religion taught in schools. When people say "teach religion in schools" (outside of some comparative religion/philosophy class), what they really mean is "teach Christianity in schools." Try teaching Islam in a public school and you'll see all of those "we need to put religion back into public school" advocates go crazy.
I might be religious, but I try not to force my religion on others. I'm willing to discuss it with others if they ask questions, but I don't discuss it in a "my religion is so great, you need to convert now or else" manner. To me, religion is a personal matter and definitely not something for public schools to cover in a science class. You want to believe that the Earth was created 10,000 years ago when God sneezed it into his cosmic hanky? Go right ahead. You can even tell your kids that at home. Just don't try teaching MY kids that in public school because you can't deal with your kids learning about evolution.
If I had any mod points at the moment, I'd mod this up until we had to crane our necks looking upwards to be able to read it from underneath. Bravo, sir, bravo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Religion hasn't reached a consensus in thousands of years and I doubt it would if given a thousand more. Even within the same religion, there are disagreements. When "religion in public school" advocates talk, they obviously mean Christianity in public schools, but what form of Christianity varies. Catholicism is different from Protestantism which is different than Southern
Re:The people (Score:4, Insightful)
I am an atheist, and I DO want religion taught in schools. In a religious studies and/or history class.
I think it is fairly ridiculous that a phenomena that has had a huge impact on history, culture, art, laws, etc throughout the world is NOT taught in school. I also believe that if children understood the variety of backgrounds/beliefs in the world they may grow up understanding people from other cultures a little better.
The beliefs themselves should be taught not as a "this is a true thing", but as a "this is something people believe", with an emphasis on historical and cultural differences.
The USA has spent a whole pile of money getting involved in a conflict that is somewhat related to religious belief. Teaching an understanding of those beliefs helps create a better formed electorate, which IMHO is one of the primary purposes of public education.
I do agree however, that religion is not something for any schools (public or private) to cover in science class. It makes about as much sense as teaching Shakespeare in math class.
Re: (Score:3)
Preface: creationism shouldn't be taught in schools except for in e.g. a World Religions or Comparative Religions class or something. It has no place in a science class.
That said I've been in a *lot* of science classes where, instead of sticking to science, the teacher almost gleefully makes the discussion about religion and tries to use science to disprove religion - I remember that as far back as my middle school days and all through high school - it was very, very frequent. Sometimes it was very overt; m
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, from what exactly? The boogeyman under the bed?
This is exactly why we're raising our daughter without God, or other myths. We really don't need her to be crippled by fear of the unknown, let alone the imaginary. (We'll educate her on what others believe, but we refuse to hobble her.)
Re: (Score:2)
No Santa? Just curious. If so, any unfortunate ramifications?
Re: (Score:2)
We do the Santa thing. But at some point, she'll realize it's all fake. That there is no omnipotent bearded guy watching all the time, yet the presents keep coming.
I think that might be exactly what we want.
Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact (Score:4, Informative)
In the strict definition, it is a theory which means it's a "hypothesis supported by facts and evidence which leads us to conclude it's the best explanation for what we experience". We do see "speciation" occur in the lab, we see evolution occur even within our own species. The macro/micro evolution debate was invented by ID'ers to 'prove' evolution is false, there is no such thing as macro evolution (species do not jump up/down the evolutionary ladder), there is only small changes that eventually (measured in geological times) lead to different 'species'. But from a genetic viewpoint, all species are very similar and even some species we previously classified as separate species because of how they look are genetically identical (eg. dogs and wolves, certain birds, insects)
Re:Evolution is a theory not a fact (Score:5, Insightful)
As much of an opponent I was of the Bill Nye-Ken Ham debate (I didn't see any point in Nye "debating" Ham and it just gave Ham publicity), there was one good exchange. They were both asked what it would take for them to change their opinions. For Nye to accept creationism or for Ham to accept evolution. Nye said that it would take proof that the things that science accepts as facts (e.g. atomic clocks can't be reset) aren't true. This would be extraordinary proof to be sure, but it would be evidence that science is wrong. Meanwhile, Ken Ham replied that nothing would change his mind. God himself could shout out "Hey Ken! Evolution is fact" and Ken would pound his Bible and declare evolution wrong.
I've spent time with creationists. They view science's changing theories as a weakness and religion's constant "God did it as explained in the Bible" as strength. In fact, it's the other way around. Science changes theories based on different evidence. It's willing to toss old, once beloved theories aside if the evidence comes in proving it wrong. You want to prove evolution wrong? Find a rabbit fossil from the Triassic. Creationism, on the other hand, is never willing to change*. They just march on in the same direction even if all signs point to that being the wrong direction.
* They are never willing to change, but over the years their interpretations of the Bible passages might change which changes their creationist theories. They will never admit this, though, and just insist that they've always believed this.
Re: (Score:2)
That's awfully convenient given that the definition of "macrospeciation" is "speciation which occurs over timescales too long to observe directly". I could point to tons of observed examples of speciation but you'll simply reply that they're not "macrospeciation", no matter how radical they are, because they were observed, and thus not "macro". Major changes in physical structure (Shikano, et al. (1990)), changes in chromosome counts (tons), single cellular to multicellular changes (Boraas (1983)), radical
Re: (Score:2)
In the strict scientific definition, and since we have not seen speciation occur at a macro scale, but only interpret the data to believe that it is the case, it is correct to deny it the status of fact.
The old "directly testable" canard coupled wth the inability to comprehend time business.
Problem is, we can make tests. We can make tests in biology, We can make tests in geology and paleontology, we can make tests in physics. All of these support evolution, none disprove it. One test at any given time could completely disprove it, show it to be false.
But yes, you are correct in that there is no human who has been around to personally witness life since it's beginning.
But it's like saying that no mur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry but evolution is a fact. Is so much a fact that you can produce it on a petri plaque producing the exact results predicted by the synthetic evolution theory.
What it is a theory is the way evolution is produced and why it works, it is called the theory of "evolution by natural selection", or it's modern, refined version, "synthetic evolution theory" and it is the best theory we have.
You know, "theory" doesn't mean "well, I think this might work this way, more or less" but a corpus of scientific ideas t
Re: (Score:2)
Does it count that domesticated sheep are no longer capable of interbreeding with wild sheep making them in the strictest sense of the word a new species: and that was definitely observed by humans. Lots of humans over a long time. But human observation nonetheless.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many scientific theories that have not be proven completely. You know what? It doesn't matter. This is not how science works. If we ever have a better theory, it will replace the old one. The good thing about scientific theories is that they can offer workable models that help to explain the world in very useful ways. You know, like Newton's laws. We know now that they are only valid under specific circumstances, and we have better and more complex theories now. But that doesn't mean the old ones
Re: (Score:2)
I agree - but that's because I don't think that the word "fact" should exist in a scientist dictionary. Theory is science's highest honor, not fact. It's the wrong mindset for expanding knowledge to have hard set rules. I feel like this hard clinging to the word fact is just a fight against the religious and not based on anything rational.
Just think about how much our idea of something as simple as light has changed in even the last 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We have a number of observable facts: the fossil record, which we can date and which is clearly suggestive of species evolving from primivitve types to more advanced types. So, that evolution has taken place is very close to being an observed fact. The theory of evolution is an attempt at explaining HOW it happened, not whether it happened. The reason we call it a theory, not a hypothesis, is that it not only explains the huge amounts of observable facts, but also offers testable predictions - and passes th
Re: (Score:2)
In the strict scientific definition, and since we have not seen speciation occur at a macro scale,
Yes we have. There are plenty of examples already posted.
Are you now going to recant your position because your opinion is based on incorrect facts or are you going to keep on believing bullshit?
I'll bet you 1 pint of beer (at London prices) they you stick firmly to your belief in the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But, there's also the theory of evolution, which tries to determine the evolutionary path taken to get to present lifeforms.
So, there is a large part of "evolution" which shouldn't be presented as fact, or you end up with another Piltdown Man.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"So, there is a large part of "evolution" which shouldn't be presented as fact, or you end up with another Piltdown Man."
You know it is *because* of our theory of evolution along with our scientific method that we know the Piltdown Man is a fraud, don't you?
You know that, on the other hand, if we had gone with the standard religious method of "someone of value told us so" the Piltdown Man would still be taken for true, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
And please, just because someone used the theory of Evolution to explain something, and then the explanation proved to be wrong doesn't mean that there was a flaw in the theory of Evolution. It's also not a flaw in the theory of Whole Numbers if you find a calculation error in your balance sheet. Yes, biologists are people, and they make mistakes, and sometimes someone comes up with some "because Evolution!"-argument, which later proves to be inconsistent with new
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, proponents of ID don't tend to say "Anything that evolution doesn't cover was God." Instead, they say "All that evidence you claim to have for evolution? It's bunk. Throw it all out because obviously everything was too complicated to 'evolve' so God must have done it." In addition, they envision evolution as involving parts of the final structure appearing for no good reason instead of a "versioning system."
This is why they will frequently use the eye as a "counter-evolution" example. Clearly
Re:You bet it won't (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh yes he could. I judge him fully capable of saying that. In fact, his post is strong evidence that he "could" do it.
It would be bullshit, but I doubt he would let that stop him.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yah. They really lose at the game of reproduction.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be willing to be the majotity of people on this site past 30 were taught this but managed to "overcome" this.
And no matter how much you want to label anyone that believes in God as an idiot, it is simply not true.
Re: (Score:3)
Dunno who modded you up, but a fresh-out-of-apprenticeship welder, electrician, nurse, or HVAC worker will often make more money per annum than a college grad holding a BS. Many of the other construction trades are also paths towards decent pay if you're willing to put in the work and get the skills. If the kid is smart, he eventually parlays that vocational skill into his/her own business, or into management.
On the extreme end, I personally know of a few gents who specialize in repairing/maintaining certai
Re:This is America! (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of creationists *are* Christian, but are *not* Catholic. If you are upset that Catholics' good names are sullied by creationism, you should point your anger at creationists, not those pointing out that creationists are religious nuts, because they *are* religious nuts.
Re: (Score:3)
Same thing with the big bang. It makes me want to say "Creationists are retards", even though I'm smart enough to know that saying that isn't productive. It's infuriating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more partial to Huehuecoyotl if I had to pin it down.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Jewish Myth as fact. (Score:4, Insightful)
Creationism is a pseudoscience invented by modern Christians, true. But that doesn't mean Genesis isn't a Jewish myth. Myths aren't intended to be science, or even history. They're intended to resonate emotionally.
This is what I think the Garden of Eden story is about: I think it's saying that the kind of "paradise" where you sit around all day without working or suffering is incompatible with human freedom. The experience (aka "knowledge") of both good and evil is a consequence of human choice. We might be better off in some ways living in a kind of Cosmic kennel, but we wouldn't have any of the richness and meaning of human life without the experience of good and evil.
Now it so happens that in the Middle Ages certain Christians re-created this naive picture of paradise. They pictured heaven as a choir in which the faithful gathered around God in concentric circles and sang His praises forever and ever. But what if one day you felt like doing something different? If being fed and amused perpetually is your idea of paradise, then you naturally won't be open to some implications of the Eden story.
The Garden of Eden story turns out to be very interesting as a myth. It's just not very interesting as science.
Re:Science precludes God and demands evolution? (Score:4, Insightful)
And by "everyone" concluding that, you mean nobody.
No, what it means is that anyone who talked about billions of galaxies 1000 years ago, was talking out of their ass, and making up crazy shit. Nobody knew there were billions of galaxies nor had reason to suspect there were billions of galaxies. And if by amazing chance, someone back then said there are billions of galaxies, they were being either stupid or dishonest (or both). Even if they just happened to be correct, I guarantee that their arguments for saying that, were no less stupid and no less deceitful, than their neighbor who talked about the world being carried by Great A'Tuin.
Yes, a god could exist, but we have no reason to think it might, and no reason to think we know what it's like, or what its name is, or how many there are, or how big or fast or smart they are, whether or not they love or hate gays, etc. But mystics just pile the bullshit on top of bullshit, in an enormous pile, ignoring that even the first piece stunk. It's no less crazy than talking about unicorns, and saying it's wrong is no crazier than saying someone's ideas about the existence of unicorns is wrong.
Pick a card, any card, but don't say it out loud.
I know what card you picked. You picked the three of hearts.
Was I right? There's a 1/52 chance I was right, but a 52/52 chance that I was fucking lying. The truth is that I didn't have the faintest idea what card you would pick, and if you listen to my bullshit about how I know what cards people will pick, you are not on the path to learning anything, except maybe about how good I am at slinging bullshit. After all my bullshit, you still won't know anything more about cards or how to predict what card people will choose. It is empty of knowledge.