Slashdot Mirror
Using Copyrights To Fight Intelligent Design
An anonymous reader writes "The National Academies' National Research Council and the National Science Teachers Association are using the power of copyright to ensure that students in Kansas receive a robust education. They're backed by the AAS: The American Association for the Advancement of Science." From the release: "[they] have decided they cannot grant the Kansas State School Board permission to use substantial sections of text from two standards-related documents: the research council's 'National Science Education Standards' and 'Pathways to Science Standards', published by NSTA. The organizations sent letters to Kansas school authorities on Wednesday, Oct. 26 requesting that their copyrighted material not be used ... Leshner said AAAS backs the decision on copyright permission. 'We need to protect the integrity of science education if we expect the young people of Kansas to be fully productive members of an increasingly competitive world economy that is driven by science and technology ... We cannot allow young people to be denied an appropriate science education simply on ideological grounds.'"
You miss the point.
It is to raise the profile of the KBSE : gain some much needed media-time to point some fingers. And threaten the whole state of Kansas with the stigma of pariah-dom with the rest of the US.
Sure, Kansas can still teach what their KBSE call "Science". But without the endorsement of these two bodies, they will have a harder time convincing the rest of the world that they are teaching "science". This has nothing to do with scientific process, it has everything to do with playing politics. Okay, scientists suck at politics, but well, they don't always have to be. Think Huxley.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
As for your other points: here's what Wiki says about Satanism. "Satanism is a religious, semi-religious and/or philosophical movement whose adherents recognize Satan as an archetype, pre-cosmic force, or some aspect of human nature. Although named for Satan, a name associated with evil and temptation, Satanism is more commonly the name given to certain spiritual paths which emphasize the Left-Hand Path, as opposed to the much more common Right-Hand Path. Left-Handers believe in spiritual enrichment through their own work on themselves, and that ultimately they are answerable only to themselves, while Right-Handers believe in spiritual enrichment through the dissolution or submission of the self to (or into) something greater. Many Satanists do not in fact worship a deity called Satan, or necessarily any other deity, nor do they follow a principle of evil. This aspect of their beliefs is very commonly misunderstood."
Most Satanists, in fact, deny the existence of both God and Satan, which is why my original comment (snide as it was) is applicable.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Ah, yes. Because nothing says educating the masses like a satire that insults their beliefs.
You say "insults", I would replace that with "shows the folly of"
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Sigh. "Satanism" as you're definining it is "gothic satanism" - you know, the baby-eating, virgin-sacrificing type of Satanism that doesn't actually exist. Look up Satanism in the Encyclopaedia Britannica if you don't believe me, or any other reputable source; the Wiki was handy, which is why I used it.
"Satanism" as you describe it doesn't exist outside of fiction. I'm not terribly surprised that you have no idea what I'm talking about, but before continuing this conversation, why don't you look it up for yourself?
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Just as we must constantly update students' computers and books, updating science and core academic curriculum is essential. Keeping them in the dark with an antiquated, unproven teaching theory is impractical and unhealthy. The theory of evolution remains simply that, a theory...A newer, alternative view provides balance to the age-old argument, pitting creationism against evolution. It's called intelligent design.
Yes, but science isn't about "balance", it's about trying to find the best explanations for reality. If a view doesn't explain observable reality very well then science has little interest in trying to strike a balance with that view, it simply want to find a better explanation.
Intelligent design is not creationism or naturalism; it simply follows the empirical evidence of design wherever it leads.
The issue, really, is "what is the empirical evidence of design" because that is really the heart of the matter. In practice it amounts to "these are things which are not yet explained in the current theory". They are not, per se, things that are contrary to the current theory, just points that haven't yet been heavily scrutinised and explanations provided. How exactly do you know something was designed? Effectively you simply say "I cannot see how this could have evolved". That's not really the same thing as saying it can't have evolved - that is, saying that evolutionary theory specifically predicts such a thing cannot exist. It is not a falsification, but merely a lack of explanation.
It is actually surprisingly easy to take this same method of argument, of pointing to the gaps where explanation hasn't yet reached, and create a similar theory to Intelligent Design for any subject area in science - there's always something that has yet to be fully explained. Take, for instance, gravity. You can construct a reasonable sounding argument using exactly the same techniques as Intelligent Design and end up with a theory that, I'm quite sure, you could get not insignificant support for from various religious groups.
Intelligent design is accepted by religious and nonreligious academics and scientists; supported by microbiologists and mathematics. In a Natural History Magazine study, three proponents of intelligent design summarize their findings this way:
* Every living cell contains many ultra-sophisticated molecular machines.
* Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature.
* Darwin's finches and four-winged fruit fly theories cannot account for all features of living things.
And the "Uncaused Force" theory is supported by physics and mathematics (just check those journal articles cited in the essay: they are all real, and say exactly what the essay claims they do). You could summarise "Uncaused Force" findings this way:
* At various scale levels there are observable forces that have no observable cause.
* Interaction in our universe by somethign external to our universe leaves behind observable signatures.
* Einstein's relativity cannot account for the observed forces.
It's all just the same argument, so why do you not accept "Uncaused Force"?
You can't falsify a theory by noting that it hasn't yet explained something - it is interesting to note, but it is not a falsification. Claiming that a theory is flawed is not evidence for an alternate theory.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
The only "ideology" I see is your ludicrous statement "[The right to abortion] IS an ideological issue, especially since the law was illegally created by the Supreme Court and not the representative branch of the US government."
The Supreme Court didn't create any law. They reviewed a law and found it was at odds with the Constitution and the greater body of law governing this nation.
Now, if you want to take issue with the entire concept of Judicial Review, then you might have an argument. Unfortunately you're 200 years too late.
A newer, alternative view provides balance to the age-old argument, pitting creationism against evolution. It's called intelligent design. It studies the science of intelligence or intelligent life.
This his simply a lie, and I thought Christians were not allowed to lie. Intelligent Design doesn't study anything, ID has postulated a set of theories that are beyond study and therefore not scientific, even if, by an astonishing miracle ID was a correct description of the world, it would be wrong to teach it in science class.
Intelligent design can and has been proved scientifically.
This is another lie, the Christian is really going at it today. ID has never been tested simply because it is not testable. Also, the sentence above shows with utter clarity why you are so amazingly wrong, you are just ignorant. Science, outside of a rather narrow field, doesn't deal with proving things much, it deals with falsifying things, and the difference is enormous.
Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature.
This could probably said to be true, close to the first true sentence in your posting. There is a huge problem with it though, there is no characteristic signature in life that would imply intelligent design.
I propose the followers if the ID ideology change the name of it to BSD. The Theory of Bloody Stupid Design. You see, in all the life we see around us there is evidence after evidence of a Bloody Stupid Designer, if you look. A few examples:
The list goes on and on. There is no trace of any intelligence whatsoever in our design, but there is a lot of traces of random changes, adaptation of body-parts to jobs they are not particularly well suited for etc. If there was someone behind the design of humans, he would fail Human Design 101. Bloody Stupid Johnson.
Then you would be sadly mistaken. The fact that people do argue that we are not designed is why this debate is occuring at all. The idea that we are "intelligently designed" is certainly debatable, since there are many features of the human body that are rather idiotically "designed" (one such example being the use of the same passage for the ingestion of both air and food - which makes choking a serious hazard; I'm sure you can think of plenty of other examples if you try).
Students can make up their own minds or develop their own opinions about who they believe the "Creator" is.And where exactly did this "creator" come from? Is he/she/it not "irreducibly complex" as well? If not, did he/she/it "evolve"? If so, who designed the creator?
How did we come into being before we changed?
And how did the agent responsible for both creation and change come into being?
Intelligent design can and has been proved scientifically
Please provide links to this scientific proof.
Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic signature.
Really? And what exactly is this "characteristic signature"?
You're welcome. But you're employing sophistry when you say because our current knowledge of the mechanics of DNA mutation cannot predict exactly when "macro-evolution" (do you mean speciation?) will occur, therefore a 100% faith based theory is equivalent to one that provides an accurate statistical prediction in short-life-spanned creatures, and can be used to produce repeatable results and explain the rate of fossil change over time.
Look, you're welcome to your faith, and should I see you proselytizing in the airport I wouldn't bother you (unless you get in my face like a Hairy Fishnut). But, this slashdot article is about the attempt to use the apparatus of Kansas government to force the teaching of a faith-based theory in science class, to the children of those who have no use for it. Even if no direct harm is done to the kids (such as making them ineligible for med school or life sciences research), the time given to the teaching of ID comes at the expense of something useful that could be taught.
You're welcome to screw up your own kids. Don't fuck with mine.
Remain calm! All is well!
Ironically, one of the reasons I've sent my daughter to a Catholic school here is that they teach evolution. They also mention that people who view the bible literally don't believe in evolution; but evolution is taught in the science class as science. Being a Catholic school gives them the freedom to make the simple statement about the literalists without there being a problem with the separation of church and state.
If, however, there had been no school in our area that taught evolution, I would have taught it to her myself. After all, that's what we're here for, isn't it? Any idiot can make sandwiches. It's times like these when you get a chance to actually parent.
There's an important point that the creationists miss in all of that. Kids will still be taught evolution regardless of whether or not they get their way with the standards. 99 percent of the parents in this state will tell their kids that evolution is fact. Some of the rest will find themselves explaining evolution simply to inform their kids about the debate. Still more kids will simply hear it from eachother or from media, the internet, etc.
Everybody will hear or learn about evolution, and the standards won't change which side of the debate people fall on. This whole thing about changing the standards is not only idealogically questionable, it's not practical or effective. They're achieving nothing but ridicule.
I for one hope that the board members continue to vocally extoll their positions and beliefs here; because the more they talk, the more unreasonable they sound. Like most of the ultra-conservative movement in this nation, the Kansas Creationists are running headlong for a backlash.
Hot Damn! It's the Soggy Bottom Boys!
>>This is called micro-evolution, and in fact the large majority of Christians have no problem with it.
Actually the large majority of Christians (aka Roman Catholics) have no problem with macro evolution. It's official doctrine. It's based in the ancient Christian belief that the understanding the Universe is one of the best ways of understanding the God who created it. The idea that the workings of the world itself is as much a testament to God's will as the Bible. It's the minority of hardcore evangelicals (who somehow seem to have a strangehold on middle America) who prefer to believe that hard evidence must always give way to their fixed, particular interpretation of scripture.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
As a matter of fact, Darwin's theory of evolution is falsifiable. And here is one reason why it is false:
Darwinian evolution asserts that evolution occurs through the accumulation of minuscule random changes to the genome. If this were the case, there would be so many connecting species that the fossil record would be virtually a continuum.
What the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E shows, is that the fossil record is nothing like a continuum. Of the millions upon million of fossils which have been recovered, all of them fit nicely within a handful of phyla. Even fossils from Cambrian times already are separated into distinct phyla.
For Darwinian evolution to be true, the fossil record should resemble a conic section, starting from a point and spreading out evenly in all directions. There should literally be thousands upon thousands of connecting fossils which connect fossils to a whole host of predecessors and successors.
The real fossil record is nothing like that. Virtually fossils from the earliest times are segregated into phyla. Not only are there no connections between phyla, there are virtually no connections (links) supporting the major asserted jumps in evolution. Fishes eventually became amphibians, right? How many fossils support this conclusion? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? None of the above. A single questionable fossil is the only link between fish and amphibians.
Men evolved from primates, right? How many fossils support this assertion? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Hundreds? None of the above. Less than a dozen fossils (fragments is a better term) support the assertion that primates evolved into men.
Evolutionists live in a fantasy world all their own where the lack of millions of connecting fossils is not an important issue. And the presence of a single questionable fossil establishes the "fact" that fishes evolved into amphibians. And less than a dozen fragments "proves" that primates evolved into man.
Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions stated that "that enterprise [of science within an established paradigm] seems an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies."
Evolutionists have fashioned for themselves a fantasy box in which they force nature into their inflexible fantasy, irrespective of the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E. They are so scared that their precious box is about to split open that they can't even engage in rational discussions and acknowlegde the incredible weaknesses of their theory which is driving many to look more deeply and question (scientifically) all that is assumed to be true.
There is a scientific revolution coming, and the evolutionists are going to be on the wrong side of history.
Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
It's funny, but this has been cropping up on Slashdot for ages now, and I haven't heard anyone mention surrealist arguments (this may not be the commonly accepted term - it's a while since I took the paper, and wikipedia doesn't know what I'm talking about).
A surrealist argument (iirc) is one that tries to explain some phenomenon by appeal to an undetectable power or state, e.g. the moon is moved in its orbit by invisible angels. The angels are completely undetectable (apart from their effect on the moon, of course), but they're there. Really. I swear. We can never see them, but they're there.
The problem with surrealist arguments is that they're not disprovable (they never make falsifiable predictions, which is something that DOES get mentioned in these discussions) and unfortunately defences against them usually have to be about lack of explanatory power... but that's another big can of worms. It could be that the moon really is moved in its orbit by invisible angels, but that state cannot be distinguished from the accepted scientific state by any experiment.
Now back to the topic at hand... Pretty much any argument that 'God did it' is a surrealist argument. If you don't want to accept the fossil record you can claim that God rigged to look like that, and the earth is really only 6000 years old. That state is is not experimentally distinguishable from the accepted scientific state.
Intelligent Design and the Flying Spaghetti Monster arguments are both surrealist too. The most important thing about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that the logical arguments for his existence are exactly as compelling as for ID or the Christian God. The Noodly One is inherently ridiculous which helps reveal the flaws in arguments for His existence, but also unfortunately leads to people misinterpreting the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a parody in poor (or possibly tomatoey) taste.
.evom ton seod gis eht