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.'"
That's what I'm talkin' bout! Time for the scientific community to grow some balls!
The Kansas school board needs to have a single mother assemble their curriculum! As has been documented here repeatedly, single mothers are exempt from copyright law, and attempting to restrain them from copyright violation is a felony!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Now I don't mean to just single out Dawkins here since this sort of idiocy pervades much of the humanist movement but it is precisely this sort of idiocy that leads to "debates" like the one over Intelligent Design.
Before the high priests of "science" try preaching at the preachers of other religions they should try getting their own house in order. I doubt they'll do this, because just as the Christian Right has their hidden agenda, so the humanists have their hidden agenda -- which is to deny responsibility for possible dysgenic influences of technological civilization.
Seastead this.
Well if folks stopping voting republican for all levels of government because of the illusion of safety from terrorists we would not be in this mess.
All the folks who are making this political have been elected by the people, and the people do not research when they vote. They base their voting based on flashy campaign ads paid for by the religious right and oil companies promising tax cuts.
They deserve what they get
http://saveie6.com/
I'm constantly frustrated with the way that both sides innacurately portray Intelligent Design. The point the founders of ID were trying to make isn't that something contrary to science should be taught, its simply that the prevailing scientific view of evolution (among other things) and the existence of a God are separate issues. There are bright theists who embrace evolution, the two views are in not necessarily in opposition. Darwinism is a slightly different matter, if by Darwinism we mean the view that all of life's complexity is a product of random chance (e.g. genetic mutation) and natural laws (e.g. natural selection). ID holds that there are systems in nature for which it is irrational to believe that they were produced by mere chance and necessity. Specified Complexity is the probability theory that deals with the "chance" part. Irreducible Complexity deals with the "necessity" part.
There is some very interesting work being done in both of these areas in science right now that can not be ignored. Darwin gave a concrete way to test his evolutionary theory in terms of Irreducible Complexity, and Michael Behe has done a lot to show instances of trouble cases for evolution when it comes to Irreducibly Complex systems.
All of the technical issues aside, the debate in Kansas is ridiculous anyway because there is no reason a judge should be asked "Is ID good enough science so that it should be taught in public schools?". From a legal perspective, the debate should be "Does the Constitution prohibit the teaching of ID in public schools?". The only direct Consitutional application is really that it forbids teaching of religion, but as I mentioned above the main point of ID is not to be associated with religion, but to suggest that it is a separate issue and not defeated by or opposed to prevailing scientific views. The issue of what should be taught is a great discussion, but it should be happening in the school boards and not the court room.
Instead of getting mostly science with a bit of creationism thrown it, now it's no science at all.
Of course neither is actually science. The real issue here is one idealogy over another.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Maybe because how the world came about has no relation to 80% of modern science (chem, physics, and molecular/cellular level bio)? While there is definately disagreement in the area of ID, we can at least teach the facts everyone agrees on (I haven't heard many religious challenges to F=ma, Maxwell's equations, Bohr's model of the atom, or microbiology recently).
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
Quote: This - their genetic differences become so great that they cannot breed with each other. They are thus, by definition, two different species! Viola!
What about dogs and wolves? Horses and donkeys? Horses and zebras?
Either you're statement is incorrect or those aren't different species. They're still the same basic body type, for lack of a better term.
My house cats couldn't physically mate with a lion because of size, that's for sure.
Both Dawkins and I meant it the same way Darwin meant it when he originated the phrase "artificial selection" to contrast it with "natural selection": intentional breeding toward desired characteristics.
Seastead this.
Quote: I dont recall Clinton ever trying to push school prayer and promising to pick judges based on ideology to satisfy some prolife groups.
Do you recall Clinton's government never prosecuting anyone for pornography? I wonder why you don't recall him "pushing" school prayer. In many places it's not "pushing" it's making sure prayer is not prohibited.
You might not remember, but Clinton said he'd only nominate judges who were pro-abortion. That IS an ideological issue, especially since the law was illegally created by the Supreme Court and not the representative branch of the US government.
For many months, national science groups have been urging Kansas officials to revise the draft standards. The standards both single out evolution as a controversial theory, despite the wealth of evidence supporting it, and delete a previous reference to science as a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena.
Evolution is a controversial theory. I, for one, after studying evolution for many years, find it to be based on faith and not science. The science points at many impossibilities that evolutionists tend to overlook. Examples include the billions of missing links. Another example is where the information came from that composes DNA. Intelligent Design does a much better job at looking at all of the evidence and coming to a conclusion. The missing links are accounted for. The information in DNA is accounted for. The beginning of life is accounted for. If evolution is science, then why do these facts go against it? Science used to be about finding the truth by observing, making hypothesis, testing, and repeating. Somewhere it got changed to "a search for natural explanations of observable phenomena". Well, when you change the definition to this, all of a sudden you can no longer explain the creation of the universe as by definition that is not natural because something outside of the natural universe had to have created it (the universe did not exist at the point it was created).Those so-called scientific scientists couldn't prove evolution so *created* fake apemen like Java man, Piltdown man, Nabraska man, etc, that are STILL being taught in schools as REAL when it is well known now that they were faked! If all these so-called scientists want to be true to their name, why not come out and tell the world all about the fake apemen and demand they be REMOVED from school textbooks. If they don't want creationism, then first remove their OWN creations!
Just thought I'd throw this out there and see what ya'll thought of them. Obviously very biased towards one side of the arguement, but I've been fairly impressed by some of their work that I've run across.
Articles/Topics from the Insitute for Creation Research
Here's one fairly good example I saw: Radioisotope Dating of Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology (#376)
-Mikey P
And when they're taught religion in the science classroom - namely atheism - and athiest organisations such as the National Academy of Science wishes to force students to only learn their religion - this is okay too?
Matt
This entire pseudo-debate is getting rather tiresome. What is even more tiresome is the credence people place in it. The issue here isn't one of evolution vs intelligent design, or even evolution vs creationism. The issue is atheism vs christianity, a debate that has about as much relevance to the real world as the question of how many angels will fit on the head of a pin, or whether a falling tree makes a sound when no one is there to hear it. You've got atheists pretending to be advocates of science and christians pretending not to be motivated by religious faith. Both sides know exactly what they other is doing, but they don't dare say so because to do so would shift the debate into an area that the public is not interested in. A debate between two religious faiths, atheism and christianity, isn't going to attract much interest or attention from anyone who isn't already emotionally invested in one side or the other. Not only that, but the entire debate is largely pointless since the position held by both sides is founded upon faith in unprovable ideas. Do the theological aspects of the conflict between the Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland matter to anyone else? No, only the fact that they're killing each other over them. The rest of the world doesn't give a rat's ass about the religious basis for this conflict. The only thing the rest of the world cares about is the fact that people are getting shot, stabbed, bombed, run down in the street, and otherwise maimed and murdered over it. The assholes on both sides use violence to attract attention to a conflict that would never recieve any attention otherwise. This debate is no different. By attempting to interfere with what our children are taught, these assholes have made their own private little war everyone's problem.
So I hereby officially declare shenanigans on this whole sad affair. The athiests and christians have been very dishonest by coaching their squabbles in terms the public would be snookered into taking sides in. By making our schools into a forum for their petty bickering they've undermined the integrity of our educational system and wasted everyone's time. I propose that evolution, intelligent design, creationism, and the belief that the flying spaghetti monster should all be taught side by side along with an in depth discussion on just how full of shit the people trying to peddle each point of view are. Not only will this allow our young scholars to reach their own conclusions about this issue, but it will also provide them with a crucial lesson in just how much they're being lied to from all sides, which is a lesson that some people sadly never learn.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Actually both sides are saying "Scientific ideas should be taught in science class".
They only differ on whether they hold Evolution or Intelligent Design to be scientific.
Anti-Evolution does not in any way suggest anti-Science, though you will always find some people who are both.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife