Slashdot Mirror
Utah Votes 'No' to Darwin's Critics
NewbieV writes "An article in Tuesday's New York Times notes that proposed legislation which would have 'stress[ed] that not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, is correct;' has failed by a 46-28 vote in a Republican-controlled state House of Representatives."
Much more information regarding this decision can be found in this Salt Lake Tribune article, including many memorable quotes from the legislators involved.
From TFA: Also from TFA (this one is priceless): Kudos to the Utah House of Representatives for giving this bill (as well as Senator Buttars himself) the treatment they both so richly deserve.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
Who'd have thought that Utah would be out in front on this one! Wierd world...
that we have to commend people for thinking these days.
Here comes 1000 posts.
Yknow, this makes me want to vent about the whole "Intellegent Design" argument.
Whether teaching Evolution, "Intellegent Design", or this Utah "4 out of 5 Dentists agree" crap, the problem is not the teaching of these theories. The key problem is teaching children to question conventional wisdom. Kids need to be taught to always question what they know. Kids need to know what your teacher teaches you is what everyone "thinks" to be right at the moment, but who knows what the future will bring. If you're going to lobby gangbusters to teach the kids of today something, teach them to evaluate what they are taught themselves. The world is many shades of grey, not black and white.
P.S. - I always slept through English class
Enough said.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
THANK GOD! :)
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
It must have been devine intervention to get this sort of action in Utah, of all places.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Professor Duane Jeffery, a professor of biology at Brigham Young University, estimates that "probably 90 percent of people who are LDS think the church is against evolution. But they don't get upset about it being taught in public schools." The reason, he says, is the church seminary system, which provides junior high and high school students with a class period of religious instruction during school hours. "Most parents feel their religion is being take care of in seminary," Jeffery says. Conservative gadfly Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum, sees it this way: "Utah's children, for the most part are taught by their parents that evolution is not correct science. The parents feel more control because they know they're teaching their children the truth at home." That truth, she says, is that "you are a child of God," a phrase that Mormons learn from the time they can talk, she says. "It's a year or two of learning about evolution vs. a lifetime of hearing that you are a child of God. Evolution just doesn't win out."
It looks like Utah doesn't feel threatened by teaching evolution because they have faith in what they believe (and what they learn in the seminary). I'd say that's a step in the right direction for seperation of church and state... that is assuming that these semenary classes aren't mandated.Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
Mormon schools which don't pay taxes but do get public funding should not be allowed to teach children that a metaphysical spirit created the Universe, unless they teach that such a statement isn't science, isn't a fact, isn't a theory, and that most people don't believe that it is literally true.
--
make install -not war
just keep to rewriting the history books and not the science books?
I just don't understand these people. For basic research like biology, and whatnot the Federal Government is what, 99% of all of the funding for the stuff?
If they aren't interested in their kids learning what they fund, why not just lie to their kids and stop the funding?
Morons.
From what I understand from the article, the bill had already been amended from its original form and only would have required teachers to state that "not all scientists agree about evolution or the origin of species" (which is technically true, though potentially misleading).
Also:
1. I'm slightly annoyed at people using "anti-Darwin" and "anti-evolutionist" interchangibly.
2. I wish the media would stop trying to fuel the "Science/Logic vs. Religion/Faith War", which to a large extent wouldn't exist if they didn't fan the flames every couple of weeks. People on both sides are generally content to believe what they want until you make them feel that they're under attack somehow.
So the idea of making up a law saying "here's how it is, suckers! Believe this way!" is against the typical belief of "separation of church and state". (Granted, Utah is not a shining example of this all the time - see the liquer laws they have, but like I said, I don't live there).
Even if we believe that God had a hand in it, there's a lot of individual belief in how it happens. Was "Garden of Eden" a fable of sorts for early Isrealites since they wouldn't get "Well, God started the universe from the vacuum using a 20 dimensional algorithm that would solidify into 3 stable dimensions of space, 1 of time, and gravity with values X" - or was there a "snap of the fingers"? Some church authorities have given their opinions on it, but I've never seen an official "it was this and no other".
I'm more of a "what does it really matter in the grand scheme of things" anyway. i don't think God's going to ask me what I thought about "intelligent design" or "evolution" when I die - he's going to ask me about how I treated my wife, my children, my friends, my enemies, my coworkers, and others. So I believe in evolution - yes, the Darwin version - until a voice on high says something different. And even then, I'll check to make sure somebody didn't slip me some really interesting mushrooms - just in case.
Most of us like science - and yes, I even appreciate the ones that show my religion, like most others, is probably full of it. I just use the "South Park Mormon episode thought" about the whole thing.
Then, there's b) getting voted out of office. Remember the Dover school officials who decided to bring Intelligent Design to their schools - and the next election got voted out? Even in a Mormon state, all an opponent has to do is start up "You're trying to mix church and state? What are you doing?", and there are enough non-Mormons in the state to resonate with that, and enough Mormons who think about Illinois and how the state not doing their job in protecting *all* religions that their dander gets up.
Anyway - good move by the congress, by the majority whip who brought in an amendment that all but killed the bill, and to the folks who voted it down. As the article says - if a super conservative religious state like Utah won't approve it, there's probably hope for the rest of the country.
This is all just my opinion. I could be wrong. And I'm hardly a good example of Mormonism anyway - I tend to say "fuck" too much in company
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
In other news, Crest has fought off a push to include the following warning on their toothpaste tubes:
Only 9 out of 10 Dentists agree that flouride toothpaste reduce cavities. Since there are dissenting Dentists, you're probably better off gargling with Coke.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I am willing to accept the theory for debate purposes and willing to acknowledge that there are plenty of holes in our knowledge of the last few billion years.
In light of my open-mindedness and thirst for scientific possibilities, I would like the religious right to accept the possibility that, instead of some omnicient being intelligently constructing the universe, it might have been a giant 3 headed alien working on his or her 3rd grade science project.
Homer: Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true!
But the bill died on a 46-to-28 vote in the Republican-controlled House after being amended by the majority whip, Stephen H. Urquhart, a Mormon
Now we must ask ourselves:
1) Did the Bill go to Heaven, Hell or Purgatory?
2) Did the Bill become reincarnated as a better Bill?
3) Did the Bill do nothing, and now remains just a memory for its beloved?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
any relationship with Butt-head?
Most of us here in Utah don't believe in ID, at least in the sense that the ID folks preach it. Evolution is even taught in science classes at BYU (an LDS university).
We do believe that God created the universe, the world and life here, but that doesn't mean that evolution isn't also true. Maybe He created a starting point somewhere, and influenced evolution from that point on, or whatever.
Evolution doesn't go against the teachings of the LDS church. In fact, we're taught to study and learn as much as we can, even in science. We're after the truth, and believe that God gave us rational minds so that we can learn and think on our own. Why should anyone who's really after the truth be afraid of science?
Can we once and for all put to rest the idea that Republicans are universally luddite anti-science morons? This is not news people, it simply confirms the fact that we are letting the fringes drive the debate and that's just stupid on OUR PART!
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
The Texas state legislature failed to repeal the laws of conservation of momentum and of gravity.
Utah Votes 'No' to Darwin's Critics! Dum dum dum, dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum, dum dum dum, dum dum dum dum dumb.
What? No body else watches South Park?
Admittedly, I'm not surprised that Utah voted against this. For the Mormon Church (virtually indistinguishable from the State of Utah) to throw their lot in with Evangelical Christians would be self-defeating. Perhaps they recognize the idea that the establishment of a "Christian Nation" as the Evangelicals so dearly wish to do would preclude their participation.
Basically the whole 'intelligent design' movement is yet another attack on secularism. For those who embrace this theory, it's not enough for the state to acknowledge the right of people to worship as they see fit and go about teaching science, the state must be forced to operate according to the Evangelicals' interpretation of Biblical law. Whether or not Evangelicals admit it, the vaunted "Christian Nation" they're trying to forge would make second-class citizens of everyone who doesn't subscribe to their interpretation of their religion. This is fine, because according to my observation they want to create a sort of environment where non-Evangelicals are barely tolerated and subjected to a torrent of Bible-thumping and state-sponsored oppression until they convert. I think the Mormons recognize this, and since they're not in the religio-political mainstream insofar as the Religious Right is concerned, they're likely nervous about getting into bed with their main competition.
In short, this gives me hope that some religious, right-wing people recognize the fact that religion and public governance should be kept separate-- even if their motives are based on a level playing field for competition over converts.
Maybe they're just saying no to "clogging the courts with pending lawsuits".
What?
Don't give them any ideas. As intelligent design loses out, I can see the lines being drawn at total relativism and it won't be just science in the crosshairs.
I live in Buttar's district - no he does not represent my views.
Good to see that every once in a while our state leaders find the envelope with common sense in it....
why are they voting on this?
OK, this might get modded down, but I feel I have to say this.
It's really not a great idea to post these evolution debate storys. This story will generate a huge amount of comments as the creationists try and blast the boards with their nonsense. And I do not hesitate to call it that. Nonsense. Mod points will be burned, flames will fly, karma will be gained and lost again and again in the same comment.
The creationists are essentially trolls, who are given free reign in these sanctioned stories to start flame wars. I have no doubt that many creantionist comments simply are trolls, looking to start a nice hot flame war. They succeed every time.
It's all a waste. Slashdot is news for nerds. This is really a US centric debate, and quite a lot of the slashdot readership is simply not in any way interested in the current US culture war. Many find it completely perplexing, like a story you'd hear about people somewhere worshipping a kid with a tail. This creation thing is not really a science story and is more a (very US centric) culture and politics issue.
OK. I accept that in some cases, these evolution stories are quite relevant in a science context. But only when the evolution/creation "debate" is not itself core and main extent the story. Postings on the NASA PR's censoring of scientists I do want to hear about. That affected scientists, and was only a result of the evolution/creation "debate". Similarly with fuding cuts due to fallout from the issue.
But stories like these, which are not about science, and are simply about another aspect of a culture/political war going on in the US, do not belong in the science section. There's no science here. There isn't even a victory for science. It's just the outcome of one skirmish between religious groups and secular people in the US.
I accept that this may be an important issue for US slashdotters, but please understand that this is a very, very, very US centric story, that really belongs in the Slashdot politics section, not in the science section and certainly not on the main page.
Hopefully this comment might start a good meta discussion that the editors may take notice of. But more than likely it will simply be lost amid the vast torrent of comments, flames and threads surrounding it.
May the Maths Be with you!
You would not willingly expose children to putrid waste or toxic chemicals, so why expose them to the intellectual pollutions that are called "intelligent design" or "creationism"?
If these concepts would rest purely on religious foundations, that would not be so bad. But in reality they are based on a corrosive mix of religion with intellectual dishonesty, bad logic, and intentional distortions of the truth. People object to the religious influence, but that is merely the innocent of it.
By all means, let us teach children to question statements and make up their own mind about things. So we should confront them with real problems, where both sides of the argument have real merit, and the evidence to decide the argument has not yet been discovered. And teach them to address problems with logic instead of ideology.
Even in the field of evolution, there are plenty of those. For example the debate about the diet of early humans and the means by which it was gathered, or the still disputed question whether the emergence of a new species requires geographical separation. It may sound a bit difficult, but I believe teachers can find means to explain this and ask relevant questions; at least if they don't have to waste their time on intelligent design and other red herrings.
Whenever there is a perceived conflict between science and religion you are seeing one of three things:
1- False religion in the face of true science.
2- False science in the face of true religion.
3- False religion in the face of false science.
True science and true religion have the same end goal, the pursuit of truth. They just have different methodologies to go about finding truth.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
Seriously though, couldn't Taco just make this guy an editor or something, because he first posts waaayy too much. I think his energies would be better spent on proof reading article summaries rather than hovering over a constantly refreshing main-page.
May the Maths Be with you!
Yes, you are probably right that we should educate everyone on what the scientific process is and is not. It never ceases to amaze me - oh SWEET, another episode of The Bachelor: Paris is on right now.
Gotta run. Don't have time.
(yes, this is sarchastic - and sadly, true.)
ID isn't about encouraging challenging the conventional wisdom. It's about diving back to the conventional wisdom of centuries ago which has been conclusively superseded. And worse, a structure of learning that allows ID is simply unworkable, because it would accept astrology and other such ideas and thus prevent further questioning and investigation. The whole point of using the nebulous concept of 'intelligence' in ID is that it is a conventional wisdom that cannot be skeptically addressed or challenged, because no one has any idea what it means.
phirst reply to phailed phirst phost.
Fascism is the greatest political ideology ever conceived. Sorry.
TMM posts insightful, and the full spectrum of positively moderatable comments for everyone to enjoy. If you don't like reading him, it's not hard to set him as a Foe, and set foes at a low reading threshold. But you, having not yet evolved from an ape-like species probably didn't realize that was possible. While you're at it, add me as a foe too if you don't like reading my posts.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Something wonderful has happened. We may be on the edge of a new age of enlightenment.
I've discussed evolution versus intelligent design before. I do believe that they do not really have to be enemies. I've said before that evolution does not deny God, or any creator. My complaint has to do with the teaching of intelligent design as a science when it is nothing of the sort. It's religion through and through.
I've also claimed that even many religious organizations don't disbelieve evolution. After all, any microbiology textbook is absolutely stuffed with evidence. The problems come when one tries to reconcile the timeline of the bible with the timeline of nature. A few thousand years, or three billion... they don't quite agree.
I'm absolutely thrilled to say that a large body of clergy has now come out on the side of evolution, and against intelligent design. Warren Eschbach of the Church of the Brethren, a retired pastor and professor at the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Gettysburg, helped sponsor a letter that has been signed by over 10,000 clergy members. I quote from CNN, who quoted the letter:
"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests."
The following quote, also sourced from the CNN article, was made by Vatican Observatory Director George Coyne:
"The intelligent design movement belittles God. It makes God a designer, an engineer. The God of religious faith is a god of love. He did not design me."
I can't tell you how pleased I am to see so many people of faith acknowledge that science and religion do not have to be enemies. To ignore what mankind is learning is foolhardy, and I believe that a religious body that refuses to acknowledge what science uncovers is doomed.
The existence of evolution does not diminish God. And the existence of God does not diminish evolution.
I sent a link to the CNN article to a friend of mine, and he replied with, "And the sheep lay down with the lions." Interesting. If the religious are the sheep, by laying down with the lions of science are they doomed to never wake up? Or does it simply mean that two traditional enemies are laying down their swords?
I'd like to think the latter is the case. Spirituality is important, whether based in divinity or in something less etheric, and if it can exist side by side with practical knowledge, I think it bodes very well for the future of our species.
Disclaimer - I am NOT religious.
The fact they voted "no" is not really all that important when considered with the fact they brought it to consideration in the first place.
Gee, "we barely got by not looking like a bunch of dumbarses with no sense of logic and science" is a real nice badge of honor.
Barely above retard-level is an achivement in your large extended mormon family? Nice.
First, I'd like to say 'Good Move' on Utah's part. They've got enough of a bad rep from those polygamists living on the borders that they certainly don't need anymore trouble like 'Intelligent Design.'
That being said, has anyone noticed that those who try to eradicate all traces of religeon from public life are zealots, in almost a religeous way? Except that the state is their God and provider instead of an unseen, all-powerful being.
Rambling a little bit more, it's been put thusly: "The bible tells us what God did, and science tells us how."
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
>
> I don't the apes would want to claim Buttars as a descendant, either.
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western United States lies a small unregarded salt pond. Adjacent to this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight is an utterly insignificant little state whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think creationism is a pretty neat idea.
> > "Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, led the charge to defeat the bill, saying he didn't understand how science contradicted faith." Urquhart successfully gutted the bill, leaving only one bland sentence that read: "The State Board of Education shall establish curriculum requirements relating to scientific instruction." Then the House defeated even that as a way of stopping the Senate from reviving the issue.
In deference to one million years of human evolution, Rep. Urquhart did not try to pick fleas off Senator Buttars. Utahns are not proud of their ancestry and never invite them around for dinner.
...they decided black was white and got run over on a level crossing.
they should read 28-46.
Not ALL Republicans are religious fanatics.
Not ALL people in Utah are religious fanatics.
Not ALL Mormons are religious fanatics.
SOME Republicans are religious fanatics.
SOME people in Utah are religious fanatics.
SOME Mormons are religious fanatics.
Anyone with at least a basic understanding in logic can see the difference.
And that difference is valid for ALL generalisations (exept this one). SOME (insert group) are (insert stereotype). But NOT ALL are!
As soon as we understand that, we might start to be able to see past the steretype and start seeing the other as what he is: An individual.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I attend Brigham Young University. I was just at a University wide forum where the speaker mentioned this issue. She is a professor in the chemistry department. She is religious. (Catholic actually--Hey not everyone is a mormon in Utah) She spoke on this very issue being discussed in the legislature. She spoke of how religion does not answer all of the answers of the Universe and how we need to find out as many answers as we can. Religion and science do not clash. They are not mutually exclusive beliefs. She gave quotes both from notable catholic and Mormon sources.
When she was finished, the student body in attendance gave her a warm round of applause. I was very impressed. I myself do not believe that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive. I'll have to ask the big man upstairs when I get there, but until then, it is a very fascinating subject. While the speech isn't available for download yet the link is at BYU Broadcasting devotionals. It will probably be available in a couple days. The speech date is Feb 28, 2006. The first half is about superconductivity. The last part is about teaching evolution in schools.
There's no place like ~/
Semenary has its own classes? Wouldn't that be covered in biology or sex education?
*** ducks out of the way of the inevitable flying pies ***
This space unintentionally left blank.
This just goes to show you that not all Republicans are anti-fact. They're like all politicians; they behave only as badly as their constituents will allow them to.
Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
not all scientists agree on which theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race
This statement is half right. I would say that the evolution of humans from primates established, iron clad. But the theory of the origin of life, and Darwin's theory of natural selection are not the same thing. Darwin's theory is an empirical explanation the transition of forms of subsequent generations in response to stimuli. For the origin of life scientists have made plausible inferences on the spontaneous organisation of prebiotic molecules into self-replicating forms. This hardly constitutes a theory. How and why can primative life reach the point to where there is something to naturally select?
an ill wind that blows no good
... is that Mormons aren't as hung up on anti-Darwinism as the Evangelicals are.
Also, you darwinists (remember that Hitler was a Darwinist. I'm not implying anything, I'm just saying.), hold up your so-called saint on a pedastal, denying that Creationism is not only a provable theory, it is a FACT. You can find proof for it on page 1 of the Bible, which is the Word of the Lord, and everything written in it is true, because it says so, and because Pat Robertson says so. He is rich, therefore he has been chosen.
And this is not an expression of religious views, as all of the necessary literature can be found in the volumes of research written on intelligent design. Remember, *Science* should be taught in *science* class, and not the religions of athiesm and nihilism.
This kind of thinking went out in most countries several hundred years ago. Are they going to create an environment where Galileo is sent to prison or scientists with important discoveries risk being persecuted, or even executed.
Fuck the inquisition.
I'm interested to see how close the "World is/is not flat" vote is. After that, the "Witches do/do not exist" will be another barn-burner. Hooray for progress!
That's one of my favourite South Park episodes.
It spends most of the episode making fun of the origins of Mormonism, and then slaps you at the end with a "So what? If they're happy and not hurting anyone, what the hell does it matter what they believe?"
Which is exactly the point, isn't it?
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
MonkeyDluffy wrote: I don't the apes would want to claim Buttars as a descendant, either.
;-)
That doesn't look like Shakespere! Get back to work, monkey!
I'm actually impressed that someone up on the hill (yes, it really is on a hill overlooking downtown) got this right without having to go down with their idealogical ship.
While I don't believe in "intelligent" creation as it is layed out, I have no problem that God may have set up our physical universe in such a way that we could have come into sentience.
As an agnostic, nearly athiest, person I'd expect that God is going to work with the "physics" rules that he created.
It would require people to have a lot more personal faith, wouldn't it?
No! It's a *SIG*. Keep the Special Interest Groups away! (Con joke!)
See subject.
*sigh*... /south park
Goddamnit Buttars.
(Heheheh. Couldn't resist.)
Chris Buttars, the pusher (in the drug dealing sense) of this bill, is an utter nutcase and total non-thinker in my opinion. He was on a local radio program a couple of weeks ago and was answering calls from listeners. In nearly every case, instead of answering their questions with a reasoned argument for his position, he merely responded with "I disagree," or "It's not what I believe." Call over. Wouldn't discuss it at all past espousing what his position was. He could have sent over a tape recorder for all it would have mattered.
I have it on *very* good authority that this guy is a near laughing stock in the legislature - even amongst those who agree with him on certain things. He's just a complete fool. I can see why this dude doesn't like evolution - it's obvious to his knuckle-dragging self that he has never progressed much past a grub-gathering ape ancestor, so no one else must have either.
(And every time I think of his name, I think of South Park and Butters little alter-ego trying to take wreak havoc on the world - to little effect.)
P|-|1R5+ R3P|Y +0 P|-|1R5+ R3P|Y +0 P|-|41|3D P|-|1R5+ P05+.
No no no no NO!!!!
You cannot teach young people to question conventional ideas. When you do, they start disrespecting the established laws and institutions, and create a huge social mess!!! They might get it in their heads that information wants to be free, or that politicians should be held responsible for their actions, or that a war on a concept is not a good reason to sacrifice their liberties, or that a monopoly-driven economy is harmful and anti-capitalistic!!!
An intelligent/thinking populace is an uncontrollable populace, and that will spell your doom as well as mine.
There is another glaring problem with '4 out of 5 dentists choose ...' type of marketing ... it doesn't normalise against the overall market share of a brand. For example, say it is claimed that "8 out 10 dentists use Crest". It sounds good, because it's a high number, but the number alone doesn't actually tell us much. Why? Assume in one case that 9 out of 10 members of the general public use Crest. This would means that dentists are less likely to choose Crest than people who don't know any better - which would mean Crest is probably bad. Now assume a second case in which 6 out of 10 members of the general public use Crest, and 8 out of 10 dentists use it. This means that people who know better are more likely to use Crest than people who don't, and would imply that Crest is good.
Of course, there is also a third case in which the numbers are the same for the general public and the 'experts', and in that case, it probably doesn't matter what you choose --- the market alternatives are probably just as good.
Idiot - you have no idea what Darwinism is, or what modern evolutionary theory is for that matter.
Read The Origin of the Species and then come back and post. I have and therefore have a right to comment on Darwinism.
Get a clue.
You're a loony
Reality has a notoriously liberal bias -- Stephen Colbert
Marking anyone as a foe is nothing more than Slashdot hypocrisy. It's absolutely amazing to me how so many people on Slashdot decry any kind of censorship, whether it be {insert corporation}'s poilcy with China, U.S. government censorship, or whatever. But then in the same breath can turn around and say "Just mark him 'Foe'!"
Censorship is censorship, whether it's done by a corporate entity, a government, or by a "Foe" list. Besides, it's ridiculous to censor an entire person just because of a few posts that you might not like. Who know what other posts are worth reading that you're no longer seeing because of that that "Foe" mark.
I am getting pissed TMM's karma whoring and mind-baffling need for a first post as well, and I could just as easily mark his as "Foe". I won't because occasionally he does post something that is actually worth reading (not often, I grant you), and I think it's hypocritical of the Slashdot groupthink to suggest that anyone should use "Foe". As far as I'm concerned, any time you mark someone as "Foe" you're saying, "I'm too closed minded to be able to deal with a differing opinion from mine, so I'm just going to censor you entirely."
Hell, we're not talking about spam here -- although sometimes I think TMM is trying to get close to it.
Just my two cents. Convert to your local currency as necessary.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
The creationists are essentially trolls
I realise the effects might be the same, but there is an important difference: trolls know that what they're posting is bunk.
At first I was upset that the Utah Legislature wanted to debate the issue. While I dislike Buttars and his Bill. I really can't fault people for wanting to debate an interesting issues. The debate about evolution seemed to encourage many people to talk about the foundations of logic and the nature of scientific theory.
The fact that people are engaged in debate is good. Personally I think the implication of this post (i.e., that people who do not adhere to one's beliefs are somehow "not thinking") is worse than the fact that some people enaged in a silly debate. The theory of evolution is the product of open inquiry. The theory should never be used as bludgeon to stop open inquiry.
It is the nature of the scientific method that people need to be actively engaged in different levels of the process. Good science engages people in the process.
The problem is not that people wanted to engage in this debate. The problem is that the State Legislature is not the place where such debates should occur. Debates in Congress end with authorative legislation; Such legislation will always have a negative impact on education.
Seriously though, couldn't Taco just make this guy an editor or something, because he first posts waaayy too much.
I remember seeing a suspiciously anonymous post suggesting the same thing, praising TMM like the second Slashdot coming. Needless to say, I immediately assumed that he was the author hiding under AC. If you think that becoming an editor isn't already TMM's perogative, based on how he spends IMHO too much time desperate to provide links and first posts, then you're playing right into his hands.
I think his energies would be better spent on proof reading article summaries rather than hovering over a constantly refreshing main-page.
And you think that he's the only one that fits that category? I'm sure that thousands of people do the same thing. TMM only has an advantage because he's a subscriber.
Yeah, yeah, I'm continuing an off-topic thread, but it had to be said.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
“Moral relativism” is a redundant term. All morals are intrinsically relative to the people, times, and places from which they originate. Thousands of years ago, it used to be that stoning women to death for getting raped was moral, while today, that is no longer the case. It also used to be moral to have slaves, but that too was based on whether you lived in the north or the south. People define morality, not absolutes. And because people are transient, morals will come and go, and evolve.
Also, it is funny that you say “moral relativism” eliminates definitions of morality. You used the plural form of “definition” thus indicating you think that there are multiple definitions of morality in the first place. I could not agree more.
Join Tor today!
This is an odd claim, considering that an oft-repeated atheist mantra is "I don't believe that God doesn't exist ... I just don't believe that he does exist."
Surely one could be skeptical of current evolutionary theory without committing to an alternative. If I am skeptical about string theory, does that require me to have an alternative?
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
I was watching TV and as I flipped from channel to channel I stop when I saw the infamous Pat Robertson saying "people who believe in evolution are part of a cult and that by teaching evolution in schools the state is endorsing a religious belief". He then went on to say "over 500 scientists signed a petition stating that they do not believe in evolution in response to a KPBS special that claimed virtually all scientists believe in evolution". I used to believe that that ability to put someone in jail or worse was the only thing keeping people in past centuries so ignorant. Pat Roberton's Fox show "700 club" is not being forced down anyone's throat, we won't go to jail if we disagree with their religious claims, knowledge about science is there for the taking. Why hasn't a new age of enlightenment kicked in?
The key problem is teaching children to question conventional wisdom. Kids need to be taught to always question what they know.
Do you try to walk through walls twice a day to question the "conventional wisdom" that you can't pass through solid matter? Or did you learn in toddlerhood that constantly questioning certain concepts that had shown themselves to be substantially and consistently true would only lead to headaches and a seat on the short bus next to the kid who eats paste?
Blindly questioning things is just as bad as blindly accepting things. "Conventional wisdom" usually becomes convention for sound reasons that should be investigated and understood before being discarded. Challenges, if made, should be based on more informed reasoning than just some "question authority" philosophy.
This is even more true for science. Scientific theories become widely accepted because they've been shown to offer meaningful explanations of observed phenomena, not because some authority figures declared it to be so. Evolution is not dogma, it's not propaganda, it's not religion. It's a set of ideas that offer a powerful, testable explanation for the differences and similarities between earths various forms of life, past and present. Questioning it for the sake of questioning it makes no more sense than trying to walk through a wall every day just to verify that you still can't.
Really, you can't "teach" children to critically analyze scientific theory. Psychologists believe* that children before adolescence can't even understand the kind of abstract thought, and some never develop that level of cognition.
Students presented with any kind of "critical reasoning curriculum" will rapidly develop a disdain for any material. "This is all bunk, anyway, the teacher said so. We'll just memorize it for the test, because we'll never use it in real life."
Grade school is probably not the place for that kind of instruction. If someone needs to understand the nature of scientific reasoning, they'll learn it in college.
*As with all branches of the sciences, psychology is a developing field of knowledge, and subject to many conflicting viewpoints. Do not take any psychological theory as absolute fact. This disclaimer brought to you by the Slashdot Bored of Edjoocashun.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
2 words---- COnservative Mormons
Wonderful post, although I'm not sure whether it should be modded "Troll (first class)" or "Joke (variety: subtle)" because it sure as hell will be misunderstood most people - much like evolu.... oh stop it!.
Delicate genius is a rare and beautiful flower, and this is of the genus Rafflesia. Slashdot barely deserves this post. Sir, I salute you.
I'm going to go with Isaac Asimov on this one. He points out, correctly IMO, that to the creationist there really isn't any significant difference between "evolved from a common ape-like ancestor" and "evolved from apes". The creationist is simply horrified at the idea that he isn't a special creation made to look like the creator of the universe. So bite the bullet, and say "well, yes, we did evolve from apes, deal."
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
You useless bible-thumping retards piss me off. Everyone knows that life on earth came about because the evil overlord xenu brought the overpopulation from his evil galactic empire on space-faring DC19s then threw them into volcanoes before using nuclear weapons to blow them up.
You damned Christers are just remembering the false memories from your body thetans who were held in a massive 3d theatre for 30 days after their souls had been vacuumed up by giant soul vacuums.
It says so right in OT-3.
It's been a long time.
i'm sure its been said but "HOORAY FOR INTELLIGENCE". I am so glad to see people keep religion out of science classes. I have no problem teaching religion in school as long as its not mandatory and its labeled as religion. Actually I think a specific class for religion would be a good thing as long as it taught about all the major religions. That way kids would have a better understanding of other religions than those being taught in the home. Of course this will never happen since in the US its mostly Christians in control and they are so against other religions its ridiculous.
WTF?
Hello everyone:
... exposure to this higher intellect... as you.
I would like to offer up my observations on the matter of evolution vs creationism (and all of its variants, in whatever disguises...). Though the scope of my observations is quite general, they are still just my observations as I try to make sense of this arguement.
Some of us accept evolution as the mechanism for the origin of the human race. This explanation is sound, and is consistent to many natural/observational experiments. In these experiments, they witness the change in living organisms in the molecular, micro, and macro scale. Thus, they project that through eons of environmental pressures, small changes were accumulated into significant ones, creating new species in the process. In short, they base their arguements on what is observable and logically sound.
On the other hand, some of us accept that a higher intellect has designed and created the human race. They accept this explanation because of their personal experience with that higher intellect. As they learn more about this intellect, they come to learn that this intellect created life on earth. Looking at their personal experience, they see the effects or touches this intellect had on their lives. Thus, they project that the teachings and/or revelations of this higher intellect says is true. In short, they based their arguements on personal experience and conviction.
For whose who accept evolution, please do not think the other camp as stupid. I personally know many intelligent people who believes in creationism. These people are highly educated, and understand evolution very well. They... slight it as something less than factual because their personal experience and conviction are stronger than what are taught in the classrooms, and what's observed in in experiments...
For whose who accept creationism and/or its many variants, please do not mix up your personal experience (however strong it may be) with objectivity. Have some considerations for the other camp who do not (yet) have the same
For all of us, please be careful and not let opportunistic politicians hijack this arguement, which is, at the end of the day, a search for the truth.
Cheers.
B. Pascal
This is just another case about how politicians are causing divisions among the people. Turn the Blacks and Whites against each other, turn the Creationalists and the Evolutionists against each other. It goes on and on. As long as people continue to argue and fight with each other, the government-corporate alliance can continue to pass new laws which take away our freedoms as well as drain our resources. If and when we decide to get our heads out of our asses and quit fighting one another, we can stand up to the government-cartel alliance and show them that WE ARE THE BOSS.
Just think about how much rancor and argument that has been generated by a simple statement, "Not all scientists agree with evolution as the origin of all life." That statement neither debases science nor religion. Most of the controversy is over moot points. It would be better for these politicians to look at legislation that will prevent the court-enforced theft of property by corporations. These politicians should be more concerned about making sure that the courts allow those who have little or no money get a fair day in court. In other words the legislature will better serve the people by protecting their rights rather than passing laws to increase their (politicians) wealth and power. But this will not happen until people decide to quit nitpicking over something this lame.
should leave us all ashamed. I'm a Christian who has deeply rooted beliefs, but I also respect [real, not politically motivated by either side] science. It is what it is. I don't know enough about the particular science of it all to answer either way, but our origins certainly won't change to creation from evolution, something in between, or vice versa, because some idiots vote it so.
I'm proud that the Republican hating free thought open source and open minds collective hive mind of Slashdot is so totally behind this! Children should NOT be taught that anyone disagrees with the science minded leftist elite! We are the correct ones, we have never ever been wrong, implying we might not be completely right all the time is bad for everyone! Dissident opinions should be oppressed and certainly not voiced in school. --- ...and you call Bush a fascist.
It REPULSES me that you are all so on this bandwagon. The legislation, LITERALLY, said give kids an option to see everything and choose for themselves.
The anti-ID argument is the dumbest thing I have ever heard... it allows us take the focus off the one Big Question, and work as peers on everything ELSE.
But that isn't how we reacted. What did the logical, sound minded, scientific thinking side of the community do when challenged? EXACTLY what we have bitched about the Christian community doing since the dawn of science. We oppress their thoughts and opinions and refuse to acknowledge that they can even contribute, solely because we can't fit their worldview into ours, refuse to acknowledge that our "theory" is as broken as theirs.
Your faith in science, is not less ludicrous than someone elses faith.
When either side can prove their Grand Unified Theory, but God, Spaghetti Monster, or Abacus... they will. There will be much rubbing of the other sides noses in it, one side or the other will act like insufferable children for several decades, and we'll move on to other things...
UNTIL THEN... would it kill us to shut up, respect each other's merits and focus on the SCIENCE?
Logic Breakdown Breakdown:
Oppressing the thoughts of those who disagree is righteous and good.
Allowing individuals who think differently to participate is a stupid thing to teach children.
Allowing people who think differently to participate will only ruin the end result, take Open Source for instance.
Are they really wild in bed? Or does the LDS stuff make them real inhibited?
Or can you compare to a non-LDS chick?
Has it gotten this bad? Has it gotten so bad that I cannot tell if this guy is being serious or is just trying be satirical?
Have you even read the title? It's called The Origin of Species.
everyone wants thier religion in schools
Why hasn't a new age of enlightenment kicked in?
Because most people are stupid?
What do I win?
Smartass comments aside, I think it's because there's just too much knowledge. It's painful trying to understand complex ideas, and the world is full of complex ideas. It's much simpler to embrace a simple viewpoint, one which will give you the answers you seek without requiring thought.
Consider simple moral questions. In the real world, moral judgements are sometimes difficult. By embracing a set of pre-written moral standards and applying them uncritically, life becomes much easier. "Homosexuality is wrong," and "Anyone who claims to believe in Jesus is right," or "The invisible hand of the market will make everything right!" Shades of grey are transformed instantly into wonderful black-and-white just by running it through your Jesus filter (or your Allah filter, or your Ayn Rand filter, or... you get the point).
I doubt we'll ever see a true age of enlightenment.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Wow, let me thank you both for the deep insight into the disastrous decline of your nation. Such florid, ignorant and arrogant prose, I hardly know where to start. It would make for nothing more than an entertaining spectacle if I didn't have the misfortune of living next door. Such (self)righteously blind people scare the shit out of me.
What Idiots are still saying we evolved FROM apes... Really.. No one proposes that.. current data strongly suggest that we are RELATED....jeesh... more evidence to suggest that science education sucks in this country.
a guy on slashdot spouting mormon apologia does not exonerate the religion.
They think that Native Americans are jews who were evil, so god made them darkies, for fucks sakes.
I know, I was dragged to their church as a teenager, when I started to question things they responded with "have faith!" to which I eventually realized everyone in that church is full of shit.
They brainwash their children into thinking that anything that opposes their twisted worldview is "antimormon", so they develop a defense against even THINKING about questioning their beliefs.
Then they tell everyone to pay 10% of their gross income to the church, or else they will "burn" when Jesus comes back (to save Mormons and burn sinners (aka anyone not mormon/paying ransom from the burning, you dig?). They funnel this money, tax free to Utah, where they spend it on a bunch of rich white men to jet around the world proclaiming that "you need to be saved , send us money!".
Frankly, they're one run above scientology in the sleaze-o-meter.
In short! Fuck mormons.
There exists now a microbe with the ability to digest nylon, a substance that didn't exist in nature before man invented it. That microbe cannot breed with any other we know of. Therefore it is a new species and speciation has been observed in nature.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Probably 90 percent of people who are LDS think the church is against evolution
This is a completely bogus number. (Hint: it starts with the word "probably.")
I'm going to make up my own number. 90 percent of LDS people don't know what their church's stand on evolution is.
Here's another number: 90 percent of college educated people don't know what Darwin wrote about the origin of human life. They know the general sketches of natural selection and other principles of evolution, but don't know Darwin's specific ponderings of these principles as applied to the origin of human life.
Boy, making up numbers is fun.
Fact: The doctrine of the LDS church is that Man was created by God, and all humans are children of God.
Fact: This does not preclude the principles of evolution in nature. Humans can walk into a science lab and create and manipulate life forms. Those life forms can evolve after they are created.
Fact: Humans have changed over time and locations--height, weight, hair color, skin color, lifespan, etc.
I'm not familiar with any scientific evidence that every single living thing on Earth evolved from the same original organism. If you believe that life emerged from some primordial ooze, there is not reason not to believe that it didn't emerge twice, or 10 times, or 1000 times, or 1 million times. In fact, you kind of have to believe that it did. Statistically, one solitary original life form would never survive long enough to reproduce. But 1 million spontaneous life forms emerging over 1000 years might result in 100 survivors, or 10. Why not believe that a human evolved from a different original source than did an oak tree?
God himself told me that when I am dead, He will not ask me any more questions, and all the other voices in my head will stop too!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Awesome.
What is actually most surprising is that anyone voted for it at all. The LDS ("Mormon") church has no stance on evolution (or any other scientific theory), and, differently from many christian churches, teaches as doctrine that the universe and everything in it was "organized" over an undefined period of time rather than called out of nothing in an instant. In fact, I read a few years ago that Utah produces more scientists per-capita than any other state. This was reported, favorably, in the LDS Church News! Church leaders have taught that the "days" mentioned in Genesis were just a way the ancients tried to express long periods of time. BYU, the church-owned university, has had multiple papers on evolution published in Science magazine (along with Nature, the premier peer-reviewed science journal.) As a member of the LDS church myself and lover of all things biology-related, this is personally signifiant to me. I wouldn't be part of a chuch that rejected science based on oppresive dogma. Are there "Mormon" whacko fanatics? Sure. Do the rural areas of Utah, like rural areas everywhere, have more than their fair share? Yes. Are they encouraged by the church? No.
It's been this bad for a long time. If he had thrown in some random cAPITALizATION, I might have thought he was serious.
So does this mean that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints will now have to start doing proxy baptisms for the apes we're all descended from? Should they baptise other people in their place, or invite special guests from the SLC zoo?
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
I live in Colorado and have spent much of the past few months in Utah. While Mormons are the butt of a lot of jokes, there are a lot worse next-door neighbors we could have.
* They travel all over the world in formal dress telling people about their weird religion.
> Yet they're totally fine with my weird religion.
* They don't drink alcohol.
> Yet Utah has some fine microbrews.
* They live in the desert.
> And they keep it in good shape for visitors.
* They live their lives based on a 19th-century book.
> Yet they're up to date and innovative with modern science and high technology.
* They have little exposure to sex, drugs, and rock & roll.
> So they have a blast playing board games.
Really... I think the world needs more geeks from Utah.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
I've often thought how much good it would do to have a "World Religion" class as part of our public curriculum. *NOT* a course that gets bogged down in pointless discussions of "we're right, they're wrong", but an objective look into how religion influences society and how it has played a role in world history. It would basically be a social studies class that isn't afraid to discuss world religions that have played major roles in history.
Many pointless arguments, bigotries, violent acts, or even wars (motivated by ignorance and intolerance) could be avoided.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
Picking a subsample of the sample you already polled is just bad science. Now they may keep doing studies of groups of 5 dentists until they get a group where 4 prefer Crest... Then you're not just throwing away people in a study that don't agree with your conclusion. Your other studies might have been flawed so you just threw them out :)
However, there is nothing that would have prevented life from arising at multiple times some groups of organisms have different ancestors. There are any number of reasons why we don't see multiple lineages of life.
First, the conditions under which life originated may not exist now. This isn't as far-fetched as it seems, since evidence suggests that conditions on the earth prior to the presence of life were dramatically different.
Second, let's suppose that the conditions aren't so different and life has formed many times. The newly formed organisms would have to compete against organisms that have already adapted to the same environment. Already existing organisms are going to have a big advantage.
Third, there may already have been multiple different lineages of life. However, the other lineages were out-competed and didn't survive to the present day.
Why not say evolution? Sure Darwin may have come up with the idea of natural selection, but evolution as a branch of science has been studied and developed by counteless scientists, not just Darwin. Is it an attempt by creationists to paint the theory as one man's idea and not a valid area of study? We don't call a nuclear non-proliferation treaty an "Anti-Einstein Treaty"...
Gibberish. You're an asshole.
Telling it like it is!
God is Santa for grown-ups. Toy with the idea if that pleases you. Please note that almost any step beyond that is TOO far.
There is no God - all religious people are hoping in vain for a presence that is greater than them. In reality, they're the greatest there is, at least around this particular part of the galaxy. I'd say though that they're lessened by adopting beliefs which aren't just ridiculous, but also obviously wrong. That's not taking mankind forward (regardless of which reasonable direction you define that to be).
I so would have loved a world where people started believing what they can actually observe - because there is no more. Sure there is abstract stuff - emotions, tales, bravery and compassion. None of that requires disbelief in what you see though.
You can choose your purpose in the world. Or just go with the flow and chase those chemical reactions we all enjoy. Please don't shut your eyes though. Every healthy man and woman is capable of inspecting the world and assessing that there is no ground for believing in a god.
Join me and the rest in exploring the world like it is. OPEN your eyes.
As a member of the Utah State Board of Education, I have to say I'm relieved. Particularly as early versions of the bill would have mandated teaching "origins of life," something that isn't a specific part of the required curriculum.
Special thanks to House Minority Whip Steve Urquhart for recognizing it is the Board's job to direct curriculum, and not the Legislature's--as directed by the Utah Constitution--and for leading efforts to kill the bill in the House.
Senator Buttars visited the State Board of Education last September, and wasn't as cordial as I might have preferred.
See also, the Board's position statement on teaching evolution. (pdf)
(For the record, the also Board officially opposes his bill targeting certain high school clubs.)
Your assumtion about the 28 votes is incorrect. You need to understand the context of the vote. By the time the vote was taken the bill had been amended and totally gutted of the original author's intent. It just basically said that the state department of education should develop guidlines for teaching science. The vote in the house was to decide whether to send that amended bill back to the senate for their consideration or to just let it die. That's the way politics works - propose, ammend, extinguish. So, the 28 who voted for the bill were just voting to send the gutted bill back to the senate and let them see if they would accept it as ammended or kill it. The majority voted to just forget the whole thing and let the bill die in the house.
I second the 'You're a Looney' comment.
well done, you just proved his point, "Origin of the species" NOT "Origin of life"
I for one welcome our new ape-descended lawmakers.
if we had fundamentally different DNA from apes
I often wonder about this. If a creator created all organisms from scratch, why are all species based on DNA? Why did the alleged creator do it this way instead of starting completely anew with each creature? Surely there are a million ways an organism could work besides DNA.
And the DNA varies predictably depending on time and space distances between different species. Why? Evolution explains so much of what we observe. So why did the creator create all species in such a way that they appeared to have evolved?
is assuming for no good reason that the Distinguished Gentleman from Utah, Mr. Buttars, had any intention of opening a debate. He is one of the religious fundies who merely wants to get the American Theocracy in place as quickly as possible.
To the odious folks like him, there is no "debating" such an obvious issue. There is only taking the clear-cut right side or disagreeing with him and going, in due time, straight to hell.
He probably knows from experience that debates will occur, but they are merely what he considers a necessary evil due to the large presence of evil people in places they shouldn't be (like government, the private sector, and generally anywhere on Earth). But it is his fondest desire that in some glorious future day that nobody even thinks to question his wisdom, let alone dares to actually oppose him.
The impact of debates in Congress depends on which POV wins. After all, the legalization of blacks' and women's rights to vote were just such issues once, and they turned out pretty well, IMO.
I believe in the seperation of school and state!
That would eliminate this entire issue.
Libertas in infinitum
... are a close-minded, bigoted, narrow-thinking ass.
Libertas in infinitum
It's Butters!
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
Science is not a democratic process: you don't get to vote for the theories you like. Theories stand on the evidences to support them, how well they predict experimentation and how good of a model they represent for reality.
Darwin's explanation of the origin of species is a fact of science. It's not a viewpoint for non-sciencists in the field to debate.
That fact may clash with your belief system but unless you incoporate it in it, it's not going to go away. You can wish that the earth is flat and believe all you want that it is, you can even vote to make it mandatory for kids to learn it at school, you can pass it into law, that's still not going to make it true.
We are free to live in a delusion but it should be a personal choice: suppressing or undermining the best explanations we have for reality is not going to allow us to make informed choices.
How do you know that bacteria or spore were not amongst the rock that formed the earth? Some types of life are remarkably tough, living deep within the earth's crust or within hot sulfer springs. It's not a great leap to hypothesize that some types of life can survive, perhaps in hibernation, in outer space. Our solar system is not first generation. It's made up of the remnants of exploded stars and perhaps planets that contained life.
An important part of science is something called "critical thinking", which means, in part, that we don't take things for granted and we don't jump to conclusions. It means we admit that our knowledge of what happened billions of years ago might be somewhat tentative.
You might try a little critical thinking some time. Moron.
No, really, I think I'm onto something. I actually don't see what the debate is. Here's how I have reconciled these things for myself, and I try to tell as many people as I can these ideas, to see what they think. I have been honing these arguments for some time, and if I were to die tomorrow, these are the ideas I would like to leave behind.
;) But fast-forward a few years, and suddenly all that stuff starts to seem appealing, and I started dreaming about the things that earlier I thought were disgusting. I didn't ask for the dreams, or the inclination- it was just there. And so this is how I think of homosexuality. No gay person decides to be gay- not subconsciously, anyway. Who wants all that extra aggravation in life? Nevertheless they're just drawn to it, as surely as I'm drawn to women, and perhaps just as powerfully. If it is gross to you, it's only because you've been biologically conditioned to think heterosexual sex is not gross. Which, when you really think about it and take away your horniness for a sec, it kinda still is. The best kind, anyway ;)
1) Creation, evolution, origin
Sen. Buttars is offended by the idea that we are "descendants of a 'lesser' life form". Granted, it doesn't appeal to our "On High" sensibilities, does it? But I also find offensive the idea that God clumsily used physical hands (!) to shape Adam and Eve and the rest of the lifeforms on Earth. I think it is a MUCH more beautiful idea, that God created the physical laws of the Universe that allow (nay, encourage) life to eventually exist in its present form. And that God then took a day off, and let things run their course, which might include effects that look a lot like evolution. So they are in fact not incompatible, when looked at in a certain light, unless you believe in spontaneous creation, which I touch on below.
2) Fear of the "Homosexual Agenda" Ruining the Reproductive Capacity of our Children
Wow, what a sticky issue.
I will first shoot down the "it's unnatural" argument. First, I will refer you to the book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl, which has a pretty solid bank of evidence that most of the species on this planet not only engage in behavior that looks quite homosexual (previously sometimes categorized as "dominance" behavior, etc.), it's a fixed percentage of the population per species, and it never seems to go over 50%. Varies from 2% to 50% or something. This book so effectively shoots down this argument that I'm sure it has been categorized as homosexual propaganda in certain circles. The best part for me was the "devastating examination in chapter 3 of bigotry in the biological sciences in over two hundred years of observations of animal homosexuality" (quote from review). So anyway, then one has to ask, how can this be? How can a behavioral trait that results in no offspring get passed down genetically? Well, the answers from Genome by Matt Ridley seem to suggest, it isn't (that book is incredibly awesome, by the way- VERY RECOMMENDED geek read!). The evidence seems to suggest overall that homosexuality (in a game theory sense) is a "biological cost" side-effect of making the HETEROSEXUAL opposite sexes more attractive to each other. So the net overall effect is that more, and more diverse, children are produced, than if the sexual dimorphism process was not as effective (and creating homosexual children as a side-effect).
Now I will shoot down the "it's disgusting" argument. Let's go back to a time, 1st grade. I started to like girls (without asking why). Yet if someone had told me about heterosexual sex, I guarantee my reaction would have been "I put what where? GROSS!!!! It's stinky down there!" * And, it is
Lastly, I have a partial answer for "the Bible says it's wrong" argument. Refer to
Evolution is not a proven fact.
If you think there is scientific evidence backing evolution, you can claim a $250,000 reward at http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67.
The governor has stated publicly that creation and ID belong in a philosophy class if anywhere. I think that the bill was doomed to defeat or veto.
Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
I think that evolution should also be kept out, because it is also metaphysical and non-scientific (neither testable nor observable).
That is ridiculous. I see no reason why evolution is non-observable. We get mutations in things like fruit flies all the time. The only thing you need is to mutate something particularly important in the DNA that prevents the offspring of such mutated DNA from breeding with non-mutated offspring. That's certainly something that you could see. "Nontestable" means "cannot ever be tested", not just "there is no five minute test".
For the same reason, evolution is certainly not metaphysical. Because it is a hypothesis to explain observed physical phenomena, it is scientific.
And I'm sorry, but if Christianity *really* is incompatible with evolution, then I think that Christianity is going to see some falling membership numbers.
Christianity had to be beaten about the head with the facts before it finally gave up and admitted to the heliocentric theory. It lost a lot of power and influence in the process. Do you really want Christianity to look stupid again when it tries to claim that evolution is just some nonsense conspiracy from scientists?
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
If this is so, then what's with the kids in white shirts and ties on bikes "selling" Mormonism all over town? Looks like your 11th Article of Faith is contrary to the whole missionary thing.
I think he may have been reading from the christianity playbook, which also seems to target my kids,
It's not just Christianity. The way to influence people is to keep giving people regular doses of doctrine, whether it's through constant ads on TV (as many vendors in the US do) or whether it's parentally-mandated weekly trips to a church plus encouragement to "study our marketing material in your free time". Then it encourages blocking out any competing material ("Watch what your kids see on TV and the Internet...there is 'occult' material on the Internet") and so forth.
If Scientology did this, people would pick up on the fact that a creepy bunch of people are trying to influence people. But Christianity is so ingrained in tradition that it seems to get a pass..
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I'd settle for him reading the Evolution WP article.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
"(http://www.whitehouse.gov/~jkauzlar)"
:P
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Nice website.
Seriously, though, your post was so devoid of useful content that I actually feel stupider for having read it.
Slashdotters don't need to read this filth. We are about science, take the bible BS elsewhere.
FTA: "Across the United States, at least 14 pending laws -- including Missouri HB 1266 -- differ in language and strategy, but "all would weaken science education," said AAAS President Gilbert S. Omenn, professor of medicine, genetics and public health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. "The AAAS Board of Directors opposes these attacks on the integrity of science and science education," he added. "They threaten not just the teaching of evolution, but students' understanding of the biological, physical, and geological sciences.""
Damn, I only checked this one out because of the image which came to mind of a state's opposition to critics of the microkernel. Politics really needs some programming theocratic wars as well as the church kind!
There's a homosexual rule book? Why wasn't I told about this? I grew up in Salt Lake, and I've been attracted to guys since I became a teenager, but I had to wing it without any help from anyone for over ten years!
I feel so deprived.
I guess Utah forgot the 400 scientists that signed a paper last year doubting Darwinian evolution...
Ad Astra Per Asper
To further the issue.. Look at metalergy. As an EE undergrad, we learned about annealing. By very very carefully controlling the temperature and pressure of a substance, you can very slowly pureify it. Specifically if you melt a layer of a crystal, there are certain properties of the impurities (such as melting point) that will cause the impurities to stay in the liquid portion and shy away from the solid portion.. Thus by slowly moving the heated/liquidied portion throughout the material, you can purify to 20 9's.
Earth produces pure diamonds. How else if not by similar very slow and constant processes.
The catalysts for life too may very well be certain processes which require tremendous time and energy, progressing in a very natural (but to us unrecognized) manner.
We see all sorts of amazing phenomena in nature (self sustained fusion, material purification/separation). Hell, even the synthesis of oil is a natural process that has very little to do w/ dead dinosaurs.
The basic tenent, however, that if there is a natural process for evolution, then it must be reproduceable in our time.. If we can purify nuclear material, we can figure out ameno acid construction.
If not, then creationism is the only practical alternative. Forgot God, think of a programmer.. He takes unordered matter and organizes it through complex catylists into a self-organized and functioning entity.. There was an organizer prior to the programmer; namely the computer engineer.. And before him was the material-scientists and theoretical mathmetitions, etc. But to a self-contined, organized system that is a batch cron task (or a SIM avatar) there is no recognition of the origins of the diverse network of matter inside it's universe.
The practicality of creationism is the recognition of a pattern that is NOT random.
I'm not advocating one mechanism or another (catalytic random organization v.s. engineered synthesis). I am personally agnostic (which means you can 'never' 'know' so there's no value in asking). But the persuance of evolution as a potential solution could lead to breakthroughs in science (unless it is an incorrect hypothesis). The persuance of creationism, alternatively would mean we need to look in different ways for 'truth'.. Meaning ultimately the drug companies are right.. Random trying out of existing engineered life-forms is the only way to progress.
-Michael
I'm going to make up my own number. 90 percent of LDS people don't know what their church's stand on evolution is.
I'd go even further and say that 90% of Mormons think they know the position of the church on evolution and they are wrong. Wrong in that they don't know what the position is, and wrong in that they assume that it is anti-evolution. The official position is that the church takes no position on the matter. Evolution is not incompatible with LDS beliefs.
Lasers Controlled Games!
The local NPR station, KUER, interviewed this guy recently, concerning the whole idea of evolution and gay rights. When pressed to provide an answer as to for why he really wanted to, in effect, take away gay's rights, his answer was that he "doesn't agree with their lifestyle". Eh? It wasn't made clear if 'lifestyle' meant living together in a committed relationship as a family and contributing to the society, or by having nasty extramarital sex - both of which are things committed by many more straights than gays (not to mention completely aside from human rights in the first place). He couldn't give a single specific example backed up by any evidence of any way that gays would in any way threaten the concept of family, marriage, and society... yet somehow still parrots over and over that gays undermine family, marriage, etc. etc. etc.
Gotta love bigotry.
Oh, and why do so many people not grasp the basic concept of why evolution is taught in science class, but not intelligent design? If the scientific method supported the concept of creationism, then creationism would be taught in science class. Simple as that.
Science is not just 'facts' so much as it is a tool to find out what makes things work and why. I.E. science in practice is completely opposite of faith based religion.
Faith, however valid it may be to anybody's belief system, does not belong in science class.
It bootstraps the same way that Islam and before it Christianity bootstraps, onto the religion that came before. Mormons do not repudiate pre-Mormon Christianity, and see themselves as a continuation of that same tradition. Thus, from their point of view they can claim that their values were part of a temporally contiguous tradition that did exist at the founding of the republic, even though Mormonism itself did not.
Now, this is not to say that he isn't crazy. Points two through five are plenty of material for a basting. Although I find myself unfortunately agreeing with him on one small point, in that he is opposed to Hate-crime legislation, which I also find redundant and silly. It irritates me I have anything in commmon with his positions at all.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
BYU, the university run by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons), incudes evolution in it's biology classes. I had a professor last semester who specifically said "evolution is biological change over time. if you look around, it does happen. that doesn't mean we necessarily descended from monkeys, but it's possible, and a lot of people believe we did."
The fact that the school teaches it doesn't mean that the church (or the school) is saying that it's true. What they're saying is "This is a theory that many people believe. You can make your own decision as to whether you believe it or not."
As others have mentioned, the people who think that evolution is impossible within the realm of LDS belief are actually incorrect. The church authorities have not made any authoritative statements on the matter, and it is left up to the individual beliefs of the members. As such, some believe it is true, and some believe it isn't. However, some of the ones who believe it isn't true still agree that it's useful to learn, if for no other reason than to understand what other people believe.
Personally, I've never understood why some religious people think that things like this should not be taught. Regardless of whether I agree with a scientific theory, I think that it's essential for people to learn what the theory is, and why some people believe it to be true. This is particularly essential, imho, in cases where the majority of people believe the theory to be true.
because he insisted many evolution lessons contradict religious instruction.
My question is: in order to become a Legislator, don't you have to have at least heard of the Bill of Rights? I mean, if he's going to come right out and say that it's because of "religious instruction", he can't possibly make a case that his bill would be anything less than "an establishment of religion". They're not allowed to do that.
It's so obvious, to anyone who respects the Constitution, regardless of how they feel about evolution -- how can he get away with so blatantly violating the Supreme Law of the Land? I've always felt that for a Legislator to introduce a blatantly Unconstitutional bill is a crime, and should carry a stiff penalty. Senator Buttars, in my book, you are a criminal and a Traitor.
And, Slashdot crowd -- something's wrong when I see so few people making this point. The arguments here seem to be almost totally centered around the relative merits of the positions (science vs. religion, evolution vs. Creationism/ID, etc.) And of course, that's the main topic at hand, but the Freedom of Religion issue is regardless of the merits of those arguments. You'd think that, here of all places, there'd be more people decrying this as a direct assault on our Freedom.
If not, then maybe that's why Theocrats like Senator Buttars can get away with stuff like this. Maybe it seems too obvious to need mentioning, but I have a theory that there are a lot of people who wouldn't think to see it this way on their own, but who would, if presented with it, say "Hmmm... hey, that's right!" Maybe even some people who personally believe in Creationism/ID, but also respect Freedom of Religion enough to see my point. It's a point that should be made, loudly, every time somebody presents a religious argument for a public-policy position, and especially when it's so blatant.
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
I think you just broke the universe.
If we count all of the nouns used in your post and then make a list of how many were used accurately, the result is a negative number.
On
The Origin of Species
by Means of Natural Selection,
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
No it doesn't. Darwinism says absolutely nothing about the creation of the universe.
often it also evolves into a "why are we here" thing
No it doesn't. That is not a question that Darwinism makes any attempt to address.
Darwinism says there's no point to existance and death
No it doesn't.
You don't know the first thing about Darwinism, so your entire post is garbage.
I have a feeling I'm going to receive several UFIAs as a result of this post (or, in a way, SFIAs I guess), but what the heck.
Next time you have to defend evolution theory against a creationist attack, I find it helps to keep in mind the following points:
1. Evolution is not "just a theory". There is the fact of evolution, which can be demonstrated with a Petri dish, a bacterial culture, and a few drops of the right toxin (or the ever-escalating nature of antibiotics is also a good example). Then there is also the theory of evolution, based on the fact, which derives from its initial form, Darwinism.
2. A scientific theory is a model that generates testable predictions. Creationism, or intelligent design, or whatever you want to call it may provide a rather complete (though fanciful) explanation of how we came to be...but what predictions does it provide? Any? No? Really? No possibility at all of using this model to advance technology or do anything useful whatsoever? Hm. Ok, then. No useful predictions, no theory.
I have nothing against the religious viewpoint. It's just not science. Keep it out of public school science classrooms. I have no problem if it's taught in an elective religion class, history class, etc, as long as it's not from a position of advocacy (for or against) and it's in context.
Also, it's no fair saying, "Evolution is just a theory," and then saying, "I want intelligent design recognized as a legitimate theory!" What's the point of elevating creationism to the apparently decrepit state of theory-hood?
And finally, no fair saying, "Belief in evolution is based on faith as much as belief in creationism." If you really believed that, you'd be advocating we teach evolution alongside all the other faiths in religion classrooms, right?
Arm yourselves with knowledge against the creationist movement: What Is Science?, Is Creationism Science?, and Common Specious Arguments Against Evolution. Please feel free to suggest additions or discuss on the associated discussion pages.
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
What IS compatible with Mormon doctrine is the idea that God created the creatures of this planet in a way that allows them to "multiply and replenish", which can only take place if the biological creatures have limited abilities to micro-evolve, not macro evolve as suggested in Darwin's theory on the origin of species.
Because if it had passed, we could also have insisted that all churches have to prefix their sermons with "not all theologians agree on which theory regarding the origins of life, or the origins or present state of the human race, is correct".
Imagine seeing that in bright, red, 28 point text in the front of every bible, outside every church...
After all, only about 33% of the world's population is Christian... What proportion of scientists (and I don't mean the people who say they're scientists, but are just pushing a religious agenda) don't believe in Darwin? Is it more than 33%? More than 66%? No.
If the churches (and I know it's a vocal minority, not everyone who claims to be a 'believer') want to mess with science teaching, let's make sure we do the same to them. After all, kids are smart enough to make up their own minds, right?
Mark
PS Read the link, it explains how they come up with the estimate of 33%.
Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
Oh, thank God!
No, it's "Origin of Species", not "Origin of the species".
Again, you are misinformed. The official position, first articulated in the 1930s and repeated since then is that there is no position.
Lasers Controlled Games!
DIE MUTANT!
You've just demonstrated that a God with advanced science, in comparison to a fruit fly at least, might have guided evolution and speciation using radiation.
I didn't say that I proved that there wasn't a god. What I just demonstrated was speciation. You can claim that some invisible gay-hating guy in the sky or a flying spaghetti monster is "really" the guiding force if you want. You can also claim that said invisible guy in the sky causes gravity, but it doesn't make a theory of gravity any less scientific.
There's no difference between the role of the "demonstrator" and a god in this case.
Execept that I just sped up the process a bit. Mutations always happen, at a lower rate. When you're out in the Sun, you're getting irradiated. Unless your argument is that such a mutation *could* happen only if a sentient being was involved, which is a pretty weak argument.
So once again, you've created a possible logical model, but haven't actually proved anything about what happened in the case of human beings (and in fact, you can't prove anything one way or the other because no human observers existed before human beings were created).
Calm down. I didn't say that Christianity was a load of superstitious nonsense in the post (actually, I do I believe that this is the case, now that you bring it up, but it wasn't a part of the earlier post). Nothing in there said anything about what happens with humans. You claimed that speciation and evolution were non-testable and non-scientific. I demonstrated that you were wrong, at least WRT speciation, by giving an example of such a test. That's all.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I was not talking about the official position, I am talking about the beliefs. Put it this way. AFAICT Mormon doctrine doesn't exclude the concept of God using an evolutionary process to bring a planetary ecosystem up to snuff. What the very nature of the LDS belief in the creation DOES exclude is the Darwinian concept that only the survival of the fittest governs evolution.
I'm going to make up my own number. 90 percent of LDS people don't know what their church's stand on evolution is.
I'd go even further and say that 90% of Mormons think they know the position of the church on evolution and they are wrong.
I'll go even further, and say that 180% of Mormons are bad at math.
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Wow, an intelligent, well written neutral opinion on this subject. Which correctly summarizes the central questions between creationism and pure Darwinian evolution as well. And even points at the value of current research into the biological sciences without posturing that science must be inherently anti-religion in order to progress.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Depending on where you look some LDS believe that there was no beath prior to the fall of Adam and Eve, which would imply that evolution did not (and could not) happen at all. Others are much more open the idea of evolution, including the current president of the church.
Lasers Controlled Games!