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."
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.
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.
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!
I think that evolution should also be kept out, because it is also metaphysical and non-scientific (neither testable nor observable).
It's been tested. It's been observed. You're either in denial or ignorent.
You see, there is every bit the agenda on the part of evolutionists to take God out of society. I don't want to put God into society, just to let people decide for themselves.
I disagree. I think you do want to put God into society, and you have an agenda to force people to accept that God exists. To prove my theory, I will simple ask you that were you to have children, or if you already have had children, will you/have you instructed them religiously? If the answer is yes then you are a prosyletist.
The point is to stop teaching evolution as a fact, and not to teach complex theories to children who don't know what to do with them.
People around the world try and teach children the mysteries of transubstatiation, or ressurection, or eternity or some other such rubbish. These are, at the best of times, highly advanced intellectual concepts. Children should not be taught these complex theories as they don't know what to do with them. Plus, they aren't even fact, unlike evolution.
The attempts by many Christians to teach ID and creation are not intended to shun science or make second-class citizens out of atheists; it's just a reaction to what many view as being an untruthful, specifically anti-Christian approach.
Yes they are. And atheists are second class citizens. Unlike their religious "peers", their views and practices, no matter how outrageous, are not constitutionally protected. The Christain approach is the untruthful one. The religion is filled with lies, contridictions, falsehoods, evils and hate; yet to proslyetise and indoctrinate it is legally protected.
The truth is, you've been brainwashed by the village shamen or nearest cultural equivilant. Try not to subject your children to the same treatment. You only get so many of them.
May the Maths Be with you!