Slashdot Mirror


Evolution No Longer Worth Learning, Says Government

Davemania writes "New York Times reports that the Evolution biology subject has disappeared from a list of acceptable fields of study for recipients of a federal education grant for low-income college students. The Education department has described this as a Clerical Mistake but others are skeptical about this. 'Scientists who knew about the omission also said they found the clerical explanation unconvincing, given the furor over challenges by the religious right to the teaching of evolution in public schools. "It's just awfully coincidental," said Steven W. Rissing, an evolutionary biologist at Ohio State University.'" As someone who made use of one of those grants to study Evolutionary Biology, I find this more than a little galling.

2 of 694 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Dvorak, Cringely, Thurrot, now Slashdot? by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Isn't this the same site that blows up with indignation whenever some technology pundit spouts off with a ridiculous & far-fetched claim in an attempt to boost traffic & advertising impressions?"
    Yes. And that is exactly what is happening here. The ridiculous and far fetched claim was made that funding for the study of evolution was missing from the list due to a clerical error. We subsequenbtly are blowing up with indignation. Moron.
    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  2. Re:ATTENTION CREATIONISTS! by superyooser · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    it has copious interlocking evidence on many different levels supporting the theory. ... Ultimately, what theory best represents the world as we see it?

    Interlocking false premises, which result from biased interpretations of observations. Studying the unknown past is fraught with pitfalls. Read The Parable of the Candle.

    Then we can glance at the fossil record and see that speciation long predates the presence of humanity which is contrary to your assertion and goes back to very simple organisms. This also brings up the point of how old the Earth is. Concensus is that it's between 4 and 5 billions years old based on examination of rocks from the Earth, Moon, and elsewhere in the Solar System (usually in the form of meteorites). Some creationists claim the Earth is as young as 6,000 years old despite copious evidence to the contrary.

    *sigh* This is what I'm talking about. Khallow, you've got to unlearn so much of what you think you know before you can begin to see that our observations are in line with the history that the Holy Bible describes. In fact, they make sense only in light of Biblical accounts. See this article about fast fossils (more at Fossils FAQ).

    More it seems the disagreement [between creationists and the ID movement] is in how the argument is pursued.

    I think that's it. For Biblical creationists, the Bible is the foremost and clearest authority on how the earth came to be. The waging of a campaign to "fight the good fight" wherein invoking God is taboo and quoting the Bible is off-limits is offensive to some creationists. Moreover, it is seen as possibly being non-productive, as the ultimate goal in creationism is to see more people put their trust in a specific, identifiable, creative God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and accept His gift of salvation that was made possible by sending His Son, the Messiah, to die for our sins on a cross.