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.
Humanism isn't science, it's a particular set of secular ethics that holds science in high regard.
Big difference.
Nobody is forced to go to public school. And in that case there would be a free state run church that constitutionally couldn't push any particular religion. I.e. a big waste of money. The situation is inherently asymmetric and attempting to plead for symmetry is a baseless argument.
The situation isn't so simple. There are many other factors that are much more important. If everyone could get school vouchers, the funds for public education would drop dramatically, the quality of public education would drop dramatically, poverty would then increase rapidly, and crime would then increase rapidly.
Yes, school vouchers seem fair from an individualistic libertarian point of view. (Though not as fair as abandoning tax breaks on families and taxes for education in the first place). But as far as the well being of a society is concerned, it would be a terrible mistake.
Some people have to take their religious books literally. Personally I don't think they are looking for a conflict but are taking the easy way out of life.
I'm for funding PBS, NEA, NASA, and whatnot, as their budget lines are miniscule compared to our big fuck-off DoD budget. When you are on a diet, you don't stop drinking diet pop, you stop eating a whole cake at a sitting. But I essentially agree: get rid of the debt. Now.
And let's throw out corporate welfare, too. No more bailing out failed corporations (yeah, I mean you, Chrysler, and you too, airlines) to the tune of billions a year.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
WHAT!?!? Of course there is a conflict! Between members of party A who claim that the world works in manner X and members of party B who claim it works in manner Y there is certainly conflict where X!=Y.
If 'A' claims that the Earth is round and revolves around the center of mass of the Earth/Sun system and 'B' claims that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around it then one is right and the other is wrong.
If 'B' claims that your immortal soul is what makes you, you. And 'A' claims that you are essentially software running on a meat computer and there is no soul then at least one of them is wrong and it is the tolerance of viewpoints vastly removed from reality that has allowed the country/world to get to this point. If, when one of the relatively small minority of young earthers started spouting nonsense the majority said, "Hah! How foolish." Then it would die out rather quickly, but for some reason, religion gets this magical "Don't question me." card that allows all manner of ridiculous tripe to be discussed as if it were "gospel" and somehow gets otherwise intelligent people such as yourself to start claiming that the tripe is "harmless" and "can't we all just get along?"
X and NOT X cannot both be correct.
The situation is inherently asymmetric and attempting to plead for symmetry is a baseless argument.
I'm not arguing that it should be symmetric, I'm just pointing out that there's a very good reason why there's an asymmetric response to an asymmetric situation.
If everyone could get school vouchers, the funds for public education would drop dramatically, the quality of public education would drop dramatically, poverty would then increase rapidly, and crime would then increase rapidly.
Evidence?
Consider the voucher bill that failed recently in my state: It would have given parents $2500 per child per year in a voucher to be spent at the private school of their choice. The state spends over $5000 per child, per year, so the net effect of the program is to *increase* the available funding per child remaining in public schools.
Further, there's an assumption implicit in your argument: That public schools would not be able to compete effectively with private schools for students. Why do you believe that? And what does that belief say about your position?
In the short term, I think that assumption is correct. I base that on my own experience with my oldest son and the private school he was in. We paid $3500 per year to put him in this private school, because the public schools simply were not working for him. For that money, we got teachers of at least the same quality as the local public schools but in classes one-third the size. My son's private school classes had no more than 10 students per teacher, vs over 30 in public schools. Not only that, the $3500 was *all* we paid. Public schools not only take our money in taxes, but if you have any kids in them, you know there are fees out the wazoo. Registration fees, book fees, field trip fees, lunch fees, etc. And the meals that you pay so much for are unbelievably lousy. Pre-packaged, not even warmed up in most cases. At the private school he got a hot lunch every day, and even a hot breakfast if we wanted. Educationally, there's no comparison; their curriculum was at least a year ahead of what was being taught in the same grades in public schools, and it was far better. It was not a religious school, BTW, and had no sources of funding other than students' tuition.
That private school was better in almost every possible way than the public school options, and for it we paid $1500 *less* than the state puts into the public schools.
However, I really don't think that public schools would lose in the long run. I think they would improve, and rapidly, once people had other options, and once the vouchers' effect of increasing the money available per pupil took effect.
Yes, school vouchers seem fair from an individualistic libertarian point of view. (Though not as fair as abandoning tax breaks on families and taxes for education in the first place). But as far as the well being of a society is concerned, it would be a terrible mistake.
I disagree, completely and utterly. I'm pretty libertarian, but I think taxes to fund education are a fundamentally Good Thing. There's not much I think government should do in the way of social programs, but that's one of them. However, I also think it would do both public and private schools, not to mention students, a world of good, to introduce some real competition between them. I expect it would make the lives of teachers much better as well. I don't think it would increase their wages much, but I do think it would serve to eliminate a lot of the bureaucratic nonsense they deal with now (nonsense that is a big part of why my wife is no longer a schoolteacher).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You know why you never hear about the "secular left"? Because by and large, we mind our own business. You don't have leftists putting up shrines to whomever they worship on state property. Down here in Atlanta, I don't get leftists trying to convert me to secularism a couple of times a year. I don't get idiot 16-year old leftist kids coming to my door telling me about their resurrected prophet (16! what the hell does a 16 year old know about ANYTHING, much less the underlying truth of the universe???) Secular leftists don't cripple the major throughfare near my house every weekend morning driving their giant SUVs to their place of worship. Secular leftists don't send me mail claiming that they know the path I should follow to redemption.
All in all, secular leftists are nice, happy people. We only get our panties in a bunch when the Religious Right decides to butt into everyone's lives.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
For example, did you learn in school that William Harvey discovered how blood circulates through the lungs and heart? Actually, it was ibn Nafis, in the 13th century. His writings first reached Europe in 1547. Suddenly, by 1553 Servetus was giving an accurate account of how it works. Harvey came later with some direct observations on animals.
The lesson is that a vibrant intellectual and scientific culture can be destroyed and its benefits lost.
I would even go so far as to say that the two [science and religion] really have nothing to do with each other.
Science and religion are both belief systems. Science bases all beliefs on knowledge and has rigorous ways of determining fact from fiction. If science cannot answer a particular question it doesn't attempt to guess. If it does guess, the guess is based on available evidence and is called a theory. Religion on the other hand bases beliefs on faith and (typically ancient) teachings.
But science, if anyone's noticed, doesn't try to intrude on religion.
That's not true. Some people like to point out clear evidence that some religious beliefs are false. The whole evolution debate is one such example. I'm not critizing people for pointing out evidence, but to say that science doen't try to instrude on religion is not true. The science belief system (like all other belief systems) would not survive if it didn't not make some sort of an attempt to say that it's the only valid belief system. As far as I know, there hasn't been a single court case in the U.S. where a group of scientists have tried to dictate what can be taught in any church.
This is an invalid comparison because the church is a private institution. It is funded by people who choose to take part in it and therefore they get the right to decide what's taught. The public school system is funded by the tax payers. Many tax payers have religious beliefs and feel they should have some say in what is taught there.
No Sigs!
Government no longer worth having...
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Science is TRUTH
Ah, the Inerrancy of Science argument. It's better to say that science *seeks* for TRUTH, by never claiming to actually have it. The moment science presumes to have found certain truth, it ceases to be science and becomes just a different form of religion. The refusal to stop questioning is what makes science worthwhile.
It's also worth remembering that science can only answer certain classes of questions. If those are the only questions you're interested in, fine.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
How about: "Evolution uses man to create God"
In some parts of the country church going folks represent 40% of the vote. They vote around 75-90% republican depending on the church and which part of the country. They believe Bush was appointed by god or feel he has values and morals similiar to theirs which make them identify with Bush more. They make up a large percentage but never a majority. However they add 20% points in the south in favor of the republican so those who vote liberal or stay at home get drowned out by this minority.
ANd like I said in a previous post its happening in Canada too. Right now only a few churches really love Harper but as the Canadian branch of the 700club and focus on teh family get their act together on Christian radio and TV you will see more of a shift of Canadians voting conservative thinking they are getting pro family candidates.
http://saveie6.com/
Adults can believe whatever crap they want, but children have an ethical right to be presented with good information.
Your solution returns to the problem right here. The problem itself is what is and is not considered "good" information by the parents. Even your own examples are littered with what are, while they may seems concrete to you, simple value judgements.
So. You can't prove that 2+2=4, but you insist that it is taught in schools nevertheless. And, presumably, if someone else insisted that schools teach that 2+2=5, then you will raise hell as well, since it directly conflicts with what you want your children to learn. So in short, you want your children to learn in school what you believe to be true, and not something which conflicts with it, depite you being unable to prove it to be true.
How can you then judge a religious parent for raising hell when his kids are taught something he thinks is a vile, contemptuous lie, instead of what he thinks is the truth ? You are no different, you simply believe in different matters.
Well, from the fundamentalist's point of view, if they quit they're surrendering to Satan. So expect a battle to the death, quite possibly literally if they are left no other alternatives.
And don't come posting that you're going to rise hell if your kid is not taught something you believe, and then condemn others when they do just the same.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.