Slashdot Mirror


12 Florida Schools Pass Anti-Evolution Resolutions

Several sources are reporting that twelve school districts in Florida have passed resolutions against the teaching of evolution. Out of all the arguments, however, one administrator seems to have gotten it right: "Then, the final speaker, Lisa Dizengoff, director of science curriculum at Pembroke Pines Charter School's east campus, angrily reminded the crowd that after all the carping over evolution, no one had gotten around to addressing the state's lackadaisical, last-century approach to science education. 'All I heard was this argument about evolution,' she said, disgusted that so many other problems had been preempted by a single controversy. 'The kids lost out again.''"

61 of 871 comments (clear)

  1. of course they did by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Funny

    there was a rumor going around florida might lose their fark tag.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:of course they did by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've been to Florida.

      Believe me! Based on that sample, I'd disbelieve in evolution theory, too!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:of course they did by uncoveror · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most of us are descended from great apes. Floridians are descended from red-ass baboons.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
    3. Re:of course they did by monoqlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting point, and I agree. But the real reason this is a problem as it shows the growing influence of anti-intellectualism and religiosity in our country, and a diminishing understanding of what science is and what distinguishes it from religion.

      This is a real, urgent problem - we are lagging behind other countries and losing our competitive edge, and we wonder why this is when our attitude towards science is: "The Bible is as good at scieence as peer-reviewed journals." As long as this attitude persists, we'll see people like George W. Bush and other anti-science evangelicals shaping our government's science policy, and that affects us all.

      It also has to do with the kind of thinking this attitude promotes. Why critically analyze something when you can just think what you've been told to think by your elders? That's not good for democracy, that's not good for anyone.

      How to fix? Just aggressively answer every anti-evolution statement, and help sponsor and support people fighting to keep evolution the ONLY scientific theory of the origin of life taught in schools.

  2. Fundies again by dosius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 21st Century... The new Dark Ages, when religion is high and education is low.

    -uso.

    --
    What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
  3. So....... by aztektum · · Score: 5, Funny

    When do we start bombing the religious zealots in this country for oppressing their people?

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
    1. Re:So....... by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You know, to be honest, I'd really like to suggest a title change for the articles concerned - "12 Florida Schools Pass Anti-Science Resolutions."

      That's really what's happening. The theory of Evolution is one of the most heavily supported things in the scientific world, and passing laws against it speaks exceptionally loudly about the given parties ability to discern fact from fiction, intelligence from hand-waving, and most importantly, critical thinking from anything else. They're not just rejecting evolution, they're rejecting the process of science as a whole.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    2. Re:So....... by Seumas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they can't teach evolution, then they shouldn't be able to teach about gravity or anything else. Almost everything in science that is relatively established (beyond hypothesis) is a theory. So why have science classes at all? And then these same religious idiots are the ones who will bash the education system for not staying competitive with the rest of the world. How can you stay competitive when you are preventing your children from receiving a valid, proper, progressive education with such important things as ... you know... math and science?

    3. Re:So....... by C0rinthian · · Score: 5, Funny

      I don't believe in Gravity. The Earth just sucks.

  4. Opposed to facts by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oscar Howard Jr., superintendent of Taylor County's School District, and Danny Lundy, vice chairman of the School Board, spoke in accents from that other Florida. ''We're opposed to teaching evolution as a fact,'' Howard said, adding that his School Board and 11 others have passed resolutions against the imposition of evolution in the school curriculum.
    Before the "It's just a theory" folks start up, I'll point out that a theory is a model to explain the facts.
    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Opposed to facts by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Thank you. That is the part that always gets ignored. Theories can only attempt to explain something that already exists. They're not making something up. To wit:


      Gravity is a fact. The theory(s) that explain it and its effects are not facts.

      Here are two links which cover this topic:

      Link 1

      Link 2

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Opposed to facts by rossifer · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't know who moderated the parent a troll, but you need to inform yourself. Evolution is an observed fact. Natural selection is a scientific theory that provides a comprehensive explanation for the observed facts of evolution.

      What most people are doing when they say "Evolution is just a theory" is confusing hypothesis with theory. Or, they are confusing the word theory in common parlance (conjecture) with scientific theory.

      A scientific hypothesis is defined as: "A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation."

      A scientific theory, on the other hand is defined as: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

    3. Re:Opposed to facts by xstonedogx · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...it is still a theory unless and until cold, hard proof can be found.

      No, you're just perpetuating the ignorance.

      A theory can be well-supported by evidence or not. It can be proven false by any example which shows it is incorrect. It cannot be proven true, though, because we could discover something in the future for which the theory cannot account.

      Creationists essentially argue that since science cannot prove evolution it is a belief system. They promote evolution as 'scientific dogma', intentionally ignoring the fact that science adapts with new theories to explain new phenomena (i.e. science admits when it is wrong). They do this (specifically using ignorance of science's use of the word 'theory' - as you note) to argue that since the theory of evolution is taught, all 'equal' theories (which neither creationism nor ID really are) must be taught as well.

  5. Only two options now avaliable by bunbuntheminilop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Brace self for usual massive troll reaction to this, 2. Go outside, and do something else.

    1. Re:Only two options now avaliable by u-bend · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Thank you! This is a seductive game the first thirty times, but all it makes me want to do now is close my /. tab. After I post this comment, that is. Seriously, here's how it always goes:
      1. Article posted that makes fundies look like idiots.
      2. Anti-fundie flaming.
      3. Anti-religion flaming.
      4. Sideshow discussions about reconciliation of theology and science in one's personal life, usually reasonably posited and humbly submitted; drowned out by the by now raging flame war.
      5. Sideshow flame war about the observability of evolution.
      6. ...
      7. Profit? No, everyone loses (except the trolls), the smartest stay away completely, the next tier down leaves feeling drawn in and sheepish (c'mon we've all been there), and the trolls emerge stupid as ever, feeling victorious.
      8. Ugh.
      9. It's Friday, everyone drink a beer or something.

      --
      u-bend
  6. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    pi = 3. It's in the bible, it's the law. I for one do not welcome our divine overlords.

  7. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by aldousd666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't either. And I'm not posting anonymously. This is bullshit, and deserves to be treated as such. If you'll pardon the metaphor, to hell with this "theory" bullshit. It's an observable phenomenon. The only 'Theory' part of it is whether or not the currently observable laws of nature also were holding true during the time that life as we can see it came about or not. It's like saying, 'Sure that gravity pulls books down to the ground NOW, but did it still do that 10,000 years ago? Until you can answer that positively then you only have a theory!!'

    --
    Speak for yourself.
  8. La la la la, I can't hear you! by Entropius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... seems to be the sum total of evidence against evolution.

    http://xkcd.com/54/ is appropriate right now.

  9. Re:A perfect argument for school vouchers by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't have any kids and my tax dollars go to public schools. If I have to help pay for them, then parents with kids in private school have to help pay for them.

    If you want to send your kids to private school, that's your right. That doesn't mean that you get to take funds away from public schools.

  10. Re:So it continues.. by thsths · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > because neither popular argument (ID/evolution) is proven (although evolution makes FAR more sense, dont you think?)

    Where did you get that idea from? Evolution has been proven time after time, from Darwin's finches over selective breeding, resistant strains of diseases all the way to artificial intelligence programs. Evolution is no fact, but it is a good explanations for fact we can see all around us.

    Whereas intelligent design does not explain anything, very much like the Homunculus argument.

  11. The Religious Mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have studied theology in some depth. I am familiar with apologetics and all the classical defenses put forth to support the integrity of specific, popular, religious beliefs.

    For all the philosophical rambling, none of them, absolutely none of them, escape this simple indisputable fact:

    All religious teachings are provided to us by humans.

    If God Himself appeared next to me and handed me a copy of the Bible, that would be one thing. But instead, a human handed to me. And, in fact, a human wrote every word that is in it. This notion of "divine inspiration" (which is supposed to remove the element of human fallibility from the Bible) was communicated to me by...wait for it....A HUMAN.

    I can agree in principle with the presumption that faith in God is well-founded, and faith in human reason (i.e. the theory of evolution) is not so well-founded. However, to put faith in the teachings (or books) of any religion is to put faith in human reason.

    There is no denial, only rationalization.

    1. Re:The Religious Mind by Armakuni · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As someone said: Destroy both religion and science. Science will rise again exactly the same. But no religion will.

      --
      That's not Picasso, that's Kandinsky!
    2. Re:The Religious Mind by blahplusplus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I can agree in principle with the presumption that faith in God is well-founded...."

      The problem is, how would you know it was god and not some advanced life form? Ancient humans with smaller brains would consider us or our mysterious technology 'gods'.

      "...and faith in human reason (i.e. the theory of evolution) is not so well-founded. However, to put faith in the teachings (or books) of any religion is to put faith in human reason."

      What *isn't* human reason? The fact of the matter is, if god showed up beside you and put (x book) in your hand, how would you know the words in it aren't from humans if they are in human language?

      I think the whole evolution vs design controversy, is simply about the fear of death and the death of traditional morality and culture, it's not about god, it's not about truth, it's about a way of life and community that's decaying and the old gaurd is reacting to it. Western culture today is a mixed bag when you look at the divorce rate, two-parent families, and the declining birth-rate in north america.

      I think more slashdotians need to read Oswald Spenglers Decline of the west, he predicted quite a lot and is quite correct that all knowledge is in fact religious in conception, science can't escape the fact that ultimately it is merely a *description* of the universe it doesn't tell us the true nature of the universe or even what 'nature' is.

      All natural laws are merely descriptions of geometry and geometric and other relationships in a metaphorical (mathematical) language. Since if you have a sphere, what are you going to use to describe it? An abstract representational system (math).

    3. Re:The Religious Mind by Sloppy · · Score: 5, Funny

      The problem is, how would you know it was god and not some advanced life form?
      PGP Web of Trust, baby! If God signs it, then those people who certified his key would all have to be liars. What's the chance of that?
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    4. Re:The Religious Mind by raybob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "...science can't escape the fact that ultimately it is merely a *description* of the universe it doesn't tell us the true nature of the universe or even what 'nature' is."

      "All natural laws are merely descriptions of ..."

      You are missing a key concept here. Scientific theories are more than descriptions, they collectively form a 'model' of the observable world. As such, they may be used as predictive tools, which is not true of religious dogma. Given a certain set of conditions, outcome X will occur.

      Religion, on the other hand, is descriptive of past events, and assigns causal relationships where there aren't any. Think of miracles - they can't be predicted, there's no evidence finding for a supernatural cause, and given the same set of initial conditions, the miracle can't be reproduced.

      So evolution, natural selection, species environmental dynamics, etc. as a body of knowledge can be used to predict to a certain extent. Not exactly --what-- will occur, but that change in species characteristics will occur (speciation, see here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) due to selection processes over time that have as their genesis factors such as isolation, mutation, interbreeding, etc.

      Science is an axiomatic, rigorous, and predictive model, whereas religion is interpretation of history to fit a non-rigorous faith-based viewpoint.

    5. Re:The Religious Mind by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I can agree in principle with the presumption that faith in God is well-founded...."

      The problem is, how would you know it was god and not some advanced life form? Ancient humans with smaller brains would consider us or our mysterious technology 'gods'.

      In any case, if there is one true God, who is it? Aphrodite? Thor? the Morrigan? Siva? Anubis? Even if there were a God, what would make you think it was Jhwh?

      Mind you, dead funny to see some of these rednecks rolling up to the pearly gates in their Humvees to find that Allah is in charge...

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    6. Re:The Religious Mind by roadkill-maker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would the laws of physics or biology be different if evolution had never been invented? Never been invented? If we never came up with that theory, we would still wonder why we need a new flu shot every year to stay inoculated.

      Would bacteria multiply differently and sometimes make us sick as often or less so, if we did not think about how they came to be supposedly, millions of years ago? Evolution is looking at how organisms change. They are still changing, therefore its still useful.

      Let those who wish to argue the merits of evolution or ID get together outside of the science classroom and move over to the philosophy department. Since when were these two things mutually exclusive? (And since when was ID a scientific theory?)

      Why can't we teach science how it works TODAY without getting into arguments how things came to be the way they are Because evolution is very much in effect today.

      How about a law that mandates the separation of science and evolution, similar to the separation of church and state. Because its a scientific theory. And like all other scientific theories, its based on reason and observed phenomena. You reject the methodology behind evolution, you reject the methodology of all science.

      Now I'm curious, what do you think evolution is?
  12. Well not exactly anti-evolution. by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I was in school we did learn that they where other theories about how life started on earth. We learned that some people believed in spontaneous generation like that maggots came from rotting meat. We learned how these where shown to be incorrect or lacking in any evidence.
    I would have no problem with them teaching intelligent design if they just followed the rules of science when teaching it.
    Simply that some people think this is how life got started but there is no proof or experiments that prove it out and many of their claims have been disproven or at least had a lot of doubt about them.

    Science should be open to different ideas even if they are wrong. They must all be looked at using the scientific method. I doubt many creationist would like the way it was being taught but that is just too bad. If they can get some good science to back them up then let's see it.
    All that I have seen was really bad.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  13. Re:Blasphemy by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're right that it's going to end badly. It's only going to take a few pissed off parents and the ACLU will walk in and destroy all of this as completely as was done in Dover. The schools will end up owing millions, the kids will suffer, and the idiots who have fallen liars from the Discovery Institute will largely get off scot-free like they did in Dover.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  14. Re:Listen, and understand! by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    All that needs to be done at this point is to start collecting quotes from those that are bringing in this policy. They're religious nuts, and they'll constantly reveal that. That's what wiped them out in Dover (well, that and that blowhard Behe who made a fool of himself during the trial). These religious fanatics can't help it, it's the way their brain is designed.

    So when it goes to court, the ACLU lawyers can throw down a ton of quotes showing that the justification for this move was religious, the First Amendment rights of the children were violated, and the books are shut. Of course, it'll screw the kids over because all that money wasted by religious fanatics trying to force a public school system into becoming an organ of religious indoctrination.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  15. Not about education by Bullfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This isn't about education at all. It is about power. And the worst power mongers are people are these low-level politicians on school boards and local councils who have more direct control over the people immediately around them.

    They are no doubt congratulating themselves about bringing 17th century thinking to the 21st century.

    Sad. I doubt most people in Florida, or even these schools agree with this result. Hopefully, like in Kansas, it will be overturned.

  16. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by stewbacca · · Score: 5, Funny

    but I've never actually seen anything evolve.
    Funny, neither has anyone living in Florida.
  17. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "it's only a theory" comment is a pretty classic example of an etymological fallacy; invoking an older or more looser usage of a word in an attempt to undermine a more narrow or professional usage. In this case, they attempt to equate the definition of theory as a "claim" or "guess" with the very narrow and strict definition of the word as it is applied by scientists. It's simply another variant of the older sticker trick that was tried, and every time it comes up, a court sees through the bullshit and lies (it's ironic how deceitful and immoral all these good Christian folks become) and rule that the Creationists/IDers have distinctly religious motives.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  18. What really sucks is, this isn't really religion. by riseoftheindividual · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I mean, this argument over evolution has religious roots, but I can't help but stare in disbelief at believers who waste their energy over this argument. What difference does it make if every school in the country teaches God created the earth when you look at most religious people and the only way you can tell they have religion is their loud harping on evolution and abortion and hatred of homosexuals, atheists, and people who don't share their faith? There's no compassion or any of the other virtues you occasionally hear touted as being part of religion coming from the people behind these movements. No love of truth. No love of others as they love themselves. Just know it all venom and a desperate need to defend dogmas no matter how silly they sound defending them or what new lows of deception they have to sink to in their defense.

    I have to ask those believers, is this what Jesus would do and be about? I'm working my ass off to make sure my kids can go to the finest private non-religious schools available. They can raise their kids in 3rd world ignorance, but I can make sure my kids aren't.

    --
    Patriot - A fan of expanding government power and spending while not wanting to pay higher taxes.
  19. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by Lurker2288 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, you have seen evolution in action. You've seen evidence of it every time you hear a news story about bacteria developing resistance to new antibiotics, every time you hear about somebody who has cancer. You can go to a museum and see how living things have changed over time, or notice the fact that whales have arm bone structure that's not all that different from land-dwelling mammals.

    In short, there is no question--none whatsoever--that evolution takes place. The modern synthesis of evolutionary theory says that it happens because mutations provide a source of variation which natural forces can select for or against. This is observable as well: if you consider the gene for sickle cell anemia (which provides protection against malaria), it tends to be much more common in regions of the world that are rife with malaria, because those are the places where that gene can convey some benefit. This is pretty much as close as you get to bulletproof science. Now, admittedly, there are some areas of the theory which aren't as certain as others, but on the whole, you're talking about a very damn solid theory that's supported by interlocking scientific evidence from dozens of disciplines. Some of the best minds in science have been poking and prodding at this theory for over 150 years and it's still going strong--hell, Darwin's theory predicted some things that we've only recently found with molecular biology. How much better does a theory get?

    Personally, I'd be happy to let the religious folks gather round their altars and sing Hosannahs to their invisbile sky daddy, but unfortunately, that's not enough for them. They need to inflict their beliefs, whether on abortion, or stem cell research, or contraception use, or whatever, on all of us. Why should I trust somebody who closes their eyes to basic scientific fact to make decisions rooted in science that might affect me?

    The world will be a better place when we grow up enough, as a species, to put away childish things like religion.

  20. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First of all, your arguing against inference. Have you ever seen an electron? Did you ever see your great-great-great-great-grandparents? Did you ever meet anybody that spoke Proto-Indo-European? No, but you can infer these things from the evidence.

    As to evolution, of course you can observe it. We have nylon-digesting bacteria now when nylon didn't even exist before the 1930s. I was just reading about pupfish in Death Valley who have gone through a radical process of speciation since the valley dried up after 20,000 years ago.

    If you wish to dip into some sort of solipsism or epistemological nihilism, be my guest, but what you're really doing is denying that any knowledge can be gathered that is reliable. You might as well deny that yesterday ever happened, and that the universe began at midnight, and everything is just fake memories. Just remember, if you want to deny or question evolution "because I've never seen it", then you have to be fair and basically call into question *all* knowledge, because everything is susceptible to such an argument.

    If you actually want to learn something about evolution, then I recommend going to http://talkorigins.org/ where there are dozens of articles dealing with all manner of evolutionary problems and explanations, with full citations so you can go to a library and check for yourself.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  21. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by Suicyco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This boils down to people arguing about things that they didn't observe, and can't really know. Creationism (at least the Christian kind) requires faith that something written thousands of years ago by people who also didn't witness the events is true. "Evolutionism" requires faith in the work of hundreds of scientists interpreting the present and making educated guesses about the past. No one saw man created out of dirt and breathed to life by God, but by the same token, no one saw a single-celled organism spring to life in the primordial soup and continue re-writing itself until it became a human.


    Of course we have seen it. Its all around us. Its in the fossil record. By your logic, nobody has actually seen galaxies evolve because they are looking into the past via the fossil record of the universe - radiation (light, xrays, etc.)

    Evolution can be easily traced back to the earliest creatures capable of leaving imprints of themselves behind. The entire process of developing lungs, limbs, spines, etc. etc. is all right there. Each step of the way. It is not a mystery. Just because it doesn't happen in a timespan and a place you personally can witness doesn't make it not so. The sun didn't form before your eyes did it? Did the mountains spring up so you could witness? Is geology a supposition? An educated guess?

    You can demonstrate evolution in the lab with bacteria. You can demonstrate complex hydrocarbons doing all sorts of magical stuff in the lab (how life came to be in the first place.)

    Tracing the biology of animals of this planet is a well known, well documented science. It is FACT, because the facts are right there in front of the entire worlds eyes, should they choose to look. Fish moving onto land, developing lungs, etc.

    We have broken down the DNA code very well at this point, and can trace our origins that way as well. We can see where we differ and what we share with trees, worms, bacteria, dogs and elephants. Natural selection (the mechanism behind evolution) is everywhere as well. Look at dog and cat breeds. Cattle. Plants. Insects. You name it, you can change the creature itself by breeding.

    Evolution is science. It is what the facts tell us. This is not a philosophical debate. There are no two sides. It is not a guess. It is about stupidity and blind faith. You can't reject evolution any more than you can reject combustion, or gravity. If people DO reject it, they are simply being ignorant and stupid. Plain and simple.

    Basing "science" on something written thousands of years ago by people who were so far from us in their knowledge of the world is ridiculous. It is absurd. Why not simply observe the world? Observe what is right in front of our faces, and learn from it.
  22. Re:This is not necessarily a bad thing. by abigor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Evolution isn't theoretical science. It is the underpinning of all of modern biology. That's why it's important.

  23. The Round Earth Theory by srobert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe now that they've had some success on this front, they can pursue suppressing the "round-earth theory" in Earth Science, and Geography classes.

  24. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 4, Funny

    pi = 3. It's in the bible, it's the law.
    Knock it off will you, I'm trying to draw a circle and it keeps coming out as a hexagon.
    --
    It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  25. Not as bad as it seems... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The comment that struck me is one board member stating that they were "Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact."

    ....but I bet, never the less that he BELIEVES in it as a fact. Lawrence Lessig (of Physics of Star Trek fame) gave an excellent talk at a Canadian physics conference I was at last year where he explained that scientists should not take too much to heart all these medieval occurances since deap down people really did believe in evolution.

    His example was the bird flu scare. Absolutely nobody went around say: "don't worry it cannot possible evolve into something deadly to us, it was designed for birds and will stay that way". So when push comes to shove these people really do believe in science and evolution. So in the end they are really nothing more than hypocrits which, since most of them are politicians, we already knew anyway.

  26. Re:A perfect argument for school vouchers by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    With vouchers, at least, they could take those education dollars and go elsewhere.


    I don't want my tax dollars going to fund some fundamentalists' brain-washing clinic / madrassa. Instead of splitting the nation into private enclaves, we ought to improve the public education system to the point where there isn't any need for an alternative.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  27. Re:So it continues.. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Informative

    What do you mean by "no definitive proof". We share almost entirely the same genome. Hell, we even share many of the same endogenous retroviral insertions as our closest relatives; the great apes, at the same bloody loci in the genome. If you have some alternate explanation besides common descent, then I'd love to hear it.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  28. Dogmatic is the right word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've never understood why Christianity is so dogmatic about it.

    Perhaps I can help clear that up.

    The Catholic church existed before the Bible existed. The Catholic church assembled the Bible to use as a cannon of study and teaching. They did not say "this single book was given to us by God, and is therefore correct, and therefore we must try to build our church and beliefs around its contents." The structure of authority went the other way...the leaders of the church (the Pope and his underlings) had received all of God's teachings directly, through oral tradition and through the direct (miraculous) transmission of the Holy Spirit. They were the ultimate authority on what was True, and the Bible was just one collection of sacred writings which they were authorizing for spiritual use.

    So the authoritive structure of truth went from God, to Jesus, to the Apostles, to the Church, THEN to the Bible.

    Inasmuch as the Bible might be lacking in any detail, or stating anything in a confusing way, the Church was there to clarify things for you.

    The doctrine of the Trinity, then, does not need to be Biblical in order for it to be a proper Catholic belief. It merely needs to be endorsed by the Church.

    Martin Luther stood that on its head when he founded his own version of the church (the Protestants) and based it on his own interpretation of the Bible and of the teachings of the church. Over time, other people followed his example, creating the numerous sects of Christianity that we see today. These sects do not consider themselves Catholics, and as such are "cut off" from the historical roots of their teachings. They have cooked up this notion that their teachings are entirely founded in the Bible, when in fact many of them are just leftovers from Catholicism, or new additions made by their various sect-founders along the way.

    So that's why they get so dogmatic about it. They are taught that:

    1) The Bible is the foundation of our beliefs.
    2) The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is one of our beliefs.

    And they therefore infer that the doctrine of the Trinity must be Biblical. Some of the more studious ones have found a few vague and poetic verses in various parts of the Bible and synthesized them (with a little rationalizing glue) to produce what they claim is the scriptural foundation of that belief. However, anyone who reads them without already knowing about the doctrine of the Trinity will very likely not conclude that the Bible teaches that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one.

    So there you have it.

  29. Read Some Voltaire by catchblue22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    More of us should read Voltaire's writings. He wrote a great deal about fanaticism and religion (he was not an atheist). Some quotes:

    One of my favorites:

    Those who can make people believe absurdities can make them commit atrocities.

    From Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary:

    Fanaticism is to superstition what delirium is to fever, and what fury is to anger. The man who has ecstasies and visions, who takes dream for realities, and his imaginings for prophecies, is an enthusiast. The man who backs his madness with murder is a fanatic.

    Believing that the Earth is 10000 years old in the face of hard scientific evidence is like taking dreams for reality.

    Once fanaticism has cankered a brain, the disease is almost incurable...There is no other remedy for this epidemic illness than the spirit of free thought, which, spreading little by little, finally softens men's customs, and prevents the renewal of the disease. For as soon as this evil makes any progress we must flee and wait for the air to become pure again. Laws and religion do not suffice against the pest of the soul.

    Methinks in these days of growing fanaticism, both religious and ideological, we would do well to learn from what Voltaire wrote.

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  30. Everything is a Theory by CyberLife · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've always found it funny how creationists and their supporters argue against the teaching of evolution on the basis that, "It's only a theory." What they seem to forget (or were never taught) is that everything in science is, at most, a theory. Nothing is certain, nothing is absolute. Nothing can be deemed "irrefutable" as such a statement implies one can tell the future. It is always possible that new data will someday come to light and contradict that which we hold to be a "universal truth."

    Of course, I suppose if the creationists did understand this concept they would attempt to use it against the scientific community. If nothing is absolutely certain, how then do you know anything, right?

    *looks around at all of the gadgets, cars, buildings, medical technology, etc.*

    Well, we seem to be applying science quite well despite the fact. :)

  31. Re:Did a human say it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Older humans work very hard on teaching very young humans about religion, to make sure they believe in it when they grow older and continue the cycle.

    I think that's dead wrong.

    It's actually pretty tough for our child sometimes, who we brought up to be caring and considerate of the feelings of others without the fear of a trip to hell if she isn't, when her friends invite her to go to Church with them. She goes along sometimes but afterwards, if there's a study group, she has to excuse herself because she doesn't know what to say or do. What to think even. She tells us that she pretends to pray so they other kids don't think she's a freak, but she really has no clue who she's meant to be praying to.

    At least she won't go to hell for doing so, because there is no such thing of course.

  32. Re:I Believe... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First of all, evolution has no more to say on the subject of God's existence than climatology or hydrology. It's a scientific theory. It is a-theistic (not atheistic, you'll note). You won't find any evolutionary papers that talk about the existence of God any more than you'll find any chemistry papers that do.

    Second of all, the evidence shows that we and monkeys share a common ancestor. The fossil record shows this pretty well, but the molecular record is even more clear. You may not like that (I have no idea why), but that's where it sits. We and monkeys are related. We and seasquirts are related. We and bacteria are related. The distances may be greater, but we all share a common ancestor.

    And this has nothing to do with God either.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  33. Re:What really sucks is, this isn't really religio by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well said. You have my applause.

    Really, this sort of behavior boils down to tribalism. People have a need to identify themselves as part of a group and what better way to do that then to contrast yourselves with those who are outside of your group. This is why some people glom onto fanatacisim for professional sports teams or fall victim to fashion trends. It's all about establishing your group identity. The Japanese have a notably complex system of in-groups and out-groups and expected behaviors when interacting with people in and out of your many groups.

    The foaming at the mouth evangelicals love to portray themselves as under perilous attack by secular heathens despite the fact that North America has an overwhelmingly Christian culture and it isn't going away anytime soon. This is all part of the rhetoric established from the time that Christians really were a minority group who had to withstand the oppression of other dominant groups. Just once, I whish these fools could put themselves in the shoes of a Hindu or Buddhist immigrant to realize what it truly feels like to be a little fish in a bowl of sharks.

    Of course this is one of the many problems with modern Christianity: it is permeated with an air of anti-intellectualism. You shouldn't try to question the "truth" as given to you by people serving as intermediaries for God (or direct from the KJV Bible for the literalists). To do so would be to admit that you don't have enough faith and without faith you're going to hell so just shut up and believe everything we tell you to believe in. We have things like idiot Protestants claiming that Roman Catholics aren't real Christians. (WTF?) People like Pat Robertson are lionized by millions and yet he openly expresses hatred for non-Christians. Somehow these people can claim to be followers of Jesus and yet they conveniently fail to realize the core meaning his teachings.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  34. Literalism by EnsilZah · · Score: 5, Funny

    You when will you literalists ever learn?
    God only used an integer because support for floating point operations was severely limited in the CPUs of the time.

  35. The resolution is actually PRO evolution by lelitsch · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you actually read the http://www.taylor.k12.fl.us/shared.content/board.meetings/minutes/11-20-07.pdf>meeting minutesyou would see that they are actually EXPANDING on the theory of evolution into the real of cosmology and quantum physics.

    "[we] are requesting that the State Board of Education direct the Florida Department of
    Education to revise/edit the new Sunshine State Standards for Science so that evolution is
    presented as one of several theories as to how the universe was formed."

    I have a graduate degree in physics, but I wasn't aware that the universe was formed by evolution. Although I have to admit that the thought of mating galaxies has a certain appeal.

    ---------------------
    People who don't understand sarcasm are bound to be an irresistible target for it.

  36. Taylor County, Florida School Board by whitehatlurker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Excerpt from the minutes of the 20th Nov., 2007 meeting of the Taylor County school board:

    Upon motion by Danny Lundy, seconded by Darrell Whiddon the Board adopted/approved the: 1.) Resolution regarding the new Sunshine State Standards for Science.
    The adoped resolution is as follows:
    Whereas, the Florida Department of Education has drafted and is now proposing new Sunshine State Standards for Science, the Taylor County School Board opposes the implementation of the new standards as currently presented.
    Whereas, the new Sunshine State Standards for Science no longer present evolution as theory but as "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported in multiple forms of scientific evidence," we are requesting that the State Board of Education direct the Florida Department of Education to revise/edit the new Sunshine State Standards for Science so that evolution is presented as one of several theories as to how the universe was formed.
    Whereas, the Taylor County School Board recognizes the importance of providing a thorough and comprehensive Science education to all the students in Taylor County and to all students in the state of Florida, it recognizes as even more important the need to present these standards through a fair and balanced approach, an approach that does not unfairly exclude other theories as to the creation of the universe.
    NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Taylor County School Board of Taylor County, Perry, Florida, that the Board urges the State Board of Education to direct the Florida Department of Education to revise the new Sunshine State Standards for Science such that evolution is not presented as fact, but as one of several theories. The Board Members and Superintendent Howard discussed the upcoming meetings on this issue. Superintendent Howard stated that he plans on attending one of the meetings in the near future. However, there is discrepancy as to when and where the meetings are to take place.

    Now if the state is trying to force these people to accept evolution as an explanation of the origin of the universe, I'd be miffed about it as well. On the other hand, if they came up with this bit all by themselves, I think that they really do require someone to explain what evolution really is. I'd feel sorry for the good people of this county, if they hadn't been the ones electing the board in the first place.

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  37. Re:talk about sad and daft by Basehart · · Score: 3, Funny

    Amen to that.

  38. Don't Hire Any Florida Graduates by reallocate · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Employers who expect their employees to be conversant with modern science and the scientific method should send letters to these school districts decalring they won't hire anyone who is a product of their schools.

    Yes, that's unfair to some students, but these willful Luddites need to be taught a lesson.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  39. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by ultracool · · Score: 4, Informative
    From Nature this week:

    SPREAD THE WORD

    Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why.

    Three cheers for the US National Academy of Sciences for publishing an updated version of its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism (see http://www.nap.edu/sec). The document succinctly summarizes what is and isn't science, provides an overview of evidence for evolution by natural selection, and highlights how, time and again, leading religious figures have upheld evolution as consistent with their view of the world.

    For a more specific and also entertaining account of evolutionary knowledge, see palaeontologist Kevin Padian's evidence given at the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial (see http://tinyurl.com/2nlgar). Padian destroys the false assertions by creationists that there are critical gaps in the fossil record. He illustrates the fossil-rich paths from fish to land-based tetrapod, from crocodile to dinosaur to feathered dinosaur to bird, from terrestrial quadruped to the whale, and more besides. Creationism is strong in the United States and, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, worryingly on the rise in Europe (see http://tinyurl.com/2knrqy). But die-hard creationists aren't a sensible target for raising awareness. What matters are those citizens who aren't sure about evolution -- as much as 55% of the US population according to some surveys.

    As the National Academy of Sciences and Padian have shown, it is possible to summarize the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun, even though there are plenty of refinements to be explored. Yet some actual and potential heads of state refuse to recognize this fact as such. And creationists have a tendency to play on the uncertainties displayed by some citizens. Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it.

  40. Re:I Believe... by IdahoEv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't believe that we, just by chance, came into existence.

    Anyone who has any understanding of evolution knows that "just by chance" is an extremely poor description of evolution. Randomness plays a very, very small role in the evolutionary descent of organisms.

    I am a Christian, and like many others, it doesn't matter what you say to me

    Can I quote you on that?

    That simple fact indicates why your philosophy fails: it is, like all faith, completely resistant to evidence. It doesn't matter what you are shown, explained, or demonstrated: you will perist in a pre-determined pattern of belief. When you decide a belief before hearing arguments, it is philosophically equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "wah wah wah I can't hear you". Most religious people won't admit it as you just have.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  41. Re:The funny thing is by roadkill-maker · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'll bite

    and to deny that Athiesm is not a form of religion is false. Either you don't know the definition of atheism or you don't know the definition of religion.

    from http://www.answers.com/religion&r=67 Religion: Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

    Atheism from http://www.answers.com/atheism&r=67 Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

    Even Evolution takes faith. Again, you obviously don't know the definition of science and faith. from http://www.answers.com/faith&r=67 Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

    From Wikipedia on scientific method: It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning

    I can't make it any clearer, sorry
  42. Re:Opposed to teaching Evolution as a fact.... by Suicyco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Evolution works because there is no other theory that explains what we've observed. Intelligent Design does not count, because it provides no testable predictions.


    Evolution is what it is because nothing else can explain observation. It flows from the facts. It is not a hypothesis. It is a theory. Which means it is testable with experiment, and fits all observed facts. Nothing has ever been shown to prove otherwise. Ergo, it is fact.

    All depends on why you reject it. Everyone I've seen reject evolution has done so for stupid, dogmatic reasons, but you are making stupid, dogmatic statements about science.


    How so? Is all fact open for debate? This subject is closed. It is not dogma. Is relativity dogma? Are plate tectonics dogma? What did I say that was stupid and dogmatic? Because I don't question every fact?

    The reasons I have given ARE scientific, because the reasons were listed as the testable, provable real things that make up evolution. Observable natural selection. The fossil record. Speciation. The DNA record. etc. etc.

    Just because I say that people are stupid if they disagree with fact, does that make me dogmatic? Not at all. If you disagree with me on the cellular structure of a potato, just because, well, you are being stupid. I can show you in a microscope the provable fact of that structure. Same goes for something like evolution.

    Certainly, things like quantum gravity are open ended discussions, because we have no theory to fit all facets of observation in that realm. Something like evolution is simply not debatable, unless new, before now unknown facts come to light that do not fit observation and experiment. Since these things have yet to surface, I will call anybody who rejects evolution an idiot, because they are. For whatever reason, because there is NO valid reason. Plain and simple.

    You are totally confusing science fact, with belief and religious dogma. I do not believe anything about evolution or science. Belief has nothing to do with it. I do not have faith in science. I do not accept it because I feel I must to support some other agenda. I accept it because it is what reality is, it is what is testable and observable. At the very least it is the quest to understand what is testable and observable.
  43. Re:What really sucks is, this isn't really religio by thirty-seven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What surprised me most was that his reasons for rejecting certain religions were the exact same arguments I would use, except in my case Christianity didn't get a free pass. Your position corresponds very well with this quote: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours", Stephen Roberts
    --

    Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

  44. At risk of being modded down... by Mex · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, *Americans* may come from apes, the rest of the world evolved from hominids ;)

    (yes, yes I know... It's just a joke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominid )

  45. Re:of course they did - correction? by tchdab1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Our attitude" toward science depends on who the "our" is, and where you look.

    While there are a significant number of people in the USA who honestly believe in Bible-based fundamentalism (in various ways personal to themselves), many are pandered to by corrupt portions of the ulta-moneyed class in order to maintain their power.

    Put it another way, the Bush/Cheney crowd don't honestly care about evolution, stem-cell issues, anti-gay histeria, etc., but if by putting up a good face to these issues they can get votes from a base that helps elect them to allow them to cut taxes to the ultra-wealthy, deregulate just about anything where a big buck can be made, eliminate the inheritance tax, give our social-security to Wall Street to manage, get a pointless war going to do god-knows-what in the second-biggest oil producing area on the planet and provide unsupervised billions of $ in free money or no-bid contracts to buddies, squash education and heath care spending, (etc.), they will gladly pay that price. And we see that they do.