Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Evolution "Academic Freedom" Bill Passed In Louisiana
Ars Technica is running a story about recently enacted legislation in Louisiana which will allow school board officials to "approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories" such as evolution and global warming. The full text of the Act (PDF) is also available. Quoting:
"The text of the [Louisiana Science Education Act] suggests that it's intended to foster critical thinking, calling on the state Board of Education to 'assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.' Unfortunately, it's remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects 'including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.'"
No steps forward and two steps back.
I suspect the paragraph about not being religious at all in the law will prove its downfall at SCOTUS.
Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
I wonder if they'll allow teachers of history and government classes to use laws like this as exercises in critical thought? (Or lack thereof...)
I even learned that common sense is often wrong.
The key point is that schools should teach people how to filter out bullshit, and scientific critical thinking is the only way to go. And there is absolutely nothing scientific about the "intelligent design" theory.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Unfortunately, it's remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects 'including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.'"
These are all currently topical subjects. How is suggesting critical thinking/discussion on these a bad idea? In fact its the lack of critical discussion thats the problem. Its all emotion and politics even on ./ with these topics. And what part of "including, but not limited to" don't we understand?
Sounds like a storm in a tea cup.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
doesn't make it so...
To all you anti-evolutionists and everybody else that would like to ignore the facts: Life is like game of cards, and if you want your children to play with only half a deck the rest of the world will eventually eat you for lunch, no matter what you've got in military power.
Progress is based on facts, not on faith. If you don't believe that, then next time you go to hospital think where you'd be going *without* science but just your faith: the graveyard.
MP3 Search Engine
Were I trying to convince someone that my unscientific theory was sound, the absolute last thing I'd want to teach them would be critical thinking.
Next they're going to start lighting fires at gas stations.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
The Church Of The Flying Spaguetti Monster made it to the classroom!
Yes, I totally agree we need to be free. Everyone should be free to do exactly what they want. In fact we should be so free that we can allow flat earthers to be launched sideways into outer space without any protective gear. Which of course wouldn't happen because the earth is flat.
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
If it is supposed to foster critical thinking, then it is good idea. I have seen Richad Dawkins' books on the same shelves as other religious books in a bookshop. And I think science can only benefit from people being taught to criticize theories. There should be no sacred cows in science. So why evolution should be an exception.
We always hear about ID and anti-evolution schemes in the USA.
Can readers in other parts of the world reflect on ID-like movements in their own countries?
How evolution-denial movements fare in Europe for example?
If you're going to disprove the scientific method, you can't use the scientific method.
Maybe the middle school atmosphere has changed significantly in the fifteen years since I set foot in a high school classroom, but I don't recall high school ever being a place for developing critical thinking skills. We did that in college, or just plainly after high school. High school is where interests are sparked, but creativity in its chaotic adolescent form is stifled and controlled - tightly regulated if you will. In high school, we memorize and regurgitate what the teachers and the school board expects us too. Taking fundamental scientific knowledge and muddying it with manufactured politically motivated controversies is very dangerous. Critical thinking does not exist without a firm grasp of fundamental knowledge.
...american school education couldn't go any lower, somebody out there surprises me.
I can't even imagine why such idiots serve in the board.
I recently saw Idiocracy and i think it might come true. Much quicker.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
The less patient part of me wishes medicine would be renamed 'evolution-based medicine' or something, so that the idiots would remove themselves from society.
Unfortunately, it's more likely the children would suffer. Just look how retarded some Catholics (and other nuts) are in opposing the HPV vaccine - they would rather have their daughters die of cervical cancer than take the chance of making them think sex is okay by promoting a STD vaccine.
Ars Technica is running a story about recently enacted legislation in Louisiana which will allow school board officials to "approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories " such as gravity and the shape of the earth. The full text of the Act (PDF) is also available. Quoting: "The text of the [Louisiana Science Education Act] suggests that it's intended to foster critical thinking, calling on the state Board of Education to 'assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories.' Unfortunately, it's remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects 'including, but not limited to, the position of the Earth in the universe, whether Newton got it right, whether Democritus or Aristottle was correct about matter, and whether, in fact, the liver is the most important part of the body..'"
Finally! Now we can teach Intelligent Design next to that hideous theory of evolution. Praise the Lord. And we can teach Stork Theory right aside the hypothesis of Big Sex (urgh). And what about geocentrism or astrology in stead of astronomy? And the periodic table is just a left-wing, secular conspiracy. It is just plain air/water/fire/eather/earth. Justice at last! P.S: The devil burried/god designed and planted these fossils to trick us. You silly ignorant infidels.
STOP!
For the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) deniers, start here:
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
It links to many articles and many peer-reviewed research sources.
If you simply just say something like "no, it doesn't have evidence" or say something that the above link disproves, (and apologies to Jeff Foxworthy) you just MIGHT be a troll.
If you read the articles and are damned sure, cite your sources. And they better link to peer-reviewed research that supports the premise. Or we will taunt you a second time...
Carry on.
I don't think it is correct to call ID a philosophical construct or to teach it in a philosophy class. I think it would be more correct to call it a political machination and teach it in a class on modern US politics.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
I was taught two things. By my science instructors it was evolution the concept. The concept of life evolves and adapts based on enviroment and other factors, not that we evolved from primates. This is beliveable. This works. By my English instructor, he taught the meld theory. That science and religion can somehow both be right. While details of this were sketchy by him at best, he suggested that god and creationism can exsist and so can evolution and even the Big Bang. This is New York State baby. Where Science and Religion somehow can work together.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
As a Creationist, I happen to agree with you 100%.
Creation Science is built around the idea that if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses. If the evidence instead contradicts your hypothesis, then either your evidence is flawed, your interpretation of the evidence is flawed, or your interpretation of the Bible is flawed.
Intelligent Design, in contrast, does not start from the premise that the Bible is a literal historical document, because that would mean religion is involved. Instead, ID simply says that life is too complex to have evolved spontaneously on its own, therefore God must have done it. On the surface this sounds similar to Creation Science (both say God did it), but ID doesn't bring anything falsifiable to the table.
The question of whether or not God (or the FSM or space aliens) caused a particular event is not testable empirically, even if it is true. Creation Science doesn't try to test God's involvement, only the actual physical events described in the Bible (for example, that there was a global Flood around 2,000 BC or so that wiped out all humans and animals that couldn't fit in a really big boat). It doesn't look at whether the events described in Genesis were really caused by God, only whether or not they occurred as described (and the mechanics behind how they occurred).
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
would have done Louisiana some good before they build New Orleans below sea level...
Science will naturally prevail. This will teach students to use science as a tool in the real world (where they will undoubtedly be confronted by crazy hobos in tinfoil caps.)
I don't think it is correct to call ID a philosophical construct or to teach it in a philosophy class. I think it would be more correct to call it a political machination and teach it in a class on modern US politics.
It's also interesting sociologically and psychologically, in that it represents of what happens when an irresistible force of scientific evidence meets the immovable object of faith.
That's obviously religious. The theory of Unintelligent Design is what they should be teaching. With all the Pastafarians out there, I hope we can get UD in the classroom right next to Evolution and ID. Should make for interesting classroom discussions.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
And this is precisely why it isn't science. Creationism says "God did it" without any way to test it. The conclusion is pre-determined. I know you realize that it isn't science, but I still shudder when I hear people call it "Creation Science? ID is creation science. They're not just similar, they're the same thing. Intelligent Design is just a different name.
If you recall the book that stirred controversy and went to the supreme court Of Pandas and People was originally a creation "science" book, but when the 1987 ruling that banned the teaching of creation science, Pandas was edited, replacing all instances of "Creation" with "Intelligent Design." The concepts are exactly the same, the arguments are exactly the same. Even though Intelligent Design does replace the Judeo-Christian God with a "fill in the blanks with whatever you want to believe" entity, the people pushing it are the same people that pushed creationism.
Fuck it. Let them teach creationism.
"Ok kids. Now, we've just spent 4 weeks learning about evolution. We learned... .
Now, let's look at a competing theory: Creationism. This lesson will be a bit shorter. Basically, Creationism says: God did it.
Ok... so let's apply our highly trained scientific minds and compare these 2 theories based upon the strength of the evidence at-hand... which is more likely to be reality?"
Is making common people illiterate enough to be easier to control. This has ever been the purpose of organized religion but in the communications age they had go a step further and attack science directly because science and easy worldwide communications make the most powerful weapon ever existed against religion and other bullshit (think about Scientology, politicians, lies about wars, audiophiles, etc.).
Why not include legislation specifically allowing "critical thinking" about the holocaust, or "critical thinking" about democracy in history and social studies classes? Some good neo-Nazi and communist materials should be appropriate. And in health classes we can take time to teach about crystal healing.
I'm surprised they didn't suggest other topics in science that need some "critical thinking", such as the spheroidal Earth theory, the theory of gravity, and atomic theory.
This section of the proposed act is funny:
"D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion."
We don't have a religious motivation behind this, really!!
I'm sorry, but the thought that certain subjects in science (with a set of enumerated examples) need special attention from legislators in order to receive what they deem to be an appropriate level of "critical thinking" is very obviously motivated by politics and religion. I mean, why else would they be doing this? I'd be willing to bet that the current science curriculum already emphasizes the importance of building critical thinking into the understanding of science.
What this legislation is really about is providing a convenient legal pathway for pseudoscientific materials of any type to find their way into the classroom. And won't it be a nice surprise if, say, the Flat Earth Society is ready and willing to provide a glossy brochure, or textbooks for each and every student that they can take home if they like, in order to help out?
This is the same nonsense as Dover, Pennsylvania all over again, with legislation behind it and a more thorough attempt to launder the effort of its actual intentions.
Here's a critical thought: maybe it isn't the best thing to allow a bunch of politicians to decide which subjects supposedly need a dose of "critical thinking" above and beyond what will already be in there as a matter of course.
In middle school, I had a history teacher that taught that the wide noses of the olmec stone head statues were proof that black africans discovered america before colombus. As proof he had pamphlets he had brought from home.
Legislation or no legislation teachers will always try to push their agenda.
"The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill
Doesn't exactly apply here, but it's damn close enough.
and definatly NOT intelligent
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
so, a class that critiques scientific theories is the promotion of critical thinking, while a class that critiques religious beliefs is religious intolerance? makes sense to me *rolls eyes* Don't get me wrong, I actually favor critique of thinking (give me one perfectly done experiment), yet this should be taught in tandem with scientific classes, not in place of it. Teaching religion as "the solution" to all of science's flaws will only set the state back. Oh well, at least it's louisiana...
No, it's philosophy. It's been taught in the philosophy classroom since the 18th century, since William Paley presented his "watchmaker" analogy.
It's not very good philosophy, though. In fact, it's really bad philosophy, but you need to know the mistakes of the past to avoid the same mistakes in the future. Which is why it is taught in the classroom. (I say this as someone who spent four years studying philosophy--mostly philosophy of religion--and earned his bachelor's in the subject.)
Creation Science is built around the idea that if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses.
Typical case of religion interfering with rational thought. Scientist: "here's the facts, what conclusion can we draw from them?". Christian: "here's the conclusions, what facts can we find to support them?"
If the evidence instead contradicts your hypothesis, then either your evidence is flawed, your interpretation of the evidence is flawed, or your interpretation of the Bible is flawed.
You missed one - or the Bible is flawed. It's amazing that if you tell someone that the world's biggest desert is Antarctica, they might be sceptical and look it up, but if you tell someone some guy was born of a virgin, resurrected someone who was dead long enough to stink, fed 5000 people with a bit of bread and a fish, and made 300 pigs jump off a cliff, backed up by dubious morality like Lot leaving his daughter out to be raped and murdered and having drunken incest just to protect the angel Gabriel (who you would've thought could look after himself), killing gay people (that thing that occurs naturally as a result of pre-natal hormone irregularity), and handing the same fate to people who eat shellfish (mmm, mussels in garlic sauce. yum) they take it in a snap. Of course it happened! I know this, because I was indoctrinated with this bullshit when I was young and I haven't become mature enough to be openminded and consider if it's wrong!
"Creation Science" is a contradiction in terms, but if you are going to consider it, look up "creation myths" in wikipedia, because there's a few hundred other hypotheses which deserve equal attention before you go for the one that YOU were taught as a child. Hawaiians believe that the first animal on the planet was an octopus which is part of an alien race, and all life came from that. You need to put that on the same level as your Jesus hypothesis.
How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat? Let alone the 40000 species of frog. Those two would take the lifetimes of thousands of people, and we haven't even worked out a way to stop the lions eating the gazelles.
To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness. Rather than try to work out what happened, you leave it to scientists, then twist their words to try to fit their hard-found evidence into your convenient cop-out for performing actual rational thought.
This is where humans came from: http://www.bio-pro.de/imperia/md/images/grafiken/wanderung_homo_sapiens.png
The time you talk of the great flood happening is roughly when humans first domesticated the dog and the sumarians learned to brew beer.
If the whole Bible was translated into wikipedia, someone would break the "citation needed" machine.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
ID simply says that life is too complex to have evolved spontaneously on its own, therefore God must have done it.
One big problem with that "therefore" is that "God did it" doesn't really explain anything at all - it is effectively equivalent to saying "it happened by process X", i.e., "we don't know how it happened", unless you explain _how_ God did it. The explanatory power of the "God hypothesis" is in its details - i.e., nonexistent. In effect, what Creationists want is that the origin of life &c _should_not_ be explained or understood.
topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects 'including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning'
Right. And I'm glad we aren't limited to these, because I'd like to add my own little list:
- Government policies
- Existence of Jesus
- Development Aid
- Love to the flag
- Selective Religion
- Comparative Religion
- Nationalism
- Capitalism
- Sports as spectacle
- War on drugs
- News spinning
- Education system
I'm sure many other topics can be added, much improving general education.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
Only as an example of flawed reasoning. I've often used Paley's watchmaker analogy in class as a prime example of invalid reasoning.
There's nothing wrong with this class, so long as they subject ID and all other religious philosophies to the same critical dissection as scientific theory. It also goes without saying that bias on the part of the teacher should be carefully regulated.
Like this series of exchanges you mean?
http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/all-time-classic-creationist-pwnage
Where the original experiments are being touted as evidence for ID by Behe and as flawed by Dembski.
to firmly pursue its freedom of action in this regard, for the sake of humanity. And not just so we can 0wnz0r you, honest.
(European idea of amusement: visit New York for the cheap shopping, give the bums Euro notes or pound-sterling coins.)
http://rocknerd.co.uk
If you can't imagine how selective use of facts can bias a conclusion, then you're just not very creative. Facts may stand on their own, but if you start with a conclusion and then try to support it with facts, you will find facts to support it. It is far better to form a hypothesis and try to falsify it, as in the scientific method. If all you look for are the supporting facts, then you're never going to find the contradictory ones.
Of course, you make the same mistake in your post. You say we should assume the bible is false and then look for facts that derive from it. That's not what the parent said, and it's rather dishonest of you to spin it that way. The parent said that we assume the bible is true and then look for contradictory evidence. As it turns out, there's plenty to be had.
If, as you say, we assume the bible is false and it proves nothing, then there's nothing it's disproven, either, which means that there's no supporting evidence. So, by your own argument, the bible is a failed hypothesis.
Finally, I'd like to point out that your phrasing, "science was true" is meaningless. Science is not something that can be true or false. It is a methodology, a way of thinking, if you will. Either it works or it does not. You can label individual ideas that came from the scientific method as true or false, but the methodology is neither.
Mind you, I'm being liberal with my use of language. I find it scary when people use big words like charlatan and modus ponens without knowing what they mean. Here's a hint: a charlatan would be someone who pretends to be familiar with logic by using jargon like "modus ponens" because he pretends to have a skill he does not have. Someone who defends science is not a charlatan simply because he has used bad logic.
You can say that all you want, but there's always modus ponens, and (the related) modus tollens.
Don't dispute that. But that's bordering on philosophy.
your unenlightened (but surely popular) rant.
So I'm unenlightened, in spite of being a former catholic Christian via indoctrination, having read the entire Bible (at which point I became a sceptic), before going on to read Kant, Descartes, Simon Blackburn and John Gray, having the audacity and rationally derived confidence to risk the possibility of going to hell for denying the holy spirit (I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT, fuck you God. hah, did it. wasn't hard), then having the enlightenment to question what I'd always "known" because I was brought up that way? Pull the other one. The definition of the enlightenment era was funnily enough when scientific reason finally got to trump religious solipsism.
So let's assume that the Bible is utterly false
No, don't do that - amongst its camp-fire mutated whimsical musings, it does describe actual historical events. It's the job of archaelogists to determine which ones are true and which aren't, and it's the job of philosophers and critics to find poetic wisdom within it which we can all appreciate.
knowing the Bible was false would imply that "science" was true.
The whole POINT of science is the persuit of truth. If someone proves someone else's scientific theory wrong, it's welcomed. Go and disprove evolution - you'll be famous.
I find it VERY scary when charlatans with no sound knowledge of logic try to defend science.
No sound knowlege of logic. I refer to the introspection of Descartes above, which took a huge amount of logic to derive "cogito ergo sum".
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
No - what your argument actually implies is that the Bible is irrelevant to any discussion of science.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
I personally walk down the middle of the isle, I would like to see teachings on both sides without the hatred from either. I don't understand what the big deal is when someone questions theories or religions. Both should be equally taught and both should be equally questioned. I feel we as a people would tend to learn more and hate less if that were the case. Religion is a necessary part of any culture as is science and learning. Whether you accept it or not religion does play a big part in keeping civilizations civil in most cases. I could cite a few that seem to have the opposite effect but for the most part it's true. I say let the religious keep their religion and teach its history along side other subjects such as civics, math, science, language and whatever other courses are deemed necessary to promote higher learning. It shouldn't be a battle, it's only knowledge.
Catch up with the times grandpa, Intelligent Design has evolved.
Creation Science doesn't try to test God's involvement, only the actual physical events described in the Bible (for example, that there was a global Flood around 2,000 BC or so that wiped out all humans and animals that couldn't fit in a really big boat).
So it's not science at all, it's history. Or archaeology, in some cases.
Now while archaeology is doubtless a scientific endeavour, often the required evidence for a speculative idea is missing.
If evidence shows that many of the Greek islands were inundated at around the same time, it's evidence for a catastrophic flooding event, at least locally.
If you try extrapolating the data to justify the idea 'I believe this was a huge flood covering the entire planet', then the evidence isn't there. Does it mean it's wrong? No. Does it mean it's not scientific? No. And you say as much in your posting.
Does this mean it's unproven, and therefore shouldn't be taken as confirmation of the bible? Absolutely. Nor can it disprove the bible, but science is based on the principle that you can't prove a negative. I say there's a giant, invisible, pink teapot circling the earth. Prove me wrong.
It doesn't look at whether the events described in Genesis were really caused by God, only whether or not they occurred as described (and the mechanics behind how they occurred).
If someone comes to me with a fossil record or other evidence for the earth being created and life as complex as man evolving (or just flat-out appearing) in 6 days, then I'd have to re-assess the idea of the Creation. That's the scientific method.
If, as seems to be the case, all the evidence suggests the earth is 4.5 billion years old, life is around 3.5 billion years old and mankind around 100,000 years old, then your Creation Science has just disproved book 1 of the bible. A real scientist would admit that and create a new theory to test. The 'flat earthers' moved on, those who believed the earth was hollow packed up and left when they realised the evidence was against them.
Many 'Creation Scientists' however do not. They come up with more and more theories to explain why the evidence doesn't quite line up with their ideas, and many resort to 'Well, God can make the evidence look however He wants. It's a test of faith."
ID'ers go even further - constantly trying to find a new example of something that can't have evolved, to 'disprove' evolution. Every time one is debunked, they pop up another. We can't prove God didn't create every life form in the universe - and Science admits that. However no-one has yet proved that he did - and that's the crux of this 'debate'.
If you want to call yourself a science, play by the rules. Otherwise it's philosophy.
Mark
Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
If the future of the US economy is to be based on intellectual property, then is doesn't bode well to teach the next generation to believe in fairy-tales. It's easy to sell science to the rest of the world, because it is of practical use. It's impossible to sell your faith to a world which already has plenty of bullshit superstitions.
Heres a critical thinking problem:
How many actual teeth (not including partial teeth)were there total in that room?
I'm considered by most to be highly educated, and I still believe in the American Dream as it were, largely because I have lived it. I went from homeless to middle/upper middle class by hard work, the way it's supposed to be done. Do not confuse the fact that our Government is horribly broken with the falsehood that America is broken. The spirit is still there, despite the best efforts of Government, Media, Academia, and Law to beat us down.
Dear creationist, Your phrase:" if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses" proves you do not understand one iota of the scientific method and are therefore not qualified to participate. Science always tries to disprove a hypothesis, science is what is left of all hypothesis ever proposed that no one could disprove. Science is not soft on the facts, and nothing is a fact until people agree there is no point denying it. Picture yourself before heavens gate, Peter invites you to prove creationism to go to heaven, but if yo fail you go to hell. Would you take the challenge?
Your troll-fu isn't all bad. You used the babel fish as bait, got some bites and even got modded up to +4 interesting. Well done.
The Babel fish is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy recieved not from its own carrier but from those around it, It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. the practical upshot of this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any language.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anthing so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes like this : "I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But", says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? it could not have evolved by chance. it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
We were due for a paradigm shift.
scientific critical thinking is the only way to go.
So critical thinking about the basis of the scientific method itself, and claims made for science are to be excluded from the critical thinking?
No, critical thinking has to be critical thinking, not some subset of critical thinking that exempts science from examination. Otherwise, science becomes just another religion, with claims exempt from examination.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
- Scientists noticed that species adapt to their environment. - Religious people noticed life was pretty complicated and concluded that god must have done it. And you think these two things are equal? I assume you are of unshakable faith, so even debating this is an exercise in futility.
Developing critical thinking can only lead to beter science and might be one of the best skills that anyone should learn. There is a lot of junk science and cargo cult science out there which is generally accepted by educated people: some is obvious, most is less so.
I don't understand why anyone would consider it necessary to protect/defend evolution against or all things critical thinking.
What I cannot create, I do not understand
You can show me gravity, but can you show me how it works? Is gravity a wave, particle or just a spacetime curvature. Show me your evidence of how gravity works and you'll have won me over! Where is your evidence for the scientifically explainable gravity? Can you scoop up some 'gravitons' for me? All you can do is predict how gravity functions most of the time.
The truth is, gravity is a function of the Jesus. Plain and simple, by declaring it a function of a higher power, we simply reduce the equations to "X==Y becuase the Jesus says so." The reason you can predict most of gravity is because the Jesus is pretty good at math and predictable of his application of Intelligent Falling. He sometimes screws up on larger scales though, explaining a few anomalies. Problem solved.
I plan to be book to Louisiana by the truck load.
We have in this headline yet another obnoxiously-worded headline that appears to serve no purpose other than inciting verbal riot.
There is nothing remotely "anti-evolution" in the text of the law. Go read it and see for yourself (it's only a single page).
I call foul on this headline. I'm so tired of people shouting about how terrible all "those people" are, and I'm especially tired of people putting things in the worst possible light all the time.
Reading these kinds of slashdot articles is like listening to talk radio.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Ever watch a Christian and a Wiccan argue religion? The Witch, tries to free the Christian's mind by trying to explain symbology, and other thoughts and materials outside of the bible, while the Christian, can't free his mind because, he'll, "burn in hell" if he allows himself to read or listen to the blasphemy.
So what ends up happening?
Logic get's tossed out, and the argument goes on forever.
While the Pagan want's only to remain in balance with nature, the Christian will elevate the matter to the point of violence.
This is like a giant fucking monkey-wrench into schools.
Christianity has killed more people than any other religion on earth.
On the surface this sounds similar to Creation Science (both say God did it), but ID doesn't bring anything falsifiable to the table.
I think this is the key here. In your own words, ID doesn't bring anything falsifiable. That is what defines science. You have a hypothesis or theory and try to find things that may be wrong with it. If there is nothing falsifiable, then there is no hypothesis... no theory... just a statement unsupported by science. To then go on and call it science is disingenuous at best and a straight lie at worst.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
:wq!
You can say that all you want, but there's always modus ponens, and (the related) modus tollens.
Don't dispute that. But that's bordering on philosophy.
But without philosophy you don't have science. Without at least rules of inference (such as modus ponens and modus tollens) you can't make inferences -- any inferences -- from observations, and falsifiability goes out of the window. That's just wading in the ankle-deep levels of philosophy, before you even get to the knee-depths of asking whether there really is a world being observed or whether it's an illusion (Occam's Razor would seem to favour solipsism -- no reality is fewer entities than one reality -- but science is selective in the way it applies Occam's razor). Of course, the existence of an objective reality is not falsifiable, but science is dependent on it. Science hasn't got rid if metaphysics, it just hides it.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I have allways found that story quite funny.
You see, even if you ignore the fact that to a person of 2000 years ago the "whole world" was normally just his own place and a few places nearby, a "global flood" would be impossible : where would, in the case of a global rising of the water, all that water have come from and than gone to ?
And if you regard that water as have been coming from a (very big) tsunami it would have been destructive, and allso *very* temporary, definityly not eneabeling nor forcing Noah to float around for days.
In short : If Noah actually floated around for days ontop of such a flood it must have been quite localized, not at all global. This realisation in turn would mean that there probably where scores of people not at all influenced by that flood as they lived many miles from the flood, or even at the other side of the world.
In that regard Noah's story as to be, with his family, the sole survivors of mankind looks to be, although entertaining, a very odd one.
To conclude : anyone basing a theory upon such a story is automatically suspect to me.
Can I teach anything as fact based on any religion? Not just 'Christianity'.
Because you can - or because you should?
I saw a couple of posts suggesting that people should be left to believe what they want. This is an incredibly dangerous proposition, and the reason that it must be rejected, even if said people don't try to push their false beliefs onto others, has been covered in depth in this classic piece that is, unfortunately, as much needed reading today as it was in the distant past when it was written: http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
nuff said
How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat? Let alone the 40000 species of frog.
I'd heard that there are 350,000 species of beetle and wikipedia has the same number: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetle
Could be a misrepeated number, but just thought I'd point it out.
Also, there are just over 5000 species of identified frogs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Anuran_families
Some science funding needs to go to a work group of political campaigners and marketers.
What science needs is a politically defined subset of teachings specifically designed to discredit and circumvent magic-based ideas.
Most of this will be defining terms like "theory", and teaching the structure, utility and history of the Method.
Anything which can't be successfully framed in the context of the Method (to scientists' advantage) should be lumped together and called magic. That should be the official term. There should be money spent to get people using it, get it into the textbooks, on the news etc.
All Creatitionist thought should be expressed by scientists in two parts;
i) the part which is framed in scientific terms (after those terms are taught) and can therefore be easily discounted through experiment and obsevation.
ii) the parts which are magic, which it should be noted cannot be analyzed by scientific method, and are incompatible with critical thought, and for further advice please consult the priesthood
In the interests of symmetry a campaign should also be undertaken to get a critical comparison of how different religious groups view those matters science wants to retain control over. Which should then demand a proportion of any school time relating to religious, "spiritual" or similar.
The evolution of religious doctrine should be taught, showing how the stories and ideas of current religious groups (including televangelical corporate christianity as one among several) descended from their ancestors.
They could call it "Evolutionary Theology" or something.
While I share your oppinion (for the record :-), disregarding other people's words (in this case: disregarding ID) by re-defining their work in your eyes won't do anybody any good.
:-)
:-)
"Why?" one might wonder... "In the end, they're talking nonsense, and I base my facts on science!"
Well... it's difficult to draw the line between "real nonsense" and "stuff that I/we believe to be nonsense". And it's very dangerous... Some people believe western medicine to be nonsense, others believe chinese medicine to be nonsense, some believe to the string theory to be nonsense... you get the picture
So, what's the simple way to disregard people talking such (to us) obvious nonsese as the ID people?
Unfortunately, there's no simple way, but what parent said is IHMO the best approach; don't attack the theory, attack the "science" part of their name. Because, fortunately, "science" is a pretty well defined term. There's a wide consensus about what's science and what's not: if it's falsifiable (i.e. if there's a way to *prove* it right or wrong, e.g. by experiment), then it's science. Else it's not.
And that is something that's difficult for ID people stand up against just by being stupid, because it is (for a change) simple enough for everybody else to understand...
And. as soon as you've reached a bright consesus that ID is *not* sicence, just count on the desire of normal people not to trust in science. They'll step away from ID simply because it's not science
(of course, if normal people choose *not* to trust in science, then you've lost and ID has won, but then you've lost anyway, because the outcome of the discussion is not a matter of arguments anymore...)
They have schools in Louisiana?
But without philosophy you don't have science.
And that's why I didn't dispute it. It's just that a rigorous argument on the role of philosphy in science would go beyond the scope of this forum, whilst not providing any data relevant to the debate on evolution. Yes, it's possible that the earth was created 6000 years ago, with light from the distant stars already in transit to us to confuse us into thinking that those stars are older than they are. It's also possible that I'm a squid, and I'm typing this using my tentacles into a futuristic laptop that hacked into a government satellite to gain net access. Care to prove that wrong? You can't, but science says it's pretty damn unlikely. Science makes a few assumptions, but a philosophical argument about those assumptions belong in philosophy lessons (along with criticsm of the Bible, which I don't see being legislated into classrooms), not science lessons.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
scientific critical thinking is the only way to go
Quite religious today, aren't we? The scientific method is limited to learning about testable cause and effect relations. While I would certainly agree that for most matters and purposes, those are the only relevant subjects, the denial of other (untestable) influences is as much a religion as the postulation of such influences. The scientific method can, by definition, not disprove or prove that there are untestable influences. So why do you "conclude" that everything else is bullshit? Critical thinking means that you ask yourself what the relevance and scope of science, religion and other topics are. People who think they've found the ultimate truth, method or system have caused most atrocities in human history. Don't fall into that trap.
It's also interesting sociologically and psychologically, in that it represents of what happens when an irresistible force of scientific evidence meets the immovable object of faith.
We can test this scientifically. What happens when the Juggernaut (can't be stopped) charges into the Blob (can't be moved)?
"You could almost look at defense of Microsoft as a form of the Stockholm syndrome." -neapolitan
This poorly worded excuse for a hidden agenda is what I find most worrisome: "The text of the [Louisiana Science Education Act] suggests that it's intended to foster critical thinking, calling on the state Board of Education to 'assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories." If you want to teach critical thinking, logic, basic analytical concepts, then simply teach critical thinking, logic and basic analytical concepts. Calling this nonsense anything other than a faith-based political agenda is an insult and utter lie.
I wonder how the people who promote this allegedly non-religious act would feel if schools started teaching Erich Von Däniken's work as fact. It's as valid as most intelligent design theories, and even provides a rational hypothesis about who "god" might be.
I'm sure schools teaching that God is actually an alien with advanced technology would go down well with the religious right.
The poorly-informed board members. Maybe we should be voting in board members who are not clueless.
Then again, maybe we have and maybe there are some topics in which people don't believe science has the complete answers. Take global warming. I think that there is enough evidence to still support debate. Of course, watch your funding, without global warming, you may loose it.
I also like the quote "Without evolution, modern biology, including medicine and biotechnology, wouldn't make sense," How does removing evolution unravel our understanding of the mechanics of medicine or genetics. A chemical reaction is a chemical reaction. Gene splicing and genetic principles still work whether God created all of the living things in one fell swoop or if they spontaneously happened out of the primordial soup.
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Creation Science doesn't try to test God's involvement, only the actual physical events described in the Bible (for example, that there was a global Flood around 2,000 BC or so that wiped out all humans and animals that couldn't fit in a really big boat). It doesn't look at whether the events described in Genesis were really caused by God, only whether or not they occurred as described (and the mechanics behind how they occurred).
Well, and that part is easy: they didn't. It is hard to imagine any scientific hypothesis less consistent with available data than intelligent design or most of the major events of the Bible.
I'm not... this is the same state that had swaths of people living a story below flood stage, in the direct path of yearly hurricanes, protected by a government-made wall. Then when the governor told everyone to evacuate, tons of people stayed. Let's foster some critical thinking about that logic!
stuff |
NO ORLEANS, Friday (UNN) - The Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) was signed by Governor Bobby Jindal yesterday. The bill will allow local school boards to approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of controversial alleged "scientific" theories.
"The Act is intended to foster critical thinking," said Gov. Jindal. "We want the state Board of Education to assist teachers in promoting open and objective discussion of scientific theories including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
"Next, we'll work on classroom resources concerning the debates on the position of the Earth in the universe, whether Newton got it right, whether Democritus or Aristotle was correct about matter, and whether, in fact, the liver is the most important organ in the body. Then we'll get onto whether the 'periodic table' is just a Liberal conspiracy or fire, earth, air and water are a better fit for reality, and, of course, a critical examination of whether the so-called Holocaust happened or was a put-up job by the Jesus-killers."
Some have worried that the United States will fall behind in education, science and engineering and hence economic achievement. But the new bill comes in the wake of the vast successes of Faith-Based Mortgage Lending and its beneficial effects on the US housing market. "The replacement of the US dollar with rocks and small twigs as a more trusted and widely-accepted medium of exchange is merely a temporary blip," said Ben Bernanke, director of the Federal Reserve. "The hordes of Europeans flocking to New York for the cheap shopping and laughing as they give the bums Euro notes or pound coins are merely an optical illusion. The Faith-Based Security employed by the Transport Security Administration should deal with it conclusively."
Gov. Jindal looks at the move as an opportunity. "Louisiana will make America proud again. After the success of No Orleans' Faith-Based Levees in 2006, we'll impress the world again with our Penis Rocket To The Moon project. Or we would, except that we'll be advocating critical discussion of the Intelligent Stork theory of reproduction."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I understand that the Governor was a biology major at Brown University. Considering that Evolution is THE unifying theme for Biology I am very disappointed that he has repudiated his own training (however slight) for political expediency.
Or perhaps the Biology program at Brown is not as rigorous as it should be?
"Nothing in Biology makes any sense except in the light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky (thanks Google!)
I think it's a good idea to encourage critical thinking in the sciences. Most kids take what they're told without judging it. However, you should be teaching critical thinking in regard to both sides of these arguments or none at all.
You can find the article here.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
What law of science states that complex life can't develop on its own?
Ok, so who created him? He's way too complex to have just appeared from somewhere. Also, what's preventing God from setting up a universe where life can develop on its own? I thought he's supposed to be omnipotent.
So current absence in answers in a gap in the theory means that Jesus magic is something reasonable to fill in those gaps? I guess I don't understand your point. Creationists have yet to find any of their empirical evidence.
btw there are some pretty understandable theories about it based on the evidence that has been found about the Cambrian explosion. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html Keep up to date on the subject; there is new stuff being written in accredited science journals all the time about this subject matter.
Biblical scholars have recently deciphered the most ancient text written by man. Turns out it was a list of most fuckable animals Adam wrote before God got around to creating Eve.
If you're a normal rational thinking person, you should think that's damn funny. If you're an IDer, that'll probably just piss you off. But it should get you thinking. If the Bible is LITERALLY true in its creation account, then just what did Adam do before Eve? And what happened to the people God created BEFORE Adam? You know, the ones he created male and female.
Just because science doesn't agree 100% with what's written in the Bible doesn't make it wrong. The Biblical creation account is clearly a composite of several very ancient creation myths and legends from a time before anyone had any idea how things really happened. Science has given us a much better idea how all of everything came about, and sane people will find that much more reasonable than clinging to ancient myths and legends. As an ordained minister, who's studied this thing pretty deeply, I have to tell you that there is plenty that cannot be taken literally, and must be read allegorically. Intelligent Design is not science, it's not even reasonably rational, and has no business in any school, even Sunday School at church. Science can't answer whether God did or did not do anything, it can only describe things as they appear to be right now, and suggest how it got to be that way without violating current rules of reality. Science doesn't have all the answers, and probably never will, but religion doesn't have all the answers either, otherwise there wouldn't be so many of them, or so many different sects within the largest religions.
This law is clearly retarded, and obviously violates the separation of Church and State principle, since it introduces sectarian opinion sponsored by the state.
And, by the way, surprisingly, dolphins were at the top of Adam's list.
1.Netcraft confirms:In Soviet Russia all your base welcomes a beowolf cluster of CowboyNeal overlords. 2.? 3.Profit!!1!
You are correct that both are beliefs. On the other hand, evolution makes predictions that can be tested. That gives us validation that it is valuable to believe it. ID does not make any predictions that can be tested, giving us no reason to believe it. That is the difference between science and religion.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
critical thinking on the origins of life and evolution aren't completely the same. You can have a belief that an all power being created life, and that evolution happened from there, and it makes them different subjects with a point in common.
Anyway, the issue with critical thinking on the origins of life is when religion is mentioned. Which religion is mentioned? All of them or none of them are the only fair options.
Leaving out any religion once you begin to mention them is giving insufficient information for proper analysis.
Defective Logic
Just looking at the responses to this post illustrates exactly why this law is needed.
Immaturity on slashdot is to be expected. Unfortunately, this same immaturity in regard to contrary world views is pervasive throughout the academy. And this is why this law is so urgently needed.
I may not agree with everything this law entails but it's interesting to me that any attempt to be critical of evolution is immediately vilified by the bastions of critical thinking.
Of course, the above statement will immediately be modded down and I'll be retorted by those who will assume my position is contrary. We all have to be on a team, don't we?
Funny how religious nut-cases may pass a bill on "critical thinking" when they seriously believe in a two thousand year old adventure with no scientific substance whatsoever.
From the dark, old days of the Internet when men were men, women were men, and children FBI agents
Aside from all the direct arguments, consider this from TFA: "Discovery [Institute] fellows helped write the bill and arranged for testimony in its favor in the legislature."
I find it a good rule of thumb that anything promoted by the Discovery Institute is a "bad idea". The Center for Science and Culture
"Started in 1996, the Center for Science and Culture is a Discovery Institute program which: supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory; supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;"
These assholes have made it hard to be a Christian without feeling like an idiot. By putting religion in opposition to science, they drive thinking people to athiesm.
I'll give you evolution. It's a mind-boggling process, that over billions of years, life sprang into being and then through random chance changed to make people, but I don't see any other plausible theories out there, and ID people presume they have any idea what God's methods are. But Global Warming? Global Warming is a political movement to transfer wealth from the 1st world to the 3rd world through taxes and "Carbon Credits" (I'd love to get in on that scam, though, believe me). Let's not equate a relatively well-established scientific theory with a 25-year cycle of hysteria (see article Fire and Ice
It makes no sense at all to question evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a theory, it can be observed everyday, everywhere. For a system to display evolutionary behaviour three criteria need to be fullfilled:
This can be easily simulated in a computer. Let it run for a thousand generations, and the population will have adapted perfectly to the environment. By this time, evolution will slow down, until the environment changes again.
On the other hand, the evolution of mankind, or more accurately: the descent of man, is a theory, and always will be. We cannot build a time machine and go back a million years and find specimens of our forefathers. All we have is fossils from different time periods, and genome sequences of present-day man and animals.
So while the descent of man in fact is a scientific theory, it is constructed from thousands and thousands of separate pieces of evidence, and thought the exact details will always remain unclear (lack of the time machine) the scientific understanding of what went down is very, very well established.
If these theories aren't presented, then they should raise the same kind of stink that is raised over ID and loudly demand that omitting their inclusion is omitting scientific debate. They are playing a publicity game - and we have to play the same game or we've already lost.
My wife grows modus ponens in our flower garden.
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
I would say it is more of a philosophy then politics. The problem is most people are unable to separate a believed philosophy with the scientific process thus get angry and find the science a threat.
Intelligent Design in its more liberal terms goes to a core philosophical discussion is perceived randomness actually an act by a God(s), is it just a process of a complex set of cause and effects, or is it truly random.
I agree Intelligent Design is not science as a good scientist even one who is deep in faith cannot take the shortcut and say "God did it" and that is how it is done, even if their believed philosophy is that God at some level controls the randomness of the universe, or set the complex chain of cause and effect into motion, it is not appropriate for scientist to use God in the equation, and thus use Random or unpredictable as part of the equation until they can find a way to predict those elements.
However the people in science or the arm chair scientist atheists who feel just as strongly that God doesn't exist (Yet an other philosophical idea) then the people who support ID put up this fight on all levels about the decision of the topic, when ever it is mentioned. This posturing is what caused a lot of the back steps and creation of these laws. As science teachers tell their students who believe in the philosophy ID that they are wrong and stupid for their beliefs vs. just saying that God is part of a religious discussion and may or may not be a factor in these observed events, however the scientific method is not focused on if God exists or not just how it works as far as we can possibly understand. Because the fight back is saying we as scientist say your faith is wrong... thus causing people of faith to fight back.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either? didn't think so), Lot "leaving his daughter out to be raped" as "morality" (got a source for either? didn't think so) or trying to save the "angel Gabriel" (got a source for that? didn't think so).
I'm not attacking your intelligence, only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read. You appear to not realize how ignorant you are when it comes to what the Bible actually says (I mean "ignorant" in its true sense - "lacking knowledge or information" - not as a slam; I'm sure when it comes to science you've invested more time in knowing the basics before debating the interesting issues).
Just because some anti-Christian writes something on a hate site doesn't cause the Bible to actually say it. You should attack using the source, not talking points someone else wrote for you.
Here's what the source - er, Bible - actually says:
Now, your criticisms of the Bible may certainly be worth arguing - I enjoy debating questions such as these with my atheist friends. Even though Christianity is accepted on faith, there's nothing in the Bible I'm unwilling to discuss or defend. Such debates are great exercises for me to discover that what I was certain the Bible said isn't actually there. Thus, I empathize greatly with your ignorance. :-)
But be honest for a moment - if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?
This is by far the most troubling statement. Don't get me wrong, I think people should discuss them, but...... and there is a big but here.
Still today, people think you can square a circle, they think there is a way around PI. They may discuss a theory, but that implies no competency to do so.
The problem, with ID and anti-global warming is that we have very craft word smiths and pseudo-scientists, or and lets be honest here, cynically dishonest people intentionally creating plausible sounding arguments that are intended to sound legitimate. Worse yet, the average person, even some of the most educated, would have trouble refuting the arguments because to do so requires both the debater and the audience to have a solid understanding of the science. Many people have a functioning understanding, but not enough people understand the facts and the theories well enough to see through the bill shit.
What makes this worse is that, in the U.S.A at least, we have a large amount of people, for what ever reason, "believe" in evolution and are not predisposed to listing to science.
It's not very good philosophy, though. In fact, it's really bad philosophy, but you need to know the mistakes of the past to avoid the same mistakes in the future. Which is why it is taught in the classroom.
Assuming the antecedent is Intelligent Design, I'd like to hear a summary of your logical process (assuming you ascribe to a standard logic) highlighting anything you believe is axiomatic.
Your ascribing a value to an idea, per se, is intriguing to. Ideas can have many outworkings - the idea of trapping your nuts in a vice doesn't actually hurt, it merely allows you to speculate that it hurts and to avoid acting out the idea.
I've never heard of a philosophy of religion class (but I've never been to Tulsa). Theology, yes. But surely study of the machinations of religion is sociology as religion is the process by which groups act out their shared inner beliefs. Strange that that should comprise near to 100% of a computer science/philosophy students time? Jung-ian psychology doesn't appear to fit under phil.rel. either.
Did I miss something? Was ID really mentioned, or are you just giving your knee-jerk reaction, which is typical whenever _anyone_ suggests any form of debate on modern religions (manmade global warming, etc..)
There, we shall see all those religious nutcases at the nearest zebra crossing.
The thing that annoys me about this debate is that the existence, or even correctness, of either point of view does not make the other point of view wrong.
For an example, let's use a car analogy. You push down the accelerator, and the car goes faster. You made the car go faster. You are God.
When you pressed down the accelerator, you pulled a cable, or caused an electrical signal to be sent, which opened the throttle on the engine and caused the engine to do more work. The extra work was translated into more revolutions per second of the drive shaft, which goes through the gearbox and differential to cause the wheels to spin faster, thus propelling the car along faster. This is the mechanism by which the car is caused to go faster. This is science.
Now, apply the same idea to the creation of the world, and the evolution of life. God creates the mechanisms by which creation and evolution occur, then the mechanisms perform the task in hand. Neither works without the other, the same way that the car doesn't go anywhere until you press the accelerator.
Note: I don't believe in God. I'm completely agnostic. I believe in science above all else. However, I like to think I'm intelligent enough not to write off someone else's opinions just because they conflict with my own, especially when the two are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, the loudest people who are opposed to the cooperation between science and religion tend to be the ones with the lower IQs.
This makes me want to puke. Rita and Katrina screwed us up good, we're in no way rebuilt and this is what our legislature gives us. The same folks that damn near tripled their pay last week. I, for one, thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster I don't have to worry about this as a teacher in a private school. My geography class starts out with the Big Bang, as does my world history class. If we're gonna talk God done dooed it, might as well talk Xenu, Inzanami and FSM...
Sig Registration Form 34c_766(a) submitted to Ministry of Signature Management. Approval pending.
You selfish bastard. Aren't you glad your parents and grandparents didn't feel like you do, now? Aren't you glad they didn't throw their hands up in the air when faced with utter idiocy, and instead decided that it was a cause worth fighting for?
You selfish-righteous bastard. If people want to believe something stupid it's not your prerogative to save them from themselves. You may not believe this, but you are NOT the universal savior of mankind on a mission to save the rest of the world from its stupidity. I don't have a duty to save other people from their own ignorance and stupidity. No one does. This world is full of people who make bad choices and stupid decisions. If I had an obligation to tell them all how wrong they are then I'd have no time for anything else. Also, I'd probably get myself killed since many people (be they stupid or not) don't like busy-bodies telling them how to live. I'm not in the business of correcting the bad decisions of everyone on the planet. We're each responsible for ourselves and our own choices - not those of everyone else in the world.
Apathy? Thank you, NO.
Learning to live with people who disagree with you isn't apathy, it's called respect. If the people of Louisiana want to pretend that evolution is some kind of scam instead of science then I say let them do it. The world is full of people who do things that I think are stupid. Despite this, I don't think it's my place to forcefully correct them or tell them what to do. If you can't respect peoples right to disagree with you - their right to be wrong - then you don't have any respect for anyone to begin with. Sure, I think we should tell people when they're doing something stupid so they don't blindly stumble into trouble, but that's not the case here. The people of Louisiana (or at least those who made and support this law) know that the scientific community thinks they're full of shit but they just don't care. It's their decision and we can't take their right to make their own choices away from them just because the choices they make are stupid.
You go ahead and militate against everyone in the world that thinks differently than you. Maybe you could even start a war and fight some battles to shut-up all those idiots who disagree with you. I think the belief that we have a right and obligation to force our 'correct' beliefs on people who have 'incorrect' beliefs is the source of many of the worlds most significant problems. I may not agree with the way other people think and they may not agree with how I think but, as long as we can all respect each others right to be wrong, we can at least all get along peacefully.
This is another example of the systemic problem that is in law making. The Earth is 4 billion years old dummies.
Quite right.
So you'd have no issues with Muslims building Madras in Louisiana and teaching radical Islamism and Jihad? Or the Anton Levy School of Satanism? Or how about Scientology High?
At the heart of this quixotic refusal to acknowledge certain parts of reality is the literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. How do fundamentalists know that six days isn't a much longer period of time on God's schedule anyway? Planets don't all rotate on a 24-hour clock.
And if it's so imperative that every single chapter and verse be strictly interpreted, how do you account for the different translations? And why are other things like the "four corners of the earth" (cf. Ezekiel 7:2, Isaiah 11:12, Revelations 7:1, Revelations 20:8) conveniently taken metaphorically? (I'm assuming ID proponents don't still think the world is flat.)
If you can just be sensible enough to concede that you don't know how God did all the magic in Genesis, then there's no reason to deny evolution. Perhaps that's just part of His species-building toolkit?
Ask me about my sig!
And this is precisely why it isn't science. Creationism says "God did it" without any way to test it.
Ever heard of an axiom? It's the basis of all logic, mathematics and scientific discourse. This is an axiom, it's objectively untestable.
I think the point is to encourage the use of logic and critical thinking to all subjects. Our media has promoted the shallow and "drive-by" analysis of complex subjects that are not black and white at the end.
From your very own link:
1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning."
"No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square."
3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
That sure looks to me like the men of Sodom (all of them, too!) came to rape the angels at Lot's house, and Lot offered up both his virgin daughter for the mob to "do what [they] like with". Thats seems pretty much consistant with the GP's interpretation, I must say, despite a few minor errors (angel's name, one daughter not too, etc).
Moreover it's your assertion that the GP point that it's absurd to think 2 of every species fit on a boat because the bible says it was >=2 of every kind of animal/bird fit on a boat? Despite the fact that 2 or 7 of every kind of animal on a boat is still outrageous, you are basing that point on a modern definition of the words "kind" and "species", and ignoring the fact that the bible has been translated/edited so many times it's impossible to know exactly what the meaning was. The gp's point was that the bible has some very irrational things in it, and all you did was nitpick minor errors that had nothing to do with that point.
Louisiana full of illiterates - double digit percentages - people who cannot even read or write. They're already free to be among the stupidest people in the world. Why not make them free to learn lies alongside the truth, so they can be not just ignorant, but really really wrong?
After all, god loves stupid. God made more stupid than everything else combined. Louisianans are just following their role model.
--
make install -not war
Wow. Your comment about "Of Pandas and People" seemed ridiculous enough to be just a rumor, but I went and looked it up and lo and behold, the Wikipedia story is even more ridiculous (and entertaining). Yes, they literally replaced "creationist" with "intelligent design" but didn't do it very carefully...what a mess!
For those interested, Pandas and "cdesign proponentsists"
You do realize, by the way, that GP included several examples of falsifiable events that Creationism would seek to test, thus meeting one of the oft-cited criteria for something meriting the label of science. If you want to attack GP though, go for the three-part dichotomy (trichotomy?) made from the start about the Bible being the source of the hypotheses and what to do if the evidence contradicts these hypotheses. It's a rubric I could conceivably consider as a Christian, but if one has not made that leap to believing the Bible is true, why in the world would that be taught in a public school of all places, where that assumption clearly is neither proven nor accepted?
-- Joren
To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness. Rather than try to work out what happened, you leave it to scientists, then twist their words to try to fit their hard-found evidence into your convenient cop-out for performing actual rational thought.
This was pretty much my opinion. Except I termed it "God is your copout answer for everything you can't find a proper answer for". Within months I became a Christian.
Careful!
I just read the Act word-for-word and to me it's very vague. It's not clear to me that the intention is to knock down global warming, evolution, and cloning. Of course, given the vagueness of the article it is a possibility.
The key words used are "critique" and "critical thinking". So it depends on which definition you use for these words.
Critique could mean anything from "evaluate something critically" or simply to "evaluate and review".
I understand the knee-jerk reaction to immediately be on the defensive and bash the Act, but it could be a stepping stone to officially include the discussion and topic of global warming, cloning, and evolution into the classroom. Then, once introduced the kids will be exposed to the subjects and be able make their own decisions.
Yes, at the worst the subjects will be painted in the worse possible light, but kids aren't idiots and they will discuss the topics amongst themselves and hopefully will be aware that there are two sides to the topics.
We've all been through public schools and I'd like to think that the entire community (including us /.ers) are not brainwashed monkeys believing whatever we read just because it's in print.
How dare the State think that school boards should have any input on their schools curriculum? Its not the communities decision what their children should be learning.
If it ain't right by slashdot, then by god it shouldn't be taught!
No - I think that teaching science should be left to those who have expertise in science. TFA claims that such people oppose this bill. The whole reason we are getting into this mess is because schools are being forced to pander to what "the community" thinks should be taught.
Of course if the school board does their job right, this bill won't have any effect, but it paves the way for that possibility.
Seriously now, what's with all the hate at even the idea of a creator?
Okay, I'll bite: what hate?
But it also seems clear to me that believing that we are the result of neo-darwinism takes a leap of faith as great as believing in any "made up" Religion.
No, it doesn't. On the one hand we have something supported by vast amounts of evidence. On the other hand, stories that people can make up. Just because we can't prove anything with 100% certainty doesn't mean that all claims are equally plausible!
what's wrong with teaching children to discuss and god forbid, question popular *and* unpopular ideas. Isn't the real goal that children learn to think for themselves and make up their own minds?
Nothing as long as it's based on evidence, and god discussion is done in the appropriate class (i.e., philosophy or religious education, not science). There is no reason to pick out evolution specifically as needing "questioning", anymore than say General Relativity.
Eh? Intelligent Design uses inductive reasoning. (Very poor inductive reasoning, but nonetheless...) Assuming the antecedent is an inductive fallacy. I have no idea how an inductive argument can make deductive fallacies. I'm all ears.
As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you're talking about. Literally. I don't know what you're talking about. (Philosophy of religion is one of the branches of philosophy. I recommend a Google search if you can't infer from the name what it's all about.)
Here's some dangerous reasoning for ya: Science is all that be proven and therefore is the only thing that should be taught.
Like it or not, BELIEF is what unites people - incvluding those who choose to NOT believe... in god, or a flat earth, or that we went to the moon. Don't matter. Belief is a fundamental human right.
This is what amazes me: all the people who rip on people of faith for their insistence on being heard while the whole time insisting their view is the only correct one because... well, it doesnt matter why. Pot, kettle, black.
BTW I am a pretty strict constitutionalist, so before you go blathering about "separation" of this and that, go back and read Jefferson again: his attitude was that the COMMUNITIES decide what is taught to their kids - right down to the level of individual (ie if I choose to raise my kids ignorant with no school attendance, this is my right).
People have the fundamental right to choose whatever ignorant beliefs they prefer. Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance, people. Two wrongs do not make you right.
start with a conclusion and then try to support it with facts, you will find facts to support it.
This sounds very much like the approach the GW crowd has taken.
They have come to the conclusion that the world is warming and that we are responsible for it. When the observed facts don't agree, they monkey with the data to match their conclusions.
Global Warming to Climate Change.
Global Warming...but not for another 10 years.
Manufactured Hokey Stick.
Change the statistical methodology to fill in missing data to match the model, not conform to the observed data.
Refuse to remove inaccurate and misleading data (Seen the pictures of the official temperature recording sites...right in the middle of parking lots, etc.?)
Using hyperbole to influence public opinion.
Use of intimidation and ridicule to silence critics. Hell, just peruse through any Slashdot gw "discussion" to see this mindset.
And yes, this is off topic, but really...does that matter in any Slashdot discussion?
Blah, that's what I get for posting after 6 drinks. Assuming the antecedent is a deductive thing, not an inductive thing. It isn't even a fallacy. One assumes the antecedent any time one uses a syllogism; one cannot make a simple Modus Ponens argument without affirming the antecedent. It's affirming the consequent which is a fallacy.
Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.
Well yes, clearly the Bible doesn't say "species" because I doubt the scientific concept existed back then. But it's two of every species that you'd need in order "to keep their various kinds alive".
"Kind" would have to be interpreted very broadly in order to fit on a boat, and wouldn't even begin to repopulate the Earth with the diversity we see today. Are you seriously suggesting that it's not nonsense to believe that Noah could preserve the Earth's entire diversity of life based on what he could fit on his ark?
if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?
You think that the Earth can be repopulated from just a few "kinds" of animals - and you teach science?
I for one think that we simply need a high wall of separation of education and state. The idea that the government gets to decided what our kids can and cannot learn means that they already have total control. The real problem is that this issue is going before the board of education instead of just asking the parents what they want THEIR kids (not the state's kids) to be taught.
Even accepting for a moment your descriptions of Creation "Science" (and this pains me), it is essentially all disproved. Consider your two examples 1) that there was a global Flood around 2,000 BC and 2) that it wiped out all humans and animals [which] couldn't fit in a really big boat. Both are clearly false. You could cite more examples all day, but it would only serve to illustrate how completely inaccurate your bible is. People and places that never existed, incompatible genealogical lineages, mathematical false statements, and many, many others. Not to mention the countless events described that contradict observable physical laws today.
Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either? didn't think so) (and following genesis quote)
Yes, I knew it was seven, but it wasn't really the time and place to bring up little-known facts about the bible. Fine. 7 just makes it even less plausible.
Lot "leaving his daughter out to be raped" as "morality" (got a source for either? didn't think so) or trying to save the "angel Gabriel" (got a source for that? didn't think so).
Genesis 19:8: "19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." etc..etc.. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/19.html You would've thought that a prophet charged with punishing the nasty gay people for their sins would set a better example than trading his daughters as collateral for his imaginary sky friend.
Only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read.
Except that bit where I was forced to read it by a load of fundie teachers and do a GCSE exam on the subject, before joining a bible reading group.
if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?
Splitting hairs over the specific number of animals that boarded the ark is hardly a reasonable argument. If you're going to defend the story, supposed to be making the whole thing sound plausible, not say "haha, you didn't quote it verbatim".
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
we were tought
Apparently they didn't teach you how to spell
Hmmm... Have the folks at Wiki put in code that stops an article on the Bible from citing itself as the source?
Each time i hear news like this i wonder: Is there no democracy in america or is the majority there religious fundamentalists? You guys should really do something about it, it's getting more and more embarrasing ...
Ah yes, it's the "But science is only one way to do things!" idea, as if suggesting that a method based on religion is equally valid. Given that we're talking about science lessons, I'd say scientific criticial thinking is indeed the only way to go.
Give me an example of how one would perform non-scientific critical thinking, based on your "untestable influences", in the context of trying to determine something about the physical world?
It would be most correct to put it into a religion class. Yes, there should be a religion class in school; religion is too important to be ignorant about it. No, Sunday school isn't useful; that only teaches you stuff about your own religion. Religion class would teach you about other religions and about philosophical questions in the context of one's own religion (eg. creation vs. evolution vs. Intelligent Design).
If you guys had that I'd assume that the religious types would spend less time trying to invade all other classes.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Your understanding of evolution is so weak that you probably should refrain from commenting in this thread or any like it. Evolution has very little to do with random ugly baby mutation and everything to do with having a beneficial trait that your competition for resources does not. It isn't magic. It isn't even rocket science, yet somehow, you don't get it.
These folks who passed this are likely up for election this year, and our political system encourages this pandering to ignorance. Our people are too lazy to really look into the science behind these subjects (and really, any others). So those with funds can make the most noise to get their voices heard--and trying to defend their sacred cows brings a lot of motivation. The ID crowd can give presentations at churches and then pass the plate to keep them funded.
These "creationists" (nationally, not just LA) are fundamentalists-- if the flood didn't occur, then Genesis is wrong (not infallible). If Noah (just as a start) didn't occur, then the multitude of places he's mentioned in the New Testament (even by Jesus), are also wrong--calling the salvation picture all into question. Then the fear of "what if I'm wrong and go to hell" kicks in, as well as the need to defend their most foundational beliefs that guide their daily lives comes into play.
And then there's the laziness of it-- "its too hard to really look into this", as we all have seen the ID propaganda that calls the science into question. Who are they to believe, some "hell-bound" scientist or their pastor and the Creation Research Institute?
These are the same people who largely don't read their bibles nor question the amazing atrocities and other absurd things for a "deity" and perfect book: allowing slavery, subjugation of women, "eye for an eye", killing of homosexuals, death penalty for a girl who's not a virgin on wedding night (no jokes, please), a global flood killing all (even the unborn and infants/toddlers) except a small family, etc.
How do I know? I used to be one and still have a majority of family who are in that same illusion. And getting them to see facts is challenging for the above reasons...but we can't stop trying, as our country, even our world is in the balance. As we know, these fundamental beliefs translate into votes for pandering politicians.
Pass the opiate, please....ohhhhh it sooooths....
Moreover it's your assertion that the GP point that it's absurd to think 2 of every species fit on a boat because the bible says it was >=2 of every kind of animal/bird fit on a boat?
:-) Incidentally, I don't recall any mention of kangaroos or wombats, or how he delivered them to australia never to seen again for 4000 years without anyone noticing.
Indeed. I also said beetles and frogs. Are beetles and frogs classified as "clean" now?
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
All those bashing the law appear to not think that their theories will hold up under "logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories."
Finally we can teach the truth of the creation of the universe by our Lord and Saviour The Flying Spaghetti Monster, bless his noodley appendage, and what a lie the christian fake god is. And how Jesus was actually a male prostitute who's ejaculate causes cancer of the vagina.
I have no hate at the *idea* of a creator; I hate the idea of people forcing *their* idea of a creator onto others. I think what appears to be people hating the idea of a creator is actually people reacting to hundreds of years of another group of people forcing their idea of a creator onto others, often at the point of a sword or at the thread of being burned at the stake.
Mmm... Spaghetti!
It is now actually a proven fact.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Agreed about ID - mostly because I believe their motivation is to preserve the notion that the "The Bible" - whatever version or translation I guess - is historical, prophetic, Divinely inspired and hence unerring...assuming proper interpretation by them...(see Salem witch trials)
What's so sad is that I think there are interesting challenges to Big Bang that you can consider simply by looking at what science tells us about the nature of time itself.
At relative high speeds it acts strangely different than our normal experiences anticipate and same when you examine very small things and very small distances.
I suggest one motivation for the big bang is that we observe that time going forward moment by moment - so we assume it is the way we got here in the first place. I say assume because you only observe the moment. Not the past and not the future. With science we observe and record - connecting the moments.
But if we see the limits to our understanding about the nature of time as I suggest above, we should be more challenging about the big bang. Science once thought - and vigorously defended the fact that the world was flat.
As an alternative - for example - consider that "life is but a dream". Consider yourself dreaming that you are driving your car to work. If a passenger in your dream asks you how did we get here the dreaming driving you would say - big bang. If the passenger asked you how old the universe is you would say billions and billions...
OK now you wake up and I ask the "awakened" you - when did time begin for the dreaming you....and you would reply - last night. Who's right?
The basis for science is objectivity. We establish and drive to a shared consensus using the scientific method and our education system. We further believe that in a civilized society the shared consensus forms the basis of our interactions and how we deal fairly with each other. This is why ID is wrong push on others. It's not objective.
But since science is about observing and recording - we can see historically that our theories can be - no will be eventually spectacularly wrong.
Time could work in ways much differently than we intuitively think about now. It's strange behavior appearing at the margins of our perception should be an indicator that it's time to consider this.
I want to be alone with the sandwich
Are topics like intelligent design and global warming, or for that matter astrology and palm reading, good topics to teach critical thinking? Of course. Topics like astrology and creationism have appeared in various editions of Fogelin's Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. The problems are two-fold:
1. With local school board control, there is little incentive to teach children informal logic. Informal logic needs topics to dissect. Sure as hell, if the course shreds astrology, some child will have an astrologer parent who threatens to sue the school board. So why take the chance of teaching children to think critically about any social topic?
2. Obviously, the intention is not to introduce the opportunity to dissect intelligent design or global warming. The teacher who values his paycheck will know which way the wind blows. (See #1 above).
And that's democracy in the most vulgar sense. Teach them what the lowest common denominator demands they be taught.
Assuming they hold true to this: "will allow school board officials to "approve supplemental classroom materials specifically for the critique of scientific theories" such as evolution and global warming." then I see this as a good thing.
Why? How long do you think it will take for most kids to see the folly in the 'intelligent design' theories when compared to the widely accepted evolution theory? By putting them side by side this will only serve to hasten, not slow, the demise of alternative theories of evolution.
As to global warming, having grown up during 'the ice age is coming!' era, perhaps a dose of critique of the global warming industry is in order to seperate the hype and highly speculative claims from fact and reasonable interpretation. Unlike evolution which has had a solid body of evidence for 150 years, global theories of climate have been all over the map during just the past 40 years - seemingly seeking the most extreme interpretation of the data at hand at that time.
But I really do think people protest too much - kids are not as stupid as you think.
Your assumption is somewhat incorrect. Certainly I agree with you that a religion class should be an important part of a school curriculum, but what has been obscured in this discussion (and many others) is the fact that the Intelligent Design debate isn't a philosophical debate between athiests and believers, it's a political debate between a particular form of Christianity and...well everyone else.
These Dominionist Christians aren't interested in introducing alternate ideas into the classroom, they're interested in taking over and replacing scientific or even critical thinking with Scripture-based reasoning. Intelligent Design represents their secondary position, after they lost the Creationism-in-classroom battles in the Courts.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
it's the "But science is only one way to do things!" idea
No, it's not. It's the idea that science does its thing very well, but it is not necessarily all-encompassing. It is usually not contested that certain religious beliefs are neither provable nor disprovable. For example, the idea that the world was "created" a second ago, with all its state indicating a much longer history, is beyond scientific reach. Schools should very well discuss these ideas and their relevance, which is mostly psychological IMHO, but nevertheless not nonexistent. The problem at that point is that it's easy to dismiss any metaphysical influence and explain all scientific blank spots with "we just don't know yet." However, as I wrote before, that is a religious belief, not science, and as such it has no place in a science curriculum. A discussion of the limits and strengths of the scientific method however does belong there. It is part of teaching the scientific method. You can leave the discussion to the religious folks or move it to philosophy class, but I'd prefer that the kids hear about it from a science teacher.
"I'm not sure, but He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles."
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
> How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his
> boat? Let alone the 40000 species of frog.
Early quantum state phenomenon; only way to fit five thousand species of mammal on the same boat.
The problem at that point is that it's easy to dismiss any metaphysical influence and explain all scientific blank spots with "we just don't know yet."
I don't understand - saying "we just don't know yet" is entirely correct. I don't think that implies we will know. Of course it would be wrong to teach that one day we will know everything - that is not clear, but is anyone claiming that as truth, or suggesting it be taught in schools?
The OP merely said "scientific critical thinking is the only way to go", I fail to see how you get from there to "Science will one day know everything" - sounds like you are going after a straw man.
The point is that if there are some things that are unknowable, they are unknowable. This doesn't mean religion will tell us the answer it instead. So his statement that science is the only way is still correct.
My wife grows modus ponens in our flower garden.
that's inevitable.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
But solipsism creates more questions than the acceptance of an observable reality does, so Occam's Razor does not apply in this case.
You may have read a few books, but you appear to have done precious little thinking.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Seen the pictures of the official temperature recording sites...right in the middle of parking lots, etc.?
No. please enlighten us.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
Fair question. I'd say that it would be a good idea, if the 'creation' topic is taught as an adjunct to the strict scientific school of thought.
I'd say maybe pick 2 or 3 of the main religions in the US as to what they say, that way it would be a fairly balanced mix of beliefs. No, you don't want it to turn into a religious topics discussion, but, I think by doing this, you could give a good broad idea of what the majority of people in the US believe in total.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either?
Are you *really* that stupid? This is elementary logic.
Assume two things are true:
1. The story of Noah is true.
2. Evolution is false.
In order for the first statement to be true, then *by definion* all species that exist today existed before Noah. Therefore, every species that existed today that could not survive the flood must have been placed on the ark by Noah, and you would need a minimum of *two* of them in order to propagate and rebuild.
If you can't figure that out, then it's no wonder you believe that creationism is science.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PeanosAxioms.html
Uh... you are comparing "Zero is a number" etc to "God exists"... axioms in Math and Science are "small". How does God exist? What are the scope of his powers? What is the density, length and colour of his beard? Does he have noodly appendages? Probably the most "controversial" axioms in Math (in the sense that they may not be self evident) are:
1. The parallel postulate (f a line segment intersects two straight lines forming two interior angles on the same side that sum to less than two right angles, then the two lines, if extended indefinitely, meet on that side on which the angles sum to less than two right angles.)
2. The axiom of choice (Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S.)
In both cases, both axioms have been assumed both true and false to create their own sets of theorems (E.g. Euclidean geometry, which everyone knows (well..) vs. Non-euclidean geometry which is used in relativity etc... these differ on wether or not the parallel postulate is accepted)
Calling God an axiom is a losing argument.
Imaginary? He had angels in his house.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
You believe in those myths (it would appear literally) and you're allowed to teach science?
Fucking disgrace.
Maybe it's a tacit agreement that speciation happens through evolution?
I think current Creationist theories hold that the flood also broke apart Pangea, which explains how the animals managed to disperse so widely; but I figure that if God managed to flood the Earth, He was also capable of getting the animals where they needed to go.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Imaginary? He had angels in his house.
At least, they said they were. Judging by their behavior, I'd more readily describe them as demons. This is all pretty moot anyway. Just to clear up any confusion, this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SaltPillarDeadSea.jpg
Is not the petrified corpse of Lot's wife, it's a salt pillar created by evaporation of sea water in the dead sea and subsequent erosion. Nice story though. Wait, it's not even a nice story.. it's a horrible story.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
"People of faith" are not fighting back, they are attempting to maintain there dominance in the culture. The only fight here is the fight to teach science even when it is opposition to religious myths. Science teachers do not tell students that they are stupid, but they do show how ID is not scientific.
Well, every WoW gamer knows that:
A gnome dies.
In the UK, you are allowed to have your child excluded from religious education classes at school, in case they learn something that contradicts your indoctrination. I never understood why this was permitted.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
folks have jumped on this statute. Have you actually read the it? Of course not. That's why you go off the deep end and start spouting your own dogma. If you actually READ the bill then you would see that it's actually not bad. It simply says that after presenting the orthodox view of things teachers MAY present supplemental material.
WTH is wrong with that? If the presented orthodoxy can't stand on its own then maybe its time to challenge it.
I have NO PROBLEM presenting counter arguments in schools. Even stupid and outlandish ones (e.g., Flying Spaghetti Monster). The idea is to get kids to THINK. To ANALYZE. To be CRITICAL. About EVERYTHING that they see and hear.
Will some of them draw the wrong conclusions? You bet. The important thing is that kids learn how to critique EVERYTHING presented. INCLUDING the orthodoxy of the day.
As a previous commenter asked, "Why just science?" Critical thinking should be ingrained in ALL of education. Unfortunately it is not. Why? Lots of reasons. Not the least of which is that it would make it way tougher on teachers. They would actually need to know a lot more about what they were presenting, how to justify any taken positions, and how to counter the criticism of the dogma. And, who would want that?
In response to:
Unfortunately, it's remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking, as it cites scientific subjects 'including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.'"
This comment is specious at best. Apparently a comprehensive list to things to talk about is required? NOT! Guess the commenter missed the "but not limited to" clause. These are just some of the more topical concerns of the day. Get over it.
Sometime just before the Cambrian explosion, a mass extinction event occurred, leaving the existing life forms a) stressed, and b) in ecological niches they didn't previously occupy.
The opportunities for genetic diversification were endless!
The life forms that survived the previous extinction were able (through reduced competition) to diversify in a manner that would previously have been impossible through lack of fitness, and mutations that would previously have faded out became common.
Where's the complexity in that?
Life just is (once it happens), and environment and self-replication takes care of the rest.
Sorry, no place for your Flying Spaghetti Monster here, please move along.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Believe what you want to believe, but don't ignore the existence of testable, empirical evidence. You can wax lyrical all day long about "holes" or some such in evolutionary theory, but how nonporous is your "theory?"
Alternate theories are fine, as long as they are scientific. But until you shore up some cold hard evidence marking evolution incorrect, don't deny it as the most correct theory at present.
What this school board is doing is akin to saying the theory of the earth being flat deserves as much attention and recognition as that of the earth being spheroidal. This is underhanded, misleading, and just plain wrong.
Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
If this were a bill that suggested students think critically of religion, you'd be dancing on the rooftops. Your atheistic views are not shared by everyone. In fact, they are a tiny majority.
Additionally, they weren't limiting in their scope. They offered several suggestions which were actually very good. For example (there's that non-limiting phrase again)global warming; there's no real evidence of it. In fact, this last winter was the coldest in recent history in most parts of the world. The world has actually been cooling for nigh on to a decade. Global warming is more of a political platform than a scientific fact.
scientific critical thinking is the only way to go (emphasis added)
That's very narrow minded of you. How can you be sure that only scientific thinking is correct? Can you prove it? Can you prove your logic is correct? Can you prove it without using circular logic (i.e. if you use logic to prove your logic correct, you have committed the fallacy of circular logic. If you use scientific experiment to prove the value of science, you are guilty of circular logic).
Science and logic are very useful, but to embrace a faith in them as the only source of truth is to deny their teachings.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Isn't the real goal that children learn to think for themselves and make up their own minds?
Yeah, we should teach children to discuss and question popular ideas like the world orbits the sun. After all, surveys show a significant minority believes the sun orbits the earth! We shouldn't deny alternatives to the heliocentric model. We should study and debate them! Common sense observations contradict the tyrannical model imposed by "scientists". Let's open an honest debate on the matter. After all, it takes a great leap of faith to believe in the heliocentric model. Yet we have allowed this atheistic, naturalistic model to be accepted as "correct" and any other answer is "incorrect".
Further, by what right do the schools say "2 + 2 = 5" is "wrong"? Children should be able to explore alternatives to the popular theories of "math". It's religious discrimination as some believe that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1.
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!
Science and logic should be taught as methods and tools, not as faiths. To say they are the only source of truth is to embrace them as a faith.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I look forward to the Vedic Sciences being taught in Louisiana. It's past time that little Bobby Swampdweller learned to apply Hindu Astrology in daily life.
The cost of a superstitious society, that refuses to do anything about the current predicament of the nation and world and puts the outcome "in God's hands", will unfortunately be huge.
I'm just saying, if you're going to take part of the verse personally and literally, take the whole verse personally and literally. Angels (or demons, for that matter) lend credence to the imaginary sky friend.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
You do realize "the bible" you are using for your reference point was written four centuries ago.
Unless of course you are a Middle Eastern scholar and can handle ancient languages? If you are translating the original Hebrew then Kudos to you--you would be the first with the ability I've known that believes in Creation Science (or even God for that matter.)
The King James translation was written by a committee of up-tight white guys. In their day they were called scholars. But scholars of four hundred years ago were all members of the church. Those "scholars" that found themselves disagreeing with the church often found themselves persecuted and killed for heresy.
"many people believe in" the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I sure do. I know that there are millions of people around the world who do as well. I can't prove that, but I have faith.
Surely there must be some thick, hardcover, and most importantly, expensive textbooks which the Louisiana school board could be required to buy telling their students all about the obvious truth of the Spaghedeity.
The hicks who support this Louisiana creationism bill claim it's not religious, but I noticed only religious people want it.
Biological evolution has so much evidence it's fair to call it the strongest fact of science. Every biologist in the world completely accepts the basic facts of evolution. Only uneducated religious morons have a problem with it. The creationists most definitely are morons. There's no reason to keep that a secret. If creationists were not the most stupid people in history they wouldn't be creationists. I would say the same thing about flat-earthers.
Intelligent design creationism and other creation myths are nothing more than idiotic childish beliefs in magic. They should be taught only in a class called "The History of Human Stupidity".
Should the creationists be respected? Should people not mention their hopeless stupidity or the fact that they are insane? Should we politely and patiently try to explain to them the massive evidence for evolution? No, that doesn't work. It's been tried thousands of times and never once has it accomplished anything. It's impossible to reason with an idiot. I'm willing to ignore idiots if they keep their religious insanity in their churches, but when they pass bills like this that attack the education of everyone else, then they deserve nothing but ridicule. These people are traitors and they belong in prison.
Just watch. People who think killing themselves and others makes them martyrs and guarantees some place in heaven. People who fund Israel to attack Palestinians because they believe it will bring "judgment day" and the return of Jesus that much faster. People who refuse to do anything about the pollution and climate change they are producing because it's "God's will". Etc.
I have to wonder if the religious persecutions of old weren't at least partly right.
Your wife makes my modus ponens grow.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Evolution is a ploy to keep simple minded people happy. Just like all sciences, it is there to make money. It explains nothing if you really think about it. But you don't think about it. You just bash everything and demand that your ideas are the absolute black and white truth. And when comparing your self to religion you automatically put your self on top. To think the whole world came into existence based on cells is something science fiction. I have taken biology 1 & 2. There was a heck of alot of theories that were presented as facts in those books. I am sure they had nothing else to go on. I think as science continues to fail, that there will be a large religious movement in the future. Because people will finally have the real truth that they need.
The scientific method is empirical. Critical thinking exists outside of the scientific method. It is logic or reason, if you will. To postulate that only scientific critical thinking has value is exactly the "Science will one day know everything" limitation.
"Seriously now, what's with all the hate at even the idea of a creator?"
That such a creator has the uncomfortable behaviour of not exposing His desires directly but through the aids of some chosen speakers which usually have a discourse too suspiciously similar to that expected from an all too human person, not a divinity, and that usually includes not only how the world became to be -usually in very suspiciously unobserved or directly against all evidence means, but a lot of behaviours for day-to-day observation including but not limited to, directly killing infidels.
Once you accept there is some kind of so High Being as God, all funny things can happen, since God's so High that His commands are not to be cuestioned no matter how stupid or immoral (to us, so lower creatures) they seem to be.
I hate the very idea of Somebody so High that it is above and beyond rational criticism, killing all hope of freedom for human race.
Perhaps a class "How to deal with the willfully ignorant" that analyzes the various religions of the world and teaches the students to not bother with logic or rationality when dealing with an adult who believes in imaginary friends and life after death in the absence of any evidence.
Religion 'confronts' nothing. It's the produce of semi-savage cultures. Hell, the ancient Hebrews were a bunch of genocidal wackos who destroyed whole city states...men and boy children, saving the women for themselves...by order of their 'god'. That's the basis of most of Western Religion. Coarse, ignorant, cowardly and hateful. We must be teaching our children how to deal with the kinds of semi-evolved who willfully believe such schlock.
Oh, and great troll :D
Blar.
Of course the Bible is false. It describes things that happened 4000 years ago, when all right-thinking people know that the universe was created last Thursday (around teatime) and all of the evidence for things that appear to have happened before then were planted by the slightly twisted sense of humour of the creator.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
They could be preaching scientology in the schools and filling the little tykes' minds with thoughts of Xenu, thetans, spaceships, and volcanos.
So does your dog... what's your point?
It's not nice to talk about another guy's wife that way!
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Wouldn't it be funny if FSM devotes pooled their cash to finance a lawsuit agains LA schools requiring the inclusion of the FSM in their text book?
I wonder how much it would cost. Some cracker judge down there would probably throw it out, because FSMism isn a 'religion'. Funny how they get to pick and choose....
Blar.
The scientific method claims that good (i.e. useful) models of the universe can be found by repeating the 'observe, hypothesise, test' loop. If you have any valid criticisms of this then I (and many other scientists) would be very interested in hearing them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
At least where I went to school, we were tought a thing,
You certainly weren't taught proper spelling or grammar, hm?
4. That we know what the atmospheric concentration of C-14 was when the organism lived.
Isn't the point of dating it to find out when it lived?
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
And there is absolutely nothing scientific about the "intelligent design" theory.
Attitudes like this stifle scientific inquiry. When "the debate is over" on global warming, or against Intelligent Design, or String Theory, then what was science becomes religion.
To my mind, a belief that is unwilling to stand up at any time to challenge is probably in some way fatally flawed.
Nothing wrong with that. But since *critical* thinking is to be encouraged, then the thoughts that must be encouraged are those that question the usually established "truths" in the child's community.
In the case of Louisiana, and other southern USA states, this means questioning religion, not science. In the case of the USA as a whole, this would also include questioning the idea that global warming might not exist or might not be caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
Critical thinking questioning science should only be encouraged in the scientific community itself, because that seems to be the only community where the scientific method is implicitly assumed to be correct. If the child has no idea of what the words "scientific theory" mean, to present arguments questioning any scientific theory will NOT cause any development of the child's critical thinking.
What happens when the Juggernaut (can't be stopped) charges into the Blob (can't be moved)?
Goatse?
You can't take the sky from me...
How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat?
God did it, duh.
You can't take the sky from me...
ID does not make any predictions that can be tested
It does, it predicts that no one will be able to explain X. Of course, they just ignore it when X is explained, but they do make claims. They just do in bad faith.
You can't take the sky from me...
"Uh... you are comparing "Zero is a number" etc to "God exists"... axioms in Math and Science are "small"."
And you're assuming that the assumption that Zero is a number is a small matter. It's really not, zero seems pretty common to us but it's an odd concept when you get down and think about it, and there are a lot of things you can't do with Zero that you can do with just about any other number (factorials, without the additional 0! = 1 definition, division, etc) which would seem to call into question Zero's role as a number.
And that's just the axioms for Peanos's Arithmatic, it ignores hundreds of others ones relating to the more complex fields, the more complex numbers, negative numbers, and many others.
Also, just something of interest here, I note that the word successor wasn't defined in those axioms. Seems like a fairly simply definition, but what if I wanted to define successor(a) = rand()? That wouldn't be 'illegal' according to those axioms, but would break the fourth (and perhaps the third) ones. Obviously it's assuming a definition of successor that's reversible, but that's another assumption that should be added to the axioms somewhere.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
The bible, in its current state, is one big lie (sorry, christians). Just start reading, keep notes and you'll discover that it'll start contradicting itself. Sure, there are those who would twist their minds in all kinds of bends, simply to make it true to themselves (in other words, they want to believe a lie, so they can continue to live a lie).
Don't believe me? There are about 250 Christian faiths in the world, they all believe they are "the one true faith." Some of them even go as far as ignoring certain parts of the bible (they are unimportant), or even altering it in vital pieces. Interestingly enough, all of them have some part they disagree with.
That being said, personally I believe there is more between heaven and earth, and that it helps evolution along, but doesn't actually create major events. In my opinion the last major event caused by a... deity (to keep it easy for the Christians and Muslims in here) was the big bang or whatever event caused the creation of the universe. In my opinion "divine" intervention in evolution consists of minor manipulations (like causing bird A to like bird B more then bird C, thus bird A and B mate, instead of bird A and C), not massive manipulations (like creating a complete species from scratch).
This doesn't mark evolution as incorrect, and doesn't rule out... errr... "god" as an influence.
No it hasn't. It's detractors just haven't taken to time to read their central thesis. It's easy to just shoot from the hip and call it philosophy or a non science, etc. But as Plank said, the establishment wont change, you have to wait for them to die out!
This bill will be easily defeated at the Supreme Court, if not at a lower court. A community in Pennsylvania already tried this approach of claiming that they were pushing their bill in the name of critical thinking and the Supreme Court completely smashed through that lie. It's religion dressed as something else.
We do teach them both popular and unpopular ideas.
Darwinism, Lamarckism, and a number of other natural selection theories.
I've done enough thinking to be an epistemic solipsist, which is about as far as a rationalist position can go. And I've also done enough thinking to be aware that just because a proposition has undesirable consequences (such as raising a lot of questions -- which as it happens I don't see as necessarily undesirable) it doesn't make the proposition false.
Most significantly, I've done enough thinking to realise that the scientific position, being away back from solipsism, is essentially a socially negotiated position of convenience, with no particular claim to "truth".
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Except for the prediction that when the first form of life is known, it will be found to be photosynthetic.
Whoosh.
Was the "Intelligent Design has evolved" joke too hard to catch?
I don't think there are many people who doubt that the scientific approach is useful in some (even many) cases. The debate is about whether that is the only valid way of approacing the universe, and about whether that can tell us everything we need to know about the universe.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Math has axioms, physics does not.
Maybe they should have said to question everything.
I had a few teachers that would question everything and argue all sides of an argument. They would even turn on themselves mid-argument to make sure the kids understood all the facets of a subject.
If we would teach our children to question everything, they would be better critical thinkers as adults.
I keep hearing about this theory of science education in Louisiana.
An important thing to remember is that not all science is right, and not all philosophies are wrong.
Constitutionally Correct
A creation myth, or any myth for that matter, should not be taught in a religious studies class even. Teaching it as doctrine should be relegated to Sunday schools and seminaries. In a "religious studies" setting, myth should be analyzed as a literary or communicative tool instrumentalized by believers in any given set of doctrine. It's a lot more interesting, often, to look at what a myth is used for than what it says.
If you don't know what you're doing, you can't make mistakes.
And that is my exact problem with the fucking hypocrites. We, who only believe in Jesus Christ, are putting forward "something" that claims that there is a higher entity, but we will not call him Jesus Christ. In any other context, a discussion of a "higher" being will always be about Jesus Christ. But in this one case, we will not claim that higher being is Jesus, but that he is a "higher being".
What fucking hypocrisy.
None of it is provable. Have you seen God? No. Have you seen the Big Bang? No. Have you seen people evolving from monkeys? No. One or the other could be true.
If either one is really true, then it will stand out as the greatest theory in science. If one is really false, then it will crumble under it's own weight.
Seeing as both theories have lasted a long time, I'd say that gives them equal chance. Why aren't our kids smart enough to think for themselves? This could start some healthy discussions in the classroom as kids make their choices.
Science requires the scientific method, which according to Webster is: "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"
Since you cannot observe or experiment with the origins of the universe, there must be no science involved, only educated guesses. Calm down!
I would start off with a general history of any given religion and the creation of its good book. I gained much insight after watching videos such as Who Wrote the bible showing the very foundation of the religion was politically motivated by those in power to control the sheep and had no real divine influence. Any classes on religion should address its history and its evolution over time... just for perspective.
Not to mention that there are places like the Atacama Desert in Chile or Death Valley that have been dry for a very long period of time. Heck, the ice packs in Greenland and Antarctica are evidence that there has been no flood there for a very long time, as the ice would have just floated off. Oh, and really big floods leave scours, as the water runs off, and most places on Earth show no evidence of recent scours.
I suspect that the Noah stories (the Sumerians had one too, and maybe other peoples) may refer to an historical event (maybe even the filling of the Black Sea), but a global flood ? No way.
I always say that the geological, astronomical and physical arguments for the age of the Earth are even stronger than the biological. I don't know why the Creationists pick on Darwin so much when they should be picking on Einstein and Hubble just as strongly.
The issue is that this is an attempt to get religion, via intelligent design, taught in the classroom. This is but one small step in that direction, their foot is in the door.
Wait, What?
Well let's see ... most bullshit is in politics so ... democracy? No science behind that -- it's out. Habeus corpus? Nope, again no science involved, best cut that. Eugenics, on the other hand, that's got lots of science behind it... If you think the scientific method is "the only way to [reason]" in any area of your life except the professional practice of science, then you do not understand what the scientific method is or what it is for.
Tell me again why I would want to live in the deep south. Wisconsin has its share of crazies, but the liberal atheists and freethinkers tend to balance out the Bible-thumpers.
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
This is perceptive, and leads to what I call the "matrix" theory of religion. Any religious belief can be accepted if we live in the matrix, and all of this is just a computer simulation. If the Chief Programmer (aka God) wants there to be a flood, or whatever, all that is necessary is to invoke the water subroutine. Later on, other routines can be used to restore terrain, put back the beetles, and whatever else is needed.
This is a theory, and it is unassailable - there is literally no evidence that could disprove it. Maybe the world was created an instant ago, with our memories embedded in it. But, is it a useful theory ? Not within the matrix, at least. It doesn't make predictions, and is consistent with everything. All that is left is to sit around and say, God willing, whatever happens.
It is dangerous to say that history teaches things, but I think that it is pretty clear that history teaches the dangers of this type of thinking.
About as far, or about as far out?
My understanding (25 years out of date, I admit) is that epistemic solipsicm implies that there is one true source of knowledge, and that it is written down.
Now that to me sounds like a fancy description of 'Christian fundie'.
My position, simply stated, is that to posit an objective reality outside of myself is simpler than to imagine that I, myself have created the reality that I see (which is the natural and minimalistic conclusion from solipsism) - it requires far less capability from my mind, which I know from experience to be fallible.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
The story goes that J.S. Haldane was asked "What has the study of biology taught you about the Creator?"
He responded :"
He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles.
"
"No - I think that teaching science should be left to those who have expertise in science.
True, but are you saying that non-experts can't object? You laugh and make flat-earth jokes, but it used to be accepted science in the early 19th century that some races were superior to others. In the early 20th century, eugenics became standard fare in science circles, backed by all learned men, not just scientists. Scientists said eugenics was solid scientific truth, and so people from Woodrow Wilson to Margaret Sanger endorsed the theories in practice. Eugenics did't fall out of favor until people objected to it on moral grounds.
Humans are not machines... we do not (and truly, can not) judge all things on pure logic. There are other things we value. That's not an excuse to ignore scientific proof, but realize that, from past experience, even scientists have re-evaluated their ideas and found them wanting, even if they had good data behind them. Eugenics is an excellent example of this. Maybe we could build a super-pure, almost perfect race through breeding programs and forced sterilization of the "unfit". But we'd abandon our humanity in the process. Not all scientific issues should be settled on purely logical grounds. Not if you want to keep any semblance of free will.
Scientists and their allies don't want to hear this, but when it comes to the spread of knowledge, they have the same responsiblity as religious clergy do: they have to win hearts and minds. Simply declaring from the mountaintop "The data says this, and you will adjust your policies accordingly" is kind of a stupid thing to do with human beings, especially humans in free societies. Simply being told that they have to do something often provokes rebellion for rebellion's sake, even if, upon further reflection, they might have agreed with the scientist in the first place. If you're going to have a career in science, and you're committed to spreading that knowledge to everyone, then you're going to have to take on that missionary role. If you tell people "science says so, this is the policy, this is what will be taught"... well, your opponents are only going to dig in harder.
Part of the problem that modern scientists have is that they're so far apart from the rest of the population (in the US, anyway) on their world views. Most Americans are religious, and a huge chunk of them are deeply so. Mocking those people isn't going to help your case. When you try to convince them of a position, first tell them the truth... that you only deal in what can be proven and tested. That means that you tell the existence of God can't be proven via scientific evidence, not "there is no God, you peons". Frankly, you can't prove that either. Second, respect their beliefs, even if you don't agree. You're the minority here, by far, and so taking an authoritarian tone is only going to make things worse.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
About as far, or about as far out?
My understanding (25 years out of date, I admit) is that epistemic solipsicm implies that there is one true source of knowledge, and that it is written down.
No, the epistemic solipsist believes that there is no source of knowledge; we never actually know anything. Christian fundies tend not to get on well with it (or me). Nor do scientific fundies, or any other sort of fundie (maybe an agnostic fundie would, if such a thing exists).
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
It is worth reading both the exchanges between Lenski and the conservapediots on the main page and also the discussion page in which you see just how low they'll go to censor those they don't like and attack anyone trying to even mildly support the right of Lenski or others to speak. Reading the talk page was enough to convince me that conservapedia has nothing of interest or insight to offer even reasonable conservatives.
I'm big a fan of constituency and State's Rights.
That being said, I just LOVE the fucking condescension of all the 'we know better than you' comments.
Ladies and gentlemen, please take note: Unless you live in Louisiana your opinion is just that - merely an opinion.
As a sovereign state mechanisms exist (or at least allegedly exist) for those affected by this to rectify it.
You are, in fact, entitled to your opinions, but all this effort to convince others that you are correct is very, very distasteful in the disrespect you show towards the democratic process.
Did you ever stop to consider that this might be what the majority of folks down there actually want taught? And, if so, what makes your opinions toward their laws outweigh their own? Have they NO right to govern themselves AT ALL? Just fucking LISTEN to yourselves talk, people.
Just a little food for thought.
Oh, and since this goes contrary to the 'science is God' opinions around here, I'm forced to post it AC. That is a shame as well, that all these alleged scientists are such a closed-minded bunch of religious zealots, just as guilty of cramming their zealotry down everyone's throats!
It seems to be that religion is a ploy to keep simple minded people happy, is there just to make money, and explains nothing if you really think about it. God did it. Sorry, that doesn't explain anything to me at all. How did God come to be? . . . "Keep them doped on religion, sex and TV." - John Lennon - Working Class Hero
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!
...in other ways. See this set of T shirts, which would be appropriate to any such lessons on "intelligent design."
Make cheese not war 8:)
Yes, but in Germany (where we have religion class) they'd be told that even without specifically mentioning God, ID is too close to religion to be taught in a science class. This kind of stuff is what religion and philosophy classes are for; it's not scientific and better suited for other classes, hence it doesn't go in the science curriculum. End of debate.
My point is that the lack of a class that is supposed to be about this kind of stuff makes it easier for fundamentalists to inject it into classes that aren't.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
"All theses right wing religious people try to play off that the word 'theory' means the same thing as a 'guess'. Thats simply not the case"
That's not it at all. They're not saying that a theory is a "guess". They're classifying a theory as less than fact, because that's how the word is defined in high school science classes, remember?
In high school, it's taught that scientific knowledge has stages:
1- Hypothesis - You formulate an idea on a problem and how to address it.
2- Theory - You actually put that hypothesis to the test by trying it via the scientific method.
3- Fact - the result if your idea was right, and the testing of the theory proved it.
However, professional scientists define theory differently. They define a valid theory as a reproduceble result of the best available data, and a working solution to a problem. "Theory" is as final a stage as it gets for them, because new data often changes the "facts".
I've heard several scientists in the media complain that we should change the way we teach the word "theory" in high school because of this issue. Because of the way it's taught, it really has two different, and somewhat conflicting meanings.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
In that case, I'm probably closer to your philosphy than you'd think - I'm an extreme skeptic where the scientific method is concerned, and have never found a reason to believe in gods or faries.
I just find it more plausible to believe that the huge variety of things that happen in the 'objective reality' are actually due to that 'reality' actually existing, rather than them being due to some process that I myself have generated.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Intelligent Design in its more liberal terms goes to a core philosophical discussion is perceived randomness actually an act by a God(s), is it just a process of a complex set of cause and effects, or is it truly random.
Part of the problem that evolution faces is the popular concept that it is the result of randomness.
The core concept of evolution, as I understand it, is selection. Mutations are selected for, based on the benefits they provide for passing on the gene. The mutation may be random, but the selection process isn't.
People who don't believe in evolution, if they get infections, should only ever be provided sulfa drugs, or maybe penicillin, and not modern antibiotics. Certainly the nasty bugs haven't evolved to face the conditions that modern antibiotics have provided.
How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat? Let alone the 40000 species of frog. Those two would take the lifetimes of thousands of people, and we haven't even worked out a way to stop the lions eating the gazelles.
You seem to be confused about the meaning of the word normally translated as "kind". It doesn't mean species. There was no word for our modern concept of species, because that concept didn't exist. "Frog" and "beetle" add up to a total of... let me see here... two kinds of animal.
To put it bluntly, the "goddidit" meme is pure laziness. Rather than try to work out what happened, you leave it to scientists, then twist their words to try to fit their hard-found evidence into your convenient cop-out for performing actual rational thought.
Creation Science doesn't ask whether "God did it", but rather "what happened and how?" without considering "why". Did God do it? Did the FSM do it? Was it random coincidence? These questions clearly fall outside the realm of science. Was there a global Flood 4,000 years ago? Was it really global? Where did the water come from? How did it happen? What evidence is there to support the idea of a global Flood? Is there any evidence disproving it? These are questions that science can try to answer.
Yes, I leave this stuff to scientists, rather than try to work it out myself. That's because I'm a computer nerd posting on Slashdot. I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Well this is no surprise coming from a bunch of southern baptists and other religious people in the south. It is sad that they don't value education enough. In any case, it is one thing to debate something but its another thing to make critique an oppurtunity to extinguish scientifically accurate information. For instance, with global warming these right wind idiots come on the radio or fox news etc and pronounce that its all a lie. The more someone explains that they are not correct they just get louder. I suppose some people believe that the louder a person's voice is the more likely it is that they are telling the truth. LOL Ridiculous nonsense! The best thing to do for people of education is to completely ignore what these people have to say and to not trust them at all. They will then disappear and fade into the fabric of time and history.
Utter bullshit. Newtonian physics? The three laws. Relativity? The speed of light is constant to all observers. Quantum theory? Occam was wrong (just kidding, you get the idea though.)
Not to mention they inherit all related mathematical axioms.
The important thing is that this discussion is available to us and school kids. What we do here is not "scientific critical thinking", but it provides insight into the nature of the scientific method and its applicability. Since you mentioned history: I believe there is historical evidence that handwaving over (the need for) religious beliefs weakens the position of whoever tries to dismiss religion as hogwash (which, don't get me wrong, it may well be), especially when the replacement can by definition not fill the void.
The morality or ethical worth of scientific "facts" has to be dealt with in a different framework
How does a scientific fact have a morality or an ethical worth? They are facts. For something to have a morality it implies that it is an optional action. The only reason we have morals and ethics is to guide our actions. It cannot be unethical for the moon to orbit the Earth because the laws of physics require it.
Yes, I know that eventually science confronts some of the same cosmic questions, but it does so in a completely different approach, one that cannot and should not seek Truth.
As a scientist I complete disagree with this. The whole aim of science is to find the truth of how the Universe works. While your arguments about models earlier is correct the aim is to develop these models until they match what the Universe does. We are not there yet, and may never get there, but that is most certainly the goal.
The difference between science and religion is that they seek different aspects of the truth. Science asks 'how' and religion asks 'why'. The problem we are facing in recent times is that religious extremists are attempting to answer the 'how' question and they are completely unequipped to do so in a sensible fashion.
We can test this scientifically. What happens when the Juggernaut (can't be stopped) charges into the Blob (can't be moved)?
I always assumed that the Blob would catch the Juggernaut, and slide backwards, slowly slowing the Juggernaut to a stop. The Juggernaut moves the Blob, and the Blob stops the Juggernaut.
~ C.
So, I realize that the poster focused on the religious aspects and that now we're in a debate about teaching intelligent design, but realistically (even if that is where it is intended to go), what's wrong with teaching kids to question? Isn't that what science is suppose to be all about - learning to question and think and push against things so that you discover more about them?
Yes, I think that teaching intelligent design borders on the terrible (mostly because it violates my right to not have my kids exposed to religion in their public school), however I also kind of like the idea of them being exposed to many different ideas and learning to examine each critically. That way they can come to their own conclusions on the world based on their own experiences and conclusions instead of just taking someone's word for it.
Maybe, for once, instead of something intended to help being twisted until it actually makes things worse, wouldn't it be kinda fun if this thing (which is obviously designed to help make things worse by indoctrinating children in Christian beliefs while in school) could be twisted to actually produce a generation of children who are free thinking individuals that challenge everything and find their own answers?
Just a nice thought.
"Does bouncing count?" - Silk, Magician's Gambit by David Eddings
Although this is undoubtedly stupid and moronic, what most commentators overlook is that teachers in Louisiana will be responsible for teaching this silliness. Although some of our teachers are excellent, many are not. The people in Louisiana are forced to get a real education in our Universities. Last semester, I had a freshman class in which only one person got the sum of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 correct! By the time they graduate though most students are (mostly) numerate and literate. Given the confusions that school teachers have, it is quite possible that students in schools will end up learning the exact opposite of what it intended by the framers of this Bill. 'Praise the Intelligent Very Big Powerful Thingmy' is what I say!
"unfortunately religious bullshit is reaching far beyond dirt farmers"
Looking at both your name and your comments, it's pretty apparent that you not only disbelieve in a god, you despise those that do; "dirt farmers" as the old canard that religious believers are poor and stupid. So let's establish right away that you have your biases too.
"and the pollution of science with faith is impacting other areas, such as pharmacists who are fighting for the right to withhold medicine from patients if they personally dislike it e.g. contraception."
That's not "a polution of science". That's a "polution", as you put it, of policy. And you're statement was pretty blatant misrepresentation of the issue. Pharmacists, in this case, that object to dispensing contraception or abortion pills do so not on scientific grounds, but on personal ethical grounds. And they're not refusing to dispense them outright, simply saying that their own personal beliefs don't permit them to issue such pills, and that other pharmacists can do it, and that because of their beliefs, they shouldn't be forced to it if another pharmacist that doesn't object is available. Many Doctors and Nurses also refuse to participate in abortion on ethical grounds as well, as they think it violates the creed of "first do no harm". We wouldn't dare force a doctor to perform an abortion. Pharmacists are simply saying they should have the same ethical rights.
You, however, misrepresent the whole issue because of your own personal loathing of religious faith. You make it sound like they're going "I'm Baptist, and I don't like you atheists so I'm not going to give you any penicillin". That's crap, sir. That doesn't happen. If you wish to provide an example to prove me wrong, I'd love to see it.
"(on the other hand if it gets much worse America will collapse so hard people will realise why the 1st amendment was such a good idea in the first place.)"
For an atheist, you speak in bombastically religious terms. "America will collapse"? Have you been taking rhetoric lessons from evangelicals? You sound like one, with the prophecies of doom.
America has been a religious country from its very origins, for hundreds of years. Religious influences are pervasive in our culture, law, and government. Always have been, and probably, always will be. We've been here for hundreds of years with religion without "dooming ourselves", thanks.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Look, the Bible is true. It says so in the Bible. OK???
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
No - I think that teaching science should be left to those who have expertise in science. TFA claims that such people oppose this bill.
Yes, and it's also been said that over 30,000 scientists think Global Warming is bad science. So, assuming that's fact, by your own logic it should be OK for scientists who oppose Global Warming to teach in the classroom.
The whole reason we are getting into this mess is because schools are being forced to pander to what "the community" thinks should be taught.
Yes, how dare we question the wisdom of the know-it-alls that reside on our school boards? If they're not supposed to listen to the community they serve, who pray tell, are they supposed to listen to?
This "mess" you're referring to didn't happen overnight. It's the result of a lifetime of political ideology dictating our entire public education system. What you're witnessing is a push back from "the community" which is tired of having one radical political ideology running rampart and dominating their children's highly impressionable minds.
Whether the bill which passed in Louisiana is the correct way to fix our public education system, is debatable. But while we debate the finer intricacies of how we should fix our broken public education system, the system undeniably remains broken and therefore continues to undermine our children's education and under-serve the greater public.
"Uneducated people are weapons for dictators and extremists. The best defence we have against the rise of Hitlers, the British National Party, and all the others, is a well-educated population that can think for itself."
We need to, once and for all, lay to rest the notion that education prevents tyranny. Hitler didn't rise in a society of illiterate serfs. Germany had an excellent education system. I don't know of anyone that rose in the Nazi party that was uneducated or stupid. On the contrary, they were brilliant people. The Islamic terrorists that bombed London trains were all British born, and well educated in progressive British schools. Those terrorists' parents were all poor, uneducated people that came to the UK for opportunities, and were both pious in their faith and proud to live in a free society. Their much-better educated children chose the tyranny of terrorism.
Poor or uneducated does not equal "susceptible to tyrants". Rich or educated does not equal "virtuous opponent of tyranny".
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The only reason you don't like it is because, rather than having to defend the current curriculum, you would prefer it if everyone just accepted your view of things. (whether it's factual or not, all ideas should be constantly re-evaluated. it's the only way to find new truths, and further strengthen what we already know to be true)
When has debate ever been a bad thing? Take creationism out of the equation for a minute, and read the law's wording again. It really only advocates the presentation of alternate viewpoints and debate! Yes, the creationists will probably try to use this. Big deal! If evolution is scientific fact, then open criticism will only make it stronger! Some people will say "oh, it will confuse our children." I guess they won't ever be confused by the real world, or have to discern which of multiple viewpoints is the correct one. Since when has making our children ill-equipped to handle real-life issues been a bad thing?
I know these articles always seem to serve as "hate the christians" fodder, but just for once I'd like to see people look at a law objectively. This is starting to sound like Digg :\
maybe would be a better example of teaching critical thinking than evolution or global warming.
Take some widely accepted by a lot of people in some moment, something "self-evident", "obvious", and give elements that proved it wrong even in the time it was popular.
It would take all the "actual" controversy away, and will teach how critical/scientific thinking work.
ID is not a scientific theory in the sense that it is not testable with the scientific method, but still a theory. Is logic testable with the scientific method?
This is why suicide is criminal. It affects friends, family and the innocent more than it affects the perp.
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
And this is precisely why it isn't science. Creationism says "God did it" without any way to test it.
By that definition, what is string theory?
So far, we have no way to prove or disprove it, apart from a few somewhat ambiguous mathematical proofs.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
If we ever think, that something does not need further discussion, the time for human kind will come to end. We humans are not perfect, we have been certain, several times in our history, that there was nothing to be discovered, and we were mistaken. I remember and article saying that was physically impossible to build a 10X CDROM, and I remember the author saying : well when a researcher says something is possible He may/might be right or wrong, but when He says something is impossible, He is wrong for sure. I am for sure... Human, I do not posses total knowledge of the universe, and I know that many nobel scientist believe in God, so as must people on earth. As a scientist I must be able to openly critic any theory name it religion, relativity, god, evolution, whatever. Evolution is a theory, not a Law, personally I do not know any 100% accepted physical law, although evolution and other theories work well ... For Now
But I might be mistaken for sure..I am proudly human
Of course, you've been using a fictitious word throughout your post. On the other hand, it would have gotten a +1 Funny mod from me if I had any points.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-48-noaa-admits-to-error-with-baltimores-rooftop-ushcn-station/
This is just one. There used to be an offical site with pictures of many in parking lots of Malls, etc. But they have since taken that site down.
Let me go ahead and say this in case GP doesn't: what the fuck are you talking about? I'm not sure where the GP is supposed to be "ascribing a value to an idea, per se," but I suppose you're assuming he's doing that when he claims that ID is bad philosophy. But that's about the stupidest thing I've heard today: we can talk about things being bad cooking, bad building, bad science, etc. Philosophy is, in a real sense, a method of approach. Thus, one can do it well or one can do it badly.
Your dig on Tulsa and the philosophy of religion shows that you're TOTALLY fucking ignorant of philosophy. If you had the FAINTEST fucking clue you'd recognize that this field is one of the longest-standing pillars of the philosophical enterprise - read the Euthyphro, for God's sake. (For the record, I studied philosophy, too, and I hated philosophy of religion - just wasn't my bag - but I'm not so stupid or ignorant as to act like it's not a big deal in the world.)
The rest of your post - sociology? shared inner beliefs? (what does an outer belief look like?) Jungian psychology? WTF? - is nearly incomprehensible.
Go smoke some more pot and think you're deep.
(Mods: I know this is flamebait, don't give a shit. Sorry.)
So you can laugh all you want to...
Seems someone had collected the information:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050
This was pretty much my opinion. Except I termed it "God is your copout answer for everything you can't find a proper answer for". Within months I became a Christian.
Careful!
So what you're saying is that we should be careful or we'll "lose" weak-minded fools?
Good riddance.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat? Let alone the 40000 species of frog.
Clearly, god gave noah a few bags of holding. Hmm, this model also explains david & goliath... That David, he rolls 20s.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Actually, there are 2 schools of taught on the subject. The first one claims what you are claiming, except in Comic book physics, it would be more the Juggernaut comes to a dead stop and the Blob is sent flying. There is also the second theory which states the Juggernaut is deviated from his course as he hits the blob and continues on his merry way in another direction, all the while, the Blob stays planted in place. This was a subject in the letters section of Wizard magazine a few years back.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
It's because their not your children. They're not the government's children. They're not the teacher's children. They're not the BBC's children. They don't belong to "society".
It's the children's parents that have the primary responsibility and authority to ensure that their children are taught and to decide what they are taught and how they are taught.
Hence, if a parent makes a decision as to what their children should learn, the rest of the system that those parents pay for should support their decision, not decide "we're the experts and we know more than you so we're going to decide for you".
Of course, as the UK falls more and more into socialism and the mommy-daddy state, eventually the government schools will manage to brainwash enough of the kids with the idea that they should just do whatever the government tells them that they'll raise their own kids that way.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
Interesting. I find it highly unlikely that findings like this wouldn't be addressed by the scientific community in general (in fact, I'm going to go and look it up now). However, global warming is mainly centred around the poles. Northwest Europe would actually get colder as a result of global warming so saying "well how come this place is getting colder?" is a bit like that "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" argument - ie. failure to understand global warming.
I must confess, global warming is bloody complicated, given that it's based on trying to predict the temperature of the /entire planet/ and every single thing on it. My understanding is that it's mainly based on glacial records. Once apon a time there was lots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Then the trees soaked it up. Now we're putting it back.
what happens when an irresistible force of scientific evidence meets the immovable object of faith.
Chuck Norris dies, right?
Do I understand you to believe that all species spontaneously appeared in their current form???
OK, clear this up for me, please. Given that life was not created, but was spontaneously produced from non-living matter by the laws of science: How many species were so produced from non-living matter? How many "kinds" of animals had to spontaneously appear on earth to populate it in the first place to the point of variation we see today?
Teaching bullshit-filtering in public schools would be a conflict of interest. The government needs propaganda-believing citizens in order get away with its incompetence and maintain the status quo.
Wow...you're quick to start throwing the racial slurs into a conversation, that has nothing to do with race...?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Yes, I leave this stuff to scientists, rather than try to work it out myself. That's because I'm a computer nerd posting on Slashdot. I'm not a scientist and don't pretend to be.
Why do you not try to work things out yourself? I mean this in a truly compassionate, non-snarky way: It saddens me to encounter people who have knowingly and deliberately narrowed their worldview. Do you not find it at ALL strange that your particular set of beliefs run counter to what most of the rest of the world holds true? I'm not even getting into the details of creation myths... I'm just talking about things like evolution and other well-tested scientific models.
As another poster pointed out to you, the current set of scientific models are what is left over after thousands and thousands of people around the world have mercilessly tried to "kill" them. This is how science works. Form a hypothesis, test it, refine the model, test some more, propose a theory, see if it survives the slings and arrows of your peers who do everything they can to shoot holes in it. If it survives, it means that tons of really smart people couldn't find a reason why it doesn't work as a good model for whatever it is you're trying to explain.
For the record, I was raised in a strictly Pentacostal household, and attended Baptist schools. Since then, I've been thinking freely for nearly 15 years, and the further away from all that I get, the happier and more well-adjusted I become. A lot of my well-being has come from freedom and growing courage to question core beliefs. I don't think people who've been indoctrinated (brainwashed!) in a particular belief system realize how much mental and emotional energy is wasted as cognitive dissonance (trying to hold opposing sets of beliefs at the same time).
Strictly speaking, anyone can be a scientist. Certainly, there are those who practice science as a career, and that is the common understanding of what a scientist is. However, I propose that anyone can be a scientist. It's simply a matter of understanding the scientific method, and applying it. Not as a belief system, mind you -- just as a set of tools for making sense of the world.
The key difference is that while I may not have personally run experiments to confirm aspects of photonic theory, I trust that I could run experiments that confirm the principles of the theory. This is because I know that the theory has stood up to repeated attempts to disprove it. This is quite different than faith. I don't take it on faith that a light beam is composed of subatomic particles -- I trust that the explanation is the best explanation that humanity can come up with, because it is consistent within itself and with related models.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Two or seven of each species is impossible either way. Two or seven of each "kind" is not. Since we know species evolve spontaneously from other species (it's obvious now, but you gotta give Darwin credit for some great insight), "kind" is all that is needed to preserve life.
Not to devolve into more semantics, but "the whole world" to Noah was likely whatever valley he chose as his home. Just a thought.
There you go again - where do you get the idea that Lot was a prophet, or that he was charged to punish gay people???
Lot was Abraham's ne'er-do-well nephew, who is held up in the Bible as the self-centered, selfish, and lazy counterpoint to his uncle's strong faith (despite Abraham's warts). My point is that nothing in the Bible states that Lot's actions were right. They rarely were, as far as I can tell.
Just because the Bible records someone's actions doesn't mean that those actions define morality. That's what the "Don't murder" passages are about.
Well, as painful as it was for you, I'm glad you did. Think how much richness of the English language you would have missed had you not? Apple of my eye, skin of the teeth - so many literary references. I hope you read Shakespeare, too?
If the argument is the one you made, to wit; "How do you think that Noah managed to get 2 of every one of the 250000 species of beetles into his boat?", then what else to argue but "It doesn't say that?"
And there is absolutely nothing scientific about the "intelligent design" theory.
Attitudes like this stifle scientific inquiry. When "the debate is over" on global warming, or against Intelligent Design, or String Theory, then what was science becomes religion.
Sorry, but it's a plain fact. Science is defined in terms of how you approach the topic. Intelligent Design is religious propaganda thinly disguised as science, and does not invoke any science whatsoever.
To my mind, a belief that is unwilling to stand up at any time to challenge is probably in some way fatally flawed.
All sciences are continually under challenge from scientific sources. Some of the people creationists hate the most, such as Gould, actually got their fame within the scientific community by pushing radical ideas. However, their ideas won out on the basis of evidence and/or explanatory power, not the factually and logically flawed kind of drool the Intelligent Design movement is pushing.
If you want to see challenges to what scientists believe, read the latest issue of a science journal, not the rantings of some cult recruiter.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why assume evolution is false? Do you think Noah used Concord grapes to make his wine?
BING!
You did really well in either reading comprehension, logic or science - perhaps all three. Am I right?
Geesh.
The funny thing is the replies to this thread claiming I'm an anti-evolution fundie - just because I think you should argue from the text rather from distortions of the text. Not sure what school these folks attended, but I think "critical thinking" would be an excellent addition to that curriculum!
Seriously now, what's with all the hate at even the idea of a creator?
Nothing is wrong with the idea. It is just not what we need. There is also nothing wrong with banana daiqiris, but we shouldn't serve them in a school either.
The idea of a creator provides an explanation. But science is not about explanations. Science is about predictions. It can be used to provide explanations for a given phenomenom. If you apply science to the preconditions of a phenomenom, then the theory predicts the phenomenom. That's a nice demonstration of the predicative power of science, but that's not what science is about.
The idea of a creator gets us stuck with an explanation and nothing else. Just reactively explaining something makes a nice exercise for twisting our thoughts. But it isn't science. It's just something like reading Nostradamus and then "discovering" how he prophecied something that just happened to you.
I once took four-line nursery rhymes to "predict" the sinking of the Titanic or similar events in history. Works pretty well. But that doesn't make nursery rhymes into science.
(For people knowing german: "Alle meine Entchen" can perfectly be read as a prophecy about the Titanic ;) ).
You're doing great so far. Now, where does it say this defines Biblical morality? Is he called "Father Lot", for example? Do Jews revere the memory of Lot? Or is it... Abraham?
I apologize if my point was too subtle. Let me try again to be very plain: If you want to argue about the Bible, argue from the Bible. If you want to argue about science, argue from the body of scientific knowledge. In both cases, accurately identify and quote your sources and state your assumptions. It's just logic 101.
Otherwise we'll just be calling each other names until we develop carpal tunnel syndrome, and nobody learns a thing.
And this is precisely why it isn't science. Creationism says "God did it" without any way to test it.
Ever heard of an axiom? It's the basis of all logic, mathematics and scientific discourse. This is an axiom, it's objectively untestable.
That's why discourse in the natural sciences isn't actually based on axioms.
We do make a couple of base assumptions, i.e. that evidence tells us something about reality. But beyond that everything stands or falls on the basis of evidence.
(Notice also that axioms in fields that actually use them can be utterly arbitrary, so long as you don't base your proofs on a set of contradictory axioms. E.g., the difference between Euclidian and non-Euclidian geometry lies in the choice of axioms you build on.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
The modern ID movement isn't a philosophical construct; it's a propaganda effort. If it belongs in the curriculum at all, it belongs in a class where notorious propaganda efforts are deconstructed.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Yawn. The temperature of the planet is not the right measure. The total thermal energy is: the temperature is mostly fixed due to the fact that we are approximately at the triple point of water on the planet, and fairly large changes in thermal energy will essentially leave the temperature unchanged (because instead of temperature rising much, ice will just melt and water will just evaporate).
Once the ice is gone, expect the disaster. Why do you think scientists talk about the ice caps?
Kinda like claiming that Noah was instructed to put "two" of every "species" in an ark (got a source for either? didn't think so) (and following genesis quote)
Yes, I knew it was seven, but it wasn't really the time and place to bring up little-known facts about the bible. Fine. 7 just makes it even less plausible.
Actually the Bible tells the story twice, using "two" in one version and "seven" in the other. (Actually, the latter was only seven for the 'clean' animals; still just two for the unclean. And AIUI, the text is ambiguous as to whether the seven was "seven pairs" or just "seven".)
Only your laziness in attacking a book you haven't bothered to actually read.
In my experience, the most dogmatic defenders of Biblical literalism don't actually know what it says. Let alone show any signs of actually thinking about the parts they have read.
Of course, the fact that my denomination encouraged us to read and understand is probably a key contribution to the fact that I don't believe it any more...
if you came to one of my science classes and made so many basic errors in the first paragraph of your first test essay question, do you really think you'd pass?
He actually knew as much about it as you do; the two of you just happened to know the numbers from the two different versions of the story in this always-true text.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Goddidit? I thought A Wizard did it.....
This is not the funny you're looking for.
This is a great opportunity to use critical thought. Study the scientific method, then comparing religious dogma like ID to a scientific theory like Evolution and bury ID.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Looks like a single telling of the story to me (Genesis 6-9), but the requirements are given once before the ark is built (6:19-21) and once after (7:1-5). The transition is Genesis 7:1, "The LORD then said to Noah..." In other words, post-construction the requirements had changed.
Even when you have God as your Customer, you can't get stable requirements! :-)
Ha, so what you're saying is you don't find any dichotomy between claiming I lack intelligence and countering a statement of belief with an ad-hominem attack, a pretty baseless one at that. Your standards for proof must be exceptional.
Perhaps you should lay of the whisky before posting?
Most highschool teachers lack the proper credentials (or expirience) to debate the validity of a scientific theory. Hmmm, who am I going to to trust, a highschool teacher whith a masters in education and bachelor in science who spends their career reciting information from a text-book, or the scientist who spends their entire career dedicated to research through scientific inquiery and empirical evidence and has a PhD. PArdon spelling posting from cell.
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
I should lay off the typo's too!
How many black judges in LA in a position to rule on this case.
Prove me wrong...prove me wrong...
Blar.
Yes, we all evolved from semi-savige cultures. However, we learned to leave much of the savage ways behind. Except for religion, as it comforts the simple and intellectually lazy.
Blar.
(-5 geek points for missing a perfectly good oppurtunity to mention our terrifying master.)
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Religion is a ritualised observance followed by a group based on the beliefs of the members of that group. I genuinely can't see anything in _religion_ to philosophise about. The groups beliefs, yes, but not the ritual outward signs that are born out of those beliefs.
As for Euthyphro, it's not really a work I've studied in depth. From what I can establish Plato reports Socrates is attempting to determine the nature of the respect (piety) required of the greek peoples for the pantheon. This is a question about being obedient to a social system in order to avoid the legal consequence. It's entirely a question of social artifice - hence my claim that this is sociology. Just because it's attributed to plato doesn't mean it's philosophy (in the narrow academic sense as opposed to the literal sense of philo+sophia), cf The Republic.
"bad cooking, bad building, bad science [...] philosophy" - in the manner used here these all refer to activities. You can perform an activity badly. An idea has no innate value judgement, it's how you use that idea that establishes it's value. Truth and falsehood are not bad and good.
"inner beliefs" - inner here refers to the central position of the beliefs within the persons life. It's a term of common parlance.
The jungian point was (a slight shot in the dark) because my research showed that the P referred several times in forum posts to Jung.
Anyway, they were genuine questions - whilst I studied logic and metaphysics, philosophy of human nature &c. I don't recall the term "philosophy of religion" ever being used. I don't find religious activities that interesting in themselves, theology and metaphysics do interest me. Studying religion seems tantamount to studying a wrapper to establish what the food it contains tastes like - it might give some indications, but it equally may not.
If the GP (or yourself) have proof that ID is wrong, then it's falsifiable - hence scientific (I follow Popper here). So, if you continute your line of argument you can show either it's a false scientific theory or it may be true. Which is it?
So funny to watch most people cry for freedom of speach until it is something they disagree with then they look to quiet the opposing view.
Yeah! for this bill. It is about time!
Phroggy said:
"...ID simply says that life is too complex to have evolved spontaneously on its own, therefore God must have done it."
That's a common misconception, but it's definitely not what ID says.
What ID says is that when something looks like it's been designed, the best, simplest answer, all other things being equal, is that it was designed. It doesn't insist that it was designed, and it doesn't address who the designer was or how the design came to be. It simply says that things that exhibit evidence of design are probably designed.
It is easy to be critical of the government. It is another can of worm to have a well grounded criticism. Anybody can say "bush sux", but it takes a bit more to ground this , with for example "bush sux because he led us in a trillion dollar war and changed irak to a hotbed of anti american hate" or something. I think what the GP was saying is not that it is wrong to criticism science, government, but rather that criticism is usually of the first kind. Just like the criticism of Louisiana of evolution is , well, not that well founded.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
When you don't get a joke, it doesn't mean people are posting a comment meant to incite confused responses, and when you can't use mod points responsibly, you shouldn't have any.
You can't take the sky from me...
Evolutionists should welcome some scrutiny, not loathe it. It will clean out all of the already disproven crap from the biology textbooks as evidence of evolution- stuff that was disproved many decades ago still lingers.
The best evolutionists are NOT writing those school textbooks, people. Those writers are mostly schoolteachers and scientists from less prestigious schools.
I have no problem with the teaching of evolution- as long as it isn't backed up by lies.
Back to the school question though, what's wrong with teaching children to discuss and god forbid, question popular *and* unpopular ideas. Isn't the real goal that children learn to think for themselves and make up their own minds? R
Science should not be about popularity, but about the best (most fitting and the simplest) explanation of the evidence.
Question, what's the speed of light in a vacuum, is it constant? Please prove.
"But beyond that everything stands or falls on the basis of evidence."
Gödel's incompleteness theories beg to differ. A standard formulation of the 2nd incompleteness theorem:
"If an axiomatic system can be proven to be consistent and complete from within itself, then it is inconsistent."
Gödel's first states (loosely) that in any sufficiently strong first order logic that there will always be a truth which cannot be proven from the axioms of the system.
Hawking's rendering (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/strings02/dirac/hawking/) of the application of Gödel to physics is eminently readable. Hint: he disagrees with your statement on discourse in natural sciences. But he could be wrong, I guess?
Aside: As a 16 year old I naively told a professor of mathematics that I liked maths because of the certainties, that everything could be worked out from basic assumptions. She laughed and told me I was wrong. I wish she'd told me about Gödel then.
Basically what "alternative explanations" can there possibly be that are non-religious? This is the question that law supporters refuse to address. Sure teach ID or creationism or "God did through evolution" or... *but not in a public school classroom*. Why do Christians want to coopt the power of the State in order to advance (a probably warped notion of) Christian mission?
I object to the law also because it is so dishonest. Supporters know exactly what it is supposed to achieve, and all this "academic freedom" and "critical inquiry" rhetoric is a smokescreen.
The core issue in this whole debate is as follows:
-Staunch supporters of evolution believe that a god and/or gods does not exist since everything came about to being by a random sequence of events
-Staunch supporters of ID/Creationism believe that a god orchestrated the design of the whole universe and nothing is random to that entity.
Imagine how each side's world's would be *rocked* if the opposing view was in fact the truth
-Pro-evolutionists would now have to be accountable to a god that they did not believe to exist. Imagine how completely their world view would change
-Pro-ID's would no longer have any hope in the beautiful after life that's promised. In fact, life would be empty existence, one without purpose to what they used to believe.
This debate isn't really about science; rather, it's about how each person does not want their belief system to be turned completely upside down. This issue questions the core of who we are. Ladies and gentlemen, this debate is existential.
There's a genetic algorithm evolving a "brain" for a quadruped robot on this computer right now. So far it's been running for ~24 hours, and the simulated robots have definitely figured out how to stand up and walk (I'm watching them in another window as I type).
When I first ran the program, they just sat there. Then, for several hours, they flailed around randomly and ended up upside-down a lot, but occasionally covered a tiny bit of distance. After about 12 hours, they were dragging themselves along like they had rabies or something, and now they're taking shaky, but effective, steps. I can't wait to see what they can do tomorrow...
I didn't say you lack intelligence. Plenty of smart people do foolish things. Foolish is as foolish does, so to speak.
Choosing to believe in something "just because" is foolish. You call it faith, I call it magical thinking at best, mass psychosis at worst.
Why is your belief system any more valid than Tom Cruise's? Or the amazonian primitive who believes that the spirits of his ancestors dwell in the rocks and trees around him? It's all very nice to believe in nice things, because they make you feel nice. But believing doesn't make it so.
Religion is a crutch. Accept it. If you want to use the crutch, go ahead, I accept your right to believe whatever the hell you want. You have the right to believe in invisible sky friends, and I have the right to believe that you're daft.
I don't think the amazonian primitive is daft, I think he's ignorant. I think you're daft because you've presumably had the benefit of at least a high school education, the full breadth of most of mankind's summed knowledge at your fingertips, and yet you (and your kind) persist in believing in feel-good fairy tales.
Here's a tip: Focus on living the best life that you can, right now, in this life. You don't need a flimsy pseudo-intellectual belief system to do that.
A host is a host from coast to coast...
Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
Creationsim/Intelligent Design don't hold up to any kind of critical thinking or logical analysis. They fall apart under the eye of experiments and shy away from the probing of "open and objective discussion."
I don't know why this was necessary to enact into law. I never found my classroom to be restrictive from an academic standpoint. But that's not what this is about, is it?
You may find his opinion offensive, but it makes a lot of sense, and doesn't deserve a flamebait.
It's true: our rights were formed through violence. It's an inescapable fact. We had to work to forge our rights amongst animals, amongst each other, and it required violence. Nowadays, we have not what really could be called inalienable, nor could it really be considered privileges. It's more of a birthright, born of the fighting of ancestors, protected and handed down by the government, the right to do so handed down by us.
The parent is also correct in that government does civilise us. We can communicate, get along (to a satisfactory extent), enjoy privileges like modern life, including the internet which you now enjoy today. And yes, to allow this to happen, the government had to take a monopoly of violence (or at least, legal violence), to minimise the constant violent clashing that human beings tend to do with one another.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It's an axiom it doesn't need to be proven. Some people choose not to believe it and they follow religions. So which way is better? Let's see.
On the one hand we have a science which has produced a large core of universally accepted knowledge. This core has resulted in the production of all of our modern technology resulting in longer lived, healthier people who are able to travel the world and communicate instantly.
On the other hand we have religion which consisting of thousands of separate branches with no universally accepted ideas and many flat out contradictory ideas. This has resulted in many bloody wars throughout history and pretty much nothing else of any objective.
Gee, who can say which works better? I guess we'll call it a toss-up.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Dude, your post deserves some praise. It exactly mirrors my thoughts.
We should all remember that The Bible is a loose collection of a few gospels which were picked from a pool of dozens, or hundreds, of contributed stories from various people. The National Geographic special article 'The Judas Gospel' was a real interesting read. An example of a conflicting gospel/story which changes everything, and thus was excluded from The Bible.
Critically thinking, I don't think it has any merit of truth.
Ya'll always have some kind of new theory to explain away the data that doesn't match your doomsday scenario, don't ya?
These people don't represent a challenge to science by a broader view, they are advocates specifically of just one quaint interventionist monotheistic theory, and they want to get that and that alone into the classroom. And if you ask me, the particular topics they cite make them look like shills for developers and political interests.
The thing is, science is already the application of integrity tests to theories. It also has an integrity test for all people and ideas that purport to bring new data, or which bring new scientific theories to the table which interpret existing data in new ways.
Reading the headline of this story, I was struck that the adults in the legislature weren't falling over themselves laughing at how transparent and ridiculous it is on its face. They're not proposing to critique science itself, but rather some of its theories. But that's already what it's for... science critiques theories!!
I mean, there's no big institution out there called "science." It's an abstraction that refers to the activities of people who spend their lives and make their careers by critiquing scientific theories. And the way they critique them is through the support of other established theories, by demonstrating flaws in the results or the interpretation of the results. Often many alternative theories are available.
Science is a discipline, and a big part of that discipline is to keep your faith alive even when no answers seem to be coming. You have to trust that through continuing to apply pure science, you will begin to see through the fog.
Science being what it is, you can't introduce a far-out theory like "an intelligent being intervened" without bringing along huge piles of evidence specifically supporting that conclusion. Merely refuting other theories is not enough. Indeed, if the evidence existed for suspicious anomalies in human DNA, it would be a worldwide scientific effort to try to explain it. So far, it's consistent with evolution and shows we have a close kinship with all mammals.
Good science refutes the narrow interpretation of the Bible as literal, and it refutes the calculation of the age of the earth (by a literal genealogical reckoning from adam to david) by a factor of a hundred million. That's a problem for some people, but not for those who have a mature grasp on the universal nature of spirituality. It is hoped that the people in charge would be of the more mature variety, but alas they are apes.
As for a curriculum that critiques the application of "pure reason" with respect to the bigger world picture, we already have that as well. It's called philosophy, and some of the more popular philosophies are called religions. Modern philosophy has set aside all the assumptions handed to it by religion and tries to establish theses on the basis of knowledge and experience, both as it is discovered by observation (science) and as it is experienced. Religion emphasizes transcendent experience and an intelligence behind the universe.
Especially now in the internet age, all the disciplines and interests that relate to science, technology, art, and religion are free to bring their vision to students. Why deprive them of all the world has to offer?
I agree with Dan Dennett's idea that comparative religion classes should be a mandatory part of the school curriculum for all children. In addition, there should be more emphasis on philosophy, literature, arts, and history as it all relates to our capabilities, our morality, and our prospects as beings on this planet. All these subjects lend context and meaning to the data which science accumulates, and serve to augment a strong scientific understanding of the world.
The goal of the school board should be to keep science pure, so kids can understand and appreciate how it enhances vision and imagination, and helps us to make sense of the world as we find it. Science education is already pretty poor, and it needs help from people who really appreciate and value the instit
-- thinkyhead software and media
Louisiana: a bunch of hillbilly and/or crawfish eating religious nuts, who all died in a hurricane named Katrina. Blech... I hate reading the news sometimes.
As a resident of Louisiana, might I say that it will be nice when all politicians and news reporters are replaced with robots that clean gutters.
Do you even know what a triple point is?
If not, shut up.
Whether something "is science" or "is not science" just leads to never-ending definition battles. Been there done that. A more accurate way to summarize the problem is that the evidence for evolution is far stronger than that for creation/design.
Table-ized A.I.
"The core concept of evolution, as I understand it, is selection."
No, it isn't. Mutation is the core concept, not selection. You can have selection without evolution (ask any gardener) but as soon as you have mutation you have evolution.
Once you accept evolution, then you go about how this evolution happens, and that's the true realm of Darwin's theory among its competitors (other theories of evolution). Darwin states that there is *random* evolution and then selection of the fittest by means of their higher reproduction rate (thus, first somehow appears variation of the neck lenght of proto-giraffes, then those with the longest necks get selected). Lamarck states that there's environmental-pushed evolution and then selection of the fittest by means of their higher reproduction rates (thus, first the proto-giraffes force their necks their whole life in an attempt to get to acacia leaves, then such an effort is somehow inherited by their descendance). Wallace states that there are both random and externally-directed evolution and then selection of the fittest and/or those more aquitant to God's plan (a very interesting guy, Wallace. He was a strong darwinist till he "noted" that "simple" random evolution and selection wouldn't explain the abyssmal difference between "the average african nigger, just a step over the gorilla, and the finest parisian citizen" -not his literal words, but quite to the spirit, therefore there should be something more, which he thougth to be God wanting the "true" man to appear).
"People who don't believe in evolution, if they get infections, should only ever be provided sulfa drugs, or maybe penicillin, and not modern antibiotics."
Please don't oversimplify creationist arguments or else they'll get strong by your mistakes. Bacterial antibiotic resistance is not needingly related to evolution: it can be easily explained by population variance and creationists know that (maybe one bacteria out of a billion is already resistant to the antibiotic; by means of exposing the bacterial population to the antibiotic effects after a few generations all bacterias are resistant just because only those of the lineage of the original resistant happen to survive -see? no evolution required. That's in fact what happens most of the time).
No, I think you're all wrong. State and church need to be seperated, for the sake of not tainting the state, and for the sake of not poisoning the church.
Evolution should be taught as a theory, and should be shown in a way to say "Well, what supports this is that animals have changed..." and ID only as a theory too, and prefferably much more briefly.
My 9th grade science teacher (bless that Boyer!) did it properly. "Now, animals progress and regress, they change across time, but whether there was a creator that started it all or not is up to you to decide."
It is not science. It can co-exist with evolution.
So, assuming that's fact, by your own logic it should be OK for scientists who oppose Global Warming to teach in the classroom.
Sure, I make no comment on global warming.
Yes, how dare we question the wisdom of the know-it-alls that reside on our school boards? If they're not supposed to listen to the community they serve, who pray tell, are they supposed to listen to?
Firstly, education is not about serving the parents, it's purpose is education of children, for their sake. Whilst it is nice to allow parents to have some say, this should not be to the extent of violating a child's right to education.
Secondly, I think we're confusing things in terms of what sort of say they should have. It's one thing to say "We want our children to learn more about history of such and such", that's fair enough. But the community doesn't get to dictate what is or isn't science - anymore than we would expect the community to dictate that children should be taught that Iraq is located in Europe, or that the Earth is flat, or 1 + 1 = 3.
which is tired of having one radical political ideology running rampart and dominating their children's highly impressionable minds.
Such as the political lobbying to get Creationism taught in schools.
"Ever heard of an axiom? It's the basis of all logic, mathematics and scientific discourse. This is an axiom, it's objectively untestable."
And that's why Mathematics is not Science but a tool used by Science (Maths is that and much more of course). Mathematics is not about the physical world; Science is.
Do I understand you to believe that all species spontaneously appeared in their current form???
No - I'm not the one who is a creationist. It seems odd to me that one would reject science, where our scientific knowledge is that lifeforms evolved over millions of years, but they would believe that all life today evolved from a boatful of animals just a few thousand years ago!
OK, clear this up for me, please. Given that life was not created, but was spontaneously produced from non-living matter by the laws of science: How many species were so produced from non-living matter? How many "kinds" of animals had to spontaneously appear on earth to populate it in the first place to the point of variation we see today?
The overwhelming evidence is that all life evolved from a common ancestor, so yes, only one "kind". But are you seriously suggesting that what took billions of years could somehow magically happen in a few thousand? Noah says to himself "Oh dear, all the world's lifeforms have been wiped out. But nevermind, between me, this cat and this dog, we'll reproduce the world's diversity in no time"?
Seriously - are you really a science teacher?
"Question, what's the speed of light in a vacuum"
About 300.000Km/s
"is it constant?"
Hey, that's *two* questions! But, hey, the answer is "yes".
"Please prove"
And now they make three (gruntle). OK: Michesol-Morley experiment. There, two measurements, different light paths, same measured speed. If that's not enough, you have Roemer's measurements too.
"Hey, but you haven't proved it on every case"
So you don't believe my statement to be true? Well, it passes "Pope's falsation test", so it's now your turn: show an experiment where light travels in vacuum at a different speed and I will eat my words.
Well sure, to me any critical thinking is fine. I don't know what the OP meant specifically by the qualifier "scientific", but note we are discussing the issue of science lessons, so I suspect he meant "scientific critical thinking" versus unfounded criticisms, or unfalsifiable conjecture, from Creationists.
Laymen state the dominant theories of physics as laws. A modern highschool-level education is all it takes to state the difference between mathematical axioms and the theories of physics. For some reason, scientific journalists are typically simplifying and generalizing so that the physical theories are stated as if they where laws.
Pretty much all you've just said there is wrong.
Euclid didn't wake up one day and become struck by 5 self-evident truths of geometry; rather, he systematized geometrical results that were obtained by his forebears. Organizing geometry as the system of logical consequences of 5 axioms means that you can now group theorems of geometry into 32 logically equivalent sets, depending on which of the 5 axioms they depend on.
This entails that we have the ability to have mathematical knowledge without axiomatization. In fact, we couldn't possibly favor one set of axioms over another, contradictory one if we didn't have pre-axiomatic mathematical knowledge. There are many controversies in mathematics over whether a given axiomatization is "true"; witness alternative mathematics like relevant logic, or constructive analysis, which argue that mainstream logic and mathematics have picked axioms that are false.
Are you adequate?
I know smart people from Louisiana, they left. Can't blame them. The south proves once again its full of dumb asses.
... here we have an attempt to make Americans even stupider. No wonder Canadians get so angry when someone mistakes one of them for one of us.
This is NOT critical thinking. This is creationism and the forcing upon our students of Religion posed as education. Should students look at what they are taught with a critical eye? ABSOLUTELY? Should they be told that believing that the world and man just popped into existence through intelligent design as an alternative to Evolution is actually "critical thinking?" ABSOLUTELY NOT! Critical thinking, in science, means coming up with credible theories and alternatives, then testing those theories through Scientific method. It makes me sick when the radical Christian right co-opts words, then twists their meanings. Are we THIS stupid in this country, that we are willing to abandon 200+ years of Scientific progress, and bring it all to a screeching halt, because it doesn't happen to agree with the literal meanings of a book that was written as stories for moral guidance. A Book written hundreds of years after the death of Christ, and has been translated with a political agenda in the Middle Ages? Knowledge is power, and that is why they want to keep the American population stupid.
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
Abiogenesis is not testable, and yet it is somehow more palatable than Creationism because... why?
I hope the answer avoids a reliance on dogma. I expect the answer will just side-step the question completely.
And intelligent design does make a prediction that can be tested: that with enough study, it will be found that cellular operation relies on molecular structures too complex to have spontaneously occurred. Does RNA have a CRC check? Does protein folding exhibit multi-threaded processing, complete with semaphores?
Are these questions that should NOT be asked, because the ID people asked them?
You seem to be pretty sure that ID is not science. But I didn't hear the evolutionists proposing a theory of irreducible complexity, and how to test for it.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the number of people on /. who have binary outlooks. ;-) If I'm not an angry, hate-filled anti-Christian atheist who considers the Bible worse than Mein Kampf, I must be a creationist who rejects science, believes earth was created 6000 years ago with the exact set of species we see now, and convinced Noah stuffed a gazillion species of animal breeding pairs onto an ark a few thousand years ago.
Actually, I'm more interested in a fair appraisal of evidence, and particularly in analyzing a source document based on its contents rather than what I'd prefer it to say so as to make my off-hand dismissal of its value easier.
If a person asserts that Lot was a prophet sent to kill all the gays (yes, someone claimed exactly that elsewhere in this thread, incredibly enough), I'm not "anti-science" for pointing out that the Bible says no such thing. The Bible says what it says; if you can't debate on that basis, I'm not interested in fan fiction invented by hate-mongers determined to invent new reasons to claim the Bible has no moral value at all.
As to devastating floods, they are a widespread theme across a broad cross-section of cultures from geographically dispersed areas. The Jewish version states that "kinds" of animal pairs were preserved in a large ark - to claim this must necessarily represent hundreds of thousands of species, and thus the tale is fantasy on its face and couldn't have a foundation in a historic event, is foolish and close-minded in my opinion.
I'm hardly alone in that opinion, and I don't mean just among the "anti-science" crowd. I don't know what historic event or events caused the surprisingly high commonality of flood tales among diverse world cultures; it's an interesting area of research. It's not my field, but I don't ridicule it just because some of the evidence is recorded in the mythos of ancient civilizations.
Finally, as to "me, this cat and this dog, we'll reproduce the world's diversity in no time" - why are you assuming a world-wide flood? The ancient Hebrew word "'erets" (translated earth in this passage) has many other meanings, including region, city, or nation (usually "my region" etc.), as well as the land of Canaan (not surprising, given who used the language :-). If the flood were regional, it would hardly be necessary for Noah to "deliver the wombats to Australia", as someone claimed earlier today, or to "reproduce the world's diversity in no time", as you claim. The animals would be preserved only as a food supply for the immediate local survivors, until the animal population was replenished from the edges of the disaster. (Would taking 7 pairs of clean / edible animals but only 2 pairs of unclean / inedible animals (based on Jewish dietary rules) indicate just that? Possibly.)
And while we're on the topic, why a few thousand years ago? The Biblical recounting puts no time frame on the event at all. A few thousand years ago is a common time frame, granted, but that seems to be based on a believe that "X begat Y" in the Bible means "X is the father of Y", even though in several geneologies it clearly means "X is an ancestor of Y". We really have no clues in the text itself as to when the original event may have occurred. Given that homo sapiens appeared (as best we can tell) between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago, why must the flood(s) be so recent?
But I couldn't possibly care less whether you believe that major flood(s) affected ancient civilizations around the planet, as their traditions claim, or not. My only concern, and the point that originally drew me into the discussion and / or roasting, is that critical analysis of any text, and especially a text that I don't like very much, should be based on the content of that text, not on inaccurate summaries or "what I wish
I note that the topics being suggested for broader critique are all those routinely demagogued by the liberal-left. The global warming hoax is a case in point--no one who is really familiar with the underlying science would characterize global warming as only slightly less certain than gravity--that's an a priori characterization and similar "religious certainty" surrounds evolution. What we all really need is to learn to live with ambiguity.
There is no way anyone is going to stop intelligent design. Even if we can prove how life was started, believers of intelligent design will say that some intelligent being set condition "x" up so that life could start.
What makes me worried about this is that they can push outright lies like global warming onto impressionable children and have them believe it without a second thought.
Windows is as solid as quicksand.
Creation Science is built around the idea that if you start with the Bible as the source of your hypotheses, you should be able to find scientific evidence that is consistent with those hypotheses. If the evidence instead contradicts your hypothesis, then either your evidence is flawed, your interpretation of the evidence is flawed, or your interpretation of the Bible is flawed.
Ignoring the howling oxymoron with which you open this statement, you also disallow the most obvious interpretation when evidence contradicts your hypothesis: that the hypothesis is wrong. If right out of the gate you are not prepared to accept that possibility, then no matter how you dress it up in disguise, or surround it with fancy pseudo-scientific jargon, it just ain't science.
I suppose someone who can't or wont parse out the errors in "creation implies a creator" would also be too lazy to do the same with "What's the point in having nukes if you don't use them?"
Mike Huckabee: "I believe there is a God who was active in the creation process. ... if anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it."
Serious presidential candidate who many *many* people think is just great. "...welcome to it." gee thanks Mike, way to condescend.
A couple of weeks ago I drove overnight from Montreal to Toronto and part of the way I was in range of an American religion station. Some guy went on and on and on about evolution. A) Keep it to yourselves, thanks. B) How is it that there is no shame in spewing such ignorant anti-intellectual backwards medieval bullshit day and night day after day for all to hear? How did that become ok?
From the country that gave us 9 out of 10 Martian landers that didn't crash, Apollo, Leonard Bernstein, Velcro, metal matrix composites, the Space Shuttle Main Engines, Moby Dick, Core 2 *and* K-10, cosmic background radiation...well, you get the point.
What worries me is how much worse will it get before it gets better. Or even worse, will it get better?
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
Libertarians do support the same liberties the Republicans do. BUT, they also support the same liberties Democrats do. What they don't support are the interventions the parties call for, e.g. they don't support gun control and they don't support criminalizing drug use. If you look at both parties and you consider their attitude toward the various sections of the Bill of Rights, its clear that between them, we had have no rights left. Neither side for instance supports the first amendment very whole heartedly and the 1st is arguably nore important than the 2nd, since the 2nd is only necessary if the first fails.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
You see, even if you ignore the fact that to a person of 2000 years ago the "whole world" was normally just his own place and a few places nearby, a "global flood" would be impossible : where would, in the case of a global rising of the water, all that water have come from and than gone to ?
Ice.
maybe your common sense is often wrong; but I don't think that CS is universal. Maybe your parents were just dumb? My CS has always been right.
See, I can do tags too
Hawaiians believe that the first animal on the planet was an octopus which is part of an alien race, and all life came from that.
While I agree with your general statement, the most common Hawaiian creation myths involves the four principal Hawaiian deities - Kane, Kanaloa, Lono, and Ku. Specifically the god Kane and/or Kanaloa, in a creator-deity fashion.
While I am not a Hawaiian studies major, I've taken my fair share of Hawaiiana classes, and I've never heard of the octopus being anything other than a family spirit or representative of a minor god - maybe Kanaloa, god of the sea.
I'm interested as to where you garnered this information. Perhaps it is another polynesian culture's creation belief?
what about the vedas?
ID is a fitting topic for a class on the philosophy of science, as is (say) Marxism (regarded by the early Marxists as "scientific socialism") and psychoanalysis.
I am anarch of all I survey.
inbred ingorant knuckedraggers to watch fox news and serve in Iraq. duh.
I for one welcome our southern slaves.
I say this as someone who spent four years studying philosophy--mostly philosophy of religion--and earned his bachelor's in the subject.
Yeah, hi. I'll go with an Angus burger meal with a strawberry shake.
Just kidding.
Children do not belong to parents anymore than the government. They are people too you know.
I'm normally a pretty tolerant sorta guy but this garbage boils my blood.
You got an alternative hypothesis? Great. Can you present any evidence? No? Then step back. (and no, 2000 year old parchment doesn't count)
I've experiments to run, there is research to be done on the people who are still alive.
Ahhh..there's the famous Slashdot dialog...
"I'm smarter than you so you STFU"
Nice.
...ignoring some of the rules, embracing others. Why not just toss out the claims of divinity and embrace the good ideas?
Hell, most of the positive social ideas in Judeo-Christian religions were taken from previous cultures and religions anyway. With some modification. We'd just be continuing the refinement process.
Blar.
Listen, you fucking retard. There are loads of transitional fossils. What kind of fucking asshole would post about the lack of transitional fossils without even having the courtesy of spending two seconds one google to verify that this claim is even true?
It isn't. If you knew even the first thing about evolution you would know that. Therefore you don't know the first thing about evolution. So you're lecturing people on things which you litterally have no clue about. What the fuck kind of person would do that? What part of "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour" don't you understand you stupid mother fucker?
How am I supposed to have a meaningful dialogue about something as complicated as global climate with someone who doesn't understand something as simple as a triple point?
This isn't a political issue: this is science. You don't argue with your doctor about the heart surgery she is about to do on your aging father (without some knowledge about the cardiovascular system); why would you argue with a scientist about the global climate if your understanding of the earth's atmosphere is limited to reading popular culture?
Actually, I'm more interested in a fair appraisal of evidence, and particularly in analyzing a source document based on its contents rather than what I'd prefer it to say so as to make my off-hand dismissal of its value easier.
Okay, so you are right to point out that the Bible says "kinds" not "species". That does not make you anti-science, but it does make you a pedant - the point still stands, namely, it is nonsense for someone to suggest that all life we see today descended from a collection of lifeforms that someone could fit on a boat.
Even if you replace 6,000 years with 400,000 years, it's still nonsense.
As to devastating floods, they are a widespread theme across a broad cross-section of cultures from geographically dispersed areas. The Jewish version states that "kinds" of animal pairs were preserved in a large ark - to claim this must necessarily represent hundreds of thousands of species, and thus the tale is fantasy on its face and couldn't have a foundation in a historic event, is foolish and close-minded in my opinion.
It depends what you mean by "foundation". It's possible, even likely, that it was based on a story related to an actual flood. But the idea of a worldwide flood that killed all animals except those rescued in the ark is fantasy.
why are you assuming a world-wide flood?
Because that's what many people claim the Bible means. Yes, I fully agree that the Bible doesn't mean what it says due to mistranslations, and could just be a story about a man and a boat and some local flood. There's nothing shocking about that - but that does not mean the story of Noah's Ark is true, just as the fact that King Arthur or Robin Hood may have been based on an actual person mean that any of those stories are true.
The point is that once you claim that parts of the Bible aren't meant to be taken literally, are mistranslations and so on, you can no longer hold it as a source of truth - because by what means do you tell which bits are true, and which bits are mistranslations?
is that critical analysis of any text, and especially a text that I don't like very much, should be based on the content of that text, not on inaccurate summaries or "what I wish the text said so I could make fun of it more easily".
You are the one claiming that when the Bible talks of a worldwide flood which kills everything else, perhaps it means something entirely different.
If you agree that the story of Noah - as told literally by the Bible - is nonsense, then we are in agreement. There is no need to get into a pedantic discussion about what the Bible says, when there are millions of people on the Earth who take the Bible literally, and take it as their source of truth.
What about the other things the OP stated? Are you going to quibble the virgin birth? That Jesus came back to life? That he fed 5,000 people with bread and a fish? If you say that these are mistranslations, then we are agreement - tell that to the millions of Christians who believe these events to be true, because "that's what the Bible says".
This is why people vote in a democracy or should it be called demo-crazy?
Hey Gang, This would make for a good video game. A match 'tween Evolutionists and Creationists. Now is the time to get game on! One can earn extra points either way with myths and legends or with facts and reason. BooYah.
... the governor of Louisiana is one of the front-runners for McCain's VP spot. The guy famously wrote that he was part of an exorcism and thinks that intelligent design is viable science. He's a real fucking nut-case.
My boolean algebra is a bit rusty, but I am pretty certain that 1+1+1 DOES evaluate 1.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Well, here's a slightly leading question. Since so many people from ID/Creationism seem to believe that dinosaurs were alive in biblical times, does that mean they were on the ark?
Even with the kind/species part, it's difficult to believe that apatosaurus, tyrannosaurus, triceratops and pteranodon are the same kind or species. They look nothing alike, so unless the dove was the only kind of bird and lions the only kind of cat, you would have to fit either 4 or 14 of each of them. The pteranondon might not be a problem, but four apatosaurus would be. And just how the hell do you propose feeding 14 tyrannosaurus for 40 days. Well, without having them eat the rest of the animals.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
That's not even the half of it... it supposedly rained for 40 days and nights, but the ark was afloat for 150 days!
Believe it or not, YECs argue that the animals didn't have to eat much because they went into some type of 'hibernation.' This despite the fact that the verse says Noah was commanded to bring enough food for them all. Creationists second-guess the bible in countless ways. They sure don't have much faith in the book they claim to be literal truth.
"Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
I highly suspect it's not.
We should always question science. We should regularly check and recheck our beliefs and gather and collect knowledge into well defined groups and refine the data sets and theories to reflect what we've learned.
If by chance evolution could be 100% wrong (I don't have an alternative, but let's assume that aliens from another universe planted seeds which grew into earth life) we should keep looking for it.
I believe we don't know everything about evolution, or most of these topics these people wish to dispute.
So here's what I hope. I hope some well educated people will in fact choose to take advantage of this to attempt to educate students on newer and more modern theories than those found in 20 year text books. Add DNA to the equation for example.
What's more likely is, Louisianna will actually manage to accomplish the most impressive and unbelievably impossible thing ever. They'll manage to force future generations to be as dumb as they are fat. (look up national health stats at the CDC)
Yes. And you were brought in by a blue stork onto your parents' doorstep from a land far, far beyond, where daisies and lillies grow beautifully well, where dinosaurs and deers ate together at the Golden Pool.
Then one mighty day, Lord the God, finished developing the rest of the real-estate (WoW), and wanted to let Adam & Eve and everyone out to make room for Himself.
However, the Golden Pool and the excellent infrastructure in the Garden of Love were too good to make any of them voluntarily leave.
So the God had to boot Adam & Eve out of the Garden by throwing a snake upon them, which made Eve scream and rush out of the Garden followed by Adam. Eve refused to go back into the Garden when persuaded to do so by Adam and told him he wouldn't get any "dessert" if he did not move out with her.
So Adam had to move out to keep the "desserts" coming.
But, since he didn't want his offspring to know why, he invented this Moses stuff, etc., which resulted in the Bible, and a few thousand years later the Vatican money machine and ultimately resulted in you being "pollinated".
Get it?
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Thank you. It's really not that hard to just concede such a well-established (outside of slashdot) point, is it? Please don't be so invested in "winning" an argument that the truth takes a back seat. (I tried to start out right by correcting the "2 of a kind" error, even though the "7 of some kinds, 2 of others" actual text would seem to make my case worse rather than better - although it's actually neutral since we needn't include "species", as you now agree.)
Pedant - a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details (right definition? :-). The interpretation of this passage hinges on two critical words, commonly translated as "kinds" and "earth". It's hardly pedantry to point out that your former definition of "kinds" (1) isn't accepted by any modern scholar I've heard, (2) given by any recent dictionary of ancient Hebrew I can find, and (3) involves a concept not invented until thousands of years after the text was penned!
(Now pointing out "7" rather than "2" was arguably pedantry - but again, my point was to emphasize by example that accuracy is more important than "winning". So shoot me.)
Yes, it is. Of course, I never said that, but don't let that slow you down. Here's what I actually wrote:
The ancient Hebrew word "'erets" (translated earth in this passage) has many other meanings, including region, city, or nation (usually "my region" etc.), as well as the land of Canaan (not surprising, given who used the language :-). If the flood were regional, it would hardly be necessary for Noah to "deliver the wombats to Australia", as someone claimed earlier today, or to "reproduce the world's diversity in no time", as you claim. The animals would be preserved only as a food supply for the immediate local survivors, until the animal population was replenished from the edges of the disaster.
Nothing about repopulating the earth from a boat that I can see.
Well, it's been fun (in a masochistic sort of way ;-), and we haven't covered much territory. I would just encourage you to recognize that the Bible was written down by people about their experiences, and you don't have to give up on science to admit they wrote what they experienced in the best way they knew how.
I think I'm one of the only atheists who thinks this bill is a step in the right direction. Ultimately, I want to see religions and religious beliefs subjected to the same scrutiny we apply to all things, and I see no reason to keep that out of the classroom. A high school diploma should qualify a person to make educated decisions about the future of our country. An education about the relationship between religion and science should thus be mandatory.
I've written two articles about this for American Chronicle:
Religion in Schools
Louisiana Bill
Actually, I think those two discussions would make for great mental exercises. Ask the kids what it would take for 2+2=5 or 1+1+1=1 (which another poster even provided a possible answer). Ask what the implications of the universe revolving around the earth would be. Explore the process by which we came to our current understanding, with glass spheres, epicycles, etc.
You may think questioning the fundamentals is a pointless exercise, but there is a lot to be learned by doing it. We'd be doing a disservice to our children by not allowing them this freedom.
Actually, I think those two discussions would make for great mental exercises. Ask the kids what it would take for 2+2=5 or 1+1+1=1 (which another poster even provided a possible answer). Ask what the implications of the universe revolving around the earth would be. Explore the process by which we came to our current understanding, with glass spheres, epicycles, etc.
You may think questioning the fundamentals is a pointless exercise, but there is a lot to be learned by doing it. We'd be doing a disservice to our children by not allowing them this freedom.
And, of course, elementary school children are certainly equipped to deal with such matters. Isn't it absurd that I, as a major in Mathematics, was not introduced to Set Theory and other abstracts until I was a Junior in college? Only then did they begin to explain why you couldn't divide by zero! After all those years!
Let's do away with silly things like the "multiplication tables" and start them on the abstract fundamentals first. I, for one, look forward to second graders having debates about non-Euclidean geometries...
Of course, like any good slashdotter, I haven't read the article, so I don't know what education level this applies to. But I challenge my four-year-old daily on things she can understand, to see if she has put any thought into what she thinks of as true. I'm not too good at it, by my aim is to be like this guy: http://www.s-anand.net/Calvin_and_Hobbes_Dad_explains_science.html
And if you didn't start hitting div by zero errors in BASIC when you were a youngster, I may have to ask for your nerd credentials back.
I wonder if the teachers will be able to teach students about alternative interpretations of religious "history." I wonder if they will be able to instruct students in the ways of Wica as an alternative to standard science and medicine. I wonder if they can teach the beliefs of paganism as explanation of natural phenomena and weather. I wonder if they will be able to educate children about alternative sciences of society and economics -- socialism, national health care, etc.
I wonder if "academic freedom" includes sex education, use of condoms, the need for safe sex, since these things are typically not currently taught for religious reasons, i.e. based on a theory that should be questioned. I wonder if it includes the right to teach children about healthy views of the body, nudism, polygamy as alternative theories pertaining to health and the natural order. I wonder if their notion of "academic freedom" would support teachers who wish to discuss the scientific/rational perspective vs the current conservative religious/political views of abortion, homosexuality, drug use.
And, since I live in the south and know first hand exactly what goes on in classrooms down here, I wonder if teachers will now be permitted to teach evolution and the stupidity of the fundamentalist Christian concept of history and science. Because at present, they do not feel free to teach that.
I teach relativity as a theory, I point out its weaknesses and its successes. I'd hate to have to do that for either global warming or evolution, my main problem with them being that I am a scientist. Cosmology's a bit sketchy too.
There are problems with the Standard Model in physics, but we still teach it. In any case, we even talk about the problems with the Standard Model! Why not evolution and global warming? You can even tell about the holes in ID or anti-warming. Just be fair and balanced. On a slightly different note, see Ben Stein's "Expelled" (which the EVOLUTIONISTS tried to Googlebomb), and read the petition that a couple thousand scientists signed saying that global warming is an unresolved topic meriting further research. I don't see why we can't be critical of these things!
Seriously, there's all this hate going on up there. Laying the whole education to the side for a minute, not everyone who is religious is a "religious nut."