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.'"
Yeah, but how are they going to generate the waves of stupid people we need to continue our way of life in this country? Guess what, education leads people to stop believing in this country. The more educated you become, the more you see the fundamental flaws. The more you see through the facade of the American Dream. Of course, then they pay you a lot and you stop worrying about all that :)
All I'm saying is, if Louisiana wants to screw itself, let them. What difference does it make to a dirt farmer if he's decended from monkeys? It's just going to make him that much more depressed, and make it that much more difficult for him to get up in the morning to tend his crops. LET PEOPLE BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM. It's ok if someone doesn't want to know everything. Just because you do, and see the logic, does not mean other people do.
If you want to be a doctor, guess what? Medical school is not going to take credits from a biology class with creationism on the syllabus. The guy who invented the styrofoam beer can insulator probably didn't believe in evolution. Yet miraculously, somehow, this great progress was made and our beer can be kept cold.
When the framers said "church and state" et al, they weren't talking about facts. Politicians lie all fricking day. They talk like their policy hurts no one when we all know that someone is the loser in EVERY transaction, be it monetary, social or otherwise. There is no happy medium. So, maybe having a poor class with no education that believes in creationism is the way to go? And if they want to sacrifice their public education dollars in that way, let them. I won't be one of them, but if they want to, god help them.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Sadly there are people out there who, despite showing every indication that they are deep thinkers, arrive at the conclusion that science has never brought anything positive. Ben Stein for example
Its happening everywhere, not just in the US. What we tend to find is that in the US these things make it into the public eye more easily.
It does worry me, this trend back to a less well informed age, but like most trends, it will probably change.
After all, The US was all but ready to disregard Darwinism and much of science in education just before Sputnik flew over and freaked everyone the fuck out.
We simply need to wait for the event that will prove the error in ignoring a progressive, scientific approach to education. I just hope it won't be too harsh.
My personal opinion is that it will come in the form of drastic economic and research decline as the older (and currently poorer) nations start to evolve to fill the gaps a US withdrawal from the field will create.
This sort of thing goes on all the time, The US went into the ascendancy with its scientific thinking when Germany and Europe went into decline in the late 18th early 19th century. Now that trend is reversing, with the more interesting work tending to occur in Europe.
Not that it's end game time for the US, it's still pretty strong academically. It's just that this strength is somewhat elitist, with the level of achievement required for success now being so high that people who would formally have moved to the US to advance their careers are choosing to stay at home or go elsewhere.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
"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;
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.
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.
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?
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."
At first, my instinct was to argue against you. But then, I thought about it a bit more and I realized I agreed with you. Religion does deserve to be treated more seriously in the American educational system. But it ought to be taught as such and it ought to be taught properly. Just as scientific and cultural knowledge contributed by the rest of humanity has so enriched our modern society, so should religious beliefs be accessible to everyone. We should offer equal time in the classrooms to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and all the different varieties of African bush magic. It is high time that we Americans teach future generations that there is more than one way for a civilization to be civil. We should feed the curiosity and open mindedness of young students, not their deepest fears and apprehensions. Perhaps then, we would be a bit closer to having a bit less conflict around the world. Have you figured out the head fake?
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
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 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.
I would like to see teachings on both sides
Wait, wait - what "both sides"?
In science lessons, science should be taught. In some cases there might be more than one scientific viewpoint, but this is not the case when it comes to explaining the diversity of life on this planet.
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.
So teach about it in religious education and history lessons then, as appropriate. That's an entirely separate issue, and even the most "militant" atheists do not oppose that (and many are actively in favour of teach about religion, in the appropriate classes). The "atheists want to ban all mention of religion from all teaching" is a common straw man argument that seems to have little basis to it.
The hole here is people who honestly and truly believe that evidence from a 3000 year old book (often poorly translated and frequently edited by various Powers that Be) trump evidence gathered by observation. These people take a conclusion: "The Bible is right", and go out to find evidence to support the conclusion. Totally the opposite of the scientific method but enough to be convincing to other people already predisposed to believing the original premise.
The point is that to a Biblical literalist there is no difference between science and religion. If a current scientific model contradicts what they believe happened according to the Bible, then the science is a) in conflict with their religion, and b) wrong. Not just wrong in a "Gee, I think this is guy is wrong, but I'll just ignore him and do my own thing" sort of way. Wrong in a "This man and the entire establishment that created him are evil, and must be fought at every turn" sort of way.
Compromise of the type you talk about here is reasonable, perhaps even sensible. It won't work. You can't separate religion from science in the minds of people who really believe in creationism. That's the essential problem, you can't separate anything from religion in their minds. The Bible is not a book of tales intended to teach moral lessons and instruct people in how to behave in order to receive God's blessing. It's a 100% factually accurate text handed to mankind literally by God, and it is THE authority on matter as diverse as moral judgment, scientific fact and historical events. It even tells the future! Whoo hoo.
On a side note, I swear if the Lafayette School Board makes these "supplements" available in there schools I will make it my mission to visit every biology class in the Parish to point out how every point is stupid. Except of course that it's probably illegal for me to do that.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
...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:)
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.