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
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
"intelligent design" is not scientific,and definitely NOT a theory. Its a philosophical construct at best, and belongs in a philosophy class.
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?
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.
Because they are not questioning evolution scientifically. They are categorically ignoring the MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE for evolution and saying things like "How can scientists really know how old something is?" and then never explaining in detail the chemistry and physics of radio-carbon dating. You hear things like "evolution is just a theory" without the correct addendum "and so is gravity".
It's like trying to use the phrase "Nuh uh" as a counter argument.
Science's argument: [insert thesis on evolution]
Counter Argument: Nuh uh.
The trick of course is teach one to mimic the noise of criticism without attaching the meaning of it to those noises.
It's effective because the parroting will fool people unable to differentiate the qualitative differences.
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.
Suggesting critical thinking and discussion isn't a bad thing. However, it's clear that the motivation is political. The original article analyzed some of the subject areas and the alternative theories; and found that there is a misrepresentation of scientific facts as well as of the theory of evolution. It's all very tainted.
keeping them ignorant and miserable is their way of keeping control over them.
Truth will set you free, they don't want you to be free.
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
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;
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.
Lets hope the people implementing this use some critical thinking eh?
./ any better with its bias?
Seriously everyone has some axe to grind even if they don't know it. Learning that things are often not what they are represented to mean is something we must all learn. Is
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
How is suggesting critical thinking/discussion on these a bad idea?
Creationism isn't critical thinking. It's just a very long-winded "nu-uh" to everything we know about how species change over time.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I gather that the teacher in question had never noticed that Indians, like their asiatic forbears, often had wide, flat noses?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
but on /. you're a dumbass.
Well I guess thats critical. Perhaps not what is meant by critical *thinking* however....
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
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.
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.
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.
"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."
Some say this has already happened. Have you noticed how the US dollar has been replaced by rocks and small twigs as a more trustworthy and widely-accepted medium of exchange? Or how New York is filled with Europeans spending their depleted-uranium pounds and euros?
http://rocknerd.co.uk
Catch up with the times grandpa, Intelligent Design has evolved.
Very very small mountains. More like molehills, compared to what we should have been able to find by now. What we have been unable to find is far more telling than what we have found. And given past indiscretions, it's difficult to see any current evidence as particularly trustworthy.
Piltdown man was suspicious from the start (see Miller's letter from 1915) and was debunked in 1953. A 50 year old fake hardly helps your case.
And as for evidence - have a glance at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ I think you might find a fair amount there. And a nice simple example can be found here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI
Radio-carbon dating is less accurate than using a random-number generator. It relies on far too many assumptions. There are other dating methods that are more likely to be close to the truth, although none of them have a particularly good track record.
How about dendrochronology, varves, ice cores, coral banding, thermoluminescence etc. Care to tell us why all these are wrong? And why they are all wrong by the same amount?
I can show you gravity in action, to your face, on video, and to crowds. Evolutionary theory is based on guesses and unproven scientific methods (such as radio dating), and fossil "evidence", which is circumstantial at best.
I can show you evolution in action too, look at Google Scholar for the origin of Spartina Anglica. I can point even more close to home - why do you think I need a new flu shot every year?
Oh, nice conflation of "evolution" and "theory of evolution" by the way.
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?
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
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
The real problem here is that what you call critical thinking is not what most religious nuts call critical thinking.
Critical thinking means that you don't believe something without evidence.
To these people, however, it means that you can criticize things that don't agree with what you want to say.
Teaching critical thinking has nothing to do with this bill. It's critical, alright, but it's missing the thinking bit.
Very very small mountains. More like molehills, compared to what we should have been able to find by now. What we have been unable to find is far more telling than what we have found.
What have we been unable to find then?
Radio-carbon dating is less accurate than using a random-number generator. It relies on far too many assumptions. There are other dating methods that are more likely to be close to the truth, although none of them have a particularly good track record.
What's wrong with isochron dating? It only assumes that the isotope ratios in a rock don't change unless the rock melts. FWIW carbon dating is for archaeologists, not paleontologists.
I can show you gravity in action, to your face, on video, and to crowds. Evolutionary theory is based on guesses and unproven scientific methods (such as radio dating), and fossil "evidence", which is circumstantial at best.
Gravity is both a fact and a theory. The fact is clear to everyone, and the theory is fundamentally unresolved. You may think you understand the theory of gravity, but you do not.
And all historical sciences are based on circumstantial evidence, since we have no witnesses.
Evolution is more than science for many people - including scientists. It's becomes a religious belief, and those who hold it defend it emotionally - they are as closed-minded as those on the other side of the fence. Critical discussion about and examination of all things should be encouraged.
No. Both sides do not always have valid points- sometimes you're wrong. Stupid is stupid. It isn't "religious" just to call out stupidity when you see it.
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."
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
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...)
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
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
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
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
My wife grows modus ponens in our flower garden.
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
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.
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
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.
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.
Hmmm... Have the folks at Wiki put in code that stops an article on the Bible from citing itself as the source?
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!
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.
"I'm not sure, but He seems to be inordinately fond of beetles."
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
"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
...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:)
"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
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.
I agree that, in theory, this could help students learn science better. From the comments in this story, I can see many people do not understand the essence of science and cannot think critically. By opening up the classroom to scientific debate, students could learn exactly how science works, and the limits to what it can do. It could teach them to be truly skeptical of new ideas and to think critically for themselves.
In practice, however, anti-science propaganda is pushed under the guise of "teaching the controversy" or "being open to competing theories". It's an excuse for putting the supernatural into science classrooms. It's not science at all, but pseudoscience. I'm all for discussion, but trying to convince schoolchildren that there is genuine scientific debate whether evolution occurs or not is just plain lies. This type of undermining does not make scientific understanding stronger, but makes people distrustful of science.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
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.
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.
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