Slashdot Mirror
Mixed Outcome of Texas Textbook Vote
The Texas Board of Education — as discussed here last week — has voted on the guidelines for textbooks in that state, which represents a large enough market to have influence nationwide. The good news is that the board dropped a 20-year-old requirement that both "strengths and weaknesses" of all scientific theories be taught; score one for the teaching of evolution. The not-so-good news is that in a "compromise," the board also voted to require that students "in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate and critique scientific explanations ... including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student." Score one for the Discovery Institute. A Republican board member explained that the words "strengths and weaknesses" have become "code for creationism and [the similar theory of] intelligent design. So by being more clear in the language and using words that aren't seen as code words, we were able to get all of the 15 board members to agree that this is how we'll teach all sides of scientific explanation, using scientific evidence." Reporting on the Texas vote is all over the map, as a US Today blog summarizes. Some reports claim that an amendment was passed that preserves a
requirement that students study the "sufficiency or insufficiency" of common ancestry and natural selection. Other reports claim that the board also adopted language that would have students study the "different views on the existence of global warming."
Q: Why was baby Jesus born in a manger?
A: Because the "virgin" Mary wanted to be close to the horse she was fucking. Incidentally, baby Jesus was born with a black eye.
Religious idiots are the most dangerous lunatics on the planet and there are an awful lot of them. It begins with mind control. They are taught to feel cognitive dissonance as well as guilt and shame for being human, then they project their filthy urges onto everybody else in orgies of zealous rage while they attempt to suppress knowledge and discovery. Religion is one giant thought-terminating cliche. Religious lunatics appear normal enough to be able to infiltrate the highest levels of government. The FBI in particular is composed of mostly Catholics and Mormons, some of the most batshit crazy of the Christians, and they believe that the laws of their religion override the laws of America.
The vast majority of religious tards have the infantile "my god is better than your god" mindset and they get hard-ons for envisioning atheists and heretics burning in hell. I propose the outlawing of public worship. Humans tend to be okay by themselves when left free to develop their own spirituality. However - they also believe that assembling into groups gives them free licenses to behave like assholes.
Putting theological doctrine to the test is all well and good when it is theologians that are involved in weighing the evidence to see what fits and what doesn't.
With the theory of evolution, you have scientists trying to make theological decisions.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
If you want us to stay out of the schools, stop funding the schools with tax dollars and let us use our tax money to send our kids to our own private schools. Sound fair? Our small, private, Christian schools outperform your public schools by an order of magnitude the way it is. >Nobody expects the preacher to give equal time to Darwin on Sunday. Again, our religion isn't (and never will be if we have anything to say about it) funded by taxpayer dollars.
Your post misinterpreted my position, attributed statements and beliefs to me I do not agree with, and then attacked me personally for the position you ascribed to me: "nut job", "idiot", "worst excuse for a scientist", "religious nut", "scientologist", "silly", and "do[ing]... retarded shit". Um... bad day there? The ad hominem attacks belie the weakness of the position. Several points you make are generally correct, if maybe a bit ivory-tower, but I'm not interested in a point by point discussion with you - not worth it.
I'd suggest you go to college, go get a science degree, get a job teaching science, get funding, do science for a while, do peer review, publish... actually go do it, or just pick up a copy of Thomas Kuhn and read it until you understand it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions