Slashdot Mirror
Texas Textbooks Battle Is Actually an American War
ideonexus writes "I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks, dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,' but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country. And it's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks, but a full frontal assault on history, politics, and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose. This evangelical lobby has successfully had references to the American Constitution as a 'living document,' as textbooks have defined it since the 1950s, removed in favor of an 'enduring Constitution' not subject to change, as well as attempting to over-emphasize the role Christianity played in the founding of America. The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals."
Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution. Some people on both sides think creationism and evolution can not exist together, but they can with the long day theory.
As for interpreting the constitution, I agree that it should stay in its current form unless it gets ammended. I think the focal point is that Christian enemies are arguing for,"Seperation of Church and State" while Christians argue that the Constitution says this nowhere in it. The only thing the Constitution says is the first ammendment where it says,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech," Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit. To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.
God spoke to me.
How much damage could a poorly educated man from Texas actually cause? It's not like he could become President or something...
Fast, cheap, correct. You get to pick two.
...dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,' but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country.
I knew this and am not even American. Every piece of coverage I've seen on this issue has explained how wide reaching the ramifications are. How can anyone have missed it?
This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
Re-writing history to inure a political viewpoint? This is nothing new. At least these folks are being honest about their goals; that's a refreshing approach from narrow-minded zealots.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
I asked a lawyer who believed in this, pre-market crash, if they believed in a "living mortgage." Why is the Constitution the only legal document we do that to?
Anyone who wants to teach that is going for a particular point of view. Why is the opposite view nefarious but this one all sweetness and light?
This whole summary is ignorant. Everyone is pushing a point of view. It has to be somebody's.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
It's just a shame that the processes of evolution will take way too long for this rubbish to devolve or become extinct.
Get over it already
It's worth revisiting the lesson of the sixties that the Hippies got right, such as not to trust the government and that the purpose of public education is to lie to you.
Students should regard any political lesson taught in school as propaganda, should never trust their teachers, an in general fucking hate the government. Bible Thumpers have always sought to rule by infiltration and dominionism.
Know this, fight back, agitate others to fight back, and above all disregard anything any religionist says to defend their superstition. We don't respect Scientology for obvious reasons, and there is no reason any other superstition should get a pass, especially on a geek site. We are modern people, and modern people don't need gods.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
All it will take is a suit that the school board violates civil liberties.
I wish it could go further. I wish that provably willful violations of civil liberties were treated as treason.
In Liberty, Rene
Whilst I personally do not agree with their standpoint, at least they are mounting a vigorous, forward-looking defense of their beliefs.
No worse than state-sponsored Madrassas in Pakistan and elsewhere.
It's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well, in the interests of balance; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this...
Sounds to me like they're taking a page out of the Progressive Left's playbook. Great. Right-wing fundamentalists and left-wing Bolsheviks vying for the young skulls full of mush.
Here's an idea: let's make revisionist history a capitol offense.
Why did they rename the TAAS test again?
Being 700 pages in, and it's disturbing how much alike this sounds to the "collapse" state of civilization in the book. Stop looking into the future Stephenson, your scaring me!
The GP was incomplete. The actual state of things is that "clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit [sic]" and retain their tax-exempt status.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
We have a system where education consumers have little or no control. Where we get dictated to by the system rather than make demands of it. And funded with an abominable property tax that makes renters of us all and leads to all kinds of eminent domain abuse and doesn't do anything for the poor sods that have the misfortune of living in a crappy neighborhood.
And the social engineering on the left is equally scary.
In general the schools seem great a preparing little johnny for state worshiping a zero-tolerance surveillance state and teaching a decidedly post-new deal version of constitutional rights.
The sad fact is the whole thing is fucked. Fucked on the left. Fucked on the right. Fucked by design.
James Loewen's books, are some of the best that I ever read. Lies my Teacher Told Me starts off with the story of him and a few school districts suing to get his book on the history of Miss. adopted. Fascinating and disheartening stuff.
It is amazing the damage that a few phuqtards with ignorant beliefs can have. I always shake may head in amazement at the evolutionary naysayers. I have found that asking them how antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria have come about so quickly usually shuts them up.
Either give it away or get top dollar, but never sell yourself cheap.
Regardless of "academic qualification" (Most people with the paper don't have the ethical or logical capability to be truly considered qualified), the Texas school board was responding to its own concerns about the insertion of bias into textbooks.
Textbooks are already biased. How many people are around that are willing to stand against bias in ALL directions? I'm sick of bickering between defining "unbiased" as "suiting my own personal bias".
More elementally, they hold that the United States was founded by devout Christians ...
True.
... and according to biblical precepts.
False. The founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) read so much philosophy and ethics that The Christian Bible was one of a hundred sources. One could easily argue that the nation was founded on principles of the League of Five Nations as much as anything else. Yes, the founding fathers most likely borrowed from heathen savages that populated a land where everyone went to hell before the Europeans got here.
If the people in the article think the founding fathers didn't intend for a separation of church and state, let's visit what documentation we have from them:
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
All men and women are created equal. Everyone has a right to practice what religion they so choose. So keep your religious crap out of our public schools.
My work here is dung.
I work for a large textbook company and you're just kidding yourself if you think the battle over how our children are taught is an American thing. The large textbook companies want to impose an American way of education - three-color, exceptionally expensive textbooks. We dream up ways of making our books REQUIRED that have nothing to do with making them relevant.
My God! What are people so afraid of? That there is another widely believed explanation of how life on earth started? Oh wait, evolution does not explain how it started. Has anyone here witnessed evolution? Isn't a requirement for science that something is first observed? Should we skip that first step? From the observation we create a hypothesis. Then we test the hypothesis. This was attempted with evolution but given up on as none of the tests confirmed it. So instead of observing and testing, let's just call evolution fact and not let anyone debate it. That's how science works, right?
Why are people so afraid of scientific debate? Isn't that what science is all about? Show the evidence and follow where it leads, right? Can't evolution hold up against creationism? If so, let creationism be heard. If not, get rid of evolution.
Here is the problem. The bible, and jesus, pretty much considered the worst thing one can do it be a hypocrite. A hypocrite is one who does things in a crowd to make others believe he or she has faith. Here is a famous verse of prayer.
Mathew 6:5-6"When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you."
We also know the verses on giving money to be seen. The idea is that one does these things because they are in our heart, not to gain profit. And we are putting our children in jeopardy when we ask them to do these things we know are wrong, such as acting like hypocrites.
The problem with these nut cases in Texas is they have no faith. No amount of science will sway me from what i feel to be true. No amount of world religions will change my mind what I know to be right. This does not mean I am inflexible, but that flexibility comes with experience, not cult brain washing. And because these people have not faith, how can they build faith in their children. They can't. So they limit their exposure to the world knowing the false faith could never withstand the truths in the world.
In some ways I agree with this. If one is not able to build faith in a child, then ones options are limited. What I disagree with is making all the rest of us suffer. Sure, a parent may have a right to screw up their own child, but that does not mean they have the right to screw up everyone else's. The parent can home school, turn off the TV, but there is no reason that those of us who are responsible should have to suffer because a few are irresponsible. It would be like saying I can't buy a beer because some children weren't taught discipline, or because genetically they can't have beer, and haven't been trained to stay away from it.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Two immediate responses are prompted by this article...
First is to call to mind the fate of the Muslim civilization in the second millennium. The Muslims kept the lights on during the Dark Ages. They're the reason we know about the ancient Greeks. In those days, science was considered good, because it was discovery of God's world and ways. Somewhere about the middle of the second millennium the Muslim civilization encountered other pressures (like invasions) and turned their backs on science in favor of religious dogma. (Don't know if there was cause and effect there, coincidental timing, or some other relationship.) They've never been at the forefront of civilization since. We're starting to do the same thing here in the US. One key part of science is to face the world truthfully, whatever it tells you, and deal with it. Religion can help you deal with it. But when you impose religion as a "truth filter" between you and the real world, you've lost it.
Second, a more tactical response, is to quit following Texas' lead on textbook purchases. Is there any reason we have to let them set the standard, or is it a combination of laziness and their purchasing power?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
There's a great book by David Sloan Wilson called
"Evolution for Everyone: How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives"
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Everyone-Darwins-Theory-Change/dp/0385340214
It explains how and why religion and god-concepts evolved in human culture.
It is very well written in plain-spoken language, and the author is an accomplished
evolutionary biologist.
If we could get that one on to the Texas high school science curriculum, or into their high school
libraries, it might go a long way in putting this debate in the proper perspective for
confused Texan students.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Texas needs to make good on the old promise and secede already...
you refer to people as "dumbass Texans".. if you're so smart, why not reason with them and fight the good fight instead of dropping below their level and resorting to name calling. those "dumbass Texans" are winning...
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
Is that, some would argue that the present "living document" and history as given in textbooks from the 1970s and later was done by a concerted left wing effort to make the country swing left.
Instead, it backfired miserably.
My 1970s textbooks in grade school and high school went out of their way to define progress as a big march to the nanny state.. and as I remember flipping through pictures of poor people doing nothing, along came Ronald Reagan, to say that, well, it was all a bunch of crap.
Propaganda for kids doesn't work, because, the truthful documents are there. The truth is this: The wingers have this much of a point: The constitution is a strict document that defines powers given to the government, not, giving people rights, and the framers did base their ideas on Locke, that, because we've all got souls, we've all got rights. But what wingers also neglect to mention is that the framers were decidedly against much of their agenda too.
The founding fathers, in particular, want a standing army or a standing military at all. Indeed, up until the 1900s, the USA was barely a 2nd rate military power and looked on European military spending as a colossal sort of stupidity.
The founding fathers envisioned no federal power to regulate drugs or marriage or anything else. They would tax whiskey, and that was about it, and that was only to pay down the debt from the revolutionary war.
Bottom line is this, if you believe in the Constitution as it is written, there may not be any federal right to entitlements making, but there's no right to having a big army or any of the stuff the right wing wants, either.
The founding fathers were libertarians.
This is my sig.
that "We the People..." should take up arms against those who would destroy us from the inside. It is not only my right; my responsibility; it's my obligation to my fellow countrymen, and future generations of US Americans.
I happen to believe in God. However, I respect, and understand the reasons for keeping God out of education (one exception I would make is for private schools, which are opt-in).
History is history because it took place in the past. The past is unchangeable, and thus, re-writing history is the same as lying. In this case I would call the people re-writing the history of our once great country's politics one thing: tyrannical. Their motivations are clearly oppressive.
Everyone in the US should know that it's completely legal to kill tyrants. Everyone should know that it's their responsibility. The more we let the tyrants do this to us, the less we deserve the rights to freedom and liberty that they are stealing from us.
You can have my guns, my freedom, my rights, and my liberty AFTER you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
"Be prepared, son. That's my motto. Be prepared." --Joe Hallenbeck
Is that religious education is often compulsory, and look at how many of them go to church : zero.
This is my sig.
Part of my job entails uploading publisher content into our learning management system. They provided you with two different sets of content in most books, one a national edition, the other a Texas edition. This is done mostly in science, history & political science courses, but there have been many others as well. We simply use the national edition, problem solved.
On another note, describing the Constitution as a "living document" is basically the way for some people to say "The Constitution means whatever we want it to mean". In other words, the Constitution doesn't mean anything unless it helps them to further their political agenda. It is true that the constitution can be amended, but that doesn't make it a "living document".
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Keep in mind that it's not just creationism that Texas educators are trying to get into their textbooks. There is a strong push to rewrite current history textbooks to paint conservatism in a sympathetic light as well as to downplay the importance of the civil rights movement. Read more about it here http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/conservative_vision_ascendant_in_latest_texas_hist.php
I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country. And it's not just Creationism that this Christian coalition is attempting to bring into schoolbooks, but a full frontal assault on history, politics, and the humanities that exploits the fact that final decisions are being made by a school board completely academically unqualified to make informed evaluations of the changes these lobbyists propose.
Dr. Richard Feynman wrote about his experiences that followed after he accepted the invitation participate in the committee responsible for selecting the math texts in his children's California school. It's not only Texas where the uneducated and the unqualified have the responsibility of determining how what materials will be used to lay the foundation for kids' futures. Feynman wrote that in the end it was the company with the most effective sales tactics, i.e. the one that most effectively bribed and coerced the committee members with freebies, that won the contract. Most of these concerned citizens didn't even take the time to read the texts, yet they submitted their vote, regardless of this fact.
It's the American way, just like Jersey Kozinsky wrote about in Being There. We are subject to the most effective leadership that people with power will allow which determines which way the dice are cocked.
Sorry to be such a cynic... wait, not I'm not. I truly believe we are doomed to repeat history because it's the victors that write, and they glorify victory. Ergo, it is no wonder that war-mongering, logic-challenged, self-serving Christians select textbooks. Just last night, I was recounting how, during my public school education, I was introduced to one of the fundamental concepts that, it was explained to me, defined free market capitalism, the freedom to fail.
And now, years later, here's the proof...
I would assert that the Constitution exists as the 'supreme law' of the land in American Federalism. Further, I would assert that the concept of "rule of law" is incompatible with the idea that the 'supreme law' is open for whimsical interpretation. Just because textbooks have defined the constitution as a 'living document' for 50+ years is not de facto proof that the interpretation is correct. Obviously, I do not personally subscribe to that theory.
On the other side, I would prefer if textbooks focused more on observation, hypothesis, and theory... and less on wild speculation. I am sure if you looked, you could find people that feel disenfranchised because no textbook offers the theory that the universe came from a giant chocolate egg pooped out of an eternal Easter bunny. We should be less concerned about whats 'possible' and more concerned about what we can see, measure, and test.
The Internet is here, and it isn't going away. The materials in textbooks had better match reality. Kids will start with the textbook and then move to the internet and library for their reports. If the two don't match it will only cause the kids to do more research. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if teachers start giving assignments for kids to fact-check the textbook!
Either the textbook companies are this stupid (to threaten their own business), or they are merely complicit with the religious zealots. Either way, they've already lost.
This has been going on in Texas for years. Creationists always try, and they always fail. We have a little criteria our courts use that's called "Fact based". It's saved us time & time again from the rampant stupidity of Evangelicals.
Religion has a huge impact on many aspects of society: language, culture, politics -- even science. Religion could certainly be a legitimate topic of academic study, done properly. For example, I doubt it is possible to truly understand the history of the United States without understanding the role of religious belief. It's just too intertwined.
Your point about people trying to pass religion off as if it were science is well taken, however. Bugs me when people try to pass humanism off as science, too.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
Have creation theories, then they need to have several others for context.
In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia.
To compare what people once believed without evidence, to what they now believe is relevant. The above was documented by people who existed before the people who wrote the bible, that doesn't make it what actually happened.. The fact that people said or wrote things, does not make them facts.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
I expect my child to learn from many sources and question those sources regardless of how they are viewed by others. If I thought she would simply read a text book and question her own core beliefs because of that then I would be worried. But I'm not because I'm raising a person that can discover her own truth through self-education. I can help her by pointing her to the information, but only she can turn it into knowledge.
And that being said she's an atheist and I'm a Christian. I have no problem with that. Life (through God IMHO) offers us choices. It's my job to as an American citizen and also as a global citizen to ensure those choices will always be available to whoever may want them. Through any means necessary I will defend the right to dissent from religion but I will also defend the right to partake in it.
The "problem" is some people aren't okay with other people having a different viewpoint. On both sides this is happening. Those people need to be told to shut up and sit down. For too long the extreme right and left have meddled with the rest of us. This must end. Let other men be.
If american "christians" are right to fight to put into law (public education is governed law, right?) their religious beliefs, then this makes muslim's fight to impose the sharia law equally legitimate. Christians have no moral authority to impose their faith on others and, by doing so, they incite the other religions to do the same. And, oh, these texans aren't even christians; Jesus told his followers to spread the word, not to force the people into worshiping. Also, christians are supposed to turn the other cheek and die for their belief, not to bully others into joining their churchly organisation..
Laudele lor desigur m-ar mahni peste masura.
Surely if people chose the school their children went to this would be hardly an issue. Would be even less of an issue if they paid directly as well.
yes.... the book selection circus in Texas has been a national crisis for several decades. Glad to see someone else is starting to notice. The real question is WHY school boards across the country still use the output of this moonbat-manipulated process to choose books?
The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system that favor their evangelical Christian goals.
Children grow up with preconceived notions. School leaders try to impress their values on the children in their care. This happens everywhere. The socialists, the group-responsibility, and the teach-to-the-lowest-denominator-so-no-child-can-fail groups have been at work in California for some time. Texas isn't the only state that "leads" in education, so I'm told.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
You know, I have to chuckle every time I see one of these stories. When I was back in school, it was pretty standard classical stuff - the Greeks, Shakespeare, Newton, the Scientific Method, etc. Now, it happened to be that dead white guys came up with most of that stuff, but that was just how it was. But sometime after I left, the Deconstructionists, the Postmodernists, the Moral Relativists, and the Frankfurt School got their hands on the reigns. No ones 'truth' was any better than another. The scientific method was no more valid than animism. Everyone got their own truth.
Well, guess what, folks? Now the Christian Fundamentalists (and the Islamic Fundamentalists) are pressing for their own 'truth'. Remember, yin and yang - everything contains within itself the seed of its opposite. That's one piece of non-white guy wisdom that holds up pretty well.
Can you moderate the summary Flamebait?
"I wish that provably willful violations of civil liberties were treated as treason."
Christians regard any government practice that is not Christian as a violation of their civil rights to impose de facto theocracy by dominionism.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,
in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e. meta-level topics such as):
-How to think carefully, logically.
-How to search.
-How to formulate good questions.
-How to recognize bias; people who are "speaking for effect"; trying to
influence you, and some of the common motivations why people do
that.
How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibility.
Then set them free to explore the information from a billion sources
that we have available to us at a mouse click today.
The scariest kind of graduate is one who has been taught only to
parrot, and to conform to orthodoxy, and who does not know how to question.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
In principle your idea "Why can't we just have education books just present multiple popular theories along with the pros and cons of each?" sounds good. But, there are serious problems with it. Take science for example, science is not a democracy. Do we really want to have populism as the decision basis for what goes into a science text book? The same argument likely holds in various other areas of study. Plenty of "myths" are held by a large portion of the general population and are propagated from generation to generation. This is bad enough as it is, I think it would be worse if text books would propagate even more myths and misconceptions. After all what do you think a child would pick given two "explanations" taught at school with one of them vigorously promoted by her/his parents? ID is an incredibly well debunked hypothesis while evolution is a scientific theory! If you don't believe me, read any number of references, e.g. "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" by Kenneth R. Miller (around $2 used), a practicing christian himself. I have quite a few biologist friends and they only laugh at ID and tell me that it holds virtually zero credibility in their community.
When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
Alright, so Texas currently dominates the textbook market in two ways:
1. They're a really big market
2. They have clear guidelines which make them easy to market to (market being a verb now) and thus books get written for Texas which many other states ultimately buy.
So stop bashing religion, Texas, etc. and find another textbook-writing standard behind which your state can rally. Get involved and badger your own school board or state standards boards to buy something better, while providing them a specific "something better" to look at. As usual Slashdotters are just using the idiocy of a couple dozen Texan fundamentalists to mock religion as a whole rather than addressing specific problems with reasonable solutions.
Quit bitching and do something!
The fact that some local education board wants school books to promote their misleading and unscientific ideology is a small problem, but it's a problem the rest of the country doesn't have too much influence over.
The fact that this affects the nation as a whole is a big problem. Solution? Stop letting Texas influence national text books.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Now those same hippies are in charge
Both sides of these arguments, and the overall argument have shown themselves to be extremists.
Kosh: "Understanding is a 3 edged sword, your side, their side, the Truth."
My academic exposure to "special creation" versus "darwinism" goes back to the early sixties. The most significant aspect of my experience was that I never saw anyone persuaded one way or the other by discussion of either in a classroom -- and back in those days, it was perfectly acceptable to discuss God in a science class. People who believed in special creation stuck with it and people who believed otherwise stuck with it regardless of the evidence or arguments presented by the other side. Why would anyone on either side have the least fear of having the other side presented? If you truly believe (as I do) that the observable universe came into existence some 13 to 15 billion years ago and, as a consequence, the earth came into existence roughly 4.5 BYA followed by the natural evolution of life you should also be confident enough to listen to the contrary without fear that it will, in any way, corrupt or overtake the "truth." By the way: I also happen to believe that God initiated the whole thing and got it exactly right the first time, thereby needing no subsequent tweeking or fiddling to move things along. And if I hadn't told you that, you would have no way of distinguishing me from an orthodox, secular, believer in science.
My high school physics teacher 20 years ago pointed out this negligence on the part of the committee that the people actually recommending the books did not have to have a background in natural sciences. Not one person back then had a degree in physics or hard sciences. Later when I was in college a friend got me involved in working on some of the curriculum aspects of Texas education in physics. One request was to review a proposed competency test for physics to be used in Texas High Schools. I looked at the exam and couldn't answer half the questions.. Most of the questions appeared to be taken from a some kind of test for a master electrician and involved reading some complex circuit diagrams for a building or house. It looked like someone wanted to revamp AP physics and replace it with a Vocational Electricians school.
So basically this is nothing new to the Texas school system. It's just amazing that there are a number of people who actually do succeed at getting a good education in the Texas Public School System. A lot of this has to do with renegade teachers who throw the text books out and basically teach from the chalk board.
I forgive you for being wrong.
It's not just 'Christian Enemies' who are against teaching Creationism over Darwinism. It's many other Christians that you falsely claim to represent.
"Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past"
Like writing on schoolbooks that Germans were descendants of some mythic ancient super race, or that Kim Il Sung could actually can fly or talk to animal or that all inventions have been made by , or, or, or... Mystifying history is never for a good cause.
I've seen some notably bad summaries on /. but I'm pretty sure this one beats them all.
The real question is WHY school boards across the country still use the output of this moonbat-manipulated process to choose books?
My understanding is that they don't. But Texas is a huge purchaser of textbooks and the standards they set influence what the publishers are willing to print. They publish books in order to placate Texas and the rest of the country are stuck with them.
This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
This (and other reasons) is why I believe public school textbooks should be free/open source (as in speech, as well as as in beer, aside from a nominal small printing/distribution charge - which will not be needed once all schoolchildren own iPads or other e-readers) and wiki-editable with review before publishing. Get the textbook companies out of the business of making massive profits off the backs of our school system, and involve the public in the education process. Find a way to review that will weaken agenda-driven edits.
"I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about (some organization) attempts to slip [A] into [B], dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass (organization),...'
Where [A] and [B] are:
1. creationism, biology textbooks
2. global warming, school textbooks
3. abstinence, health textbooks
4. their noses, women's reproductive health
5. condoms, health class
6. the president, a Nobel Peace Prize
I find it immensely entertaining when people proclaim they are progressive/conservative/educated with an "open mind" until you hit that One Topic(tm) that becomes non-debatable and all those who dare debate the pro/cons are not only wrong, but complete lunatics for even arguing the opposing view. Remember, before Copernicus the overwhelming "scientific consensus" was that the universe orbited the earth. Consensus doesn't make something correct.
My understanding is that they don't. But Texas is a huge purchaser of textbooks and the standards they set influence what the publishers are willing to print. They publish books in order to placate Texas and the rest of the country are stuck with them.
Kind of like car regulations and California.
(Really wanted a Diesel engine in my new car)
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Let me get this straight. People that believe a all powerful invisible man got a young woman pregnant then left her with no support so the kid is born in a barn. The kid grows up wearing a dress and hangs out with 12 other guys all wearing a dress. Then the kid and his posse run around making the government mad. And when the government gives the kid the death penalty mister all powerful is no where to be found ... again lol. Plus three days after his execution the kid turns zombie gets out of the grave says hello to his friends then floats away.
In any other context that would put you in a rubber room yet there are those that want to force this on our kids. Schools should teach our kids science and facts not become basic training for the tea klux klan.
The spelling and grammar police can kiss my ass
Here's an article I read a while back about who's behind these changes. I thought it was rather interesting but alarming at the same time.
If we could get that one on to the Texas high school science curriculum, or into their high school libraries, it might go a long way in putting this debate in the proper perspective for confused Texan students.
This is a great idea, because anyone who disagrees with you is confused.
F*** you stupid morons with your evolutionary theory. It is more faith based than any religion outside of Scientology. House of cards that needs to come down soon. Where is your evidence? Where? Again, didn't hear you? What? That's what I thought. Good luck with that whole "we came from nothing" bullshiite. Go sell crazy somewhere else, we are all full up here.
Science grew out of philosophy.
The major bullet point I took from the "philosophy of science" class is that nobody quite agrees on what science is. It's a search for truth that includes conjecture, hypothesis, testing, and observation. Beyond that, definitions vary wildly.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I read far more books on my own and a much wider variety than my teachers suggested.
A he became president because of something that happened in the Texas Schoolbook Depository. Spooky.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Ok, "Evolutionism" does not exist. The suffix "-ism" implies that it is some sort of philosophy, and there is no philosophy based on evolution.
There is the routinely observed effect that is called evolution consisting of short and long term accumulation of changes that eventually result in large changes in genotype/phenotype. There are those that are willing to accept the large body of evidence that supports evolution as an explanation for the origin of life. However, finding the evidence convicing is not the same thing as believing in a creator in the absence of any actual evidence. One is subject to being falsifiable, at which point the explanation must change to match the data. The other is infaliable, and when the data contradicts the scriptures the data must be undermined in order to match the explanation.
I'm not knocking religion (I go to church every Sunday with my family and try to be a good Christain), but that doesn't make ID or Creationism into science. Conversely, an incomplete fossile record, or incomplete understanding of a phenomenon does not make evolution into a philosophy.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Yes, we should just do away with religion all together it worked out great for communist countries like the USSR, oh wait they don't exist anymore. Let's see, who still bans religion? China, North Korea and Cuba. Anyone live there and post on this website? I didn't think so, those countries have filtered or non-existent access to the web. Like it or not, the majority of the founding fathers of this country and those who wrote the Constitution were Christians. Should this relation be over-stated or exaggerated? Definitely not. Modern atheists who think, "people who believe in God or practice a religion are weak and ignorant" would like to see the correlation between Christianity and the founding of the United States erased from the history books. It takes more strength to believe in something you can't prove than to sit around and whine about how ignorant the rest of the world is. I wonder if that strength had anything to do with how the founding fathers fought an empire and founded a new country with religious freedoms for all (1st Amendment). You are free to believe in absolutely nothing and others are free to believe in anything they want. People on either side should NOT be allowed to re-write history in favor of their own personal views.
Hardly, The 'Hippies' were a small subculture. There were plenty of red-blooded conservative Americans during the 60's that went to vietnam and such....those are the ones in charge.
Hold more than a bachelor's degree, or a degree in education? Run for your local school board. Especially if you live in Texas. You're running against dentists and hair stylists. Just remember to not appear to be some anti-god nutjob.
Meanwhile, everyone lobby their state representatives and education boards to refuse to use any textbooks Texas does. Sue, if necessary. Make Texasisms so toxic that textbook companies will have no choice but to produce books for texas, and books for the rest of us. If they want to turn themselves into a hellhole of ignorance, so be it, but they can do it alone.
Please help metamoderate.
This whole thread beautifully illustrates the problem of state monopoly schools. The only reason it's a problem that that the Texas school board wants to make sure its beliefs are respected, is because we keep insisting on higher and higher levels of state supervision of curriculum. If every school could use whatever curriculum it thought appropriate, and every parent could send their kids to the schools they thought appropriate, there would be no problem. As it is, we're politicizing every aspect of education. This is not a logical or economic necessity -- it only arises because of the monopoly model for state schools.
God has inspired me to write: "Thou art a bunch of gullible fools!"
1) Can anyone prove God didn't?
2) Can anyone prove the Bible contains more-accurate statements?
Indeed. Create an open-source repository, perhaps with a wiki, for textbook knowledge and let each state print (or Kindle) its own book however the heck it feels like. If Texas wants to include pictures of Jesus riding a dinosaur, Global Cooling, and horned gays starting WWII and brewing up Katrina, let them. The rest will kick back and have a good laugh while our kids grow up smarter than theirs.
Table-ized A.I.
... when other people want to homeschool their kids.
Rational arguments only work on rational people. "[D]umbass" people usually demonstrate a high resistance to reason and logic.
Read (and understand) the rest of the constitution -
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
When you're a convicted murderer, due process of law can remove your rights. That is how murders and other criminals can be put in jail. Just what kind of dumbass world do you live in?
I've been lackadaisical when it comes to following stories about Texas schoolboard attempts to slip creationism into biology textbooks, dismissing the stories as just 'dumbass Texans,'
Yes, bigotry *is* lackadaisical.
than the ground opening up and swallowing Texas whole. Hallelujah, praise the lord. Take Oklahoma and Kansas while you're at it.
buncha fuckin cretins
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
from Benjamin Crowell. I liked it so much I payed for a printed copy from lulu. It seems to me that these are the textbooks of the future, not created by school boards, but chosen by individual teachers from a wealth of free or low-cost online material. If you don't like textbooks, write one, publish it online and at lulu and give teachers the right to choose their own materials for teaching.
Nullius in verba
Yeah, good luck with that. Most of the kids I went to school with could barely handle putting on their socks *before* their shoes, and this was at a high school considered to be "academically elite" for the whole state. From the teachers I know, I see little to indicate the situation has improved.
The scariest kind of graduate is one who has been taught only to
parrot, and to conform to orthodoxy, and who does not know how to question.
And why would the sociopathic pigs in government want anything other than that?
"I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,
in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e. meta-level topics such as): -How to think carefully, logically. -How to search. -How to formulate good questions..."
People don't learn from abstract principles first like that. All the modern cognitive research is that people need "deep content", that is, they need to learn details about a lot of specific subject matter, before they can make the connections between different fields for themselves. Which is rather common sense that, after all, we need do specific different subjects taught in school systems, just as it's always been done. Radical abstract switches from that, not a good idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiP-ijdxqEc&feature=player_embedded
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
This goes doubly true for any person who tries to claim agnosticism or atheism is not a religion. Failure to teach religious points of view in school is not some form of enlightenment. It is an prosthelizing of atheism and a clear departure from the separation of church and state. School teaching should allow that there are multiple points of view on topics. If you are a Christian who does not want a child to hear about Darwin's Theory of Evolution, then send your child to private school that disallows it. If you are an agnostic who does not want your child to hear about Creationism, then send your child to a private school that disallows it. A healthier approach is to be a parent who is prepared to discuss these topics with a child and explain these differences in opinion. Hopefully, as a parent, your bias will carry more influence than the bias of others.
If you don't like what being taught in the public schools, you can always send your kid to a private school... which around here is either a Catholic school or one run by Evangelical Christians... D'oh!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
First, I'm from Texas and resent the "dumb ass Texan" comment. There are many highly intelligent people in this state. Many of them spend a great deal of effort fighting down these creationist folks every couple of years. We have succeeded quite well up to this point. What we need is support, not bigoted comments directed at all Texans from people who are making one of the first mistakes of the intellectually weak, generalization. Second, I think that if parents were free to pick the school that their children attended instead of the one picked for them by the government, creationism vs. evolution in the classroom would no longer be an issue. Children could then attend the schools whose curricula most closely aligned with their own beliefs and desires.
Dominionists, for those who don't recognize the term, are Christians (usually evangelical Protestants, though some Catholic groups exhibit dominionist theology) who believe that God's "laws" or moral wishes supersede any law drafted by men. To these folks, abolishing abortion by legislation or by Supreme Court reversal, banning homosexual rights (and possibly even recognition as humans), and creationism (along with a general rejection of scientific consensus) are all crucial and pressing policies that must be enacted in any government.
Naturally, that theology runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...). They will, of course, try to argue that they're not trying to establish a Church of America, but nevertheless the consequences of their success are no different. Furthermore, trying to reason with them is usually futile, as they perceive the US to be a rebellious state against God that was originally founded by Christians (which is a poor reading of history at best)-- and since their theology unnaturally blends Old and New Testaments, they think that if the US continues the status quo or adopts policies left of conservatism*, it will meet the same fate as ancient Israel when it was conquered by Babylon, or when it rebelled against the Roman Empire. No amount of arguing from Paul's letters or "render unto Caesar" will do any good, because as far as they're concerned, they have absolutely nothing to lose-- the Kingdom on the earth must be established, but they will not recognize that it was never meant to be a literal kingdom or government built by the hands of men.
But in their minds, they've already lost several times-- the conservative Supreme Court has at least ruled conservatively where social issues were concerned-- as in, they relied more on precedent and the Constitution rather than Christian morals (though we'll really see their true colors when the CA Prop 8 trial is sent their way), they only got what was no doubt in their minds a watered-down abortion/stem cell ban from Congress, and they've now lost a very reliable friend and ally in the White House due to term limits and a charismatic Democrat-- not that the former Alaskan governor did much to help them at all. They refuse to believe that their allies in government (the Republicans) failed them, because their allies are their leaders and to them, "one of us". If you're a member of the congregation, you don't speak ill of "one of us", though you can heap criticism and vitriol on "one of them". Therefore they see the electoral losses in 2006 and 2008 not as defeats, but as "them"-- non-dominionists-- having conspired to destroy the Church (or euphemistically, the "good things about America"). You'll notice that this duress argument is used commonly in the big Tea Party rallies and by some right-wing media men.
So the way they see it, because the "liberals" and the "atheists"** cheated, they're going to fight back just as dirty-- but of course they'll justify their own actions as "saving the children", as that has demonstrably worked to enact skewed legislation for generations. Their efforts to mess with public school textbooks is but a taste of what these extremists are capable of, and are willing to do. The greatest shame is that they will think they have brought another Enlightenment and Revival to the US, when in fact they will have consigned their children to academic inferiority as China, India, and other nations progress. The conservatives who are participating in the name of ideological "balance" are digging their own graves as well, as they are more interested in indoctrination, not building up thinking skills in our children. I suppose that, given their permanent self-victimization, they'll blame our relative failure on the "liberals" and "atheists" too.
* Given the "small government" creed of conservatism, dominionism has always been a strange bedfellow, but I suppose Frank Schaeffer's father leveraged his connections well to cement the alliance...
** And here's where Dawkins' movement really hurts those who wish to bring some of these folks back to reason... Yes, I know reasoning with them is usually futile, but that doesn't mean I'll stop trying.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
This was an example of the problem of evil. A problem is so cliched, people have been pondering it for thousands of years without coming up with any real answers...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's up to the rest of society to fight their corner equally well, in the interests of balance; unfortunately only the fanatics seem to have the energy to do this...
Only the fanatics have ideas small enough to fit into thirty second sound bites. When you've been raised to believe that your parents passed the One And Only Truth to you, and someone says, "God is great!", it's not going to matter what the other person says, unless you say "Allahu akbar" instead. You can't even bother your average American to vote once a year, much less examine an issue as complex as the relationship between education, religion, and government. It's not that the the other side lacks the energy, but they have to fight dogma and the establishment hierarchies (corporations, churches, and some parts of government) who are benefiting from this self imposed ignorance.
America is hit particularly hard by this phenomenon because it's historically anti-intellectual. In fact, the only semi-modern country I'm aware of that shares in the same amount of religious hysteria is Iran.
I'm all for allowing Texas to turn into a theocracy, and leaving individual states to decide their own education. Texans could then serve as a reminder that marrying religion and state is still an enormously stupid idea.
The Constitution is not a "living" document! It's a contract that cannot be changed without proper consent. People have a right to religious freedom even if there views seem nutty. They just don't have a right to impose their religious views on others. Also, science neither discovers absolute truth(Godelian incompleteness) nor discovers truth absolutely(never have certainty) so it's founded on assumptions. Truthfully, evolution isn't a fact; it's just as apparent as gravity. So you could rationally deny evolution, but you'd have to deny gravity as we know it. I also don't see how evolution contradicts the Scriptures.
http://www.gorgorat.com/#49
After the war, physicists were often asked to go to Washington and give
advice to various sections of the government, especially the military. What
happened, I suppose, is that since the scientists had made these bombs that
were so important, the military felt we were useful for something.
Once I was asked to serve on a committee which was to evaluate various
weapons for the army, and I wrote a letter back which explained that I was
only a theoretical physicist, and I didn't know anything about weapons for
the army.
The army responded that they had found in their experience that
theoretical physicists were very useful to them in making decisions, so
would I please reconsider?
I wrote back again and said I didn't really know anything, and doubted
I could help them.
Finally I got a letter from the Secretary of the Army, which proposed a
compromise: I would come to the first meeting, where I could listen and see
whether I could make a contribution or not. Then I could decide whether I
should continue.
I said I would, of course. What else could I do?
I went down to Washington and the first thing that I went to was a
cocktail party to meet everybody. There were generals and other important
characters from the army, and everybody talked. It was pleasant enough.
One guy in a uniform came to me and told me that the army was glad that
physicists were advising the military because it had a lot of problems. One
of the problems was that tanks use up their fuel very quickly and thus can't
go very far. So the question was how to refuel them as they're going along.
Now this guy had the idea that, since the physicists can get energy out of
uranium, could I work out a way in which we could use silicon dioxide --
sand, dirt -- as a fuel? If that were possible, then all this tank would
have to do would be to have a little scoop underneath, and as it goes along,
it would pick up the dirt and use it for fuel! He thought that was a great
idea, and that all I had to do was to work out the details. That was the
kind of problem I thought we would be talking about in the meeting the next
day.
I went to the meeting and noticed that some guy who had introduced me
to all the people at the cocktail party was sitting next to me. He was
apparently some flunky assigned to be at my side at all times. On my other
side was some super general I had heard of before.
At the first session of the meeting they talked about some technical
matters, and I made a few comments. But later on, near the end of the
meeting, they began to discuss some problem of logistics, about which I knew
nothing. It had to do with figuring out how much stuff you should have at
different places at different times. And although I tried to keep my trap
shut, when you get into a situation like that, where you're sitting around a
table with all these "important people" discussing these "important
problems," you can't keep your mouth shut, even if you know nothing
whatsoever! So I made some comments in that discussion, too.
During the next coffee break the guy who had been assigned to shepherd
me around said, "I was very impressed by the things you said during the
discussion. They certainly were an important contribution."
I stopped and thought about my "contribution" to the logistics proble
Evolution - The Triumph of an Idea by Carl Zimmer is an excellent book about Darwin, evolution, and even includes updated recent discussion related to intelligent design.
"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
As soon as you find some evidence against Evolution, we can reconsider it.
try the flagellum and the eye/retina. their hasn't been enough time for the 'evolution/mutation' the darwin ascribes for these to have eber developed. also check the fossil records for humans alone, no dead end mutations/evolutions have been fond where one thing wasn;t right and was capped off or died out. as hard as you tr, yu cannot take God/reator out of the picture....
this alone disproves Darwin's rants.
Very nice, decades old baseless assertions. The evolution of the eye and flagellum are well understood these days, and there are plenty of dead ends in the primate branch of the fossil record. You need to stop parroting back arguments you don't understand and haven't researched, unless you enjoy looking foolish.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Matter curves space-time
School boards don't, but the publishers spend an immense amount of money putting textbooks together, and don't want to spend the extra money it would take to have a different text book that would satisfy every state's rules. In reality, the textbook publishers try to satisfy 4 states, the ones with the largest school markets. they are New York, Florida, California, and Texas. ( in no particular order, but the latter two especially.) currently, with the massive budget cutbacks in California, it is unlikely that the California state school board is going to be purchasing any new sets of text books in the near future, so Texas is the only really large up and coming customer.
for reference, there are papers by Mike Bowler and the book "Lies my Teacher Told Me" by James P. Loewen that cover the nature of how textbooks are put together. add to that the way they are judged, as chronicled by Richard Feynman in "Surely you're joking..." and you can see how there would be a recipe for disaster.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
The apparently contradictory opposing-view curriculum can be considered
to be a method for confusing the students.
The book I mentioned clears up the confusion, because it both explains
in plain language how evolution works, and also explains why so many people
believe in the teachings of religion. It thereby explains the existence
of the contradictory viewpoints. Thus "unconfusing" the students.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Spread the word that this is a Stalinist tactic all around Texas, that ought to take care of the problem!
It is clear to me that religious people cannot be trusted. They are liars. They lie to themselves. They CHOOSE to believe in fantasy instead of established, observable facts. In other words, they lie to themselves and everyone around them. Any mind/personality capable of such thorough and depraved lying, cannot be trusted. Ergo, I never trust religious people. "God Fearing" = "Liar" as far as I'm concerned. It is malicious ignorance. Nothing more. They will be the downfall of society and humanity.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Sorry guys, most of us hate this shit too.
And the people wanting separation of church and state are not "Christian enemies." It is this siege mentality that keeps the fundamentalists afraid to venture outside the flock, and engenders such divisive language.
There's some insight here. Christianity has it's enemies (Slashdot is mild by comparison). The "siege mentality" is a defensive measure that has built up over time. It is sometimes overblown (particularly among certain fundamentalists) which causes jumping at shadows when separation of church and state come up.
Just don't think for a moment that the religious side of this "war" is the only one that tries to change law and leverage the government.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
As I've always said: It is clear to me that religious people cannot be trusted. They are liars. They lie to themselves. They CHOOSE to believe in fantasy instead of established, observable facts. In other words, they lie to themselves and everyone around them. Any mind/personality capable of such thorough and depraved lying, cannot be trusted. Ergo, I never trust religious people. "God Fearing" = "Liar" as far as I'm concerned. It is malicious ignorance. Nothing more. They will be the downfall of society and humanity.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
What kind of intelligent designer puts the recreation area adjacent to the sewage plant?
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
@ideonexus:
For years I've lamented the fact that most of the textbooks in this country have been authored by a bunch left wing revisionist 1960's hippie throw-backs, and so find your complaints actually somewhat refreshing. Still, my wife an I have never let any of our children spend one day in public school and have opted instead to teach them ourselves. If you're so upset by this type of "Change" then maybe you should stop complaining and take responsibility for providing your children with the education that you consider to be best for them.
The way they're telling it, though, it's the progressives that are trying to delete George Washington, Veteran's Day, and the free market.
Could it be the truth is somewhere in the middle?
Could it be that school isn't the beginning nor the end of education?
I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level,
in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e. meta-level topics such as)...
Visit your local IB (International Baccalaureate) high school, and you'll find that IB students are required to take two semesters of "Theory of Knowledge" that covers the topics you mention. Unfortunately, asking to make such courses mandatory is akin to expecting regular high school students to be able to construct a logical geometry proof or to perform a critical analysis of a literary work (both of which appear to be lost art forms in most high schools).
But what if your religion is Bing?
Have gnu, will travel.
Judging Books by Their Covers
"It turned out that the blank book had a rating by some of the other
members! They couldn't believe it was blank, because they had a rating. In
fact, the rating for the missing book was a little bit higher than for the
two others. The fact that there was nothing in the book had nothing to do
with the rating."
my associative arrays can kick your hash - TCL
The entire summary (of course I didn't even click on the article) is simply opinionated flamebait. Mod entire post as trolling flamebait and move on.
Leave the Texans alone... does NOBODY actually look at history anymore??
Oh, I forgot, we're supposed to rewrite it... :-)
I think Texas has the right idea. Let's not forget who we are or where we came from (i.e. history).
This just shows we are heading for another dark ages.
Can't we live in harmony with the two - taking the best from both?
There is something science teaches and there is something religion teaches. Science teaches direct, observable fact and religion teaches values/morals. A logical side and an emotional side.
Obviously pure science is not working when there is feminists running about (ironically quite illogical) and the traditional, biological way of living is in disorder.
It needs to be MUCH earlier. Yes, there need to be classes for teens, but also in earlier grades. Otherwise, the kids will already be accustomed to formulating poor questions (or none at all), not seeing bias, or trying to argue based on opinion rather than evidence.
That was a poor way to word the last part. Opinions are good. What I'd like to see less of is, "I believe X, so let me find evidence that supports it and not even bother to look for contradictory evidence or arguments". (To be fair, they tried to teach us the process of finding such information for good arguments in our advanced writing classes ... but the vast majority of kids won't get that.)
At least Christians are willing to admit their beliefs are based on faith. When is the scientific community going to grow up and realize that they have yet to offer proof against creationism. Nobody is saying evolution does not take place, they are simply saying there are other theory's as well.
Seriously it's time for the scientific community to get off their high horse, and admit that their beliefs are as much faith based as everyone else.
How does Pyrrho know that suspending judgment will result in peace of mind, and how does he know that peace of mind is the proper state of humans? Should he not suspend his judgment on such matters?
I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level, in basic epistemology and metaphysics (i.e. meta-level topics such as):
-How to think carefully, logically.
-How to search.
-How to formulate good questions.
-How to recognize bias; people who are "speaking for effect"; trying to influence you, and some of the common motivations why people do that.
How to form beliefs using epistemic responsibility.
Then set them free to explore the information from a billion sources that we have available to us at a mouse click today.
The scariest kind of graduate is one who has been taught only to parrot, and to conform to orthodoxy, and who does not know how to question.
Do you really think that businesses, marketers, and advertisers would let schools educate people that the messages they are bombarded with every day that push unnecessary over-consumption?
Would car salesmen really like to to know they are motivated to push you towards one vehicle or away from another?
Would lobbyists want politicians to be able to realize when they are being purchased? Would politicians want the public to be able to hear beyond the shit coming out of their mouths?
Would religious leaders across the country want their flocks getting an education on how to be a critical thinker?
No, my friend, your curriculum stands no chance of ever seeing the light of day, regardless how enlightened it might be.
This whole summary is ignorant. Everyone is pushing a point of view. It has to be somebody's.
Some perspectives are more polarized than others, such as yours.
Peter Drucker distinguishes a garden-variety decision, which in a group setting could be by consensus or by fiat, from a management decision in which all implications of the decision are carefully thought through as it pertains to all facets of the organization/society.
One of the perspectives out there--such as mine--is that more people should think through the larger implications of these choices rather than splintering into irreconcilable "points of view", framing every debate in terms of differences instead of commonalities.
Ignoring my own advice, here's another take on the matter. The creations are in a bit of a pickle right now. It's easy enough to dismiss cosmology. The average person never even looks though a simple optical telescope at the heavens above. For all the average person knows, it's unicorns up there.
Genetic data, however, is not so easy to brush aside. The trickle is becoming a flood is becoming a global deluge. With a decade or three, this will completely redefine the delivery of health care. There won't be any escaping this daily reality unless you're so far off the grid you don't pay taxes. I don't think they like to admit this, but my take is that creationists are frightened out of their wits by the evolutionary tsunami.
Within a generation, it will common coinage that human genetics are a living document. I think "punctured evolution" is a bit like a river cutting its way into a steeper gorge. A first a trickle, then with increasing acceleration, until the whole river changes course. Something about the organization of the human brain cut its way into a new gorge at some point in the last 50,000 to 1Ma which leads to a lot of other things seeking a new equilibrium point (within the non-catastrophic degrees of freedom). All this small adjustment is preserved in the recent genetic record.
Six billion people times four billion base pairs. To a creationist trying hard not to be believe in 10^9, 24*10^18 is a harsh, unimaginable place. There's no lack of signal to resolve these matter. (I only counted one cell per person, there's additional signal in the cell-to-cell variability data.)
The remaining barrier is the mounting the massive collection and analysis program to extract this signal. The original 8086 had 20,000 transistors. Intel's latest flash memory chip has 64 billion bits. Who is going to confidently predict that we're not up to the genetic challenge? And then what for the creationists?
The old argument with the anthropologists was centered on the gaps in the fossil record, which resembled the gaps between stars in cold, hard space. The living genetic record also has gaps, like the gaps between hydrogen atoms at the sun's core.
What makes the creationists so frighteningly effective for the last twenty years is that they presently enjoy the clarity advantage that Sun Tsu described for an army fighting with its back against a river offering no escape. That worked fine against the motley assortment of fossil data.
Their present situation mirrors a cheesy line from Dances With Wolves, when Costner finally fesses up the appalling magnitude of the lost cause: Europeans will arrive "like the stars" in number. Noah, pack your umbrella, the data is here.
I listened to a somewhat disappointing talk with Richard Epstein on EconTalk last night. He's a smart guy, but never leaves a long enough gap in his sentence for another mind to participate and develop trust. Takes about 70% of your cognitive capacity just to parse the erudite logorrhea.
Nevertheless, he makes some good points along the way. One is that one unit of investment in the intellectual development of a four year old is worth two units of catching up later on.
It makes sense for the creationists to push the creationist view of the world o
All education is indoctrination. All communication is manipulation.
The Government should not be trusted to raise our children.
And for all you "spaghetti monster" believers, the parents have the right and the responsibility to raise their children how they see fit. Teach what you believe; not what someone else does. It's called freedom.
Elections have consequences. These board members ran and were elected. They have the right to choose the books they want. If you don't think they are intellectual enough, then elect intellectuals. Just because they are being lobbied, does not mean they will make an ill-informed decision. Your anti-Texas bigotry aside.
Yeah.. and let us recall that Jefferson was the most radically non-Christian of the founding fathers and he was in France when the Constitution was being written! Moreover, he was the kind of guy who could and would reshape things to fit his vision, well after the fact.
Jefferson had a beef with organized religion. That doesn't prove that anyone else did.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
However, your probably ARE as well. Thanks for the post.
"Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself."
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
The compromisers and people in the middle get more social karma. This can lead to more reproductive opportunities.
Jahsus Christ, who made them boss...oh, wait...
Religious people are animals who don't even think they are animals. What better way to treat them than by eating them like you would any other animal? When they see clearly that they are nutritious, maybe they'll get the point.
If California wrote a law that automatically rejected any textbook accepted by Texas, then there would be at least 2 choices for the rest of the country. It would be entertaining at least to try and get a law like this passed. Who is going to stand up and defend the Texas process in California? It is also possible to generate open source text books and convince states that these are worthy of formal acceptance. Getting a nobel laureate to sign up as one of the editors of your open source textbook would probably grease the acceptance process. The great thing about an open source textbook is that the final product is much more that just a book. It would also come with the accumulated discussions as to how it reached its final form and its evolution over time would be visible. California has started this with one World History textbook and has (apparently very modest) plans to expand this to their full curiculum. California Open Source Textbook Project .
Presenting multiple contrasting theories with discussion about both would seem to be beneficial.
That is why this was written. The whole concept of "alternate theory to evolution" is not science and does not belong in a science classroom. ID or FSMism is not a theory in scientific terms.
Science is the teaching of facts and accepted theories. No science class teaches the alternate theory of anything. You don't learn about alchemy in chemistry classes, you don't learn about astrology in astronomy, you don't learn about reiki, natural healing, voodoo etc in biology / med school.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
and it does not support your assertion that, historically, bearing Arms meant being part of an army.
"To arms, citizens," is a very clear reference to citizens, i.e. NOT MEMBERS OF AN ARMY, having arms and bearing them for revolutionary purposes (much like Washington, Jefferson, et.al. did) instead of in defense of your threatened nation.
It is ludicrous to suggest that the authors of the Amendment would have been unaware of this particular historical usage that it is citizens who can and should be able to bear Arms.
There are numerous traditional Christian churches that do not swallow this crud being spewed by the plague of pseudo Christian new wave churches. It is time to self regulate the Christian community and shut up these low life pseudo churches that exist to feed some bums who claim to be ministers.
Any Christian worth his salt realises that God could use any tool He wished to create this world including evolution, that not every phrase in the Bible is meant to be taken in a primitive sense and that science and Christianity have no conflicts at all. As a matter of fact the doctrines embraced by these new age evangelistic groups were taught as being Satanic doctrines in seminaries for centuries. The tip off is that Christ promised His followers pain and suffering in this world for following Him. If you see a church promising a wonderful and wealthy life in this world run out the door as fast as you can.
Kinda sounds the other side complaining about 'global warming' being taught in schools.
In some ways, the internet merely makes confirmation bias even more pervasive. With my mouse clicks, I can easily shop around to find whatever source of information comforts me in my already-held beliefs. For example, read the comments sections at Fox News or Huffington Post, both information sources known for having an ideological slant. (I cannot be held responsible if your brain explodes.) People who can't handle having their worldviews challenged will seek out the source that challenges them the least. The internet makes that task very, very easy.
Is it really necessary to disparage every citizen of a specific state? And which Texans are you calling "dumbasses"? The ultra left-wingers in Austin or the West U folks in Houston? The ultra right-wingers in the NASA area south of Houston? The "buckle of the bible belt" East Texans? The nouveau-riche in Dallas and Houston? The Tex-Mex groups in San Antonio and along the border?
Texas is too diverse a state to label everyone with one brush.
A clever person solves a problem, A wise person avoids it. -Einstein
You know, arguing that the constitution has been considered a "living document" since the fifties (a time marked by WWII recovery and mcarthyism btw) doesn't exactly help the argument. It was written in 1787 so that's at least 163 years where it was considered unchanged ink on a piece of parchment, vs 60 where it was considered something a few people could rewrite at will from the bench.
Besides pointing out a real problem with "science" and its take on origins, I would submit that it has been Dewey and his successors that have rewritten history, politics, etc into a secular cast that was originally and legitimately Christian. Sorry guys, but it appears that what the Texas school board is doing is just trying to restore the perspective to what it was before it was brazenly rewritten by a bunch of modernists whose outlook was so bankrupt that it devolved into the cynicism that is postmodern thought.
Be More, Be Manly, The Manly Geek Ubergeek Extraordinaire Blogger: www.manlygeek.com/blog Podcaster: podcast.man
Evolution belongs in science schoolbooks.
Creation belongs in myths and religions schoolbooks.
One of the weirder bits of right-wing belief is that U.S. Constitution was "divinely inspired". This is an official Mormon position, and some of the more right-wing Christian groups have picked up on it.
What's so weird about this is that we have the Federalist Paper and the debates of the Constitutional Convention. There's not much mystery about how it was put together. The major players all wrote about their thinking.
The basic parameters of the U.S. Constitution came from the constraints the authors faced. They already had the Articles of Confederation of the Continental Congress in force, which set up a confederation of states, somewhat like the United Nations or the European Union. This was a weak federation, and it ran into the problems of most weak federations - too many decisions required unanimity. so it was hard to get things done. So they needed something with more central authority. Britain was still a threat. "We must hang together, or we will assuredly all hang separately". The key point to remember about the Constitutional Convention was that the delegates knew that if their new government broke down, they'd end up being hung for treason by British soldiers. (This was not a theoretical risk. See War of 1812.)
But the states didn't want too much central authority. Almost everyone agreed that a king was a bad idea. (Well, Hamilton wanted a king. He wanted to be king. Didn't fly.) Direct democracy was considered, but the French Revolution was getting underway at the time (the storming of the Bastille occurred during the convention), and that wasn't looking too good. Especially since many of the delegates were aristocrats. Most of the states already had a two-house legislature and a governor, so that looked like an acceptable model to follow. So that was the basic model.
Once it became clear that a strong president was needed, the problem was making sure he didn't become a dictator. All the players knew what had happened to Rome. This led to some basic safeguards. Congress can impeach the President, but the President cannot dissolve Congress. There are also some subtle safeguards not often mentioned; the President has a fixed term of office and it runs out at noon on inauguration day. It's the clock, not the swearing in, that makes the new President. So an outgoing president can't stall. (Nixon's cronies once considered that option.) So when the time comes, the old guy has to leave, like it or not.
On the rights side, the debates are well known. Again, existing models were followed; the Bill of Rights looks a lot like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The notion of an established religion was rejected; Britain had that, and it led to several civil wars. So the delegates agreed on a "hands off" approach to religion.
All this stuff was argued out. What made it work was that the delegates all knew that if they screwed up and a divided nation resulted, Britain would move in. The knowledge that one is to be hanged at dawn concentrates the mind wonderfully.
That may sound good, but it is still being taught how think - its actually quite ironic isn't it, you can't teach people how to be free thinkers because the act of teaching it as absolute would negate the 'freeness' of it :)
What really teaches you how to think freely is watching stupid people hit themselves over the head with their own beliefs, for that you only need to step back and observe. Unfortunately, there isn't a popular method to tell if you are doing the same thing without realising it, possibly because people hate being wrong so much they get rather upset and emotional and lose focus on reality when it is pointed out to them... therefore not sharing their personal insight as to what led them to make a fool of themself!
Funny old game :)
Right. This has little to do with Texas wielding undue influence. It has to do with Texas being one of the only large states in the union that is not completely bankrupt, and other states having to benefit from the economies of scale of Texas' textbook purchases.
Instead of whining, opponents should be asking themselves "why is teaching creationism more profitable than teaching science?"
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Faith in beliefs gives you religion.
Knowledge of facts gives you science.
One is made-up.
The other is truth.
The search for truth and facts, or made-up answers.
Texas is a huge purchaser of textbooks and the standards they set influence what the publishers are willing to print. They publish books in order to placate Texas and the rest of the country are stuck with them.
Supply and demand at its best. "Free market" capitalism is providing your truth.
I've always interpreted the living part as meaning that it can be changed; we have specific procedures to change the constitution (and I think the last amendment was passed in 1992 !), that's what living means, not that you can interpret it any way you want.
String theory gets a bad wrap. It's not physics it's maths, the 'problem' is that the answers it gives are no better than the existing answers and the novel predictions it makes cannot (yet) be tested.
Having said that I agree, "I don't know" is the correct scientific answer to the question - "What is outside the big bang we are currently experiencing?". Of course the "I don't know" gaps in science is where religious people insert god.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The pieces are already in place. We're about 9/10ths the way there.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
More of an atheist wanting to burn books because he can't handle dissent from very educated Texans who don't following the feed flock of secular orthodoxy.
Dawson also promotes the Warming Climate garbage and likewise can't stand it when other people are proven correct.
I am a high school science teacher and I can say with certainty that nobody cares what textbooks say except old politicians. Teachers are still going to teach whatever the hell they feel like no matter what the book says
Textbooks for-profit will be gone in a couple decades anyway.
The parent lobs a grenade for one side of the issue; but doesn't pick up the rest of the story. 704 responses so far...a few actually make good points.
From what I understand, the "publishers" run these textbooks by these state Public Education committees to get feedback and "diurection" as to what should be included in the texts our kids will be reading and studying. At this point, I think it's Texas and California to whom these publishers sell the majority of their wares...and most states have abdicated to those two princiuples. To make matters worse (if it is California), budget problems are impacting sales there...leaving Texas as the long pole in the tent.
This is NOT a one-sided issue...and it's been creeping along like this for years...As one of the responses brought out, the CotUS is NOT a living document, rather it is stakes driven into our soil as guidance...its' clear intent was to define what role our Federal Government was to play. But, what has happened over the last 50 years or so, is our own diversity and political correctness have shot holes in our feet. The texts editors have been slowly "removing" what I thought (way back when) were important events and references - - Like Christopher Columbus - "it is not relevant now"...
We also have to remember that these publishers utilize writers and scholars, as well as Consultants (o-o-o-o-h, bad word) to determine what should be included in the texts...to the extent that references to major events get re-defined, based on their views of "what's important". Like Christmas Day as a Holiday (Holy Day is the root words of that one), being replaced by a "nonsense" day...to avoid making a religious reference. And some other instances of dropping words from the text of the Declaration of Independence...as in "We hold these truths to be self-evident...that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights...". And creator is NOT specific. Thomas Jefferson wrote that, a man who treasured religion, but didn't want a document favoring one over another for this new country that favored one religion over another. And the Constitutional Convention started from the Declaration of Independence when they began work on the CotUS.
And also recall that the very founding settlers of this country left everything behind them in England, to escape religious persecution...
So there is also all-out war within the Texas faction; and it is many-faceted...from an insistence of RE-ESTABLISHING our fundamental "stakes" in the ground, to over-embellishing the significance of Religion in our growth and evolution as a country, to encompassing our diversity and melting pot as a nation of INDIVIDUALS from many different cultures, societies and beliefs. Individuals being the key word...Everything in the BoR is about us as a society of INDIVIDUALS, not groups. And we are one of the few, if not the only, nation, who value the individual over the society.
As George Washington said,"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
I would trust in those words, unbleached by Political Correctness, as opposed to any I have heard recently...
FPO
and we'll stop hearing "American scientists recently discovered that..." in Old Europe :-)
What seems to be forgotten in all this is: The Constitution of the United States lays out a country "Of the people, by the people, and for the people", not "Of the church, by the church, and for the Church". We the people need to remember that and enforce it. Our constitution dictates a "separation of church and state". That is the basic thing the tenet trying to be rewritten or overturned in all the battles with creationist or any others who want to force religious laws on the United States. The wish to create a theocracy rather than a democracy. Yes the United States was formed "under God" but not "of God and of the church". It doesn't change anything. We are not a theocracy but a democracy, at least technically. I live in Texas and this whole incident is embarrassing to say the least. Several years back, when the fundamental religionist were having trouble electing people to higher offices the stated their goal was to quietly elect people to local governments, school boards, and the like. This would give them a foothold to influence policy at the local level, then move on to the state level. Onward and Upward as the Kansas state motto says. This isn't just a Texas issue, it hit in Pennsylvania and Kansas first. Look around your local and state school boards and check the back ground of those who have been elected, then decide to do something about it. Campaign and vote for candidates who will uphold our Constituiton and the separation of church and state, not subvert it.
If Americans don't care I don't see why any one else should either.
...they [we] have the world's largest supply of nuclear weapons. Do you really want a bunch of religious zealots in control of those? Religious zealots who pray for THE RAPTURE!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Hey, wait a second.
The leaders of these efforts outright admit they are attempting to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system
As opposed to the leaders of other various educational efforts, who instead clandestinely hide that they are attempting (via the current books) to redefine the way our children understand the political landscape so that, when they grow up, they will have preconceived notions of the American political system favoring social welfare programs and environmentalist agendas based on fraudulent "science"?
Most of the founding fathers were deists (as opposed to theists)...There are dozens of written quotes by the FF to support that, including Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists. The words "jesus" and "God" are found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution (except in the date as "In the Year of Our Lord"). The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment specifies Separation of Church and State.
You use that word, but you don't understand what it means.
Look up the meaning of rational.
Here's the first definition I found: "having reason or understanding". If it is beyond reason or understanding, it is by definition NOT rational.
The whole creation + adam and eve + original sin + god condemns us + jesus saves (s, which team is he the goalie for) is irrational.
Well, seeing how the Constitution goes about defining the method and means of it's own change, It's kinda hard to believe it is a "Living Document". A perfect example of a living document is in George Orwell's Animal Farm. The 'constitution' the pigs drew up post farm revolution. That's what happens to rights based on "living documents". Oh and the founding fathers were for the most part Deists. Kinda like the clock maker argument.
but what I didn't realize is that Texas schoolbooks set the standard for the rest of the country.
Wow... I sure hope their schoolbook depositories don't set a standard for the rest of the country.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
So wait, you get to push your truth, but they don't get to push their truth ?
"That does not make it so ?". Of course it does. After all, postmodernism, which is (equally forcibly) taught at universities, clearly states it does in fact make it so.
Stating something is true or false, postmodernism teaches, involves being certain about facts. And nobody is certain about any facts at all.
Furthermore, it seems strange to dismiss theories as "not science", when any definition of such has been thrown out either for including the most utter lunacy, or excluding things like social sciences (any non-exact science). Some definitions like "anything we can prove" were thrown out for only allowing 1 or 2 obscure mathematical theories.
Of course, without postmodernism, things like equality of races would directly be dismissed out of hand. After all, equality means that properties match, meaning that even if the only difference was skin color, there would be no equality (equality before the law would, of course, be another thing. Equality without qualifiers means exact sameness, and is therefore obviously untrue). With only reasonably proven things allowed, stuff like global warming, medicine and psychology based solely on statistics of large-error-margin data series would not stand up to scrutiny. In fact most non-exact sciences, excluding perhaps (some parts of) biology and other purely descriptive sciences, would not pass munster.
And then there is the other beauty of "science", the "scientific consensus". Unfortunately, when analysed closely, "scientific consensus" turns out to mean that a small group of government-selected people mostly agree on a specific, speculative conclusion. This does not exclude these groups from calling things "scientific consensus" that are blatantly wrong. Just follow theoretical physics for 6 months, you'll see 3 theories become "consensus" and then get thrown out.
And of course, the consensus that creationism is based on is much more democratic (anyone can join, and, at least in Chrsitianity, anyone can leave, even if that specific quality is not shared by most other religions). It is also much, much larger. Any "scientific consensus" means 500 people in practice (people who are accepted experts and have done research themselves). Best possible case it means 5000 people.
The creationism consensus total for all religions is somewhere between 2 and 4 BILLION people (if not 5 by now).
And of course, both forms of consensus have been known to be utterly wrong. Both types of groups, scientists and clerics (mostly everyone, during 99.99% of history) have been known to not just be wrong, but to actively use violence, fraud and even murder (including genocide, even if large scale genocide is mostly limited to non-Christian religions and ideologies) to push their viewpoint on others. The muslim genocides (of which there have been many) were started by clerics, communist and national socialist exterminations counted lots of scientists in their upper echelons)
In reality, a postmodernist would say, you merely differ in opinion. The truth doesn't exist, and so it is on nobody's side. And, at least according to today's universities, we're all supposed to be good little postmodernists.
(needless to say, this post is mostly an attack on the bullshit that is postmodernism, not a defense of creationism. I do, however, loathe with all my soul, the fact that the opposition to creationism is a social phenomenon. It should be a rational phenomenon. People should be taught both creationism and evolution, and they should be taught to identify and think about the differences. And only then should one, properly equipped, decide for oneself. And of course, whatever decision is made should be accepted, which is something the parent post is not exactly promoting. It is just social-based "I get to make fun of 'dumb' people because they're creationist". The post is an example, not of science, but of socially-imposed conformity. Ironically this soci
not even the constitution can do that, not even by amendment, it doesn't work like that
The founding fathers of the US didn't live in an age of nuclear weapons, automatic guns, excessive greenhouse gas emissions, or any of the other trappings of 21st century life. It's OK to deviate from what they wanted.
It is ok, but the mechanism for that is a Constitutional Amendment. In other words, we gave the federal government the power to tax through an amendment process. That way, the -people- as a whole through the states could decide whether or not they wanted to accept the terms of a revised treaty - which is what the Constitution really is.
When you have the federal government, in any of its branches, interpret the Constitution to create new powers for itself, it is a breach of the treaty, really.
This is my sig.
...they just don't both belong in a science schoolbook. Put it in a religion class, maybe even a psychology class.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I know at least 3 creationists who are a lot smarter than I am
Having completely read your masterpiece of logical analysis of, uh, something, I can honestly say that I absolutely believe that.
When a new invention or concept appears in a community, there are two general ways the people can end up changing their speech to name it:
There is no profound meaning to one strategy or the other. It's an arbitrary choice. Whether the words that we have today for newer inventions or concepts were extensions or inventions is a contingent historical fact.
Yet this sort of fact throws us into a loop any time we try to interpret an old document like the Constitution, since we run into the two corresponding types of problems:
For example, imagine we lived in a world where everybody agreed that the word "arms" didn't cover nukes; "arms" meant what we call "non-automatic small arms," and they had a different word for nukes and bombs and cannons and such. Somebody could still argue that nukes are analogous enough to "arms" that even though the 2nd Amendment said "arms," they should interpret it to cover nukes.
There is nothing in the text of the Constitution that can make those choices for us--and yet we inadvertently and unavoidably make choices like these all the time, because people invent new things and forget old ones.
Are you adequate?
"We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out. "
Adolf Hitler, speech in Berlin, 24 October 1933
"Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country] ... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity ... We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press—in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... [few] years."
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922–1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871–872.
"We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people. "
speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf, [cited from Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich]
There are many, many more quotes like these.
Right. Like how GWB went to Vietnam and...oh. Wait. Right.
The thesis of this summary is rather exaggerated. Texas is only the 4th most populous state that uses a statewide approval system. States like California and Florida purchase far more texbooks than Texas does.
In addition the Texas selection process has attracted so much attention over the years that it is now a battle between all sorts of interests, not just a forum for the far Right.
It's fascinating to see right-wing campaigns bloom. I saw this straw man campaign start about a week ago.
I can only assume that you are intellectually honest and just getting bad data. But the fact remains: Your opinion is the end result of a campaign (a PR/Marketing initiative), designed by someone who does not care about the truth, only about what their clients want the truth to be.
These things are always so simple that I think they'll fail. I'm always wrong, and they are great successes. If you can't see it, the strategy is this: Why listen to the Liberal/Socialist/Homosexual lobby that wants Ramadan to replace Christmas? Stop the evil Lieberals from blocking the True Conservative school curriculum!
Once again I was wrong, works like a charm. Turn off Fox News and AM radio.
The evolution of the eye and flagellum are well understood these days
The crazy thing about eyes and this "oh they're too complex to have been evolved" stuff is that they evolved separately at least twice to my knowledge.
If common features between species are a case of 'designer' copy-and-paste, then why didn't we get squid eyes?
The enemies of Democracy are
"I figure that there should be mandatory classes, at the mid to upper high school level, in basic epistemology and metaphysics..."
...can anyone honestly look at the requirements for graduating HS and think they are good??? Its a mess people. We are the laughing stock of the western world and haveing our asses handed to us be emerging countries with more effective systems of education.
...partly due to the same politics this article is related to.
When I was studying philosophy as an undergrad in the early 90's, I took an interesting education/epistomology class that spoke to these efforts exactly - but futile as many will rightfully point out for so many reasons! - as the effort dates back centuries even; as old as endeavors for mass education is itself.
The truth is our EDU system represents nothing more then the Guns & Butter factories of the 1940's it was inteneded to serve. YES YES YES - its a little better then inception, when our schools were built through our the 40's aqnd 50's and the ground work laid for ensuing decades... buts its the same dang framwork and still very slow to change in anyway. Basic math, basic vocab, basic art and fitness - as quick as you can 'cause we gotta make stuff and feed people, have them bee able to count money and follow street signs, blah blah blah, at a bare minumum.
And in today's schools, 86 the art and creativity stuff as its too expensive. After school prgrams as well - just not important anymore. Wonder why we are fat and boring and gullable and lemmings!!!
You don't even need a pulse to get through a USA HS curriculum. And there is sooooo much competition at the priviledged levels - jamm packed at times with kids only a hair-line away from each other w/ re: grades (wallets, social status, adresses, pro'lly gene pool as well)... wouldn't you think the system just isn't diverse or demanding enough??? Hell even my cat looks as smart as yours in a room full of mice.
Real education for the masses is a long ways away in the USA.
In europe they will tell about PhD bank tellers because there are too many that are over educated... really? Over educated? is that a possiblity? (deserves a sepaerate thread i thinks...). Possibly if you encouraged a creative aspect of the curriculum - art, economics, cooking - someone could imainge a new way to apply all that great economicm social, mathematical, and behavorial science skill into somthin useful... like, i dont know - educating more freaking people!!!!!
but admittedly, we all dont have Socrates (or whomever in dialog) to walk around and hand hold us for the those first few years it really counts.
Didn't Jefferson say something about how an educated population is essential to democracy succeeding?
Of course, then 30-odd years later De Touqueville predicted that american democracy would succeed, unless elected representatives realized that they can bribe the American people with their own money...
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
History is hard to present objectively. If you read a significant number of histories, even the the way history is presented -- what's considered important -- varies both from book to book, and from era to era.
All history is simplification. It has to be. And every author has a bias in how he chooses to include as relevant, and what he leaves out. This is good. If he was totally unbiased, it would read like noise.
At the elementary and high school level, teaching history is pretty much deciding which myths you're going to teach.
Lot of U.S. histories present the U.S. as 'never being the aggressor' in a war. In grade school I was still taught the bit about Washington and the cherry tree, and Lincoln and the penny.
Things like choosing between "Living document" versus "Enduring document" for the Constitution is a matter of view point. It's both. And neither. It's hard to change. It's easy to re-interpret.
I'm a dual citizen, US and Canada. I see what's happening in Texas, and what's happening generally in the U.S.
Between Homeland security, and the Religious Right, I'm just waiting for an Evangelist named Nehemiah Scudder to rise as First Prophet.
Seriously -- I don't expect the U.S. to remain a free society in any meaningful sense of the word for more than another decade or so.
[Allusion to R.A. Heinlein's "Revolt in 2100"]
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
Please see subject.
Wait, are you seriously arguing that your misunderstanding of a literary/sociological critique is a valid way to misunderstand the scientific method in order to support the notion that religion should be taught in schools?
I hope you're being funny, but suspect you're not. I think your thinking is just incredibly muddled by culture war bullshit to the point that you're incapable of understanding science, postmodernism, or, really, anything in sufficient depth to make a coherent argument.
I forget what 8 was for.
I'll get to the rest :).
I've only got a PhD in mathematics. What do I know about science, or philosophy, or research ?
Funny how nobody states what specifically is wrong about the argument. Clearly science and math must be this omnipotent/omniscient magical thing that cannot have any limitations whatsoever.
And the fact that you are unaware of the tiny little detail that we know the basic natural numbers axioms to be flawed (we just don't know how to fix them, or even if they can be fixed at all). This is something that is taught every second-year student of any exact science field at my university at least. Presumably in the hopes that they might have an idea about fixing them. Few advances have been made in the 40 years now that they do this though.
So your being unaware of such important details mostly illuminates the limits of your education and understanding.
Of course every single little tidbit of any exact science relies extensively on those axioms. Generally they rely also on the flat-out-wrong real numbers axioms, which we don't know how to fix either.
The fact that you respond offensively also illustrates a great problem in today's world. Science is politicized to the extent that the known truth about so many fields is actively opposed by the majority of the population. Every year a few fields get themselves added to this very, very sad list. It started just with fields like social studies and psychology, but these days (obviously) climate scientists and economists are complaining about interference, and last year I heard 2 astrophysicists complaining about political pressure about their refusal to accept certain highly speculative theories as truth. Even theoretical statistics doesn't seem to be safe, although it's been getting better now that it's not blamed for the financial crisis of last year anymore.
I don't know what "the culture war" is, but I do fear science is losing whatever war it is fighting.
If there ever was a killer application for open-source, textbooks come to mind.
Children are sent to school to get a well rounded education. That means they should be taught both sides of the debate. Science has its teachings and so does religion. Schools are becoming progressively liberal and biased. Teachers should be presenting both sides of the debate and limited to social studies only.
Congrats on your credential. I hope it does you some good.
Apparently, it doesn't help you not make weird assumptive leaps; I have no idea why you seem to believe what you do about my knowledge of math. And not only does that have nothing to do with what I was saying, but also that you pick it up as an example to ignore what I'm saying is a complete non sequitur. One can only hope that your next degree will be in rhetoric.
I forget what 8 was for.
I don't have to impress you. I don't even have to influence you at all. All I have to do is publicly point out the shenanigans you're up to and the masses will know your plot. If they know that there is an active subversive force trying to undermine education, then they won't listen to you anymore.
Awwww nutbunnies... you're not KeithPreston...
Yeah, ok. Sorry about that. I completely assumed you were the one I was outing as a wedge pusher. So unless you've got some sock puppets, there's nothing tying you to the wedge. Here at least. Why the heck did you respond to me here?
But no, I foe'ed you for something else entirely.
If there were no God, there would be no atheist.
You use that word, but you don't understand what it means.
Look up the meaning of rational.
Here's the first definition I found: "having reason or understanding". If it is beyond reason or understanding, it is by definition NOT rational.
The whole creation + adam and eve + original sin + god condemns us + jesus saves (s, which team is he the goalie for) is irrational.
Hey look, I can pull dictionary too.
1: Having or exercising the ability to reason.
2: Consistent with or based on reason; logical
Irrational is refusing to see the design inherent in the universe. Scientists themselves observe the earth, solar system, weather patterns, and etcetera. They see how things were set into specific roles with specific laws, and they themselves see design, and not big bang or evolution. Irrational is cherry-picking only what you want to hear, and suppressing all other viewpoints to suite your own purposes. Thus you take the *reasoning* out of it.
Try looking up "reason" as well, I particularly find this definition well suited:
An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence.
Like the fact that scientists believe the universe was designed.
No they don't. There is zero evidence that "things were set into specific roles." Any such evidence would be major news.
"Believe" == no proof, just a belief.
In other words, even by your own statement, scientists have zero proof that the universe was designed.
No they don't. There is zero evidence that "things were set into specific roles." Any such evidence would be major news.
"Believe" == no proof, just a belief.
In other words, even by your own statement, scientists have zero proof that the universe was designed.
Proof:
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
I believe I made this point before. Through observation of the universe, scientists have seen design in the way things work. It's proof to them, your refusal to accept it doesn't make it less valid. Cherry-Picking. What is it you believe anyhow? What is it based on?
[citation needed]
Your assertion that they have a religious belief is not science (because it is a belief that is beyond what natural evidence provides, hence "super-natural", hence a religious "faith" belief, as opposed to testable assertion).
Show ANY test that can prove it. ANY. ONE. TEST.
Stupid fundies.
How about astronomers vs those who question heliocentrism? Since you want to "cover both sides of the debate", and all.
[citation needed]
Your assertion that they have a religious belief is not science (because it is a belief that is beyond what natural evidence provides, hence "super-natural", hence a religious "faith" belief, as opposed to testable assertion).
Show ANY test that can prove it. ANY. ONE. TEST.
Stupid fundies.
I love how hung up you are on tests, how about we examine the fossil record. Is that enough test for you? Why did all the animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. Isn't evolution supposed to take a long time? Or do you subscribe to some other belief? Will you try to dodge the question again, or will you answer? Or will you simply insult me again?
Please DO check out the fossil record. 100 million years is a long time, once life reaches a certain stage, to spread and diversify. Just look at the changes in the human genome in the last million. Or in domestic dogs in the last 10,000.
And while you're at it, show ONE piece of scientific evidence that the world was designed.
Religion has been the number 1 drawback of humans. Superstitious beliefs that have pandered to the basest instincts of the ignorant, giving people a license to hate.
And the worst offenders by far in the last 1,000 years have been the Christians. Justifying everything from owning slaves to hating gays, lesbians and transsexuals "because Gawd sez so." Sorry, but "because Gawd sez so" isn't acceptable any more.
Please DO check out the fossil record. 100 million years is a long time, once life reaches a certain stage, to spread and diversify. Just look at the changes in the human genome in the last million. Or in domestic dogs in the last 10,000.
And while you're at it, show ONE piece of scientific evidence that the world was designed.
Religion has been the number 1 drawback of humans. Superstitious beliefs that have pandered to the basest instincts of the ignorant, giving people a license to hate.
And the worst offenders by far in the last 1,000 years have been the Christians. Justifying everything from owning slaves to hating gays, lesbians and transsexuals "because Gawd sez so." Sorry, but "because Gawd sez so" isn't acceptable any more.
So there are differences in the Genome. What has really changed since then?
As well, I agree that historical Christianity has been a blight. Then again, historical Christianity didn't follow the Bible. They bent it the same as Hitler bent science to promote the so-called superiority of the "aryan race".
But I notice how eager you are to attack my beliefs without stating your own. You've attempted to dodge the question twice now. Maybe you don't really know what you believe. Maybe you just know you hate those who believe in God. Or maybe you simply hate God. Not my problem. But it becomes everyone's problem when one group tries to replace one widely accepted (and currently unprovable) theory, with another (constantly adjusted and currently unprovable) theory.
well duh! What do you think differences in the genome do? It only took 14,000 years for dogs and wolves to diverge as much as they have.
My beliefs? I'm a hard-line atheist. Richard Dawkins is a wishy-washy agnostic in comparison. Both the logical and mathematical proofs that show that god cannot exist in a universe where we exist settle the issue. God is incompatible with humans. And, since I'm in this universe, there is no god in this one. The one a few branes over ... It's all superstitious nonsense. However, I allow that other people may need to believe in and draw comfort from a wrong belief, same as they did when they believed that the world was the center of the universe.
And no, your god is no longer that widely accepted. Most Western societies have moved on, and are now "post-christian." Even the US is trending that way; atheism will easily be the #1 religion by mid-century even in the US. Get used to it.
Tell me, based on a the following verse, do you support raping a kidnapped woman after you've killed her family?
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. - Deut 21:10
Despite all of your attempts to contextualize the ridiculous lies and claims therein, the immorality of the bible cannot be covered up. Rape is, and always has been, immoral. Slavery is, and always has been, immoral. But that's hardly an insight you can expect from illiterate peasants from the ancient Levant.
This is where I have to leave it. Do yourself a favor: read the bible, cover to cover, and see for yourself. I consider that the best cure for Christianity (just as a good read through of the Qu'ran is the best cure for malady of being a muslim.) It worked for me, anyhow.
I think there is only one thing we can agree on. That being that we disagree.
Post-modern thought is only cynical if it is done carelessly.
If you still use careful logical and meta-logical thinking, so that you realize that some facts and models are more generally
applicable than others, and some are better proven than others,
but yet you accept that there are many stories, that narratives and archetypes create our context for understanding the world,
that cultural bias is ubiquitous, and that cultural context determines much of the content of popular thought and opinion,
then you are getting closer to enlightenment, by my definition anyway.
Take the example of "moral relativism". This is unfairly critiqued, because it is portrayed as meaning that there
are no moral rules that are any better than any others. But a careful thinking "moral relativist" still accepts the
applicability and utility of GENERAL moral rules such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" but
points out that other moral rules like "eat only fish on Fridays" are culturally specific and after the passage of
enough time that the perhaps valid reason for the rule has passed, a tad arbitrary.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
pre-emptive spelling correction: I meant "atheist" not "athiest" - doh!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I was sort of in a bad mood and thought it was flamebait myself.