Slashdot Mirror
Louisiana, Intelligent Design, and Science Classes
rollcall writes "The Livingston, Louisiana public school district is considering introducing intelligent design into its science curriculum. During the board's meeting Thursday, several board members expressed an interest in the teaching of creationism. 'Benton said that under provisions of the Science Education Act enacted last year by the Louisiana Legislature, schools can present what she termed "critical thinking and creationism" in science classes. Board Member David Tate quickly responded: "We let them teach evolution to our children, but I think all of us sitting up here on this School Board believe in creationism. Why can't we get someone with religious beliefs to teach creationism?" Fellow board member Clint Mitchell responded, "I agree...you don't have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution. Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom."'"
Science classes in Louisiana? You seriously thought we'd buy that?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Enough said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Prm_vQQcM
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Creationism should not be taught in a SCIENCE class because it is not science. There is no way to falsify any of its claims.
I still can't get over that he said "We let them teach evolution to our children..." as though this is some sort of compromise with liberals or something...
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
One of these things is not like the other ones, one of these things is not the same.
I hope they *do* add this to the curriculum, and even get their local batshit-crazy evangelical preachers to come in and teach it. Then, when the case goes to court hopefully they can personally bankrupt every single one of these school board jackoffs, and STAPLE THE FIRST FUCKING AMENDMENT TO THEIR FACES.
... at Sunday School.
If you want to teach Creationism in school, then place the curriculum in a philosophy class, or Religion class if so desired. Keep it far, far away from Biology class.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
Leela: It's amazing. It's like a textbook on evolution.
Fry: Except in Louisiana.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Teachers should have the freedom to look at creationism and find a way to get it into the classroom.
Would secession really be such a bad option? Just because we started out united doesn't mean we have to stay that way, does it?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Technically, evolution and creationism are separated by about 14 billion years. If your going to teach creationism, shouldn't that be in astronomy class? What does the fact that organisms have DNA which allows them to pass on traits to their offspring have to do with the creation of the universe?
"you don't have to be afraid to point out some of the fallacies with the theory of evolution."
Please do. I'd like to hear them. We're waiting... all ears... go ahead... hello?
What your tax dollars (if your from Louisianna) will be spent on is the inevitable court case brought on by the ACLU, the inevitable defeat, and the inevitable payout of taxpayer's money to settle.
As Mark Twain famously said "God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...then it's God's Plan to kill everything in the Gulf, not BP.
If I don't believe in math, why should my kids learn that two plus two equals four? That's just science brainwashing them against my belief!
It's also nonscience because it leads nowhere. It merely says at some point "there's no point looking for why here" and that ends science.
Science is the eternal curious ape asking "why's that, then?". As soon as you put in "irreducible complexity" you've closed off science.
Because this is actually an attempt to end science for all. Religion has been cut back further and further, from being the reason why lions eat people, lightning strikes and illness happens. Now we know that lions are independent creatures that eat meat, lightning strikes are caused by electrical buildup in the clouds and that illnesses are caused by little organisms.
Every time science answers a question "why's that, then?" god gets a little slimmer.
And this is an attempt to kill science once and for all.
I went to a catholic school many years ago. They taught evolution with "enhancements". One was the de'Chardin theory that evolution was teleological, that is, goal-directed toward perfection. Is was their attempt to reconcile evolution and religion. This is not the precise very of evolution, which is non-teleogical, i.e. goal-less. Otherwise they pretty accepted most of regular tenants like long-time and natural selection.
As long as they also include every other creation story. There should be text from scientology, islam, hinduism, buddhism, and thousands of other creation myths from all over the world, in a separate book called "Creationism". Leave evolution in the science textbook with the theories on gravity, germ theory, and all of the other accepted, testable hypotheses.
Similarly I'm okay with religion classes, as long as the world's eight major religions are all given equal time. For some reason I think equal access to alternative theories isn't what they are really after...
Mark Twain also felt that instead of sending missionaries to Africa that we should be sending them to the South.
This is a very bad idea - and that's coming from a self-described Christian. I don't want some goof-ball teacher going over something like this with my kid. They can barely get math right. You focus on math/science/history/reading, I'll handle teaching my kid religion and philosophy at home.
And as always, evolution and creation are not at odds. Evolution answers "How?" and creation answers"Why?"
I don't expect my views to be accepted by devout atheists, OR devout Catholics, so let's leave the creationism at home and not have a big fucking fight for no reason.
Nope. I mean that there is no way to set up an experiment to show that its claims are false.
And you're going to have to define "vertical evolution" if you want to start making claims about it.
'You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it.'
Damn shame he's not around today, the material he would have come up with regarding significant events in the past 16 years would have been most welcome.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
just as countless archaeological digs have found in favor of evolution
I challenge you to find one. ITYM paleological.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
it is what human beings do when they engage in the genetic engineering of the dna of other creatures (or of homo sapiens)
the way creationists propose that god designed us is something that will be in the realm of the ability of human beings within a century. and if us lowly imperfect human beings have the powers of god, that says one of two things:
1. we have become gods
2. your understanding of what god is and how god works is wrong
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You know maybe that's the tact reality based people ought to be taking.
"Dear School board,
I don't want my tax money going to the ACLU and I know you definitely don't want tax money going to the ACLU, therefore, for the sake of fiscal conservatism and the love of all that's good and holy, don't push creationism. We all believe in the his noodley-ness here, but we'd rather take care of teaching our kids in Sunday school than getting slapped down for the hundredth time by those damned liberal activist judges. Let's make a deal. After Sarah Palin appoints Scalia Jr. as justice Breyer's replacement then we'll try again, but in the meantime, but we're just wasting our time and money while the Court is made up of godless commies."
(Never mind, of course, that the courts will shoot this Louisianan idiocy down in a heartbeat.)
On the one hand, we have the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, a scientific theory backed by a volume of evidence more diverse and massive than that assembled in support of any other theory.
On the other hand...we have a faery tale.
No, really.
Cdesign proponentsists would have us instead accept a “theory” drawn solely on the proposition that the Bible is substantially true.
And the Bible opens with a story — the very one they’d replace science with — about a magic garden with talking animals and an angry giant.
Worse, it continues in exactly that same vein. It prominently features a talking shrubbery (on fire, no less!) that instructs the reluctant hero how to wield his magic wand. It has more talking animals, sea monsters, lots more giants, and an endless string of magic spells. There’s even a dragon in there, and I think there might be a unicorn, too. At the end we have an utterly bizarre zombie fantasy, complete with one of the thralls groping the zombie king’s intestines. And the grand finale? Global zombie apocalypse.
All y’all who dismiss science in favor of fantasy? This is why we laugh at you.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
The premise of intelligent design is that God wasn't able to create a universe in which everything happened automatically. instead, it argues that He created the universe, and then had to constantly meddle because He couldn't get the animals He wanted by following the physical laws that He, Himself, made. This is utterly against my religion's conception of God, in which He does not make such mistakes.
My religion is, I think, a fairly popular one called 'Christianity', and I fail to see why whatever minority religious group is pushing 'intelligent design' should be able to teach Christian children that God is fallible and makes mistakes that He then has to correct.
Surely a better compromise between our two religions would be to simply not talk about what God did or didn't do at all in public schools.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I bet most of the people here that are all up in arms at the whole Intelligent Design in public schools thing, at least here in the US, are also many of the same people responsible that make this possible. These people are clamoring for ways to make democracy easier through increased ways to register to vote ('motor-voter',welfare office provided voter registration,etc) as well as increase the reach and scope of government sponsored school systems. Indeed, these people aren't upset that the schools are used to indoctrinate kids at all. What they're really upset about is that the kids in this case just aren't being indoctrinated with the correct social agenda.
If you want majority rule to broadly define governments and their policies and you want those same governments to oversee the delivery of education, you shouldn't be surprised that your tax dollars may be spent on someone's agenda for society; be that Intelligent Design, GLBT acceptance, or some other agenda.
For the record I do not accept Intelligent Design as scientifically valid and I wouldn't want my kids wasting their time with it; it's religious dogma. But more to the point I don't believe in an educational system which allows majority groups to control education such that they aren't schools, but centers of of mass indoctrination. I believe in private education systems that allow me to know what they teach the kids and make sure that my kids are being taught according to those principles I believe they need to think, survive and to become the intellectual superiors of their peers. I firmly believe that if you want your kids in a religious schools, Marxist schools, whatever, that's your prerogative; but that right ends with your own children and stops well short of mine.
Brought to you from the same state with two-digit addition on their GED test.
the preceding post was not spell checked... suck it.
I demand that alchemy be taught side by side with chemistry, so the students can make up their own mind.
Oh and astrology too.
Science classes don't discuss morality...they discuss science...which doesn't claim to have all the answers.
Creationism is not science.
The end.
As we seemingly can't stop the spread of idiocity, can we at least get transparency? Please mark clearly on the record sheet whether this student learned evolution or creationism, uh, sorry, they rebranded it to "intelligent design".
Please mark it, so I know, so I can hire only the people who learnt actual science.
If you teach both, please give seperate marks. So I know to hire specifically the people who scored A or B in evolution and F-- in creationism because they ridiculed it all year. That's the kind of people I want to have working for me. If you scored any acceptable score in creationism at all, then find a burger-flipping job somewhere. It means you at least pretended to take it seriously, or you did take it seriously, in which case you're either a liar or an idiot.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Creation answers "tell me a made-up story, daddy."
There is no answer for "Why?" in the context of all reality, nor is there any practical need for such an answer.
The misconception that there needs to be such an answer is the foundation of a great deal of stupidity.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Other western nations have more government involvement in schools and don't see any of this nonsense. This is, if anything, the result of too little government involvement, especially at a high level: education, instead of being handled by professionals at a high level, is administered by local curtain twitchers with an agenda and little else.
This is what happens when you let populism stomp all over everything, and it's going to get worse as opportunistic politicians try to wield populist ignorance for their own end.
--srj/mmv
If you want to teach Creationism in school, then place the curriculum in a philosophy class, or Religion class if so desired. Keep it far, far away from Biology class.
Its neither, at best its mythology, but is best classed as fantasy.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
You know what? If someone wants to talk about Creationism in science class, I think that's just fine. All you need to do, is teach what science is first, and define what a theory is. You don't need to get into the whole "is this how life came about?" question with the kids, or ever explicitly say "this is bunk." Just talk about all the evidence that suggested each hypothesis and all the ideas for experiments (and which ones have been performed and which ones haven't) that people have come up with to confirm or falsify each one.
When you get to creationism, treat it just like evolution, and without getting distracted by irrelevant issues like "do we believe this is what happened?" just talk about the how evidence and how each hypothesis can be falsified. Never even mention belief; stay in the realm of evidence.
If you come at creationism from a science perspective, it will be so embarrassing that the religious nuts will be begging to ban the subject from science class.
Because, you see, creationism isn't the real problem here. I bet there are all sorts of non-science things being taught in science classes, because science is usually taught as a "what's happening?" class rather than a "how do we know what's happening?" class. It's the teaching of science itself in America that is weak, not all the various "sciency-sounding" topics within it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"evolutionists" isn't a thing. They're called "biologists" or, for those who don't study it but know it to be true "educated individuals"
It's a commonly-held belief among the religious that children would behave if only they got religion. And for what it's worth, if every one were truly practicing Christians, we wouldn't need much in the way of law enforcement. But when even the preachers in the pulpits can't keep their own vices in check, I think the notion that pushing religion on students will fix discipline problems is totally misguided.
As for creationism in the classroom, I want two things:
1) A solid scientific critique of evolution. I have absolutely no problem with them calling it into question, but they MUST do so scientifically. If evolution is so wrong, it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence.
2) Some sort of argument for creationism beyond "God did it" and the creation story of any given religious text.
For the record, I'm a Southern Baptist.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Creationists will outbreed evolutionists. Evolution at work.
Sadly true, but only because it takes so long for them to figure out how getting pregnant happens.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
It is very nice of them to have gone to the step of saying explicitly "creationism" not even "creation science" or "intelligent design." The history here is interesting. First the Supreme Court said no creationism in science classes, so then the creationists made up "creation science" which was claimed to be scientific. The whole "Earth created 6000 years ago, and a global flood 5000 years or so ago" made the courts not look kindly on that. See Epperson v. Arkansas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epperson_v._Arkansas and then later Edwards v. Aguilard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard. By sheer coincidence, right after the Edwards decision, intelligence design showed up on the scene as a totally new, totally scientific idea. They claimed that this had nothing to do with creationism or creation science, even though the first textbook on the subject, Pandas and People, had a search and replace of "creation science" for "intelligent design" from an earlier draft. Some of these, didn't go so well, like the infamous "cdesign proponentsists" in one draft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandas_And_People Not too surprisingly, a federal court didn't buy into this claim and ruled that intelligent design was creation science which was creationism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District. These Louisiana creationists seem to have the standard problem of being not quite bright enough to pull off the attempted deception and so just use all the terms as synonyms for creationism. That means that if this just gets to a low level court, they will get hammered quickly.
Unfortunately, given the current right-wing makeup of the Supreme Court, it isn't implausible that an appeal to the Supreme Court will get everything overturned and will end up with creationism in public schools again. The original Edwards case was a 7-2 decision (Scalia's dissent is deeply wrong but worth reading). The current court might very well rule differently. And Obama's appointments don't help matters much. Sotomayor doesn't have much of a good record on First Amendment issues with almost no record at all on Establishment issues, and we've got close to nothing on Kagan.
Don't call it a theory. "Irreducible complexity" is a demonstrably false hypothesis, not a theory. At any rate, his argument is basically "I can't see how this could evolve in steps, and as I am omniscient and omnipotent, that is proof of its impossibility, QED." At any rate, his implicit assumption that he's all knowing and all seeing is also easily refuted. He claims that there is a spider that shows irreducible complexity. However, it's easy to show steps how this spider could have evolved from a similar spider without ever being at a disadvantage, even though according to Behe, every single component is useless alone, and the spider is useless without all of them. Just utterly false. Irreducible complexity can also be shot down via Reducto Ad Absurdum. An arch is made of arch stones, and a keystone. Without the keystone, the entire arch collapses. Without the rest of the arch in place, the keystone cannot be placed. Therefore, one cannot build an arch, as it requires both parts to exist, and neither part can be placed without the other already in place.
He also likes the mousetrap example. (Even though the mousetrap is designed). He says the current spring loaded wire mousetrap is irreducibly complex because without any of its components, it doesn't function. This is trivial to show as wrong: Start with a basic cartoon mousetrap. A box with a piece of cheese in it, and a stick on the cheese holding the box up. Flaws? The mouse can shift the box and perhaps escape. Solution: Hinge one edge so it is harder to shift the box. Next Flaw: It takes a lot of eating for the stick to fall, closing the trap. Solution: connect the stick to a latch, and place the bait on a pressure plate that will release the latch at a very light touch. Next Flaw: You can't move the trap because its bolted to the floor. Solution: Create a baseboard and hinge the lid to the base, not the floor. Next Flaw: It's still somewhat possible for the mouse to lift the box and escape underneath. Solution: Spring load the hinge so it closes with more force, and remains closed. Next Flaw: The mouse, being a rodent, can chew its way through the wooden box. Solution: Make the box out of metal. Next Flaw: When releasing mice into your field, they tend to head right back into your house for all the free grain. Solution: Remove the edges of the metal box except the hinged edge. This will strike the mouse with the force of the spring. Next Flaw: The sheet of metal distributes the force evenly over the mouse. A fair number survive, maimed and possibly trapped. You need to put them down yourself, and sometimes they escape and die in the wall. Solution: Replace the metal sheet with a metal wire so the force is focused on one point of their neck. And there you have it. You went from a primitive trap to a modern trap. Each step improved the efficiency of the design. Saying "A mousetrap needs the plate, the latch, the spring, the base, and the wire, and without any it is not functional" is true, but beside the point.
With no exceptions, "irreducibly complex" bullshit that Behe has come up with can be shown to be reducible. And besides which, by asserting that all changes need to be beneficial, he's showing he knows nothing at all about evolution. Changes need only be not-highly-disadvantageous. They not only don't even need to be helpful, they can even be slightly harmful if it doesn't impact the creature TOO much.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Umm, this Is government involvement in schools, it's just local government. Presumably what you mean when you say you want more government involvement is more federal government involvement. If you can do one single thing to make it easier for the fundies to take over, this is it. What happens then when the federal "school board" gets staffed with creationists. After all, where will you find these "experts" that you want to decide things for us? They will get elected by the population (that you have so much contempt for) or appointed by politicians who are elected by that same population. Suddenly, instead of some middle-of-nowhere town in Louisiana, the entire gets intelligent design in the school curriculum.
As
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
LOL
Seriously, the world is getting very competitive, and my kids could use a little breathing room.
Thanks,
Surt
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Agree, freedom of religion is also freedom from religion.
Creationism has no place in a science class.
If it is to be taught anywhere, it should be in a comparative religion class where they also teach the Greek myths, Norse Legends, Hindu epics, Aboriginal dream-time, and Quetzalcoatl.
Obviously there was nothing or is nothing to stop the Lord from using evolution as a tool in creating this universe. What the illiterate right wind desires is to teach that the Bible is an absolute source. And that is absurd. I am a Christian and value the Bible as much as anyone can. However the under educated simply don't get it. They lack language skills. The Holy Bible is an inspired work. It is certainly at the very top of literature. That does not mean that it is a perfect work. Leonardo was inspired but if he had it to do over again ever painting that he created would be a bit different. Dwayne Wade is inspired when he plays his best basketball. Inspired does not equal perfect.
So we are left with some right wing Christians who wish to disguise an argument about the absolute perfection of the Word taking an idiotic position. On the other side of the argument we have a science community that is all too aware that given an inch the ignorant will leap to gain a mile and therefore the notion that God would by definition have the ability to design and use evolution must be avoided, in their minds, at all costs.
And make no mistake. The miserable right has a few loonies who can break out with violent acts over these nonsense type of arguments.
Ironically, in the area of Louisiana I lived in the parochial schools were the best schools in the area. They also only taught actual science in science class. They kept religious things in classes about religion.
I had non-christian friends who sent their children to the private parochial schools in the area because the education there was so much better. I'm not sure if their children were forced to stomach the classes on loving Geebus though.
I'm in your corner on this, but I do note that sometimes naked aggression and disruption (threatened or actual) by true believers is sometimes an effective way to get science (or, at minimum, standard scientific references) changed.
To wit:
* - DSM == Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, essentially, the trade bible that defines what is and isn't a mental disorder.
** - APA == American Psychiatric Association, the publishers of and folks responsible for the content of the DSM.
So, the Jungians may not see any point in bullying the Freudians, but the homosexuals certainly profited from bullying the psychiatrists. Sometimes, aggression works. I'd call the actions of this particular Louisiana school board pretty aggressive. Whether or not they work, we won't know for a long time.
You're both wrong, it has nothing to do with government involvement at all. Democrat or Liberal, Evolution or Creation Science, both are going to be pushed into school by either the government or the local community chairman. For a Nation strongly founded with "In God we trust" engrained into the fabric of their society, it's very difficult to push this kind of stuff out of schools.
Other Western Nations don't see this kind of nonsense because they have seperated religion and state moreso than America. Every other political debate you see on TV ends up using the term "God Fearing Americans" or something like that. Trust me, its not your government that's the problem, its the foundation of American society that has somehow equated the success of the United States to it's belief in God. Let's face it, if its a democratic society (and I mean that in the sense of Democracy, not democrats being in power, you guys should look into changing that ambiguity) - than essentially if there were more people who were against this kind of teaching in schools that would affect the government. Also if the government weren't involved, than it would be the school systems, which if I exclude private schools, I believe is also full of elected representatives - so the power is still in the people.
This is a problem from the ground up, not the top down.
There are some thing that should not be left up to the states to decide as far as curriculum is concerned.
Why not? What makes the federal government immune to pressure from creationist groups? Isn't that a case of putting all your eggs in one basket?
If you want to teach religious doctrine to your children, then by all means, send them to a private school.
This is not really a fair option. Religious people's taxes pay for the public schools as well. They have every right to fight for what they think should be thought to their children in public schools, rather than paying for their education twice (once through taxes, and again through private school fees).
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
It's good to criticize ID advocates. But I really hate when people try to deny them even a *term* for those they disagree with, which you do when you say that there's no such thing as "evolutionists".
They can't use the term "biologists" because there are people (though not many) who study biology but agree with the IDers. Claiming that they have to refer to their opponents as "biologists" is like saying you can't have different terms for "physicist" and "proponent of the theory of quantum mechanics".
It's an attempt to deny, not just the validity of someone's arguments, but their ability to express them. Which is really petty.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
You can. In a religion class. Creationism is not science however, so it cannot be taught in a science class. Why is this so difficult to grasp?
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
I think you have the right idea, but you aren't making the curriculum offensive enough: I advocate the teaching of infernal Design. Everything is identical to intelligent design, word for word, except that the creator is Satan as described in the Bible. Any argument that the religious nut jobs can make for teaching this theory, I can use. Should they get intelligent design taught in schools, I could pretty much get infernal design equal classroom time, since it is identical save for who the creator is, and I am pretty sure that the idea of legally forcing satanism to get equal classroom time with Christianity will cause them to abandon their efforts.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I believe what I am saying is that anyone who claims to be a "biologist" but doesn't understand that evolution is an irrefutable fact isn't really studying biology. the more appropriate analogy would be someone claiming to be a physicist who doesn't believe in the laws of thermodynamics.
Nothing to prevent it other than the courts. If each state has it's own 'agenda', you'd end up with every schools students learning different subjects, with differing standards applied to them. This is not putting all of your eggs in one basket, as you are implying if it should break, everything breaks. Obviously not the case as there is nothing to break. The government sets the standard according to the voters and that standard is then applied evenly throughout all school districts.
This will be struck down (and rightly so), by the supreme court, as they have already decided this very case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Rise_to_power_and_initial_international_spread_of_fascism_.281922.E2.80.931929.29
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/the_vatican.htm
Dilbert RSS feed
What I'm saying is that by making a special term for biologists who accept evolution the ID people are implying that there is a legitimate scientific debate over the issue which there is not.
The term creationists should use is "biologist". That is what I am saying. There are not two branches of biologists with equal ground and argument over the issue. There are creationists and there are biologists. One side's argument requires the rejection of the findings of modern biology the other is the study of it.
"Evolutionist" implies a special subset of biology that does not exist. They should call them "biologist" and drop the pretense that they have a valid scientific claim.
Seeing how the computer you're reading this message on works by utilizing quantum mechanics, and in fact atoms couldn't exist in classical physics (since electrons couldn't orbit nucleus, being charged particles and thus losing energy to electromagnetic radiation), I'd say it would be quite questionable to call someone "physicist" who wasn't a proponent of quantum mechanics.
There is a difference between arguing in good faith and in bad faith, and frankly, a biologist denying evolution or a physicist denying quantum physics crosses the line from honest uncertainty to intentional deception.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I have a legitimate problem with them creating a term to indicate a divide which does not meaningfully exist. The people who study evolution are called "biologists". I am fine with them using "evolutionary biologists" if they are discussing the specific subset of biology specifically devoted to the study of biology but to use "evolutionist" implies that modern biological science and evolution are not intrinsically intertwined which is fallacious. What you don't seem to be getting about my point is that I am saying that they SHOULD NOT be using a using a special term to define those who disagree with them.
It is disingenuous and akin to the XKCD comic where there's the cereal on the shelf that says "arsenic free". The point being that while it's technically true, the implication of stating it by it's very nature brings up unsaid assumptions about the topic which are inherently UNtrue. (that the other cereal contains arsenic or that the study of evolution has equal ground to the study of creationism)
Doesn't surprise me a bit. The more prudish the society, the larger the teenage pregnancy rate.
I grew up in Ireland, at a time when contraception had to be prescribed by the local doctor, but only for married couples with a note from the priest. The only thing stopping an explosion of teenage mothers was the ease of access to English abortion clinics. And a lot of young girls "spending time with relatives in another county".
I went to a convent run school for a while, and the only sex education was a single film shown in total silence. No questions to be asked!! So I have a hunch this film was not willingly shown. Took me years to figure out what the hell self abuse was in this context. Good thing I grew up on a farm. Or I could be a dad by now.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Amusingly, much like the "under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" had no official status until the mid 20th century. Without bringing "Communists are atheists and we need to prove we're nothing like them" into it, neither would have likely happened.