Slashdot Mirror
New Mexico Bill To Protect Anti-Science Education
An anonymous reader writes "From the Wired article: 'If educators in New Mexico want to teach evolution or climate change as a "controversial scientific topic," a new bill seeks to protect them from punishment. House Bill 302, as it's called, states that public school teachers who want to teach "scientific weaknesses" about "controversial scientific topics" including evolution, climate change, human cloning and — ambiguously — "other scientific topics" may do so without fear of reprimand. The legislation was introduced to the New Mexico House of Representatives on Feb. 1 by Republican Rep. Thomas A. Anderson. Supporters of science education say this and other bills are designed to spook teachers who want to teach legitimate science and protect other teachers who may already be customizing their curricula with anti-science lesson plans.'"
...don't believe in the theory of evolution at least in principle? I know there are actual scientists who are skeptical of climate change but evolution?
Luckily for them The Bible isn't scientific so they won't have to teach the weaknesses in that.
No sig today...
How is it anti-science to teach the weaknesses of a theory? Shouldn't we already be doing that? Seems to me that is exactly what we should do. Put all the facts on the table , describe the theories and teach the children to think through the problems that exist with all of theories instead of being mindless robots that simply regurgitate the flavor of the month.
I'm going to be downmodded to death, but isn't science about keeping an open mind? Here in my country school curricula are rigid, limited and biased government mandated crap. As long as the teacher doesn't lie/make things up, teaching the kids to question everything and see both sides of an issue will only do them good. The intelligent ones will eventually make their own decision about who's right or wrong, and the stupid ones will believe what they'll believe anyway...
They can teach about scientific weakness, right? How about teaching about scientific weakness of intelligent design? Now they can do it without reprimand. As for which theory is better: if you need to say evolution is right because it's right and not because it predicts things better, isn't it just a dogma?
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Mr. Anderson... you disappoint me.
Of course a bill like this might be used to shelter some anti-evolutionist thinking.
So what? Science itself is not science if we are not allowed to question it. Even if someone is questioning evolution in class, there are enough other viewpoints in the outside world that the truth will come through. And doesn't it make a stronger case for evolution when you have considered and dismissed the counter-arguments? Wouldn't that make for a better student to not just be told how something is, but to learn how to debate the way things are to consider future issues too?
In the meantime it's good to truly protect freedom of speech, even if you disagree with that speech. If you disagree strongly enough as a parent with what is being taught, then seek to remove that teacher rather than force all teachers to toe a politically correct line for whatever current group-think is fashionable. But let the determination of how appropriate a teachers words are come from parents, not from a bureaucracy above.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
So can we just move all of these people to Texas and let them make a country, so we can then proceed to out compete the crap out of them in every concievable way due to our massive REAL scientific advantages?
America, going the way of old Islam circa 1100 AD.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-102519600994873365# @ 25 minutes.
Oh noes Toto, we're not in Kansas any more.
Why the hell is the first tag for EVERY story on Slashdot "slashdot?" It's a completely redundant waste of space. I don't understand it.
Ability to teach controversial topics without reprimand within their classroom, beginning to sound like arguments for teacher tenure. On the other hand, if you encourage teachers to 'teach to the test' they won't have any time for the 'controversial' subjects.
From TFA:
Rosenau said House Bill 302 will probably never see the light of day...
However, the fact that it's even being considered is worrying. It's another signpost on a road that seems to be heading for a generation of credulous morons. I don't see any significant barricades.
This is the government helping corporations. After all, what better excuse for corporations to outsource jobs than *really, really* not having the local talent to fill their ranks?
Let the H-1Bs be filled!
At least this means that teachers can't be threatened for completely slamming Intelligent Design.
This is just the outcome of public provided services and a government increasingly directed by the whims of the majority. I thought that was what everybody here was clamoring for? Freeing the people... ...if the people just happen to be dumb-shits or irrational? Well that's the bed you've made for yourself, why are you disappointed or put out?
What scientific weakness about cloning? We can clone a human, the tech exists and the procedures work. Whether it's right or wrong to do so is completely different as to whether or not evolution exists, we have verifiable proof tha. There's no comparison between those two topics.
It's crap like this that will eventually make the USA a fundamentalist religious backwater to be scared of and laughed at at the same time.
In scenic New Mexico? Where I went to High School, in less scenic New Jersey in the late 70's, my class was the first one to have formal sex education. Before that we had a "health education" course, with first aid. No education about contraceptives. The result? Teenage pregnancies. Our gym teacher taught that, and told us that he could tell us about contraceptives, but was not allowed to. When the rule changed, and we had formal sex ed, I had never seen a better behaved group of pupils. Everyone stayed quiet in the class and listened inventively. I know folks who have horror stories about gym teachers, but this guy was great. And it was a sensitive subject, and a lot of parents objected to the course. Physically, you could knock me out with a fly swatter, but the gym teacher gave me A's. He told me that I was hopeless as an athlete, but admired my courage at trying.
At any rate, back in biology class, when the teacher taught us evolution, some pupils said that their parents had objections, for religious reason. But once the teacher started talking, most found it very interesting.
You might disagree with what a teacher is trying to teach, but give them a right to do so.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
> How is it anti-science to teach the weaknesses of a theory?
It isn't. But schools are now about pushing religion. And like all religions they are convinced they have the Truth and have little tolerance for other faiths. So they hijacked the word "Science" and made sure all 'Religion' was driven out of the schools leaving their faith unopposed.
Pretty bold statement, but it is true. Take AGW for example, it is taught as 'settled science, the Truth which must not be questioned.' But if it is science it should be falsifiable and it isn't. Weather gets warm, AGW, colder, Global Climate Change which is just AGW rebranded. More snow, Climate Change, less Climate Change. More hurricanes? Less? Either way it is AGW. The sceptics find flaws and outright fraud in the models and datasets and they are attacked and suppressed. So since /. is full of AGW believers, prove me wrong. Tell me of a test that would falsify AGW theory? Better, tell me of one that was proposed a decade ago that was run and the results are in on because I don't think anyone has even proposed submitting AGW to such rigor. Of course a hundred such tests don't prove AGW is true, it just adds evidence in it's favor, while ONE test that turns up FALSIFIED is usually fatal to a theory. (If it won't kill a theory it isn't a proper test.)
And while AGW is the most obvious example it isn't the only example of new age progressive religion pretending to be Science. After all, what most people think of as Science[1] meets every test of the definition of 'Religion.' A 'religion' doesn't need a bearded white guy in the sky, it just needs to be a belief system that claims to have the answer to "Life, the Universe and Everything" and mainstream Science makes that claim. It shouldn't.
So if we are resigned to religion in the schools we probably should make an effort to ensure kids are familiar with the arguments of most of the major religious/philosophical systems. At least Secular Humanism, Christianity (Catholic and Protestant), Islam and Judaism and probably one of the Eastern religions outside the monothism threesome. Then we could drive ALL of them out of Science and leave Science classes to Science.
[1] Science is just the application of the Scientific Method to attempt to discover the laws of the universe. Experiments that are repeatable, that sort of thing. Very useful for determining What the universe is and How it works but useless for attempting to answer Why.
Democrat delenda est
I can finally teach my Intelligent Falling theory as an alternative to the gravity nonsense!
Presenting both sides and letting the students decide what they believe is exactly what should be done on any controversial topic.
Neither side should be afraid of revealing weakness in their position. That's what science is about: a search for the truth.
I'm from argentina, and the other day i met this guy from texas. Really cool, knowledgeable guy. I asked him about westboro baptist church, thinking he'd have lots of crazy stories about megachurches and other crazy shit.
The poor guy turned red with shame, and made me feel quite bad. Like i had made a racist joke to Nelson Mandela or something. He really was ashamed of the bible belt.
Bill O'Reilly of course has his own views on science: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2011/02/bill-oreillys-latest-faux-science-lesson-the-other-planets-dont-really-have-any-moons.html
insight through the mind
I'm from another developed first world country, and I consider this sort of thing part of our competitive advantage against the USA.
as evolution then ? a debate that didnt exist just 20 years ago, is now as controversial as religion/evolution ?
....
the segments of the society which were totally unaware of the concept of climate or its change, are now sensitive to it.
now, if i say at this point that, this can only point to the conclusion that says the segments which are sensitive about both topics, are those who are in alignment with a particular political group that is backed by political interests, some of you are going to go berserk.
so then, explain me why the segments that have not been aware of climate or its change 20 years ago, are now sensitive and opposing to both climate change, and evolution, if they are not being herded by a particular political view
Read radical news here
That makes about as much sense as hiring history teachers and tolerating them spending half the course on finger painting.
It amazes me that so many allegedly "educated" people have fallen so quickly and so hard for a fraudulent fabrication of such laughable proportions. The very idea that a gigantic ball of rock happens to orbit our planet, showing itself in neat, four-week cycles -- with the same side facing us all the time -- is ludicrous. Furthermore, it is an insult to common sense and a damnable affront to intellectual honesty and integrity. That people actually believe it is evidence that the liberals have wrested the last vestiges of control of our public school system from decent, God-fearing Americans (as if any further evidence was needed! Daddy's Roommate? God Almighty!)
Documentaries such as Enemy of the State have accurately portrayed the elaborate, byzantine network of surveillance satellites that the liberals have sent into space to spy on law-abiding Americans. Equipped with technology developed by Handgun Control, Inc., these satellites have the ability to detect firearms from hundreds of kilometers up. That's right, neighbors .. the next time you're out in the backyard exercising your Second Amendment rights, the liberals will see it! These satellites are sensitive enough to tell the difference between a Colt .45 and a .38 Special! And when they detect you with a firearm, their computers cross-reference the address to figure out your name, and then an enormous database housed at Berkeley is updated with information about you.
Of course, this all works fine during the day, but what about at night? Even the liberals can't control the rotation of the Earth to prevent nightfall from setting in (only Joshua was able to ask for that particular favor!) That's where the "moon" comes in. Powered by nuclear reactors, the "moon" is nothing more than an enormous balloon, emitting trillions of candlepower of gun-revealing light. Piloted by key members of the liberal community, the "moon" is strategically moved across the country, pointing out those who dare to make use of their God-given rights at night!
Yes, I know this probably sounds paranoid and preposterous, but consider this. Despite what the revisionist historians tell you, there is no mention of the "moon" anywhere in literature or historical documents -- anywhere -- before 1950. That is when it was initially launched. When President Josef Kennedy, at the State of the Union address, proclaimed "We choose to go to the moon", he may as well have said "We choose to go to the weather balloon." The subsequent faking of a "moon" landing on national TV was the first step in a long history of the erosion of our constitutional rights by leftists in this country. No longer can we hide from our government when the sun goes down.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
They are supposed to teach and not to preach.
They need to disavow any and ALL benefits of science! NO computers, cell phones, not anything beyond the
hunter gather mode. No medicine, nothing related to any benefit of science. Or they need to STFU.
These idiots are sheeple following what sounds good to them, without the brains evolution gave them.
I volunteer them to be the first people sacrificed to their pseudoscience gods! Anyone with me?
I'd use the kill switch to blockade Nevada from the rest of the world. Hurry before they change their ...
moronic minds
This means a teacher can discuss examples of creationism from other religions (like from Islam) without fear of reprimand. With, of course, supporting text from the Koran.
It's worth pointing out that New Mexico is also the state who's governor has nominated note climate change denier Harrison Schmitt as secretary of Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources.
Fuck! When did Neo go into politics?
Does anyone still actually believe that science coursework below graduate-level material has anything beyond peripheral involvement with the proper growth of scientists? I mean, sure, nearly every scientist goes through it (read on for one notable exception), but let's be honest - high school science classes fail students in the same way that every other high school class fails students:
- There is no experimentation whatsoever. Any "lab" work is done in a rigged environment where students go through the motions laid out by an instructor instead of designing and performing their own experiment from scratch.
- There is a one-size-must-fit-all emphasis on abstraction, bookwork, and lecture. This is not how everyone learns best, or even at all.
- There is no free association. You see your science teacher (who acts as though he knows everything, when really he just knows everything in the curriculum) and your (clueless) classmates, and that's it. You never interact with people who have conducted / are conducting real research.
We wouldn't be worrying about ideas like Intelligent Design being discussed in school if we had actual science classes. Since science is more of a process than a product, proper science instruction would allow each student to determine for himself that Intelligent Design, healing crystals, etc. are pseudoscience. When you're just telling people that Evolution=FACT; Anthropogenic-Global-Warming=FACT; Creationism=LIE, there's no real intellectual development taking place. A science curriculum whose core is "these are the facts that our expert scientists agree on" is a great way to politicize science by training young minds to rely on entrenched "experts" to tell them the meaning of things.
Fun fact: Francis Collins (THE Francis Collins of the Human Genome Project) is a born-again evangelical christian. He thinks religion is the most important thing in his life. He rejects intelligent design. He was homeschooled by middle-of-the-road christian parents.
Maybe when we talk about science, religion, Intelligent Design, etc. on Slashdot, we could frame our discussion around inspiring people like Collins who manage to find a good balance all on their own. To do otherwise is to basically admit that our schools are brainwashing centers (which they are, but that's another discussion) and that most young minds are powerless to separate fact from fiction on their own (I hope to God they aren't, and if they are, we shouldn't waste money on "science classes" in the first place).
It will not happen overnight (hell, I have been watching it for 30+ years), but economic prosperity was the US' to lose, and the Religious Right is destroying it, bit by bit.
Once upon a time, I thought that open communication would help empiricism win out over magical thought, but after watching a couple of decades of religious right mumbo jumbo flowing out over the Internet, unperterbed by anything resembling empirical scepticism, I think nothing will penetrate their confirmation bias.
By pandering to our population's basest fears, they are systematically destroying the ability of one generation to teach the next how to think critically, and disrupting our ability to maintain science and math competence. We're toast, and it is time to acknowledge that, as the primitives dance around celebrating the 100th birthday of their harbinger, Ronald Reagan.
I am so glad my SOs do not want children.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
I'm all for teachers being able to teach _scientific_ weaknesses about widely accepted theories as long as they note howevermuch of the scientific community supports the theory.
I realize it won't happen like that, but that'd be an interesting way to undermine the bill -- propose a clause that requires them to have a non-trivial and quite well scientifically supported argument -- so it religious reasons won't count.
New Mexico should shut off all those dangerous scientific devices before they contaminate the
children. No more cell phones, computers, or TV there, please.
I'd like to see a bill allowing scientists to teach in Sunday school about the absurdity of the Bible. "There is serious scepticism about the virgin birth. In fact, chances are high that Mary was just a very naughty girl."
I had friends with children that lived there for a while.
They don't teach much of anything in the schools there anyway, so it really won't make much of a difference.
I feel sorry for the children that live there.
Isn't he The One!?
Modern Islam is not exactly a hotbed for scientific exploration and discovery, the reverse is true. This has not always been the case however as you'll probably know. While Europe was ravaged by norsemen and later held by the leash by restrictive and vindictive Christian churches in the early middle ages, the Islamic world was a place where scientific curiosity was not only allowed but even encouraged. Standing on the shoulders of earlier scientists from eg. Greece, India and China, scholars in the Islamic world produced many works which are still held in high regard. This was the Islamic golden age.
And then, something happened. Religious intolerance was probably one of the factors in the decline of scientific discovery in the Islamic world, led by theologists like Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Ghazali (1059-1111) who used the tools of the philosophers to undermine philosophical and scientific inquiry.
Of course these developments happened in a span of centuries, not decades. It would not surprise me though if the decline of scientific learning in the Islamic world started just like it seems to happen in the United States of America, by religious zealots trying to undermine and discredit science and scientists and subverting science teaching to their own purposes.
--frank[at]unternet.org
That name sounds familiar, is that the same guy that went to the moon (Apollo 17)?
So, lawmakers want to appease everyone at the same time ? It may sound reasonable but then what happens when the next team of freak-ass idiots want a piece of the cake too, say for instance the 'drinking urine is good for your health' crowd ? Those same politicians will support introducing a 'drink your own urine' minute at school, right ? Of course they don't give a fuck, as they send their own kids to boarding schools across the country, so they'll probably support it out of spite instead of just not reading the bill.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
If parents have little or no choice about what and how their children are taught, are they "just fine"? If people have little or no choice of how and what doctors treat them, are they "just fine"? Generally, how much freedom and personal choice can be taken away from how many for the people to stop being "just fine"? These are no idle questions. For example, in Germany there is no option for home schooling available to common folks for whatever reason they might want it - is that "just fine"?
Not sure if you meant to be sarcastic regarding totalitarian regimes keeping people "straight", but it is actually true to an extent. Say, Soviet children would get reasonable science education almost in any corner of the huge country -- and those of the very same children who grew up to be engineers and moved to the US are horrified with how their children are taught in public schools. Only a few of them can afford private schooling on their engineering salaries, and their efforts to bootstrap charter schools are viciously attacked by the US educational establishment such as teacher's unions etc. They do not feel "just fine" about this situation.
and 80% of the great science of one century is the junk science of the next.
But the world is full of close minded fundamentalists who would burn at the stake anyone who contradicts their [scientific] beliefs.
This used to be a place where people could have a logical discussion. Now it is a place for people to be anti-religious. Nobody remembers that this country was founded for the sake of religious freedom? Quit complaining when the government rightly decides to allow critiques of the RELIGION of evolution. It's no more than a government-sponsored religion, supported mostly by lies. Every "evidence" of evolution taught in textbooks either has been proven false or doesn't prove anything. If you want the government to be able to indoctrination my child with it, at least allow the teach of why the evidence is weak. Shame on you, slashdot.
If this wasn't a democracy, you couldn't even discuss changing it. There are people in New Mexico fighting this bill, and it hasn't even become a law. If you're so ecstatic about not being in control of your government, keep being a piece of apathetic shit. Congratulations, you live in a totalitarian society of your own making, and the rest of the adults can continue participating in their government.
Maybe you read some fucking Ayn Rand and listened to ten minutes of talk radio and decided that Democracy was a joke. Well, here's a newsflash: Ayn Rand was on MediCare. She was a fucking fraud, and so are all the assholes who talk about the dangers of voting without understanding that the only alternative to majority rule is a slow, steady march to totalitarianism. Who is John Galt? He's a fucking water-hauling illiterate peasant, who thinks the earth is flat because he's never had the benefit of an education, who's never thought about inventing anything because he doesn't know what electricity is.
Less than 60 years ago, a group of people who had no political power overthrew centuries of oppression to gain the rights you got for free. They endured hangings, shootings, threats and violence against their family, terrorism, public humiliation, and much, much more. And now one of them is the Head of State. Oh, but Democracy doesn't work, because some idiot state senator proposed a bill! In New Mexico!
Seriously. You are a fucking embarrassment.
Behe et al. actually spawned, or at least expanded, a somewhat new field. It comes about by asking the question: "How do we detect and measure the traits of 'intelligence'"? It's not only a concern in the field of creation, but also SETI and cryptology.
Table-ized A.I.
... and Texas and Kansas go right ahead and teach that curriculum. Just as long as you put an asterisk next to your kids' transcript identifying them as having been educated as such.
Don't want to do that? Interesting.
Have gnu, will travel.
You're an idiot troll. Or just an idiot. No climate scientist claims climate cannot change naturally. If that is the juvenile level of your understanding of the issue, just go fuck off now...you're wasting your time and ours.
I don't get it - this bill protects teachers that want to teach THE WEAKNESSES of EVOLUTION from reprimand. What it really means is a teach can present both sides of a current debate with fear of punishment - reminds me of the argument most teachers have for tenure (allows them to teach without undue concern for appeasing administration whims)...
Ken
How? The district can't fire them for what they teach. There would be no legal way to fire them unless the committed some other offence.
So lets solve THAT problem first then, as it seems pretty obvious that people teaching things a majority of parents disagree with should not be teaching in that community.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Skepticism is pro-science. Censorship is anti-science.
Open-minded inquiry is pro-science. Orthodoxy is anti-science.
Yet here on Slashdot, the calls are to censor teachers who question the orthodoxy and they call it pro-science.
Now I can teach my course, 'All Christians are stoopid'. without losing my job.
When I was growing up int he NM school system there was a debate in class. Apparently some kids got killed in Moriarty. The ostensible reason the people were killed was because they were white. However it was determined that the kids were REALLY killed by Satanists. The people discussing the matter did not have a problem with killing people because they were white, but did have a problem with killing people as a result of a satanic ritual.
-I'm not joking.
-I am a big proponent of political correctness. I think every February we should let the black people know that they are are just as special as white people. Black people just like white people can think and reason for themselves. There are EVEN black people who can take part and and be integral members of society. We should call February 'Black History Month'. This way black people will realize that they are no different from normal people.
-Fredrick Douglas.
for a so called advanced nation this sort of medieval thinking is quite astounding. you'll be back to burning witches at the stake pretty soon....
becoming the new Texas. Jeez, it's like a cancer. Sorry, NM, didn't mean for it to spread to you, too.
Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
This is best done in front of his/her partner.
1) Establish that you look more like your mother/father.
2) Establish that children look like their parents, have them identify whether or not they look more like their mother/father.
3) Establish what it is that you found attractive in your spouse/partner.
4) Ask them what they see in each other.
5) Ask them if they'd be equally likely to date/marry/reproduce with somebody they didn't find attractive, or even found unattractive.
They've just agreed to nearly every salient point in evolution:
1) That children look much like their parents, but not exactly.
2) That children's appearances and attributes drift over time.
3) That selective pressure can alter the likelyhood of certain attributes being passed on.
The only thing they haven't really agreed to is speciation - that changes can build up over time until derivative children can no longer reproduce with each other.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
People who clamor against evolution insist the bible must be true or how would they know what to believe in. In other words they have no faith at all. People who argue climate change isn't real are uninformed and or stupid. Anyone talking about cloning doesn't know what they are talking about because the science isn't understood well enough by scientists, let alone self-righteous politicians.
Politicians who wonder why the US is losing its competitiveness in science and technology need look no further than these sorts of moves.
There is a very fine line between what is settled fact and what is merely dogma. Galileo is commonly presented as the "science vs. religion" poster boy, but what he was opposed for was teaching things which contradicted the accepted science of his day. Copernicus is an even better example, overturning a complete and accepted cosmology which had defined much of science for centuries. Boyle and Priestly were teaching "anti-science" when they disproved the well-accepted Phlogiston theory. In fact, virtually every advance in science has come at the expense of what had previously been accepted as true and, in most senses, settled.
To be sure, many challenges to the accepted views of the world around us are likely to be spurious, and some may even be ludicrous, but to outlaw such challenges is precisely to outlaw true science by prohibiting the questions and hypotheses which define the scientific method. If the New Mexico law protects even one Einstein or, to be sure, a single Darwin, it will have advanced science more than a hundred laws which would mire us in a sea of "settled" but incorrect understanding.
Pass it and it will be immediately challenged as violating the First Amendment.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Religious people tend to have big families. You have none. So, since you appear to accept evolution...
A few centuries from now, everybody will "know" that God made the population more faithful.
Scientists assume certain things to be true for certain purposes, until those things are shown to be wrong to a point where they can no longer be assumed for those purposes.
One of the huge problems in education is that teachers often educate their students on only one topic of the instructors choice. For example most teachers instruct their students that Galileo's research was suppressed by the church, very few teach that the church actually funded Galileo's research and published Galileo's work. Some teach that the church burned all of Galileo's work which isn't true. In Einstein's description of relativity he used the metaphor of a train and how relative to a person standing on a train the world outside the train is moving. Einstein actually proved that the sun does revolve around the Earth in a relative motion and since everything in the universe is measured from the Earth the Earth is actually the relative center of the Universe. Since many find the idea that both Galileo and the church were correct from a perspective of relativity very confusing teachers decide to avoid the confusion and teach only that Galileo used planetary retrograde to determine the planets orbit the sun. This probably works for about 90% of students. The other 10% (or maybe only the smartest 2%) understand the concept of relativity without being confused by what the other 90% see as contradictions.
Now do I really care what that 90-98% learn from their grade school teachers? Do I care if that 90-98% think the Earth revolves around the Sun or if they think the Sun revolves around the Earth? People who want to learn will learn. The other 90-98% can argue about what "truth" or "facts" are.
I had more hopes for New Meeheco than this.
"... by Republican Rep. Thomas A. Anderson ..."
I always knew Neo was a Republican.
Since when is questioning THEORIES "Anti-Science"? Sounds like someone feels threatened.
"public school teachers who want to teach "scientific weaknesses" about "controversial scientific topics" including evolution, climate change, human cloning and â" ambiguously â" "other scientific topics" may do so without fear of reprimand" ... DUH! That is what teaching is... showing the strengths and the weaknesses of different ideas and attempting to prove or disprove them. I'm sure Copernicus would have been considered "Anti-Science" by those who don't want theories taught as such, but would rather they be taught as fact.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
...of personal agendas getting shoehorned into every aspect of life. Quite frankly if I wanted my kids taught creationism in school, I'd enroll them in a parochial school. That's what they're there for. If you want to teach creationism, get a job at a parochial school. Otherwise, keep your petty agenda to yourself.
In the high school I went to, my physics teacher made it perfectly clear that Newtonian physics is just an approximation, although Newtonian physics is only as far as we went. My brother and I went to the same school. I came to study computer science. My brother, on the other hand, developed interest in quantum mechanics in his later years in high school, and is now studying physics in a Ph.D. program.
On the other hand, when both my brother and I had to study number theory in college, we found ourselves having a difficult time to undo the brain damage caused by K-12 school math. I had to take a second stab to undo the brain damage caused by geometric axiomatic proofs because I had to learn formal proofs for reasoning about the soundness of a programming language type system. Both of these difficulties have more to do with putting too much faith on an oversimplified teaching, causing difficulty accepting new ideas later in life. If you want to know, I never took a computer class at school, and instead learned everything on my own since the 5th grade or so.
I know that you're trying to make a point that education inherently has to make omission in material taught in K-12 curricula, but there are two rules of thumbs. One is that you need to leave gaps between the oversimplification so that these gaps can be later filled in. Second is that the oversimplified knowledge you teach still has to have practical application. Now, tell me, how does the evolution theory as taught in your ideal school fulfill these two rules of thumbs? If anything, my opinion is that this new legislation puts education in the right course.
I once had a signature.
I'm sick and tired of these people and their fucking stupid and insane religious beliefs, can anyone think of a way we can get them to be like those idiot comet cultists in Los Angeles back in the 90s? You know the ones I'm talking about, the group where the men cut their own balls off and then everyone ate a bunch of Jello pudding that had been laced with tranquilizers and they all died. Can we get the Evangelical Christoids to start doing this? Tell them that their penises and testicles are evil and that they need to cut them off so that they won't sin, and then get them to believe that Jesus wants them to overdose on tranquilizers and that they'll go to Heaven and bring about the Rapture if they do?
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
If history has taught us one thing it is this:
those who seek control always play on ignorance. the roman catholic church of the 4th and 15th centuries knew this and it looks like their modern successors are trying to do it to us again.
I think Frederick Nietzsche sums it up best: "Any species that seeks destructive behavior for its own ends does not deserve to survive".
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
Ahh you got to love Slashdot. Filled with atheist bigots who want to push their agenda down everyone's throats and who would say that anyone believing in the opposite of them is an intolerant bigot who is pushing their ideology down everyone's throats. In the end, everyone gets painted as a bigot these days when it comes to origins discussions. Such is the nature of the issue of origins. No matter how you look at it it eventually reduces to a fundamental religious issue (yes, atheism is a religion too. A religion is the set of concepts that posit answers to who we are, is there life after death, is there an absolute entity, what is our relationship with that entity, is there sin, is there salvation, etc and how do I order my life accordingly?)
Yes, I know I threw out flame bait in the second sentence. I just wish people could see themselves as others see them like in that old poem. I myself have hypothesis about origins that don't fit either of the diametrical opposite models that so many slashdotters love to paint as "the models" and then trash or embrace. I would likely be considered an idiot by some, slightly heretical by others, ... and people will continue to feel good about themselves and that their beliefs are right or "pretty much" right and that others are just stupid, dangerous, or even evil and not to be permitted.
The only solution to this will eventually come, but it will not be from humankind in my opinion.
I'll just sit back and enjoy the roasting I get. Cheers!
Have you ever actually read the bible?
Have you ever actually read scientific journals? It's always intriguing that the harshest, most sarcastic and caustic critics have never actually read them
That's different. Unlike scientific journals, the Christian Bible isn't behind paywalls. The World English Bible is public domain, as is the King James Version (except in Great Britain), and the more recent copyrighted translations can be read for free on Bible Gateway. And even a printed copy of a copyrighted translation will run you less than a PDF of a single article behind the Springer/Elsevier/Wiley paywall.
Job 26:7 [...] Isaiah 40:22 [...] Job 38:33
Let me guess: You're looking at the same February 2011 issue of Awake! magazine that I'm looking at.
when it doesnt fit with your view ? i think we are way too liberal with the distribution of mod points.
Read radical news here
Slavery is ok according to biblical texts.
The employment arrangement translated "slavery" was not the same as slavery in the antebellum United States. For example, servants can be traded to another owner, but so can modern-day athletes.
God in the old testament is a petty tyrant
God is petty only to those who choose not to know him.
since we will it make it easier to work for our future masters?
Evolution is compatible with the Bible. As I understand Genesis 1, each creature was created according to its "kind", which appears to correspond to what biologists call a "family". This leaves plenty of room for microevolution and speciation after the pairs of animals got off the boat, leading to things like Darwin's finches.
What's wrong with comparing the accounts of creation in the Qur'an vs. the Hebrew scriptures in the "history of pre-science and science" unit before introducing the evidence for macroevolution and old Earth?
Science is something important for our children to learn. For religious people, it should be viewed as an *explanation* of God's work, not a contradiction of it.
Um... all this new rule would seem to be saying is that teachers won't be able to be prosecuted for speaking out against a theory. I'm totally NOT in favor of someone trying to pump kids' heads full of the false-cause and illicit appeal to authority fallacy-based arguments so common to science's skeptics, but isn't this basically reinforcing the first amendment as it applies to educators? If the science is truly sound, it should be able to weather ANY attack from ANYONE, and oh by the way, isn't that the heart and soul (if you'll pardon the expression) of science, people questioning and challenging things? Or are teachers not allowed to deviate from whatever the book they're using to teach says at all... in which case, why do we need teachers at all? (A rhetorical question, before you all jump me...) Why not just use teachers to teach kids to read, and then hand them books? Teachers ARE needed, and they need to have the latitude to explain things and answer kids' questions. That's their job. This new rule sounds like it's just going to protect them from the consequences of doing THEIR JOBS. Wish Iowa had extended its judiciary the same courtesy, before it let the voters oust a group of them for DOING NOTHING MORE, OR LESS, THAN THEIR JOBS. Bravo NM. I may not agree with what your teachers are going to say, but I'm glad you're giving them room to breathe, and not gagging them and hanging a sword a-la Damocles over their heads.
We've had over two thousand years of this nonsense. We no longer believe thunder and lightning is created by Thor with his hammer. How do we move forward when we're taught not to question the world around us? In my opinion, to be religious is to be wilfully ignorant.
are fucken stupid.
They're all about pointing out gaps in knowledge that support evolution never mind the evidence that frames those gaps, then they use religion or philosophized feelings to support their point of view. Then, if you even try to point out that the bible has room in it for evolutionary ideas they usually slap you down and it gets very uncomfortable after that.
Don't lump evolution and global warming into the same category. One is an established scientific theory. The other simply isn't. Without rehashing all the holes in the research on which its based, I'll just insist that the two must not be discussed under the same umbrella. Anyone who thinks that global "community" is based on established science is either a crook or has been taken in by one.
Most would argue (and rightly so), religion is faith and belief in something greater then themselves despite evidence to the contrary. Atheists base their "beliefs" on scientific evidence, to call belief in facts religion is silly at best. religion is belief DESPITE facts and evidence.
As an educator you have a special duty to teach established knowledge and valuable skills; I find it highly dubious that a teacher's personal opinions, political or religious, fall in to that category.
And, while it is arguably true that you should teach the children a healthy scepticism and critical thinking, I suspect this principle is only applied to the so-called "controversial" sciences, not to the Biblical myths or the right-wing agenda of that sort of teacher. If this was really about critical thinking, then they should teach the children why the Christian mythologies are implausible.
How is it that the only civilised western country in which this would even be possible is the one whose economic pre-eminence derived from the early and enthusiastic application of new technologies? If these people had their way the US would still be a handful of starving colonists on the eastern shore, rubbing sticks together to make fires.
I've read far more Bible than most Christians. As a militant atheist my weapon of choice against Christians is the Bible...
No sig today...
Abilene Christitan University.
and this kind of thing wouldn't happen.
If anyone who is skeptical of evolution is deemed to be "anti-science", then this conversation is over before it has even begun. Can't we do better?
The problem I have with the theory are the proposed mechanisms for adaptation. Some of the mechanisms, such as survival of the fittest, seem well able to adapt an existing species with a fully-formed, existing biology. This is something you can test and prove or disprove in the field from actual data.
It is much less clear how this mechanism could have created life in the first instance. Life forms are constructed of systems-of-systems (e.g., the "eye" is not just a single thing, it is part of an entire system of sight), and "survival of the fittest" is obviously not up to the task of explaining how these systems came to be. You can't select on something that does't exist yet.
The alternative proposed mechanism, random mutation of genes coupled with selection, has a big problem both with ordering (selection can't work until it has something to select on), and with the unbelievably low probabilities that have been calculated for everything happening "just so" in order for life to exist as we know it.
To the rational non-scientist, these things bother me. They certainly don't add up to a "slam dunk" for evolution as currently described. It feels like something is as yet undiscovered, and certainly some things are unexplained.
So, if the price we have to pay to improve the theory is to allow skeptics to pound on it, then then I say bring it on. Science ought to have nothing to fear from skepticism. Kids are plenty smart enough to tell religion from science (remember when you were a kid?), so we should have nothing to fear on that front, either.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
I would have thought this had to be obvious to everyone... That guy is Neo, coming back from the future and trying to forestall science to keep the rise of the machines and the creation of the Matrix from ever happening.
They are supposed to teach and not to preach.
I have yet to hear an Evolutionist or Anthropogenic Global Warming "Scientist" teach and not preach.
Yeah, it seems odd that it's almost the exception to have a degree in a related field in addition to the education paperwork.
One I did know (Master's in Chemistry) apparently got fed up with the public-school environment, but I figure it was for some reason besides pay if he went there in the first place.
I wonder what the correlation/causation is between the best teachers and those with the subject-matter degree (or experience in the field) in addition to the education stuff.
By the way, I found it amusing that one such teacher, one of my favorites in a non-science field, has the subject degree form Yale and the education degree from a state school, even though I'm not hung up on college status.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Just kidding; Pastafarianism could also turn the hidden-intention Christian activism on its head, and without reference to other religions.
Yet maybe because of the deference afforded to established religions in general, it may be useful to take such an angle.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
They are supposed to teach and not to preach.
I have yet to hear an Evolutionist or Anthropogenic Global Warming "Scientist" teach and not preach.
Depends on how you define "preaching". I doubt you know enough about either subject to have any idea what you're talking about.
into "Science" and "Wishful Thinking Explanations of Physical Phenomenon".
Students who wish to go to real universities to become scientists will sort themselves out from the politicians and religious types automatically.
...the end of civilization as we know it. Stunning, but not surprising, that we've come to this. Some of us clearly haven't evolved; the creationists might have a point.
Public schools should be abolished. Can you imagine if we had state run grocery stores??? Imagine the nonsense that would come from politicians legislating the food we could buy.
An *actual* biochemist, eh? Are they somehow more infallible than virtual ones?
It's just that planes get crashed by *actual* pilots, *actual* golfers slice balls into the rough, *actual* carpenters cut their fingers off...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Eh. Let 'em teach whatever. Nobody has to hire New Mexico or Kansas "graduates" with phantom diplomas, as state-of-origin is not a criteria that can be forced on non-New Mexico or non-Kansas firms. We can view any applicant who is the product of an education system that teaches psuedoscience as equal to science with the same skepticism as someone listing a diploma purchased from an email spammer. If you're from Topeka or Albuquerque, you have a lot to prove, and you have the unibrows YOU elected to the school boards to thank for that. Since the grunting banging-rocks-together fuel-steam-turbines-with-burning-heretics-and-homosexuals crowd knows it all, let 'em build their own high tech industry without outside help. Let 'em pray a CPU into existence. Let 'em deal with influenza with exorcisms. Let 'em substitute carbon fiber and silicon substrates with sackcloth and ashes. After all, according to their education system, it's just as valid and functional.
Disclaimer: I do not speak for my employer, which thankfully is not in New Mexico or Kansas.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
The OP asked if any scientists question evolution. A person employed in a scientific field in a university meets the general definition of "scientist". Nowhere did I say that the man in question is right or wrong, I simply answered the OP's question.
What about the "Scientific Weaknesses" in controversial subjects of Astrology, Runes, Tarot, Numerology, and Aliens? Should Teachers be allowed those subjects to be taught in science class too?
Instead of teaching scientific facts, it makes a lot more sense to teach the PROCESS of science. Coupled with critical thinking, kids can then figure out which "theory" is a load of BS and which one is actual science.
I'd be content if they know enough to take _all_ the antibiotics the doctor prescribed, since that could actually hurt me, they being morons, not.
English you speak language the is?
ehsrCe,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Why does this all sound so familiar... Maybe because I grew up reading Bloom County, and have fond memories of the series on Penguin Evolution.
The earth isn't round, either. Yep, it's shaped like a burrito!
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
How can you falsify the idea that some monkeys had sex a few million years ago and gave birth to a human?
Last I knew, the only people claiming this were the folks trying to make the theory of evolution look crazy. I've never read any real science that says anything like what you've written.
I'm not sure if you're trolling, or just really confused.
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Whatever the specialist niche it will always contain a handful of contrarians[1]. Thus by what someone else referred to as "quote mining" you can always find some experts to back up almost any opinion.
Now some fields are so small there'll be two of them. Some will have dozens or hundreds. The important thing is how many say the opposite - the signal to noise ratio.
[1] I sometimes wonder why they do it. Perhaps it's a brainfart, or some kind of mental block. I strongly suspect some are doing it as a private joke.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The very first link (February Acts & Facts PDF ) on the very first website (Acts&Facts) on the above referenced page contains an analysis: "Molecular Equidistance: The Echo of Discontinuity?" (page 4) It lays out a methodology, a set of predictions and a proposed metric for testing the hypothosis. You give the impression that you have not examined the first thing about this, but came in with your mind made up. I must say that I really expected better of a Slashdot reader.
Page 14 presents a theory (new to me) about a second time dilation proposed by Dr. Russel Humphreys to correspond to the period of the flood. (I was familiar with "Starlight and Time, Humphrey's original publication on the subject of time dilation, but not with his later work.)
This is only 'not science' if you disinclude Einstein from science, after all they are his relativity equations used to measure expansion and time dilation. You will need to disinclude Edwin Hubble as well, since his red-shift database is the one used to support Humphrey's research.