Slashdot Mirror
Texas Bill Outlaws Discrimination Against Creationists In Academia
ndogg writes "There is a Texas bill, HB 2454, proposed by Republican State Rep. Bill Zedler, that will outlaw discrimination against creationists in colleges and universities. More specifically, it says, 'An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.'"
We can still laught a them loudly right ?
Sounds reasonable. Discrimination makes us no better than those damn creationists.
If you outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve.
So what, is this the Republican version of PC? I'm sorry Creationists but your worldview is wrong. If you can't handle this fact, grow up and get over it. The rest of the world is not obligated to pander to every loony belief that everyone holds.
I believe this bill also needs to be modified to allow one to teach that the green cheese fairy living in the pumpkin house by the spaghetti farm on the dark side of the moon helped manufacture earth from the primordial cheese whiz with the help of the space goblins.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
People writing this law belong in a mental institution. Mark al in favor of this law a call the white coat people.
Funny how the same party that had Rand Paul insisting that desegregating lunch counters was "unconstitutional" is now trying to create affirmative action for fundamentalist retards. I guess it's only OK to protect the rights of white Christians, not everybody else...
They can submit their papers for peer review, just like everyone else. Or does "Scientific Scrutiny" count as "Discrimination" these days?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Final year thesis on the origin of man - "God did it."
“If we are going to teach creation science as an alternative to evolution, then we should also teach the stork theory as an alternative to biological reproduction.”
Judith Hayes
Wow, and people dont like teachers having tenure. Only if they dont believe in science do they deserve protection.
Science knows it doe not believe.
...other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms
Finally! Now I can submit all those Pastafarianism papers for publication.
Can we encourage Texas to consider secession?
Me, I'm a Creationist with a deep pround. Here where I live, Brazil bounds, Schools still teaching Darwinism as the only courrent theory, and it sux. Evolution is old stuff even to science. Take care. C ya. Jesus Rocks!
Hopefully these people will not apply for jobs in faculties that involve actual science and stick to the studies that are made to discuss this.
Maybe Texas should just secede and be the place where all the nut jobs live.
Did an otherwise qualified creationist really get rejected from an institution' biology department? I really hate kooky laws that are written to prevent unrealistic real world scenarios.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Good.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
If they are, say, art professors, or theology professors. But if they are scientists, then this is stupid. Believing in creationism is a sure sign of a bad scientist. You can't be a good scientist and believe in creationism any more than you can be a good scientist and deny the existence of gravity or atoms.
On the bright side, if they extend this to outlaw discrimination against believing any stupid thing then it'll make getting a job really easy. If an interviewer asks you about something you don't know, just claim you don't believe in it. If they don't hire you, sue them. Profit!
Almost all my professors believed in God. They thought the Initial Singularity, big bang, expansion, evolution of stars, and all of it was part of his design.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Texas doesn't have a lock on stupid legislators. Look what we've got over here in North Carolina: Legislator says the state needs its own currency http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/03/17/1059132/legislator-says-the-state-needs.html
I say "preach it!". It being intelligent design.
Not the "God made the world in 6 days, rested on the 7th and it is all described in the Bible".
I just want to see just how fucking angry and upset these Christian retards become, if there was a course called "Creationism 101" which taught that the Spaghetti Monster created the world yesterday, that Allah (God, the Islamic version) created the world in six days as per the Koran, that Yahweh created the world in six days as per the Torah, that Brahma and Vishnu created the world, and then left the Christian God out of the curriculum.
I mean - the Christian God is already covered by Yahweh and Allah, so why waste time on that.
And the Creationists should be happy, because their "Anti Evolution" point is taught, which is what they want. They keep claiming they just want people to know that evolution isn't the only option.
Actually, evolution is not a theory.. It is just still called "theory of evolution" to appease all of the religitards
Hmm...this seems an odd bill. Why would anyone need legal protection for their beliefs? Is there retaliation going on somewhere in academia against those who dissent? I doubt it - surely it would be front-page news in the mainstream media. Freedom to practice religion in our own way was one of the ideas America was founded on. Academia needs diversity of thought more than anywhere else in society. That's one of the reasons that inclusion is so deeply valued. To think that such principled, ethical professors would discriminate on basis of religion is beyond any sort of belief.
I also like the headline: "bill outlaws X" and the summary merely says "bill has been introduced to do X". Typical journalism, eh?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
This put creationism on same level then all the other cults out there. I am in favor of banning discrimination against creationists if that keep their 'teaching' outside of science class. They just need to go found a church for their meeting and prayer to the intelligent designer.
American students just aren't stupid enough yet. Let's send them out into the world with a solid grounding in the supernatural rather than science. Politicians have to be the dumbest people on the face of the Earth.
!
link to the original article instead of the... um, "slightly" biased blog
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
We wonder why America is viewed(rightly) as falling behind other countries and then you see nonsense like this getting airplay. I wonder how many Profs in India believe evolution and global warming is bullshit? When your beliefs are so retarded that you need to pass a law stopping people from calling you a moron you know there is an issue. But on a more important level, how could not allowing a science faculty to discipline a prof who clearly ignores rational scientific thought hurt....right?
sig loading.......
Well, they keep telling us that the govt is the problem and I guess they think they have a mandate to make sure that's the case.
They also have to keep making govt bigger so they can campaign on making it smaller.
Yet another misguided attempt by a politician to legislate facts more to their liking. There should be some kind of mechanism by which lawmakers that propose boneheaded crap like this can be swiftly kicked out the door and back into the fantasyland from whence they crawled.
They can publish anything they write in the Discovery Institute's journals. If necessary, the DiscoTute will create new journals for the purpose (same as the homeopathy whackjobs do, for example.) Likewise, they'll get plenty of grant money from BillyBob's Revelation Society.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
This should be obvious. Someone should not be discriminated against because they disagree on any subject--as long as their research and performance don't suffer.
There are a ton of loony professors around in all subjects and no one freaks out about that.
I guess all the people of slashdot would rather stifle any differing opinion--that's rather sad.
When a school is hiring, it has a duty to hire the teachers most capable of informing students. The teachers aren't necessarily being "discriminated" against because of their views; rather, their capacity to teach modern scientific theory may be in question. There's a difference. If one teacher focuses all of his research energies towards proving intelligent design, why wouldn't that shed at least some minimal light on whether or not the teacher is capable of teaching current views (especially in conjunction with other factors)? I'm not saying it should be dispositive - the teacher's other qualifications should certainly be examined as well - I just don't see a reason why it shouldn't be a factor.
See, youre a geologist, and you are trying to research paleontologic era. but, some moron comes up and says that earth was created 6000 years ago, and you have to work together with that moron to do your research.
Read radical news here
Sec.A51.979. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member ’s or student ’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
(Emphasis added)
It looks to me like followers of the FSM hypothesis (or is it theory?) would also be protected, as well as proponents of evolution theory. This is a win-win proposal. Do you reckon we could get one of these for global warming denial in Virginia?
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/
Since you can't possibly prove or disprove it... open end.
Wrong.
Creationism is not falsifiable. Therefore, it cannot be considered a scientific theory. And *that's* the end of it.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The word "Theory", as used in a scientific context, does not mean the same thing as in common conversational usage.
That word does not mean what you think it means. "Theory" in a scientific context does not mean the same thing as "theory" in the vernacular.
Actually creationism need not be disproven before it is dismissed because it is not even falsifiable. Therefore science doesn't have the tools to deal with it. Philosophy does.
It is possible that creationism is true; we just don't have any way to test its claims using the scientific method. Evolution is scientific fact. Existence of a creator is outside the purview of science.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." (actually that is a popular misquote, properly attributed to Evelyn Beatrice Hall). Our society in general, and academe in particular, could benefit from living up to that ideal.
Of course I have mixed feelings about the Texas legislature introducing this bill, because I strongly suspect their motives in doing so are rather the opposite of Hall's quotation. If they do the right thing for the wrong reason, should I approve?
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.'"
That's a big loss.
So politicians now define what an "alternate theory" is? Sorry, but ID is not a "theory". It's hogwash, bullshit, dumbfuck, nonsense, insanity or any of a selection of similar terms. It is not even a theory, and definitely not a scientific theory.
To cut a long discussion short, it lacks an important part: Falsifiability.
If creationists want to have their delusions discussed by honest people, they have to make one concession first, and that is the willingness to be convinced that it's all hogwash, bullshit, nonsense, you get it. They need to say "my theory proposes X and Y, and it forbids Z. If Z can be shown to be true, my theory is a piece of crap and I'll stop plastering it everywhere and brainwishing my kids into believing it."
Science is full of faults and bad theories - but it has an uncanny ability to rid itself of them. Creationism (in both its pure form and it's ID camouflage) has been debunked hundreds of times, practically every time a real scientists so much as takes a good look. And yet it's still thrown around, largely unchanged. That is not science, that is fanatism.
And by regulating science not on the ground of proper scientific conduct, but on grounds of ideology, those politicians have just delivered an excellent proof that they are not to be trusted with truth, facts, knowledge or in fact anything, least of all running the place.
When will we have our Tharir place to rid ourselves of this caste of no-gooders who have turned everything that was once good about our democracy against us and are driven by nothing but greed and power?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Sigh. Okay, I'm not yet 30. I hope you're a kid in highschool. Please...please be. If not...well...you clearly know OF scientific method, so you're better than the fundy nuts. But...you haven't thought about it, you haven't studied the philosophy of science enough to learn the one...most basic tenant or axiom.
So let me clue you in on something.
If there exists no conceivable way to disprove something. It isn't science.
That's it. It's that simple.
If someone comes to you with a theory, hypothesis, guess, whatever... sit down and ask yourself "how could I refute this". Now--there's two parts--whether you can refute it for yourself, and whether or not that is reproducible for others.
If there is no way to refute it, even if only for yourself--it's NOT FUCKING SCIENCE. It *may* be philosophy. But it's not science.
I don't get why people don't grok this...
this law was necessery...look at these comments! You guys are pseudointelectuals! check this out > www.creation.com
Should a university fire an employee just for believing God created the world in six days? No -- although if they're a cosmologist, that will certainly have an impact on the quality of their publications.
Should a university fire an employee just for believing God created life on Earth? No -- although if they're a biologist, that's not a good sign.
Should a university fire an employee just for believing the Earth is 6,000 years old? No -- although if they're a geologist, I'm not sure how they'll get any work done.
But this is is a situation that just doesn't occur. I get the feeling that too many of these people watched Ben Stein's propaganda piece Expelled and got all up in arms about it. Well you know what, if Texas wants itself to become an educational wasteland, so be it; I'll just move somewhere else.
For the bill to become meaningful, the State of Texas will need to settle upon a legal definition of the term 'theory'. If it means 'reduction to established scientific knowledge by scientific methods and reasoning', intelligent design is not a theory. If it means 'belief', this is already covered by the First Amendment.
The scope of the law is too narrow. It should protect educators regardless of the theory of origin to which they hold. We all know the pendulum swings both ways. That way, if (when) things do go the other way, at least they won't be able to kick out those who hold to evolutionary theory.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
However, anything taught in the classroom needs to reflect the curriculum, which is or should be heavily influenced by the college's mission and by the accreditation agencies' requirements.
This law will benefit creationists teaching non-science courses the most, as it will give them some protection against discrimination. If a math professor does outside research as a hobby in Bibical Creationism he shouldn't be fired for it.
Science professors who teach biology, paleontology, and the like still need to stick to the approved curriculum or they risk being disciplined for their teaching, not their research. If they want to teach their beliefs, they can put on a seminar, teach a special-topics/non-required class, or teach a class where examining the beliefs they hold is part of the curriculum.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The whole point is to force universities to teach creationism at the university level.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Where politicians started dictating what is and isn't legit science and ultimately killing scientists that didn't agree?
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
So can you not fail a biology student for answering that god created everything on a test that asks about human origins?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Because, like it or not, scientific method dictates that creationism must be disproven before it can be dismissed.
Scientific method dictates nothing of the sort. Creationism is not falsifiable, hence, does not even fall under the scope of the scientific method. It will be interesting to see how the legislature reacts when non-christian creation myths are, by law, part of curriculum.
This level of inanity deserves nothing from the scientific and educational communities than ridicule.
Is CEG the new Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Or is the Parmisan-Eating Goblin the evil one in the FSM religion?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I had to re-read that three times before I realized it said Creationists, and not Cartoonists.
With the correct spelling, this is much less interesting.
This bill is itself discriminatory, because it only protects creationists. Luckily it can never apply, because "intelligent design" isn't a theory (not testable).
I'm sad that I have to witness the decline of science and the general rise of superstition.
This story makes me think of David Horowitz and his skewed take on academic freedom. I encourage everyone to read or listen to him debate prof. Peter Steinberger of Reed College in which Steinberger explains precisely why approaches like this go directly against the principles of academic freedom: http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/news/2210/ReedCollegeSteinbergerDebate082806.htm
Audio version here: http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/winter06/columns/noc/steinberger.html
A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. Creationism is neither. The scientific method doesn't apply.
Intelligent design isn't a theory, it's a religious belief.
Since there is no theory of intelligent design, this bill (should it be passed) can never be enforced.
Technoli
The fact that you can't possibly disprove it is why it isn't scientific.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
we're here aren't we? the 'chosen ones' are depopulating us. believe whatever we are tol to believe? doesn't appear to have helped much yet. see you at the play-dates, georgia stone editings, etc... we'll create stuff like never before.
Hmm, so I can have my "theory" that the internet is a series of tubes driven by hamsters? Or that you're actually a frog from space? Since you can't disprove a theory..... oh wait. You can disprove theories, can't you? You just can't logically prove them. Hmm.
Actually, gravity is *not* a theory. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a law. The difference is that a law is typically a direct relationship supported by empirical evidence. If you drop something, it falls. Newton worked out all the numbers. Same thing for Charles' law about gases and so on. What those *laws* don't do is say *why* or *how* the law works. A theory of gravitation includes a mechanism.
Furthermore, while it's not technically possible to *prove* any theory (by default, theories deal with unobservable entities that we can only understand by looking at their effects on the macroscopic world), it is certainly possible to disprove a theory. I have a theory that all matter is made up of continuous material, I shoot electron beams at a thin gold foil and observe (like Rutherford) a scattering that is inconsistent with that theory, and BLAM. Dead theory. Pardon my violent language, it's just that radical relativism makes me somewhat angry.
What I'm getting at is that you have an incorrect (and provably so) conceptualization of what the word "theory" means. Anyone who uses the phrase "still a theory" or "just a theory" has the same incorrect conceptualization of theory. The scientific community does itself a disservice by not educating people about how they use language better, but then again I've observed time and again that when the broader scientific community attempts to educate people, they tend to do things like cover their ears and say "lalala".
In closing, the "theory" of evolution is actually more of a set of interconnected theories that successfully aligns several hypothesized mechanisms with the empirically observed differentiation of species, geological age of the earth, and direct observations on the microscopic timescale of genetic drift. The "theory" of creation has no empirical support, and when confronted with actual disconfirmatory evidence its supporters either cover their ears and say "lalala" or they wave their hands and say "just a theory". BLAM. Dead theory.
There's nothing wrong with believing in a creation myth. I personally am a pastafarian (my heaven is waaaay better). But don't conflate irrational clinging to a belief with "proof" that that belief fits scientific models. And don't conflate the status of evolution as "theory" with "uncertainty". All the theory tag attaches is the notion that the entity it describes includes mechanistic and/or causal reasoning and appeals to logical reasoning in addition to empirical observations.
tl;dr: You're wrong, but you have a very common misconception about the scientific method. Plenty of people think that because you can never prove something true in all ways that any claim will do (since you can't prove that you're right, you can't prove that I'm wrong). This is known as "radical relativism", and is a dead end in reasoning.
I am preparing research into life's origins being created by FSM. I will need protection against discrimination against my ideals and line of study.
When will these idiots learn that to protect one religious idea, they must ALL be protected regardless of how stupid it may seem. When you start selecting one religious ideal for "protection" you are inherently discriminating against others.
[circa 1861]
Texas: We are free to leave whenever we want. South Carolina did.
Congress: No you aren't and neither are they.
Texas: Who's going to stop us?
Congress: We are.
Texas: You and what Army?
President: Mine.
OK, it didn't quite play out like that but if it happened today, it might.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
You've got it backwards. Science dictates that creationism must provide evidence to show that it has any merit. To date, there has been no evidence whatsoever. Creationism is also not a theory in any scientific sense: it offers no hypothesis as to how anything was created nor does it make predictions that can be tested. "God did it" is not a hypothesis.
Many people, especially creationists, get this wrong. Evolution is a fact. Natural Selection is the current prevailing theory to explain that fact. Gravity is also a fact. Newton developed his theory of (what is now referred to as) Classical Mechanics. But then Einstein came along and that was replaced by General Relativity. At no time, however, was the fact of gravity ever called into question.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
How many billions of dollars were added to the federal debt while we were wasting time reading this article? /. I can't find on every major US paper's page three.
A flip comment, yes. But rather that reading some article that some leftist thinks is clever, I'd rather read something
on
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating. And in fourteen days, I had lost exactly two weeks. Joe E. Lewis
with the Alchemy and Astrology classes too...
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Well I have spent a little time in Texas and they are a unique people. I was impressed when I went into a ferm bar in Austin and saw the fancy brass plaque on the wall next to the bar that directed people to leave their guns at bar. This was about 2 years ago. Now I have a hard time reconcilling the gun totting Christian majority that thinks to force one version of extremist religious views on the general public. But then I got a recorded call from Mike Huckabee last night wanting me to lend support against an attempt to stop a government supported Christian Prayer day or some such thing. Religion is fine, Christianity is fine. It's a personal choice and does not belong in the public government domain. This law is not to prevent discrimination, it is to make discrimination law. Intellegent design is a fabrication like a lot of Bush fact's. As Bush II said. He doesn't let facts get in the way of his idea's. Same here. That's right he's from Texax. Go figure.
They are anti-science, IF they are TRUE believers, THEN they should STOP USING ANYTHING that
comes from science. No vaccination, no Personal Computers, no modern anything. You see how
fast their beliefs fade? Useless BAPTISTS, and yes, I am calling any religion that allows you to
pick the pastor whom espouses your beliefs, idiots!
Become hunter/gatherers Creationists, just stay off my land, I will use technology to remove you as needed!
FACEBOOK et al, stay off those science created services. You must become that which you preach, BEFORE
you can tell me what to do!
It does, however, in this case correctly indicate that it has not been exhaustively proven, and anyone who says otherwise is more ignorant of science than those they would malign.
Making gold and silver legal tender when they fluctuates so rapidly against the US Dollar and against each other will make tax collection and bill payment a logistical nightmare for the state.
If gold or silver were stable against the dollar you could pull it off. If you made the dollar not legal tender you could do it. But having two legal tenders that are not stable to each other creates way too much paperwork and inefficiency.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
God Damnit, is this really necessary?
How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
Sharia 2.0 in the American way.
What Texas allows discrimination against...
"Texas does not ban workplace discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, or marital status"
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
Actually, evolution is not a theory.. It is just still called "theory of evolution" to appease all of the religitards
It is a Theory. The important thing is that a scientific theory, which is a combination of confirmed facts with reasoned and supported generalizations, is completely different from what a layperson thinks of when he hears the word "theory."
Gravity is "just a theory"; it's still stupid to believe that you can jump off a forty-foot ledge and fly by flapping your wings.
back into the dark ages with you, Americans! you've never been very bright anyways...
Proving once again that you've never been very bright.
If you take the time to look at a map, you'll notice that most of America is not in Texas.
It's a theory on a technicality, because there's no rigorous way to disprove it. But it's like the theory of gravity: you'd have to be a fruitbat not to accept it.
...against morons on the faculty. With students there is still hope.
Perhaps this would also be a good juncture to explain how abiogenesis is falsifiable.
Back into the dark ages with you, Americans! you've never been very bright anyway...
FTFY
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
as a parent of MA teenagers, who are getting solid educations with strong science components, including a thorough (AP biology - amazing course here in MA) background in evolution, I say
Encourage the Bastards !!
If what Obama and Clinton and Bush are always saying about the 21st century is true - that we need a highly educated workforce to be competitive - I say it is great that TX is doing this, as kids in MA will be head and shoulders above them int eh competition for good jobs
How do you say "will you have fries with that"
Answer: A degree from Texas
PS: the U of TX lured the nobel prize winning Harvard physicists steven weinberg to austin with, among other things, a promise that he would be the highest paid faculty on campus. weinberg gets there, and finds that he is the 2nd highest paid faculty
any guesses?
the football coach, of course,,,
Can they still discriminate on the basis of quality of research? I hope they are allowed to differentiate between "good research" into alternative theories and "crappy pseudo-research" into alternative theories. I wonder what "good research into creationism" would entail? Do they have to define god? Make observable predictions of god?
This makes no sense. I could understand if they were teaching Theology or something, but science?
Science is a rigorous discipline. There is no place in science for those who disagree with established doctrine.
Protesting too much are we?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
I'm conflicted on this...
On the one hand, if there was no news about this bill, then it *might* just die off. Special interest groups often propose outlandish bills to generate publicity. Suddenly their cause gets millions more people aware. They very well might be a fringe group, but .05% of 300M people is still a large group.
On the other hand, it's very easy for special interest groups to push bills through because of the lack of scrutiny. No one else may care, so rather than fighting a seemingly innocuous addendum, politicians just OK it.
It be interesting if thousands of people suddenly wrote their Congress folk and representatives suggesting that similar provisions in the law be afforded to followers of the FSM. After all, if the existing anti-discrimination law is not sufficient and creationists are being harassed, then certainly the followers of the FSM should also get protection.
Advantage in the modern era depends upon technological development.
An enemy of the United States would present exactly the same kind of bill that this state representative did.
Why limit it to the "field" of intelligent design? If a chemistry teacher rejects the accepted science of what happens in a chemical reaction, and instead teaches the class that magic is responsible for chemical synthethis, who are we to discriminate against him, right? Rust = fairy mischief!
Actually, evolution is not a theory.. It is just still called "theory of evolution" to appease all of the religitards
Actually, that's not quite true. As Carl Sagan (Jebus! I loved that man!) said:
"Evolution is a fact amply demonstrated by the fossil record and by contemporary molecular
biology. Natural selection is a successful theory devised to explain the fact of evolution."
In any case, what frightens me the most is that all this ignoring of scientific fact puts our children at a severe disadvantage. It's difficult to be a biologist of *any* stripe if you don't accept the fact of evolution.
For the trolls and the few creationists who might read this, I'd point out that the flu shot you got couldn't have been developed without utilizing the tools that the theory of Natural Selection gives us.
If the law says "You're not allowed to discriminate against white people", apparently it's fine to discriminate against other races. Therefore such a law *is* discriminating. Likewise if you create a law protecting the creationists from discrimination, by doing so you're discriminating, making such a law like totally unconstitutional.
Being from Texas it's comforting to see that the idiots who get elected, as per usual never disappoint. Whether it's lobbying to change history or (Like many states.) thinking the answer to economic woes is skewering education because who needs all that learnin' you just never know what kind of idiocy you'll discover each day.
But then the country as a whole is acting pretty stupid these days so I guess I shouldn't be overly surprised that Texas feels the need to try and stand above the rest when it comes to waste of time legislation.
Creationism is, in fact, falsifiable. God could show up and explain he didn't do it.
Generally, by 'falsifiable', science means 'disprovable', which creationism is not, and hence not science. There is no testable theory to demonstrate that.
But, strictly speaking, it could be falsified, because it states an entity did something, and for that to be false, all we would need is for that entity to say so.
We are talking about 'history', not 'science' at that point, and God is a primary source, in fact, the only source. If he shows up and say 'No, it wasn't me', we should pretty much consider our historic theory wrong. Likewise, if he says 'It was me', we should accept it.
It's the same way that saying 'The house seems dirty. I think Bill tracked some mud into the house yesterday' is not a scientific theory, but is a theory of history and is a falsifiable if Bill wakes up and says he didn't go outside yesterday.
Of course, God or Bill could be lying, which also needs to be taken into account.
And all these seems moot as no one can seem to get God to get down here and tell us what happened.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
i wish the south had won
we'd be looking at a world today where haiti stretched up to the virginia state border, in terms of economic and social progress, but north of that, we'd have a richer, more socially progressive, happier country
canada, oh canada: would you like to take a poor abused new york state in under your wing? we are held back socially and economically by a heavy southern weight. how about new york and new england for alberta? fair trade?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Could someone here that supports intelligent design respond?
The way I see it, intelligent design is a conclusion that "magic being(s)" created life or some aspect of life based on the fact that there is something that we cannot yet explain it.
Is there something I am missing in this?
Lots of people like to claim that scientific principles must be falsifiable. The softer argument works here, though: scientific principles must be able to make testable predictions. Any speculation that does not make a testable prediction isn't science.
Or, in the clever words of Christopher Hitchens: "That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
You are so wrong that laughing at you is the only reasonable course of action.
Why don't you send your post to your advisor. See if he lets you graduate.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
abiogenesis is not - the different *scientific* hypothesis (they are not good enough to be theories yet) for abiogenesis are, through for instance studying rocks for geochemistry or re-creating environments, expensive difficult but doable. The god hypothesis of abiogenesis on the other hand is not. It is also notable that not knowing how it happened does not give evidence for any position on how it happened, regions or otherwise.
Uh, no, I don't like it, because you got it ass-backwards. A theory must be falsifiable before it can be even admitted. If you make a theory that cannot be disproven, that's not bad science, that's not science at all. Not even wrong.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
as a practicing scientist (phd in molecular biology) although a poor speller, I think this falsifiable thing is silly
actual, real scientists don't worry much about falisfiability and other philosophical concepts, just as most programmers don't worry to much about CompSci theory
real scientists are to busy doing experiments, writing papers, turning coffee into theorems, etc
And in order for real scientists to perform experiments, there must be the possibility of a negative outcome. Without thinking of it in a philosophical sense, we all verify falsifiability in our research through proper experimental design. The alternative are experiments where our hypothesis is replaced by "What's going to happen?" and the data analysis consisting of "Wow!" Even in a broad exploratory study, we follow "Wow, this makes the cheese turn brown!" with "Does this really, repeatably turn the cheese brown?" That's a real experiment with falsifiability built in.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
as a practicing scientist (phd in molecular biology) although a poor speller, I think this falsifiable thing is silly
actual, real scientists don't worry much about falisfiability and other philosophical concepts, just as most programmers don't worry to much about CompSci theory
real scientists are to busy doing experiments, writing papers, turning coffee into theorems, etc
I think there's some funny stuff in your coffee if you're doing experiments on non-falsifiable theories.
I was born and raised in Texas and now that's become a source of embarrassment. What happened to the state that gave us the great civil rights president LBJ and is the home to many great universities and NASA?
No, actually, the scientific method, practically, does not mean that the idea must be disproved before it can be dismissed. The responsibility for evidence and proof lies with the advocates of the idea, not the scientific community. Scientists are not required to review every idea put forth by any advocate. That's not their job. They have their own work to do.
And really, it's been over a hundred and forty years. The religious idea of creation has had its chance and then some. Either prove it or get out of our collective hair. Write up your ideas and submit it to review. If your ideas don't pass muster, too bad. Preach it from the pulpit. Don't pretend to be science.
And scientists do not require laws to protect themselves from disagreement. Religionists do. Walled gardens.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
Rand Paul didn't say segregation was good, he did not describe his thought very well though. The argument is that the federal level government should stick to the constitution and let the states handle local matters. Segregation was going to end and didn't require wars. Rand is following his dad's lead, and his dad has said time and time again that the neocons need to be pushed back. The fall down holy rollers that think the world is 6000 years old and have their heads far up their collective asses are the problem. They are blind to reality. The neocons took over the republican party starting in the 70's with the founding of "liberty university" by some asshat evangelist. The Pauls are not the Sara Palins, but the media seems to always describe them as the same people. The bad part is, people may support a traditional republican party, but the neocons are already all over it and can lie by pretending to be a ron paul type republican instead to get the popular support.
Most people ignore the FACT that the democrat party supported segregation and the republicans opposed it. The democrat party was the white power party. "white power" was written on the party crest back when they had a chicken as the animal mascot. They changed the image like any company would when hoping people will forget their past.
I am going to attend a Texas university. My masters thesis will be to study the theory that evolution happens when I sleep with the wives of politicians and university staff. Now, remember, you can't say no to my thesis or discriminate against me in any way. In fact, you should probably lend a hand in order to appear completely unbiased.
:P
o Mores!
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
Because, like it or not, scientific method dictates that creationism must be disproven before it can be dismissed. Since you can't possibly prove or disprove it... open end.
The scientific method also dictates that hypotheses must be testable through experiments and results should be measurable.
In fact the scientific method does not claim to be able to prove something is true, but rather to prove that it is NOT wrong, and to do so it is a basic requirement for the hypotheses to be testable someway.
To say it in other words: intelligent design may or may not be true, but it certainly is outside of the scope of science and cannot be considered to have any relation with it.
diegoT
"Theory of Gravity" perhaps? Science still hasn't figured out just what gravity is, only the mechanics of its function. You're certainly welcome to suggest that the existing theory of gravity is wrong and should be replaced with "Intelligent Falling" for example, but you'd have a high hurdle to overcome.
With dogmatic fanatics on both sides of the debate, we need to encourage scientific research in areas OUTSIDE of the current theoretical paradigm without fear of losing tenure or credibility. It's the anomalies that spur interesting scientific debate and discoveries, not the boring "our study supports XYZ theory". Without people researching and publishing papers on alternative theories, we will never grow in our scientific knowledge.
That said, I'm sure my post will get modded as "troll" or "flame" because I don't embrace the typical slashdot "creationists are stupid" attitude. Let creationists and intelligent design and aliens-were-here-first have their fun, do their research, and submit it to the larger scientific community.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Anyone want to bet the next law will be to confirm the world is flat.
So all we need to do is to create a theory of Gay Creationism, which teaches that God created people to be gay, and bam, suddenly texan universities are forced to teach the gay agenda.
I wouldn't take it on the grounds that the guy could come back and claim it was a mistake. I would also worry it was stolen. Also, I couldn't sleep at night taking it.
I would tell him its real value and if I had anything more than a gut feeling that that it was hot I'd call the police.
If he insisted and the dollar value of the food was low, I would take it, set it aside, and get his license plate. I would recommend my manager notify the police and not sell it for at least a month in case it was hot or the guy was had a court-appointed financial guardian due to his inability to handle money.
Now, if it was something worth only slightly more than face value like silver coins used to be back in the late 1960s or early 1970s, then I would at least let the guy know but if he insisted, I would take it and buy it from the till for myself.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
We just have to wait till: http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/03/17/1317211/Large-Hadron-Collider-is-a-Time-Machine works. Once we can go back in time, we can test it.
Oh, yes, the theory thing again.
"Theory" has two meanings.
1. In everyday life, it means an idea. A notion.
2. In science, it's a cohesive explanation that fits all the known facts and has passed peer review. It accounts for what is known and can be used to predict what is unknown. Theories are tested. Extensively. Relentlessly. They are discarded when they no longer work. They are awarded the title "theory" as a end result of being proven true, to the best of our knowledge. What is not known is labeled as such and is set aside for further work.
What you would call a "theory" is what a scientists would call an "idea", or a "notion", or a "thought". When a scientist uses the word, it all but means "fact".
Ok, so even if Seccession is prohibited under the Constitution or one of its amendments (don't ask me, I'm not a legal scholar), is there anything that prohibits the Union from KICKING THEM OUT?
Look, I know there are a lot of good things in Texas, IBM has some good research facilities there (and my mom lives there!) but for the sake of the Union shouldn't we consider ejecting them? (Sorry mom!)
I mean isn't it like a gangrenous foot that must be amputated (boy, my mom really is not going to like being compared to a foot, gangreous or not!), maybe if we turn it over to Mexico that'll also solve our illegal immigration problem.
Didn't Mexico "win" Texas anyway in the battle of the Alamo? *ducks*
Carl Sagan's Cosmos. . .edited for rednecks.
"Just how old is our planet? Scientists believe it's four bil...*hundreds and hundred of years old*
Scientists have determined that the universe was created by *GOOOOOOOOOOOOD* Big Bang.
If you look at the bones of a *Jesus*sauraus Rex it's clear by the use of carbon dating that *mountain dew is the best soda ever made*"
I wish Texas would separate from the rest of the country. Then we could charge them rent for the land they're on and not have to deal with their stupidity.
I find it interesting the all the geeks here dismiss intelligent design out of hand yet, yet what geek has not seriously considered the possibility that the world we live in is, in fact, simply someone's computer simulation?
The only difference I can see between the two theories is that the creator of the simulation is more likely to be a 14 year old kid as opposed to an all-caring father figure. But that seems like a rather trivial distinction.
If ignorance is bliss, creationists must be the happiest people in the world!
Depends on what you mean by the theory of evolution. Like the rest of science it is a working, changing model for how the world works. Like any use of science to determine what happened in the past it is impossible to prove those statements empirically.
We can however look at the great body of evidence and use empirical studies of the current day to back up our theories of what we believe to have happened.
Exactly. Which is why you shouldn't discriminate against scientists who believe in creationism. It has nothing to do with their being a scientist. If you are going to do that, you might as well discriminate against all ot
So basically, when a student writes a paper about evolution claiming it is false, then cites creationism, the teacher is not allowed to "discriminate" and tell the student they're wrong?
Texas has gone full retard.
MABASPLOOM!
When people wonder why it is that the US is falling behind other countries in science education, this is why.
To be sure, discrimination is the whole point of academia, that is discrimination on basis of academic merit. People who cannot show academic rigour are vigorously discriminated against (e.g. they will not get tenure, they will not get their articles published in the mainstream journals, and they will not get recognition). Only in that way are shoddy work and pseudo-science kept at bay. Most of the time.
And yes, that's all very "elitist" because Joe Sixpack simply no more capable of judging is someone is or is not academically capable than he is of analysing a mathematical proof, a statistical test, a laboratory result, or judging if a medical diagnosis is right. If Joe Sixpack were so clued-up he'd be hired as a researcher or a professional. Only he isn't, for excellent reasons.
As Creationism lacks all and any academic merit, it is no more than reasonable to be able to refuse people who subscribe to it from joining the Biology faculty.
Despite its name, "Evolution Theory" is not a mere "theory". On the contrary. There is both an enormous existing body of solid and well-documented evidence for Evolution Theory, and it is corroborated on a continuous basis by just about every on-going field research (from bacteria to beetles to birds to elephants and all kind of plant life). This makes it a *well-tested* and *well-verified* theory, which is why it is at the basis of contemporary Biology.
It wouldn't be a problem is a creationist joined a liberal arts faculty, the maths faculty, or the civil engineering department. Those academic fields are sufficiently fare removed from creationism that they will not be impacted.
But for those who would join the Biology faculty the standard is somewhat higher: they must first show that they know in detail that they know what they are talking about (as in passing exams). After that, if they wish to dispute the foundations of the subject area they wish to don a mantle of authority on, they must first *disprove* with specificity what they dispute, in a scientifically acceptable way. For example in the course of their PhD research.
Then and only then can they be admitted (and they usually will be).
All this is needed to ensure that no *religious* arguments creep into the debate, because religion has no overlap with science and should not be confused with it.
Most of the world gets this, only the US (well certain groups within the US) is in the unique position that it starts blurring the line again centuries after the separation between Church and State and the decoupling of Theology from the Sciences during the Renaissance. It is interesting to note that in this the US finds itself in the company of Islamic Extremists, who too wish to assert the authority of their particular interpretation of word of their particular deity as paramount over reason, dispute, or evidence.
Good. This law needs to be in place. To believe the universe and the earth and uniform physics just happens to be the way it is by accident is absurd. If you believe that, you are believing in probability soo low that it makes more since to believe in a God. You have faith in believing in small numbers, i have faith in not believe in small numbers. Whats the difference?
It's funny, just a few minutes ago I wrote a long post saying why I was Proud of the USA. (See below)
Now I feel like I have to eat my words, or at least some of them. Salt please!
************** From the previous post: *************
I know the US has done a lot of bad things and made some pretty bad mistakes but I just wanted to celebrate one of its (many) good achievements. Only the US has sent (or is sending) a probe to every major object in the solar system (yes that includes you Pluto). Only the US has launched four "Great Observatories" (Hubble, Chandra, Compton, Spitzer). Only the US has... well the list goes on and on even in just the field of unmanned space exploration.
Of course the Cosmos is not solely an American prerogative. So here's a question; why haven't other wealthy federations/countries (EU, Japan) been hitting in their weight class? Is it because only the US (and to a lesser extent) the USSR had the close linkage between the military development of ballistic missile technology and space exploration as a means of bolstering national pride? Or, is it because the US is a nation full of dreamers and visionaries who pursue ideals (and ideologies) that may not appeal as much to the pragmatic and efficient Europeans (I'm mostly thinking of Germany) and Japanese? Is the reason why 70% Americans profess to strongly believe in God the same reason why they are (relatively) so willing to spend billions on space exploration? Do the same impulses that drive many (stupid) Americans TO DENY EVOLUTION (emphasis added) and Global Warming paradoxically cause them to fund the most productive scientific community on earth?
And maybe that will answer this follow up question: will rising China follow (and perhaps surpass) the US in space exploration? If it is a matter of military development and national pride then perhaps yes. If it is something more cultural though...?
On a related note: there was a recent article in (I think) the NYTimes about how, the Chinese Central Committe (the assemblage that runs China) got together recently. Since many of the members of this elite group were laden with the latest iPad and iPhones, a major topic of discussion was; why hadn't China produced anyone like Steve Jobs and would it ever? Say what you will about Mr. jobs, he has created and revolutionized several industries from scratch (personal computing, "windows" based computing, computer animated movies (Pixar), digital distribution of media, portable digital media devices, cellphones, tablet computers). Basically the article concluded that unless China were to become more democratic, less authoritarian and less hierarchal, they would have little chance of allowing a (paraphrased) Beatles fanatic, fruitarian, hippy dropout who spent a year in India before returning to start a self-proclaimed revolution, from becoming a success.
Or is there another reason why the US has been blessed (cursed*?) by people like Jobs? (Education? Drugs? Fluorine in the water supply?)
*"cursed" might be what some of his employees would say. He, like others whom I would call visionary (like James Cameron), have not been known to provide the most caring and supportive of work environments.
And people wonder why America is losing its edge. Gee, why can't Americans compete in science and technology these days? Religious interference in American politics and education is going to be our downfall - socially, economically, and spiritually.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
I don't see why this is such a problem. The theory of evolution through natural selection makes no claims regarding the source of life, only how and why it has adapted to the environment across generations. The "faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms" is reasonable so long as done in a scientific manner. To the best of my knowledge there are no methods currently for determining the origin of life, so it seems appropriate to research it. If this is applied to protect non-scientific "studies" showing that a Jesus did it, it's bad. Research in directions other than the generally accepted theory is a GOOD thing for science.
'An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.'
Since there is no scientific theory of ID, and hence no theoretical framework to guide your research, then this bill is pointless.
Yes, yes you can.
Anyway, the ideal is laughable. Texan academics... it remains funny no matter how many times you say it.
Why are humans the only ones to evolve beyond a rudimentary purpose? Scientists can and should believe in creationism until they can prove otherwise. By default most people won't believe in something greater than themselves because we as a species think that we are the pinnacle of evolution. Therefore, if we are the pinnacle then believing in something greater than ourselves would be heresy unto our species, which constitutes our "being" as a religion. So we dig and dig to find some nuance of understanding and then formulate a "theory" about how we arrived at being this pinnacle being. I would argue that until we can determine our own mortality that we are not the pinnacle being and that every theory we formulate is merely based on the observation that we can understand and reproduce...yet we have never been able to reproduce a horse from a mouse. How many apes have become humans? It takes about 18 years for an embryo to develop into a full-grown person...shouldn't we be able to accomplish the same thing through evolution if indeed evolution is more than a "theory?" Until someone can take a mouse and grow it into a horse without using any external energy source then I say the default is Creationism and let the scientists dig.
Forrest Mims is a creationist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forrest_Mims
I read his engineering notebooks and built circuits out of them. I will be forever grateful to him for that. It was the most fun I ever had in science, and I learned a lot of useful stuff.
It blew me away when I found out that a guy that smart and cool was a creationist. But there are a lot of engineers who believe in Bible-belt creationism.
If Mims were proposed to teach an engineering course, there's no doubt that he's qualified. If he were to teach a biology course, maybe not. If he were to teach a general science course, I don't know.
But that's a decision for the department to make, not the Texas legislature.
This doesn't prevent us from laughing at creationists.
That issue was settled back in 1865 with a little event called the Civil War. The Civil War was NOT about slavery, as many think. Slavery was one of the triggers, but the war was not fought over it in any way. The war was over the question of if union membership was permanent. The Confederate States wanted to leave and be their own nation since they were unhappy with what the federal government had been doing, slavery laws among them. The US decided that no that wasn't ok, it was rebellion and a war was fought. The Union won, and the issue was settled: Union membership is permanent.
The issue is done and settled, like it or not.
Yet, I still can't get a job at Victoria's Secret.
athiests don't discriminate - religions do (gays, jews, african americans, etc...). We just silently mock them for being morons.
What scares me about this is the backers of "intelligent design" tout this b.s. as "science".
We don't need religion in this time and age. We need higher moral standards than those found in the
bible.
I always hated how the word 'discrimination' went from meaning 'being able to discriminate' i.e. having taste, being able to tell two different things apart, to 'being a racist/sexist/other-ist prick'. Glad to see things have gone full circle and the word once again means 'having taste'.
ID tastes bad, and I'm not going to eat it.
We still need ditch diggers and service workers.
Don't they first need to learn what the word "theory" means? In science it has to be well tested to be a theory. An idea is a hypothesis. I forgot law makers can change the meanings of words, never mind.
They come in the dark, only in the darkest.
Also even laws are subject to change or overturn if evidence is brought fourth. Newton's Laws are a prime example, having to be altered by relativity and quantum physics.
Some parts of Newtons laws had to be thrown out completely while others remained intact as long as you keep conditions within certain boundaries.
The body of science is always subject to change but that change must be based upon evidence, proof and logical reasoning between peers.
As said by the previous poster Evolution is not A theory; it is a large and well supported body of theories.
Not a NoTrueScotsman defence. 1000 years ago, nobody didn't believe in God because the society killed people who didn't believe in at least one of them.
200 years ago, anyone who wanted a position said they believed in God because otherwise you didn't get anywhere (even today, nobody would get Presidential ticket if they declared themselves an atheist).
Atheism wasn't accepted by society until pretty much the late 19th century.
It's funny how they are the alternative now.
I have a question about 'falsifiability'. How is evolution or the big bang falsifiable in a practical sense. If tomorrow, the LHC finds a particle which thoroughly smashed the standard model and any major competing theories, we wouldn't say "Aha! the big bang is wrong!" We would just retool our theories to meet current data. Or if a fossil shows up in the wrong layer or dates to the wrong time, we wouldn't say "Aha! Evolution is wrong!" We would just retool our theory to fit the current data.
Now I am not some super genius, so it is highly likely that you can pick apart my specific examples I tried to use to frame my question. I ask you to try to understand the spirit of my question and answer accordingly even if my ignorance has framed my question poorly.
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
Glad I don't live there.
It's the same way that saying 'The house seems dirty. I think Bill tracked some mud into the house yesterday' is not a scientific theory, but is a theory of history and is a falsifiable if Bill wakes up and says he didn't go outside yesterday.
Actually David as anyone that has children will tell you, someone telling you they didn't make mucky footprints all over your clean kitchen floor is not necessarily related in any way to "the truth".
Basically, if God is any way involved in a hypothesis all bets are off since his omnipotence means there are rules to the game we never get to see.
This is why any theories invoking the God of the gaps are useless.
Well, is there anything about psychology (especially psycho-analysis) that can be falsified? (If you do an experiment with control groups it's not psycholgy, but social-psychology.)
Mod me down, be thankful I do not look you up and sign you up
for GAY porn at work and everywhere else. NIGGERS!
Figure it out !!! Been on the net since 1968 NIGGERS!!!
Where were you??? Enjoy.
Since you can't possibly prove or disprove it... open end.
Wrong.
Creationism is not falsifiable. Therefore, it cannot be considered a scientific theory. And *that's* the end of it.
Wrong. Just because science can't support it as a theory doesn't mean it didn't happen. So let's just pry that end back *open*, shall we? Or, do you actually prefer to rail against creationists for being as ignorant as yourself?
How long were scientists telling us that 100ft rogue waves weren't possible?
It seems that if the Texas legislature were truly concerned about discrimination, the bill would have stated "An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of the origination and development of organisms" This would then also protect those who believe in what is normally taught from being discriminated against by those who believe in the alternative theories.
If you thought those various 10 commandment monuments caused issues, image what some university sanctioned phallic pillar to honor Hermes would do.
Intelligent design is not a theory, A theory requires evidence. It is nothing more than a belief.
I went to the MIT with the building plans for my awesome, magnet-based perpetual motion machine, and all I asked for in exchange was a tenure position and a nomination for the Nobel prize (it works like the Emmy Awards, right?).
But they just laughed, told me some mathematical mumbo-jumbo about "conservation of energy" and "Noether's Theorem" and suggested to stop bothering people unless I know what I am talking about.
That's discrimination too. I am suing!
Theories can be tested and proven. There is nothing about creationism that is testable. It all relies on "belief" which is not a scientific concept. It has no place being discussed anywhere near real academia.
today is spelling optional day.
"Science is full of faults and bad theories - but it has an uncanny ability to rid itself of them....Creationism (in both its pure form and it's ID camouflage) has been debunked hundreds of times, practically every time a real scientists so much as takes a good look."
Theistic evolutionists or "Christian Darwinists" would disagree.
It's also quite funny you mention falsifiability in one breath and then claim that "every time a real scientist takes a good look" they can provide evidence against the claim. Seems like you don't understand the topic all that well. Creationism in it's most general sense is unfalsifiable, which means it doesn't fall into the realm of scientific theory, which also means you can't provide evidence against it.
So, in the course of your education you seem to be unable to separate personal philosophy, such as that of Dawkins, with that of pure science.
And that is the REAL loss, the conflation of the two, which becomes more damaging to science, more damaging to truth. Something you purport to hold high.
To respond to a previous comment: Yes, professors have been fired and rejected over this belief. One very well respected and qualified astronomer recently sued the U. of Kentucky for discriminating against him on a job he was supposed to get, simply because some comments he made led them to think he was a creationist. Turns out he was just a Christian theistic evolutionist, believing in God directed evolution, but non-the-less the university ran in fear from him. He received a settlement and apology for it.
I believe it is discrimination like this which this bill is targeted at, and I applaud the effort. No where in America should any sort of discrimination like this exists, especially in places of higher educations, but it does. And as a scientist (geologist actually) myself, I can't believe the animosity in schools when someone open disagrees with the "theory" of evolution -- religion aside. For God sakes, it's a THEORY. Sure there's evidence to support it, but for all we know it could very well be wrong, or there could be much more to the puzzle that we don't know about. Teaching it as fact and not at least recognizing openly that there could be other theories, simply encourages students to not think outside the box, which is what science is all about. What if Darwin was forbidden to pursue and explore his theories. Punishing teachers and scientists today for having alternate theories would be akin to doing just that. What if one of their potential students would have gone on to propose some other theory that better explained the origin of life and prove Darwin actually was wrong, but was brainwashed into believing what we know today is hard fact. Even in geology, I can attest to so many previously held beliefs that were regarded as fact 50 years ago, are all but replaced by new ideas today. It's what science is all about, being open minded.
I'm not saying I support this because I'm a creationist, but as a scientist. As one other commenter stated, we will never be able to disprove God. But that fact, whether you like it or not, leaves open the possibility that God does exist. Even a remote possibility there is a God should make even a scientist of all people think, if there is a God surely he would have had a hand in creation. That possibility, from a scientific standpoint and until proven otherwise, is enough to at least entertain those who believe in the theories associated with it whether you believe it or not. I'm not saying we have to teach it as gospel in schools. Currently evolution clearly fits the best with other scientific models until another theory like creationism offers better evidence, such as God appearing the sky or something. But it should at least be taught with a note as the "currently best fitting theory".
Science is about finding the ultimate truth to things. If that turns out to involve God, I'm all ears. But I'm not going to discriminate against beliefs just because they don't jive with mine. I wouldn't be a very good scientist then. Its very sad that people feel the need to point fingers and think they have all the answers, especially when it comes from those who people look to for them. It's unfortunate that we have to even debate having a bill like this being introduced, but sometimes we need laws to protect against stupidity.
But you are aware that Christians are the sequel to the Jews? And the muslims are the trilogy?
Just like the Matrix. The first is the best, the second sold well but sucked, the third... yuch.
Cue all the matrix fans shouting there was only ONE movie.
Wonder whose outraged nutters I should fear more, Islam or Matrix fans. Maybe they will fight each other trying to get to me and rid the world of two problems at once.
Oh okay, that is enough karma burning (wonder why insulting Muslims burns karma a concept from Hindu/Budhist and some other religions that involve curry)
To finalize this post. The flying spaghetti monster exist, I had him for dinner.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I agree that any scientific theory that references is God is pretty stupid to start with, and is not actually a 'scientific theory'.
I was just pointing out that, strictly speaking, the 'not a scientific theory' of intelligent design is falsifiable. Not scientifically falsifiable, but historically falsifiable.
Intelligent design fails to qualify as a science theory because it doesn't make any predictions, which is what people generally mean as 'falsifiable' in science, but is not strictly correct when talking about 'What happened in the past', which is all Intelligent Design concerns itself with.
Intelligent Design would be more properly classified as 'crazy history theories' than 'scientific theories'. We call those 'conspiracy theories'. It's a crazy conspiracy theory, it's the-Illuminati-had-JFK-shot 'history theory' and is, strictly speaking, falsifiable.
Although in that case, we probably should consider it 'falsified' only if someone else steps forward as his assassin with a lot of evidence, and not just take the word of the Illuminati if they show up and claim it wasn't them. Likewise, God has a lot of rather strange claims, so perhaps we should only consider Intelligent Design falsified if the FSM shows up and says that he did it instead.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A universal standard for all research is not discrimination. Creationism fails when falsifiability is required. These students will waste their time following a fools errand - their papers will be rejected based on a universal non-discriminatory standard and they will have learned the hard way.
All this bill does is make it harder for religious minded students to complete their university degrees.
How evolution occurs is still being investigated. That it does in fact happen has been repeatedly observed and exhaustively proven. In this respect is is very similar to the Theory of Gravity. We're pretty damn sure some effect we call gravity does in fact exist. We're still working on exactly how it works.
This is a bill to make more people religious, period.
It is proposed by people who believe that believing their religion is the most important thing in the world.
> You're an ignorant retard? > doesn't matter > your going to heaven.
> Economy down the tubes? > doesn't matter > your going to heaven.
In fact all the things you might consider good -
-being well educated
-being economically self sufficient.
-being able to think for yourself ethically and about the world.
are all BAD things cos they make you less likely to do the Really important thing
which is to believe the same religion as your Grandma did OK.
How about discriminating against so-called scientists who actually don't do any research?
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
What about astrologists and alchemists? Don't they deserve protection too?
And this means to *everything*. I'm allowed to investigate any theory, and shouldn't be punished for doing so. Texas is focused on creation, but the underlying issue is ensuring that academia is freed from agenda. What if a school took the position that strong intellectual property results in profit, and started firing professors merely researching the value of open source and DRM-free markets? Same concept - academia needs protection. Ideology isn't the issue, as all worldviews (Christian v. Atheist, IP v. openness, etc) are an ideology. My research can reflect my worldview, and I shouldn't be punished for it. Otherwise it isn't academia, but rather, whoever holds the cards is using its means of control to further its worldview. (No different than the church's attacks on Aristotle and Newton ... it's just a matter of the shoe being on the other foot, which is never a justification.)
I say all this as a Texan (in Houston) and as a Christian who believes in evolution The most retarded view in the world is that evolution=atheism - Darwin himself referenced God as an authority figure, and even in his most uncertain moments, went on record to label himself as an agnostic at most, never an atheist.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
As there is no such thing as a "theory of intelligent design" there is no way to discriminate against it.
Research to determine the current status of the Creator:
1. Rent/License a project use of the LHC Time Machine effect to send a packet back in time to the time of the Creator. "Hi God!"
2. Wait for response.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
believe in evolution. A fundamentalist of some kind, as I recall from my grad school days.
He did excellent work, published very many papers in peer-reviewed journals, had an international reputation, his students populate medical school depts of anatomy and neuroscience all over the world.
His papers reported the differences between various species. The species were important in the evolutionary tree of primates, but he didn't have to interpret the results in those terms, just report the data.
So, not every biologist needs to believe in evolution.
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
It does, however, in this case correctly indicate that it has not been exhaustively proven...
The "Theory of Evolution" is the theory about how evolution operates - just as the "Theory of Gravity" is the theory about how gravity operates. In neither case is the subject of study - evolution or gravity - a hypothetical one, the evidence for each is immense, multi-disciplinary, with mutually supporting. There is no significant question about whether either topic of study is real.
... and anyone who says otherwise is more ignorant of science than those they would malign.
Attempting to preemptively declare universal victory without even presenting an argument is so lame it doesn't even qualify as a fallacy. As Wolfgang Pauli used to say this assertion "is not even wrong".
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
You're missing the point. Because it is not falsifiable it is not science. The parent poster made no comments about whether it actually happened.
Also, 100ft rogue waves may have seemed impossible to those scientists you mention, but it is clearly testable - you just have to wait for or even stimulate a 100ft wave! Perhaps you could model it on a computer. Lots of possibilities. It is therefore science.
You cannot test creationism. You cannot model it or do experiments. It is therefore NOT SCIENCE.
Look, I don't think anyone should be discriminated against based on what they believe. If you believe in Jesus, or Allah, or Krishna, or Xenu, or aliens hiding behind a comet, that's fine, that's just a basic freedom in our country, to believe whatever you want. But how can you research these things outside of the context of history, anthropology, sociology, or psychology? I.e. not as human phenomenon, but physical phenomenon?
I mean, I believe in God and Jesus, but can you imagine if I submitted a paper that was like: "MOSFET in sub-threshold modes modulated by resonance with the Holy Spirit". That paper would, necessarily, be a steaming pile of shit and as unscientific as is possible, and should be rejected. And if I insisted on pursuing that as a line of "research", then damn right I should be disqualified from a research position! That's not discriminating against my religion and beliefs, that's discriminating against my utter suckage at science!
So yeah, it should be (and is) illegal discrimination to reject someone from a job because they say they are a Christian (or Hindu etc), but if they answer "Man was created spontaneously by God, and Woman was crafted from one of his ribs" in a biology exam they should get that question wrong, and if they want to "research" Creationism at a university, the university would be correct to not grant them the chance!
The enemies of Democracy are
I hope this passes, because no one attempting it will be able to get past this part of the research grant application:
Observations and measurements:
Hypothesis:
Predicted outcome:
Testing methods:
If they could ever get to step 2, they're quite creative and well practiced at it, but they can't seem to ever do steps 1 or 3, and act like they've never heard of step 4.
This sentence no verb.
It doesn't ban discriminating against quacks based on the idea of creationism, just the theory of creationism. If someone wants to put forth a theory of intelligent design, that would be great, because to date, no one has ever formulated one (or if they did, they kept it a big secret instead of publishing it).
Then if some quack wants to work on creationism, then they can either do the work and become the first (in which case, all is forgiven and I'll be happy to eat some humble pie; and really, it would be ok for the university to pay a settlement or have to hire the guy back, because such an event would put them on the map in quite a big way -- the first intelligent design scientist is going to be outrageously famous and this will rub off on his employer), or they can get fired for saying they're working on science and then never actually doing anything. You can still fire people for fraud or laziness, can't you?
When they try to use this radical new exemption, where people don't have to be accountable as long as they're working on the "theory of intelligent design," cross-examine them and make them state the theory. Have them come up with any piece of evidence that led them to formulate the theory, or any test for it. In every science, those are very easy things to do. When the creationist fails to do it (as all of them always have) then you've shown that there was no "conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design," so the weird new law isn't applicable to that particular situation. Case dismissed.
The solution to quack "science" is to play their game and talk about the ideas as science. Nothing is as devastating to the fraud, as what this strategy exposes.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
...that evolution follows the same premise? What can we actually *test* in evolution? I'm sure you could get big $$$ if you can evolve a fish into a monkey.
As long as belief in leprechauns and the Loch Ness monster won't be grounds to prevent you from teaching.
Scientists (real ones) would say the standard model was wrong if the evidence indicated that that was the case. Same with the big bang theory.
That's what "retool[ing] our theory to fit the current data" means.
That's not necessarily the same as giving up a theory. Newtonian mechanics is wrong, but it's very useful within certain limits of application.
...and we thought the Dark Ages was bad.
My favorite quote doesn't fit into 120 characters. Now no one will like me.
Intelligent design is not a theory. Theories have testable components, and ID has none. You cannot test or disprove ID any more than you can test or disprove any other theological standpoint.
That said, it should be a situation that will work itself out. Literature (to pick on just one non-scientific subject) faculty can believe whatever kind of non-scientific principles they want, it shouldn't change their ability to be good professors of literature. On the other hand if you are a scientist you would have a hard time getting funding to do ID research, which would eventually lead to you being dropped from the faculty. That is how most research universities manage their faculty; if you don't have funding, you don't have a lab or a paycheck.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I've been keeping track of the fundamental Christian news stories cropping up over there for a while now and I have to say some of it beggars belief! Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of the US of A and very glad you guys act as the world's policeman. However, in a country with the finest universities in the world, freedom of the press and any number of other media it's surprising to me that more people aren't atheist. I realise this might bring me a torrent of abuse but from the outside looking in, the kind of views on education advocated by these fundamentalists and gathering support have worrying allegories in the Muslim world which was once at the forefront of scientific knowledge but lost out due to the narrowmindedness of the powerful religious classes.
At the moment, the scientific community does not know how biological life originated. There are a number of competing hypotheses, but evidence is not conclusive for any of them.
But this has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, natural selection or speciation, which have been repeatedly observed in laboratory and explain neatly the relevant evidence.
because the creationists are 1 dishonest - ID is cover for a particular religious belief, and they lie about this and say it is science; 2 I don't think most geeks who believe in simulation would force other people to change their behaviour, or criticise other people as immoral because they don't believe in simulations
The law itself very specifically discriminates by taking a specific world view, or belief system...outside of law and science, quite directly connected to religion...and attempts to validate it by giving it some special governmental protection outside of what is already provided. Is the lawmaker an idiot, or do they think the people they need to convince are idiots? I'm fairly certain it's one or the other. My most dreaded fear is that they could possibly get away with it.
That's a nice loophole. So scientists should take a day across Texas to teach kids that:
And of course, those who teach those theories cannot be discriminated against.
The pastafarians should sue, because they can't show that life wasn't designed by the FSM.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Sorry buckwheat, but evolution doesn't just cover stuff that happened millions of years ago. Scientists actively watch for evolutionary change (and expect it) for experiments, tests and research going on every minute of every day. Modern biology doesn't work without it. They can go ahead and believe something else if they want to, but they will be useless in a modern lab (thats a practical job function), and worse, its not just in the lab, they show it in the field too, on a daily basis. You can go ahead and mandate arbitrary bullshit if you want to, but the peksy thing about reality is that even if you stop believing in it, its still there. When they teach this in university, students watch bacteria evolve before their very eyes. You can deny what you see if you want to, you can deny what all the measurements, instruments, and everything else tells you is going on, but you won't be very useful to anyone. Its not really a 'discrimination based on belief system' kind of thing, and more of a practical, day-to-day workplace kind of thing. You can even believe that it isn't you falling to the ground, but rather, the planet rushing up to meet you if you want. Go ahead and make claims about the moon and green cheese if you want. It just doesn't meet practical criteria for employment (you step off the lunar orbiter, pick up what looks like a rock, try to take a bite, and the cheese tastes like a rock. hmmmm).
Not quite:
The Law of Gravity is so called because it was postulated in the days when anything that had an overwhelming amount of evidence for it became a law. If it was developed today it would be called the theory of gravity because like anything else in science it is possible to prove it wrong. This has already been done, hence the reason we need relativity to explain Mercury's orbit.
However to say that under everyday conditions the Theory of Gravity holds is as true as it ever was; however remember that it could be proven completely wrong tomorrow. All that would have to happen would be to say that chairs and libraries stop obeying the "Law" unless someone chants "All hail our Lord FSM" at least once an hour.
Now I don't think this will happen, You can't live your life thinking that it will happen, all science can do is go on the available evidence, but that's it. This is not a failing; this is the most important, wonderful thing about science is that it is humble it is prepared to admit it might be wrong and will accept it as long as you can prove it.
As others have said it those who misunderstand the concept of scientific principles who attack theories because they are "just a theory", it's this kind of mind that first forms an opinion then ignores dissenting evidence that we have to fight. It's the kind of person who disagrees with someone therefore has to attack them in anyway possible we have to fight, not because they want the truth, but because they want to be right.
TBH I think we're arguing the same point here, in some ways I'd love the law of gravity and relativity to go the same way as the bohr model of the atom, to be replaced with something more encompassing but so far we're not there yet...
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Like a lot of the stuff here about laws, this isn't a law. It's something one legislator introduced. Lots of legislators introduce bills that they perfectly well will go nowhere, grandstanding to their constituencies. Wake me up if this one makes it out of committee.
If, FSM forbid, it were to be passed by both houses and signed into law, the Supreme Court has taken a dim view of laws of this sort.
And, while it was still law, a teacher or student who wanted to could adopt some other creation story, such as the Pastafarian one or the Norse one, and sue if he or she felt discriminated against.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Wake me when evolution deniers have a a testable hypothesis. "Goddidit" is not a theory.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
The text of the bill reads, in part, that an institute of higher education may not discriminate based on work on ID or "or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms." Does this mean that someone who was not hired by a religious college or university (of which I'd bet there are a few in Texas) because of their stance on abortion (due to disagreeing that life begins at conception, for example) would have a case based on this bill? After all, disagreeing with the religious educational institution over the theory of when life begins seems to be a disagreement over an "alternate theory of the origination and development of organisms."
Yeah, but....
This isn't science backed up by peer review. Its going to be decided in Texas courts. Creationism theory is a hypothesis backed up by evidence. Evidence to be found in the Holy Bible (which ever version suits them). It'll be up to te judge to admit or bar that evidence from the courtroom. A Texas judge.
The court finds in favor of the defendant. The school district will reinstate Bubba, pay back wages and damages. Case dismissed.
Have gnu, will travel.
Don't fire them for being creationists, fire them for being fucking idiots with no comprehension of the scientific process! Actually, as long as they are not teaching science classes it is probably not a problem.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Article 1 Section 4 of the Texas constitution states:
"RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments,"
wait for it, wait for it
"provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."
You mean we can finally teach that Texas was created when the Flying Spaghetti Monster dropped a giant turd?
This bill should be DOA as there is no such thing as the "theory of intelligent design", in the context of the scientific method. This is a common mistake made by stupid people that want to call every crackpot piece of religious dogmatic BS science. What they have here is a hypothesis; And a bad one at that. A theory requires supporting evidence and a *testable* hypothesis. And no, the bible is not evidence. And no, the Creationism Museum contains no evidence; only bold-faced, hilarious lies. And unless someone has recently performed a valid scientific experiment proving the existence of god, ID doesn't have a leg to stand on. But who am I to question the scientific bona fides of a Texas Republican?
Great, so they'll protect creationists against "discrimination", but not gays. This is why I live in New York, sure we have a dysfunctional government but at least I can't be fired for being gay.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
One of the methods used by the west in defeating the Soviet Union was to promote fundamentalism within the Muslim community. Zbigniew Brzezinski was the chief architect of promoting fundamentalism Islam, operation cyclone being a prime example.
The most plausible reason for the dramatic rise in fundamentalist Christianity in the west, and particularly within the US, is a foreign actor is using the same cold war tactics against the west. The US is particularly vulnerable to this type of attack due to the very strong protections of religion.
One of OBL's stated aims was to drag the west into war, and there no better way than religion.
"(Genesis 1:27) And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 5:2) Male and female he created them. After that he blessed them and called their name Man in the day of their being created."
So...God looks like a person...who has both a penis and a vagina, who has a navel, ass hair on one cheek but not the other, a beard on one side of his/her/its face but not the other...but what about the boobs? Does God have one? Is it on the right or left side? Or is it just one big one in the middle? Or is God overweight with a pair of manboobs (er, itboobs, shemale boobs...)? What's God's race? White, black, japanese, javanese, or is God's skin a wondrous plaid made up of all the colors of humanity? Or maybe a attempting a literal interpretation of this passage is insane?
Since when does a practicing scientists with a PhD need to graduate?
Do you read what you write? Or are you just a moron?
The majority of academia don't believe in any gods whatsoever (poly, mono or whatonot).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's about time Creationism was given a place in science again. I am an electrical engineer with 3 advanced degrees and I am a creationist. When I see the intricacies of the microscopic world, the interactions of particles and the order of matter, I cannot fathom believing that it is one big accident. The statistical probability of something as comparatively simple as the human hand occurring by accident is ludicrous. I see no discrepancies between science and creationism. They fit hand in glove.
Take for example, the Titius-Bode Law. How can a near-perfect (and exceedingly simple) mathematical relationship describe the semi-major axes of the planets in our solar system if all is the result of a random explosion? Explosions increase entropy and do not result in simple mathematical order.
People laugh all day at Creationism but I would posit that it takes far more faith to believe this is all one giant cosmic accident than to believe that God created the world.
Why not add Flat Earth to that, eh?
Freedom of thought = good... The FSM will always have my vote in the creation of the world stakes but I would hope that my belief in Him (in all His noodly glory), would not preclude me from a job in any field (excepting perhaps priest/spiritual leader of another faith)... Beliefs (no matter how stupid/brilliant/eveything in between), should not be a criteria for ones ability to teach (though if they start trying to preach creationism to me in a biology class they can GTFO). In short I am kinda for this, though it seems like a stupid, pointless publicity stunt more than an attempt to protect freedoms.
And I shake my baby handprints on the wall of the Alamo at this insanity.
This shall not stand!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
real scientists don't worry much about falisfiability and other philosophical concepts
That's because falsifiability is usually a given. It's kind of like how good citizens really don't think about the ethics of murder so much because they're not murdering people. Real scientists don't think about falsifiability because if they're doing actual science, that is not a consideration: their hypotheses can actually be tested.
To the average American Citizen with an average education, Science IS a religion, with it's priests (scientists), it's laypeople (science journalists), and it's churches (universities and research labs). Your average citizen of the world (doesn't matter what country or culture) tends to treat scientists and the theory of science they espouse with the same credibility that they reserve for priests and religion. Finar is making the point that Science is suffering a loss of credibility with the average public, which helps give credence by default to the religious fundamentalists who are pushing this type of bill.
The Fundamentalist Protestant Christians (we'll call them FPCs for brevity), in this regard, are gaining credence with the general American public because of three reasons. One, there's been no change in their argument for the last two hundred years. The FPCs have been broadcasting their beliefs loudly and strongly, and without change. Whereas scientists routinely create, alter, or discard theories every generation. To your average American with a functional 10th grade education and dismal grades in high school science, it appears as if scientists are idiots who can't get anything right.Two, we supporters of evolution do actively discriminate against Creationists, which is flat-out morally wrong. If we're so convinced of the superiority of Evolution, then why do we fear having Creationism taught alongside Evolution in any course. If the data in favor of Evolution is that strong, then people will come to their own conclusions about it. This leads to my third point: Three- the Creationists are fighting for their cultural survival. Whomever controls the curriculum, controls the future. Texas is the largest education market in the United States, and home-schooled children (most of which are so for religious reasons) as well as FPC children whose parents can't afford to send them to private or home schooling, have to make do with official textbooks approved by the Texas State Board of Education. Those books instill cultural norms and values counter to those that FPC parents want to promote to their children. To us, it's nothing. To FPC parents, well, we are attempting to eradicate everything they believe in, and destroy their way of life by way of indoctrinating their children.
So, I say, let them teach Creationism alongside of Evolution. There is no data to support Creationism. Let them have this, because ultimately they have to admit that Evolution is correct and then they can come to terms with that on their own. What do we seriously have to fear? The abandonment of Evolution as a whole from biology class? That'll never happen: too many Christian and FPC parents want their kids taught proper science and math skills to keep up with the heathen hordes of other countries. There is nothing to fear here, except ourselves. We secular types are embarking on a crusade against religion because it offends our sensibilities and beliefs. We're undertaking the exact same purge against Christians/Muslims/FSM'ers that they did against us.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
freudian slip, considering the discussion here ;-)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you outlaw evolution, only outlaws will evolve.
..as any trip through parts of Redneckistan will show you.
Obviously, OP should be modded insightful, not funny.
An I ar jest ass smort ass yoo ar!
mebee smortr! cuz ah beelev thet God crated hevin an eurth in sevin daze!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
that is, i agree with you 100% on your point:
it makes no logical sense,but yes, through all time periods, and all cultures, gold and silver has had value. no intrinsic logical value: food or reproduction, but some sort of unerring psychological magnetism. even in isolated communities: the mayans and aztecs for instance. so you can't blame it on say, the ancient egyptians or chinese choosing the convention and establishing it culturally. it seems to be an innate biological draw. and yet it makes zero sense, logically, in terms of survival advantage
that is, psychologically, as human beings, we just like shiny pieces of metal for some reason. at least we aren't alone: birds famously like shiny things too, and will line their nests with tinsel and colorful string. show a shiny metal to a parrot or a magpie, it will be intrigued. other animals do this as well. in fact, the more intelligent ones to a greater degree, seemingly
is it just intellectual curiosity? our financial system has to be based on objects or substances we find intellectually curious? should we have money backed by tesseracts and klein bottles? or do topological shapes not count, only substances? i don't get it
so what, exactly, is it about shiny metals that intrigues us, and animals? how does that make evolutionary sense?
oops... i forgot the top level subject matter for a moment. clearly, god intended it! lol we need gold and silver backed currency because it is god's will! lol
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The "theory of intelligent design" as the bill mentions, is not technically a theory. So from a legal standpoint, wouldn't this bill not protect those who believe in it?
The corner of a round room
This is wonderful news!
Physics major? - Tell your senator how atheist big bang theories are pushed on you.
Chemistry? - Why don't they let people teach intelligent design in the periodic table?
And how can a nursing program not talk about sickness as punishment, curses, and evil influences? If medical students don't learn about Satanic possession, how can they detect it in their patients?
Sounds bad?
Don't worry. People are already working on changing that.
...but I'm going to join the chorus of voices here.
Saying that something in the natural sciences is "just a theory" or "still a theory" belies a certain misunderstanding about the scientific method. It suggests a belief in a mythical finish line that an idea can cross, thereby making the transition from "theory" to "law". Natural science does not work in this way. Natural science is not in the business of "proving" anything. If you're interested in proof, you should become a mathematician.
Put another way, a physicist with a baseball in his hand does not say "If I throw this ball up in the air, I shall prove that it will return to the ground." Rather, he (or she) says "If I throw this ball up in the air, I *predict* that it will return to the ground."
You see, that is what natural science is about: theories and predictions. A scientific theory rises and falls on the basis of how well it explains past and present phenomena and how well it predicts future phenomena. If it fails to do this, it is amended, tinkered with, or (in some cases) outright discarded. But from a scientific perspective, there is never a point where scientists declare victory and make the claim that they have discovered universal, unswerving truth.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
I saw this post and knew that the majority of comments would be along the lines of the one from AC with subject of "Yes but..." I would ask this simple question of the /. community:
What are you so afraid of? The bill doesn't mandate creationism teaching, only that schools can't discriminate based on one's beliefs in that area. There is no mention of throwing out the scientific method, no mention of mandating that certain subject matter be taught. If people actually looked at what is put forth in support of evolution versus creationism and intelligent design, rather than resort to name calling and demonization, they might actually learn something!
But have no fear, I'm sure responses to this post will be primarily along the very scientific line of, "let's call the guy names, and refuse to participate in any real scientific discussion on the matter."
is an image the real thing? sheesh get a grip!
Please don't post headlines which imply that ridiculous bills have already passed. I want my clicks back.
Which is a shame, actually, since GlamourMag bias is already a problem for academics.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB2454
Athy, athier, athiest.
So now I am free to teach my own theory that 1+1 = 3 for very large values of 1!!!!
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Its funny how Richard Dawkins is an "evolutionary biologist" and yet he talks about God so much you would think he was a theologian. He is kinda out of his field on this one. The point being that if evolutionary biology is science, intelligent design might as well be. Both can be thought of as being rooted in mythology. Because no athiest has "observed" God just as much as no scientist has "observed" evolution from start till the present day.
Now BE QUIET! Or you'll lose your head.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
I read slashdot a lot and usually never post because my mind jumps around a lot. I can't focus worth a damn. Anyways
The only thing that I see from the summary is that arrogant bastards, that "believe" the only possible explanation to life is a "magical" beginning and that life sprang forth from the dirt, should stop harassing others that disagree with them. I am referring to the upper echelon of academia. The oracles of mankind. They are so impressed with the ideas that they come up with that no one can prove them wrong. If they do get proven wrong....., oh, wait, they are never wrong (cough,cough).
I don't know for a FACT how life began. You don't know for a FACT how life began.
Let me repeat that.
I don't know for a FACT how life began. YOU don't know for a FACT how life began.
That is the only FACT about the debate. Don't sit there and act like people are not being harassed. Stop spouting your "theories" as "FACT".
ID is a thin mask for creationism. Agreed. Do you know how many theories of creationism are out there. ID just groups them up usually.
My belief is that God created the universe, I believe that he has the power to create it all in the matter of days. I don't know if he did it in days, just believe that he has that power. I believe that since then the universe has evolved or adapted to the changes per "design" It seems that there was a considerable amount of intelligence involved. Can I call that "Intelligent Design"? Possibly.
My belief or your belief does not matter. How does it change anything or effect scientific progress? Lets figure out how to move forward and stop telling everyone they are wrong as if you know for a fact.
The Raelians will be excited about this.
I think they should give doctor degrees to wicca witches and let them work in the hospitals. Following the very
Falsifiable the basis of one being testimony who, furthermore, could or could not be what they claim? That doesn't sound like science to me?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
OK, I hear you. Some seemingly intelligent people believe that crap. So be it. Forrest Mims? A fool is one who believes in foolish things or acts in foolish ways.
Intelligent Design and Creationism is the ultimate intellectual cop-out and cancer. Belief in it is a sign that the critical thinking centers of the brain have been compromised and that there is a high likelihood that many more non-rational lapses of judgment exist. "ID" is nothing more than the pursuit of distorting real scientific fact with plausible sounding nonsense to act as a crowbar to teach creationism in schools. The perpetrators of it are either cynically evil or pathetically ignorant. The arguments they put forth, such as "irreducible complexity," only work on lay people who have no interest in knowing better and absolutely do not stand true scientific scrutiny.
I whole heartedly say, YES, discriminate against people who believe in literal creationism and intelligent design. Any politician that puts forward a law to protect these fantasies is, himself, a danger to others and it is our duty to lock him up.
" ... An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of any concept or other alternate theories of said concept.'"
There, Texas. Fixed that for 'ya. Now it prevents academic discrimination of any kind whatsoever, making it somewhat useful, and possibly ground-breaking, while still achieving the original, if somewhat misguided, objective. Which means the original legislative member should have zero objections to the amendment.
Newtonian gravitation is a theory. The "law" is a mathematical expression of that theory. The theory is, as it turns out, incorrect. There have been many "laws" that were later found incorrect -- Bode's Law, for example.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Let them just try to proove what they are writing.
Catholicism is the most anti-science of all the supposedly Christian sects. Just check their record of oppression dating back to Galileo and beyond.
I'll see your Intelligent Design and raise you an appendix and a tail bone.
WALSTIB!
I thought republicans didn't like big government. How much taxpayer money will be spent on enforcement of this big government law?
I'm glad he is spending his time tackling the big injustices of the world
Texas is full of idiots? Not news.
Yeah, keep using our internet to tell us that...
At the moment (and for the foreseeable future) the only way to calibrate the statistics is to look at nature. So far, the math derived from physics, chemistry, and information theory gives us a large bracket of possible statistical outcome. The only real way to determine the actual odds are by studying how evolution occurs in nature.
And so the problem.
If ID were true, the variance from the "natural" statistics could be well within the margin of error. You'll not be able to convince a creationist the math simply doesn't support their proposition. For all practical purposes, ID is not falsifiable.
1/2 the comments in the thread just unscore the need for such a law on the books.
Watch Ben Stien's Expelled documentary if you want to get a better perspective on it, or read "calculating god".
There is also a difference between how life came about and how it evolved and they really shouldn't even be compared together they way they constantly are.
-ZiN-
I don't know about invisible, but I have met a couple of pink unicorns. They can be a lot of fun if your wife is down with that sort of thing.
Looks like Texas is trying to catch up with Kansas in the "batshit crazy religious stupidity" department.
...and this shit will continue until teaching religion will be banned as a form of fraud. Because this is what it is. Yes, it is supposed to be a "human right". So was a right to own slaves until it was abolished.
Of course, it would be easier to achieve by making US the last country to support religious privileges -- then it will eventually fail on its own.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Has macro evolution really been proven ? I know it's the best current theory to explain x.
Intelligent design is simply the acknowledgement that now-human-knowledge explaining x is possible wrong.
Given no absolute proof for macro evolution and the unbiased acceptance that it's correct - seems the evolutionist and creationist are very much the same in this regard.
before the accreditation of TX colleges and universities gets removed. This is essentially a way for the creationist whackos to impose their religious beliefs on the content of science programs. TX students in biological science programs probably should look for ways to transfer to out of state schools. How long will it be before similar legislation gets passed to protect the "rights" of flat-earthers? Or the rights of racial or anti-gay bigots? I don't know, but it looks like buying a college education in TX is going to become a complete waste of money Real Soon Now.
Note that there is nothing in the law prohibiting employer discrimination against people who believe in creationism in the place of science. Nor is there going to be, because employers in biological science related areas required to hire religious crazies with "science" degrees will simply move their R&D operations to Blue states.
Tech Public Policy stuff
You're too stupid to be worth my time to "debate" with. You would be better off doing some more Bible-thumping using your head as the object to be thumped in any case. The peer review process is specifically intended to prevent wasting time of the scientific community on whatever it is you think "real science" is.
Tech Public Policy stuff
That it does in fact happen has been repeatedly observed and exhaustively proven.
I would hazard that it is quite impossible to definitively prove that evolution, or any other specific event, happened in the past.
If you argue THAT, then you dont understand the meaning of either the word definitively, or the word prove.
Gravity is a theory because it is quite impossible to prove that it operates in the same way at all points in the universe. We can gather evidence on that, but no more; and anyone who says "theres no more need to remember the evidence, the case is closed" has forgotten the entire basis of scientific study.
Yours may be the most on target and lucid response in this thread; thank you for keeping a level head and responding rationally and civilly.
But the authors of this constitution were lawyers. They made damn sure in section 5 that no one could get out of testifying in a multi-million dollar lawsuit by claiming atheism!
So you want to ping God?
"I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
And so now, please, explain to silly European... If the bill passes, and I go studying there, and scientists show me at lectures all kinds of scientific evidence of how Solar System emerged, how life could have appear, how species evolve one into another and _then_ they make an exam, I can still tell them to stuff it and answer, that some higher entity did it and they still have to give me an 'A' or I'll sue them? Now that would be a way to get an easy master's degree in science...
Packet lost.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The goal is to outlaw teaching of evolution or any "unbiblical" explanation of scientific data. But even that is not the point. This is about getting a bunch of very religious texans out to the polls to "vote their conscience" so that a small cabal of texans can get the laws they want and profiteer with reckless abandon.
If you read the source, 82(R) HB 2454 says:
Sec. 51.979. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON
RESEARCH RELATED TO INTELLIGENT DESIGN. An institution of higher
education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner,
especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty
member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct
of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other
alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
I like the "or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms" part. College culture will be enough to completely destroy the 5 min of practical application of this, before it is overturned in some reasonable court. I can see Beginnings of Pasta 101 taken more seriously than Intelligent design. That is, of course, if this bill even passes. It was just introduced this week.
Will the Department of Astronomy have to start hiring people to teach astrology, too?
Don't believe in Physics and Science eh?
Go to the tallest building in town. Now jump. You have faith right?
See, more proof for Darwin! :)
Hey at least with Science you just have to give a mamsy pamsy explanation of some process...
With creationism, you actually got to remember the day it happened! :)
How rapid was that flooding of the Med? 5.5 million years later the atlantic is still trying to fill the Med basin. The black sea was much more recent and probaly occured a lot more rapidly. Still not really plausable. Considering the number of feak storms, tusnamis and other floods that have happened over the last 100 years ( I chose 100 years as it is a time scale most people will understand and there are good records) it is not surprising that such disasters have become entrenched in human history. Most costal parts of the world have suffered from them. Many places that are not on the coast have been washed away due to heavy rain causing rivers to overflow. How many times was London flooded in the last few hundred years? Sir Basil Jet helped with that by building the north and south banks of the thames.Then much later the thames flood barrier was built. Floods still happen (just not in the city) In Richmond there are a few parking spots near the river that flood quite regularly. It is a bit of a laugh watching the water slowly rise over the cars then betting on what the owner will do when they find out that they have to wade to thier car. I live in Guildford., UK. Not near any coast. but near a river. The local curch has a plate on it with a high water level mark. It is about 5 metres above normal river level It occurred only 30ish years ago and washed out 2 bridges. 2 or so years ago most of the main roads were blocked as the river overflowed and covered them with a few feet of water. That may not sound like much but it is about 7 foot from the normal level to the surface of the roads. They happen quite slowly here as the rivers are managed (flood relief... The river is allowed to flow into local feilds)
I lost track there. Floods happen in lots of places that humans live in. Most are not expected and very violent. People having memories of them is not surprising.
Gravity is not a theory it is a Law. Lots of evidence and not disproven untill relativiy screwed it up. The terms Law and Theory have changed over time and it takes a fair bit more evidence to call something a theory let alone a law. Evolution is not a theory it is a hypothesis. I do belive it is correct and many others do but there are a few different opinions. I think the general idea is sound but there have been minor revisions over time. God has nothing to do with that :P
Part of that is due to publishing requirements. It is very hard to get a null hypothesis published. Even when they are as important as a succesful result. Publishing good results is a good idea. However lots of important information from null results is lost. That results in many people performing the same experiments again and again.The reason I liked it was for those Wow! moments. When something unexpected happens and you start investigating.