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 ?
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".
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?
So your biology department is not allowed to bias decisions when hiring against potential faculty members who don't believe in the basic tenets of biology?
Final year thesis on the origin of man - "God did it."
...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?
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.
Sure they can, they just can't call say why. "Applicant smelled like bad tuna. Do not hire."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
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.
No, it's not. You wouldn't hire a math teacher who doesn't believe in calculus, would you?
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.
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/
To quote George Carlin: Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!
Sounds like a bi-polar god to me.
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
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!
And I thought creatures with prounds were extinct. Learn something new every day!
Funny how natural selection works even for those who refuse to believe in it.
it is discrimination against stinky people. You should says "the applicant seemed impolite, do not hire" to cover your ass completely
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
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.
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
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
it is discrimination against impolite people. You should says "the applicant seemed to not understand the basic principles of logic, do not hire" to cover your ass completely
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
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.
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.
So your biology department is not allowed to bias decisions when hiring against potential faculty members who don't believe in the basic tenets of biology?
And church groups can't discriminate on religion to get federal funds for their charities. Sounds like the same thing to me.
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.
"Applicant smelled like bad tuna whose descendants applicant didn't believe could potentially one day belong to a different species."
It is discrimination against women! You should give them a drug test and then fake the results.
which is totally what she said
Atheists pretending to be creationists... original...
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.
Actually, not the dumbest. They at least know how to market themselves, often without telling what their agenda's are. Scott Walker in Wisc is a good example. Buyer's remorse. Well in Texas, I think maybe they mostly support this idea. I atribute it to a mutation of mad cow desease that has spread througout the bible belt.
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.
it is discrimination against illogical people. You should say "the applicant appeared to be a replicant, do not hire" to cover your ass completely.
If I were tasked with hiring someone for a post in higher education, belief in intelligent design would be a criterion for not getting the job. Why would a university want to hire someone who thinks that an entire department's work is total bogus? Not believing in the scientific methods that demonstrate evolution and Earth's 4 billion year history is a clear red flag for academic trustworthiness. If you don't believe in a field of science, what else can you choose not to accept? "Oh no, mathematics is entirely false, I reject numbers!" I can't see any university eager to hire someone who goes against everything they stand for. To throw in a car analogy, it's like Ford hiring a sales manager who believes that cars run on magic and unicorn dust.
"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
Neah, there's no law against discriminating based on foul stenches - just incompetence. If they're completely incapable of doing the job (ie: creationists applying for biology, astronomy, geology, ancient history, anthropology, chemistry, or physics related positions) you have to find some other reason for not hiring them. If they reek like a stack of roadkill skunks that have been out in the sun all day, you can list them as "unsuitable for classroom presentation", if you remembered to include teaching as part of their required duties and qualifications.
The trick is going to be making the job postings sufficiently worded that any applicant can be legally rejected based on any non-religion problem you can find that the other (ie: actually qualified) applicants did not display. I imagine the university departments in Texas who have to hire new people will be doing a seriously careful re-wording of any job postings they make.
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.
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?
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.
Science isn't about what you believe, it's about how you determine fact. I think someone who doesn't believe in evolution, who is able to perform disciplined, formal, falsifiable experiments to attempt to refute the theory of evolution (and properly interpret the results) would make an excellent scientist. I also don't believe such a person exists. I've read some of the "creation science" claptrap and as far as I can tell it is based on supposition and faulty logic.
Making hiring decisions on the basis of quality of research and scholarship should still be OK.
Also, most biological research isn't about evolution, so if the creationist is producing good research about some more current topic in biology, again I don't see the problem. IANAB (I am not a biologist).
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
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.
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
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.
The real sad part is that evolution favors the "characteristic" of humans that causes them to not believe in it.
Collector's Edition
it is discrimination against impolite people. You should says "the applicant seemed to not understand the basic principles of logic, do not hire" to cover your ass completely
To really cover your I-did-not-discriminate-bases you should say, "the applicant failed a getting hired check done with a fair 20 sided die, do not hire".
It would simplify a lot of proofs though.
What is pi to 37 trillion decimal places? 3, its in the bible.
P = NP? Yes, God told me so.
Or, in the clever words of Christopher Hitchens: "That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
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
Obviously you jest, as the Replication Institute for Autonomous Awareness would *cough* slapp that down.
Just say the applicant was overqualified and be done with it.
Right. No, your other right. No, the other other right.
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.
It is discrimination against tuna. You should say, "the applicant punched a tuna, do not hire" to cover your ass completely.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
You don't seem to know many creationists then.
I used to be a Christian/creationist (it's how I was brought up), but am no longer.
However, I know a few people that are highly intelligent as well as religious. The human brain is very good at compartmentalising various things, and therefore holding completely different sets of standards for different parts of life. Religious people can still make very good mathematicians and scientists.
For example. the head of the Computer Science dept at my old University was very into biology/genetics and AI despite being a member of the Free Church, which is pretty "fanatical" as denominations go, and holds a creationist viewpoint. Likewise an old head of the Geography dept at the same Uni was a devout Christian. I find biology and geography to be strange topics for creationists to be teaching at such a high level, but some people obviously can still do scientific jobs to a very high standard, despite having religious beliefs that are essentially untenable from a scientific point of view. The human brain is very good at compartmentalising.
PS Why can't you use wordwrap to let your text flow smoothly on any screen, rather than manually creating jarring gaps in your writing?
which is totally what she said
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 no, mathematics is entirely false, I reject numbers!"
On the bright side, you can literally pay them peanuts.
Which tenets would those be? Creationist conservative Christian monk Gregor Mendel's?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Hey, maybe this will lead to the Luminiferous Aether getting back into the physics department?
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.
You might be surprised: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/science/12geologist.html?_r=1 There are, very surprisingly, qualified scientists, including paleontologists (plural) who are also young earth creationists.
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.
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.
There are an exceedingly tiny number of scientists, yes. But then again, there are a small number of historians who don't believe in the Holocaust, either. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of scientists, and in particular scientists who work in fields related to evolutionary studies, who accept evolution.
Beyond that, this bill is crap. Even if it were passed, it couldn't survive a constitutional challenge. Yet more time-wasting from the anti-intellectuals in Texas, land of the tragically religious.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Would you hire a PhD historian who was a Holocaust denier to teach in your department?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Where were you when Reagan and Bush ran up 11 trillion in debt in the last 31 years? Bush alone ran up 8 trillion, not counting the wars he started.
The entire plan was to lower taxes, increase spending, give the spending to corporations, and ultimately and suddenly discover "the debt" when a sucker Democratic president took power, then demand the New Deal be dismantled and government turned over to private hands. While cutting taxes to corporations, of course.
#&^$#@ you Republicans. Thieves, liars, and destroyers, all of you.
No, it's not. You wouldn't hire a math teacher who doesn't believe in calculus, would you?
Why not? The universe is quantum, thus the fundamental theorem of calculus is wrong.
Calculus is still useful for everything except Planck length-scale shit.
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.
There is no difference. Neither one is a scientific theory because both are essentially designed to not require evidence.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Keep it simple, it's Cognitive Dissonance
http://www.skepdic.com/cognitivedissonance.html
This space for rent.
Yet, I still can't get a job at Victoria's Secret.
I only partly qualify. What I resist is the notion that theories (which are explanations or descriptions) are proved. I find the statement that "evolution is proven" to be a statement of religious dogma rather than a conclusion of science. The world, the universe, behaves in a certain fashion. Mankind, as observers, watches and tries to come up with a description of what happens. In physics (my background), that description often uses mathematics as its language. The theory is not reality, it is only a description of reality. That means that our descriptions are just conjectures as to the behavior. The description is useful where it works, and as long as it works. When it doesn't work, we have missed something whether in our observation or in our (mathematical) description. We may find a way to make it better - or we may find a different description that does a better job, at least in the places that the first one doesn't work well. Evolution as a description has holes in it; places where there are contradictions or massive gaps. Those are weaknesses in the "theory". There are attempts to re-describe some of the problem areas and ongoing questions on some of the observations that seem contradictory. All of that is well and good. But I do not find the conjecture that "perhaps not everything that we see evolved - perhaps there is something (an intelligent being) outside of the range of our observable space that put things in a certain way in the space that we can see" to be every bit as valid as a conjecture as evolution.
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 that I'm even trying to defend this bill or Young-Earth Creationism, but surely having a massively wide range of opinions in any scientific discipline is good and very healthy?
You never know, there may be some bizarre enigma in paleontology that stumps everyone but is solved by someone who looks at the problem from a young-earth creationist viewpoint.
Science is, after all, about facts not consensus. Your opinions or beliefs do not matter to science, only the evidence matters.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
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.
In what way does it violate the Constitution? Are you talking about the U.S. Constitution, or the Texas Constitution?
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?"
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.)
Sounds like a bi-polar god to me.
Not at all, He is just bi-winning.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Nice did you steal this id or are you challenged you know what I mean 'tarded'.
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.
Science is not religion. Science is the reason you arn't dying of smallpox, why you can buy preserved and refrigerated food without having to take a spear and catch it, and why have an internet to complain on.
If you thought those various 10 commandment monuments caused issues, image what some university sanctioned phallic pillar to honor Hermes would do.
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!
Yeah, it must really suck seeing that giant Charles Darwin statue looking over Rio De Janeiro.
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
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.
You do realize that Reddit is back up today? Right?
"A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!"
So would you not hire Einstein because he said, "God does not play dice with the universe"
That's called quote mining, and is a quick sign that the rest of your post is pointless stupidity. Einstein had a tendency to use poetic statements to attempt to illustrate principles he was trying to communicate.
He also said:
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
That sounds pretty much like he falls into the category of "not a creationist", no matter how much you quote-mine and misrepresent things. The same applies to the rest, so yes, you are a dumbass, but it's mostly because you use either poorly researched or deliberately misleading statements to attempt to prop up a failed point.
Having a wide array of scientific opinions is healthy. Creationism/ID is not science. As Carl Sagan observed, "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains leak out."
Or do you think advocates of phlogiston should be given equal time, or any time, at physics conferences?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
we can just hook them up with the Managers and Producers who are Always Angry.
those two groups would get along well, I think.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
can we, uhh, just 'gift' texas to some one? mexico? you still want it? its yours!
yes, the rest of us would like to let texas (and a lot of the deep south, while we're at it) detach. logically at least but physically would be even better.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
Quit repeating this stupid, sarcastic non-argument! God =/= young-earth creationism. Your poor logic is insidious.
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.
re-read hawking. his current writings imply (and even say) he does not buy the concept of god.
einstein also was misquoted or misunderstood. he also did not really believe in anything close to the religious view of god and none of the revered scientists ever believed *in any certainty* in a god. at best, they all *wished* for one, as most humans *wish* for nice things. none are on record saying they had any confidence at all - just wishes. go read what they wrote and think about it in that context; and also realize that you are still writing for the reader and rarely did people, in the past, have the courage to out and out admit they doubted the existence of god. in a political world where people judge you, even scientists have to 'fake it' a little just to appease the people funding and supporting them.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
So basically they keep their mouth shut and use "discretion" to marshal their bias and prejudice in through the back door...just like every other employer out there.
binary thinking falacy.
do you reject logical thinking?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I read a story about a (probably fake) former boss who, upon receiving a stack of applications for a job position, immediately threw half of them in the trash saying, "I don't want to hire anyone who is unlucky."
What about astrologists and alchemists? Don't they deserve protection too?
So would you not hire Einstein because he said, "God does not play dice with the universe"
Which actually is a quote with zero theological content. That isn't Einstein saying "Obviously QM is wrong, because the Bible doesn't say it is right", its Einstein saying, basically, "QM is flawed because nature is deterministic; QM isn't, therefore QM is incomplete". The former interrelation would rightfully disqualify him as a scientist, the latter is part of the normal discussion that makes science tick (see the argument related to the quote between Bohr and Einstein... heady stuff... and not theological in slightest). Einstein was probably an atheist.
This argument isn't about rhetorical flair.
Often the term "God" is used in a naturalistic way. Just like atheists can use the word "soul" in such a way that is devoid of Christian meaning.
And this isn't about just barring people with religion. No one would really argue that, since their are qualified scientists who hold some flavor of religious faith. Its about being "anti-science", or not being actually skilled in the field you are appying for. How can I be a biologist when I don't actually have a scientific position on it, and, unscientifically, reject evidence based on a very old book that has nothing to do with biology for evidence, or facts, or anything else related to the field? I want to be a professor of Computer Science, but I think that computers are actually run by little gremlins with abacuses, and no amount of logic, evidence, or theory will ever convince me otherwise. Should I be hired? Probably not.
Are you even remotely qualified to argue their assumptions, much less deem them unqualified to teach in their respective fields?
Argument by authority. If the statement isn't based on science, it doesn't matter how big a scientist the speaker is. If Einstein stated that his computer is run by little gremlins, then yes, I could easily dispute it. If any of these people you cite had scientific, evidence based, proof of the existence of a god, then we'd be having a much more interesting discussion. But being that there is no such thing as a bona-fide "God Expert", then, yes, I can debate with them on the subject, and completely disagree with them with no fear of being any more wrong than disagreeing with a crazy person at a bus stop. Ultimately being a famous, accomplished, scientist doesn't make you right on every issue, or make your ideas unassailable. In the aforementioned Einstein quote, he was proven rather soundly wrong by Neils Bohr, for instance. If there is a God, he does play dice.
Now if a scientist suddenly decided all of QM was wrong because "God can't play dice", then he wouldn't be qualified for the field, now would he?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Coming from a time of old where people used their own arms as rulers (cubits), 3 may well have been a reasonable approximation at the time.
I wouldn't put it past the man upstairs to accomodate a reduced technology level back then.
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.
Would you hire a PhD historian who was a Holocaust denier to teach in your department?
If he had a really good, evidence based, reason for believing that, and is open to different theories based on the strength of the evidence; then yes.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Uh dude smelling like tuna is kind of impolite in most of the social circles I run in. But that's just me, not judging.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
Science is the reason . . . why have an internet to complain on.
Actually, I'd argue that the internet is a byproduct of US socialism and engineering.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
The primary tenet of science is the basis of knowledge according to the scientific process. Having faith (accepting as truth a thing that by its very nature can not be tested or proven) as an explanation for a scientific understanding of the world is about the most minimal requirement you could place on a scientist.
Science is by its core open to all possibilities, given you provide a sound explanation backed up by evidence. You'll notice that when science uncovers new evidence in the world that disproves old theories, we readily abandoned those old false understandings. Religion is the opposite. It is a thing that one clings to in spite of all rational thought and logic. It is directly opposed to the tenets of science. You might work in the scientific field and believe that "a magical sky being wished the world into creation and every animal upon it", but you are not a scientist any more than an atheist in a church pulpit is a priest.
Imagine if your neurosurgeon said that while he is a doctor and a neurosurgeon, he doesn't accept opening up the brain and working on it with medical tools founded on our current medical knowledge. Instead, he believes in rubbing your temples and chanting and dabbing holy water on your forehead.
You even clarify the situation with your final sentence. That science is about facts and your opinions or beliefs don't matter -- only the facts to. How can someone expected to fulfill that obligation also be the same person who accepts the completely irrational as an explanation? It's fine to say "I don't fully accept evolution" or "I'm not sold on the big bang thing". It's another to say "because a two thousand year old book told me that a magic sky god waved his hand and all occurred according to his wishes".
How can you possibly be overqualified for a tenure-track research position?
If they discover something that supports phlogiston which is not better explained by oxygenation or other means than they have more place at the physics conference than many of the string theorists that currently monopolize them; until that time they'd have very little to talk about.
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
They are making the assumption, I think, that intelligent design is a religious view, so the bill is advocating a religious position in universities.
I think their assumption is wrong: ID is not a theological position; if you had to place it in a field it would be philosophy.
This is not to deny that it meshes well with certain religious systems.
I found it interesting that TFheadline talks about creationism--which is a religious position--while the law only mentioned ID which is a philosophical hypothesis.
Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
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.
Well played, sir, well played.
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.
IANAB just doesn't have the same school child giggle factor that IANAL does, so I think we must strike it down.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
Nobody would refuse to hire Einstein as a scientist for saying "God does not play dice with the universe", because despite what religious nutcases try to accomplish by trotting that quote out from Einstein is false. They try to use it as a "see, even Einstein believed in God!", which is untrue. In fact, most of Einstein's comments on God and Religion were that he could take neither seriously and that they are figment's of man's imagination. When he referred to "god" in quotes such as you used, he was doing so as a relatable substitute for "the cosmos" or "the universe".
Anyway, saying that one can not disprove a creator is one thing. Making a positive assertion that there is a creator and it is an explanation to things is the opposite of scientific and would no more suit a true scientist than being a criminal suits a cop. You either require evidence and understanding to reach conclusions on things or you irrationally accept explanations which undermine the very profession you belong to (or your profession undermines the very belief system you claim to adhere to -- one or the other).
Of course, those same people demanding an "open mind" wouldn't dare accept the same unfounded "explanations" of any other religion modern or pre-dating us (Wiccans, Pagans, Greek and Roman mythologies, indian or asian or norse or african mythologies and so on).
The primary difference between a religious person and a scientist -- and why there can be no honest mixing of the two -- is that one seeks to know things and admits when things are unknown. The other picks and chooses what known things to accept and makes things up for the rest. Making shit up, while not unheard of in the field of science (such as the guy who falsified studies to generate the fear against vaccinations), is not an accepted scientific principal.
So leave your god explanations for the theology majors. Leave the scientific for the science majors.
Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.
-- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray. Source: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, Edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffmann
The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)
And a quote more appropriate for this story:
The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them.
-- Albert Einstein, letter to Sigmund Freud (30 July 1932)
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.
Not accepting evolution is not the same thing as asserting a magical explanation to the unknown. How is it so confusing for people to grasp the difference? You can not support the scientific method while simultaneously accepting the irrational and unprovable as an explanation of the unknown. I don't know that there is no creator. I can not prove that there is no creator. However, there is no evidence or proof to suggest that there is one, so the discussion of a creator becomes moot and any belief in it is therefor absolutely and entirely unfounded.
The inherent difference here is that a scientist has the integrity to simply say "we don't know". Just because I don't know what lays across the vast sea beyond the shores of my home doesn't mean I should devise a story about dragons living there and swallowing ships that venture too far.
The conflict of interest is plain as fucking day.
You are partially correct. They will keep their mouth shut and use discretion to prevent those who are completely unqualified from harming students with unscientific lies. If you were in the blacksmithing business, and a man with no arms applied to be your apprentice, would you hire him? No, because he is simply incapable of doing the job. Similarly, creationists are incapable of teaching in any scientific field. They aren't scientists, and have thrown away the process that lets real science take place. This haws nothing to do with their belief in God, and everything to do with their lack of important qualifications.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Bitch please, I have never in my life been to this "reddit" and I'm not even really sure what it is. Look at my user ID. Look back at your user ID. Now look at my user ID. Now look back at yours. Don't you wish your user ID could be as low as mine?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Let's say you had a group of creationists who all applied together and all getting rejected. They then file a class action suit, citing the new law, and ensure that there's a secret recording or three from the interview which disproves the alleged reason. Creationists win, university goes bust.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
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" -
And can you point to any actual discoveries by Creationists in the last half century? Can you point to any actual discovery by ID in the ten or fifteen years since it was "formulated" (or more accurately boiled down from Creationism)? I mean, even the claim most resembling an actual, positive utiltarian claim by IDers, Dembski's information filter, which if it were actually real, would revolutionize a number of fields of study, has been debunked as mathematical salad.
You seem to think by the mere fact that these guys have claims that that should allow them to invade the halls of science.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Newton believed in alchemy. Should we be forced to search for the philosopher's stone or else reject his foundations of physics?
I had trouble writing that it was so staggeringly fallacious.
(It bears further noting that all of the proponents of spontaneous generation were creationists who argued that spontaneous generation was a phenomenon of creation itself. Pasteur was no more or less Christian or creationist than his opponents in that matter, he just followed where the evidence led him. You would do well to do the same. Pasteur didn't have Urey-Miller or its successor experiments. You do. Study some facts.)
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
Correction. Some human brains are good at compartmentalizing some things. Others of us are completely incapable of compartmentalizing, and any incongruous beliefs are actually painful to hold at the same time. Some people are mappers, some people are packers.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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
Do you folks want them back? We'd be more than happy to send them over.
Have gnu, will travel.
No, you're a dumbass because you don't know that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Wake me when evolution deniers have a a testable hypothesis. "Goddidit" is not a theory.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Assume that all creationists are called home by their God. It's about as likely as your scenario. Who is going to tell a potential hire the real reasons they aren't getting hired? These aren't stupid people doing the hiring. So they never said "God damn, he stinks!" Who would say that? They will also never say "You're an idiot creationist and that's why we aren't hiring you." I'd say any university stupid enough to fall into that trap deserves to.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
You mean we can finally teach that Texas was created when the Flying Spaghetti Monster dropped a giant turd?
In fact, evolution is still occurring around Chernobyl, where some species are become more resistant to radiation. Agreed, belief in Creationism should disqualify one from teaching science because it is ample evidence that one doesn't understand the scientific method. But should it disqualify you from teaching, say, English Literature?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
Discrimination against people with tunapugiphilia. You should say "The applicant was Ben Stine, fell asleep during interview process due to extreme boredom, do not hire"
What if this person who believed in ID also happened to agree with the evidence that the earth is billions of years old? There are people out there who believe in the principles of science and also believe in God. Not everyone who is a Christian has the same basic premise about the age of the earth and the nature of creation. Further, as was stated earlier, belief in God does not preclude the ability to do scientific research. While this bill may not be going about it the right way, the general premise is that it is possible to be a scientist and believe in God. As others have said, this may backfire on the creationists such that other religions are able to capitalize on this as well–that would not be a bad thing.
The goal I believe is to support freedom both of religion and employ, such that a person is not disqualified for a job simply based on religious views. To speak of competence in that field is another issue. In academic circles, competence would mean the ability to exist and work in an environment where different viewpoints exist. One may disagree with certain viewpoints, but they should still be able to discuss the merits and shortfalls of all positions. The teacher is there to give students the tools they need to make their own informed, reasoned decisions not to dictate which positions the student should take.
Get me a meat pie floater!
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
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.
Can you be an Art Professor and believe that Van Gogh was a hack? Or that Michael Angelo would have failed the Snoopy drawing test found in the back of magazines?
If someone can teach the subject according to the curriculum, then what they believe is irrelevant. Can a Physicist believe in Creationism, but not a biologist? Can an Engineering believe in creationism but not a Botanist?
If someone is already a scientist and then it is revealed that they are also a creationist, does that mean they fooled all of their previous professors and the folks who awarded the PhD?
Do you really want to start evaluating someone’s job qualifications based on their personal beliefs?
Your position is with up there with the college who wouldn’t award a woman a degree in social work, after having completed all the work, because they found out she was a Republican.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
US socialism? Seems funny to call the Department of Defense socialism.
Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
That sounds pretty much like he falls into the category of "not a creationist", no matter how much you quote-mine and misrepresent things. The same applies to the rest, so yes, you are a dumbass, but it's mostly because you use either poorly researched or deliberately misleading statements to attempt to prop up a failed point.
Actually, saying God, a god, or even my god created the laws of the universe is the very definition of a creationist.
You should learn the definitions of terms before you run around calling people "dumbass". I know I said it was OK and all, but I really didn't mean for someone to do so when they can't even get the terms right.
Strange you would accuse me of quote mining and then counter one of my several arguments based on a quote. Either way, Einstein did not believe in the God of Moses or any other "personal god". OK. Creationism is non-denominational. While many use the term "creationist" to mean "evolution denier", that's not really what the term means and certainly not how I was using it. So when Einstein speaks of a god that created the laws of the universe or a creator of the universe, he is speaking of a creator, meaning creationism.
Now I don't want to argue about Einstein's theological beliefs. That's not really important. My point was that if you were looking to hire Einstein, and during your research you saw the quote above, would that prevent you from hiring him? It doesn't matter what he said beyond that as the quote stands. If Behe said that he didn't believe in a "personal god", would that qualify him to teach biology?
Oh, and by saying that you won't read the rest of my quotes is another way of saying, "I can't argue those, so I'll concentrate on the one I think I know something about."
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
To be fair, most of them, including most of them in office (trust me, if you'd met many state-level elected Republicans you'd agree) are just idiots. Dangerous idiots, yes, guilty perhaps of causing large amounts of harm through the recklessness of their own incuriosity, but still... just idiots.
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.
Can you be an Art Professor and believe (random babbling deleted)
Art is a subjective thing. Science is not.
Can a Physicist believe in Creationism
Actually no, they can't. Creationism isn't just about biology, as most creationists spend their bogus attempts at debates sending either random physics questions at biologists, or random biology questions at physicists. They fail at both subjects.
If someone is already a scientist and then it is revealed that they are also a creationist, does that mean they fooled all of their previous professors and the folks who awarded the PhD?
First, if they're a creationist, then they are not a scientist. This is much like saying "If someone is dead, and then it is revealed that they are alive" - yes, technically at some point they may have been one and then changed over to being the other, but you can not be both at once. It means that either they suffered some sort of brain defect which rendered them unable to properly think about the world around themselves, or they were in fact lying and engaging in deceit when they obtained their PhD. It's also possible they received their degree from a non-accredited diploma mill in the first place.
Do you really want to start evaluating someone’s job qualifications based on their personal beliefs?
When those beliefs make it impossible for that person to do the job, yes, they are very much relevant.
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
If we take it as a philosophical statement, then it is essentially a reformulating of Paley's Blind Watchmaker argument and other similar arguments from design, in which case ID was debunked in the mid-18th century by David Hume.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
Are you bragging about your pathetically high user ID again, newb? :p ;)
Anyway, everyone knows that Slashdot as created by the FSM only 6000 minutes ago, so obviously user IDs like yours and mine were merely planted to test our faith*.
* Isn't it interesting how often a "test of faith" resembles a test of intelligence, except with the opposite result expected? :)
Would you let that teacher teach his theory instead of calculus?
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
If he had a really good, evidence based, reason for believing that, and is open to different theories based on the strength of the evidence; then yes.
I'd agree, but of course that's an impossibility...just like having evidence-based reasons for thinking ID is correct.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
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
Your terminology is slightly off. Evolution is not a theory, it is an observation of the fossil record. Natural Selection was Darwin's attempt to explain the origin of new species but there are other theories like Punctuated Equilibrium which was proposed by Stephen Gould. So teaching evolution is teaching facts. Teaching about Darwin is teaching about careful research and science.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
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
You should learn the definitions of terms before you run around calling people "dumbass". I know I said it was OK and all, but I really didn't mean for someone to do so when they can't even get the terms right.
Well, first of all, I did specify the reason for why I was calling you a dumbass, and it's still valid. Actual research into Einstein's theology does in fact show that he was very much not a creationist as defined by the "intelligent design" group, which is the central point of the article, and thus the discussion. Changing the rules of the discussion every time the old rules make you look like an idiot is also a typical example of weak minds. We're having a debate here, not playing Calvinball.
Strange you would accuse me of quote mining and then counter one of my several arguments based on a quote.
I see that you don't actually know what "quote mining" means - it means taking small snippits of what someone said out of context to make it look like they support a position that they do not actually support. Providing the entire quotation, which research will show is actually representative of their opinion, is not quote mining, it's called "showing evidence" - something you seem to have difficulty with.
Now I don't want to argue about Einstein's theological beliefs. That's not really important.
But you're the one who brought it up! It was kinda central to your poorly thought out and unresearched point - claiming it's not relevant after you've been shown to be wrong is just silly.
My point was that if you were looking to hire Einstein, and during your research you saw the quote above, would that prevent you from hiring him? It doesn't matter what he said beyond that as the quote stands. If Behe said that he didn't believe in a "personal god", would that qualify him to teach biology?
Again, this is where the dumbass factor is coming out - hiring policies are not based on singular out of context quotes, they're based on reviews of actual work. A single comment by someone attempting to explain determinism versus non-determinism to people who don't understand (or want to understand) the math behind n-dimensional physics is not equivalent to the years and volumes of creationist schmutz Behe has spewed, again regardless of any tiny out of context snippet.
Oh, and by saying that you won't read the rest of my quotes is another way of saying, "I can't argue those, so I'll concentrate on the one I think I know something about."
No, that's just your dumbass factor emerging again. People generally put forth their best argument first, so when you start out with quote mining and false statements, generally it means that the rest of what you wrote is just as worthless, and not worth reading. Actually looking at the rest of what you wrote, once again, you are once again taking out of context statements without actually examining the people in question, to make it look like they believe things that they don't. I don't need to debunk every word of the tripe you posted, other people (like TheGratefulNet down below this post) have already done that.
Yes, the human brain is capable of the amazing mental gymnastics necessary to maintain a coherent sense of the world while having no logically consistency whatsoever. You could be an excellent Doctor and yet disbelieve in evolution.
Although, to my way of thinking, you don't really "disbelieve in evolution", you just believe that you don't believe in evolution. Christians like to say that there are no atheists in a foxhole, but I think more accurately there are no creationists in a hospital. Think about it, how much of our modern medicine comes from our understanding human genetics -- an understanding which is 100% wrong if anti-evolutionists are right. Our understanding genetics predicts evolution, and our understanding of evolution predicts genetics. If we're wrong on one, we're wrong on both -- no doubt about it.
You would have to be a complete and total fool to not believe in evolution but still trust yourself to the care of modern medicine -- at least if you were going to be logically consistent. Of course, humans are no such thing. We're not rational, we're rationalizers. It's one of our finest and most obnoxious qualities.
US socialism? Seems funny to call the Department of Defense socialism.
Really?
"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."
Public funds and assets (i.e. real estate) were used to research and develop the internet and it's predecessors, both directly through the DoD, DARPA and public universities, and indirectly through private universities (via grants). The internet would not exist as we know it today without a lot of US tax dollars.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
binary thinking falacy.
do you reject logical thinking?
Here is what the GP said:
If I were tasked with hiring someone for a post in higher education, belief in intelligent design would be a criterion for not getting the job.
Why would I reject logical thinking? The GP stated that he would not hire a creationist. A creationist, by definition is one who believes in a creator. Pasteur believed in a creator according to his own words. Would this person not hire Pasteur? That is the logical conclusion according to what he said.
(Of course, I am using my own definition of "Intelligent Design". To me, breeding tomatoes to get one that is resistant to early blight is an example of intelligent design. On a cosmic scale, it is nothing more than saying that the universe was created by a creator. Very few religions believe that the there god is a product of the universe. Most, including all three of the "big three" believe that God created the universe, making them creationists by definition. There is nothing against evolution in this loose definition of ID/Creationism. Unfortunately, many people just assume that if someone believes in intelligent design, they must also believe that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaur bones were placed here to test our faith. This is not the case. There is no reason that a creator or intelligent designer couldn't guide evolution, set up a universe that favors evolution or even simply set up the universe and left. Each of these scenarios would be examples of intelligent design.)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Newton believed in alchemy. Should we be forced to search for the philosopher's stone or else reject his foundations of physics?
I had trouble writing that it was so staggeringly fallacious.
(It bears further noting that all of the proponents of spontaneous generation were creationists who argued that spontaneous generation was a phenomenon of creation itself. Pasteur was no more or less Christian or creationist than his opponents in that matter, he just followed where the evidence led him. You would do well to do the same. Pasteur didn't have Urey-Miller or its successor experiments. You do. Study some facts.)
Would you refuse to hire Newton because he believed in alchemy? I'm not saying we should teach creationism because Pasteur believed in it. I'm saying that you should not discriminate against someone because of their are different than your own. I'm saying that even though Pasteur, along with many other noted scientists believed in some sort of creationism. Yet, it didn't seem to hamper their ability to discover things, like microbiology in Pasteur's case.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Well then I suppose you won't squawk when someone denies you a job because you happen to believe something they don't or the other way around. Because this kind of approach can't be limited to just Creationism vs. Evolution. You may think it can, but the principal you are supporting is that you can judge someone’s job performance based on what they believe irrespective of what the subject matter is.
If you are a political science professor and the school you are applying for has a tendency to favor Marxism, but you don't...too tough.
If you are an Economist and reject Keynesian economics as hogwash, then you better hope the college you are applying to doesn't embrace it.
What is most interesting is your statement that if they have a PhD and they are a creationist, then they must a brain defect or cheated or lied or the degree itself is bogus. You are doing the very same thing you accuse them of doing, making a statement of fact with no supporting evidence.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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,
No, but belief in either is equally naive.
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!
I'd say the demographics are already doing that. The way I see it, within a century or so, bilingual Latinos, by and large of Mexican descent, in the border states will probably outnumber God-fearing Protestant Anglo-Saxons. Mexico may have lost the Mexican-American War, but it's winning the fertility war.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, I think you're missing the point of the article; I really suggest you read it. The paleontologists in question do legitimate science. The science they do is based on a geological paradigm that the earth is however billions of years ago. However, they also believe as part of a personal paradigm that the earth is 6,000 years old or so. What renders what they do not science? If someone discovers a new dinosaur fossil, dates it to 70 million years ago using radiometric dating, and then meticulously classifies it into a cladistic group through morphological analysis, then publishing the results in a scholarly journal, does it stop being science because the person doing it believes that it's really just an intellectual exercise? What if they did a better job of the analysis than a believer in evolution did? Which of the papers is therefore better science?
You must have a free exchange of ideas in order to get to the truth. Discriminating only holds you back in the end, for you will find yourself discriminating against the truth. Perhaps we will find one day that much of the "entire dept." is in fact wrong. But not if we don't allow other theories.
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Well, to be fair, some science is stamp collecting.
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
Now BE QUIET! Or you'll lose your head.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
*ahem* The correct phrase is "man and Jesus-horses".
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
How is it to a different standard? I think science, when it is truly that is a gift. I hold that biology is helpful to understand and that genetics play a role. Yet, I also believe in GOD. But I see no discrepancy. I do see one in the "facts" presented in dating things as they are often based on circular arguments, which is NOT science.
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
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.
Could someone here that supports intelligent design respond?
I'm a big fan of intelligent design, and a big whinger about not encountering it more often in the stuff I buy.
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?
Yes. First, they're careful to avoid mentioning that they think the IDer is magic, and second, they don't limit themselves to stuff we cannot explain yet.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
It would depend on the kind of ID:
Unacceptable case: "The earth is billions of years old, but God directly created all of its creatures" - evidence contradicts this.
Acceptable case: "The earth is billions of years old, and God created the Universe and its finely tuned laws that allowed evolution to create the variety of life that we see today"
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.
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, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
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.
It is a law specifically protecting a single religion's religious belief. Therefore by only protecting one religion it is unfairly protecting one religion over the others and therefore violates the U.S. Constitution. Unless they intend for this to apply to people who believe various creationist theories aside from just Intelligent Design.
You do realize that belief in intelligent design and belief in God or that God orchestrated the creation of the universe are not mutually exclusive? You can denounce intelligent design and know about evolution and the big bang and simply believe that God is the creator who orchestrated it all to occur.
" ... 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.
The thing about theories is that it's usually pointless to say you either agree or disagree with them. Theories simply are. That doesn't mean they're accurate but whenever you state your disagreement with a theory, you're kind of expected to mention why you think you've spotted a problem with it.
Imagine you're talking with someone and the topic of gravity comes up, and they suddenly blurt out, "I disagree with Einstein's theory of gravity." The next thing that person says, is either going to be amazingly profound, or just as amazingly inane and utterly unrelated to the strengths or weaknesses of gravity theory. But before that person says anything, just what is your attitude going to be at that moment? How often does it happen, and when it does, how often is the speaker serious?
Well, the weird thing about gravity, is that when someone disagrees with the theory, they've usually actually given it a lot of thought. So far, in the last century, all the people who did that were either wrong or took their secret to their deathbed, but at least when "I disagree with the theory of gravity" it uttered, the next sentence really is often at least related to the topic of gravity. How often? I dunno, but let's call it x(g). Gravity isn't challenged very often. How often? Oh, let's just call that y(g). What I'm getting at is that the chances of having a good, as opposed to tedious-and-irrelevant, "I don't believe in gravity" discussion is x(g)/y(g).
Now compare that to evolution. For some reason, whenever someone says they disagree with evolutionary theory, their next sentence is always inane, and almost never related to the theory of evolution. Instead, we get things like
That's x(e). And for some reason, in spite of evolution being an older, much-more-tested, and down-to-earth and intuitive theory than relativity, people attack it fairly often. That's y(e). The chances of an evolution-denier improving your life, as opposed to making it more tedious, is x(e)/y(e). x(e) is less than x(g), and y(e) is greater than y(g). So x(e)/y(e) is far less than x(g)/y(g).
So now let's go back to whatever it is that you're thinking when someone says "I disagree with Einstein's theory of gravity." Let's face it: you know the next thing you hear isn't really going to be for real. Sure, it might be, but someone is about to say something very tired and lame. Yet for all your pessimism, it is a genuinely interesting and exciting possibility, compared to the diarrhea that you're pretty much guaranteed to hear after someone blurts out, "I don't believe in the theory of evolution." The next thing that person says, is never serious or interesting, it never points out any evidence that evolution might be incorrect, it never points out evidence that might lead to formulation of a rival theory, and it never talks about an idea for an experiment that could be used to test a rival idea thereby turning it into a theory. It's always inane crap. Always. x(e) is zero. And y(e) is fucking huge. We're even talking about it on Slashdot right now, as opposed to say, gravity.
Compared to gravity deniers, evolution deniers suck. They have nothing to contribute.
So now do you understand the animosity? They're already acting weird by telling people their conclusion first, rather than starting with introducing their evidence, and they always disappoint even after they fumble past that awkward introduction. That's why "disagreeing" with evolution doesn't get respect. Maybe some day, someone will point out something interesting, and then explain that it's why they "di
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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
Catholicism is the most anti-science of all the supposedly Christian sects. Just check their record of oppression dating back to Galileo and beyond.
That's what's wrong with the religious minded. They simply cannot wrap their minds are a simple thing.
"not doing something" is not "doing something." similarly, "not believing in something" is not "believing in something" and "not worshipping something" is not "worshipping something."
Nothing is created through "scientific means." Things are learned and discovered using scientific means.
I grew up in religion -- the bible belt no less. Been exposed to lots of ideas. It wasn't until I was exposed to too many that I realized there were patterns in the whole practice of religion and of religious thought. My search began at a very early age and I realized the truth from a very early age (and had to hide my atheism the way gays hide in the closet for most of my youth and life). Leave your god for another god just for a little while. Leave the next god for another after that. It is not until you have known many gods that you realize there are none.
Oh, and do you have any actual evidence that string theorists monopolize physics conferences?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'll see your Intelligent Design and raise you an appendix and a tail bone.
WALSTIB!
The different standard is that there is absolutely no evidence for a god. It's not even a falsifiable thing, because you can't prove that there is no god either. So it has nothing to do with science and logic. It's pure wishful thinking, and billions of people choose to believe in some form of god, but not all of those billions agree with each other. 2 billion Muslims and 2 billion Christians. Just because a lot of people agree with you doesn't make your belief right, though it does make it easier to believe nonsense.
which is totally what she said
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.
There certainly is evidence. That many people would not believe in something without "any", much less those who are "educated" and themselves scientists. Just because a lot of people agree with you doesn't make your belief that there isn't right, though it does make it easier to believe you believe the nonsense.
Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
Well, first of all, I did specify the reason for why I was calling you a dumbass, and it's still valid. Actual research into Einstein's theology does in fact show that he was very much not a creationist as defined by the "intelligent design" group, which is the central point of the article
Who is this "intelligent design" group and how are they able to define terms such as this? The definition I find is as follows:
A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes
I'm using the broad definition of course. Creationism is defined:
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings. ...
Strange. These definitions seem eerily similar.
Of course, it's hard to believe in a god if you don't believe He created the universe.
Now I don't want to argue about Einstein's theological beliefs. That's not really important.
But you're the one who brought it up! It was kinda central to your poorly thought out and unresearched point - claiming it's not relevant after you've been shown to be wrong is just silly.
I don't know how good your reading skills are, but I said that if Einstein were applying for a job, and you read his quote that I presented, or another that your brought up, "My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws", would that prevent you from hiring him? Well, you did say, "If they're completely incapable of doing the job (ie: creationists applying for biology, astronomy, geology, ancient history, anthropology, chemistry, or physics related positions) you have to find some other reason for not hiring them." So, I guess the answer would be no.
Tell you what. I'll even grant you Einstein. What about the others I brought up? What about Allan Sandage? He did say, "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." Is he not a creationist? Is he not the very definition of one who believes in ID?
What about Louis Pasteur? He said, "The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." Wouldn't that make Pasteur a creationist? Or do you think the founder of microbiology is " incapable of doing the job"?
Again, this is where the dumbass factor is coming out - hiring policies are not based on singular out of context quotes, they're based on reviews of actual work
Strange. That's not what you said in the post I originally replied to. You said that a creationist is "incapable of doing the job." Or are you changing your story now?
Oh, and by saying that you won't read the rest of my quotes is another way of saying, "I can't argue those, so I'll concentrate on the one I think I know something about."
No, that's just your dumbass factor emerging again. People generally put forth their best argument first, so when you start out with quote mining and false statements
I just put out the most well known one first. That's no need to ignore the rest.
... generally it means that the rest of what you wrote is just as worthless, and not worth reading. Actually looking at the rest of what you wrote, once again, you are once again taking out of context statements without actually examining the people in question, to make it look like they believe things that they don't. I don't need to debunk every word of the tripe you posted,
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
...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.
If there was evidence, there would be proof. There is no evidence. There is wishful thinking and superstition, with people viewing every event with a very, very heavy confirmation bias.
Even if there were indicators of a generic god, there doesn't seem to be any way of telling which religion actually worships the "real" god, since this god appears to let the world go on exactly as if we humans were left to our own devices. I fail to see where god is needed in the picture.
which is totally what she said
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"
I suppose you haven't seen Ann Druyan (Sagan's ex-wife) or Carolyn Porco (Sagan's inspiration for the "Ellie" character in Contact) speak on the subject of science vs religion. They are a) rational; b) passionate about science; c) great communicators. You can't ask for more, from a man or a woman.
A better explanation of intelligent design is that there is too much information present in life to be accounted for by random mutation over the age of the universe. The result of this observation is that the information must originate in an intelligence, since the only sources we see for the origination of information is an intelligence. Hence, what is observed with life is that there is a design present in life.
The inescapable next question is: Who? This inescapable question is what places this in the realm of religion.
There is an entirely different question that can be asked: Can science prove how life originated? The answer to this is no, it cannot. Science is about what is, about measurement and reliability and the agreement of a data set to theory (or vice versa). We can establish a possible chain of events, but the fact that a chain of events is possible does not mean that it actually occurred. In the context most of the slashers use for science, they are not referring to things like metallurgy, chemistry or electronics, where science is used to predict materials strength, catalysis or part longevity, but to a very limited set of science related to origins research: phylogeny, paleo-archeology and sedimentary geology.
I doubt that even the foaming evo-trolls would claim that because a person is a creationist they cannot measure the strength of bolts used in a bridge. Rather, they are claiming such a person has no say in science related to origins, because they do not hold to evolutionary dogma.
The problem arises when evolutionary belief is used as a 'litmus test' A person can be a serious thinker, with much to add to a scientific field and still not agree with evolution. Since the most vocal opponents of a belief in evolution are Christians, there is a serious tinge of prejudicial discrimination based on religious viewpoint practiced throughout academia. Even if a person were conversant in evolution, with detailed knowledge of all current theory, practice, phylogeny and geology, that would not be enough to over-rule a belief in God.
I dunno. The fringe fanatics have managed to stage events for the purpose of wrecking ACORN, NPR and the healthcare bill. I see no difficulty in a group of them getting together for the express purpose of not being hired as, say, marine biologists and then using the legal system to get the university to admit that this is because they were creationists (via cross-questioning or even through the pre-trial discovery process).
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The GP stated that he would not hire a creationist. A creationist, by definition is one who believes in a creator. Pasteur believed in a creator according to his own words. Would this person not hire Pasteur? That is the logical conclusion according to what he said.
First of all, the GP didn't use the term Creationist, but instead spoke of Intelligent Design. ID is a con job to make a religious belief look like science. Is there any evidence to suggest that Pasteur put his religious beliefs ahead of his scientific principles?
Louis Pasteur did not believe that God was the one who made people get sick with disease, but rather that there were real, physical reasons for disease. If he thought that people got sick and died because they were sinners, or because God had some plan for them, then he wouldn't have done experiments to prove the germ theory of disease. He would not have researched immunology for all those years for ways to usurp God's plans.
I suppose you don't understand the concepts behind humour. You might want to perhaps spend a few years analysing for example "banter", "irony" and "wit", then come back and give a report on my comment. Don't make me explain the joke.
which is totally what she said
Packet lost.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Oh, Jeebus, maybe you're right.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Intron: the portion of DNA we do not understand yet. Punctuated equilibrium is simply ID by another name: "Thing remain the same until Something Unexplained comes in and causes species to diverge."
Great article, thanks :) I am always wary of anyone trying to split people into black and white groups, as the truth often lies soemwhere in the middle, though at least he mentioned that packers can re-learn to map, or perhaps can be taught to map in specific scenarios which may then encourage them to do so in others. I definitely agree that there are a lot of people out there who rarely ask questions or improvise - they generally operate as if going through a recipe rather than truly trying to understand what is going on.
which is totally what she said
I think the author, were he still alive, would deny "splitting people into black and white groups" as that is a packer trait. "Going through a recipe" does indeed seem to be the way most people approach problems. I believe it is a consequence of our own auto-domestication. Domesticated animals gain social intelligence at the expense of losing general intelligence. It is more efficient for a certain percentage of the population to rely on the thinking of others. Plus, I believe that if we have a solid base of people who are happy just doing what worked for their fathers, that allows safer experimentation with new ideas. So the division of labor is genetically adaptive.
I believe nearly anyone can be taught to think more effectively, however, I'm not sure everyone can be taught to enjoy the process of thinking. Thinking entails uncertainty, and for most people, uncertainty is painful. I think that some people who are natural mappers may still assuage that uncertainty by deciding to hold certain beliefs related to "ultimate meaning" on faith. Personally, I'm a Buddhist in that regard. Ultimate meaning? Right here in the present moment where it always is. It means what it is, that is all it means, and adding anything to that is worse than gilding the lily, it is taking something real away and substituting something imaginary.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You make a valid point. Evolution is a term applied to the observation although I find it (validly) applied to more than just the fossil record. However, in common use, it does carry connotations beyond being an observation. And even as an observation, it is still subject to misinterpretation and misunderstandings just like all of our observations of the world (or universe) around us. I will admit that I know of some situations for which I would describe it by saying that it evolved. The teaching about Darwin could be about careful research and science but I haven't seen it done that way. It tends to be superficial but I suppose on the other hand, that most of our "teaching" even at the undergraduate university level is the same way. One has to work pretty hard to find the questions that were never answered and some of the observations that could never be reconciled. I will still maintain that the concept of "proof" is popularly misunderstood as if science reaches immutable closed descriptions. The whole wonder, at least in physics, is the surprises that keep showing up in our set of observations.
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! :)
They are making the assumption, I think, that intelligent design is a religious view, so the bill is advocating a religious position in universities. I think their assumption is wrong: ID is not a theological position; if you had to place it in a field it would be philosophy. This is not to deny that it meshes well with certain religious systems. I found it interesting that TFheadline talks about creationism--which is a religious position--while the law only mentioned ID which is a philosophical hypothesis.
Sorry, but the jig is up on the whole "ID is not religion" thing. It's pushed almost exclusively by religious creationists, and it's certainly not science in the way it has been approached by ID "researchers". If it was presented in philosophy classes, then it wouldn't be a problem.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You must have a free exchange of ideas in order to get to the truth. Discriminating only holds you back in the end, for you will find yourself discriminating against the truth. Perhaps we will find one day that much of the "entire dept." is in fact wrong. But not if we don't allow other theories.
Agreed. Not hiring someone because of their beliefs alone would not be warranted. If they have shown the ability to engage in science and produce results, and are willing to use scientific methods exclusively in their work, then they should be considered for the job. Now it's entirely possible that there are many better candidates still, so they may not get the job, but they shouldn't be precluded from consideration. I don't know of any actual scientific work in support of ID at the moment. So if someone is a proponent of that, and wished to study it, I'd want to see how they propose to study it first. If they can't explain a scientific approach to the study of ID, then they shouldn't be hired.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
The end of the clause, which reads "or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms" would make it apply to those other people. I would agree with you that without that bit at the end it would be problematic, but I think that is enough to make it okay.
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.