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.
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."
Can we encourage Texas to consider secession?
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
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.
link to the original article instead of the... um, "slightly" biased blog
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
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.
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.
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
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
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
Oy, your argument has more holes than swiss cheese
1. The vast majority of them did their work before 1859.
2. The list is of scientists who believe in God, not those that believe in creationism
3. For a number of them the 'God' that they believed in was not the Evangelical, Literalist, Christian God, which is the god of creationism
4. Including Einstein in that list is simply wrong; they admit as much when they point out that he did not believe in a personal god.
Sadly, your arguments are par for the course for creationists.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
It is discrimination against women! You should give them a drug test and then fake the results.
which is totally what she said
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.
I can't believe that I am quoting this website .. but I think you should try telling your point of view to these scientists for a start.
(a) All of the scientists on that list are long dead. This is not a coincidence. Science ... um ... evolves, and what Bacon or Newton believed about a universe about which they knew far less than we do today is irrelevant to the modern practice of science. We take what is useful from their work -- which is a great deal, to be sure -- and discard that which time has shown not to be useful -- which is also a great deal.
(b) In the specific case of Einstein, religion's been trying to claim the guy for a long time, but he made it quite clear in a number of statements toward the end of his life that he wasn't having any. The fact that fundamentalist types have to twist his words and deliberately ignore most of what he said about the subject to make their point is a clear sign of intellectual bankruptcy.
(c) Religion != creationism. There always have been, are, and most likely always will be a great many religious scientists doing good scientific work. In order to do this, they must be willing to accept the logical conclusions of the evidence available to them, and if those conclusions conflict with their beliefs, modify their beliefs accordingly. People who can't do this -- which, given the overwhelming evidence for evolution, means at this point pretty much all creationists -- are incapable of doing actual science.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So Paul thinks the 14th Amendment isn't part of the Constitution? Most people ignore the FACT that the democrat party supported segregation and the republicans opposed it.
The Democrats lost the South, which was overwhelmingly Democrat, precisely because they opposed segregation, and the Republicans gained it by supporting segregation.
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.
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