Slashdot Mirror
Tennessee Passes Bill That Allows "Teaching the Controversy" of Evolution
Layzej writes "The Tennessee Senate has passed a bill that allows teachers to 'teach the controversy' on evolution, global warming and other scientific subjects. Critics have called it a 'monkey bill' that promotes creationism in classrooms. In a statement sent to legislators, eight members of the National Academy of Science said that, in practice, the bill will likely lead to 'scientifically unwarranted criticisms of evolution.' and that 'By undermining the teaching of evolution in Tennessee's public schools, HB368 and SB893 would miseducate students, harm the state's national reputation, and weaken its efforts to compete in a science-driven global economy.'"
The Senate approved a bill Monday evening that deals with teaching of evolution and other scientific theories ...
Well, there's your problem, right there. The overall concept of evolution is no longer a theory. Surely even the staunchest of Creationists must acknowledge the so called "short-term" evolution that gives us the ability to manipulate plants or breed wolves into dogs.
Yes, as with most fields, a long time ago there were sets of theories. Like prior to Watson and Crick, back when you had Darwinian Evolution, Larmarckian Evolution, etc. Not anymore though. You might have theories about very specific things in the field that might be impossible to prove -- like, say, what the Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor (LECA) looked like -- but Evolution is no longer a theory. The field moves forward while Tennessee makes themselves look like idiots from some forgotten era.
My work here is dung.
Why do politicians think they know more than scientists about reaching biology? They're wrong on this one... to much science to say evolution happened and the only support the creationists have is one book that's proven to be mostly fiction. If Adam and Eve were the first humans, then who wrote the biblical story?
Just as math should be taught in math class and so on. If you want to teach religion in a class dedicated to the subject, I'm OK with that. But it would need to cover ALL religions and beliefs, which I think people would throw the hissy fit to end all hissy fits over.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
That education chalk board picture where 2+2=5 has never been seemed so relevant.
Some day, I'm hoping that all these retarded laws get bitch slapped back. Is it just that I'm young or are these people become more shrill and outspoken about this kind of idiocy? I'm only 25 and I'm hoping this is just a phase before we inevitably tell them all the shut the hell up and move on with things.
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
You Americans are truly fucked.
...require any science taught in schools to have a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis.
Evolution qualifies, creationism doesn't.
Astronomy qualifies, astrology doesn't.
Oh, and FWIW, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming *doesn't* qualify, unless of course some brave soul would like to make a clear falsifiable hypothesis statement for it :)
Call their bluff; announce an intent to entertain offers from other states to move their entire institutions, lock, stock, and intellectuals due to their services no longer being required by the state.
It's not just the Taliban that wants to go back to the 12th century.
They should definitely allow teachers to question scientific theories and teach students to think critically USING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. This bill unfortunately seems to allow psuedo science to be taught as science.
Instead they should have something like a program which teaches evolution by using evolutionary algorithms to show its limits and bring up issues with the darwinian theory and whether it is complete etc. same goes for global warming. teach the scientific method, teach the flaws in theories, teach how scientists can be wrong but also why its likely they are right and the religious "theories": wrong.
There is no controversy on evolution, at least not among the people that matter.
Creationists should be asked to be treated for 'unevolved' versions of their illnesses. Watch them backtrack reeeeeal quick on that one.
Students who are unable to argue against those who attempt to oppose evolution on an argumentative basis are unlikely to ever go anywhere in the scientific community anyways. In other words, if the bill allows teachers to point out the arguments against evolution, and allows the students the freedom to argue against the teacher for those arguments freely, then I do not see it as being a problem. However, in reality most teachers will just fail or severely down-grade students who disagree with them, and if the bill does not include provisions to prevent that (which I doubt it does) then it is a terrible idea.
Fill disclosure: I am religious, and I do believe evolution is a valid and highly probably scientific hypothesis (I don't want to say I "believe in" it, because it isn't a matter of faith, it is a matter of reason). The two things in no way contradict each other and anyone who claims they do doesn't know what they're talking about (most probably, doesn't know anything about either religion or science and their respective fields).
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Soon they'll allow the controversy of science to be taught in public schools.
Here's a solution: Why don't companies commit to say: if you're from TN, we know you have a substandard education, ergo your resume is automatically rejected. That oughta get the message across the bow.
...why so many places make such a big deal about evolution.
I was taught it in school with no one complaining, and I grew up in the loony, backwards state of Texas.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
to illustrate the controversy by simply screening "Inherit the Wind" in the classroom?
Let's start teaching holocaust denial in history class then. It's a "controversy" too, right? And any lessons that touch on recent events should also teach the "controversy" about 9/11 being an inside job. Chemistry lessons should be augmented by alchemy.
If all alternative points of view (including the batshit insane ones) are equally valid, you have to.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
In case you want to read the bill. I think 1D is the main issue.
It seems that a lot of the ground that creationists stand on in this issue revolves around the issue of the word "theory." Simply, the disconnect between the scientific understanding of that term, versus the popular definition (which is more in line with the term "hypothesis") gives creationists a reasonable-sounding argument (to the scientifically ignorant). "Well, I disagree with it, and scientists even admit it is just a theory, so I want equal time in the classroom for my views." There is little to no understanding among the public that "theory" (as used in detective shows) usually means a logically-based assumption or prediction, whereas "theory" in science usually indicates a fairly substantial body of evidence to support a hypothesis. So, we need clearer terminology.
Of course, who gets the rights to the word "theory" here...
...it'll be required in public school courses, by law. The trouble with some legislators is that they don't just vote, they're allowed to drive too.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Go ahead and teach the "controversy", but frame it that it is a "controversy" among those who cannot accept fact. Use the class to put the focus on the deniers.
Meh...they want to pass a law like that in their own state, I say let them.
I mean, it's not like every state can have people that go off to college and become highly educated members of society. Someone has to build the cars, right? :)
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Why not just make a Bill that says science classes can teach things that deal with hypothesis, theory and proven ideas that have gone through the standard scientific method. And then make a non-science class as an elective that allows study of esoteric topics that have not gone through scientific methods. I'm sure the whole creationism thing would only take about a week to cover at most and I don't know what they would fill the rest of the semester with. But, I wish they would stop meddling with proven science and trying to cloud out the classroom with questionable information.
There are many examples of this. In world history rather than focusing on wars, we could include the faith based authoritarian regimes and ask if faith has been used to create the oppress more than used to help the oppressed. Again, not take sides. Just have student read about the controversy in order to develop students better at problem solving.
We could do the same thing in literature, reading books that teach the controversy of religion, democracy, and capitalism.
My problem with teaching the controversy is that if I ask a christian why we have public school prayer when the bible prohibits it, they don't want to take about that controversy. So why are we taking about evolution when there is really nothing in the bible, or at the Christian testament, that prevents it from validity. Of course if they really wanted to pursue a controversy, they would be working on disavowing the trinity, something that no good protest, only the modern Catholics who follow the Council of Niceae, should believe.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
As a mathematics/science teacher in this fine state, I don't have a huge problem with this. I just made my students write a paper on Russell's Teapot, so I feel like I balanced it out.
But seriously, anybody that thinks these two pieces of paper mean anything...they don't. They say they allow for these things, doesn't mean we have to. And we won't.
Isn't this more a religious argument ("That's not what my religious consultant tells me to believe, so there!") than any form of an attempt to teach both sides of the (non-existent) argument between evolution and mythology involving creation myths being treated as hard, solid fact? What's next, an attempt to legislate to 4, and attempts to make not going to church on Sunday punishable by death?
Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
It's too bad they didn't do this properly. There ARE controversies in evolutionary theory. They're not controversies in whether or not evolution works, but there IS disagreement in the specific mechanisms of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism? Duke it out! Teach those controversies!
Oh wait, I guess I'm asking for science to be taught in science class. My bad.
I'm astounded that everybody is so surprised at what happens in government education. Was there ANY doubt in your minds that government education -- meaning education mandated by politics -- would be forever beholden to politics?
Surely any good scientist can embrace debates and education around their evolution theories. In order to debate one must study and research both opinions. Are they scared students will discover flaws in their theory?? Creationists are under constant criticism over their theoretical "flaws" and I don't see them hiding behind politicians or sidestepping educated debates....
So rather than using the tools of evolution, the students of Tennessee would learn to pray to god for a new vaccine?
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Regardless, I don't see what is wrong in teaching kids both evolution and the evidence for or against it, and creationism and the evidence for or against it. People need to be encouraged to reason not just memorize whichever view we decide is "right" and cram down their throats.
That's the whole point there *is* no evidence for or against Creationism - it's a made up story based on a work of fiction. It's not a scientific hypothesis that can be debated. It's a set of beliefs. Just like I believe there's an invisible pink unicorn in my garage. Shut up, there totally is! Prove that there isn't! You just have to take my word for it and believe that it is there.
The pros and cons of the theory of evolution, however (and the wider discussion about the Scientific Method) are suitable topics for discussion.
... Education. Why is it we can individually choose everything important in our lives except who gets to teach our children and what curriculum they teach?!?
You got any karma man? I really neeed it. Just a little hit! Come on!
Remember - A Sword cuts two ways.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
http://controversy.wearscience.com/
There is a series of very amusing ones on the subject.
is manufactured. It's that some religious extremists in this country can't deal with the fact that the reality that hard science is discovering and exploring doesn't exactly match their creation myth of choice, and keep stirring the s*** because they're still trying to stuff that genie back in the bottle long after it's way too late.
There's only a "controversy" because they keep insisting it's "controversial" as a pretext to keep their foot in the door. And the fact is, creationism is not science, at best it's Bible-flavored pseudoscience that's already decided its conclusions and merely cherry-picks data to support those conclusions .. which is actually the opposite of science ..
This is a perfectly legitimate subject for a social studies classes. It should not be included in the hard science classes.
Jhyrryl
Teach both creation and evolution as theory. That should satisfy everyone. Since we didn't see it happen, we don't need "for sure" either way. We don't need to. It's important to teach evolution but to give other views separate but equal air time.
Neil Tyson can explain it to even the most dense creationists.... IF they would only listen... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weu7Rh6dYrM
Evolution favors the Creastionists. The righteous devotees of the sand peoples fairy tales are ever more successful in the creatin' game. The must have more children. Replacement is not enough, world domination is their calling, their most holy commandment, their Jihad.
By placing these issues in conflict, it forces students to think about them. Separating the issues only legitimizes the idea that critical thinking at school is compatible with made up certainties at home.
Considering the vast political and ideological decide between States like California, New York, Washington vs Georgia, Texas and Mississippi, wouldn't we be better off ending the Union of States and allowing like minded States to refactor into new Unions with new Constitutions? It seems our entire political system is at a partisan standstill with both sides stonewalling the other and a government that has racked up a debt unequaled in even recent history.
If States like Texas, Tennassee and Georgia want to live like wealth worshipping Taliban, let them. I for one think we'd be better off reevaluating the Union and it's effect on the population in general. At the rate were going, Civil War is not all that unlikely as the media continues to drive politics to further extremes. So perhaps a good look now and willingness to let go of the Union and getting a fresh political perspective could prevent our Nation's situation from getting worse. Besides, the Coastal and Northern Union would still maintain the largest GDP in the world without having to pay for the welfare of the barely literate parochial types in the Confederacy.
Next it'll no doubt transpire that most states don't recognise gay marriage or even civil partnerships....oh.
My heart goes out to the intelligent youth in TN.
It gets better.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Fill disclosure: I am religious...
But you're not a fundamentalist, either.
That's were everyone is wrong: it's the Fundamentalists that are screwing it up for everyone. The folks who insist that the Bible is the literal word of God and ignore and discount the history of that book as being the Lies of the Devil. And those same people have the conceit to say that they know what God thinks and that every Christian believes the same way - that's if you're a real "Christian". (I live in the "Shiny Buckle of the Bible Belt" and the things I have heard and seen. Like, if you're Catholic, you're not Christian; which baffles me as to why Rick Santorum is doing so well among Evangelicals.)
Those people have a very childish view of God. In their development, they went from their belief in Santa Claus and just moved that mentality to God. That's why they think He knows when you've been bad or good, rewards or punishes you and answers your wish list - Prayers. Those are the same folks who really think that if they give a dollar to their church, God will give them $10 back - No, really. I know someone who did exactly that and couldn't pay their utility bill one month.
Enough now. This horse has been beaten enough.
You can home school. It's actually the government that is supposed to be protecting us from stuff like this. Otherwise a good portion of American schools would be teaching creation instead of evolution. Supposedly 40% of Americans still believe in Creation.
I don't understand why people are so against Evolution. Evolution doesn't go against Creationism, it can work with it. So maybe a "God" kick started the entire process and then Evolution took over and did the rest. People who are against Evolution because it can't be proven, well I would ask them to produce proof that a "God" exists. The existence of a holy book doesn't prove anything, it proves someone wrote a book and they made up some characters, there is literally no difference from a harry potter book or the bible, both written and both read and your never going to meet the characters.
Evolution exists! it's a fact, science has proven that animals, humans, plants, planets and the universe has evolved over time, what science hasn't proven is the existence of "God", having an open ended question doesn't prove "God" it just means that we don't know where the beginning is.
Whats my point, simple Evolution and Creationism are both valid streams of understanding, if your going to teach one teach the other. I believe in both, something must have happened to launch the universe into motion, but nothing is stopping evolution from taking it the rest of the way. I'm glad that now Evolution has to be taught, Evolution has occurred, it's a valid proven science, if your going to teach Creationism you have to be fair and teach Evolution.
Done in one, Tennessee.
As a non-American, I hope the rest of the States follow suit. Today Theory of Evolution; tomorrow, Theory of Gravity :-D
Je ne parle pas francais.
Regardless, I don't see what is wrong in teaching kids both evolution and the evidence for or against it
I agree, except that there is no strong evidence "against" the theory of evolution; there are gaps in the theory, phenomena that are yet to be explained, but nothing that creates any major problem with the theory itself (aside from the fact that some pieces of the theory are still missing).
creationism and the evidence for or against it
What evidence is there to support creationism as a scientific theory? An ancient story book and a bunch of good feelings about it are not evidence.
Palm trees and 8
Actually this is great. Since in presenting Creationism you have to show that God actually exists. The proof of course is the Bible. Then you have to show that the Bible itself is the Word of God. This of course leads to a study of older similar works from none Judeo Christian religions that predate and most likely influenced the Bible.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Teach 'em all:
http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html
I'm sure we can cut math classes to make time.
"on evolution, global warming and other scientific subjects"
Now we can properly cover flat-earth theory in geography, phlogiston in chemistry, and alternatives to the germ THEORY of disease in biology. Also we can talk about spontaneous generation in sex-ed class.
Sorry Tennessee
I forgot to mention that the person cleared out her checking account, gave the money to her church, and sat back waiting for God to give her ten fold back.
I believe in the invisible deity in the sky, but I don't want it taught in schools. That's faith, and there's already a place to learn that. And it's optional.
Blame the politicians who are overstepping their authority. It's as simple as that. State legislature has no business manipulating curriculum for any purpose. Federal government has even less authority.
:wq
As long as they include the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm fine with it.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
We're not talking about someone making an arbitrary decision about a "view". We're talking about an exhaustively studied natural process, and the results of those studies. When there is a massive consensus in the scientific community, it's hard for me to grasp how people who know little more than what they got from a high school course start claiming to be able to expertly refute that consensus...
This IS Tennessee. I have seen no evidence of evolution in the people of Tennessee.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
All religions do eugenics. They control the sex life and breeding of their adherents to produce a populace that is submissive and loyal to their eugenic breeders, the religious administration. This is a crime against humanity which should result in incarceration of all the religious eugenicists (including the godless religion of political correctness, administered by your politicians.) In order to protect themselves from prosecution, the religious and political eugenicists must legislate that evolution is false and therefore eugenics is impossible.
Tennessee is dead-set on herding its citizens back to the dark ages. In the past two years, the Governor and Republican Party have squashed Gay Rights statutes in the city of Nashville, developed laws targeting peaceful protesters and made it illegal to post “potentially offensive images” to the internet. The “Monkey Law” now brings religion back into the classroom by opening debate for creationism. In addition, the new law puts the Ten Commandments back in public buildings around the state. There is a clear cut suppression of progressive thinking by the Republican Party and I addressed these issues “illegally” on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2011/07/potentially-offensive-portrait-governor.html with a portrait of the Governor to address his party’s absurd agendas.
LOL nice XD
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Those are awesome. I have no connection to them but I wish them many sales.
So if there is no evidence what is the problem? Knowledge about a topic doesn't mean you have to agree with it. I do agree with you though that other than possibly a brief mention that the topic was very controversial when it came out because it was against the normal religious view (just like with Galileo though for some reason that doesn't create as much angst as creationism, perhaps the reason is in the name ;-)) and that some people still don't agree with it. Leave it to history or philosophy class or whatever to get into the details. An elective course in the history of science, or history of "reason" or whatever would be nice, I would have taken it. I'm a physicist, but I like to know the context about what I learn. Why did it take so long to figure out (limitations in thinking (the west forgetting that the world is round), limitations on available tech (eg. Hubble constant), dependent on prior experiments etc).
I'm agnostic but I think there is a clear difference between your pink unicorn and other religions in that ~2B people say a God like the God in the bible exists, many more that gods exist, others that spiritual things exist while not necessarily requiring a god in a personal form etc. Ignoring something with such a huge impact on society, and the tempo of science is crazy IMHO. Parents typically aren't qualified to teach their kids, they might know some things about some things but the whole idea of a public education is to ensure that there is some standard for knowledge that everyone should know in society not just people that happen to have parents that know about that particular topic.
One of the commenters pointed to this article:
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/832
It essentially makes an information theoretic argument that some unspecified designer may need to be invoked to better explain modern observations of biological complexity. That is, they claim (but I don't see the evidence) that certain biological configurations are better or more easily explained or explainable at all if we assume that there was some intent behind some aspect of resulting organisms. I skimmed the article, but I didn't notice it saying anything at all about irreducible complexity. It simply mentions that some things have much too high of an information content to be plausibly the result of evolution according to completely natural processes.
As I see it, the assumption that the governing processes are entirely natural is simpler, because it does not invoke the requirement for some external influence. They also make no claims in regard to the nature of these outside influences. Moreover, evolutionary theory doesn't preclude that some aliens or something may have had influence. It simply declines to explain in those terms, because there's no difference between an intelligent alien tweaking things in some imperceptible way versus some extra radiation causing some mutations and some specific ecological niche favoring certain traits. They seem to be implying that they can CALCULATE that certain biological complexity is extremely unlikely given our basic understanding of mutation and selection. But then again, everything we observe is a priori extremely improbable it's just that we have inordinate amounts of time and space for those improbable events to become probable, and we have evidence of the time scale from geology. We don't, however, have any direct evidence that there was anything other than planet-local natural influences behind evolution, and it's hard to define what exactly is and is not "natural."
So, is this ID article just being vague? Or are they making some interesting point? I don't just want to dismiss it as creationist dogma. I think that an information theoretic analysis is warranted. I just don't trust their understanding of the science or their underlying motivations.
The whole thing comes down to politics. School boards are elected. Higher up politicians distribute funds to school boards. There are some fairly vocal individuals who may or may not represent the majority but have the ability to stir up powerful emotions among the electorate.
Proper democracy requires an educated informed electorate to function correctly. Proper democracy does not provide a way to bootstrap the system where the fundamental requirements are lacking.
"...and weaken its efforts to compete in a science-driven global economy."
First time I've heard that fraud, theft and cronyism were science-driven...
What about Evolutionary Creationism?
If general belief in evolution was not based on ad hominem attacks ... how would these comments look different?
I don't understand how some people can be so brain dead when it comes to common sense. How can you compare Myth with Facts as an alternate solution to the answer? Whats the point in teaching Science if your going to turn Fact into Fiction, and Fiction into Fact. People must have their head screwed on wrong.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
We know enough about radiation to make nuclear bombs, but not enough to correctly date geologic strata.
We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion.
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/48696/bo-watson
"A smaller government is more effective at addressing the needs of individuals. Bo believes that the government that is closest to home is the best, and that is why he chose to run for office in State Government."
http://ltgov.tn.gov/2011/04/lt-gov-ramsey-to-appoint-sen-watson-as-next-speaker-pro-tempore/Lt. Gov Ramsey said Watson's "tireless work on issues of government reform has been an inspiration to all of us striving to make state government as small, efficient and transparent as possible."
How exactly does micromanaging school curricula --down to the very topic-- by the state legislature count as small government, again? It seems like those who trumpet "small government" are the quickest to use government as a big, nosy cudgel to impose their beliefs upon citizens, and to compel or prohibit citizens' actions.
How many of you had a good experience your public school system?
I'd rather have no public education system at all. Let it all be private. It would be far less expensive, and parents could send their children to schools for indoctrination in the manner of their choosing.
Were almost past the tipping point where the 'controversy' will simply not matter anymore because it will be too late to do anything about it. If we are destined to be governed by a society of ignorant, narrow minded, dogmatic fools then we will cease to exist by our own lack of ability to change in order to stop the inevitable. This, by definition, is exactly evolution in process.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
but nothing that creates any major problem with the theory itself (aside from the fact that some pieces of the theory are still missing).
So teach that.
What evidence is there to support creationism as a scientific theory? An ancient story book and a bunch of good feelings about it are not evidence.
So again teach that. I'm not saying that schools should teach creationism like it is an equally valid theory. Screw over the religious nutjobs by disproving creationism. Ignoring the fact that a large number of people believe it and that it was what made Darwin so cautious about discussing evolution and slowed scientific process are valid things to teach. Ignoring things because they touch on religion is crazy. It would be like teaching computer science but just ignoring that Java exists and refusing to teach it, not that there isn't interest or a use for it, but just because of some arbitrary idea that "those things are best lernt from your parent"
To prempt constitutionalists:
1) I'm not american so I don't care.
2) Teaching that an idea exists doesn't not equal teaching that an idea is right, or setting rules biasing people that believe one thing our another.
I think there's very little debate that life forms evolve (though many religious types still don't like the word "evolution"). Environmental pressures and genetic mutations are among the forces that produce adaptation. The real argument I've heard (among more thoughful people of faith) relates to the source of new genetic information and the extent of evolutionary change that's possible. Creationists claim that all genetic information and potential has existed from a creation event, it just gets "activated" or "rearranged" (sorry, I'm sure that's revoltingly non-technical to a scientist). As a result, the metanarrative of evolutionary development from non-life to life, simple to complex, asexual to sexual reproduction with the addition of new genetic information through mutations is thrown out in favor of originally created animals - something like Plato's Forms - that had everything genetically they needed to mix and match, orient, and adapt into the menagerie we see today.
Well, what a privilege. Let me be the first to introduce myself to you! I'm an atheist who wouldn't force you to give up your religious beliefs.
Religion should be considered to be for adults only. We don't allow children to be involved with drugs, alcohol, voting, sex and so on legally before they've grown up to teenagers, why should brainwashing with a single particular religion be any different?
Repeat after me: We are all individuals
Sorry who said anything about refuting anything? My understanding from the op was that they were going to be allowed to teach creation theory. It doesn't mean that they have to teach it as being right. Heck they can spend 10 hrs teaching why it is stupid for all I care. I'm a physicist and an agnostic but I like knowledge too much to ignore ideas just because they are inconvenient. Creationism had a huge impact on the theory of evolution in terms of how open people were with their results, how they balanced the facts with their beliefs, the legality of teaching it etc. Ignoring context because we don't agree with the other side is ludicrous.
and it's hard out here for a chimp
AKA: The Republican Party.
I think everybody who's pro evolution is just as closed minded as those who follow the christian beliefs.
What you think is utterly and completely irrelevant to the reality of the Universe. Impartial reproducible observations are relevant. Our incomplete knowledge of how reality operates is obtained and refined through application of the Scientific method. The observable evidence is overwhelmingly that evolution has occurred and continues to occur, and overwhelmingly that there is no "intelligent designer".
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Well, you've just made the decision for everyone that the only relevant source of truth is empirical observable scientific data.
Please take a crash course of philosophy from around 1500 onwards (with a brief detour via Plato) and then come back and justify your position. (also, please read some philosophy of science.. Popper, Kuhn, etc.)
I think it's quite interesting to see people in the U.S. complain about a congress that gets nothing done, each side staunchly refusing to compromise, loudly announcing how right they are, and wrong anyone else is. The "my way or the highway" mentality. Here it is on display.
If some state wants to buck true knowledge in the classroom I say all the better. Hopefully this will be a boon in producing low-IQ peons for outsourcing mega-corps like Walmart.
I hear banjo music!! This is troubling. I really hope VA does not follow this yahoo route.
Sure they have 4 legs. And 2 arms!
A better way to get a fundamentalist confused is to ask them "Who was created first, Adam and Eve or the animals?"
Tell them to check both the first and second chapter of Genesis. If they stop after the first, they will only have one answer. It cannot have hapened both ways, it must be one or the other (or neither), so therefore the Bible is not 100% true. At minimum one chapter or the other must be false. It could be that both are false, but they might burn you at the stake for saying that.
If you don't know the answer, it only takes a few minutes to read both chapters. Then follow up and ask 'Was Adam or Eve created first? Or, were they created at the same time?" (the answer is both. Adam was created first and they were created at exactly the same time).
Self consistency is not a strong point in the Bible. That is very strange because any scientist will tell you that the universe is amazingly self consistent. Any seeming paradoxes are usually signs that our understanding and knowledge is lacking. If Both the universe and the bible are both from the same author, you would think that they would show the same level of self consistency.
How do I know the Bible isn't 100% true? Because my Bible tells me so.
The only thing I can see in Genesis that is an absolute truth is near the start of chapter 2. The bit about the harvest being ready and not a man to be found. Any woman will confirm that when there is work to be done there is never a Man around :)
From TFA:
In a statement sent to legislators, eight members of the National Academy of Science said that, in practice, the bill will likely [...] harm the state's national reputation[...]
The scientists got it wrong as well - thanks to blogging, like the publication here on Slashdot, the bill harms the state's INTERnational reputation... ;-)
"Teaching the Controversy" could be a fruitful exercise as it gives the students tools to argue with creationists. "Ah yes, my teacher addressed that argument, turns out it's not valid because of X, Y, and Z" or "Yes, we learned about that in school, but these pieces of evidence support evolution..."
We still can't explain gravity. By that, I mean we still don't know out of what mechanism it exists. We have yet to observe it directly, only it's effects on other matter. What we presently have are valid models which are highly accurate in predicting the behavior of matter with regard to it.
I'll perk up and argue for the Law of Gravity, when we can artificially create it, or anti-gravity, in a lab, with complete understanding.
Still waiting on this.....
"[this would] weaken its efforts to compete in a science-driven global economy."
Do people really fear that the question of evolution is going to weaken Tenessee in the global economy? I know quite a few "creationists" who believe in the law of gravity, in semiconductor research, in robotics and formal languages, in looking for a cure for cancer, or in improving the efficiency of solar panels. If someone is misled in your eyes in one area of biology, does that mean they cannot help drive the global economy forward?
Taking away the intellectuals would just make them happy. There's three things they care about at schools in that state. Football in the Fall and Basketball in the Spring.
As long as you leave the stadiums and locker rooms, they'll just be glad for having more room for parking.
Rather you believe in it or not. No religion is or has ever been true ever.
No gods no invisible sky being that grant wishes ever.
The FACT is evolution killed off any chance there ever was.
My children won't have all this science crap forced upon them.
Have gnu, will travel.
You are falling into the misconception that a "Law" represents a higher level of certainty that a "Theory." That's not actually the way that scientists use the term. The usage of "Law" is more along the lines of "Rule of thumb" -- i.e. a simple formula that may or may not be exactly correct, but is close enough for many practical purposes. So we will continue to talk about Newton's "Laws of motion" and Einstein's "Theory of Relativity." Even though we know that Newton's Laws are definitely wrong, and Einstein's theory is, to say the least, "more right." But Einstein's theory has complications that just get in the way for many practical purposes. If you want to calculate the trajectory of an artillery shell, you'll use Newton's Laws, not Einstein's more accurate theory.
Piltdown man A tooth of a pig drawn into an apeman! A lie and a fake 5 years by 1927. Nebraska man A lie and a fake for 40 years. But by then everyone in the world thought they were from apes. How did it take 40 years for the scientific community to find it was a clumsy fake? Javaman (homo erectus). Discovered by Dr Dubois and he himself declared in 1938 that it was just a monkey (gibbon). He had found human skulls in the same stratum did not tell anyone for 30 years! A lie and he eventually renounced the javaman as a fraud himself. Peking man. Dr. black discovered it. A tooth and some ashes. Soon after human remains were found mixed with animal remains. the animal remains were the food of the humans. Hey but they wanted an apeman. So they grabbed bits of both and made Peking Man! Richard Leaky 1972. Found a skull that supposedly blew evolution out of the water by 2.5 million years. the only thing left was ramapithecus. Just some fragments of jaw bones and some teeth. the same size and shape as a babboon in Ethiopia. It never has been found and it never will be found a creature that is more than brute and less than human. Also there is such little evidence for apemen that the amount would not be accepted in any other field of science. And there's plenty more evidence for the non-existenance of evolution! What are you "scientific" people scared of?
...to go to Nashville to preach the Gospel! We of the One True Religion need to go there and demand that all Creationist myths be granted equal time, including ours. Fortunately there is an Old Spaghetti Factory franchise in Nashville, so we'll be able to attend worship services while we're there among all those heathens. O bless His Noodly Appendage!
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Mixing politics and religion *NEVER* elevates politics, but it *ALWAYS* debases religion. Nuff said.....
Ignoring your choice of "children" in that statement ...
The other side of that discussion is over 150 million women in the USofA who are not treated as slaves because some man wants them to birth children for him.
I'll take the rights of LIVING woman over the rights or a unborn child any day.
Those "religious fanatics" are fighting to take away the rights of those 150 million women.
Oh, the typical black and white /. thing. Believing that there is a purpose to it all (theist), and that Jesus expressed that and reminded people to love each other (Christian) or that there might be even a particular group (denomination) that could be helpful as a community, doesn't make you one of these fairy tale people. Worldwide, most Christians even aren't.
Now for the brain washed blank stare. Yes, indeed a very special bunch. You can find them in religious, political, and ideological flavors. Any doubt just proves that you aren't 100% committed. Any outside criticism or ridicule just helps to prove that you are better than all these blind people.
Jesus would have just loved them..
Jesus: "Follow me"
Literalists form a conga line.
Jesus: "That's not what I meant."
- And I am afraid we will see more of that.
Teach The Controversy
The best part about those shirts - most of the people they are making fun of are too dumb to understand that your shirt is making fun of them. Wearing one is like a secret handshake for reasonably intelligent people.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Yes there have been fakes in science. And they have been exposed as such. There have been fakes in art as well but people don't discount the history of art as invalid because people have faked art pieces. The history of Chinese art isn't any less valid just because there is a burdgeoning industry to create and make fakes these days. The purpose of this bill is to introduce all the cons of evolution, magnify them, and discredit it as a science without an objective view.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
The question is "What is the origin of the Universe?"
The fact is that neither evolution or creationism can answer the question. For any strict evolutionists that wish to evangelize "big bang" or "multi-verse" as the answer, save your arguments because they fall short. I have spent years studying the question and debating with people that are brilliant.
I'm not defending zealots on the side of religion, but rather pointing out that I find many of the evolution zealots just as offensive as someone evangelizing any other traditional religion.
"Science" evangelists tend to forget that we have no proper way of defining life, let alone understanding how it occurs. We have some ideas regarding evolution, but if you don't know what caused the Universe to begin with you can't answer the debate of whether there is or is not a "God".
If you wish to investigate the argument, I'd recommend going and reading some of the works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (I prefer Aristotle's argument myself). Numerous other philosophers have covered that same ground over and over again since then, but the question still remains valid today.
Sorry, but your science evangelism does not answer the question any more than a book thumping evangelist.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Never married, no kids, hung around with guys.
These can all be explained by the theory that Jesus was a gay con-man!
There's no need to make unprovable claims about god.
Occam's razor proves Jesus was a gay con-man.
Now we need a law that forces people to teach the alternate theory in their churches!
So if there is no evidence what is the problem?
That they're teaching the issue like there IS evidence supporting creationism when there isn't. Right along side evolution, which DOES have evidence supporting it. And pretending that they are scientifically comparable.
People need to be encouraged to reason not just memorize whichever view we decide is "right" and cram down their throats.
Reasoning is good. But the kids better know that 1+1=2. It's true. Trust me. Later on we might teach you about the null set axiom or the axiom of choice, but only if you're really interested in math. So for now, I'm totally going to cram it down your throat that 1+1=2.
Likewise, evolution is true. It's happening and observable. If you're interested, and you go into biology, we might show you about gene recombination, natural selection, genetic drift, phenotypes, recessive/dominate genes, and all sorts of other stuff, but for now you can trust us that evolution is true.
the west forgetting that the world is round
Wut? That never actually happened. It's part of the Columbus myth that nationalistic americans built up. There have been idiots throughout the ages, but a spherical earth has been the standard since the greeks figured it out.
Ignoring something with such a huge impact on society, and the tempo of science is crazy IMHO.
Indeed. Which is why we learn about such things OUTSIDE the science classroom. (Possibly aspects of it in sociology).
Of course all of you sheep are willing to jump on the slashdot bandwagon.
Read the damn bill. It actually does not do what everyone here thinks it does. Here in Tennessee, we have plenty of religious nutjobs. This bill specifically permits the teaching of topics that the religious would normally file a lawsuit over. It says that there will be no religious bias in scientific courses, and directors of schools are required to permit the teaching of the scientific topics.
Get your facts straight slashdot!
Tennessee has been here before and the ACLU had to step in.
They should be teaching students to be skeptical. To examine the evidence, to test its validity, to see how the conclusions were arrrived at. This is A Good Thing.
What they really want to do, of course, is place evolution on the same footing as "In the beginning..." If students were genuinely skeptical they would quickly see what makes sense and what is religious nonsense.
...laura
"On the contrary, all of the fundamentals of science are taken on faith."
no, they are not. Scientific theory can disprove itself.
"But it's just blind assertion that logic works"
no, not blind, shown. It has been show, countless times, that logic works.
"that an objective universe exists,"
There is no evidence to the contrary. However if there were, the scientific method would ferret it out.
" that the laws of that universe are reasonably consistent over time"
NO evidence counters that, and much of what we can prove we wouldn't be able to if it didnt.
"In short, science is based on the faith that the observed universe is not some sort of practical joke at our expense."
wrong, again. IT's based on finding out why things as we observe using good repeatable methods. If there was evidence of this practical joke, the that too would get incorporated into what we know.
The fact that you don't understand science doesn't make it wrong.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
as long as they teach the controversy of abortion, abstinence, and the drug wars. What? Yeah, didn't think so.
OK, take it one step at a time.
CO2-caused global warming? Falsifiable predictions include the stratosphere getting colder due to longwave absorption in the troposphere, nights getting warmer, and drops in longwave re-radiation measured by satellites.
Anthropogenic? Falsifiable predictions include an isotope ratio in the new CO2 compatible with fossil fuel use, and that non-anthropogenic CO2 sources aren't the cause of the increase.
Catastrophic? Falsifiable if the measured sensitivity of temperature to CO2 falls outside the calculated error bars, or if there's an observed epoch or calculated mechanism where the temperatures we're about to experience coexisted with sea levels that would not be catastrophic.
cached copy of the linked story, Knoxville News story (senate passes 24-8), bill summary, bill data
If the controversy evolution is fair game, then Tennessee's students should question all kinds of controversies, like:
- Does God exist? Do literal interpretations of the Bible make sense?
- Are christianity and capitalism incompatble? Isn't love of money a sin? Was Jesus a socialist?
- Was Robert E Lee a traitor? So shouldn't the statues of him be torn down and spat on?
I dare you. Open Pandora's Box.
You've lumped micro and macro evolution together as the same theory. Micro evolution is not a theory in that we can reproduce this (manipulate plants, bread wolves into dogs). Macro evolution IS still a theory in that it cannot be reproduced in a lab (manipulating plants INTO dogs).
No creationist disputes micro evolution, they only dispute macro evolution. Evolutionist lump these to things together and use this difference in semantics to call creationists stupid, when in reality the two groups are talking about two different things.
The problem seems to be that evolutionists don't take the time to listen a find out what the creationist is talking about. Most evolutionists stop listening when you say the words "creation" or "intelligent design". In fact I would bet that most Evolutionist readers wont even make it this far down my post; pity...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
Some peopel don't know what open minded means.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
because no one in science actually took it seriously. When they did, science happened. They tested, it failed we moved on.
So on one side, why have your paltry list of a few frauds, on the other side we have mountains and mountains of verified facts, and predictions.
well done, idiot.
Anyone who wants an 'apeman' doesn't actually understand evolution.
"And there's plenty more evidence for the non-existenance of evolution!"
no, there isn't. But you keep cherry picking anomalies.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In a science classroom, that *is* the only relevant source of truth. The Scientific Method what determines "truth" in this context (and even then, it puts limitations on the use of the word). The problem with religion and Creationism in this scenario is that it positions a supernatural creator as the solution, with no evidence or falsifiable hypothesis. It's simply not science. They have tried to dress it up like science but it does not bear scrutiny.
This doesn't mean that no other sources of "truth" exist - for example, spiritual discussions, philosophy etc; simply that calling certain things "science" and placing them in a situation where they are given equal weight to a scientific theory in a scientific context and taught as one just will not hold.
srsly. WTF?!
They teach "The Controversy of Evolution" alongside "The Unscientific Factless Idiocy of Intelligent Design", then no problem.
Then get on with teaching kids the difference between a scientific theory and conjecture, then teach them the Theory of Evolution, as best fits the facts we have today. Then tell them that if they've got a problem with the Theory of Evolution, get a set of observable, repeatable facts that falsify it, and show us a better way of understanding what's going on.
C'mon guys.. It's not rocket science. It's just plain science!
Enough of our coddling ignorance.
Enough of our mealy-mouthed, passive acquiescence to the willful denial of reality.
Enough of our society shooting itself in the foot by watering down our science education, and our discussion of science in the public and political sphere by mixing in myth and pseudoscience.
There is no controversy. There is no debate. There is no real "other side" to this discussion.
Modern evolutionary theory is one of the most wel-developed, well-supported scientific theories we have. It as much settled science as science can get.
Evolution is a fact, in that it is the label for a phenomena we can directly and indirectly observe.
Evolutionary theory is not somehow inferior to fact. Indeed, it is in many ways superior to the level of fact, in that it is made up of facts, and is tested and confirmed, repeatedly, against reality.
If your religion claims that evolution isn't true, then, when it comes to this subject, your religion is wrong.
We should stop letting this nonsense slide. Our nation is competing against highly technological, committed, dedicated workers from other countries. We aren't doing ourselves any favors by mixing myth with our science.
wants to be the first monkey to touch the monolith
How about the old maps with "here be dragons"? I suppose it is possible that the world was round with dragons on one side :-)
Things don't have to be true in order to be important to know. Religion has had a huge impact on society. Draws a large percentage of GDP, was responsible for the content if not the inspiration to create some of the greatest works of art. Inspires a large number of the nut jobs that blow themselves up in hopes of killing people like you etc. You better believe that peoples beliefs are important. Again I don't see how a teacher saying "creationists don't like evolution because it doesn't match with their belief that the bibles 6 days of creation is literally true, or that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle, or ...". It doesn't have to be true for it to be something they should be aware of, and in a loose sense it is true: it is true that their exists a large percentage of the population that believe and will die for such myths.
Story on slashdot:
Teacher Suspended For Reading Ender's Game To Students
Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday March 20, @02:29PM
> "Forbes reports that a middle school teacher in South Carolina has been placed on administrative leave for reading sci-fi classic Ender's Game to his students. According to blogger Tod Kelly, '[A parent] reported him to the school district complained that the book was pornographic; that same parent also asked the local police to file criminal charges against the teacher. As of today, the police have not yet decided whether or not to file charges (which is probably a good sign that they won't). The school district, however, appears to agree with the parent, is considering firing the teacher and will be eliminating the book from the school.'"
So this mommy thinks Ender's Game is pornographic, and the bible isn't? Isn't that the sort of thing that Mr. Spock will say to computers to make the computers explode?
http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/03/20/1749236/teacher-suspended-for-reading-enders-game-to-students
God will save us from climate change: U.S. Representative
> U.S. Representative John Shimkus, possible future chairman of the Congressional committee that deals with energy and its attendant environmental concerns, believes that climate change should not concern us since God has already promised not to destroy the Earth.
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/69-69/3938-god-will-save-us-from-climate-change-us-representative
Pastor introducing Rick Santorum: America a Christian nation:
> "This nation was founded as a Christian nation...there's only one God and his name is Jesus. I'm tired of people telling me that I can't say those words. [...] If you don't love America and you don't like the way we do things, I've got one thing to say -- Get out! We don't worship Buddha. I said we don't worship Buddha. We don't worship Mohammed. We don't worship Allah. We worship God. We worship God's son Jesus Christ."
Santorum didn't object at the time, either.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/pastor-introducing-rick-santorum-america-a-christian-nation/2012/03/20/gIQAHeMlPS_blog.html
A) Does the fossil record provide any examples of phylum evolution? Any examples of major morphology changes?
What evidence does the fossil record provide that gradualistic evolution is a valid hypothesis. Or theory if that makes you feel better.
B) I assume the "idiocracy" tag refers to the NEA ?
It always cracks me up that the people all denying evolution are quick to believe in wacky 1800s social darwinist economic ideas.
Same old drivel. I'm not even sure why we post evolution vs creationism stories since none of you evolution people have original thoughts since the last evolution vs creation post. It would be interesting if someone would do an analysis of each one of the posts on each evolution story to see how closely all the posts are related.
In the meantime:
Leonid Moroz, professor of neuroscience, chemistry, and biology at the University of Florida College of Medicine, in a recent article published in The Scientist entitled “The Devolution of Evolution,” comments on Theodosius Dobzhansky assertion nearly 40 years ago that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
If Dobzhansky’s assertion is true, “How is it, then”, Moroz asks, “that so few newly minted PhDs in the biological sciences have taken any formal graduate school courses in evolution or biodiversity?”
http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2011/02/devolution-of-evolution/
Good question. Maybe the creationist have taken over graduate level biological sciences!
it's just a theory...
This disingenuous little sound-bite of an argument is often heard by morons lacking common sense and the ability to reason. Those who teach these phrase to their followers know exactly what they are doing. They are employing swindlers logic and con-man tactics to bring their flock closer to the fold. To combat it, one mustn't rely on parts of the brain unavailable to your average bible-belter, you instead hold up their bible and state clearly, "well, it's just a story..." While it may seem like slap-fighting with a monkey, it is the only hope your listener will ever have to come to reason.
I refer you to that well-known product from Good Ol' Boys Systems: The Tenne-C programming language.
Tenne-C
With each breath in, a flower somewhere opens; with each breath out, a flower withers away. In between lies beauty.
If the theory of evolution is in fact so sound that people are willing to call it a proven fact, then there shouldn't be a problem discussing alternative theories or contradicting ideas. After all, if people want to say, "think for yourselves, make your own decisions," then why not present multiple theories and let people decide for themselves. I don't think self-proclaimed "smart people" have an issue with intelligent design because it's ludicrous, I think they have an issue with it because they don't want to wrestle with the question of "what if God does exist?"
All I'm saying is: if evolution is SO sound, then let is stand up to the same firing squad that creationism does.
I ask this with all sincerity, and with application to any subject: how is avoiding controversy or debate healthy?
I'd first suggest to try reading some John Holland, like Hidden Order for example, which will elucidate the errors of argument better than my brief response.
Suppose we think about evolution and natural selection as a 'fitness landscape' (it's many dimensional, but let's call it two for the moment). Going vertical optimizes for a specific environment, going lateral means being viable in a range of environments. Evolution is in this setting inevitable, transcription errors are made etc and mutations happen. The theory of natural selection claims that those mutations that are beneficial to the organism prosper, whether that movement is an optimization within their own local fitness area or one that allows them to attempt to migrate into areas that were previously not viable.
One primary problem with Behe and Dembski's theories, is that they make contradictory assumptions about the fitness landscape. Behe argues, with irreducible complexity, that the comparatively low entropic (local minima) state of the mammalian eye is evidence of intelligent design since high entropy, intermediate, eyes wouldn't be sustainable (turns out all the intermediate versions exist). Dembski on the other hand seems to argue the position that increasing entropy is demanding, and the growth in complexity is important in the context of the fitness landscape. So those theories are contradictory.
But where they both run into a global (think variable, not earth) problem (human knowledge passing is Lamarckian, not Mendelian on the whole) is that neither consider the lateral aspects of the landscape, and think that everything is either climbing or descending, mostly in opposite directions!
Again I don't see how a teacher saying "creationists don't like evolution because it doesn't match with their belief that the bibles 6 days of creation is literally true, or that the earth is on the back of a giant turtle, or ...".
You don't see how that does what?
Is this an example of a teacher pointing out the criticisms of evolution? You don't see how that could be bad? Well alright then, how about we give half an hour in the history class to the holocaust deniers? Or some time to hear the white supremacist views on the civil war? There could be a footnote about homeopathy and trephination as alternatives to real medicine in biology class? Come on, teach the controversy!
and in a loose sense it is true:
THIS! This right here is where I take objection. It's that little wheedling wedge that your type tries to drive into everyone's heads constantly. You yourself turn about and call it myth. You claim that it's important even if it isn't true. Ok, sure, whatever, I know a lot about Orcs and Elves I guess, but THE INSTANT that you try to claim some "loose" sense of truth to creationism is the moment I stop listening to anything you say because you obviously have an agenda and you're working on teaching that lie to my kids.
"Jesus said it. I believe it. That settles it."
Yep, that's my home state: evolution is a fairy tale, intelligent design is true and people think a hat and boots makes them a goddamned cowboy.
In other news, a local minister gets a little too frisky with his flock, film at 11.
I'm not saying creationism is true, I'm an agnostic and a physicist. I just hate ignorance, even if it is ignorance about something you don't agree with. If it was some fringe idea like crystal healing it is one thing, but when it is a core belief of a very very large proportion of society to ignore the fact that your idea is controversial is crazy. Heck go to the wrong place and you'll get killed for suggesting evolution, or that god doesn't exist, hence it is good to be aware of people's beliefs/superstitions.
I am saying that a large, perhaps majority, of people think and act like it is true. Ignoring that, ignoring how that affects things like abortion rights, funding for stem cell research, how hard it was to convince people that evolution was true, how much the non-determinism of modern physics screwed with the determinism caused by the concept of a future seeing God, how it affects choices in what is moral and what isn't, what rights women should have and not have etc. is ridiculous. So what only kids that happen to have religious parents should learn anything about it (and presumably that will be a biased teaching of it because they have specific views on the topic)?
Holy HELL dude. Listen to me.
Thricely I say I agree with you, Thricely I acknowledge that the phenomena known as religion should be studied. This is a good idea. On this you and I are in agreement. You don't have to argue about it any more. No one is arguing except you.
It's a good idea to learn about religion because it's important to understand why people think what they do. So we should teach about it in a sociology class.
Religion, and religious views, is not a science. The study of how people deal with religion, and how religion deals with people, falls under sociology. It does not fall under biology next to evolution. Teaching creationism as an alternative to evolution is in NO WAY related to teaching kids the sociological impact of religion. Not teaching kids creationism in NO WAY keeps religion out of the sociology class.
if you get the hell out of TN !
I think both creationism and evolution are theories and neither can be proved with material evidence. Both should be taught. I personally believe in creation... and consider this point: How long would it take for a heart to evolve with blood, veins, marrow... If it evolved first... how long until the nervous system came to support it. or Digestion, or Respiration. What would be the purpose a heart without lungs... So many systems are dependent on other systems. It will be ridiculous for a heart alone to come into function without a need! So... a heart, lungs, blood vessels, neural autonomic control, digestion .. etc.. had to come into being together, because none could function alone. If you believe that's by chance... Sorry! What proof? Both are blind beliefs. It's easier to believe in a Divine being than what we have today happening by chance.
how to teach kids WHAT to think.
Which is part of the American trend to barrage students with useless and excessive testing.
Real educators teach people HOW to think. Not what to.
Every week or so, Slashdot runs a similarly themed article.
The general idea is to use poorly defined terms to convince you that there is no debate and that evolution is a fact.
Well, evolution is a fact, when it is defined as "life changes over time." But this is such a general definition that it has little real meaning.
And, the idea of special creation is about the creation of life, not how it changes over time.
So, creation and evolution are orthogonal concepts. They could both be valid.
Now, while evolution is a fact, how life evolves and to what extent are very much open scientific questions. For example, it is not a fact that life evolved from a single common ancestor. It is not a fact that life originated naturalistically.
Richard Dawkins, who hasn't published a peer reviewed paper in over 30 years, will say that random mutation and natural selection are the mechanisms that account for the origin and development of all life. Many other scientists who have published in peer reviewed journals, beg to differ. Instead, they rightly point out that Dawkins has no evidence to support his hypothesis. For example, no one can describe how DNA and protein synthesis could have evolved via RM+NS. They may have, but there's no theory that can be tested to show that they did.
This is where it gets very interesting. Origin of life research is at a stand-still. The leading hypothesis is that life originated in an extreme zone, perhaps somewhere else other than earth. This is 50 years after the famous Stanley Miller experiments that have long since been discredited. Even Miller himself said that there is "no plausible abiotic pathway to the synthesis of life."
Finally, most people reading this thread have no idea about population genetics, mutation rates, beneficial mutation rates, the time it takes for a beneficial mutation to propagate, speciation, and so on. If they did they'd begin to recognize that the idea of naturalistic origin of life and purely naturalistic evolution are fairy tales in the sense that they require just as much faith and belief (if not more) than the idea of special creation.
I grew up around bible thumpers. I stay as far away from them as possible. One can not reason or have intelligent dialog with them.
Foresters learned awhile back, that to deal with a forest fire, a backfire works best.
If they wish to mandate the teaching of a "creation story", they must not favor
one religion/culture over another. Let them be mandated to teach ALL of the creation stories.
Nearly every one had its own. Must be scores/hundreds of them. Teach 5 per day, pop
quizzes on Fridays, spelling counts. . .
someone might learn something after all
Here's an easy test to call an "evolution disbeliever" on their bullshit...
Ask them how many flu shots they've gotten in their life. If the answer is more than one, then they really believe in evolution! Otherwise, that virus doesn't change, so why would you need more than one? The thing I've realized about this is that it's really a social acceptance thing- people say things they don't really believe deep down because of the social pressure to believe certain things to "fit in" to their mudwater communities.
Let's make one thing clear here: when using the word 'theory' in conjunction with science, please adhere to the scientific meaning of it. In scientific terms a theory is a hypothesis that has proven reliable many times by different research teams in accurately predicting experiment results.
My take on this is regardless of what you believe in. It's entirely up to the individual. Maybe we could look at this from an "I'm my own person let me think for myself" prospective. I mean, we all have the freedom of Religion. So who are you or I to say? No, God isn't real. Or we came from what, Monkeys B.S! This allows the person growing up to make their own decisions. After all no one want anything jammed down there throat. I for one don't. Also I know growing up I was forced to church every Sunday. I would've loved to have a class that could have some great debates in. So I for one am all in. Let the heated discussions begin.
"I didn't notice it saying anything at all about irreducible complexity"
Apart from this:
"some things have much too high of an information content to be plausibly the result of evolution according to completely natural processes"
Which is about irreducible complexity done in more words.
To explain things, the designer thereof would have to be LESS complex and LESS survivable than the products of their design. See, for example, Dolly The Sheep.
So it really boils down to some idiot christians who now have made of their one and only god a poorly-functioning proto-being whose life only barely managed to hang on who then decided to create "The Perfect Being" (i.e. them).
It seems like they only want a god so that they can be the pinnacle of creation. If that means they have to make a gimp of god, then so be it.
Creationism & Evolution go hand in hand. It is not either or.
Who started evolution ? The answer is GOD !
Who created GOD ? No one !
GOD is beyond time and space. GOD is beyond our comprehension.
He is the Alpha and Omega, he has no beginning and no end.
The Bible is not a science book, nor should it be taken as one.
But creationism is a scientific question. Who created all this ?
Peace be with you.
The root of the evolution debate is god. Assume that god, as described in the bible, is real and then look at evolution. Then you will see how creationists look at it. However, if you assume god is not real then evolution is the only option because even intelligent design(extraterrestrials) can lead to god by asking the question: who made the designer again and again until it can only be god. In other words, science is not relevant in evolution as any review of the evidence is too biased by what someone believes about god.
Scientific facts are great, but evolution is no fact and it is not scientific. What is it then? Evolution is a religion. Evolution is a belief system. You can choose to believe what other people say, that life evolved over millions of years, without ever confirming the facts for yourself. Do you believe or not? It's a decision we may all make. If evolution were scientific, you or I could verify the claim, but we cannot. The Holy Bible described how God made man from dirt in a short amount of time. Evolution says that that Random accidents created life out of rock in a large amount of time... millions and millions of years. When I was in school and college, in all my lab work, I never once was taught how to determine the age of a rock or fossil. Were you? I have heard of Carbon dating, but no school ever taught me how to perform this dating technique. If anyone has access to a machine that can reliably age a rock, bone, or fossil, please let me know how I could purchase such a machine. I would like to test the accuracy of such a machine. Have YOU ever seen such a machine in your lab work?
OMFG, It's here! In these comments! You have to read them all, start to finish but if you do and collect all the dots, really think about everything everyone has said you it's there! The Meaning of Life, the universe and Everything, starting with the exact true answer of where we came from! Us Slashdotters have it all figured out it's just that each of us only has a piece! Print this shit out, it's the new Bible!
How was that trolling? I don't recall ever getting that before. I think either an I.D. proponent got a hold of moderator points or someone clicked the wrong button.
The "mess with us" comment was supposed to be funny, but based in fact. If you reject the evolutionary evidence of the fossil record, how did that evidence get there?
I see nothing at all wrong with a science teacher stating that some people have a mystical view of the universe that has no place in science as it is unproven material. The teacher can go as far as saying evolution is a fact as we can produce it in a lab and study it actually happening.