Slashdot Mirror
Fundamentalist Schools Using "Nessie" To Disprove Evolution
The debate between creationists and proponents of evolution isn't ending any time soon, but now some creationists have a secret weapon, "Nessie!"
Certain fundamentalist schools in Louisiana plan to teach children that the Loch Ness monster is real in a bid to disprove Darwin's theory of evolution. From the article: "One ACE textbook – Biology 1099, Accelerated Christian Education Inc – reads: 'Are dinosaurs alive today? Scientists are becoming more convinced of their existence. Have you heard of the "Loch Ness Monster" in Scotland? "Nessie" for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.' Another claim taught is that a Japanese whaling boat once caught a dinosaur. It's unclear if the movie Godzilla was the inspiration for this lesson."
There are many examples of "living fossils" -- living things that are essentially unchanged from dinosaur era fossil records including some varieties of crocodiles, fish, turtles, etc. A live 'dinosaur' would just be a bonus for these people.
What I find most telling is that these 'schools' choose the most ridiculous possible example rather than look for the obvious ones. The argument still wouldn't stand up to the vast number of samples of extinct and changing fossils over time, but it would at least be based on scientific observations that are reliable and readily confirmed.
More Caffeine. NOW
From 2nd grade to 12th grade, my primary curriculum was based on the "PACE" system. The way PACE works is, each subject (math, science, etc) is broken down into individual sub-subjects called a "PACE." Each PACE has reading sections, exercises, and a final test, all of which cover a very specific topic. I clearly remember that my one of my PACE physics books (devoted to gases) used the second law of thermodynamics to "disprove" evolution. The "evidence against evolution" was even on the test at the end of the PACE. I also remember one of my early science PACE books covering the "hydrosphere" -- a sphere of frozen hydrogen which covered the Earth in ancient times -- which supposedly collapsed during Noah's flood. Despite some of these quirks, the PACE system was actually pretty solid. The explanations, questions, etc, were all very well structured. Honestly, looking at some of my niece's/nephew's course work in my local public school system, the PACE system was bread-and-butter by comparison.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
The best possible outcome of all this would be an event to REALLY fuck up EVERYBODY. Specifically, it turns out God IS real, and, out of sheer frustration, comes down to Louisiana, and explains: "No, you stupid, stupid dipshits! What part of that makes ANY sense? I swear, I thought I made you morons with some amount of intelligence, but THAT?!? Look, it's evolution! The answer is evolution! Seriously, it is! I know you idiots can't see it from your perspective, but from where I am, it's really, really fuckin' awesome. I mean, I pick a planet from the random number generator, toss in a bit of genetic material, and in billions of years, civilization happens without me having to hand-hold you little dingbats every step of the way! Seriously, how can you tell me THAT isn't awesome?"
Oh, and regarding the mythology and religion distinction: I'd put it this way - mythology is the narrative body, religion is a way to interpret it and act upon it. Greek mythology is the story about the Gods, the Cosmogony and so on. Greek religion is going to the temple and sacrificing to those Gods.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
The problem is that "literal" is not always clear. For example, if I say someone is "dumb as a rock", I intend the words metaphorically, and thus the actual literal meaning is figurative, not the literal meaning of the individual words. The Bible is full of metaphors, which aren't intended to be taken word for word literally. Classic example in the creation story is that it takes place over six "days", yet the sun wasn't created until several "days" into the story, which means the literal meaning of "day" couldn't apply. And therefore what is meant by "day" is a figure and not a period of sunlight and darkness. Same with light and darkness being created before the sun or stars: most Christian theologians interpret that as the creation of the angels, and separation of the angels from the demons.
Finding the literal meaning of a text at the figurative level is quite common in classic literature, but a lot of people don't realize this.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I think you do not know much about science. When trying to find an explanation, no serious scientist invokes god. That's what I meant. The scientific perspective is indeed that no, there is no god. And nobody can forbid me from drawing my own conclusions about the universe from that, and from the incredible success science has had in making our lifes better. In particular when compared whith what religion has done and continuous to do to us.
Also, it is easy to formulate a hypothesis like "is it true that there is a benevolent god that loves everyone and wont let you down if you believe in him and pray?" and test it against data (well, alas).
The question is, should I believe in god? Is he/she/it necessary as a concept? Observation suggests it isn't, and for many people, that is as much religion as they need: emprically, there is no god around to help us nor to worry about . We are here by ourselves, and we better care well for each other, because nobody else will. I can also tell you that living without religion is possible and quite enjoyable.
Empirically, those reasonable believers look to me a lot like closet atheists.
I still haven't figured out why people believe. What's the point?