Slashdot Mirror
Kentucky Lawmakers Shocked To Find Evolution In Biology Tests
bbianca127 writes "Kentucky mandated that schools include tests that are based on national standards, and contracted test maker ACT to handle them. Legislators were then shocked that evolution was so prominently featured, even though evolution is well-supported and a central tenet of modern biology. One KY Senator said he wanted creationism taught alongside evolution, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism in science classes is a violation of the establishment clause. Representative Ben Wade stated that evolution is just a theory, and that Darwin made it all up. Legislators want ACT to make a Kentucky-specific ACT test, though the test makers say that would be prohibitively expensive. This is just the latest in a round of states' fight against evolution — Louisiana and Tennessee have recently passed laws directed against teaching evolution."
Legislators want ACT to make a Kentucky-specific ACT test
Sorry, hillbillies. We're not making a separate test for you just because you're a bunch of bible-thumping idiots. We're also not making a separate test for Muslims which women are forbidden to take, or a separate Scientology test with science questions involving Thetan levels, or a separate test for North Koreans where the correct answer to every question is A. Our Supreme Leader, Praised Be His Name!
Everyone gets the same test (well, okay, we can do braille and language translations, but THAT'S IT). And studying for it is going to involve reading more than the Bible, or Koran, or Talmud, or whatever the fuck holy text you happen to be thumping.
Besides, you need real science in Kentucky. That meth isn't going to cook itself, you know.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Can't we just cut the south free and stop talking about them? They are a money drain on this country, and I am sick of hearing about them. Hell, I have family in the south. All they ever talk about is how Obama is a muslim and how his birth certificate is a fake. The south is too resilient to progress. We would be better off without them slowing us down.
ugh.
well, hey, cheer up everybody, we just landed the most awesomest rover evar on mars!
and all the other sciency stuff we've been accomplishing...
we're doing great.
right?
hello?
Please remember that when people talk about a "war" on religion, this is the kind of stuff they're referring to. Nobody credible is trying to prevent anyone from worshiping the god of your choice. However, there is a sizable contingent of religious people out there who think that religious "freedom" means the freedom for everyone to be Christian, and anything that interferes with that goal is (or should) violate the First Amendment.
I never cease to be frustrated at people who wave the Constitution around and cry about how our freedom is being oppressed when it suits their ideological viewpoint, but then they pull stuff like this without seeing how much worse a violation of our liberty it is.
Jefferson is still right. Separation of church and state, it's the only reasonable way to ensure our freedom. That includes keeping creationism in churches where it belongs and out of our schools.
Gravity is a theory too, nobody tries to walk out of the window, Ben Wade.
Nobody credible is trying to prevent anyone from worshiping the god of their choice. Plenty of people would love to prevent everyone from worshiping the god of your choice, depending on exactly which god that is.
You know that sinking feeling you get when you realize that your keys are in the car as you're closing the car door, but it's too late to stop the momentum of your arm to catch it? It's the same as that feeling I get when I click Submit and as the little spinner is spinning and the text is uploading, I realize, "Noooo!!! That's not what I meant!"
Don't punish the students just because the adults are bumfuck retarded. They deserve a real education, and it's the only way to improve the idiocracy. Education is a way out for them.
You want central planning, right? You want education to be controlled from the top down, by people you have never even met, right? You want the system to be enforced through the coercive power of government, right?
Then you got exactly what you wanted. This is central planning, and it turned out exactly how central planning is supposed to.
I agree! The national standard of No Child Left Behind -teach to a test - has failed; which was yet another standard created by a Bible thumping moron.
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
Science rules; Bible drools!
Doesn't mean it isn't true.
Theories make all these electronics work, theories make radio/cellphones/broadcasting work. I took a weather class in college and found out there's three theories on why it rains.
It still rains :).
if you are so all-fired to exclude scientific thought, send your kids to church school. as for everybody else, they should be exposed to the real world and all its swirling contradictions through a broad-based education.
following fruit fly genes is not going to damn you to hell everlasting, for God made that mechanism. pinheads.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Actually, once I spent a month in China, and when I got back home, eating with a fork and a knife felt so.. primitive and barbaric. You sit at the table and destroy the food by tearing and sawing.
That feeling quickly passed, but still something to think about.
c++;
Specifically, the term "creationism" is inadequate. What we really mean here is "Christian creationism." That puts a finer point on it, and lets everyone in the conversation know exactly what we mean. I think it even exposes the proponents of it to some enlightenment on what they're really saying.
I think an argument has more weight when you say, "Do you mean to tell me that you want Christian creationism taught instead of evolution? Do you think other religions' creationist ideologies should be taught as well?"
From now on, every time I get caught up in this argument, I will use the term, "Christian creationism," and not just "creationism."
Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
Dear Ann Druyan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Seth MacFarlane,
How can we speed up the production of Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey? Is there somewhere we can throw more money at it?
Won't somebody think of the children?
Thanks,
A Very Concerned Human Being
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
With sane and rational teaching standards for science? I guess that means I like central planning.
In only the last 7 years the percent of Americans identifying as atheist increased from 1% to 5%. OK, so we've only finally reached parity with Saudi Arabia - but we were talking about trends.
The students should know to hate anyone who promotes religion. THAT can only be taught by experience, and is no proper role for the State.
Instead, let them know their PARENTS want them to be slaves to the superstitions of Flat Earthers.
Youth love to rebel. It is the role of those who object to Superstition to fan such rebellion.
Dear "students" who read this:
TRUST NO ONE. Not Left or Right or Superstitious or otherwise.
Anyone who tells you WHAT to think instead of suggesting you think for yourself is your enemy.
Learn about the world, make up your own minds, and if you want to lick someone elses boots that's your right, but do it with your eyes wide open!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
As someone from Kentucky, though I did not vote for them, I would like to apologize for allowing such imbeciles represent us. I wish them out of office as much as anyone else, perhaps moreso.
Yes I want standards for teaching children about science to be set by scientists, not by religious cranks. If that requires top down control, then that's a strong argument for top down control
You want central planning, right? You want education to be controlled from the top down, by people you have never even met, right? You want the system to be enforced through the coercive power of government, right?
Then you got exactly what you wanted. This is central planning, and it turned out exactly how central planning is supposed to.
I think you misunderstand the word "planning". This is centralized testing of the basic standards. The plan-- or the "how" things are done-- are completely decentralized. The better plans will win and the worse ones will fail, just as a good, decentralized market dictates. In fact I don't much like the No Child Left Behind's "Teach to the Test" approach, but to call this "central planning" is disingenuous and makes it harder to debate the actual issues.
E pluribus unum
Wait, you're arguing against 'Central Planning' in favor of 'Organized Religion'?
You do realize that Religion is by definition 'Top Down' right?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Sorry, I'm skeptical of the view that having standards for science education set at the Federal level by actual sciences necessarily implies Federal control of my thermostat. We have had Federal standards for many things for hundreds of years, yet I still control my own thermostat. Some "slippery slopes" just aren't all that slippery
Top-down control when taken to its logical conclusion also means having Congress order you to install thermostats in your home which they can turn-off at any point (like on a hot day when the power grid is overloading... goodbye A/C). Or ordering you to buy a Prius or similar hybrid. Or outlawing SUVs. Or ordering you to buy a Windows PC so you can do online voting/polling. And so on.
That's not the "logical conclusion". That's called "reductio ad absurdum".
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
You want central planning, right? You want education to be controlled from the top down, by people you have never even met, right? You want the system to be enforced through the coercive power of government, right?
Nope.
I want standardized testing (not necessarily "central", and not this NCLB bullshit - More like the NY Regency exams). If you and your inbred neighbors want to teach nothing but apples-and-snakes, have it your way; but when you try to get into a college or get a job, we'll all have no ambiguity whatsoever what your A+ in "science" really means.
I want licensed doctors to grasp the concept of evolved antibiotic resistance. I want historians capable of referring to dates prior to 4000BCE. I want psychiatrists who give out antidepressants rather than E-meters.
If you want shamans and voodoo, I have nothing against you having those as an option; but you damned well won't call them "doctors" - At least not without the qualifier "witch".
They seem to be mistaken on the basic principles of education.
Education doesn't teach the truth. It teaches only what we know. It should be teaching kids that what they learn now isn't set in stone. It's not 100% proven, and is subject to change through discovery and hard work.
The don't have to believe in a thing to learn about a thing, but if they believe strong enough in the contrary then rather than just have kids dismiss it out of hand, schools should be teaching them to question, probe and investigate.
The only reason these people are SHOCKED that evolution is in the curriculum is because they believe everything taught in schools should be 100% true, always and forever, and actually believe such an idea exists.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
I hate to break the news to you, but that is not the problem with the education system at all. You are looking at a very recent stupid idea that was added to a system that was already in such bad shape we are the laughing stock of the industrial world.
Go back a bit further in time, and find out when we started teaching to "Standards Testing" and "Memorization" instead of teaching kids to think and explore. You'll have to go back to the 50s, but it's there. The collapse of the US Education system is so blatantly obvious when you look for the answer instead of repeating what other people tell you is the problem.
We don't teach people to think any longer, we teach them to memorize data and repeat data. This stifles the creative process as well as limits the ability of people to think logically, rationally, and critically. If you want samples, just look at the incredible amount of fallacy used here on /. where it's a site for "nerds". It's not even good fallacy, it's extremely basic and obvious so it's not like people are trying to make good rhetorical arguments.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Top-down control when taken to its logical conclusion also means having Congress order you to install thermostats in your home which they can turn-off at any point (like on a hot day when the power grid is overloading... goodbye A/C). Or ordering you to buy a Prius or similar hybrid. Or outlawing SUVs. Or ordering you to buy a Windows PC so you can do online voting/polling. And so on.
There are a lot of things in our society that, when taken to their logical conclusion, would result in a terrible infringement of our most basic rights.
The Brady Campaign hasn't outlawed guns. MADD hasn't banned alcohol. The FDA hasn't banned fried food.
Jack Thompson hasn't banned violent music or video games. The EPA hasn't banned gasoline powered cars. And so on.
Luckily, we're not simpering idiots and are capable of balancing modest restrictions and modest social benefits with the modest infringements they require.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
Not entirely. You can religion as long as you classify it as a subject of philosophy, not science. But if you try to, say, rewrite a biology test because it's rooted in facts and not faith, then yes, religion needs to stay out of it.
I don't get why Christians / Catholics get so pissy about Darwin being a theory and that a maker must've just spawned everything out of thin air. Both theories aren't mutually exclusive.
Catholics??? I thought this particular brand of nutbaggery was strictly a Protestant thing. After all the Pope has gone on record as saying there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and Catholic teachings.
Because, if you're not kidding, I need to pick my jaw up off the floor. You seem to be saying that people can do whatever the majority wants to do ...
Your entire argument essentially says that we should only teach what the majority of the people want to be taught. So after we institute your plan we can go to any third grade class in the country and find such interesting subjects as the best Pokemon cards and what is the best show on Disney. When we get to high school we'll need completely separate curriculum for boys and girls since they will never agree on what to study.
I'm sure it never crossed your mind that the purpose of education is to teach people things that they may not know, regardless of whether or not they want to learn them. You're saying that people should not be taught what it basically accepted as true simply because they don't want to hear it? Holy crap, you better not let any fifth graders hear that or they'll riot in math class and demand to be instructed on skateboarding and bike riding.
If you want to live in a country where there's a majority of backwards religious nuts, and you don't want their opinions affecting national policy, the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government.
Or a constitution which specifically disallows the government from supporting the establishment of religion.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
There's a difference between keeping people's religious opinions out of state policy, and forbidding the Establishment of a state religion. Teaching a religious doctrine with tax money constitutes establishment of a state religion.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's"
Which is actually a weasel statement when you look at it closely enough. By Christian theology, what *isn't* God's? Of course, Jesus was answering a "gotcha" question that was trying to trap him into advocating not paying Roman taxes, so a little weaseling might have been justified.
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy: you have to share with all the other people you co-inhabit a region with.
Before you respond further, please read up on Tyranny of the Majority, and why it's a bad thing, and how respecting the rights of the individual is essential to a functioning democracy. (Hint: Your logic eats itself.)
-- 77IM
Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
Master: Well, yes and no.
Oh what a horrible abuse of power! If you don't have health insurance you have to pay a modest fee that goes a small way toward defraying the public cost of healthcare for the uninsured--like yourself. An idea that is so abusive of personal freedom that that it was invented by the Heritage Foundation
You're too generous. These people are shocked that evolution is in the curriculum because evolution conflicts with the bronze age mythology they've been raised to believe is 100% true, always and forever.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy: you have to share with all the other people you co-inhabit a region with.
Be careful where you're heading with that idea, as what you propose is exactly what ages of very intelligent political philosophers have correctly pointed out to be the most brutal and merciless part of democracy: The tyranny of the majority.
If you take a democracy to mean that you put everything to a vote and then blindly enforce what the majority demands, you quickly end up in a nightmarish hellhole.
After all, what if a populist puts up to vote that you must buy and memorize a particular book and you are told that 51% of the people agreed to that?
What if it is then put up for the vote, that due to the way voting works, all parties should be merged, and 51% of the people agree?
What if is then asked, what you should do with a certain 1% of the population, and 51% of the people agree to seize their property?
With just three, small votes, you're in a wonderful cross between Mao's China, Stalins Soviet Union and -- and this is up to you to choose -- Hitler's Germany, Mussolinis Italy, Franco's Spain, Europe during the Inquisition, the USA during the Indian Displacement, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc. pp.
After all, remember that no-one said that those 51% of the population were always the same 51%. As an old adage goes: When they came for the Communists, I didn't say a word. When they came for the Gypsies, I didn't say a word. When they came for the Jews, I didn't say a word. When they came to get me, there was no-one left to say a word to save me.
No, the power of democracy does not lie in the tyranny of the majority; it lies within the civil discourse between all; majorities, minorities, loud or silent. It lies within the concept that everyone must be included to agree on a best course of action. All safe-guards in a democratic society must be laid out to guarantee this fundamental concept. That it must be impossible for any part, to take away the voice of any other part.
And, not to put too fine point on it: Taking away the voice of reason, the process of rational and impassioned evaluation of how we think the world works -- even if that reason might arrive at a conclusion you deem erroneous -- in favour of the voice of dogma, is to deny one of those safeguard of democracy.
TL;DR:
The difference is that those teaching evolution do not deny you your right to teach your kid your point-of-view; they only deny you the option of saying that your view is the only way to look at it. In contrast, most creationists/intelligent designers want to force a single point-of-view, to the exclusion of all the others; especially if they come from an impassioned look at the world as it is.
If you like central planning, then you need to accept the opinions of other people in your country. That means you need to change the standards for science and eliminate things they don't like, and put in religious stuff they want.
No, you don't. Their shit is not science, therefore it doesn't go in. End of story.