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.
Yes, a test, specifically for them. Also, somebody should create jobs only for them, with that education, they'll never get a job at a regular firm, or perhaps just at that Chicken Shag that's been prominent for bigotry lately.
Perhaps, as a job, they'd like a supervisor function in some cotton fields and perhaps cross-burnings on Saturdays to relax.
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.
A few wealthy and modern cities surrounded by a huge sea of uneducated religious primitives with guns.
Gravity is a theory too, nobody tries to walk out of the window, Ben Wade.
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 say: Good for them! But please do it right, ban teaching evolution completely, on all levels of education. Also, ban everything developed using this "wacky theory of evolution" in KY, including all medicine developed by people who think evolution is a better explanation than inteligent design or whatever.
Then watch what happens to Kentucky.
.. I hope they have a sense of humor for this shit.
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!"
Yep it's a challenge to live down here amongst the hillbillies. Tennessee's law actually doesn't mandate teaching creationism, it just prevents a teacher from getting into trouble for teaching alternative theories. As a substitute teacher (between software engineer gigs) I'm amassing age-appropriate clips from as many different religions and prehistoric traditions as I can find, so when the opportunity [resents itself, I'll be ready.
It's terrible to see the country slide backward down the ladder of technological pre-eminence due to these wackos. Decades of badmouthing government are going to take a toll on us pretty soon.
Note also that science shouldn't be taught as set in stone, either. There's a lot we don't know and kids enjoy comparing what was known to be true in my teenage years with what we know now.
Not believing in evolution after you've seen DNA is like sticking to chopsticks after you've seen the fork, no offense intended.
Representative Ben Wade stated that evolution is just a theory, and that Darwin made it all up.
Now they're just trolling.
All I can find is this, which doesn't seem to support the context:
http://quoteinvestigator.com/tag/ben-wade/
of course darwin made it up! einstein also completely made up relativity. since they both used the scientific method, it turns out this theory they both proposed is both provable and a very good model for how the world and universe works, respectively. if the kentucky legislature wants to completely make up their own theory they are more than welcome to. if their theory turns out to be a better model than darwin's then by all means let's teach the one that is the most correct...
It's a race for dominance as the stupidest state in the nation.
I've talked to teachers time and time again that can't stand the federal interference with the local school systems. It's not our business to tell states what they can and cannot do. It's up to their populous to decide. Even though I highly disagree with what they're doing, I agree more with letting states do whatever the hell they want, and ensuring the federal government has less involvement in just about everything besides protecting our country.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Meanwhile, ignore your own idiocy about economics:
1. The government is a source of wealth.
2. You can tax-and-spend-and-regulate your way out of a U6 unemployment rate of close to 20% after the loss of millions of jobs.
3. "It's all BOOOSH'S!!!! fault", despite the fact that the dot-com bubble and housing bubbles BOTH started under Clinton (and Bush even tried to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but was thwarted by Dems like Barney Frank)
4. "ReTHUGlicans are in bed with bankers", despite the FACT that DEMOCRAT Jon Corzine's company "disappeared" billions of dollars of client money and will face no charges from Obama's corrupt DoJ (led by corruptocrat-in-chief Eric "My People" Holder)
I am a Catholic guy, but I wasn't raised in the U.S. view's of creationism vs evolution. I am Mexican, and here, they teach us evolution *with* creationism. At church.
At school? They leave the God theories to the church. God has no business in the government schools, and teachers aren't nuns to be teaching kids about God anyway.
The way the Saturday Church classes taught me was that God didn't just create Adam and Eve, but evolved species into Adam and Eve. A simple way to explain it is that God plays Spore on a very big supercomputer with high definition graphics.
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. The initial spores could've spawned out of thin air, then evolved into men and women.
And don't get me started with the Big Bang / Genesis thing, as the idea of creating the universe in 7 days is just wrong, but if some dude was shown a fast-forwarded video of the big bang and saw (and wrote) about creation taking place in 7 days, well that'd be a misunderstanding, I think.
Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
Those stupid fsckers just won't die and they keep reproducing!
Imagine the analogies section:
Creationism : True ::
A) Science : Real
B) Evolution : False
C) Blacks : First-class Citizens
D) Education : Important
Guess the correct answer.
Kentucky was a Union state. You're stuck with them either way.
Kentucky was claimed by both the Union and the Confederacy. Parts of the state actively supported the Union, other parts actively supported the Confederacy. Similar story when you get to individuals. Kentucky being considered a Union state is literally one of those instances where the victor gets to write history.
Missouri had a similar split and the results were particularly bloody guerilla raids by small local groups. Similar problems may have occurred in Kentucky, I'm not familiar with what happened there.
Virginia split in two, West Virginia exists because locals went Union.
"You'll Never Make a Monkey Out of Me"
Troy: [singing] I hate every ape I see
From chimpan-a to chimpan-zee
No, you'll never make a monkey out of me
Oh my God, I was wrong
It was Earth all along
You've finally made a monkey
Apes: Yes, we've finally made a monkey
Troy: Yes, you've finally made a monkey out of me
Apes: Yes, we've finally made a monkey out of you
Troy: I love you, Dr. Zaius!
just say no to zoloft! R.I.P. Phil
One flag would be christian friendly, another flag would be christian naughty, another would be muslim friendly, another could be muslim nauthty, and so forth.
A mysql or postgress database, along withe some perl/python scripts should be all you need to whip out tests for each of the fifty states. In fact, you can have a state table in the database; one row for each of the 50 states and territories. The scripts can then match the flags for each state with the flags for each of the test questions.
I could probably whip up something in less than a day.
Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
Question:
rather than landing rovers on mars, at what point could we recieve an equatable amount of scientific progress by landing rovers on Kentucky Lawmakers?
or to put it another way, maybe this balloon would rise faster without the dead weight?
When business claims there are no locally qualified people with the skills they need and request to look outside the country, they should point to stuff like this. When lawmakers with political agendas are doing everything they can to limit the education of students, they shouldn't have anything against people from other places taking jobs away from them. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. But they are just too darn stupid to realize it, due to their poor education.
Gravity is just a theory. They need to teach "Intelligent Falling" in KY. Students need to know that objects fall because the Flying Spaghetti Monster pushes them down with it's noodley apendages.
Evolution is a theory just like gravity and relativity. Would Ben Wade deny that gravity is real?
Does Ben Wade know what a theory actually is? I suspect Ben Wade is a fucking moron, and not qualified to do his job, let alone even speak on the complex nature of evolution, biology, chemistry, math, cosmology.
Anyone doubting evolution is just dumb. Read a fucking book Ben Wade... and no, NOT THAT STUPID FUCKING BIBLE.
We're not making a separate test for you...
Orel and his friend Doughy are walking back from school:
Doughy: Orel, what was your answer for question number three of the science test?
Orel: Jesus!
Doughy: [slaps forehead] Of course!
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?
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.
Shouldn't they just rename Kentucky "Western Waziristan" so they can really feel more at home? Same freakin' mindset.
The religious right would like to impose the christan version of sharia law on the United States. Little by little they will take away your right to think, then and only then will they be satisfied. Don't forget earlier this year Texas banned the teaching of critical thinking. We can't have children challenging their parents!
Litteralism and creationism were long abandonned by mainstream catholic, hundred of years ago in europe. If you ask an european catholic he will probably tell you all those stuff including the eve story are jsut that, allegories, and that evolution happened. Both of those phenomenon (litteralism and creationism) are predominentely american phenomenon among christian (rather than protestan/catholic). In fact if I recall correctely they can be traced back to end of 18th start of 19th century in north america.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
People are stupid not because of any dumbass (and borderline racist) misinterpretation of how natural selection works, but because religious assholes with a lot of money are fucking up the education system.
Instead of accommodating religious politicians by making an extra "religious" test just for their constituency, they should be thrown out of office. Institute a requirement that candidates have at least a middle-school level of scientific literacy in order to become part of the government.
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!
I don't want to live on this planet any more.
To ensure our children get the best possible education, they should be taught both sides of the story: http://www.theonion.com/articles/evangelical-scientists-refute-gravity-with-new-int,1778/
Jefferson is still right. Separation of church and state, it's the only reasonable way to ensure our freedom.
True. However it is good for both government and church. When churches get involved in government they "lose their way". "Power corrupts" applies to churches too, not just individuals.
That includes keeping creationism in churches where it belongs and out of our schools.
Not quite. Out of "science class". Its likely a valid topic in other types of classes, history, philosophy, religion, etc.
First, none of them appear to know the definition of the word "theory", confusing it with "I had too much bheer and pizza last night, and had this crazy-ass idea...."
But there's a simple answer: I propose a test of the Theory of Relativity by having them walk into the containment vessel of a nuclear reactor with no protection, and they can demonstrate that Einstein "made it all up".
mark "ok, you: out of the gene pool, *NOW*"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7NL48kRH3A
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Seriously!?!?!?!?
WTF!
Representative Ben Wade stated that evolution is just a theory, and that Darwin made it all up.
Wade obviously doesn't understand what the word "theory" means in scientific usage. To be fair, like for Evolution, I'll be happy, to review any of the peer-reviewed and rigorously 100+ year tested hypotheses and research supporting Creationism theory - assuming someone didn't just make that all up.
On the other hand, Rep. Wade doesn't seem to fit the evolutionary model of "survival of the fittest" ... so there's that.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Ok, first, I think this is all just as ridiculous as about anyone else here. But...
Can somebody explain to me all the gloom and doom about losing scientific / technological leadership that gets dredged up every time creationism is mentioned? Myself, I'm a programmer by trade and consider myself a maker by hobby but I can't remember ever seeing the evolution of man in a schematic diagram. How exactly do you solder that into a circuit? Or is it a mechanical engineering thing? How many gears does your evolution have, does it mesh with that cog? Are medical researchers digging up australopithecus remains and dumping chemicals on them looking for reactions in order to find a possible drug for humans? I suppose there are evolutionary algorithms in software sometimes but even a creationist can just dismiss them as man-made, not natural and happily code away.
Yes, there is definitely an anti-science, anti-intellectual climate in the US. I don't think creationism is a cause. Maybe a symptom... Maybe.. but not a cause. I don't think it is limited to any geographical area, social class, city/urban, etc... I suspect there are far more people who just don't give a shit and are far more interested in celebrity gossip, reality tv or how drunk they are going to get this weekend than any debate over science/creationism or even the technological/scientific progress of their country. Maybe you get more of those people outside the Bible belt. For that matter, is this even limited to the US? I doubt it very much though the symptoms may vary from place to place.
I fully support the RIGHT of these states to teach what they want, and even to ban the teaching of evolution. Its their lives, their children, their right.
However, I would ask that my states rights be recognized too.... the right to consider high school diplomas from their state worthless and The right to not fund their educational process at all.
I would be perfectly happy with such an arrangement.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The Christian Taliban could take their White Trash and teach them in their own Madrassas. Voluntary segregation would get them out of the system.
Education is a tool, and empowers those who use it. Secularists should seek superior knowledge to overcome their Superstitionist enemies.
We should also fully understand that ALL superstitions and ALL those who promote religion are the enemies of progress.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
All I can do is shake my head at how far we still have to come as a species - not because of a lack of "belief" in evolution per se, but rather the insistence to not at least be trying to better think about and understand the world (and universe) we live in.
What the Kentucky gov't said is of course, dumb, but the engineer in me has to question the usefulness of making evolution a primary ordering principle of biology.
Evolution may be a nice backstop principle for biology for its philosophical cohesion, but it doesn't constrain observations. If you had to do all of biology with basic genetic principles of inheritance without referring to evolution, there just isn't much difference besides not being able to refer to some overarching quasi-origin theory.
"just because you want freedom that matches your ideals doesn't mean you can force it on us"
Yes, but unfortunately for the Christian haters, that means the majority rules. If most of Kentucky doesn't want
Evolution in their tests, they have the freedom to do so! I implore you to see past your cliche "hur dur stupid Christians"
mantra and consider what I'm saying.
A question (I'm not American).
Will this test ever influence you chance at getting a better education (entrance exam to a college) or your chances at getting a job later on in life? Do you want 2 people going for the same job to have sat different jobs, where one person's biology test included a religious explanation of the origin of the world, or a scientific theory? Or does the ACT have no bearing on the marketplace?
"Representative Ben Wade stated that evolution is just a theory, and that Darwin made it all up." FACEPALM!!!!!!
if you are so all-fired to exclude scientific thought, send your kids to church school ...
Some church schools excel in science, surpassing most public schools. Some very large churches also have no problem with evolution and have publicly stated that scientific observations and finding are not in conflict with faith. The astronomer and physics professor who developed the big bang theory was also a priest.
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.
why stop at evolution? The bible teaches a lot of things, and should be the holy truth and must be respected, teached at the school and put in practice in the state as a whole. Don't let common sense stop you doing something that could sound weird, unreasonable or just criminal from a modern point of view, you know that the bible must be right in every word and must be taken literally. But please, do it just in your state and let the people freely flee from there if they want.
Maybe that way the rest of the world will learn from that experience, and eventually the few survivors will be able to reintegrate to society or at least be put in jail.
You can't convence me otherwise.
Religion/s is/are just a theory, man made it all up.
Now before we demand things be taught. Let us first and foremost establish which theory or thesis is more established in fact.
Evolution? or god?
If you wish to teach God of various religious incarnations as an unestablished, factless theory & along side it, evolution...well I can agree to that.
P.S.
I wonder, is this creationism christian only or are we going to learn about some elephant gods as well?
Even if there were some truth to intelligent design, this doesn't obviate the need for a purely naturalistic explanation of evolution. Evolutionary theory, like many scientific theories, is important for actual practical engineering, like bioinformatics and developing new medicines. The main problem with a theory of intelligent design, besides the fact that it's untestable, is that engineers are unable to perform magic of miracles. (Montgomery Scott not withstanding.) For a scientific theory to be potentially useful, it is necessary for a human to potentially be able to reproduce effects. Otherwise you end up with an explanation for a natural phenomenon that is useless because you cannot achieve the effect. (I'm talking about totally impossible, rather than just prohibitively expensive like the LHC. The Higgs Boson is testable.)
Yes, I realize these people are talking about "creationism", not "intelligent design", but they're synonyms, and the creationists all eventually move over to the ID side when backed into the "can't talk about religion" corner. And this is funny, because since they really don't understand any of this stuff, by accepting ID, they admit the fact of evolution. But they accept it because their religious leaders say it's okay because there's God in there somewhere.
Next, I'd like to find intelligent design theories of physics and chemistry. That aught to be a hoot.
He says they're not too bright. "'Scuse us while we treat them as our idiot cousins."
And now a song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_EyXPs2_Jk
--
BMO
Meanwhile, ignore your own idiocy about economics:
1. The government is a source of wealth. 2. You can tax-and-spend-and-regulate your way out of a U6 unemployment rate of close to 20% after the loss of millions of jobs. 3. "It's all BOOOSH'S!!!! fault", despite the fact that the dot-com bubble and housing bubbles BOTH started under Clinton (and Bush even tried to fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but was thwarted by Dems like Barney Frank) 4. "ReTHUGlicans are in bed with bankers", despite the FACT that DEMOCRAT Jon Corzine's company "disappeared" billions of dollars of client money and will face no charges from Obama's corrupt DoJ (led by corruptocrat-in-chief Eric "My People" Holder)
1. What or who are you reffering too? .com or the housing bubble. It's been the deregulations and non-enforments that has everyoneupset. What did you do with your $300 stimulis check in 2008?
2. Taxes are hugely unbalanced with income made by "investments" being taxed at a much lower rate than by income made by doing actual work. Regulation is too make sure that individuals aren't hurt by unscrupulus practises; a lack of enforcement has caused this economy a world of hurt. Would you eat at restaurants if you might get sick from the food, because they were unregulated?
3. Nobody blames Bush for the
4. Yes, the dems can be just as bad, but the insistence that more and more deregulation for an industry that has caused so much trouble is shocking. It would be like saying that football players are being hurt because of all of the rules about tackles and the NFL should allow tackles after play has stopped so the players would be mentally preparred to be tackled at any time.
I vote that this be done in the private sector, by the free market, instead of at government expense and with compulsory attendance.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
There are science topics far more useful in the average HS graduates than evolution, so why feature it so prominently if the blow-back is to legislate instruction in mysticism as science? How about a little perspective and pragmatism? It is better the kids learn the important stuff rather than turn them off to science completely by berating their dogma on something with few applications? It's like going to war with a country to impose the idea of democracy when they are clearly against it.
Another committee member, Rep. Ben Waide, R-Madisonville, said he had a problem with evolution being an important part of biology standards.
"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science â" Darwin made it up," Waide said. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny."
Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2012/08/15/2299629/kentuckys-gop-lawmakers-question.html#storylink=cpy
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
But of course, I hate the USA.
There is a middle way. ....
Science and religion are really just two different ways of investigating Reality.
True science and true religion will not conflict, because there is only one Reality.
That Reality includes things of the soul, heart and spirit, and includes things that you can touch with your fingers and see with your eyes.
We use material tools to investigate material reality and spiritual tools to investigate spiritual reality.
What if God created the very physical laws of the universe so that not only could life develop, but that 13.5 billion years after the start (Big Bang if you will) of this *particular* universe we would develop?
Anyway, just a thought
Making sure you don't restrict the "free practice" of religion as required by the American Constitution requires some reasonable accomodations. For example if a school bans hats because they obstruct views from the back of the room and don't look tidy, an exception should be made for yamulkas and other religiously mandated headcoverings for Sihks and some Muslim and Christian groups. It's not always clear where to draw the line for "reasonable", but accomodations are sometimes necessary.
In this case it would be simple enough to write the questions to say "According to the theory of evolution, man descended from A early mammals B dinosaurs, C apes, D all of the above" instead of simply "Man descended from A early mammals..." . That way the student who knows the theory of evolution but doesn't believe it isn't forced between lying and getting a good score. The test is supposed to see what the student knows, not what the student believes.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
What we really mean here is "Christian creationism."
Isn't it technically Hebrew creationism?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The fact that this is even news and not just someone's uninformed personal decision is because of the nature of public education. If this was a private school making this decision, some parents who send their kids there might be upset, but the impact is much more isolated. Parents at such a private school could then choose (yes, choice...what a wonderful thing!) to take their money and their kids and go elsewhere, where they teach the scientific theory of evolution. This is one of many reasons why I am against public education out of principle and support a much more rigorous switch to private education of varying levels (cheap schools all the way to very expensive schools, online education to old-fashioned education).
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
I find it amusing to see all the evolutionists and global warming proponents around here who, in the face of vast swaths of scientific evidence disproving their theories CONTINUE to push them as if they are fact. I applaud Tennessee and Kentucky for taking a stand for SCIENCE against these ivory tower elitists who are trying to impose their FLAWED and INACCURATE world view on the rest of us.
Ben Wade stated that evolution is just a theory, and that Darwin made it all up.
I mean, before this article, I didn't even realise that evolution had a theoretical side, or that Darwin was the one who came up with it.
We need this guy to come up to Canada and teach at our schools. Clearly our teachers aren't doing their jobs.
Gravity is also a theory.
Taliban.
Looks like we are fighting the wars in the wrong place.
"Representative Ben Wade stated that evolution is just a theory"
Just another politician who doesn't know anything about the essential terms and methodologies science is supposed to be based on.
This would still not be anything of a big deal - if these people just could keep themselves away from talking publicly about science and, even more important, about science education as part of their political agenda.
P.S. Whenever I hear this "... is just a theory" statement, in the first moment I should like to learn an example for something that is *not* "just a theory" according to people like Mr. Wade and others of his kind. But then, thinking again, I am not sure if I really want that at all. It might perfectly well turn out to be a ridiculous, boring experience, along the lines of "heavens", "hell", "eternal punishment" etc...
If the state of Kentucky doesn't agree with the questions on the ACT don't let their students take the test. Simple. Then when their kids can't get into college because they don't meet the admission guidelines they can deal with the results.
Is this fair to the kids? Nope. Is not teaching evolution fair to the kids? Nope. Domino effect.
I have not issue that evolution happens in nature in the here and now. I have no problem that it happened in the near past, when the observations that gave birth to Darwin's theory were made. I've no problem with physics as an explanation about how the material world of the here and now works. But I do have a problem with any attempt to scientifically explain out distant origins based on present evidence (which is what many evolution theorists are trying to do.) The problem is that to conclude that our origins are evolutionary (and that there is nothing else involved, such as a 'Divine Hand', or anything else) is that one effectively presupposes:
1) That our distant past can be accurately inferred from present day evidence given a sufficient amount of it;
2) That there sufficient evidence is effectively available;
3) That we have found such a sufficient amount of evidence;
4) That an extrapolation a few million years or so outside of a data set that spans at most a small number of decades (maybe 20 or so decades) is valid, when in almost every case a straightforward extrapolation out of a data set that amounts to a few million percent of the width of the dataset results in garbage results.
5) That archeological and paleontological evidence dug up today was present in reality yesterday, the day before and all the days going back to the time said evidence came to rest where we found it. (I know this is pedantic, but self-generating dungeon examples from the early days of computer adventure games make me wonder whether or not reality in fact works the same way, generating history on demand from the requirements of consistency with already remembered experience... what I can't find a way to do from available evidence is to rule out such possibilities and thus one cannot safely assume to the contrary.)
I just do not believe that our actual distant past is within the reach of science. The only thing that the predictions of our apparent past based on extrapolation from present and near-past data give us is a way to test the internal consistency of our current theories and their compatibility with present day evidence. Trying to say where we came from millions of years ago by scientific means is like sampling the trajectory of a plane over maybe a couple of metres of its flight and then trying to work out mathematically where said plane came from, concluding that since the plane hasn't changed trajectory during those couple of metres over which it was sampled, it never was. The fact is that the distant past is inaccessible to us, since eventually if we try to logically infer what reality was like in the distant past we end up standing on a house of cards of unverifiable assumption after unverifiable assumption, which is no better than the faith-in-Genesis of the Bible-belters.
Actually, if you take the view that mind is fundamental, love and emotions of mind are fundamental and that matter is a by-product of experience, as a completely alternative metaphysical foundation to conventional science, then the account of a world created by the postulation of a mind described in Genesis can actually make sense. But whatever you do in terms of deducing what things were like anywhere but the here and now, you need to be careful as to what metaphysical foundations you are standing on.
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
No Mullah ever objected to a biology test with evolution on it, it's a non issue here* ;p
Here is an interesting link I found on this topic, after some quick Google-fu:
http://www.irtiqa-blog.com/2009/01/creationist-mess-in-texas-and-evolution.html
But I fear many christian religious organisation tell their islamic brethren, "hey we have this in common, support us!" and they, being totally ignorant of the subject, follow like blind sheep, which is really ironic, considering that it's contrary to their *own* religious text, which is comfortable with evolution!
---- :p
*Though frankly, that could be because our mullahs haven't come within a mile** of a biology textbook. As long as the islamic textbooks, and social studies textbooks (and the language textbooks...) are favourable to their random variables, they couldn't give a damn. Physics for heathens only
----
**That in turn is also an exaggeration, contrary to popular belief, there exist (many!) madressah that prepare their students for both regular board exams and religious board exams*** (I imagine they must have massive workload!) but usually, science is just an exam to cram, sadly investment is not made (Tough frankly that true of all schools, secular or religious) to impart proper knowledge. Once exams are over, as with all crammed stuff, the knowledge tends to fade.
But I personally know people that started off in madressahs, passed both regular and religious board exams, and went on to study regular subjects in regular universities (though mostly that liberal art BA stuff, as far as my acquaintances are concerned, so I don't know their attitude about bio)
----
***Wow, footnote fever! Anyway, yeah, we have religious boards, but they are very vigorous, and actually test their students on various aspects of Islamic law, arabic etc. Students who pass these exams are quite knowledgeable and frankly far less extremist in thought. They are usually mild mannered.
The problem comes with madressahs that are *not* affiliated with these boards, and just cram their students with whatever the head mullah feels like. These are the ones who create extremists, since their syllabus is based on "I said so, so it must be true" and mix all sorts of frankly non-islamic cultural crap.
Our glorious dictator Musharraf, during his early "I can fix this!" years, tried to insist all madressah join the boards, but it failed. So yeah, there you have it.
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Specifically, the term "creationism" is inadequate. What we really mean here is "Christian creationism."
Technically it's Jewish creationism. But the same folks are in denial about that, too. As far as they are concerned, the first bible was the King James.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Hey, Kentucky - I'll build you an evolution-free biology test unit for half of whatever ACT is asking.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science — Darwin made it up," Waide said.
The big problem with the whole evolution/creationism fight is that it makes scientists say stupid things. In one off the linked articles, we find the
following:
Vincent Cassone, chairman of the University of Kentucky biology department, served on the committee that developed the standards.
"The theory of evolution is the fundamental backbone of all biological research," he said. "There is more evidence for evolution than there is for the theory of gravity, than the idea that things are made up of atoms, or Einstein's theory of relativity. It is the finest scientific theory ever devised."
It is really problematic that someone that is in the position to represent science to politicians shows such a blatant lack of understanding of the scientific method.
First of all, the amount of evidence in favour of a theory is completely irrelevant. According to Popper, the value of a theory is proven by continuous and rigorous, but unsuccesfull attempts to falsify it. When a theory is then falsified, progress is made. By trying to verify a theory, by gathering evidence in favour of it, one ends up with something that has no more predictive power then religion.
This means, that a good scientific theory should make it easy to make predictive statements, because prediction can be falsified. Evolution, in the sense that it is taught at schools, does not make such predictions. Modern evolutionary biologists often do experiments with populations of bacteria and such, for which they can
formulate predictions and then see if evolution indeed finds solution to changes in the habitat of the population. This is proper science in Popperian sense. But the
"theory of evolution [that] is the fundamental backbone of all biological research" is not a scientific theory in the Popperian meaning of the word. To therefore call it the "finest scientific theory ever devised" is a completely ridiculous statement. I concede that the idea of evolution is a very elegant idea which explains a lot and can be the nucleus of scientific theories, but "the finest scientific theory ever devised"... no.
Lastly, I find it bizarre that a biologist thinks he can judge how succesful theories in other fields (in this case physics) are with respect to theories in his own field. I would say that the ability of NASA to put stuff on Mars is enough to prove the succes of the theory of gravity. Moreover, as physicists actually do know their Popper, they are man enough to admit in which case a theory breaks down. So NASA knows exactly when they are allowed to use plain old Newton and when they should read up on their Einstein. Because that is what happens when you follow the scientific method, you actually make progress.
Now, as I have probably upset a lot of biologists by now, some final words. I know quite a few evolutionary biologists and I know they actually do science. I know
they do make progress. It is not biologists I'm upset with. I'm upset by a system that pushes them so far into a corner that they see no other way then to fight fire with fire. That they make an, otherwise very inteligent, man like Richard Dawkins say that "evolution is the most succesfull scientific theory of all time", without
even taking the time to define what that even means.
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them."
He also said -
"Surely, God could have caused birds to fly with their bones made of solid gold, with their veins full of quicksilver, with their flesh heavier than lead, and with their wings exceedingly small. He did not, and that ought to show something. It is only in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle."
Both of these, from a man of God - a devout Roman Catholic, are what I use in conversations with those who, just because they believe in $DIETY, think their suppositions are the right ones. I try to point out to them that science and religion do not need to be enemies, and that humans who refuse to actually think are what make them so. Unfortunately, it ends with the "pious" person sticking their fingers in their ears and going "NA NA NA NA I can't hear you! Science sucks! NA NA NA NA" :-p
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
It's okay to teach evolution even though we have absolutely no samples of evolution of a species, only variations in species, but we can't teach alternative theories? I'm not stating evolution of species is not possible mind you, but that we have no proof so need treat the theories for what they are.
For over 50 years we have forced people into believing that "The Big Bang" was fact, and you know as well as I do that it's not even a good rational theory! In fact the latest particle physics completely debunks the Big Bang all together, yet we are still teaching this as fact (And I bet several people reply to this and claim it is fact).
As the old saying goes "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for life." This is what we need to think more about in schools, but rather "Teach them to think for themselves so that they can spend their life exploring". Give them any theory you want. If they can think, they will look for answers on their own. Teach them the Scientific method, and you will teach them to try and prove their answers rationally instead of just repeating what people tell them (which often turns out to be untrue).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
These religious zealots insist the bible must be literally true, every word, or how can they believe any of it? It's called faith and not a single born again christian has any. They all insist on proof in the form of a literally true Bible. If you need proof, you don't have faith. amen
oblig: Both Sides
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
We in the First World states are working hard, doing science, teaching science, inventing and discovering things. We earn a living. And then we have to subsidize these intellectually lazy welfare states that just sit on their butts clinging to their bibles and guns.
If they keep this up, eventually their culture will regress to the point where we can stop sending them books and tests because none of them will know how to read. In the meantime, they are a major drain on our economy. I say we cut them off now! No more welfare for lazy states! Let them work for a living!
I bet I could find a bible passage showing that it is God's Will.
What these idiots don't want to believe is that Darwin himself started out to be a member of the Clergy, and in fact wrestled with the "Creation vs. Evolution" question quite a bit during his studies.
Only he was intelligent enough to go where the FACTS led him. Too bad we've devolved so far in such a short time.
Let's get all medieval and put to death anyone who believes in Evolution!!!! That should stop these horrible facts from getting out!!!!
Be seeing you...
Even if evolution had all the negative effects you claim (it doesn't), what bearing would that have on whether it's true or not?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
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."
The term "evolution" is inadequate. What we really mean here is "atheist evolution." Now we can see the argument is really, "Do you mean to tell me that you want creationism taught instead of atheist evolution? Do you think aetheism should be established as the national religion?"
And all this election year crap will die down for a while.
This is what? Three politicians making noise for their constituents? Nothing to see here, move on.
Good point. If they are going to teach 'creationism' and call it science, it should reflect a human consensus of that story. Since there is none, they should teach them all - Inuit, Norse, Greek, Navajo, Druid, Aztec, Hindu, Sufi, Wahabi, etc. And don't assume that just because the Christians borrowed a poorly translated version of the Torah to base their cult on that the Jewish view of creation is the same as the American Evangelical Christian one.
Just how thinly can we slice this?
The Right believes in biology but not evolution. The Left believes in evolution but not biology. By all means, shame both sides whenever they get stupid, but it's hard to get excited at "someone is doing something dumb" on the issue.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
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.
There really is very little evidence of evolution in Kentucky.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
We should encourage these uneducated bible thumping dolts to secede or just demote them back down to territory status do we really need Kentucky, Louisiana and Tennessee as a states if this is the kind of hairbrained religious legislation they want to promote?
From TFA
"We're simply saying to the ACT people we don't want what is a theory to be taught as a fact in such a way it may damage students' ability to do critical thinking."
WOW, just wow....
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
There was an old man sitting on his porch watching the rain fall. Pretty soon the water was coming over the porch and into the house.
The old man was still sitting there when a rescue boat came and the people on board said, "You can't stay here you have to come with us."
The old man replied, "No, God will save me." So the boat left. A little while later the water was up to the second floor, and another rescue boat came, and again told the old man he had to come with them.
The old man again replied, "God will save me." So the boat left him again.
An hour later the water was up to the roof and a third rescue boat approached the old man, and tried to get him to come with them.
Again the old man refused to leave stating that, "God will save him." So the boat left him again.
Soon after, the man drowns and goes to heaven, and when he sees God he asks him, "Why didn't you save me?"
God replied, "You idiot! Who do you think sent you those three boats!"
An old joke that seems oddly relevant... Why would god give us intelligence, logic and reasoning if he didn't want us to use them? Let me guess... "it's a test of our faith".
Representative Ben Wade stated that evolution is just a theory, and that Darwin made it all up. Representative Wade has clearly and carefully observed his electorate, even in families with 5 or 6 generations alive there is no perceptible progress!
So by consequence evolution does not exist.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I myself believe in evolution, but I disagree with your disrespect above.
Please remember that respect applies to both sides. If you claim creationists to be "hillbily" and "idiots", then you cannot complain if someone calls homosexuals to be "fags".
As wrong as it is let's respect people, yes?
"even though the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism in science classes is a violation of the establishment clause"
Which case are you referring to? I did a quick search and found cases where the Supreme Court ruled that creationism must not be favored. I didn't find any ruling that creationism is forbidden.
The armature of all modern biological science on a biology test?! Say it ain't so!
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Your concerns would be solved by strenghtening federalism.
Let laws be created at the state level, and let the federal government be concerned with foreign releations, the armed forces and standardizing the currency, like it was originally.
It would have helped a lot if whoever coined the term "scientific theory" hadn't picked a word that already meant something different. For that matter, art and music theory means something even further removed. Why the love for this combination of letters?
You want top down control. Why does it end at the federal level? By your logic, we should have a one-world government.
Fuck, this is so basic and it's not a trivial point: evolution is an observation. Natural selection was a theory to explain it.
Why is anyone anywhere still getting this wrong? "On the Origin of Species" is a deadly boring read because Darwin went into nit-picking detail about extremely obvious items, just so that people would see that there was no theory or speculation involved.
When I see pols going about using demonstrably incorrect definitions, I regret my choice to follow a path of non-violence.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
> Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Your copyright should also forbid copies reflected upon people's retinas.
To be valid, a copyright notice must include the name of the copyright owner after the year of first publication. You have up to five years from notification of defective copyright notice to make a good faith effort to correct a defective notice and continue to preserve your rights. In order to commence litigation (in the US) against people who read your posts, you must register each item with the copyright office and obtain a certificate attesting to such registered copyright.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Kentucky is theoretical proof that evolution doesn't exist, but instead, devolution. Watch as humans become unicellular, shocking!
Do you have solid sources for your alegation that many GOP supporters wanted theocracy?
The fact that you have to change the subject to Islamist theocracy says a lot.
The old "Christian"* theocracies ended many centuries ago, so Americans who fear of "theocracy" are forced to speak of Iran and Saudi Arabia... which simply aren't applicable to America.
* I put "Christian" under quotes because authentic Christianity is against theocracy; "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's".
See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html
PS: No, linking to lewrockwell.com does not make me a Libertarian. I just agree with that particular essay.
A science EXAM is for SCIENCE. One doesn't have to believe what is taught.
It is like getting an Microsoft certification, you don't have to believe all that stuff will secure Windows to earn the certification.
Religious accommodation has nothing to do with. If you can't handle the exam you don't belong in college. This is Kentucky, they live in an argument against evolution!
Let them leave and become the 3rd world nation they want to be (and nearly are even with federal welfare.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
No problem! That was just because we had to get cheaper textbooks from the national source. It just wasn't in the budget. We'll just add a little more to your taxes for customized Kentucky textbooks and fix that oversight right on up.
Less tax=use the cheaper OEM option that espouses those wild "theories."
More tax=all the Biblical truth you want.
(Then, if they somehow manage to decide that more tax IS in this case necessary, put them on the committee to write those customized textbooks. The committee will never come out with a new textbook. Until then, we'll continue to use that dubious textbook we got from this shady national textbook supplier.)
Maybe an invisible dog isn't the right metaphor, but it would be interesting to see which side would win between anti-intellectualism or anti-taxation.
The teabillies will call it "Judeo-Christian" in an effort to appear inclusive, which (from what I've read) tends to drive Jews nuts.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
That's the only way to drag these knuckle dragging simpletons into the 20th century. Maybe later we can get them into the 21, but that seems to be a stretch with the current batch of morons down there.
Of course, that assumes that you are actually part of the majority in your area like you assume.
So Adam didn't have a pet Velociraptor?
normally when an idiot like you has no logical followup, they just go silent . Thinking people admit they are wrong, but that obviously excludes you. Nice to see that some self-important nut-jobs are willing to humor us by digging even lower into the much for our amusement. Keep up the bad job.
As a non-resident of the USA, I cannot email Mr Waide. His contact page is here - note, his surname is incorrectly spelled on that page. Wa *i* de http://www.lrc.ky.gov/legislator/h010.htm
in nature, life will find a way - Species.
Anyone interested in education should look at what Finland has done. They're now top in the world education wise, spend 30% less on education than we do, have a student/teacher ration of 7 / 1 and only require 1 standardized test when they graduate. Why are Finalds Schools Successful. The teaching to the test, having a huge level of bureaucracy with the dept of education, and local teachers having absolutely no control over their students seems like it isn't working in the US.
I guess you could say places like Texas and Kentucky could have bible thumping no evolution courses if it was state level. But if the student fails the graduation required test that would help weed out the idiot teachings. Besides I went to a catholic school myself and we had an hour of religion class every day so it's already doable. (Although I was taught real science, no creationism)
They got it wrong, Adam & Eve was a prediction!
Taxpayer money invested in NASA projects has delivered huge returns in science, technology and prestige for the USA.
Personally I would loved to have been on the Nasa team that developed the jog bra.
From now on, every time I get caught up in this argument, I will use the term, "Christian creationism," and not just "creationism."
The term "evolution" is inadequate. What we really mean here is "atheist evolution." Now we can see the argument is really, "Do you mean to tell me that you want creationism taught instead of atheist evolution? Do you think aetheism should be established as the national religion?"
If you want to be treated as a reasonable person, what empirically demonstrable experiment would you accept as proof God doesn't exist? Atheism is falsifiable. Show us an atheist an actual God and they'll change their perspective to a theist. What's your equivalent? If nothing will sway you (because you have "faith"), then you are not reasonable or rational. Nothing says you have to be rational, but don't get upset when you're referred to as "irrational", since you opted out of that group.
They were shocked that the NATIONAL test included evolution, and want to change that.
So yes your premis is correct, only it doesn't apply to the backwards kentuckians.
The majory of the nation wants evolution, thus it is in NATIONAL tests. Don't want that? Then don't use them, use whatver your witchdoctor shamans come up with on some tree bark and use that to your hearts content provided that the rest of your little nutjob commune is ok with that.
Which is eactly what they did, asking for a Kentuckian test be made specifically. To which the respose seemed to be, no thats too expensive.
So yeah, backwards people getting left behind, story at 11.
And people wonder why it seems that when the word Kentucky pops up a large portion of people associate it with being a redneck.
You can probably bet money on this state and any others like it, trying to teach this bullshit are lower on the educational score charts/tests and whatnot compared to the rest of the country. Not to mention our country as a whole (U.S.A.) is dropping like a rock compared to other countries in regards to education. Especially among kids.
I just can't even begin to believe the stupidity of the people in charge of education let alone in higher government like a senator trying to not only bar evolution which has actual data backing it up, but try and force creationism to be taught along with it.. something with no evidence whatsoever .. how the fuck do you plan on teaching that? I mean seriously how do you teach creationism without making it religious or bringing god or gods into it?
I think anyone who like them, are trying to demand that creationism be taught in schools, should have to take a real test with nothing but questions backed by scientific evidence and other data through all the various forms of education, like reading/writing comprehension, math, math comprehension, science, biology, history, archaeology.....yada yada and if they fail they are kicked out of their positions. With the United states rapidly falling behind in educational scores compared to the rest of the world, the last thing we need are idiots trying to lead our educational system.... this is one time I think the way way way waaaaaaaay over used statement "...But, Think of the Children!!!!!" should be used and it actually makes sense.
He wants creationism taught alongside evolution because 'Darwin made it up'? Because of course the bible is completely written with scientifically-backed data and not from the imaginations of the men who wrote it, whatsoever? Because the Christian bible somehow contains every possible thing that pertains to all religions? Riiiiiight. I don't think these bible thumpers really understand what 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' really means. To borrow a cliche from Henry Ford, I think they think it means 'you can practice any religion you want, as long as it's Christianity'.
Watch this. Grow a brain and wake up.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Someday, we won't just be teaching evolution in school, but we will use the example of people living in Kentucky to demonstrate how it works. Smart people get the hell out of there. Stupid people remain behind. Eventually, the stupid people degenerated into a new species - complete morons who actually believe evolution is pure fabrication.
Until the God Theory can be proven they have to stop calling evolution a lie.
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy.
The United States is not and never has been a democracy. The US is a republic. I leave it to you to go figure out the difference and why it matters. And fortunately we have laws that explicitly prohibit binding religious teaching with secular education regardless of what a majority (or minority) might desire.
> since this is a democracy
Our country is a Republic... it was setup that way to stop the stupid people from creating stupid laws... like this one
"It's all BOOOSH'S!!!! fault"
I wasn't aware that Noel Fielding and Julian Barratt were involved in U.S. politics.
The "evolution is just a theory" argument pisses me off. Yeah, it's a theory, and it's the best one we've got so far so we're gonna go ahead and go with that one because it makes a goddamn fuck of a lot more sense than the theory of creationism. We also govern lots of scientific activites using gravitational THEORIES. We got to fucking Mars (again) using theories.
..How can THIS still be going on?
Nobody blames Bush for the .com or the housing bubble
He certainly had a hand in the housing bubble. He failed to oversee the Fed. And his administration actively fought States in the courts who were trying to prevent big banks from exploiting their citizens with subprime and ALT-A mortgage offerings.
Science is now maintaining that I am not permitted to test and evaluate scientific theories? I just need to have faith that some biologist is confident evolution is true? I am not permitted to make this determination myself?
As someone who was born and had a large part of my education based in Kentucky, I am often embarrassed by the lawmakers from my native state. As I recall there was a congressional debate not too long ago in which one of the candidates had to read from a teleprompter. Even worse, the teleprompter malfunctioned, and the candidate was left clueless. How much more embarrassing can that be? Having said that, not all of Kentucky as backwards as popular media makes it out to be. I spent grades 3 - 8 in the Jefferson County School System. Granted, I was growing up in Louisville, one of the more metropolitan parts of Kentucky. As I recall in middle school, evolution was included in part of our curriculum. I do recall that we at least learned about how the layering of different fossils gives evidence to different forms of life at different stages in history. Maybe I just lived on one of the more civilized areas of the state
rest of the world are pulling so far ahead of us. We are stupid and deserve to have our economy in the toilet.
What could be stronger proof of a broken political system?
While the rest of the world respects and encourages study and learning, our politicians pander to the lowest element. Educated and intelligent people are viewed with suspicion.
We need to adopt some minimal qualifications for education, intelligence, and personal integrity in politicians and voters alike. The inmates are running the asylum.
I took a 2nd-year uni course titled "God and Philosophy", and that's basically what it was. A look at several different creation myths from various religions, and related philosophical ideas of a good mix of religious and non-religious thinkers.
The best part of that course, was that it was taught by a Christian professor who was part of a small religious college attached to the main (secular) university. But I only know that he was a Christian because I asked him once out of class. He gave eloquent introductions to several major religions, and spent most of the classes steering a discussion of religious and philosophical ideas, and not once did he ever try to inject his own religious views into the discussion--or even make value judgements about the merits of the different ideas under discussion.
That is all.
Don't anthropomorphize the mars rover. It doesn't like it when you do that!
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
How are these people any different from the fanatical theocracies in the Middle East? If these guys had a bit more freedom, they'd be just as violent too, you know.
How disgusting of them to stifle and limit the future of their children. How selfishly disgusting.
The United States isn't a an unlimited democracy. It is a constitutionally limited democracy. The constitution is there precisely to protect minorities (including the smallest minority, the individual) from the whim of majorities. The law of the land is (ostensibly) liberty for all. The people as a whole (via their elected representatives) are charged with fleshing out, interpreting, and enforcing the rule of that law, but they do not have the right to enforce any arbitrary law they like.
Of course, the system you propose, taken to its logical conclusion, would collapse to this anyway. If we let every dissenting group split off into its own sovereign polity, then that will continue all the way down to the lowest level and we will have a bunch of sovereign individuals, with no say over each other and supreme say over themselves. Which leaves us back at liberty for all, and nobody being allowed to enforce arbitrary laws over anybody else, but still the enforcing of that individual liberty left up to the general people with no special leader in charge of that task.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The also got mad when they found out that the Geography textbook claimed that the Earth was round, and that the planets and stars not revolve around the Earth.
Frustrated, they took their revenge on the nearest technology that they could find:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze3hthGRbRo
From the state that wants marriage defined as the union of a brother and sister.
Biology is science. Evolution is science. Creationism is not science, it is religion. If you want to teach creationism then create a religion class and teach it there.
Why don't they do just that? Why do the expect a science class to teach religion? It would be the same as expecting and English class to cover algebra...well they both use letters...durp.
The US Constitution - as amended - just prevents requiring you to belong to a particular religion to hold elected office.
Incorrect. The US Constitution states that one religion cannot be treated any differently, better or worse than any other religion. So if you want to give tax breaks to churches, that's okay as long as all churches get the same tax breaks. Therefore if you exempt Christian churches from property taxes, the Scientologists get a tax break as well. If you want to keep a Mosque out of your city through zoning ordinances, say good bye to the Baptist church as well. That's it in a nut shell, every religion gets the same treatment.
Just don't teach about Christianity or someone will get you fired.
Incorrect again. You can teach about the crusades. You can teach about the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody expected!). You can teach about the way Europeans converted "pagans" in the Americas and Asia. In history class, you can teach a lot about the way Christians of the past acted.
In a literature or comparative religion class, you can teach the bible as long as it's juxtaposed with those beliefs you mention above. However the dangerous part of that is that many locales will try to teach that one story is true while all the others are false thus violating the constitution. But if you could avoid falling into that trap, you're still allowed to teach about Christian writings.
You see, contrary to your statement, you can teach Christianity. You just can't give it preferential treatment as noted above - including giving it preferential treatment is public schools. And that is one of the issues that the fundamentalists have - they want preferential treatment despite what the constitution says and claim that anything less than preferential treatment is an attack on their opinion. But like you they use the false argument that keeping religion out of science class is somehow keeping the teaching out of schools and then proceed to equate that to an attack on their belief system.
You know, I am still surprised to find stuff like this, especially in slashdot where I would consider the readers more educated.
I am an educated Christian and know a lot of educated Christians. I have never heard them say 'evolution is false', instead most will say that microevolution is easily seen in nature and that macroevolution is [probably] false. Macroevolution has gone through countless new theories, one after another, and we have never seen it happen. Microevolution happens all the time and can be observed (yay for the scientific method).
If you consider yourself educated but are making fun of Christians for being 'flat earth people' or the like, you may want to step back and go read up on intelligent design. If you aren't familiar with intelligent design theories you are making a lot of assumptions and are just as bad as any other ignorant person. If you could state some ID theories and why they are false, then state some macroevolution theories and why they seem to hold true (nothing can ever be proven true, just proved not false yet) I would be more more impressed. There are some very compelling SCIENTIFIC theories and evidence that don't make sense when viewed in the current macroevolutionary theory.
And people, quit comparing evolution to laws (like the law of gravity). Gravity is a law (though our understanding is somewhat flawed) - one we can see over and over and perform experiements to confirm our understanding. Macroevolution is a theory, one we have never seen happen. In college, macroevolution bothered me and sounded fantastical and based on utterly no scientific evidence. In three different bio classes I spoke with the professors and they couldn't answer my very simple questions about macroevolution.
Evolution shouldn't be approached from a secular or religious perspective - it should be approached from a scientific one with as little prior prejudice as possible. It is a shame that people start their 'scientific' theories on that basis and make fun of people for what they themselves do not understand.
Except that the Jews have largely considered it a metaphor since before Christianity existed. And FWIW the serpent is really just a serpent, not Satan.
Please clarify. Have you denied that real truth exists? If so, I remind you of a common sense phrase:
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".
I wonder which state will be next on the slide to Theocracy?
I pick one of those here:
States ranked by per capita income (1999)
38. Alabama – $18,189
39. Utah – $18,185
40. Kentucky – $18,093
41. Idaho – $17,841
42. North Dakota – $17,769
43. Oklahoma – $17,646
44. South Dakota – $17,562
45. New Mexico – $17,261
46. Montana – $17,151
47. Louisiana – $16,912
48. Arkansas – $16,904
49. West Virginia – $16,477
50. Mississippi – $15,853
...and the maximum score for that version should be about a 15.
The press loves "man bites dog" stories.
If you live by the press, you think that the world is horrible.
The world is better than what the press says.
First - there are literally dozens of religions that are "Christian", most with significant theological, historical, and other substantive differences. So to be "fair" as you imply the schools would need to teach many more than just one version. Your listing "Christianity" as one religion betrays your bias (probably Evangelical or Fundamentalist if I were to guess).
But more importantly, as noted below, most of western history for the last 2000 years as taught in US schools is in fact chok-a-block with references to Christianity (various versions and flavirs), the Christian God, the Churche(s), etc.
You are simply, completely, utterly wrong - in both your facts and your analysis.
Year 2112 - "And in further news... the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and Missisppi simply fell off the continent as natural plate tectonics theory was no longer taught in the classroom, and over mining and fracking caused the states to simply vanish off the planet. Scientists in the "CommonSense realms" declared back in 1997 that continued destruction of the underlying structures on the continents by unnatural means such as fracking, would cause earthquakes and possibly more sever consequences. Now, some 100 years later - it's happened.
However, it's worth noting that those states also reverted back to the idea that the planet was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe - and that there are only a couple hundred stars and no galaxies"../
Thank you - and same from my family in KY as well! They were and are embarassed that we're focusing "stupid time" while there's infinitely more severe issues at hand to deal with in the world. Let's send the state of KY legislature 1000 shovels from which they can dig their own holes and place their own dummy-heads into
But speaking of "Christian creationism" makes it seem that young-Earth creationism is overwhelmingly believed by Christians. It is not.
I believe in evolution myself, but I like the parent's idea because it respects everyone involved and reaches a compromise.
And the children who are well taught about evolution will probably figure out it is in fact real.
That's great news. Just teach your kids crap and wait for the electricity grid come down. Then you can teach them in candle light how God is doing and you won't be bothered with mail or text messages anymore. Why learn reading and writing? That good for nothing. When the baseball bats are out you can use sticks to fight each other.
Please, do it! Do me the favour, kick yourself out of it. Can the Darwin award be given to a whole civilisation? Please, prove it. Do it.
Here's one for you monkeyheads. If people descended from monkeys and apes or whatever (you don't know either), then why are there still monkeys and apes? ANd if you say, well, one line of genes changed, then why in the F didn't the other species evolve even a little bit. Where's the halfsies? What a jump from monkey to human too - wow, certainly wasn't just one mutation. Seems pretty solidly AGAINST evolution to me - don't forget to add the fact that although, yes, many species are similar in terms of appendages and make up, it doesn't mean they descended. Except for my cousin, Ray, he may actually be some kind of ape.
100% A+++.
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
It could be used as an excellent example to distinguish between science and *not* science. School is about giving young people the tools they'll need in their life. "Protecting" them from stupid theories/ideas isn't going to help them even half as much as confronting them with some and picking those "theories" apart.
No room for the theory of 'god' influencing evolution and evolution influencing god then?
A blog I run for the wealth
Impress me and refuse all medical care based on this devil biology!
So, yeah, links aren't convincing. You need to click them, and read the information, and engage with the arguments. Then you need to show why they are wrong, before you can do any speculating about why people might believe it.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
When you refer to creationism-believing people as "idiots", "bible-thumping" "hillbillies", you reinforce their view that evolution is an elitist, atheist plot to undermine Christianity. If you _really_ want to spread the belief in evolution, you should follow these principles:
1) Respect the people.
2) Don't present evolution as a "Christianity x Atheism" battle. It is not. There is a huge number of Christians who believe in evolution.
3) Don't call everyone who believes in miracles a "creationist". There is a difference between believing the Earth is 6000 years old and that scientists conspire against Christianity, and believing that scientists are basically right but God created the souls of the first humans.
I wish I could mod you up about 5 points. This is exactly the point.
Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
Yes. But I rarely see Jews pushing this silliness. Always seems to be Christians.
Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
If you wish to believe in magic, ghosts, and demons, you are free to do so. Your childish beliefs should not be basis for science education in a country with established freedom of religion.
Japanese scientist: Technically, sir, tomatoes are fags. Military scientist: He means fruits.
But, in America "You have the right to remain stupid!"
We got rights and stuff. Better to exercise my right to stupid than a godless heathen like them scientific types.
Evolution seems to have skipped Kentucky. Otherwise, they would have evolved a brain by now. Therefore, for them, evolution effectively never happened...
Seriously, who cares a rats ass about Kentucky? A bunch of back water hillbillies who still think the Civil War was won by the South. They also fought for laws to allow people to marry their cousins in Kentucky. I've never heard anyone say "look at all the smart people in Kentucky" - instead its "look at all the dipshit inbred people in Kentucky."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I am Soooooo embarrassed to live here, so embarrassed!
What about getting rid of the Public Schooling (or better, Government Schooling) and let parents homeschooling their children (or pay for a private school with the home tax they doesn't need to pay anymore). So any and all parents will be directly responsible for what they children learn and some government busybody will not be able to push his belief on them?
If the parents choose to teach stupid things tot heir children, their children will probably be out of a good job. Like the parents sending their children to university to take a LGBT study diploma.
Freedom!
This item sheds light on the root cause of the American Civil War.
E Proelio Veritas.
as Karen answered I didn't even know that people able to profit $5658 in one month on the computer. have you read this website makecash16.comONLY
The evolution deniers like to use the phrase "Evolution is theory", because they think it makes
it sound like its not proven. This stems from the fact that these people don't know what the
word Theory means. To be specific, a theory is an explanation of observable data.
It doesn't mean a "guess", or something that hasn't been proven, or anything else.
There is no such thing as proving a theory. You can look at the observable
evidence that the theory explains. If you can come up with a better theory
that encompasses more of the evidence, your theory is considered better than
the previous theory. Thus the theory of relativity was better than Newton's
theory (F=MA). For the evolution deniers to have the slightest ground to stand on,
they have to offer a better explanation of the observable data than the
theory of evolution. So far, the best they can come up with is:
"Its too complicated for me to understand, therefore it must have been intelligent design
by some supernatural entity".
To all you evolution deniers out there, sorry, your theory explains absolutely
none of the observable data. Not one bit. Nada. Nothing.
Sorry, your "theory", by the scientific definition is entirely superceded by
the theory of evolution.
The evolution deniers (or devolutionists?)
do not understand the difference between a hypothesis, and a theory.
There is a commonly used definition of the word "theory", as is used in everyday
language, but it is not the definition meant by the scientific community.
So the first thing these people need to do is pick up a dictionary.
(As opposed to just a bible, which has no definitions, ambiguous meaning,
conflicting statements, and is open to so much subjective interpretation, there
is nothing definitive in the entire set of religious texts taken as a whole over the
entire world).
To take if futher, the so-called "Creationists" need to provide their theory
of how they are able to use a computer. The problem here is that
computers are based on the theory of relativity and the theory of
quantum mechanics. Both of these theories are based on the atomic theory.
The atomic theory is the basis for the observable data of molecules, cells,
and DNA in particular. The theory of evolution is in fact a theory of
the observable data of atoms, molecules, cells, and DNA.
Thus, if they accept that they can use computers to communicate,
they are in fact already accepting all of the theory of evolution.
In fact, (not theory), the ACT test could not occur without the
theory of relativity, the atomic theory, the theory of quantum mechanics,
and thus the exact same observable data that supports
the theory of evolution.
Thus they need to not only take evolution out of the ACT, they need
to take the computers out, atoms, molecules, cells, and DNA.
Wait... you need atoms to have ink for a paper test.
Oops, guess they can't have ink (or paper).
Hmmm, maybe they could take the test orally.
Wait, but then we need the theory of sound waves. Because
somehow the sound has to get to their ears.
But... we need at least F=MA for sound waves.
But that's Newton's theories. But they are just
theories. So I guess creationism trumps those too.
I don't recall F=MA in any of the bibles.
So the creationists can't take a test on computers,
or ink and paper, or even talk about it.
Wait!!!! They can't even read their bibles!!!
Bibles need ink. Ink is full of those same pesky atoms that
form the molecules, DNA and cells. So in order for them to
read, without violating both creationism and intelligent design,
I guess they can only read things chiseled in stone.
Begs the question -- how did they learn to read?
(Or maybe that's the right question --- did they learn to read?)
Time for this country to grow up.
If you don't understand science, that doesn't mean you should
block other people who do understand the concept to continue
to impr
"Kentucky Lawmakers, when recently confronted with an actual textbook, which they had neither seen in decades, nor understood when they were originally exposed to them, were shocked to learn how ignorant they were of general scientific principles, including those which are readily apparent in the world today.
"Rather than concede their own ignorance, they attacked the entire scientific and educational worlds, in this particular instance, on 'religious' grounds.
"This, despite the fact that recent studies show that the vast majority of religious people in the world today believe that principles of evolution are, most likely, the means by which God created the heavens and the Earth. It is believed that since actually reading that study would require an interest in learning more about something other than themselves, these legislators remain completely unaware of the study, as well as the notion that studying general scientific principles as a means to discover greater truth in life is seen by many as a spiritual pursuit in itself, in this case relying upon the tools made available to us (presumably, by God Himself).
"Thus, by not conceding their initial ignorance privately, the lawmakers have foisted an awareness of their own ignorance upon the entire world.
"Our NewsTonight news team will bring you the follow up story... as soon as the legislators notice what they have done."
What is must be like to live inside this rednecks head. My brain actually hurts trying to comprehend the vast nothingness that is this persons conciseness. I'll admit however, I bet it's a pretty carefree life. Where nothing matters and eternal life is just around the corner. I think I'll stick to my much less comfortable existence.
In 1992 concocted one of my first (first) C++ libraries: charP.h. It was meant to handle char 8 strings, primarily to handle the formula
cstr = strcpy(new char[strlen(str)+1], str);
And indeed! I would use the library like:
charP c;
char *s = c.copy(string);
function(c.cstr);
By the second or third project I realized I was not using most other helper functions, it was a general dependency already and I had memorized the formula, so I stopped using the library. For several reasons I also decided that a string class was project specialized and string Pointers were so encapsulated that it was better to handle them case per case, including the testing for content.
But the library trailed on in my installations, even after each of the ten milestone CRASHES and computers STOLEN, til it finally went away by about the sixth one... And it was then when Microsoft comes up with... String object! and the c_str member... Typical pattern: if I do not use it, they do and viceversa. And this is not the only example! If ALL my computers (all ten important ones) had not been stolen right after milestone achievement or product in beta testing, it would be DIFFERENT, but after two decades of the SAME the issue is very clear to me. Only I do not want to know it was Myhrvold or Simonyi, I claim the right to be the one pointing to whom I think are _my_ relatives; I want the other ones, the ones not famous ones who come up with the IDEAS, like the COM-registry one I discarded, or the superbrilliant C# name, or the phrase **Where do you want to go today?** or the dashboard-like band object, or the small icons (from Ami Pro), or dropping the start button (negative correlation) and other more technical details mimicking my programming (and the crashes and thefts), and NOW including a totally negative correlation, like adding those awful BANDS instead of the menu-small buttons interface I am SO USED to use...
This is not the only case but for the target victim, I, it is obvious; only I do not have access to people in MS til after the facts but I am looking for a schizophrenics who can *hear*, is connected, and covers it up, including competition, with theft. Even if there is some _mother_ involved, I need people to point the people at me. At some times MS and others were buying the additions but in this case it has been easier to steal, you see? But they do know, and besides this explains the general state of disarray people do feel in Microsoft.
Of course this is dangerous to me and dangerous to people who read this or are even in THIS channel. Which I use because I do not want revenge against my internet accounts, like the last 21-24 TIMES. Danilo J Bonsignore
Unfortunately, evolution does not preclude creationism logically. As I wrote elsewhere: **...that evolution followed this path it does not mean it all happened on Earth.**. Evolution is a change mechanism, but it does not preclude a one-time (bootstrapped) act of creation! Problem is evolution cannot be contested because it can be SHOWN, while creationism has to be believed on (pun: you believe or not, not that you are FORCED to believe on it as the phrase implies for the literalists...). Very technically, we still do not have the full path of evolution from CHEMISTRY to BIOLOGY, as we are just establishing the mechanisms for evolution from PHYSICS to CHEMISTRY (even from MATHEMATICS to PHYSICS, but anyway). So the issue is inconclusive! In fact, there are traces of one-time bootstrapped successive creationisms followed by self sustaining evolution as mechanism for homeostasis. We even engage in our own creationisms! Software applications do look like **just created** so we need legacy applications to follow the evolution of libraries and concepts, and only a few applications do show traces of the creation-evolution of the underlying computer infrastructure (compilers, interpreters...)! Most sensible thing is to teach both concepts, with real emphasis on evolution as a mechanic. And indeed, unfortunately it all does point to a unique original creator conceiving ouside of evolution then setting loose a series of creators engaged in their own (biological) creationisms (why baboons look like astronauts?). But that is the realm of Physics, not Biology. One point of view is RICHER and more useful than the other one, though. So once we manage to create life anew, what will it be? An act of creationism or an act of evolution? Both... This viewpoint mimics the uberrimous Biblical phrase: **Thou Art Gods**.
It made me think we found evolution verified in a biology (laboratory) test, maybe bacteria shown to have evolved, and it was only KY legislators who knew of it...
Well, if you want to have your schools accredited on the same standards as the entire nation, the fact that natural selection is fundamental to an understanding of modern biology and is observable, it means that creationist memes and blind obedience to King James' God to such a degree the observable is not fact unless confirmed by King James Bible - this must become National as well - if you require that test to reflect divinely inspired not knowing popular in YOUR state.
I have sympathy, I agree Kentucky should be entitled to their own test. To do this they clearly should surrender the goal of matching national standards and teach only Kentuck's standards. Yes, and replace the questions about evolution, with questions about theology. And for math questions - just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And when students get their grades - place stakes on the school's front yard and burn any student at the stake that dares to get the 'how many angels' question WRONG. Them and the entire swim team, they must be witches for the water to reject them such that do not drown.
The average ACT composite score nationwide was 21.2 The Top composite scores were all of New England (23.x), NY & NJ (23.x), Mid-Atlantic (22.x) and Mid-West (22.x) The Bottom composite scores were Mississippi, Tennessee, Florida, Kentucky and Arkansas (19.x) and the majority of Southern states scored below the national average of 21.2 The College Readiness Benchmark was purely laughable and predictably sad. http://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2011/benchmarks.html
The Scripture clearly states a 6 day creation. Repent, and beleive in the One who breathed everything existence.
Every person who beleives that people evolved from monkeys (and the monkey evolved from rain falling on rocks) is condemned to eternal death, because that is a denial of Jesus Christ.
Science is good, when science adheres to the scientific method. Bad science relies on guesses that have no foundation in reality, such as the proposed geologic column (only exists in textbooks), consistent rate of carbon decay (differing death date estimates by tens of thousands of years for a mammoths front and back legs on the same mammoth), and calculating celestial distances (take 2 surveyor devices, set them sixteen inches apart in San Francisco, CA,, then use them to triangulate the distance to the Space Needle in Seattle, WA - just a dot on the Space Needle - that is the equivalent of one light year with the 16 inches representing orbital opposite position around the Sun- the lines of the triangle are nearly paallel - shall we talk about the lines of a 100 light year measurement? One billion?).
There's a well known joke in Brazil about a man talking to God, more or less like this:
-- Lord, what's fortune to You?
-- Fortune is just a cent to me, my dear son.
-- And... what's a million years to You, my Lord?
-- A million years is just like a second to me, my dear son.
-- My Lord... gimme a cent!
-- Wait a second, son.
Good. The other day I was approached by a guy talking about religion and, as expected, I was told the story of Creation.
Keeping the long story short, at a certain point I've asked him:
-- OK... Adam was created from clay... and I can even accept the idea... but... how long did God take to create Adam?... was it like a blink of an eye? and Adam raised from clay immediatelly thinking, walking and speaking? by the way... what age Adam had when he was raised from clay? was he a child, a teen or an adult bearded man? if Adam was an adult man, how Adam learned to walk? how Adam learned to talk if nobody else was there in the face of Earth? was Adam talking English, Hebrew, Aramaic or what? who else was talking the same language at that time? also... had Adam a penis when he was created? or it was added later, when God decided to create Eva? what was the purpose of the penis in the first place, if Adam didn't originally know what sex was about?
Well... looks like The Genesis didn't mention these details very well.
I started my explanation stating that I do not believe in miracles. Miracles are just a synonym for "a process I do not understand and I cannot explain". Once you understand how something happens and you are able to explain it... there are no miracles anymore!
Then I explained him that "billions of years are just like a day to God" (like in the joke). I explained that actually, The Genesis is absolutely correct (!) ... if you understand it like a story you tell to a child, keeping what is relevant, but omiting details a child is not able to understand, or making raw simplifications of complicated ideas. Like children, our ancestries were not able to understand details involving geology, physics, biology, etc. They were very simple, illiterate and rude men, so The Genesis employs a language they were able to understand at that time.
I concluded my explanation saying: "I do believe that... at a certain point in time, there was a man called Adam who was created by God from clay... and I do believe that God had taken some 5 billion years to do His job.". So, again... miracles are not necessary. God had written the Laws of Nature... and God respects His own laws! God does not play the illusionist, the magician or the deceptive.
Creationists need to look Escritures from the light of Science... and understand that The Genesis is like a story book written for early age children, keeping only some relevant aspects, only the essence. Complicated ideas had suffered simplification in their language, in order to avoid concepts which would be impossible to be understood at that time. If modern man is not able to understand what The Genesis really is, what to expect from our ancestries if they were presented ideas like evolution and natural selection?
It's a shame that children from USA are suffering from ignorance of many of his congressman.
My new theory is De-Evolution and these KY lawmakers are my prime examples!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
The test is of your knowledge of evolution, not your belief in it
I can easily pass a test on Marxist theory, even though I don't believe any of it
Conversely, I believe passionately that Michelle Kwan is my favorite athlete, but I would fail miserably at a test about ice skating
That's the POINT of education - to distinguish between knowledge and belief. Of course, that is a tough concept for indoctrinators of any bent to grasp.
If we can not teach Science How do you expect to have a population of educated people. The US already puts more people in jail then any other country in the world. There has got to be an underlying problem with our government that holds hear say from some holy book over Science.
It seems that Kentucky's legislators who were surprised by the inclusion of evolution in the ACT tests are unaware of the irony in this. Darwin's theories clearly describe that species adapt and others are left behind (to eventual extinction). The objections to the scientific certainty of evolution (yes, we use the word theory to describe it, just like Pythagoras' theorem) are proof that even in the halls of power in Kentucky there are those well on the way to extinction, protests notwithstanding. QED.
It amazes me that evolutionists can say that the greatest geo-physicist on the planet , the genius who invented the M.R.I. , the man who who got us to the moon, the world's greatest surgeon and dozens of biology professors are morons and believe they are smarter than the bacteria they claim to descend from.
Maybe we could start a new game show, are you smarter than your ancestor, The Amoeba.
In all the years I have asked evolutionists the simplest scientific question they have never failed to answer with anything remotely logical , much less scientific.
The only response is all scientist believe in evolution so it must be true or if you don;t believe in it you must believe the world is flat. But who is the moron? No evolutionist EVER founded a single major branch of science and I can't prove it but I am not aware of a single life changing invention created by a goo through the zoo to you believer and no evolutionists has ever been able to name one. If there are any they are exceedingly rare.
All they do is spread lies and hatred, any person who is remotely aware should know the flat earth belief was created by atheist like A. White and it is listed on the Guinness World Records list of history greatest hoaxes but evolutionists are either anti truth or plain old fashioned ignorant enough to believe the story of Columbus and the flat earth . But when you are scientifically and intellectually challenged and any mildly informed creationist can make you look like a fool what else can you do but yell loud and name call?
Here is a simple test no evolutionists I have run into could begin to pass.
What assumptions are needed to "date" rocks and fossils?
How can dinosaur bones, coal , and diamonds all still contain easily identifiable c-14 when dino bones are supposedly no younger than 65 ma, coal 10's of millions and measures the same age regardless of the depth it is found out and diamonds are 1 -3 billion?
And where did the first reproductive organism come from seeing as the fairy tale says that reproductive mistakes create new features and then new creatures?
Who needs science when you can claim all scientists believe we came from pondscum and name call like a spoiled child.
.
You find two schools out of the many thousands, you can say "some". The majority however simply fail and generalizing accordingly is only fair.
In short, science doesn't speak on who created us and the universe (or even if there was a 'who'). It simply tries to reverse engineer how it unfolded (in some cases, literally).
Religion speaks on who, but anybody who says that The Bible gives any sort of details about how is making shit up.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Wow! I cant believe all these people believe in evolution. Its a theroy! Period. It does not even make sense. Critical thinking and reason would show you all was created. Try it out. Something out of nothing or a first cause?
Christians disagree with the notion/theory that all life evolved from the same starting point. But that's a small part of what evolution means today. People say evolution has been proven, yes parts of it have been proven. But too many different parts come under the same heading. Too say one is against or for evolution being taught doesn't really explain what they are for or against. Logically, to many, it makes no sense and there's no proof that man evolved from another species. But at the same time they are perfectly fine with the changes that occur over time to a species. Not just Bible thumpers, but scientists. This comes because there are many ways of interpreting the same data. Each side can and does use the same data as a bolster to their viewpoint.
Representative Ben Wade stated that evolution is just a theory
And here is yet another political dipshit that does not understand that a theory in scientific terms is much more than just unfounded speculation.
What would he call the creation myth then? Since it isn't testable scientifically, it is not even a theory. It is merely an unfounded fairy tale, no more believable than the idea that the universe was sneezed from the nostrils of the Great Green Arkleseizure.
Creation and other mythologies do not belong in the science classroom. Their place is in social studies and philosophy classes instead.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Well, I know you're a troll and I should ignore, but obviously evolution isn't atheistic. Theism is entirely irrelevant to the topic. Is a rock theistic or atheistic? The question is nonsensical, because rocks don't believe in things.
-josh
Not trying to troll. Just pointing out the idiocrasy in the argument. Having studied evolution quite a bit, there are things it is lacking. How did life originate? The current leading scientific theories are from asteroids or aliens. Seriously? Much easier to believe God did the creation bit. Next comes testing the theory. Scientists have tried and failed, so instead we resort to calling it fact without the positive confirmation. That's not how science is supposed to work. Fruit flies reproduce very quickly. Bacteria as well. Let's evolve those into another species and end this debate. All the evidence I have seen of evolution has been a reduction of information in the DNA of species resulting in specialized versions of the creature. I'll give you the best example I know. The timberland wolf was bred into the dog breeds we know today. We are capable of taking the wolves and creating dogs. The dogs have less unique information stored in their genes. This typically results in genetic defects...bad hips in German shepherds, bad eye site in dalmatians, etc. We can take wolfs and create new breeds of dogs. We cannot take dogs and create wolves. That would require adding information back into the genome.
Are you seriously challenging the validity of evolution as a response to the idea that it is not a religious topic?
I think that says basically nothing about evolution, and everything about your extremely limited religion.
-josh
You're getting the type of head of state mixed up with the type of government. (Representative) democracy is a reference to a type of government, while today 'republic' is simply a reference to states where the head of state isn't a monarch, regardless of what the word meant during the enlightenment & earlier. The US is a republic with representative democracy government, compared with Australia, the UK & Canada, which are all monarchies with parliamentary democracy governments.
alcohol's worse fore your health you know