Slashdot Mirror
Kentucky Lawmakers Shocked To Find Evolution In Biology Tests
bbianca127 writes "Kentucky mandated that schools include tests that are based on national standards, and contracted test maker ACT to handle them. Legislators were then shocked that evolution was so prominently featured, even though evolution is well-supported and a central tenet of modern biology. One KY Senator said he wanted creationism taught alongside evolution, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism in science classes is a violation of the establishment clause. Representative Ben Wade stated that evolution is just a theory, and that Darwin made it all up. Legislators want ACT to make a Kentucky-specific ACT test, though the test makers say that would be prohibitively expensive. This is just the latest in a round of states' fight against evolution — Louisiana and Tennessee have recently passed laws directed against teaching evolution."
Legislators want ACT to make a Kentucky-specific ACT test
Sorry, hillbillies. We're not making a separate test for you just because you're a bunch of bible-thumping idiots. We're also not making a separate test for Muslims which women are forbidden to take, or a separate Scientology test with science questions involving Thetan levels, or a separate test for North Koreans where the correct answer to every question is A. Our Supreme Leader, Praised Be His Name!
Everyone gets the same test (well, okay, we can do braille and language translations, but THAT'S IT). And studying for it is going to involve reading more than the Bible, or Koran, or Talmud, or whatever the fuck holy text you happen to be thumping.
Besides, you need real science in Kentucky. That meth isn't going to cook itself, you know.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Can't we just cut the south free and stop talking about them? They are a money drain on this country, and I am sick of hearing about them. Hell, I have family in the south. All they ever talk about is how Obama is a muslim and how his birth certificate is a fake. The south is too resilient to progress. We would be better off without them slowing us down.
ugh.
well, hey, cheer up everybody, we just landed the most awesomest rover evar on mars!
and all the other sciency stuff we've been accomplishing...
we're doing great.
right?
hello?
but we live in a meritocracy, so the system should automatically benefit them because they're better than us!
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.
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.
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...
Don't punish the students just because the adults are bumfuck retarded. They deserve a real education, and it's the only way to improve the idiocracy. Education is a way out for them.
It's a race for dominance as the stupidest state in the nation.
You want central planning, right? You want education to be controlled from the top down, by people you have never even met, right? You want the system to be enforced through the coercive power of government, right?
Then you got exactly what you wanted. This is central planning, and it turned out exactly how central planning is supposed to.
I agree! The national standard of No Child Left Behind -teach to a test - has failed; which was yet another standard created by a Bible thumping moron.
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
Science rules; Bible drools!
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.
The last time I checked, the ACT wasn't administered by the U.S. government.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
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
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!
Not definitive proof, like video of it being said, but here's the original quote, straight from the Kentucky Lexington Herald:
http://www.kentucky.com/2012/08/15/2299629/kentuckys-gop-lawmakers-question.html
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.
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.
Preventing teachers from turning students into less than stir fry operator material by refusing to teach science can be called protecting the country.
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*"
With sane and rational teaching standards for science? I guess that means I like central planning.
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"
Also, somebody should create jobs only for them [...]
Cooking meth? Scamming disability for pain killers?
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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.
"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.
The students should know to hate anyone who promotes religion. THAT can only be taught by experience, and is no proper role for the State.
Instead, let them know their PARENTS want them to be slaves to the superstitions of Flat Earthers.
Youth love to rebel. It is the role of those who object to Superstition to fan such rebellion.
Dear "students" who read this:
TRUST NO ONE. Not Left or Right or Superstitious or otherwise.
Anyone who tells you WHAT to think instead of suggesting you think for yourself is your enemy.
Learn about the world, make up your own minds, and if you want to lick someone elses boots that's your right, but do it with your eyes wide open!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
As someone from Kentucky, though I did not vote for them, I would like to apologize for allowing such imbeciles represent us. I wish them out of office as much as anyone else, perhaps moreso.
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.
Yes I want standards for teaching children about science to be set by scientists, not by religious cranks. If that requires top down control, then that's a strong argument for top down control
Yes I want standards for teaching children about science to be set by scientists, not by religious cranks. If that requires top down control, then that's a strong argument for top down control
Unless, of course, the "religious cranks" get on top. Then where will you be?
Perhaps this should be left to more local control so parents, who care more about their children than you or any beauracrat does, get to decide.
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.
I'm sure you can program computers without knowing quantum chromodynamics in the same way a chimp can get bananas from its keepers, but without a knowledge of what undergirds your discipline, that's all you are – a shaved chimp pulling levers until one shoots out a reward.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
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.
You want central planning, right? You want education to be controlled from the top down, by people you have never even met, right? You want the system to be enforced through the coercive power of government, right?
Then you got exactly what you wanted. This is central planning, and it turned out exactly how central planning is supposed to.
I think you misunderstand the word "planning". This is centralized testing of the basic standards. The plan-- or the "how" things are done-- are completely decentralized. The better plans will win and the worse ones will fail, just as a good, decentralized market dictates. In fact I don't much like the No Child Left Behind's "Teach to the Test" approach, but to call this "central planning" is disingenuous and makes it harder to debate the actual issues.
E pluribus unum
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
So we should go back to literacy rates in the single digits? That's the reason the federal government is involved to begin with. Of course there is also the matter of the fact that federal funds help fill the voids in a lot of public schools. Having an uneducated populous is not a good option. You ever notice how college graduates don't usually join gangs?
Federal standards are needed to prevent local municalities from hurting the children in their district through education that is well, less than universal. Probably worth noting that federal standards are only a minimum and that individual states are free to decide to teach more if they wish. I'm not sure how removing the minimum would help kids.
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.
Local control is overrated. I think that if the religious cranks actually end up running the country, the US is doomed anyway. But our government has stood fast against continuous assault by religious cranks almost since its inception, so I'm not terribly concerned. On the other hand, we have plenty of examples to show us that at the local level, it is not at all hard for a small, organized group of cranks to take over school boards and substitute their dogma for science
Well no. I just want kids to not be fed idiotic rubish that has never been observed in a lab, such as idiotic creationism and the endearing idea that god planted dinosaur bones to test "our" faith.
You see. The civic sin of this biblethumping dumbasses is in that "our". They mean its yours too, ya know? And that of all of the kids in Kentucky to boot.
NO SIG
But of course, I hate the USA.
No no, what you do in that instance is to try and NOT VOTE for religious cranks.
Youd think the most advanced democracy in the world would get that...
NO SIG
I agree. I don't often admit this, but I grew up and attended school in Kentucky. Seeing news like this makes me sad for my home state. I don't recall much from my high school years, but I don't think there were any overtly religious topics discussed. However, I don't think students should be screwed out of a proper education just because some biased idiot in a position of power can't keep his personal and political beliefs separate.
>>>If that requires top down control, then that's a strong argument for top down control
Top-down control when taken to its logical conclusion also means having Congress order you to install thermostats in your home which they can turn-off at any point (like on a hot day when the power grid is overloading... goodbye A/C). Or ordering you to buy a Prius or similar hybrid. Or outlawing SUVs. Or ordering you to buy a Windows PC so you can do online voting/polling. And so on.
Personally I'd rather have State-level control like they do it in the European Union. That way if I don't like the state's policies I can pick-up and move to a better state. (Vice-versa if I DO like the state's policies, like if I'm Mormon and love Utah, then I can stay.) Freedom of choice between 27 EU states or 50 US states is preferable to being stuck with just one choice..... whatever the central government mandates.
Peace.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
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.
It's funny, you'll complain when it's something like No Child Left Behind, but not something like this? You don't realize how their bureaucratic paper pushing bullshit is costing us more money, and nobody benefits from it. You rather let people like George W. Bush create legislation for schools than your own local populous? You must be crazy. If you have a problem with it, get more involved with your localities. Don't just complain to the feds every time there is a problem. Regarding ACT, they are an independent non-profit that have been under investigation for cheating, and even for-profit scandals. If states choose to be fucking morons, then let them be fucking morons. There's no need to waste your time with the feds getting involved, which is my point. The whole country will complain that one state is doing something wrong until we spend millions of dollars trying to fix it and force them to unionize with something that is really nobody else's business.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
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.
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.
But, in America "You have the right to remain stupid!"
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
"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...
Yes I want standards for teaching children about science to be set by scientists, not by religious cranks. If that requires top down control, then that's a strong argument for top down control
wait, you have to have top down control because the alternative is religious cranks having top down control? Those are the only two options?
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Unless, of course, the "religious cranks" get on top. Then where will you be?
Emigration or armed revolution, I suppose.
Fortunately, even with the last president, the country resisted turning into the full-fledged theocracy so many of his supporters wanted. Sure, he gave away a few tens of billions of dollars of our tax money to specific churches, which was bad and wrong, but not nearly as bad as forcing teenage rape victims to marry their rapists and stoning gays to death like these people promote in other more theocratic countries.
Perhaps this should be left to more local control so parents, who care more about their children than you or any beauracrat does, get to decide.
"care more about" != "know how to educate properly".
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
Wait, you're arguing against 'Central Planning' in favor of 'Organized Religion'?
You do realize that Religion is by definition 'Top Down' right?
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Fortunately our founding fathers imparted the never ending ability to 'throw out' those at the top. So if the Religious Cranks do manage to get in charge, we can remove them.
Unlike the usual 'Religious Crank' system which is most definitely 'Top Down'.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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.
Sorry, I'm skeptical of the view that having standards for science education set at the Federal level by actual sciences necessarily implies Federal control of my thermostat. We have had Federal standards for many things for hundreds of years, yet I still control my own thermostat. Some "slippery slopes" just aren't all that slippery
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.
Just because someone has a greater stake in an issue does not mean they are more qualified to make a decision. Religious cranks being at the top was a problem for a very long time and still is somewhat of an issue today (see: all of fucking history), that's why we have these thing called the constitution and the democratic process. They may not be perfect but over the last few centuries they've had a pretty good track record compared to the last few millenia.
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
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)
Sounds to me like Kentucky is trying to enshrine that right in law for all of its citizens.
Time to offend someone
"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science — Darwin made it up," Waide said.
No, you could always have the ultimate in local control and have individuals decide for themselves whether they want to educate their kids or rent them out to sweatshops instead.
That's really cool of you to post on an article that you moderated on. Regardless, you do realize that schools with the WORST test scores are the ones who DO NOT get the funding they need? You do realize that the whole system is flawed and certain schools get more money than others? I know it feels like you're doing things for "the greater good" when it comes to federal regulation of our school systems, but more harm than good has come from it. The FEDS do not deserve your money. Your STATE does. You know how much easier it is to remove the elected officials in your state than it is to remove them from the feds? If you want real change, you're not going to make it happen on a federal level. Especially on a topic as controversial as this. If you want the schools to get more funding, maybe you should consider paying the Feds less, and give your community more. We're not a communist country last time I checked.
"Communist Education - the planned, purposeful, and systematic formation of a comprehensively and harmoniously developed personality in the process of building socialism and communism; an integral part of the theory of scientific communism."
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy: you have to share with all the other people you co-inhabit a region with.
If tons of people in your country are a bunch of backwards religious nuts and you don't like that, the answer is simple: you need to break the country up into smaller units, so that you (and others like you) can live in a country with a small concentration of the backwards people, and the areas with a high concentration of them will be a separate country (or countries). That way, you can both live how you like; you can live in a country where religion has little influence on laws and standards, and they can live in a country where religion has lots of power over these things.
If you want to live in a country where there's a majority of backwards religious nuts, and you don't want their opinions affecting national policy, the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government.
"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~
I would agree with this if they took the ACT when they were like 10, but by the time they're taking this test their bumfuck parents have turned them into bumfuck adults.
You're making a wild generalization. I grew up in a small town in TN and went to a crappy high school. I (and many of my friends) went to college on a state scholarship, and then promptly left the state. Some of us left for jobs, others for grad school. In any case, education is a way out. Don't rob the kids who give a damn just because they grew up in the wrong state.
Perhaps this should be left to more local control so parents, who care more about their children than you or any beauracrat does, get to decide.
Parents, who care more about their children than any beauracrat, would object their child being drafted into a war. However since the nation needs them to fight, they are made to fight regardless.
As a nation people need to be educated. A parent's prerogative to exclude certain things that the country NEEDS children to learn in order to compete in the world is trumped.
If you're a parent living in Kentucky who wants evolution taught as standard science says it should be, would it be comforting that your kid is learning creationism because the local school board decided it rather than the state or national standard?
Getting education wrong isn't an argument for either local or national control. They're orthogonal to the correctness of the strategy.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
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
Top-down control when taken to its logical conclusion also means having Congress order you to install thermostats in your home which they can turn-off at any point (like on a hot day when the power grid is overloading... goodbye A/C). Or ordering you to buy a Prius or similar hybrid. Or outlawing SUVs. Or ordering you to buy a Windows PC so you can do online voting/polling. And so on.
That's not the "logical conclusion". That's called "reductio ad absurdum".
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
You want central planning, right? You want education to be controlled from the top down, by people you have never even met, right? You want the system to be enforced through the coercive power of government, right?
Nope.
I want standardized testing (not necessarily "central", and not this NCLB bullshit - More like the NY Regency exams). If you and your inbred neighbors want to teach nothing but apples-and-snakes, have it your way; but when you try to get into a college or get a job, we'll all have no ambiguity whatsoever what your A+ in "science" really means.
I want licensed doctors to grasp the concept of evolved antibiotic resistance. I want historians capable of referring to dates prior to 4000BCE. I want psychiatrists who give out antidepressants rather than E-meters.
If you want shamans and voodoo, I have nothing against you having those as an option; but you damned well won't call them "doctors" - At least not without the qualifier "witch".
When a majority of the population is religious cranks, they're naturally going to vote for religious cranks to lead them. What else did you expect? This is how democracies work.
Good luck with that. If you didn't have religious cranks in Congress, the Democrats would win every time
oblig: Both Sides
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
It would.
That's how any sensible person regards things, religion or not. I don't care what *you* believe, the fact is that *X* is true in millions of fair experiments. If you want to believe in a God, fine, he "made" it happen that way. I can't prove or disprove that so one person's belief that it's true is just as valid as another's that it isn't.
If it were as simple as saying "Let's just get along", there wouldn't be a problem. This guy, for instance, wants to teach absolute nonsense that goes against observable, recorded, verified fact as if it *IS* science. It's like me demanding that all History classes teach that Winston Churchill's last words were "Aw, fuck it, put The Simpsons on TV, would ya?".
The fact is that with creationism, especially, you're not dealing with sensible, reasonable people. You're dealing with people who think that a religion is only a way to trot out complete bollocks and attack people who say something against it.
You can live your life by a book. Nobody's stopping you. Hell, it can be Fifty Shades of Grey, Beatrix Potter, Aesop's Fables (which predates the Bible, incidentally) or the Bible. Nobody cares. But when living your life by that book interferes with *MY* books, then you have a problem. If you want to believe the world is round and lives on the back of a turtle, not a problem. But then just what goes on in your head when you take a round-the-world flight?
And when other elements of that book are provably nothing more than works of fiction, we have a bigger problem. And when you want to shove it down my throat, and everyone else's, and masquerade it as "science" (when you yourself have zero science qualifications) because you think there can only be one answer and everyone should only listen to you, then we have an even bigger problem.
It's no worse than turning up at your very first ever Maths lesson, when you have zero aptitude for Maths, and saying "2 + 2 = 4? Pfft. Wrong! I don't believe it! And you can never teach that to anyone!"
No scientist of any repute will tell you what to think, or tell you they can prove God does / doesn't exist. They don't particularly care. But they will tell you if they think you're wrong, and they'll back up their assertions. And if you try to go against thousands of years of science, you need to have the proof to back that up. If you don't have proof but continue to assert it, they will just rule you out as a crackpot until you do. Most crackpots NEVER make it out of the crackpot category because they DON'T try to proof themselves right in any recognised fashion.
It's a shame that the religious people *don't* just ignore the people who go against their beliefs. The world would be a much quieter place.
Not to mention if a president gets elected that you disagree with, then all of your brilliant federal ideas to change how the schools systems should function will be COMPLETELY flipped and removed. Then EVERYBODY in the entire country loses. It's not effective at all.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science — Darwin made it up," Waide said
It whooshed on him that theories are the thing, the deliverable that science gives us -- essentially science's crowning achievements. To say that a theory "is not science" is admitting to being entirely clueless. Perhaps all the wackos who proclaim "ah, it's just a theory" need to look it up in the fucking encyclopedia first. Even wikipedia gets it right:
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
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.
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.
That's great, but I can think of only a handful of jobs out of the hundreds of thousands of possibilities where it makes even one iota of a difference what the candidate thinks about the origin of the species. I don't see why such a big deal is made about something that in the grand scheme of things, isn't all that important. So what if kids growing up in a fundamentalist town or state don't learn about evolution in hischool, it's not going to scar them for life. The concept can be explained in a few minutes.
I'm not so sanguine about the religious cranks taking over. I think they are doing it in spite of themselves, mostly as a side effect of deficit control. The biggest item on the chopping block is discretionary expenditures which include the budgets for U.S. government science agencies. Let's forget you cannot balance the budget that way, the Conservatives have gotten it into their heads that rules and regulations are strangling American and those are controlled through the discretionary expenditures. So rather than have a thoughtful go at it, they'd just like to whack the whole thing and let the chips fall where they may.
The result is that NSF, NIH, etc. get whacked. Once that happens, there will be less science, less science careers, and hence less need to teach science in the grade and high schools. The Liberals won't defend science because it doesn't get them votes with any of their newly ginned up victim classes.
I used to think that the Conservatives would at least spare the military which rather quite likes science. Then I heard Grover Norquist. The man has no sense of geopolitics. I got the general sense it was too complicated for him. He balances everything against giving the taxpayers more tax breaks which make him utterly incapable of making any moral decisions.
I never said ACT was administered by the government. I was pointing out that when a problem like this happens, we want to act on it on a federal level.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
They seem to be mistaken on the basic principles of education.
Education doesn't teach the truth. It teaches only what we know. It should be teaching kids that what they learn now isn't set in stone. It's not 100% proven, and is subject to change through discovery and hard work.
The don't have to believe in a thing to learn about a thing, but if they believe strong enough in the contrary then rather than just have kids dismiss it out of hand, schools should be teaching them to question, probe and investigate.
The only reason these people are SHOCKED that evolution is in the curriculum is because they believe everything taught in schools should be 100% true, always and forever, and actually believe such an idea exists.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
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...
I hate to break the news to you, but that is not the problem with the education system at all. You are looking at a very recent stupid idea that was added to a system that was already in such bad shape we are the laughing stock of the industrial world.
Go back a bit further in time, and find out when we started teaching to "Standards Testing" and "Memorization" instead of teaching kids to think and explore. You'll have to go back to the 50s, but it's there. The collapse of the US Education system is so blatantly obvious when you look for the answer instead of repeating what other people tell you is the problem.
We don't teach people to think any longer, we teach them to memorize data and repeat data. This stifles the creative process as well as limits the ability of people to think logically, rationally, and critically. If you want samples, just look at the incredible amount of fallacy used here on /. where it's a site for "nerds". It's not even good fallacy, it's extremely basic and obvious so it's not like people are trying to make good rhetorical arguments.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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!
No, it's not. A majority of the population does not believe in the scientific method, and believes in creationism. So if you support democracy, then you have to support teaching creationism in schools (and not evolution), as that's what the majority wants.
Local control divides things so that opinions which are more prevalent in local areas than nationwide are able to have more influence within those local areas. So if the country is mostly rational, but some pockets have a lot of backwards religious nuts, then within those pockets, the backwards religious nuts get to have their way when they have more local control. However, the flip side is that if the country is mostly backwards religious nuts, and rational people are dominant in some pockets, then within those small areas local control will allow the rational people to run things in a way different from the religious nuts who are running the country at large. Here in America, most of the population is religious nuts, so if you want non-religious standards in schools, you either need to advocate for more local control (and then make sure to move to one of the areas where religious nuts aren't dominant, generally the northeast and the west coast), or you need (assuming you're already in one of those areas) to advocate for secession.
It's nice to see that people have bought into a media manufactured issue so strongly...
If I could trade a proper evolution based origin of the species for any one change in the education system I would do it in a heartbeat. There are a lot of things wrong with education and evolution is seriously low on the list. I would so much rather see teachers able to teach to the students than be forced to teach to a national politicized test. I'm really surprised that people would rather see every kid shoved though the same one-size-fit-all program if it means their 'side' wins. Such is the power of us-vs-them debates; 'they' must be crushed at all costs. Hell, have you seen the so called evolution curriculum taught in these schools (prior to all this, even)? It's usually just about as science-y as creationism anyways. Not at all worth keeping if it means having all the other science fields follow the 'shut up; don't think' plan as well.
It isn't, and like all of science has nothing at all to do with religeon. Maybe we need to pack a dictionary with every Gideon Bible :(
Charles Darwin was a more devout Christian than every single one of those jackals in politics that are making all this noise to pretend God does what they tell Him to. If you won't accept that, take it one small step furthur back to Mendel who was a very devout monk.
The correct response to him is "Jeebus!"
;-)
It's the only way to be safe apparently
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Top-down control when taken to its logical conclusion also means having Congress order you to install thermostats in your home which they can turn-off at any point (like on a hot day when the power grid is overloading... goodbye A/C). Or ordering you to buy a Prius or similar hybrid. Or outlawing SUVs. Or ordering you to buy a Windows PC so you can do online voting/polling. And so on.
There are a lot of things in our society that, when taken to their logical conclusion, would result in a terrible infringement of our most basic rights.
The Brady Campaign hasn't outlawed guns. MADD hasn't banned alcohol. The FDA hasn't banned fried food.
Jack Thompson hasn't banned violent music or video games. The EPA hasn't banned gasoline powered cars. And so on.
Luckily, we're not simpering idiots and are capable of balancing modest restrictions and modest social benefits with the modest infringements they require.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Hell by the time they're taking this test, they probably ARE bumfuck PARENTS themselves.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
Not entirely. You can religion as long as you classify it as a subject of philosophy, not science. But if you try to, say, rewrite a biology test because it's rooted in facts and not faith, then yes, religion needs to stay out of it.
I don't want any of your federal tax dollars to begin with. That's the whole point. The economy is shit because the small businesses who employ the majority of workers in this country have to pay nearly 25% of their employees salaries for things like unemployment insurance and payroll taxes. A $40,000 employee really costs about $60,000 or more depending on whether or not you supply health benefits. How do you expect the small businesses that are struggling to begin with to be able to afford that?
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
Top-down control when taken to its logical conclusion also means having Congress order you to install thermostats in your home which they can turn-off at any point (like on a hot day when the power grid is overloading... goodbye A/C). Or ordering you to buy a Prius or similar hybrid. Or outlawing SUVs. Or ordering you to buy a Windows PC so you can do online voting/polling. And so on.
That's not the "logical conclusion". That's called "reductio ad absurdum".
Bingo. Unfortunately the nuisance is missed to most.
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?"
his is central planning, and it turned out exactly how central planning is supposed to.
No it isn't. Its a test created by a private company. It reflects simply what the universities want to test for admission. And for biology, they want you to be familiar with evolution. There is nothing in this that mandates what the schools teach. Though of course if the kids want to go to university, they had better pay attention to what is required by such tests.
If they plan to go to a fundamentalist Christian college where they study the Bible and nothing else, then that's their choice and they can ignore the test.
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.
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
Fortunately, even with the last president, the country resisted turning into the full-fledged theocracy so many of his supporters wanted. Sure, he gave away a few tens of billions of dollars of our tax money to specific churches, which was bad and wrong, but not nearly as bad as forcing teenage rape victims to marry their rapists and stoning gays to death like these people promote in other more theocratic countries.
That's because different religions are different, and have different beliefs and practices. Fundie/Evangelical Christians are generally much more tolerant these days than Muslims, so they usually just want to oppress gays (or try to forcibly convert them to heterosexuality), rather than murder them all. And I've never really heard of bible-thumpers wanting rape victims to marry their rapists, that's a distinctly Muslim trait. The Christians usually want to execute rapists, unless of course "she was asking for it" (by dressing too "provocatively", or going on a date with the rapist), in which case they just want to ignore the crime.
A theocratic government in the US is going to reflect the religious beliefs and practices of its citizens, not the people in the middle east.
I know where you're coming from, and personally, no I don't want people that stupid making laws. But imagine if we elect a president who is equally as retarded? Thanks to federal control over the education systems, then that retarded president can make laws that effect EVERYBODY. Then we all lose.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
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.
When did Ted Kennedy become a Bible thumping moron? Moron, sure, but I don't think he ever thumped a Bible unless he fell on it in a drunken stupor. Oh, you meant Bush, who signed on to NCLB in order to get Kennedy's vote and influence on other stuff? I think maybe your idea of the history of the issue needs a little rework.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
If you want to live in a country where there's a majority of backwards religious nuts, and you don't want their opinions affecting national policy, the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government.
Or a constitution which specifically disallows the government from supporting the establishment of religion.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Our democracy is limited one of those limits is that the state and the church are separate. That you do not get to shove your religion down my throat because you believe in it. Pose an alternate theory that can stand up to basic scientific scrutiny or it's not science and stays out of science class. Feel free to perform your religion indoctrination in Sunday school or what have you.
Schools need to remain neutral I grew up in the age of MADD/DAMM when we started to attempt to indoctrinate moral values. Were sliding down that slippery slope like a greased pig as everybody wants there morals taught as the correct ones. We have allready decided that no you do not get to break up because one group wants something different than the rest it was the civil war and a hundred years of growing pains that followed. My best alternative plan is to let people send there children to the school of there choice the hard part is how to fund it and require a basic level of education across the board.
No sir I dont like it.
There's a difference between keeping people's religious opinions out of state policy, and forbidding the Establishment of a state religion. Teaching a religious doctrine with tax money constitutes establishment of a state religion.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
It *is* left to local control, in fact if you don't like what your local schools are teaching there's probably at least a couple home-school cooperatives in your area to make the control even more personal. However, if you want federal funding then you need to meet federal guidelines established by the national community, which for now are fortunately not completely backwards.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Or you could just go with subsidiarity, and let people in California teach that infanticide is a public service and people in Tennessee that they should at all costs avoid looking at the world around them. Yes, that was tendentiously stated in both cases, but only to showcase a point: the original Constitutional scheme of pushing these decisions down to the lowest level worked because people in one state or city didn't have to worry about what people in another state or city were doing. Now, everyone is supposed to care about everyone else, but that means that where we fundamentally disagree, we can't move away to a place where our opinion holds, and thus we have to fight over everything. You want to know why our politics is so screwed? These mantras of the personal is political and everything needs to be decided at the national level explain pretty much the whole thing.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
LOL not worth a thoughtful reply. next.
*plays the Apogee theme song music*
So you're advocating an authoritarian government?
It sounds more like you are advocating an authoritarian government. You keep pointing out all these horrible things about democracy.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Teachers cannot write their own tests anymore? I went to a smallish private school. Our poor teachers were practically paupers, but I deeply respected their abilities to create tests for us. (Not every teacher did, but certainly some of them did.) Every year even with some or many modifications. Is this an aspect of "central planning" and no child left behind and teaching to a standardized test? Maybe Ron Paul is right and we should kill off the DoEducation?... Let each state and community decide what to do. I even went to a "Christian" school and we were still taught evolution. It is science, that is how it works. It explains things. At that level of grade school and high school it isn't an issue to get hung up on, there are more important things to learn. [sarcasm]Be proud of your lawmakers Kentucky.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
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
Wrong, it's a constitutional republic, which means the people are protected from the ass-hattery of their government by the constitution and the supreme court. And these creationism laws are violating the constitutional rights of the students to be free from religious interference and indoctrination, regardless of what the majority wants.
"For over 50 years we have forced people into believing that "The Big Bang" was fact"
Can you give an example? I don't seem to recall being 'forced' to believe anything, except what was taught in religious class.
You seem to have forgotten that having a constitution means some issues are foundational and are not decided by popular vote. You can't just vote to limit someone's speech, arbitrarily throw somebody in jail, or bring religion into the government.
Anybody want a peanut?
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy
No, it's not. It's a constitutional republic, and the constitution expressly keeps the government (which includes government-run public schools) out of the religous propoganda and indoctrination business. People who want to stunt their kids' futures by making sure they only see things from a medieval perspective should simply take them out of public schools and train them privately. And, of course, watch them fail reasonable standardized tests when they attempt to be certifiied as educated to those government standards.
you need to break the country up into smaller units
You're confusing country with culture. The irony of your confusion on this topic, even as you maintain a condescending smarter-than-thou posture, is no lost on your readers.
the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government
No, the only way to do it is to require them to amend the constitution if they want government to be in the religious indoctrination line of work. They will never be able to do that. And so all we need to do is challenge their attempts at government religious activity in civil court - where it always fails, on the simplest of 1st Amendment grounds.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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."
Naw, god is both a top and bottom. He's cool like that.
Evolution is a slow process. Do you know how long this planet has been around?
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?
Indeed. Local control only works when there is local scrutiny of the local government, which we generally do not have, and when people bother to vote, which they're even worse about than the presidential election.
Your ignorant ass is here again?
It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy.
So, I can slip my course on ethnic cleansing and home genocide techniques into next semester's curriculum, then? I understand it'll be quite popular in Kentucky.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Excuse me for a moment while I go buy my Federally mandated health insurance policy...
Dear student,
GO to school. learn rational and critical thinking... then make up your own opinion based on facts.
DO NOT just see something and then make up your mind. People who do that are trivial yo manipulate. Base you opinion on actual good data.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"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.
In the sense that a Federal government must by definition have authority, certainly.
You may want to look a bit further. We do have many examples of speciation by evolution.
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.
We are most certainly NOT a democracy, we are a democratic republic, and we have always gone against public will when it was wrong (Jim Crow might still be in effect in the South if antidemocratic actions were strictly verboten).
(%i1) factor(777353);
(%o1) 777353
Here you go.
Anybody want a peanut?
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
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy: you have to share with all the other people you co-inhabit a region with.
Before you respond further, please read up on Tyranny of the Majority, and why it's a bad thing, and how respecting the rights of the individual is essential to a functioning democracy. (Hint: Your logic eats itself.)
-- 77IM
Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
Master: Well, yes and no.
Central planning isn't universally good or bad, despite the protests of the frantic ranters. Central planning brought us rural electrification, food safety standards, a national highway system and fairly strong, if recently misused military. Is central planning perfect? No. What is?
The nice thing about education system central planning on the federal level is that local education isn't entirely controlled by pig-ignorant local goobers who think evolution is liberal propaganda and are a little suspicious about the theory that the earth revolves around the sun instead of vice versa. There are, at least, minimum standards of rationality. The not so great things are politically motivated nonsense like "no child left behind" or whatever other simplistic brainwave some policy wonk in Washington comes up with.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Actually many scientists are religious, and many of them are Christian. Hardly surprising, since the major Christian denominations recognize the overwhelming evidence for the reality of evolution. So it's not a science versus religion debate--it is educated people with a wide variety of religious beliefs who accept scientific knowledge versus fundamentalist extremists who want to impose ignorance on everybody else's children because scientific knowledge challenges their narrow dogma.
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? ....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).
Alternative theories is fine. Creationism is not a valid scientific theory. You cannot use the scientific method to disprove creationism. If you want to teach a theory that can be disproved by the scientific method, go ahead and teach it. But it needs to be a proper theory as well, as-in the scientific community takes it as a theory. Not some "idea" that a couple of guys have as a "theory". There is a big difference between a "theory" and a theory
What you are proposing is not called democracy to anyone whose country has a Declaration of Rights (e.g. France) or a Bill of Rights (e.g. States & UK). What you're talking about is called Mob Rule. It ends in revolution, and a new country with a Bill of Rights. Save yourself some grief and step forward into the 1700s.
What you're trying to solve by oversimplification is an actual problem, worthy of amelioration. But not by going back to simplistic, more easily corruptible versions of government.
Article I of the US bill of rights (Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...). Is an unassailable necessity for a free country. It may create problems, but those problems (when compared to the alternatives) are clearly worth it.
Public Schools, again are problematic, but really quite inarguably beneficial. The last thing a free society needs is a large class of illiterate, barely-employable people whose parents could not afford school and used them as free labor.
National standards for schools. This is the sticky wicket, but it is an extension of the Public Schools need. The idea that we are investing, nationally in the education of all US youth without any metric to see how well we're doing, should make any fan of responsible government worry. The software developers in the crowd will recognize the problems with million of lines of code with no test-coverage. Education spending without a test/feedback loop is a similar class of problem.
So that leaves us with a need for education, feedback on our progress, and strict prohibitions against including religion in it. There's no “quest to centralize power” here, just three necessary tenants of civilization overlapping in a way that some find disquieting.
To the specific problem, we cannot include creation theories of any religion in biology. Many creation theories don't address biological issues, so even if Christianity does, we would be giving unequal time to religions whose creation theories don't if we included the first six days of Genesis in Bio. 101. So our hands are simply tied there.
However, if you think you could craft a curriculum that would not get you burned at stake, shot or hanged, as a Libertarian, I would have no objection to a High School class on World Religions. In it you could go on at length about the conflicts that all Creation Stories have with modern science. While you lived, it would be very entertaining.
But there lay the rub. The people you're aiming to please don't want a balanced view of all Creation Theories being presented to young minds; they want their Creation Theory and no others. It's that intolerance that makes them incompatible with post 1700's democracy.
There is a basic tenant of tolerance that these people need to learn to step into the modern era. No matter how you believe the planet got to this current state, and regardless of whether or not you are right about it, the majority of the world has it wrong and you still have to live in peace with those people. So if you want to share and education system with them, you'll have to leave your religious views out of it.
Local control is overrated.
Ouch. Isn't "local control" ultimately Freedom? You can not get more local than yourself... but you meant at the county or state level. Right?
How do you explain giving up some freedoms to live in a society vs the county giving up some of its freedoms to reside within a state, with "Local control is overrated."?
Your politics are confused but it would appear at first blush as if your views are authoritarian in nature.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
> 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.
I'm curious. Why do you want local authorities to have the power to violate the constitution?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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
Freedom is not unlimited. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment bans the teaching of Creationism in publicly-funded schools. Period. This battle was fought and lost two decades ago, and it's not as if the Constitution magically changed in the meantime.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Evolution is a slow process. Do you know how long this planet has been around?
6,000 years?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Except that if a local school board is going creationist, you can fix it by moving to the next county. If a federal education bureaucracy is going creationist, you'll need to move to the next country.
Your rant is off base on basically every level. However as an angry-anti-US rant of course it gets modded +5 insightful.
"Standardized testing" is not just an American phenomenon. In fact it's even stronger in other countries - in Japan, a good amount of the curriculum and tests have been laid out by the Federal government, on a daily basis. In Europe, France has its Baccalauréat, which it uses in schools for colonies and for French citizens living abroad (it even exports native French teachers). England's A levels and Europeland's Matura are also extremely standardized. Why is standardized testing a bad thing? To a certain extent it's a necessary tool to compare students from different areas, and to hold schools accountable to teaching at a certain level.
Memorization is common in class today? Memorization used to be a much larger part of education. Long poems would have to be memorized. In China this is still true, in fact to me it comes off as somewhat amazing how people have memorized long poems, or people learning English memorize long essays or dialogues...
The collapse of the US educational system? You mean the one still preparing 9 of the world's 10 best universities?
I love how you parrot alarmist shit with no real basis, and then talk about the need for "the ability of people to think logically, rationally, and critically."
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Oh what a horrible abuse of power! If you don't have health insurance you have to pay a modest fee that goes a small way toward defraying the public cost of healthcare for the uninsured--like yourself. An idea that is so abusive of personal freedom that that it was invented by the Heritage Foundation
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Either you're a liar or an ignoramus. Your choice, but what you wrote is false.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That must be why he's both strange and charming.
Also, it's because they really are stupid.
Anyone who tells you WHAT to think instead of suggesting you think for yourself is your enemy.
Wait, isn't your post telling students what to think? You don't seem to equivocate on the whole religion thing...
Your post reminds me of http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/atheist-atheism.php
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
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.
You mean samples like these?
Of course, that assumes that you are actually part of the majority in your area like you assume.
Thinking I might have to disagree with you. When I talked with my grandparents when they were alive and my parents who are in their 80's now, the educational system back then was heavily based upon early memorization which gives you the fundamentals. Then in high school, they were opened up to the "think about it" model. Now days, kids aren't forced to memorize anything, and they are the ones that are hosed.
So Adam didn't have a pet Velociraptor?
Simply that I don't see local control as an end in itself. Some things are most successfully handled at a local level, some things at a the Federal level. I take an evidence based view toward what level of control works best for a particular purpose.
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.
Fortunately our founding fathers imparted the never ending ability to 'throw out' those at the top. So if the Religious Cranks do manage to get in charge, we can remove them. Unlike the usual 'Religious Crank' system which is most definitely 'Top Down'.
Unless the Head Crank signs an executive order declaring a state of emergency, suspends elections for the duration of the emergency, and refuses to lift the emergency for his/her lifetime. All for the good of the country, of course... And they wonder why I have problems with executive orders creeping into areas they shouldn't with the full force of Federal law.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
You're too generous. These people are shocked that evolution is in the curriculum because evolution conflicts with the bronze age mythology they've been raised to believe is 100% true, always and forever.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy.
No, it's not, actually. It's a Constitutional Republic. And I'm sorry, but saying "it depends on what the people want" leaves all kinds of shit ripe for abuse, like violating the civil rights of others simply because they have a different sexual orientation or skin color.
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
You've never seen a back-water baptist church, have you?
Talk about your lowest common denominator...
-
The US Constitution - as amended - just prevents requiring you to belong to a particular religion to hold elected office.
It doesn't prevent teaching about religions. In practice, the education system doesn't prevent this either in most cases. You only face resistance if you teach about the predominant religion. You can teach about Greek and Roman mythology, American Indian beliefs, Mayan beliefs, Inca beliefs, Egyptian beliefs, and certainly Muslim, Hindu, or other far Eastern beliefs of the modern age. You can talk some about Mormons and their trek west. Just label it cultural diversity training or lump it in with geography and you're golden. Just don't teach about Christianity or someone will get you fired.
That's an exaggeration - but not a very big one.
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy: you have to share with all the other people you co-inhabit a region with.
Be careful where you're heading with that idea, as what you propose is exactly what ages of very intelligent political philosophers have correctly pointed out to be the most brutal and merciless part of democracy: The tyranny of the majority.
If you take a democracy to mean that you put everything to a vote and then blindly enforce what the majority demands, you quickly end up in a nightmarish hellhole.
After all, what if a populist puts up to vote that you must buy and memorize a particular book and you are told that 51% of the people agreed to that?
What if it is then put up for the vote, that due to the way voting works, all parties should be merged, and 51% of the people agree?
What if is then asked, what you should do with a certain 1% of the population, and 51% of the people agree to seize their property?
With just three, small votes, you're in a wonderful cross between Mao's China, Stalins Soviet Union and -- and this is up to you to choose -- Hitler's Germany, Mussolinis Italy, Franco's Spain, Europe during the Inquisition, the USA during the Indian Displacement, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, etc. pp.
After all, remember that no-one said that those 51% of the population were always the same 51%. As an old adage goes: When they came for the Communists, I didn't say a word. When they came for the Gypsies, I didn't say a word. When they came for the Jews, I didn't say a word. When they came to get me, there was no-one left to say a word to save me.
No, the power of democracy does not lie in the tyranny of the majority; it lies within the civil discourse between all; majorities, minorities, loud or silent. It lies within the concept that everyone must be included to agree on a best course of action. All safe-guards in a democratic society must be laid out to guarantee this fundamental concept. That it must be impossible for any part, to take away the voice of any other part.
And, not to put too fine point on it: Taking away the voice of reason, the process of rational and impassioned evaluation of how we think the world works -- even if that reason might arrive at a conclusion you deem erroneous -- in favour of the voice of dogma, is to deny one of those safeguard of democracy.
TL;DR:
The difference is that those teaching evolution do not deny you your right to teach your kid your point-of-view; they only deny you the option of saying that your view is the only way to look at it. In contrast, most creationists/intelligent designers want to force a single point-of-view, to the exclusion of all the others; especially if they come from an impassioned look at the world as it is.
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)
While I agree with your belief that they are overused, said EOs can be challenged and overturned by the courts.
:)
Hence proving my point
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
This is a constitutional republic where laws trump majority whims. There is a reason it is difficult to amend the Constitution and TJeff siad it well, "to protect against the tyranny of the majority." or something like that...
Our state and federal institutions are separate from our religious institutions as specified by the Constitution. In this case we have no legal requirement or even justification for doing what the majority wants. If a parent wants their children to receive a religious education they may provide that at home, church, or at a private religious school.
Reductio ad absurdum is a valid technique, not a fallacy. If something is true, it's true at the extremities. If you can find an exception, you know that the proposition is not universally true.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
They got it wrong, Adam & Eve was a prediction!
Unless, of course, the "religious cranks" get on top. Then where will you be?
Amercia.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
This is precisely the mentality that allowed slavery and Jim Crow to persist for as long as they did. The Bill of Rights exists to protect individuals in the Federation from the tyranny of local majorities.
Actually, I think this system doesn't really have anything to do that. It promotes atheism, sure, but also a globalist agenda based on world citizenship, reliance on government, and the indoctrination of these principles are raised far above any attempt to provide a real academic education. Rather, it's designed to create a legion of dumb-down human resources ready for employment with multinational corporations and entirely devoid of any critical thinking skills or appreciation of intellectual philosophies. If anything, that would drive people into religion, as they are left devoid of any sense of self, expecting there to always be some authority to turn to. Easy prey for evangelists and snake-oil salesmen.
I think your tinfoil hat is on a bit too tight.
If you like central planning, then you need to accept the opinions of other people in your country. That means you need to change the standards for science and eliminate things they don't like, and put in religious stuff they want.
No, you don't. Their shit is not science, therefore it doesn't go in. End of story.
Watch this. Grow a brain and wake up.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Religion creates artificial divisions among people. In order to have an inclusive government, our forebears specifically invented a system separating religion from government specifically so that everyone could be part of the system without obligation to fringe or mainstream social groups.
A majority of the population does not believe in the scientific method, and believes in creationism
So fucking what? That doesn't make it right, nor does it give them the right to teach it in a SCIENCE classroom.
Fundie/Evangelical Christians are generally much more tolerant these days than Muslims
No, not really.
having Congress order you to install thermostats in your home which they can turn-off at any point (like on a hot day when the power grid is overloading... goodbye A/C).
This is probably a bad example. Aside from the issue of who controls the thermostat (should be the power company, under strict regulations), having your AC throttled a bit is certainly much better than the entire grid going down and having *no* AC.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
That way if I don't like the state's policies I can pick-up and move to a better state.
Unless you're willing to pay the moving expenses for everyone who doesn't like the state they're in, that argument is completely stupid, and should not be made in regards to things like this.
Freedom of choice between 27 EU states or 50 US states is preferable to being stuck with just one choice
And if you don't have the resources to move? Where's your "choice" then?
I don't believe that children are qualified to determine what level of education is best for them. You have to be educated to have a rational idea of what sort of education is needed. So the decision must be made at a level higher than that of the consumer of education, namely the child. So then the question becomes: how much higher?
I believe that every individual has the right to at least a basic level of education, and I believe that the Federal government is in the best position to set minimal standards to protect this right.
Only the heavily indoctrinated would even hesitate to acknowledge this fact.
Or those hanging out in reality.
Some of them. I would think most of them are smart enough to just be pretending to be shocked in order to pander to their voters. who really are that dumb.
schools should be teaching them to question, probe and investigate.
Ideally, yes. However, public education is run by the government, which in turn is elected by the voters. If the voters want schools to teach kids to blindly believe mythology, then it's the schools' duty to teach kids to blindly believe mythology. You can't disagree with this statement if you believe in democracy; if you live in a country where the electorate demands such a form of "education", then you either need to send your kids to a private school that teaches your kids in a way you agree with, or you need to move to a country where the electorate agrees with you, or if you're in a region of your country that has very different values than other regions, you could try pushing for secession so you can get away from all the backwards mythology-believers and not be subject to their rule.
The Church of Satan is bottom up.
There is also no scientific proof that we have evolution from one species to another. Come up with one, and the debate would end and people would be able to rationally answer the question without the typical "My theory is better than your theory". See how that works? You do realize that evolution is not a fact, hence subject the same treatment as other theories. I'm guessing you don't get that, because you believe it's all factual. Notice the operative term there.. "believe".
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
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?
1). Your statement is absolutely false.
2). Creationism is NOT an "alternate theory". There is absolutely no evidence for it. Further, it is religious in nature. If you're going to teach creationism, you'd have to teach Flying Spaghetti Monsterism as well.
"No scientist of any repute will tell you what to think, or tell you they can prove God does / doesn't exist. It's a shame that the religious people *don't* just ignore the people who go against their beliefs. The world would be a much quieter place." For the most part, I agree with what you wrote. People can believe what they want but they shouldn't shove it down anyone's throat unless they can back it up with proof (and a bloody good theory). However, of the two sentences above, I assume you mean the Richard Dawkins is not a reputable scientist? Also, I am religious but am also very much into science; strictly from a layman's viewpoint unfortunately. I find quantum mechanics (and entanglement especially) fascinating and have quite a few science books in my library. So, please be careful when making comments that apply "globally" (for want of a better word).
But does he know his up from his down?
I bet that's actually how democracies crumble. A bunch of religious cranks electing religious crank leaders will only turn in to a theocracy.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
Our democracy is limited one of those limits is that the state and the church are separate.
Wrong. There's no such law; the 1A does have a clause about not favoring a particular religion, but that's one little phrase and it can be interpreted numerous different ways based on the application. Finally, given enough popular support, there's nothing stopping the people from making a new amendment which overturns the 1A. It can even be interpreted that the 1A only applies to the federal government; this is really up to the SCOTUS, so if they change their minds and make a ruling like that, that's the new law.
Schools need to remain neutral I grew up in the age of MADD/DAMM when we started to attempt to indoctrinate moral values.
Yes, that's what happens when you have a democracy, and public schools. The whole point of public schools is to teach the things that society wants taught. If the society, through its instrument the government, decides with a democratic process that they want mythology taught instead of Science, that's their right. If you don't like it, either fight to change society, or move out and go find a society you agree with.
It's funny how the pro-theocracy people and the anti-theocracy people both argue for divinely-guided education and government. The pro-religion people want government and education done according to their particular religion, with laws based on religion, schools teaching their religion, and excluding things their religion doesn't agree with. The anti-religion people do exactly the same thing: they want a higher authority to decide what will be taught in schools, since the people who vote obviously can't be trusted with that. The difference is that the anti-religion people never seem to have a clear answer on WHO should be deciding what will be taught, they just make vague statements like "education should be taught this way, should teach these principles, etc." They seem to think that government should be run by some cabal of wise people who aren't subject to the voters' whims at all. But then they say that authoritarian governments are bad.
Top-down control when taken to its logical conclusion also means having Congress order you to install thermostats
How is that a "logical conclusion?" Did you mean "taken to it's illogically extreme conclusion?"
Unless the next county is also going creationist, or is already, or is too far from your job so you have to get another job, but one as good isn't available, and you already moved to thiscounty because the next county over introduced an abstinence only sex ed program...
"Move" as a solution to an issue isn't, for the most part, a viable solution, especially when balanced against other issues.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Legitimate science isn't about simple majority opinion or Democracy. There's scientific method with peer review applying critical thinking. That requires open-mindedness. Separation of church and state should protect us from populist "intellectual hooliganism".
False science and false history of intent of our government forefathers go hand in hand.
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/the-most-influential-evangelist-youve-never-heard-of?ps=view&ec=mostpopular
There are no alternate scientific theories to evolution. So there's nothing else to teach. Evolution is it. It's how life developed. Every single species on the planet, along with every fossil of an extinct species, is a sample of evolution.
The debates in science are more along the lines of 'hmm, I wonder if animals are more closely related to fungus or plants, and does any recent work help clear up when and how we diverged'. And of course, trying to figure out how the very first replicators got going to kick the whole process off. But there are several possible theories for that too. None of which include 'god did it'.
No, not necessarily. You can teach religious doctrine in a way to not explicitly advocate it. Just look at any comparative religion class in a university: they'll teach you what Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Baha'i, etc. all believe, but they don't advocate any of it. This can be done in public school too, but just for one sect of christianity (the ones that believe in Creationism). It's all in the wording: "many people believe that this is how the earth was formed...." and also in what is left out "(student) what about evolution? (teacher) that's not on the syllabus." Now, you might argue that this constitutes religious teaching, but a panel of judges that disagrees with you will say you're wrong. And who are you to argue with a panel of judges? Especially if that panel of judges was appointed by politicians, who make the people happy with these appointments, and then get re-elected? That's how democracy works.
You can argue legal technicalities all you want, but at a fundamental level, democracy is all about giving the people (or the majority of them) what they want most of the time. So if you don't like the way your country is being run, while most of your countrymen are fine with it, then you need to find a new country where you agree more with the people there.
..How can THIS still be going on?
Science is about testing theory against reality, the others need no test. If the theory is wrong it gets debunked with hopefully a better one.
Wow, not only fallacy but a blatant lie. Good for you! Continue to deny what's in science books in schools, on TV documentaries, all over countless Universities. At the same time, keep putting a Religious person in places where they don't exist.
It's funny how I never mentioned anything about Religion, and people just assume their own from my statements regarding teaching theories for what they are.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
In reality what really happened, is due basically to out of control county control of the education system, some schools became failures. The majority were just fine, however ass hat right wing politicians decide to make it a political issue and proceed to implement idiotic knee jerk fixes to a system that for the majority of schools wasn't broken and these knee jerk fixes of course started breaking down school systems all over. Of course you know what ring wing asshats with the knee jerk from the gut solutions say when their fixes fail, "they only failed because they weren't implemented enough' and proceed to make more knee jerk blunders.
Then greed sets in and lobbyists start shovelling money to right wing idiots and privatisation rears it's ugly head because the school system keeps getting worse and worse every time more idiotic right wing knee jerk solutions to problems that didn't exist are implemented. Crazy crap stuff like if a school is failing you need to cut it's funding because with less money they will, 'er' 'um', we will all get tax cuts. Teacher need to be paid less so that, 'er' 'um' we will all get tax cuts. Evolution is to complex, is is cheaper to teach creationism so, we will all get tax cuts.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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.
Not true....those religions have not pushed for their beleifs to be taught in SCIENCE classes, but a small, but highly vocal subset of Christians have done just that. And found (via the courts) that our Constitution does not allow that to occur in PUBLIC schools. You can still teach religion in schools as long as it is done in a neutral manner. This is usually done in conjuction with subjects where this is applicable (ie World Religions, Literature, History, Sociology, Anthropology, etc), just not in biology.
So...for those who wish to treach religious beliefs as science, they can send their children to a church school or home school them. Of course, the courts have also said that colleges aren't required to accept religous beliefs as substutues for actual science when they consider applicants.
Teaching about religion is not the same thing as teaching religion. If your comparative religion class says "And Christians believe all life was created by blah blah blah" you're teaching about religion. If your science class says "An alternative possibly to evolution is that God created all life blah blah blah", it is teaching religion. Nobody will stop you from teaching *about* Christianity, so long as it's presented neutrally and within the context of other religions. As a wise man once said, "There's a time and a place for everything", science class is neither the time nor the place for people's creation myths.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
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
The United States is a republic, and for this exact reason. You're describing tyranny of the majority.
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.
The Bill of Rights only worked because enough people were able to agree that they were a good thing and should be enshrined in law. Heck, the First Amendment's religion clause was basically a compromise: basically it was an agreement that since no one could agree on a single national religion, and there were a lot of people there who had been oppressed because of their religion, they decided to make a law that no particular religion should be favored, so that everyone could practice whatever religion they liked. However, laws are subject to interpretation by courts, and things change over time.
As for slavery, there wasn't enough popular support to ban that at the time. So they basically had two options: either let different states have different laws on the issue, or not have a unified country at all (which, at the time, was seen as a bad idea because they thought they needed the unity to stay independent from Britain). There wasn't any way the northerners were going to convince the southerners that they should give up slavery, so they weren't going to get them to join in a union unless they allowed different laws by state.
We're seeing lots of problems in the USA these days because of this same infighting, because people in different regions have very different values and opinions. People in places like Kentucky want all kids taught Creationism, people in places like New York don't. How do you reconcile this, without having a dictatorial government? It's easy, either you let different states have different standards (Creationism in Kentucky, Evolution and science in NY), or you break up the country so that KY and NY are no longer part of the same country. Or you can just have a revolution, appoint a Dear Leader, and let him make the decision.
You kind of echo what I state, but indirectly. Remember that up until the 50's, we taught very differently. The methods up until then were based on the Trivium and Quadrivium. Learn reading, writing, grammar, and basic math. From there you learn more advanced concepts. We taught debate and rhetoric at younger ages so that the populous was better able to think. In the 50's we drastically changed the way we taught people, and everything went to teaching only what was on a test.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
As a wise man once said, "There's a time and a place for everything", science class is neither the time nor the place for people's creation myths.
Perhaps, but science class in a public school is subject to the whims of the voters (who elect the politicians who decide what's taught in schools), and the general public is not known for wisdom, especially in America.
Sounds like the town I grew up in.
The smart ones all left, the dumb ones stayed in town and joined the Fagmason lodge.
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
Actually, if you read between the lines and some of my other posts, if I'm arguing for anything, it's separatism. But most of the time I'm just bashing society in general. With a democratic government, you're subject to the whims of the voters at large, so if your countrymen are a bunch of religious idiots, well, you can imagine the result. With an authoritarian government, history shows us what that can bring us; basically, the way I see it, with authoritarian government, it's all up to luck. If you're lucky, you'll have a government run by wise people who want to do the best for their people. If you're unlucky, you're have an oppressive despotism. And even if you're in the first group with a great leader (like, say, Elizabeth I or Hadrian), the whole thing can come crashing down when that leader chokes on his food and dies, and his insane son takes over. The Roman Empire's history is full of this.
Unfortunately, life isn't perfect, or fair. Boo hoo.
If you really don't want to move, homeschooling is an option in many places. And contrary to popular propoganda, it's not all being done by radical Christian fundies.
Go look up a debate with Dr Michio Kaku and a Sociologist that argues from your perspective. The US has to import massive amounts of people every year in order to have "Science". Listen to what he states regarding our Educational system, and our dependence on the H1B Visa for most of our Science and how this has been getting progressively worse.
I won't deny that Europe also moved to standards testing, hell look at the impact it's had on Germany in the last decade. They are becoming more like the US, and that's not necessarily a good thing.
Yes, I'm concerned with people being critical thinkers especially when someone like you types a sentence like "I love how you parrot alarmist shit with no real basis, and then talk about the need for "the ability of people to think logically, rationally, and critically."
It's a bullshit fallacy argument with no truth. There is plenty of scientific data that says we are way off course with Education in the US (as well as other countries that adopted similar models). This is why my kid went to private school and not public school.
If we look at changing the way we teach, we may actually get back on track. Why are you defending something that is obviously broken? And before you rant more about your Universities, the post I replied to was regarding "No Child Left Behind" which is grades k-12 education and has absolutely nothing to do with a Unversity.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
At the moment, they can. However, all that's needed is an El Presidente asking a Party-packed Congress to pass a law authorising EOs as Federal law in case of emergency. Then, immediately after getting his 'state of emergency', sign another one arresting the Supremes, if they haven't already been properly packed with Party partisans. No judges, no ruling. It's for the good of the country, a matter of national security.
Maybe the current crop of Presidential Idiots won't do that, but who knows what the future may bring? EOs need to be limited, bigtime.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
No, you can teach *about* any religion, including Christianity. It's when you start teaching some particular religious superstition as fact that you get into trouble.
Or, as in the current case, when you start teaching facts that an influential cult doesn't want you to teach.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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."
Sure you can. If a large enough majority of the population demands it, the constitution can be amended. It's harder at the federal level, but at the state level constitutions get amended all the time with referendum votes, particularly in the west coast states.
Plus, the constitution, like any law, is subject to interpretation. People's speech is limited all the time despite the 1A: try yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater. Or try publishing damaging lies about someone powerful. There's consequences to those actions, either criminal or civil. Interpretation of laws is done by judges. Where do judges come from? In some states, they're elected; for the SCOTUS, they're appointed by the President with approval from Congress, both of whom are elected by the people. There are mechanisms in place to create a longer "feedback loop" between popular whim and various levels of government (which is why SCOTUS justices are not directly elected), but if the people want something long enough, and in large enough numbers, they're eventually going to get it, in a true democratic system.
As others have pointed out, this is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. You are correct that theoretically a new amendment could be passed to nullify the 1st, but until then, your assertion that is false. A state run school cannot teach Creationism. This is a matter of Constitutional law, and has been reiterated by the courts many times over. [quote] If you don't like it, either fight to change society, or move out and go find a society you agree with.[/quote] This is precisely what is happening, in case you haven't noticed. The secularists are fighting to maintain the Constitutional role of the government, and the theists are fighting to change it. [quote] The difference is that the anti-religion people never seem to have a clear answer on WHO should be deciding what will be taught, they just make vague statements like "education should be taught this way, should teach these principles, etc."[/quote] And this is different from the pro-religious in what way? Do you think the Roman Catholics want the same standards as the Baptists? Or the Mormons? Or the Wiccans? Or the Satanists? Or the Muslims? Or the Amish? Shall I continue?
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Are you forgetting that the Federal government is elected by people from Kentucky and similar states?
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
How the fuck is this modded +4 informative?
The US Constitution - as amended - just prevents requiring you to belong to a particular religion to hold elected office.
What are you smoking? The establishment clause of the first amendment pretty clearly prohibits preference of one religion over another.
It doesn't prevent teaching about religions. In practice, the education system doesn't prevent this either in most cases. You only face resistance if you teach about the predominant religion. You can teach about Greek and Roman mythology, American Indian beliefs, Mayan beliefs, Inca beliefs, Egyptian beliefs, and certainly Muslim, Hindu, or other far Eastern beliefs of the modern age. You can talk some about Mormons and their trek west. Just label it cultural diversity training or lump it in with geography and you're golden. Just don't teach about Christianity or someone will get you fired.
That's an exaggeration - but not a very big one.
Uh, pretty much any high school curriculum for a European history class reads like fucking timeline of Christianity. You know, the late Roman empire and the Vatican, Martin Luther, the Anglican church, Puritans, and all that jazz?
Good luck with that. If you didn't have religious cranks in Congress, the Democrats would win every time
Which is why Republicans have been pretending to support religious extremists[*] for the past 32 years. It's just another part of their strategy to get people to vote against their own interests so they can continue running the country for the benefit of the richest.
Se also: Southern Strategy (appeal to anti-Black bigotry), Soutwestern Strategy (appeal to anti-Hispanic bigotry), unnamed strategy based on anti-Gay bigotry, etc.
[*] I call them extremists because they want the government to force their views on everyone else.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The US Constitution - as amended - just prevents requiring you to belong to a particular religion to hold elected office.
No, it prevents the Congress (and via the 14th Amendment, the states as well) from establishing any religion as the official state religion, or prohibiting anybody from practicing their religion. It says in effect that the government cannot preach, or stop anyone else from preaching, any religion.
(And despite that, many state offices explicitly require a religious affirmation anyway -- usually non-denominational, but enough to exclude atheists -- so it really has no impact on holding office at all).
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
As others have pointed out, this is not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. You are correct that theoretically a new amendment could be passed to nullify the 1st, but until then, your assertion that is false. A state run school cannot teach Creationism. This is a matter of Constitutional law, and has been reiterated by the courts many times over.
If you don't like it, either fight to change society, or move out and go find a society you agree with.
This is precisely what is happening, in case you haven't noticed. The secularists are fighting to maintain the Constitutional role of the government, and the theists are fighting to change it.
The difference is that the anti-religion people never seem to have a clear answer on WHO should be deciding what will be taught, they just make vague statements like "education should be taught this way, should teach these principles, etc."
And this is different from the pro-religious in what way? Do you think the Roman Catholics want the same standards as the Baptists? Or the Mormons? Or the Wiccans? Or the Satanists? Or the Muslims? Or the Amish? Shall I continue?
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
No
Unless *all* the religious alternatives are discussed though, they're running afoul of the Constitution. I don't think you'll find a whole lot of places where teaching creationism in science class is a priority that are willing to give as much time to the Muslim take on creationism. This battle is usually pretty specific to "I believe", not "other people believe".
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
I think your tinfoil hat is on a bit too tight.
That narrative is really tired. I don't think you're getting any play with it anymore. Please try to make more of an effort in the future.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I didn't mention science class once. My point is that even in the non-science courses where cultures are studied and religious aspects are talked about, Christianity is rarely studied, thus failing the neutral test.
The supreme court does not always rule in a way that lines up with what the framers of the Constitution intended. A perfect recent example would be the twisted logic of the majority opinion for the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.
No, we haven't. We've gone against public will in certain regions, when public will in other regions disagreed with them and put them down. It's democracy in action: the majority gets its way. In the case of the Civil War, the north had a majority (in population, as well as industrial capacity), so they got their way. Now I'll agree that in that case, the north was right about the slavery issue, but there's other issues; if a majority of the US population decides they want Creationism taught in all schools nationwide (and they fill the SCOTUS with justices who agree with them over multiple election cycles and SCOTUS appointments), then that's what they're going to get. This is the danger of centralization.
Yes, tyranny of the majority IS a bad thing, however what if the majority wants tyranny. A lot of democratic governments (including the USA's) have mechanisms to prevent short-term popular whim from affecting policy too much, however if the majority wants tyranny, and they want it long enough, they're going to vote for it and eventually they're going to get it as their representatives take over key positions one by one over multiple election cycles.
Respecting individual rights is important, yes, but if the majority doesn't agree with that precept, eventually it's all going to fall apart.
It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy.
It isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. If it were a democracy, no law would be passed unless voted on by the populace.
If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants)
Teaching of religion in public schools is unconstitutional, unless you include all religions, no religions, and antireligions. And none of these belong in a science class, that's just stupid. Religion isn't science, and science isn't religion. If you want religion in philosophy class, that makes sense. If you want religion in school, go to a private school, the Catholics have lots of them.
If tons of people in your country are a bunch of backwards religious nuts and you don't like that, the answer is simple: you need to break the country up into smaller units
I realize you're not American, and am sorry I don't have the time to teach you our history or how our government is set up. Wikipedia would help.
Free Martian Whores!
There's nothing stopping the courts from changing their interpretation. Courts are composed of people, who are elected or appointed by other elected officials. If the people demand a change long enough, they'll get it. If they want it badly enough, they'll get a constitutional amendment passed. The constitution has indeed "magically" changed over time; not that long ago, some loonies managed to get an amendment in there which banned alcohol, with devastating consequences to society for over a decade. If enough of the population demands it, there's nothing stopping them from passing an amendment modifying or overturning the 1A. That's how a democracy works.
From the state that wants marriage defined as the union of a brother and sister.
The thing you seem to be missing is that in any democratic society, including the US, everything is up for a vote. However, the more long-lived and better democracies have mechanisms ("safe-guards" as you put it) in place so that popular whim is not too quickly reflected in government policy. We have things in the US constitution that are hard to change, but not impossible: if enough people demand something long enough, they'll get it eventually. A bunch of nuts managed to get a constitutional amendment passed which banned alcohol, after all. Yes, the 1A does have some important protections, but if enough people scream long enough (and vote for enough representatives who agree with them), eventually they can get a new amendment which changes the law.
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.
Difficult, but not impossible. It's been done before, to do something as utterly stupid as banning alcohol.
After re-reading his comment, and a few others he posted, I think he just enjoys being a troll. But maybe he's just crazy. Either way I'm baffled that his comment got +5 Insightful.
A Constitutional Republic is a form of a democracy. "Democracy" means the people get to vote for their laws and/or leaders, and that's exactly what we do here in the US.
Yes, violating civil rights is bad, but if the majority wants it, and they want it long enough and consistently enough to vote for leaders who enact laws to do this, that's what we'll get. It's exactly what we got in WWII with the Japanese Internment camps. It's what we have now (and have always had) with gay rights, gay marriage, etc. It's what we had when we had slavery. The people wanted (or were OK with) these things, so they happened; the constitution certainly didn't protect them. When popular opinion changed enough, they got changed: in many states, gays are getting their rights protected better, are able to marry, etc., because a majority of people in those states wanted it (or didn't complain too much when others pushed the issue). In other states, such efforts are being met with far more opposition. If we tried to push gay rights at the national level, it wouldn't go very far, because there's too many people nationwide (in places like Kentucky) who are adamantly opposed to it, but because regions still have a certain amount of power, in those regions, gays are getting more rights than in the other regions.
I think it's more general than that. A bunch of cranks elect crank leaders that turns the country into a despotism of some kind. Just look at Germany in the 1930s. The people voted for bad leaders over a long enough time that the whole place went downhill. There wasn't some kind of coup there, the leaders were elected; once they got into power, then they turned it into a dictatorship, but it was popular will that started it all. This is just like how Chavez has gotten into power in Venezuela.
The frightening thing would be seeing how many people WOULD rent out their children to sweatshops.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
"Legitimate science" is irrelevant when you're talking about public schools operated by a democratic government, unless you're proposing to make scientists into an elite cabal that control education and don't answer to the people in any way. If the people want "intellectual hooliganism", they're going to vote for it, and eventually (depending on the various laws in place that impede them and how difficult it is to change those laws), if they persist, they're going to get it.
You'd like to think so, but generally fundies really believe that shit. It's not just an idea to them, but an identity.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
SOAP Box -> Ballot Box -> Ammo Box
In that order. Starting Now.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
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 agree with much of this thinking. I also understand the concept of power plays, which is what I imagine, at the higher levels of politics & religion, creates a lot of these unfortunate scenarios. The religious think that these scientific theories are another kind of religion, albeit a state-sponsored one. The politicians just want to please everyone, while taking advantage of it. The scientists think that religions are welcome in the classroom provided they offer some falsifiable evidence. In many cases, the religious want things taught during science class, which is wholly devoted to science.
Furthermore, there is the problem of deciding to which religions students would be exposed; about an hour after a law is passed that would allow religion to be taught in the classroom, heated arguments would break out about parents and religious leaders about how prominently their religion would be displayed, or how many class sessions they would receive to indoctrinate the youth, or about permission slips from parents to skip classes that a religion they did not approve of. As for the students who are attending the classes, there would an open question why they have this stuff during the week, yet are expected to show up (on their days off, usually) at a religious building for even more teaching.
Again, from a religious-political standpoint, 'holy men' like to fill pews / spaces / etc. Indoctrinating them while they're young lessens the likelihood of them 'straying' when they're older; it's also an excellent way of making sure those coffers remain filled. It becomes simply about power. Not the power of their gods, who have repeatedly said, in so many words, that their power is not determined by the number of worshippers, but the power of the very real, very human, very material captains of the cheer-leading squads.
We could, of course, go into an extended dialogue about just any number of social practises that reinforce the problems we are encountering today (many of them non-religious), but I'd risk alienating people more than I already have with my above comments; it would simply be more talking, less communicating, more splitting of hairs until my hands are thrown up in the air, resolving nothing.
I am John Hurt.
No, crappy Slashdot for not allowing you to edit your post.
And we suddenly have a source of gainful employment for all of those out of work philosophers.
I am John Hurt.
You do realize that Religion is by definition 'Top Down' right?
You should go visit a Quaker/"friends" meeting sometime and ask what went wrong with Nixon.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
As you said, it's possible to change the law and the constitution. And, laws can be interpreted differently. While it may seem unlikely, it's quite possible for the SCOTUS to be stacked with justices (over time) who decide to overturn the previous rulings on the matter.
And yes, the secularists are fighting against the theists. However, all this infighting isn't exactly productive. In other countries where they don't have all this infighting, they can concentrate on much more productive endeavors.
Yes, and the majority has its tyranny. The government is completely tyrannical and it is the majority that supports that government, whatever side they are on. It doesn't matter - Democrat or Republican, either of them are for huge tyrannical governments and are against individual freedoms.
Those people who are actually for individual freedoms do not make it into the government, and if they do by some chance, like Ron Paul, they are insulated, isolated, boxed in, completely ignored and prevented from changing the workings of the system.
In case of Ron Paul actually, the system didn't do enough prevention, his words did get out and there is now a huge libertarian crowd out there, not huge enough to make it into this election on the Republican ticket, but it is much more likely that it will be able to take over that party for another elections.
At this point the person who is still running that is for individual liberty is Gary Johnson, though nobody agrees with anybody else on 100% of issues, he is mostly correct when it comes to the economy.
--
By the way, on the topic brought up by another poster, who replied to your comment, he is right about something - the US is a Republic, not a democracy, and as such, it is not supposed to encourage everybody to vote. Actually the idea is to have as few as possible people voting, only those, who are actually paying into the system. If you pay taxes - you may vote, if you are a net tax receiver (which, by the way, includes all government workers and contractors) you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
... wanting rape victims to marry their rapists, that's a distinctly Muslim trait.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17 would like to have a word with you.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Voluntary and segregation are mutually exclusive in the long term. A child cannot choose which school they go to so they are forced to go where their parents tell them. This is why we have federal level standards, so that even parents that choose to home school have to meet certain minimum requirements so we don't end up with hordes of uneducated causing all sorts of problems that were seen at the start of the 20th century.
Education is more than a tool, it ensures mutual prosperity by making sure everyone has the necessary tools to work together. If only 1% of the population is educated then that 1% has to prop up the other 99% or you end up with rioting and rampant crime. This is why we see crime on the rise right now...
Federal standards work great, local schools are free to teach more than the minimum but removing that minimum isn't really going to help anyone, not even the elite class that thinks they are better than people that make less than them. I deal with people like that everyday and it saddens me how little they understand about the world around them. They drive million dollar cars on roads created by people with much more meager means. They dine at restaurants prepared and served by people with far lower means. If you have everything and you rely on these people for everything then what do you really have?
And what if they don't give any time to the Muslim take? Who's going to do anything about it? That requires enforcement. If the people elected to enforce the laws don't bother to do so in this instance, and the majority of people are OK with that and re-elect them, there's not much that can be done. Or, interested minority groups could sue in court, but that takes a lot of money, and still is to a certain extent up to the whim of the judge (who is also either elected in some regions, or in others appointed by elected officials).
this is not a democracy, it is a Republic.
Okay, smart guy, why don't you tell us what is the difference between the two? Have you looked at a dictionary recently?
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Well then, it's a good thing we have a Republic that was (at least in theory) specifically fucking designed to avoid the big pitfall of democracy, which is the tyranny of the majority.
Seriously, learn some fucking civics. The US government IS NOT AT ALL supposed to work like you say it does. "Whatever the majority wants, the majority gets" IS NOT how our republic is supposed to work. That's just mob rule, and Plato knew thousands of years ago that it was a bad idea.
In a limited republic like what the US is supposed to be, there are certain rights and privledges that not even the government or "the majority" can ever take away. There are things the government is not allowed to do, no matter how many people think it should be able to do it. One of those things is teach a state religion, which is essentially what teaching "creation science" in the classroom is.
So yes, we DO need to keep religion completely out of education standards. And we DO NOT need to take a vote on this. And even if we did take a vote on this, and even if every single person in the country voted for it, it STILL would be unconstitutional and the government would have no right to implement it.
Making fun of dumb people since 2009
Except that religion is voluntary.
Ugh... I hate seeing this definition of evolution. It does not even attempt to explain our origins. It only describes the mechanism by which we change and adapt to our environment. No one knows if a single cell kicked off life on this earth or if an asteroid impact gave the planets it's first cellular organisms or even if it started with much more complex forms of life. We only know that humans were not the first organisms on this planet. We have direct evidence for all sortsof organisms that have lived in the past prior to human development. Also, given how much DNA is shared by human and an ape I'm surprised this is still really where the discussion is in this day and age.
If it were a democracy, no law would be passed unless voted on by the populace.
Wrong. Democracy is an umbrella term that just means people elect their own laws or leaders. You're using a fundamentalist definition of democracy, which is more properly called "direct democracy". What we have is frequently called "representative democracy".
Teaching of religion in public schools is unconstitutional, unless you include all religions, no religions, and antireligions.
The 1A doesn't say anything about public schools, it just says no law can be passed establishing a particular religion. It can be interpreted different ways with regard to schools. And that interpretation can change if the courts change.
And none of these belong in a science class, that's just stupid.
Since when is the general public known for great intelligence and wisdom? We used to have our kids taught in public school that in the event of a nuclear attack, they should hide under their desks as this would protect them from the radiation. There's nothing that requires schools to teach anything that's actually true, they teach idiotic stuff all the time; it's not like we have some brilliant geniuses controlling the public school curriculum nationwide and making sure teachers teach it effectively and aren't incompetent.
This is an evolution of a species, it's not like a mold spore became an amoeba. I was very clear on the distinction between the two types of evolution. We do know that a species can change, it often happens very very quickly. It is based on this knowledge, as well as fossils (and a few other things), that we believe that a species can evolve to become an entirely new species.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
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.
Why do people on slashdot always get this wrong? Yes, America is a democracy. America is not a DIRECT democracy but it is still a democracy.
We've reached the point where the true believers are actually in power, not just pandered to by the cynical types. Luckily that hasn't happened at the presidential level yet, but it sure has in Congress and the state legislatures.
Play Command HQ online
But speaking of "Christian creationism" makes it seem that young-Earth creationism is overwhelmingly believed by Christians. It is not.
Were they able to pass that law because of our failing education system? If we were a more educated society, would we have allowed it to happen? It's worth contemplating at least..
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/
There you go. Now you can admit you were wrong and we can all move on.
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.
I think your tinfoil hat is on a bit too tight.
You are denying what is blatantly in your face? I know it is easy to play the ostrich, keeping your head in the sand pretending things don't exist. If you pretend you are an Ostrich, don't try and convince everyone else to bury their head in the sand next to yours.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
When I talked with my grandparents when they were alive and my parents who are in their 80's now, the educational system back then was heavily based upon early memorization which gives you the fundamentals. Then in high school, they were opened up to the "think about it" model. Now days, kids aren't forced to memorize anything, and they are the ones that are hosed.
Consider that education 80 years ago may have included antiquated beliefs about what children are capable of learning and/or may not have arrived a effective methods for teaching more.
It *is* left to local control, in fact if you don't like what your local schools are teaching there's probably at least a couple home-school cooperatives in your area to make the control even more personal. However, if you want federal funding then you need to meet federal guidelines established by the national community, which for now are fortunately not completely backwards.
So leaving it to local control means taking local money and refusing to give it back unless the local people do as they're told?
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.
I vote.
Can you let us know how you manage to vote for Senators and Representatives in the other forty-nine states that you don't live in? Therein lies the problem with 'federalizing' every damn thing that a state or local government can/should take care of.
I went to high school in east Tennessee, in a fairly affluent area. I don't remember a lot of religiosity back then either among my classmates, nor any overtly religious topics being discussed. One big exception was when our English teacher was telling us about some "revival" she went to and how moved she was when some kids she knew were "saved". She went on and on about this. No one really said anything, and not much later (it was at the end of the school year) she gave out some survey, and a bunch of people complained about her talking about religious stuff. Even though the survey was "anonymous", we handwrote our opinions on them, and she specifically remarked that she knew who was complaining by their handwriting. Anyway, she didn't come back the next year, the administration let her go because of this.
Now, fast-forward to today, 20 years later. I go on Facebook, and a bunch of my former classmates have started up a group for our graduating class, to talk about their reunion. From the various comments, and what they post on their walls, etc., it's evident that many of my former classmates have become extremely religious, just like this teacher. (I didn't bother attending the reunion.)
Maybe I have some kind of perception bias, but it seems to me that Americans in general have become much, much more religious than they were back in the 80s and early 90s when I grew up, and the flavor of that religion is fundamentalist/evangelical christianity.
My Senators and Representatives vote in the same Congress with all the others. Note that this is no different from decisions made at the state level; I do not get to vote for every state representative. Perhaps you are confusing "having a say" with "being absolute dictator"
We have a massive amount of children taking medication in schools now, are you claiming that up until 15 years ago we had pandemic amounts of suicidal children? Your fallacy works both ways you know, and quite frankly we are proving to not be as smart as some think. Have we learned since then? Obviously not.. our education is proof of that. Further proof is people like you that seem to believe everything is just okay with what we are doing now.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
FYI: We have a "Constitution" for the purpose of protecting MINORITY rights. Our founders rightly understood that the majority (ie people that think like yourself) rule can/will eventually unjustly strip the minority of their rights with out protection. It is protection of the minority rights that the constitution provides. Hence the reason we can all still own guns despite the fact the majority of the Americans would like to curtail that right. Authoritarian government is not necessary.
No, *you're* too generous. These people are shocked that evolution is in the curriculum because that reaction is more likely to get them re-elected by their backwards hillbilly constituency.
+1 Disagree
Please see my signature, dumbass.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
So the bird became not a bird? Wholly fuck, reading and comprehension is basic, and you lack the skill. Did you read anything in the article other than the title? This is not a new species, it's the same species. This type of evolution is showing you exactly what Darwin did. Are you so ignorant and blind that you can't tell by looking at it that it's the same species of bird? This is what I stated very clearly we do know about, and have proof for.
Now when the bird becomes a vegetable, or the even half vegetable half bird please let me know. Even if the bird became a different bird, that would be pretty damn cool. Parrot becomes Eagle, right on man! That is what we have not seen, and lack evidence for. We have not seen this in any case, even single celled organisms. A plant does not become an animal, and an amoeba does not become a paramecium.. ever! That is the proof missing for the theory of evolution.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Leviticus says you can't eat shellfish, but Christians these days don't pay any attention to that, nor those other passages you cite. When I speak of what traits followers of a religion (or sect) follow, this means what they do and say and practice currently, not some obscure passage in their holy book which they generally ignore. Every religion and sect has different parts of their scriptures that they put more emphasis on, and other parts they de-emphasize or even ignore or come up with excuses as to why it doesn't apply. And the less fundamentalist, the less emphasis they generally put on the scriptures and how accurate they are. To many Christians (though probably not that many in the USA...), they don't even bother much with the Old Testament, and just treat it as a history book, as they concentrate on the teachings of Jesus and not the old Jewish laws.
Similarly with the Muslims, I'm not looking at anything written in their holy book, I only judge them by their own actions and teachings today. Most people here know that Muslims used to be much more progressive 1000 years or so ago, back when they were master astronomers and mathematicians, but those days are long gone, and the religious practices they have today tend to be very intolerant and backwards except in certain areas.
As you said, it's possible to change the law and the constitution. And, laws can be interpreted differently. While it may seem unlikely, it's quite possible for the SCOTUS to be stacked with justices (over time) who decide to overturn the previous rulings on the matter.
Another good reason to keep fighting right there. The balance is already pretty close to tipping.
And yes, the secularists are fighting against the theists. However, all this infighting isn't exactly productive. In other countries where they don't have all this infighting, they can concentrate on much more productive endeavors.
Except that they do also have this infighting. We see this same tension all over the West, especially as it relates to Islamic influx. In the Russian states, you have a resurgent Eastern Orthodoxy which is trying to squash both the secular forces and rival religious forces. In the East, you have some officially atheistic states contending with both native religions and incoming evangelistic religions, along with large groups of Islamic states. In India, you have skeptics being persecuted by the officially recognized religions(such as the recent case of Sanal Edamaruku). In South America, there is a constant struggle between secular, often left-wing governments and the dominant religions of the area, primarily Catholicism(read up on the whole Catholic "liberation theology" kerfluffle).
The only places where this is not a concern are places where religion is completely in control, and those places are emphatically not places that are free(in the US sense of the word) and certainly do not accentuate open scientific research.None of this is productive, unles you consider the violation of human rights, constant social unrest and open warfare to be productive.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
Neither of you are right. Religion *should* be taught in schools, just not in science classes. More accurately, Comparative Religion should be taught.
In other words, a basic class that says "this is what the xians believe, this is what the muslims believe, this is the jews, this is the buddhists, this is the hindus, this is the shinto, etc." should be required. Maybe when people start to realize that different religions have different belief systems, they'll start to understand that people have a right to believe what works for them, and that there is no single path. Everybody needs to be allowed to find the right path for themselves.
I think YOU need to go learn some Civics. The majority does get what it wants, if it works at it long enough; the safeguards in the way the government is set up are designed to prevent the short-term whims of the populace from having too much effect on policy. The government and majority can take away any rights and privileges it wants. The constitution is not set in stone; have you ever heard of "amendments"? Not too long ago, they passed an Amendment that took away peoples' right to consume alcohol! Of course, passing an Amendment isn't easy, but as that shows, it can be done if enough people push for it long enough. If enough people decide the First Amendment needs to be overturned and we need to ban anti-religious speech or whatever, it can be done, they just have to pass an Amendment. Obviously, that wouldn't be easy, but it is possible, however unlikely it may seem. (Practically though, you might need a super-majority.)
So yes, we DO need to keep religion completely out of education standards. And we DO NOT need to take a vote on this. And even if we did take a vote on this, and even if every single person in the country voted for it, it STILL would be unconstitutional and the government would have no right to implement it.
Obviously, you know absolutely nothing about the way the US government is set up. If every single person in the country voted for it, they could vote for representatives who promised to pass an Amendment to make this law. And then, suddenly, it IS constitutional and the government would be bound to implement it.
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
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy. If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy: you have to share with all the other people you co-inhabit a region with.
Before you respond further, please read up on Tyranny of the Majority, and why it's a bad thing, and how respecting the rights of the individual is essential to a functioning democracy. (Hint: Your logic eats itself.)
-- 77IM
In 1967, when the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws, 72% of Americans believed that Interracial Marriages should be illegal.
I'm pretty sure we're both right.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
No room for the theory of 'god' influencing evolution and evolution influencing god then?
A blog I run for the wealth
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!
"The Brady Campaign hasn't outlawed guns."
The National Rifle Association fought them effectively so they could make no great progress toward their goal.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Superstition is based on lies. There is no evidence to support religion, therefore hating it as a lie is appropriate for those who want to protect civilization. I suggest that those who appreciate religion as the enemy of the search for Truth (not part of it) not sit idly by. Hating lies is fine.
"These children's parents don't want them to be slaves, they want their children to be brought up in the same culture and beliefs that they were."
Religion is inherently slavery, submission, grovelling before other men since there is obviously no god. Their parents are fools if they disregard this.
Youth can critically examine what their parents teach them, and if they find it dishonest it is appropriate to resent being lied to and resent the liars themselves.
There is no point cultivating "understanding" with Superstitionists. They consign those who disagree with them to Hell, and seek to bring Hell to Earth that they may enforce obediance to their Sky Fairie.
Prove your God exists, here, now, testably, incontrovertibly, and I'll kiss his/her/it's Noodly Appendage and recant.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
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?
In cases where it's the only way to give children equal opportunties in life? Yes. It's clear that anything other than centrally-planned K-12 education results in children in Kentucky being taught false things while children in New York are taught true things. That's not OK.
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.
Your whole and complete premise is based on something not true. We have never seen a mutation where a plant becomes an animal, or an amoeba becomes a paramecium. There is no fossil evidence possible that could show this occurred accurately either, we would have to observe this or something similar. If we see a fossil of a plant and animal stuck together, we assume it's 2 different items correct? Fossils can definitely be used to get, or to keep, us on track, and give us pointers. But to claim we have seen new species spring to life is a lie, as is saying we saw a bird mutate in to a new species of bird. (Be cautious with that one, we have seen the same species of bird vary quite a bit with evolution. The bird does not suddenly eat meat when it's vegetarian however, or grow a different kind of feather. The changes are often rather subtle and hard to detect). So we assume over time we can get to a new species.
In my opinion a logical hypothesis, but at the same time it is still "theory". To say that everyone else is wrong because you have a theory is rather unscientific, don't you think? The scientific method requires more work on the proof to remove all doubts, instead of doing what the first post did which was to jump on an ad hominem attack for anyone with a different theory.
And why not teach everything possible? If your theory is more logical don't you think more people would buy in to it? Instead, we have this race to chastise anyone that thinks differently. Isn't that the same thing that so called "people of science" chastise the Church for doing with flat earth theory? Hypocritical, and a shame that someone that claims to believe in science prescribes to.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yes the constitution is a living document, if we go down that road of allowing any particular religion to force itself on everybody else were pretty screwed. The SCOTUS can interpret anything anyway they want they have no method of enforcing anything as that is an executive power. Edward v. Aguillard was very specific it bared states from pushing any particular religion, it only had 2 dissenters. Anyway this has already been interpreted based on constitutional law and wold be very odd for them to even hear another case on that point without a constitutional amendment. SCOTUS gave specific instructions on how to interpret that phrase in Lemon v. Kurtzman so yes 1a precludes the government (fed, state, and local) from advancing, inhibiting or becoming entangled with religion.
The point of required education is to insure children have a basic education. Your not required to send your children to school but you must educate them to a defined minimum standard.
So where do I fit in I assume the government is generally run by idiots as that is the safest assumption. So the best defense is to limit there power to the largest extent possible. I also believe that the population is a whole are sheep and follow whatever the snake oil salesmen are selling.
PS since you seem to put everybody into a pro-theocracy or anti camp I do send my child to catholic school, it's a better standard of education. Teaching morals is a parents job not the state if the parent chooses to enlist religion or anything else that is a parents choice to make and that is a basic human right.
No sir I dont like it.
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
No, actually we don't.
Yes, actually we do. Our system of government is secular, and has been from the start, despite the lies of the likes of David Barton. They don't like it, they can leave, or try and change the Constitution.
Or they could, you know, secede, but that didn't work out too well the last time it was tried.
(And despite that, many state offices explicitly require a religious affirmation anyway -- usually non-denominational, but enough to exclude atheists -- so it really has no impact on holding office at all).
Just try and enforce one of those atheist clauses and see how far you get. Those are all dead letters.
There's no question that you can teach a religion as a matter of humanities, or of comparative religion.
However, it's not clear how in your science class where you teach the different creation stories, how you're going to grade someone that points out the Earth is more than 5000 years old. Are they being intolerant? Facts must be either true or false, they're objective; they cannot be true for me and false for you. Science is based on the idea that there is an external world which rational people cannot deny. People might disagree with particular evidence, and particular conclusions, and certain ideas in our culture might be very powerful and afforded respect, like Christianity. But you're going a step farther, and affirming that facts can be whatever people vote them to be -- your panel of judges might as well proclaim Pi is 22/7.
And here we see the danger of such things, because we know from evidence that Pi is not 22/7, and now it becomes the state's responsibility to correct those who promulgate "frauds," such as Darwin, or the irrationality of Pi. Legislation of objective facts is inherently tyrannical.
This is a tired point, but the United States is a Presidential Republic, it is not a Democracy, and its constitutional order embeds a deeply elitist, anti-democratic bias by design.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
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.
Wikipedia even has a nice article all about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Why do pedants come into every conversation about government and repeat this idiotic meme over and over, thinking repetition will make it true?
This is an attempt by Republicans to denigrate the Democratic party and make it seem un-American. Yes, it is stupid, but it is purposeful stupidity. (And, yes, they will strongly deny it, but then they would, wouldn't they?)
So you really think the First Amendment is set in stone, and can never be altered, ever? Have you ever heard of a Constitutional Amendment (which, ironically, the First Amendment is one of)? What exactly do you think they do? Since you don't understand basic US civics, I'll inform you: an Amendment changes the Constitution!!! And if that Amendment addresses anything in the 1A, then that means it can overturn the First Amendment! Amazing huh?
Not that it's likely to happen any time soon, but anything is possible. A bunch of religious nuts managed to get a Constitutional Amendment passed a while back which banned alcohol nationwide.
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.
Actually, unless you hate the constitution, this is wrong. This is why we are NOT a direct democracy,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
It's amazing how many people on Slashdot have no clue what the definition of "democracy" is. Clue: I never said this was a "direct democracy".
Since there's a separation of church and state
There's no "separation of church and state" enshrined in law, except for a single clause in the First Amendment which is rather vague and open to interpretation. Thomas Jefferson was a big fan of the concept, and indeed wrote about it many times, but his writings are not law (though they probably should be...).
So they created a constitution, and made us a constitutional republic, meaning that certain tenants in the constitution can't be changed on a whim, and it requires a grueling amendment process to change those basics.
I never said it would be easy. But a bunch of religious nuts did manage to get alcohol banned with a Constitutional Amendment not that long ago, so it's not without precedent.
saying "Darwin made it all up" shows such a complete lack of understanding of how science works
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Heck, physical reality is completely irrelevant. If the majority of the population wants to make it law that kids are taught that 2+2 = 5 and the earth is flat, they can do so (though again, it might not be that easy, and may take multiple voting cycles). My whole point is that this is the problem with democracy (again, go look it up if you're having trouble with the definition): it works great if the population is mostly intelligent and educated, but when they're mostly uneducated fools, it doesn't work well at all.
You kind of echo what I state, but indirectly. Remember that up until the 50's, we taught very differently. The methods up until then were based on the Trivium and Quadrivium. Learn reading, writing, grammar, and basic math. From there you learn more advanced concepts. We taught debate and rhetoric at younger ages so that the populous was better able to think. In the 50's we drastically changed the way we taught people, and everything went to teaching only what was on a test.
Trivium ? Quadrivium ? I don't think so.
I grew up in Georgia around then, and most schools there were big on rote memorization.
I still remember having to memorize all of the state capitols. Couldn't get out of 3rd grade without reciting them back in order. On the other hand, there basically weren't any standardized tests, at least until the PSAT.
Also, religions are authoritarian and lack a history of going out of their way to honor other's values. How could they, when democracy would mean voting against their gods? You can't put unreasonable people in charge without a way of removing them, and theocracies are not known for imbuing their leaders with anything less than false mandates of authority.
Yes, but if the majority of the population is unreasonable, they're going to vote for unreasonable people to lead them. That's the whole problem with democracy. It works great if you have a country where most people are educated and reasonable. But in a country where most people are uneducated and following insane religious leaders, it doesn't work so well.
By your country's own laws, this is not a legitimate basis of rule, and you should know better than to suggest secession to appease any loudly unreasonable population, because if for nothing else you would set the precedent of confirming that hysteria gets them what they want.
Huh? I never suggested "appeasing" anyone; my goal with secession is to separate the reasonable people (who tend to be more concentrated in some regions) from the unreasonable people who want a theocracy (who again tend to be concentrated in certain regions, different from the regions the reasonable people dominate). If this helps get the nutjobs what they want, that's fine, because they'll be limited to getting what they want only in their own regions. The rest of us can stay in regions dominated by reasonable people, and not be affected by their lunacy. Everyone can be happy (or at least happier; the religious wackos won't be totally happy until everyone is forced to follow their particular religion). What's wrong with that?
He may have been a devout Monk, but he still evolved from a fish.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
When you go throwing the word "WRONG" around, you should make sure you're actually correct, because otherwise you look like a total moron.
Our country is indeed a democracy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Again, "If you don't like it, leave" is not a solution, or a practical means of addressing a problem. This isn't to whine about life not being fair, it's to observe that local idiocy isn't somehow superior to national idiocy, just because it's superficially more plausible to escape it.
Agreed that not all homeschoolers are radical Christian fundies. It's also irrelevant. The option of homeschooling doesn't make local idiocy by the school board somehow more palatable than national idiocy.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
You cannot deny any part of the bible and be "christian".
You cannot adhere to the bible in its entirety and be a moral and civil human being.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God....
I'll leave you please it for me, brother, and I'll stick to pleasing those who provide me with reasonable requests and constructive feedback.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Personally I'd rather have State-level control like they do it in the European Union...if I don't like the state's policies I can pick-up and move to a better state.
As liberal, I normally don't like to say things like "love it or leave it," but sometimes, like now, it is ridiculously applicable: You can go enjoy your freedom of choice of 27 states in the European union right now! And why limit yourself to the west? There are like 200 countries* out there you could move to! Most aren't nearly, if at all, as standoffish to immigrants as the US and I've known many Americans that have done so.
*195 if you love America.
Whether it's "okay" or not is irrelevant. If it's what the majority wants, they may be able to get it (though the specific form of government they live under may make it difficult and time-consuming to achieve that goal within the law, because they'll have to elect people who agree with them, and then those politicians will have to change the laws, etc.).
There's some African country right now, with a democratic government, that's trying to get homosexuality banned with death being the punishment. Obviously (or at least I would hope it's obvious, but there's a lot of people here on Slashdot who would probably applaud this) this is horrible, but with a democratic form of government, this is what can happen when the majority wants something, and unwaveringly demands it from their government for long enough.
Yes, democracy does mean we do any damn fool thing the majority wants. Our form of democracy (with representation, checks and balances, etc.) makes it much harder and time-consuming to push through "damn fool" things, but if the majority doesn't change its mind and pushes for it enough, it'll happen.
It's weird how Slashdotters have so little reading comprehension. Where did I ever advocate that the majority should be able to strip the minority of their rights? I'm only stating that it's possible under a democratic system. Our system of government has enacted protections against this, but since it is still a democracy, the people have the ability to vote for people who can change the government (with new laws, new constitutional amendments, etc.), and eventually, if the majority pushes for something long enough, do something totally unjust. The constitution and use of representatives only makes it much more difficult.
I also never said authoritarian government is necessary. It has its own problems, namely that you're subject to the whims of the leaders, good or bad. Get a good one, then it can be much better than a democracy. But then when he gets old and dies, or has an untimely accident, he might be replaced with a nut, and then you're stuck with decades of despotism.
That sounds great, and I'd support it personally. However, when the majority of voters (esp. parents) in a school district are fundamentalist christian nuts, they're not going to be too happy that little Johnny is learning about the Mooslims and Shinto and everything else, and they're going to demand an end to it.
That's all nice and well, but totally irrelevant to the discussion. We're talking about school curricula, and that's something that the voters have (indirect) control over. If the voters want the public schools to teach falsehoods, it is within their power.
It has been secular, but if people demand more religion in government, it can happen, over time. Heck, all you really need is a few more SCOTUS justices to rubber-stamp anything the religious right wants, even if that means overturning prior rulings, plus a President that's willing to enforce religious rulings. It could happen sooner than you think.
Secession didn't work well the first time for several reasons: 1) slavery was a major issue in the war, and since it was so obviously morally wrong, it brought a lot of support on the northern side. We probably don't have any issues like that right now which would make lots of people want to take up arms to keep another part of the country from leaving. 2) It hadn't been that long since the War of 1812; there was probably still fear than Britain would try to retake the "colonies" if they were too weak, so unity was seen as necessary by many. There's no one that's going to invade and take over part of the US today, even if it did secede. 3) the North had a very strong industrial economy, so it could afford to finance the war effort. Today, our economy is not doing well, and is based on nothing really; we no longer have a strong manufacturing economy and the future looks grim. A civil war would cause immediate economic collapse, much worse than just letting the breakaway republics go. Finally, just how many people do you know who'd sign up to carry a rifle and fight against other Americans (perhaps in a separate region) so they can't secede? Most conservatives are constantly making comments about wishing California would fall into the ocean or otherwise leave the country. I really don't think there'd be a lot of support for using force to keep this place together if regions started trying to break away. Instead, a lot of people would be happy that they wouldn't have to share a country with "those dumb bible-thumping rednecks in Alabama or Kentucky" or "those godless atheists and homosexuals in California".
Consider that education 80 years ago may have included antiquated beliefs about what children are capable of learning and/or may not have arrived a effective methods for teaching more.
Consider that education in the US has gotten worse since then.
this is not a democracy, it is a Republic.
Okay, smart guy, why don't you tell us what is the difference between the two? Have you looked at a dictionary recently?
Why do pedants come into every conversation about government and repeat this idiotic meme over and over, thinking repetition will make it true?
Murricans, they think they're special because they don't do it the way all those commie Euros (or us Canucks) do it. Well, yeah, they're correct. They're only recently beginning to realize that EU countries today appear to care a heck of a lot more about individual freedom than the US ever has, and the US is presently moving even further away from that much vaunted ideal. Huh. I like this one:
From The Devil's Dictionary (1881-1906) [devil]:
REPUBLIC, n. A nation in which, the thing governing and the thing governed being the same, there is only a permitted authority to enforce an optional obedience. In a republic, the foundation of public order is the ever lessening habit of submission inherited from ancestors who, being truly governed, submitted because they had to. There are as many kinds of republics as there are graduations between the despotism whence they came and the anarchy whither they lead.
That pretty much describes to a 't' the US recently. Vive le revolution!
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
No, it's not. It's a constitutional republic
A constitutional republic can be a democracy, and US is one (all that means is that representatives are elected).
and the constitution expressly keeps the government (which includes government-run public schools) out of the religous propoganda and indoctrination business.
That's all well and good, but what happens when the majority of people don't want to enforce the constitution on some particular point, including the representatives in all branches of government? I mean, we already have that for good chunks of it, like the 2nd Amendment, or the standing interpretation of Commerce Clause.
Ultimately, constitution is just a piece of paper unless enough people believe otherwise. The only recourse you have to that is to take over and run it yourself. Then it'll be a constitutional republic, but it will cease to be a democracy, since the majority of people don't want you running things. They want the guy who'll piss on the constitution.
Reading others' responses to your comments make me truly sad. It's like people don't understand that all these things - constitution, republic etc - are not some God-given institutions that are inviolable and invincible for eternity and that will magically preserve your rights and freedoms all the time. That they actually are created by humans, and require human will to implement them and sustain them, and that, should this will be withdrawn - whether out of a desire to do so, under threat, or from apathy - the arrangement itself will collapse.
But our government has stood fast against continuous assault by religious cranks almost since its inception, so I'm not terribly concerned.
Grab your wallet, take a dollar bill out of it, and read what's printed on it.
My point is that even in the non-science courses where cultures are studied and religious aspects are talked about, Christianity is rarely studied, thus failing the neutral test.
You mean the history and english courses where a large amount of time is spent studying things like the Babylon captivity, the Avignon Papacy, the Spanish Inquisition, the Church of England, the rise of Lutheranism and other Protestantism, the Puritans, the Great Awakenings, the Amish, the Shakers, the Quakers.... No siree, no Christianity at all.
FWIW, it didn't lose popularity when it turned into a dictatorship, either. It's not like Hitler was discreet about what, exactly, he intended to do if he ever got to power. Mein Kampf outlines pretty much everything except for the "final solution" - and even that can be read between the lines - and was published several years before the first Nazi electoral success.
The only problem is that those parents still vote. And once they discover each other, they might as well organize and vote as a block - to, say, remove the draft, or ditch any federal regulation of education.
Eaten any bacon lately - if so you've "denied a part of the Bible", but it's a line considered not important enough to stick to by nearly every Christian. Meanwhile evolution only denies Eve being made out of Adam's rib, which was probably not supposed to be literal anyway.
Even better, he laid the groundwork of describing exactly how he evolved from a fish.
You had a much more rigorous high school history class than I remember having. And I believe a much more rigorous high school history class than my kids are currently taking.
Easy voting guide:
Both of these Kentucky guys were Republicans.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is a tired point, but the United States is a Presidential Republic, it is not a Democracy,
It IS a tired point, because fools like you keep repeating this idiotic meme and don't even know the definition of "democracy".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, going to have to second that one. Pre-WWII education was all primer-based, you know, one-room schoolhouse, prep 'em for the factory and what-not. School as a thing just has to suck - it all seems so reasonable and solvable from where you are, but really: you have to recognize what the 50th percentile really is - just imagine the stupidest cashier you've ever met, and move down another standard deviation - not just for Americans, but for humans. It's a public system - cost-benefit analysis and so on. Everyone knows the poorest kids are screwed no matter what, and the richest can afford to buy their degrees. The industrious middle can do all their "think about it" stuff on their own time, and learn to excel.
People, on average, are just kind of stupid. Governments can throw money at that all day, for very few percentage points. Honestly, yeah, maybe we don't need that jet-fighter, but don't give any of that cash to the schools, it's just throwing it away. Make them hold their damn bake-sales.
"Democracy" in the classical sense (and as your GP inferred) meant what we now more clearly call a "direct democracy" (occasionally a "pure democracy), which is indeed different from a "representative democracy," also commonly called a "democratic republic." So when you refer to them as comparable forms of governments, yes, they are mutually exclusive.
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
>> In contrast, most creationists/intelligent designers want to force a single point-of-view, to the exclusion of all the others
So, so wrong. A lot of creationists would be happy having a critique of evolution (like a look at the lack of intermediate species in the fossil record, among other things). But mentioning the suspicious parts of evolution is somehow labeled establishing religion.
Please open any copy of Darwin's "The Origin of Species", please. It is, after all, the book that brought the issue up to public scrutiny in a big deal. And -- contrary to some opinions -- just reading something does not mean that you automatically have to agree with it.
For brevity's sake, I'm just giving you a few of the chapter headings in it:
* Difficulties on the theory of descent with modifications
* Absence or rarity of transitional varieties
* Organs of small importance
* On the imperfection of the geological record
* How far the theory of natural selection may be extended
And these are just some of the headings. The text itself contains an even more thorough look at what the theory can explain; what it can't explain and what, if found to be an incorrect assumption, would immediately break its back. The entire thing is a defense of a theory against a torrent of very intelligently put criticisms and pointing out of difficulties.
And, as far as I can remember, we raised or got shown many of the same questions during our school education on this topic. They were discussed and at the end, almost everyone was convinced of it. Not because the teacher said so, but just because it stood the test of an onslaught of people trying to poke holes in it ... and it still does!
I know virtually no other scientific idea that was, is and probably will be for our entire lifetime, put under so much scrutiny. And for some reason, no counter-argument has yet managed to break it down; the best they got to, was to show us parts where we did not understand the full implications of the theory yet. And then, by examining it closer, we discovered elements of it that were even more amazing than we thought possible.
Things like the existence of DNA; that horizontal gene transfer is possible between different individuals, groups or species; the role of retro-viruses; the quickness with which adaptation can act, given enough outside pressure; and so on.
So no, I am afraid you overlook just how deeply this entire theory is constantly being evaluated and how hard it is getting poked at. Nowadays, people want to break it, just to see what amazing things we have not yet learned about it.
Leviticus is still in there even if another book tells you that you can "deny" it, but I probably could have used a different and less obvious example.
My point is really to show how stupid the above posters comment was especially since the Bible doesn't really say anything one way or another about evolution and evolution doesn't disprove anything in the Bible either. A bit of detail doesn't overturn the idea of creation. IMHO the entire fuss is about pretending that nothing ever changes, thus really about politics.
Freedom!
This item sheds light on the root cause of the American Civil War.
E Proelio Veritas.
I sometimes think that Lincoln was wrong in opposing the secession of the Confederate States.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
god's a quark?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
So, we need to keep religion completely out of education standard.
No, actually we don't. It depends on what the people want, since this is a democracy.
If you want to live in a country where there's a majority of backwards religious nuts, and you don't want their opinions affecting national policy, the only way to do that is to have an authoritarian government.
You couldn't be more wrong. We live in a REPUBLIC. The rights of the individual are the source of all rights of the government. That is the essential starting point for LIMITED GOVERNMENT. One of the function of government is to manage the commons and offer services consistent with limited government to enrich and sustain said commons. This includes the common law, the common wealth and the common good. The pure Democracy that you are equating with freedom is no such thing. We call that the tyranny of the majority and our government was designed to strenuously avoid that situation.
When the government offers tax funded education as a feature of the commons, it has to honor the fundamental rights first. One of the rights we thought was important enough to list FIRST when we enumerated some of those rights was the right to never have government establish an official religion (and by extension, an official religious position). Creationism is a Christian idea. Other religions have creation myths too but they aren't pushing theirs. Incorporating these ideas into the commons that we pay for with tax money is a direct violation of expressed rights of US individuals.
One argument I've heard is that science is a belief system like religion and that teaching other belief systems is an appropriate practice under the auspices of science education. Science has a strong philosophical bias toward materialism and phenomenology that DEFINES science itself as we have practiced it for the last 200 years at least. It's not a belief system, it's a rigorous practice of examination, testing and reportage that has proved extremely valuable in filtering a giant array of conjectures into extremely productive hypotheses and theories. Treating it as just another belief system and mixing it with ideas from belief systems that lack the core features and biases of scientific thought is a violation of the definition of science. Doing so with my tax money is an act of fraud and abuse that would indicate an abuse of authority only possible in an authoritarian government.
I hope that helped clarify a few things for you.
Every rule has more than one consequence.
You mean Feehdum! Local control is overrated, most people are incapable of determining which investment strategy is needed for them to retire, incapable of a determining the correct safety standard for drinking water, which scientific theories should be taught in school - we have experts who have studied these issues, we rely on them every time we eat some food we bought at the store or drink tap water, or get an inoculation - most people are dumb asses who just care about sucking up to the man in charge and keeping track of who is fucking who, for the dumb asses own safety we should not be giving them local control over what shit the local chemical plant can dump into the river, or telling the local farmers it is ok not to wash their fucking vegetables - local control or Feehdum! Is code word for fucking the dumb shits of amerika and really if the dumb shits getting raped by predators didn't effect me i wouldn't give a shit but it does - those unwashed veggies might end up in my supermarket, their unvaccinated kids might get my baby sick,that local chemical plant might fuck up the aquifer - we live in a civilization it's maintenance requires experts and professionals - appeals to freehdum are just appealing to the narcissism of dumbshits
You want education to be controlled from the top down, by people you have never even met, right?
From the perspective of a student that is always true no matter who is in charge.
The higher up the control comes from, the more uniform the experience. If you're a kid born in Kansas it's not your fault your education was fundamentally flawed, but you're competing for jobs and university placements with people from 49 other states who didn't necessarily have the same advantage or disadvantage. The reason eduction belongs as a primarily federal responsibility is because being a kid in california right now means spending cuts that the state can't resolve, it means being a kid in Kansas who has to deal with his/her schoolboard having a fit at the presence of evolution etc. At least if every kid in the US got the same basic funding, requirements and curriculum they'd all be equally good or badly off. It means there's a single point of contact for when the system is failing (the federal department of education), there's a buffer for local economic circumstances (so people in poor neighbourhoods aren't screwed) etc.
A centrally planned top down system is the only way you're going to have a functional educational system. I'm canadian, and we get applicants to our university from the US on regular basis. It's actually a real pain in the ass to figure out if this person went to a legitimate school or not, if the courses they covered legitimate material or not etc. We don't have that problem with india, Iran, or France etc. Certainly India and Iran have regular failures in teaching certain material at various schools, and India has a serious bribery problem, but those are easier to cope with than trying to assess US students a lot of times.
Naive platitudes aside, free markets function well only when consumers are capable of rapidly and accurately evaluating the benefits of one purveyor's product versus another and are able to shift from one purveyor to another without large transaction costs. So childhood education is an extraordinarily poor fit to free market ideology
- The consumers (the children) do not have the power to choose their own education provider; because any such decisions are be made by their parents, who do not directly experience the product.
- The consumers do not have the ability to judge the quality of the product (because you need to be educated to know whether the education provided is good are bad.
- Consequences of poor education often become evident after a substantial delay--i.e when the child fails to get into a good college (or go to college at all) or when the child fails to enter a profession that they would be good at because their prior education did not adequately expose them to the field. By that time, it's too late to switch your primary or secondary education provider.
- There are often substantial costs to switching schools; for example, it may be necessary to move, or commuting expenses may be involved.
So just from first principles, we would expect a free market to be inadequate to guarantee to all children their right to a decent education. In practice, there is little evidence. Moreover, objective evidence does not support the hypothesis that a free market is adequate to secure an adequate science education for all children--there are private schools that teach nonsense like creationism as science.
If the people are a bunch of religious nuts, then the education standard needs to include religion (whichever flavor the majority wants) and omit evolution (of that's what a majority wants). This is the price of democracy
No, that would be the price of theocracy. As long as religion is a personal issue and no particular faith is mandatory to an individual, you can't make any assumptions as to who wants what and the only logical course of action is simply to leave it out (from the test that everyone is supposed to take).
Ezekiel 23:20
Ideally, yes. However, public education is run by the government, which in turn is elected by the voters. If the voters want schools to teach kids to blindly believe mythology, then it's the schools' duty to teach kids to blindly believe mythology. You can't disagree with this statement if you believe in democracy
Actually, you either *must* disagree with this statement *or* you have to change the constitution to allow for affirmation of a particular religion in a public (state-run) school.
Ezekiel 23:20
Thank you, you summed that up perfectly.
I frequently think that. Sure, slavery was horrible, but a half million people died in that war on both sides, and as another poster in this thread said, it paved the way for a stronger central government, less states' rights, which led to the imperial corporate oligarchy that we have now. From what I've read, the South at the time was on the edge of economic collapse anyway, so if the North had just let them go, their economy would have collapsed sooner or later (sooner if the North enacted sanctions against them for their use of slavery), and they would have been forced to make changes within. And North America probably would have been better off if the two had remained separate countries (but on friendly terms and allied after the whole slavery issue was settled in a couple decades).
The pure Democracy that you are equating with freedom is no such thing.
Who said anything about "pure democracy"? Please point me to where I used that term. You and a whole slew of other morons keep reading that into my writing, and it isn't there.
Your other writings are nonsensical. There are no "fundamental rights", and nothing in the Constitution is set in stone; many amendments have been made to the document over the years.
No, that would be the price of theocracy. As long as religion is a personal issue and no particular faith is mandatory to an individual, you can't make any assumptions as to who wants what and the only logical course of action is simply to leave it out (from the test that everyone is supposed to take).
Theocracy is what you get when you have a democracy and most of the population demand theocratic reforms in their government. If the population demands if, they can make a particular faith mandatory (or a group of faiths; after all, even though there's a lot of sects of Christianity, most of them have a lot of things in common that they agree on. Most of the Christians in this country, for instance, seem to be anti-gay, so they could very well agree on a law or even constitutional amendment to oppress gay people.)
With politicians, it's nearly impossible to tell if they really believe that shit, or if they're just acting that way to get votes.
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
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.
but we can't teach alternative theories?
Of course we can, and we will. Once there are alternative theories. Currently there are no alternative theories. Not a single one.
There is also no scientific proof that we have evolution from one species to another
Here is an interesting piece of fact for you. We have more supporting data for speciation (using genetic evidence) than we have for gravity. You don't believe in gravity either?
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.
The only reason these people are SHOCKED that evolution is in the curriculum is because they believe everything taught in schools should be 100% true, always and forever, and actually believe such an idea exists.
They are mainly shocked because they cannot separate their religious fantasies from reality.
As an example of philosophy in fail mode, yeah, OK.
Religion is the cesspool of philosophy where people debase themselves by trading their dignity for lies.
Social Credit would solve everything...
So you are saying that the government can go around and telling everyone and anyone at their whim that their religion is fake, false, and stupid or make them illegal but they can't say be a Christian or a Muslim or Christians believe this way or whatever. That sounds about stupid in reality. The freedom of religion means the government can't take a position on a religion period. They cannot promote or deny it. Otherwise, you have absolutely no freedom of religion.
Regardless of what you think about religion, when the government compels children or anyone for that matter by law to attend their education, that education cannot be in a way that violates any of the rights protected by the constitution. If you insist that doesn't matter, then anyone can insist things like the 4th and 5th amendments do not matter and we get crap like indefinite detention and warrentless wiretaps. You simply cannot use government mandated education to impose or deny any religion.
If there is a single God in your religion, it's top down...
That said, it was a wee bit broad and generalizing. But when it comes to Kentucky's majority religion...it fits.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Due to cognitivie dissonance, they may end up being the same thing. People don't like to think they're dishonest, so when they dishonestly pretend that they think that way, they tend to end up thinking that way. There has to be a clear and immediate reward to avoid that trap. Since politicians would spend years pretending to believe that stuff and would mostly assoiciate with other people who believe (or also pretend to believe), it's almost inevitable that they would end up believing it, regardless of their original beliefs.
So either they believe it, or they are slowly convincing themselves to believe it.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
sort of reminds me of the quote:
SOAP Box -> Ballot Box -> Ammo Box
In reality, it goes:
Soap Box -> Ballot Box -> Idiot Box (because American Idol is on)
Hey, if I've learned anything from politics it's that only one person can be right - and the other person is the spawn of Satan himself. I know I'm not the spawn of Satan, so who does that leave?
Hatta: Spawn of Satan? Only he and Satan know the answer.
+1 Disagree
I realize arguing with you is pointless. However,
What I am saying is that there is no other "theory", in the scientific sense, that explains all of life. Evolution explains everything.
I have no trouble saying to people who don't get that that they are wrong. Entrusting one's belief system to stories created by bronze-age peasants is not a valid way to describe the world.
I can't help that people find comfort in those stories and wish to cling to their beliefs. I fully understand why they do so. Those beliefs give them comfort in the face of their mortality. It doesn't make the beliefs valid, however, without incredible evidence that simply does not exist.
I'm not American so maybe it's different in the States, but I only remember ever being taught about Native, Roman, Norse or Greek mythology as foundational information. In other words, we were taught the basics of their Gods so that we would know who Mars, Aries, Loki and Raven were when they came up in literature we were reading. Given that pretty much every student in every regular english class in the United States already knows who Jesus is, why should they try to teach people what they already know?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I believe you misunderstand my post to begin with. Sorry, but there _are_ other theories, you just happen to not agree with them. They all relate to creation, so you choose to discount them. That is fine, and it's your right. This is part of the joy of having "Theories".
As I started with, if people can think and resolve answers what is the problem teaching every theory possible? Seriously, I have no biases since I'm smart enough to recognize good and bad theories. I personally happen to believe in evolution, but that does not give me the right to tell someone else they have no theory as you did. This is _your_ bigotry and _your_ bias in the way, not mine.
You came to a conclusion based on your beliefs, I came to a conclusion based on my beliefs. This is how theories work, and we look to expand our own theories. Instead of being a bigot, why not teach people to think critically and logically and let them come to their own conclusion?
Oh, and evolution does not explain everything. Two quick examples: 1) What causes life? and 2) What caused everything to begin? Because we are pretty clueless when it comes to both of those questions you have to give some credit to creationists since it's the only thing that can possibly answer those questions for now. As with other theories, whether you agree or not is not the point. 2,500 years of Philosophy have all stated that there must be a creator, including most modern scientists that investigate the question. Whether they believe a particular theology or not is a very different question, don't confuse the two.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I think you should look up what the two terms mean and how classical education worked, this was the way we taught for a well over a thousand years until teaching to "standards" became the Government mandate. If you grew up after the 1950's, you would not have received the same type of education as your grand parents. Your grand parents would have learned under a very different method, just like you said they did. They would have learned to think, you would have learned to memorize.
My Grandparents were the ones that got me investigating how our education system changed.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I think that you would be surprised how little people know about Jesus Christ in the United States other than as a swear term. I may be pessimistic - no - I am pessimistic - but there is a reason foreign countries are beginning to send missionaries to the United States.
Personal opinion aside, people know George Washington was the first U.S. president as well, but those basics are still taught. Most kids could tell you about 9/11, but that is still taught. If you are going to teach about Greek and Roman gods - and I'm not at all opposed to that for the same reason you mention, regardless of my opinions on their belief system - then they should do so across the board for as many religions as the kids are likely to encounter in their life.
I'm pretty sure that most school kids in the U.S. would be more likely to tell you the relationships between the Greek gods (at least at some point in their school term) than give any details about Christianity and Jesus Christ, or for example the differences between the Mormon belief system and Christianity or the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. They could probably tell you that Luther's movement forked the branch of Protestantism from Catholicism, but would probably not be able to tell anything about the split in the Catholic church between Orthodox and Roman Catholicism. How much of this would matter is of course open to debate. But they will be much more likely to be faced with these differences and have a need to understand these differences in their daily life than to understand the relationship between Zeus and Hera or compare Mars and Ares.
Maybe. But one person's idiocy is another person's fundamental belief system. Thus, when it comes to socialized things like public schooling, the lower down you can push the decisions, the more local to the people who it affects, the better. Yay, I say, even unto the individual level. Which is why I bring up homeschooling which is, unfortunately, not allowed in all jurisdictions.
A person who honestly believes truth does not exist is criminally insane and should be restrained for life. Pushing an innocent old person in front of a bus or setting fire to house while the residents sleep is wrong , that will always be true. The reason that people like the idea that truth does not exist it they think it frees them from moral obligation. Patriotism is not bigotry , godless communism , the end goal of socialism is. To make war on a country because you don't like the way they live is bigotry , America is the only reason there is a free world. If you think patriotism is bigotry I suggest you move because when it comes time to choose you have to be willing to die for your beliefs and make sure your enemy dies for his. People with the attitude you have exposed are cowards who prefer slavery to death.
I remember studying more or less what Rutulian did. I went to a Jesuit High School. Sounds like history in most near 100% college bound high schools when I was a kid (those schools are usually magnet, religious or very expensive).
The only discussion of creationism in my high school was us distracting the old creationist Latin teacher from the subject. It was a guaranteed way to quit having to conjugate, but you could only go to the well so often or he would remember having had the same argument with the same kid just a week earlier. Perch was the man to first identify me as 'the anti-Christ'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Anything claimed to be a religious belief cannot be proven false? Only if you are very selective/wise/tricky about what you claim is a 'religious belief'. Otherwise science can and will disprove your assertion. Science is taught in science class.
Many things that used to be 'religious beliefs' are now 'disproven superstition'. Things your great grandfather likely believed. Johna was not swallowed by a whale. Noah was not a red sea pedestrian.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Nice theory. That is not how it has worked out. Have you been following the issue?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Any religion that takes a concrete disprovable stance is doomed. YECist just look like fools. Pick your religious beliefs more wisely. (Hint: Not disprovable).
Last Thursdayism is not disprovable (everything was created last thursday, with memories). It's not hard.
When science disproves a myth, the truth will be taught in science class. Lightning is not from Zeus, no matter what anybody believes.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Citation needed. I've never heard much about different religions being given fair treatment in US public schools.
Do you even think about what you are saying? Science cannot disprove a supernatural being doing supernatural things, the best they can do is show a natural path to the same ends and cast doubt in the claims. This is because science is limited to the constraints of nature and how we currently understand it. Now how we currently understand it is important because our understanding changes from time to time as more knowledge is gathered.
But I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. The limits to the state sponsored denial of religion is a constitutional limit placed on the state(s). It's not a matter of you convincing yourself that X is right or wrong, it is a matter of the government saying this religion is ok and this religion is a joke. You brought up the establishment clause in another post you replied to with me, use your brain and figure out what it actually says.
Exactly how is creation a concrete disprovable stance? The belief if I understand it correctly is that a supernatural being did some supernatural stuff. How do you concretely disprove a supernatural event when you are limited to the bounds of nature?
Here is a natural event that will illustrate what I mean. I created a very hot fire. In the base of the fire pit was some sand and it melted and became glass. I decided to build a house there later and took the glass and threw it into another field miles away. Now suppose I told some people that I threw the glass in the field miles away and they told their kid and it was passed on and on for hundreds of years. Now suppose 2000 years from now, someone finds the glass, notices it was created by a hot fire and isn't formed or anything that would make it appear like it was intentionally made. He draws the conclusion that there must have been a very hot fire in the spot at one point in time. The locals tell him he is crazy, the glass was dumped there by some whackjob 2000 years ago. HE insists that science says it was created a certain way and that his explanation is accurate. You see, he cannot prove or disprove that I put the glass there. All he can do it show how it was possible for glass to get into that field outside of me putting it there. He can do that, does that mean he disproved that I put it there.
But this is neither here nor there. The problem isn't whether you think you can disprove something, it is the government via schools telling children something is true or not true in a religion. The government is bared from doing that by the establishment clause. The government can teach the theory of evolution, they can teach the big bang and the singularity which in and of itself assumes something from nothing or something from nothing within our limits imposed by nature.The government just cannot do it in a way that say your religion is a fraud- fake- not real- true- real- or any position confirming or denying it.
A person who honestly believes truth does not exist is criminally insane and should be restrained for life. Pushing an innocent old person in front of a bus or setting fire to house while the residents sleep is wrong , that will always be true. The reason that people like the idea that truth does not exist it they think it frees them from moral obligation.
No, those points are not always true, and the term "true" is better defined before you use it this way. What if the old innocent person has a terminal and painful disease, and a loving friend or relative has this as the only way to end the suffering that has rendered their life useless misery? What if the residents of the house have a disease so dangerous that there can be no risk of allowing it to escape the building? There's far more nuance here, but what we can do is use reason to establish a common morality that most people would agree upon, even if there's no magical force in the universe to give it legitimacy.
I recall a thought experiment in which the reader has to design the society in which they'll live, but they can't know which position in society they themselves will occupy, leading most people to devise a society in which life at all levels is as fair as it can be. I'd bet these societies, given some thought, would be far superior to anything mandated by the Bible. Funny you should mention slavery, as slavery would probably not figure highly in them. The reason why some people deny the existence of universal truth is because they lack the arrogance to make such unfounded assertions - particularly when universal truth is a fancy way of saying "here's how I think things should work".
If you believe that socialism is a monolithic entity that strives for godless communism, well, you've just not read your Bible or studied the lives of the early Christians. The sharing of resources, which was not always voluntary, was a common feature of the groups. Acts 4:32?
-- Using the preview button since 2005
If he meant direct democracy, he would have said it. There are no direct democracies in this world at any substantial level, so why would he have meant direct democracy?
He obviously has read somewhere that America is a republic and not a democracy, which is an internet rumor and nothing else. America is a democracy.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Creationism is religious instruction, and is not a part of any real scientific standard anywhere. Your argument fails in this false premise.
How? You don't even make any sense? What does being part of a "real scientific standard" have to do with what's taught in school? It's not like there's some worldwide authority on what's acceptable to teach in schools; that's up to various levels of government (depending on the country). If a country decides to teach Creationism as science, there's nothing that's going to stop them. Similarly, if officials decide to teach that pi = 3, they can do that too. Or that 2+2=5. Reality has no bearing.
Do you think Todd Akin consulted with real medical professionals before making his idiotic statement this week? Of course not. Does that matter to the people who will be voting for him? Of course not.
There are a number of promising theories as to how life could have begun on earth. I'm fairly certain we will eventually discover at least one way that works to allow basic replicators, that pass information between generations in a way that allows them to evolve, to arise.
As to what created "everything". Well, that is a mystery. And one I hope we can solve, because that might give us a nice way out from entropy. But attributing it to God doesn't actually answer the question. Because God also would then need to be created somehow.
Your last statement is a paradox for sure, but resolvable philosophically. I have spent a very long time trying to answer the question of whether or not the Universe needs a creator (more than 20 years) and the answer I have is the same that the overwhelming majority of people that investigate the question comes to. Yes, we need a creator. Note that this has nothing to do with Theology, and one of the hardest things to do while trying to investigate is to remove Theology and other human biases.
Note in my work, just like nearly every other Philosopher has concluded I admit that we can not know an answer. We can only measure what exists, and at the point the Universe was created, there is nothing to measure. It's impossible to answer the question definitively, so we look to logic to come to a conclusion. It's the only possible way of proof, though many are so biased they won't admit the same fact.
Here is a link to many of my thoughts on the subject. Note that I'm bothered all biases introduced into the discussion. Atheists tend to be the worst at having bias and ignoring their own bias, to I am a bit harsh on their evangelism rather intentionally. It's not perfect by any means, I work on improving it from time to time.
Another point may not be clear in that work. Which is that once you believe that we need a creator, one would start to investigate Theology. Theology is not important to someone that does not believe we need a creator, but it does become important if you believe we do.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
It's not like there's some worldwide authority on what's acceptable to teach in schools; that's up to various levels of government (depending on the country). If a country decides to teach Creationism as science, there's nothing that's going to stop them.
How about the Supreme Court? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._Aguillard
And as those justices get replaced with more right-wing justices, what's going to stop them from changing things?
The courts are decided by a simple majority. It's indirect and slow, but it is by simple majority (or close): the people elect Presidents and Congresscritters (by majority, though it's slightly different with Presidents and once in a while a minority elects a President). Then Presidents select Supreme Court justices (and also Federal judges), who are approved or rejected by Congress (who also were elected by a majority in every state or congressional district). So if the people decide to elect a President and Congress that stack the courts with right-wing judges who re-interpret the 1A to teach religion somehow, what are you going to do about it? Sue?
It's funny how many people here seem to have blind faith that the Constitution is somehow sacrosanct and unchangeable and can only be interpreted in a way they agree with.
For instance if the argument is made that the First Amendment only applies to Federal Laws and States are allowed to endorse the majority religion/opinion what is to stop States from trampling every other Amendment.
Nothing, nothing at all. But you don't need to go that far to allow teaching Creationism in schools; you can come up with some weaselly interpretation that allows it. Lawyers are great at this kind of things; their whole profession is about twisting language and logic to make up good-sounding arguments (which may or may not have any logic at all) to convince people of their position. They could do this perhaps by referring to it as "Creation Science" like the Creationists do, and then inferring that "Creation Science" is perfectly acceptable in a science class, and that local school boards are allowed to decide which scientists (or "scientists") they decide to listen to when deciding what is and what isn't valid science. You just need 5/9 SCOTUS justices to agree with it, like they did with Citizens United and that other decision allowing municipalities to seize private property by eminent domain and then hand it over at below-market prices to politically-connected corporations, and then it's the Law of the Land until the citizens decide it's crap and elect a different Executive and Legislative branch, and enough justices retire for the court to be stacked with justices of a different persuasion who are also willing to overturn a previous ruling, which will probably take a long time.
The President.
Now when the bird becomes a vegetable, or the even half vegetable half bird please let me know. Even if the bird became a different bird, that would be pretty damn cool. Parrot becomes Eagle, right on man! That is what we have not seen, and lack evidence for. We have not seen this in any case, even single celled organisms. A plant does not become an animal, and an amoeba does not become a paramecium.. ever! That is the proof missing for the theory of evolution.
That just shows how little you understand about how evolution really works. There is no step function where one species produces a completely different species in a single generation. Instead a beneficial mutation occurs in an individual and spreads out through the population over many generations. Rinse and repeat and eventually you have a new species.
Hell we have fossils of miners that were made in the 1800s that look to be a few million years old.
Now that's just plain silly. Any miner's bones laid down in the 1800's wouldn't be mineralized like several million year old bones are. You wouldn't even need radiocarbon dating to tell the difference.
Did you miss the part where the President appoints the justices, and the people elect the President by simple majority? The only way the President goes against the justices is when the people have a change of opinion and elect a President that totally disagrees with the sitting justices (who were appointed before he took office).
Did you miss the part where the President appoints the justices, and the people elect the President by simple majority?
False: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college (did you ever take Civics?)
The only way the President goes against the justices is when the people have a change of opinion and elect a President that totally disagrees with the sitting justices (who were appointed before he took office).
Like when Republican John Roberts struck down the mandate in Democrat's Obama's Affordable Health Care Act? Also, there are ways around a stacked Supreme Court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937
False: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college [wikipedia.org] (did you ever take Civics?)
Did you ever read the news? Please point out all the times where the EC came up with a different result than the popular vote in history. And of all those times, please point out the number of those handful of times where the result was wildly different (i.e., a clear minority rather than a slight minority managed to elect a President).
Naw, I understand very well. You take this one point very literally and ignore completely other statements I make in the same section to change the message. What I state is that evolution from one species to another is not proven, it's a theory.
What most people do is completely ignore the fact that this step in evolution something other than theory. Whether it's a "good" theory or "bad" theory is not the point. Claiming evolution is "proven to be true" is an obvious and blatant lie. We lack an incredible amount of evidence to show it's true. We have proven that evolution within a species (variations) is true, but anything else is theory.
Perhaps my point is over exaggerated to you, which is part of the point. The document is not intended as a scientific paper, but for general consumption. Hence I will discuss questions with people, but I'm not going to re-write a section with much more detail since it becomes useless to laymen at that point.
To me, the question you should probably be considering is not how much I know about the theory of evolution, but rather "Why are people taking a "theory" and claiming it's "proven" when it's not?" If you read the responses to my post here in this thread, you will see it's quite common. This is not scientific, and not intelligent. Alleged proof by "belief" is the same exact thing that atheists claim Theology are guilty of, and it happens all the time.
The whole "evolution is proven" argument is an appeal to probability fallacy.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
4 Presidents (approximately 10%) have been declared the winner without winning the popular vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1876 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1888 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000 I'm done with you, you only present hypothetical and questions. Not one shred of evidence.
Yet in all those cases, it was very, very close. The 2000 election was only a 0.5% difference between the two in the popular vote. 47.9% of the voters elected Bush; while not a clear majority, it's only a mere 2.1% away from one.
You merely ignore the evidence I do present. Did you forget about the Amendment where a bunch of crazy religious people got alcohol banned, not by a simple Act of Congress, but a full-blown Constitutional Amendment? You fools keep acting like the Constitution is constant and unchanging in both writing and interpretation, and that hasn't been the case at all. The country is getting more and more right-wing all the time, yet you religiously cling to your blind faith that there's no way Creationism can be taught in schools. I'll bet all the alcohol-drinkers thought the same thing around the turn of the (20th) century, that it could never be banned in the "land of the free".
History works too. We learned about greek and roman mythology in school. Just toss hebrew mythologies in the list.
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?
Please open any copy of Darwin's "The Origin of Species", please. It is, after all, the book that brought the issue up to public scrutiny in a big deal. And -- contrary to some opinions -- just reading something does not mean that you automatically have to agree with it.
. . . . .
I know virtually no other scientific idea that was, is and probably will be for our entire lifetime, put under so much scrutiny.
Unh, global warming?
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
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
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
Yes, tyranny of the majority IS a bad thing, however what if the majority wants tyranny. A lot of democratic governments (including the USA's) have mechanisms to prevent short-term popular whim from affecting policy too much, however if the majority wants tyranny, and they want it long enough, they're going to vote for it and eventually they're going to get it as their representatives take over key positions one by one over multiple election cycles.
Supposedly that is what, say, the Supreme Court is for, to say "But our basic documents say you cannot have that tyranny." Of course, they are still free to, say, hold constitutional conventions or propose amendments to the Constitution, and if the majority actually believe in what is requested, then the constitution will be amended to follow the will of the majority. It was written with just that idea in mind, that if the basic documents that form the system of government fail, they can be changed or replaced in an orderly manner.
Of course, "interpretation" about whether this tyranny is constitutional or not muddies the waters a bit.