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."

Comments

Ummm....no

[crazyjj]

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.

Re:Ummm....no

[residieu]

These are tests to give to High School students as part of their lessons, right? Kentucky isn't actually suggesting that the ACT tests widely used for college admissions be rewritten for them, are they? If they're asking for Kentucky-specific tests for their classes, I wouldn't have a problem with ACT writing them for them. Kentucky WOULD have to expect a pretty hefty cost to finance writing of new tests with a limited audience (But it sounds like ACT isn't willing to do that work, or doesn't think Kentucky would be willing to pay the necessary price, fair enough).

If they ARE talking about the college-admissions ACT tests.... well, I'd be willing to bet very few schools would be willing to accept those alternate test for admissions.

Re:Ummm....no

[tinkerghost]

Theories are taught all the time in science. Evolution and Intelligent Design are both theories. There is no reason why both cannot be taught in public school.

Have you read the ID 'theory' - "Life is too complex to have developed by itself, therefore some being created it." That's it. There isn't any evidence supporting it. So to say that ID is a theory in the scientific sense is incorrect - at best it is a preliminary hypothosis based on speculation and contrary to existing evidence.

The civil war was a mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The civil war was a mistake

[crazyjj]

Kentucky was a Union state. You're stuck with them either way.

Re:The civil war was a mistake

[Anonymous Coward]

The ignorance infection is growing. We need to cut off the dead tissue as soon as possible.

Re:The civil war was a mistake

[characterZer0]

The idiocy is not only in the south. I was checking out the local private schools for my daughter in an upstate NY city of over 200,000 people. I asked the new principal at one of the Catholic schools what science curriculum they used. He said, "Well, you know, we teach the idea of evolution, but it is mostly religious based." That was the end of that visit.

Re:The civil war was a mistake

[couchslug]

The Civil War, if one takes the long view, was a horrible mistake rather than a righteous Crusade.

The South would eventually have given up slavery, the North would have prospered through trade with the South, and fewer Southerners would pollute the American political landscape. We could have had a much improved North as a separate country too weak to chase dreams of Empire.

The US is simply too large to make a good nation. Diversity of viewpoints is best catered by smaller nations which can self-segregate regionally, politically, ethnically, and religiously.

Instead, the victory of the North begat the Globalist Corporate Republic we have today. It's a net loss for the world.

Re:The civil war was a mistake

[orgelspieler]

I'm afraid that the US has progressed so far towards becoming a Christian theocracy that, first amendment or not, the dead tissue is about to cut off YOU!!!!

Don't be silly. That could only happen in Soviet Russia.

Re:The civil war was a mistake

[characterZer0]

I only had that experience at one of the four schools we looked at. The other three (all Christian, one Catholic) are actually teaching science.

:facepalm:

[reubenavery]

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?

Re::facepalm:

[snowraver1]

Yea, but the only reason that rover ever made it to Mars is because I was praying it would.

Re::facepalm:

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay no attention to the troll submitting stories.
Somewhere in America millions are doing something stupid. A percentage of these people are public figures and a percentage of those are in government. This is nothing. This isn't even news. This is a reporter somewhere with search program trolling the press releases and small-town papers for 'senator' & 'evolution'. Whatever turns up both phrases can be sold to someone.

Re::facepalm:

[ClickOnThis]

I think NASA is as much of a drain on the nation's resources as Kentucky.

Setting aside how mind-numbingly asinine that remark is, I would like to introduce you to the concept of False Equivalence.

Taxpayer money invested in NASA projects has delivered huge returns in science, technology and prestige for the USA. Hardly a drain. And as one of the Curiosity scientists put it recently, they didn't just send $2.6 B to Mars and drop it there. That money was spent here on Earth.

Sure, they're stupid in Kentucky, but I didn't appreciate seeing all those tax-payer bought incredibly over priced apple laptops in mission control. Only the government would pay gobs of cash for a locked down version of BSD.

Yet another logical fallacy.

Apple products are generally more expensive than comparable products from other manufacturers, but not that much more expensive. Personally I don't use them, but I don't question the fiscal judgement of those who do. If you want to complain about overpriced tools bought with taxpayer money, I'd start with the military.

Re::facepalm:

[Carnivore]

Re: Apple laptops
I work for astronomers and physicists, so I have an informed opinion on the Mac prefrence:
It's an OS that comes, supported, on good hardware. Generally there aren't scrabbles to find drivers for hardware or other problems that you Just Don't Want if you travel a lot or have (literally) mission-critical duties. It also runs all of the software that astronomers have been running for decades. They still write FORTRAN. They will riot if you take away the command line.

The labor cost of buying Dells, for example, and throwing Linux on them can end up being higher than just spending extra for the Mac. It's especially true when something goes wrong and you can take it to any Apple store and get parts or software help, no admin needed.

Yes, they all love being in the Apple club, too.

Re::facepalm:

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

I think NASA is as much of a drain on the nation's resources as Kentucky. Sure, they're stupid in Kentucky, but I didn't appreciate seeing all those tax-payer bought incredibly over priced apple laptops in mission control. Only the government would pay gobs of cash for a locked down version of BSD.

So what you're saying is basically "WTF has NASA done for me?"
I'm curious what your impression is of the 2012 United States budget overall, where if you total the enacted discretionary and mandatory budgets NASA ranks 15th among agencies out of 22. The Department of Agriculture's budget was almost eight times that of NASA and the Department of Defense budget was almost THIRTY-eight times that of NASA's.To put it another way, NASA's budget is just over 2.5% of the DOD's and about one half of one percent of the overall budget.
IMO the United States does need to tighten its financial belt, but worrying about NASA's budget is like worrying about whether your rice cake is four inches in diameter or five ... right after you've eaten an entire Thanksgiving dinner.

Re::facepalm:

[Just Some Guy]

Sure, they're stupid in Kentucky, but I didn't appreciate seeing all those tax-payer bought incredibly over priced apple laptops in mission control.

Suppose average salary in mission control is $100,000 (probably low for high-tech jobs in the area, but we'll round) and that they're all contractors and don't get a penny worth of benefits. That Mac probably cost $1,000 more than the bare minimum Windows laptop that would run their apps (and that's making the rather huge assumption that those apps would be available on Windows, which has approximately zero market share in high level science, and that there would be zero training costs for them to switch to Windows). Finally, assume that the Macs will irreparably break the day after their three year warranty and deprecation schedules have expired.

Congratulations. Your plan to stick them with Windows laptops, in the best case, would save $333 per year - or 0.3% of their salary - in the absolute best case scenario.

Only the government would pay gobs of cash for a locked down version of BSD.

...and every major company I've been around, all of which seem to understand the concept of "penny wise, pound foolish" that eludes you.

Re:Isolate them.

[MickyTheIdiot]

but we live in a meritocracy, so the system should automatically benefit them because they're better than us!

The "war" on religion

[KingSkippus]

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.

Re:The "war" on religion

[MickyTheIdiot]

Freedom of religion comes to this in their eyes: we're free to agree with them. That's it.

The biggest point of ignorance about this is that the freedom to believe what we want benefits THEM the most. If Christianity becomes the "official" religion in the U.S., the question immediately becomes *what* form of Christianity. We seen it this year with all the Babtists crying about Mormonism. Freedom religion is there because that type of battle doesn't end until there are two people.

Re:The "war" on religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Creationsim does have a place in schools. When I was a senior in high school we had a class called "humanities." It was a class where we covered a bit of art and a bit of sociology. That's where it belongs. Teach the basic ideas behind the major religions and touch on their influence on the world stage.
 
By doing this you start to open up a middle ground where people learn a bit about each other and their cultures. By closing out this kind of knowledge you're leaving a big gap for the fringe to fill and use against you. The more people we can get involved in this middle ground the smaller the fringe becomes. This will make them less powerful and easier to spot at a distance.
 
Too many people want to fight tooth and nail instead of finding a common ground to work from. This is a waste of resources.

Re:The "war" on religion

[zzsmirkzz]

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.

Not exactly. They think religious "freedom" means that they have the freedom to teach their kids to believe whatever they want (which is true). But further than that they think it means that they are free from anyone else contradicting those beliefs with their own beliefs which is where they are wrong, they have no so such freedom as it, obviously, severely restricts everyone else's freedom to say and believe what they wish.

Re:The "war" on religion

[sandytaru]

I'd love to have a literature elective in high school called "Creation Stories and Mythology from Around the World." It could begin and end with Genesis, but also touch on everything from Coyote sneezing out mountains to examples of new creation stories from modern literature, as well as some of the more out-there science hypothesis such as multiverses and parallel dimensions, and how they are used in speculative fiction.

Re:The "war" on religion

[Daniel_Staal]

Freedom religion is there because that type of battle doesn't end until there are two people.

You are way to optimistic about how many people would be left.

Re:The "war" on religion

[cpghost]

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.

Now, if only the US government stopped supporting the Islamist takeover of Syria, Egypt etc..., if only the Russian government stopped supporting the oppressive Orthodox Church of Russia against a couple of harmless girls... Separation of Church and State isn't very much en vogue nowadays; no matter where you look. That's really depressing, IMHO.

Re:The "war" on religion

[smooth wombat]

religious "freedom" means the freedom for everyone to be Christian, and anything that interferes with that goal is (or should) violate the First Amendment.

Or, as Asimov said:

Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

Re:The "war" on religion

[morcego]

I have a very pragmatic view on the subject. You want to teach religion on school ? Great. Have a specific class for that.
Teaching religion on science classes is as wrong as teaching math in a "creative writing" class.

Teaching creationism in schools doesn't piss me off(*) by itself. Teaching creationism in science classes, does.

This kind of people are the ones who are pushing everyone away from religion. Case in point, I'm an agnostic whose mother is a religion teacher in a catholic school.

*- Except for the fact that stupidity pissed me off

Re:The "war" on religion

[WhitePanther5000]

I don't think anyone is fighting against a balanced survey of world religions in a humanities class. The issue is when they teach a religion as if it is proven fact and ignore scientific consensus. I took humanities as a freshmen in college, and it was the first time Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism had been presented to me in an objective manner... instead of a bunch of retards screaming about how they're trying to destroy the world.

Re:The "war" on religion

[dkleinsc]

Also important to point out: Yes, Thomas Jefferson really supported religious freedom. As did John Adams, Sam Adams, Thomas Paine, James Madison, George Washington, Ben Franklin, and most of the rest of that crowd. They did so in part because they wanted to avoid all the religious wars which were common in Europe at the time. 20 years later, they were still writing letters to each other about how great an idea it had turned out to be, and de Tocqueville commented that it had led to a flourishing of religion in the US, which statistically speaking has continued through to the present day.

The reason I bring this up is that David Barton and others like him have been busily rewriting American history to convince these nutjobs that the Establishment Clause should be ignored and Christianity be given a privileged place in the United States.

Re:The "war" on religion

[Nadaka]

Creationism would only have a place in a class that also taught about zeus impregnating goats, cutting out peoples hearts on top of a stepped pyramid for a good harvest and the blue skinned transgendered 8 armed gods.

Re:The "war" on religion

[residieu]

And when they speak of "war on religion" they certainly don't mean people placing restrictions on where Islamic communities can build their Mosques or community centers. War on Religion specifically means getting in the way of Christians.

Re:The "war" on religion

[Shoten]

This is best summed up by, oddly enough, a joke by Emo Philips...

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
"Why shouldn't I?" he said.
I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"
He said, "Like what?"
I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious."
I said, "Me too! Are you christian or buddhist?"
He said, "Christian."
I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"
He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me too! Are you episcopalian or baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!"
I said,"Wow! Me too! Are you baptist church of god or baptist church of the lord?"
He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original baptist church of god, or are you reformed baptist church of god?"
He said,"Reformed Baptist church of god!"
I said, "Me too! Are you reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"
I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

Re:The "war" on religion

[kurzweilfreak]

No one would have a problem with that. The problem is that creationists think that somehow their worldview is legitimate science, and they are trying to push this into science classes. Not humanities classes. Not comparative religion classes. They don't want people to look at their creationism as religion. They want people to see that their religious beliefs are backed by science.

This all ties into the religious meme of "get them hooked while they're young and too dumb to understand". If these creationists were really concerned with science rather than child indoctrination, they would be trying to push their agenda upon science organizations and research groups. Obviously, they would be laughed out of the building if they tried that, so they take their batshit public and try to create a non-existent controversy. They cry "teach the controversy!" and appeal to "academic freedom", which appeals to the sense of freedom of Americans in general.

Re:The "war" on religion

[readin]

Please remember that when people talk about a "war" on religion, this is the kind of stuff they're referring to.

In recent months when people talk about a "war on religion" they're more likely to be talking about the HHS mandate that any Calholic who owns a business must violate the teachings of their religion if the want to be allowed to hire employees. That's the same mandate that says religious observance is ok when practiced inside a church amoung other people of the same religion, but if your religion wants to you to something good for the community like run a soup-kitchen or hospital, you have to violate your relgion.

There are some practices related to teaching of evolution as well. It is one thing to teach the theory of evolution. It is another to claim that the theory disproves Biblical teachings and to call those teachings "myths" as I've seen some books directed at children do.

Other unrelated forms of the war on religion, or at least on Christianity, include efforts the effort to remove all mention of Christ from Christmas celebrations. Since the Charlie Brown Christmas special came out maybe 50 years ago, have you seen another Christmas special on network TV that made any mention of the reason for Christmas? When was the last time you were at the mall in December and heard a real Christmas carol mixed in with the secular toons about Santa Claus and snow?

These aren't a coordinated effort, obviously, but it does seem that much of our culture has adopted two ideas very hostile to religion and Christiantiy. The first is that religion should only be practiced in private. The second is that religious acts are ok so long as you don't really believe it - that we'll respect your right to do purely symbolic rituals but we won't respect your right to believe..

Re:The "war" on religion

[residieu]

Which would be a pretty cool class, to be sure. It's just part of the Literature Department, not the Science Department.

Re:The "war" on religion

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now, if only the US government stopped supporting the Islamist takeover of Syria, Egypt etc."

What are you talking about? A) these are other countries, not bound by the constitution of the US; B) if the people in those countries want democratically-elected leaders that happen to be Islamists or fanatic Orthodox Christians, so what? It might make it harder to work with such a government, because they've entangled religion into their government policy, but if that's the democratic will of the people, too bad; C) there's considerable irony in the fact that the US supports Islamic monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, etc., but you expect the US to balk at supporting a democratically elected government in a country such as Egypt.

Should the US stand for democratic principles or not? I say any kind of democracy is better than no democracy.

Yes, religion is inconvenient if governments have entangled it into their state policy, because it usually means irrational policies and poor acceptance of anyone not conforming to the state religion. However, if that's what the majority of people want through a legitimate democratic election, then it's hard to argue against it. Maybe in the area of human rights it would be justified (e.g., any country with a state religion should still have protections for minorities against the tyranny of the majority), but you are stuck dealing with a democratically-elected government even if their policy isn't enlightened with protections of minorities. You can say their policy sucks, but they are the legitimate government.

Note: naturally you can still argue about the legitimacy of the election process itself that led to that situation.

Re:The "war" on religion

[Jason Levine]

Exactly. I've also heard these people claim that our country is really a Christian nation and that Christianity should be the official religion. They'll usually claim that the founding fathers were Christian and thus they obviously wanted the country run as a Christian theocracy... no reason why they'd want government and religion separate, right?

Well, except for actual historical reasons such as persecution of those who don't follow the official State religion and government officials being in charge of where/how/when/who you worship. The latter should scare any religious person who previously wanted a religion to be the official state religion. Look at the tax code. Now imagine that, instead of describing how you paid Uncle Sam every year, it described how you worshiped God. Does anyone really think, if church-state separation were abolished, that *PRIESTS* would be making the rules? It would be politicians and bureaucrats. Likely with corporate lobbyist influence. (All hymns need to be registered with the RIAA's "Religious Melodies" department or else the church will be levied a $750 fine.)

Disclosure: I'm Jewish so making the Official State Religion That Everyone Must Practice any form of Christianity would be bad for me. However, as I said above, I'd also be against the government making Judaism the official religion because *I* want to decide how I worship, not some government official. (So long as my worship doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, of course.)

Re:The "war" on religion

[Nadaka]

Some people WOULD have a problem with that. It is explicitly the agenda of some of these people to prevent children from learning how to think for themselves.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/aug/11/gail-collins/gail-collins-says-texas-gop-platform-calls-schools/

Re:The "war" on religion

[Princeofcups]

I'd love to have a literature elective in high school called "Creation Stories and Mythology from Around the World." It could begin and end with Genesis, but also touch on everything from Coyote sneezing out mountains to examples of new creation stories from modern literature, as well as some of the more out-there science hypothesis such as multiverses and parallel dimensions, and how they are used in speculative fiction.

I went to a Jesuit high school, and that is pretty much what we were taught. There's a reason that the Jesuits are feared by other Christians. Many are prominent scientists.

Re:The "war" on religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution's baggage is a philosophy of fatalistic determinism, where no one has any personal responsibility for their actions, and therefore has no need for religion because the meaning of life is answered with "ultimately, nothing".

The need for an answer is what brought about religion in the first place, so it's a bit unfair to criticize reality for not catering to your needs. Evolution has no position on philosophy, it is merely a mechanism like photosynthesis or plate tectonics. If you want your life to have meaning, go out and do something, don't whine that the universe doesn't think you're special.

Re:The "war" on religion

[scot4875]

It is another to claim that the theory disproves Biblical teachings and to call those teachings "myths" as I've seen some books directed at children do.

Then leave creationism out of school entirely. If you don't want your myths to be examined critically, keep them out of the public eye -- otherwise, yeah, we'll publicly call them BS just like we call every other creation myth BS.

Also, re: war on Christians ... LOL. You realize that Christians make up a super majority in the US, right? Paraphrasing Jon Stewart, "You're confusing 'war' for 'not getting every single thing you want.'"

--Jeremy

Re:The "war" on religion

[dskoll]

These aren't a coordinated effort, obviously, but it does seem that much of our culture has adopted two ideas very hostile to religion and Christiantiy. The first is that religion should only be practiced in private. The second is that religious acts are ok so long as you don't really believe it - that we'll respect your right to do purely symbolic rituals but we won't respect your right to believe..

And what is wrong with those two ideas? Absolutely, religion should only be practiced in private. It has no place in the public sphere.

And secondly, although I agree that religious people have the right to believe whatever silliness they wish, nothing on earth would compel me to respect those beliefs.

Furthermore, where religious beliefs come into conflict with human rights, religious beliefs have to yield.

Re:The "war" on religion

[ahodgson]

Jesuits are taught how to think. Everyone could use a dose of that. I'm still not sure how they rationalize that with religion, but good on them for still trying.

Re:The "war" on religion

[s73v3r]

In recent months when people talk about a "war on religion" they're more likely to be talking about the HHS mandate that any Calholic who owns a business must violate the teachings of their religion if the want to be allowed to hire employees

No, they don't. This is complete and utter bullshit. That business owner is still COMPLETELY FREE to not take birth control. They just don't have the "right" (which isn't a right, but rather a desire to oppress others) to force their views on others.

That's the same mandate that says religious observance is ok when practiced inside a church amoung other people of the same religion, but if your religion wants to you to something good for the community like run a soup-kitchen or hospital, you have to violate your relgion.

Again, nothing but horseshit. And tell me, why the fuck should your "religious freedom" trump anything else? If that business owner's "religious teachings" said that he should perform human sacrifice, or have sex with his employees, should that be allowed as well?

Since the Charlie Brown Christmas special came out maybe 50 years ago, have you seen another Christmas special on network TV that made any mention of the reason for Christmas?

Who the fuck cares? When was the last time you saw a holiday special on network TV that explained the reason for Chanukah, or Kwanza?

The first is that religion should only be practiced in private.

No. The idea is that practices of religion should not be forced onto others that don't want them. A business owner objecting to birth control for their employees is doing that exact thing, and they have no fucking right to do so.

Re:The "war" on religion

[Jason Levine]

I think part of it is that Jewish people have historically gotten the short end of the stick when the government mandates religion. It's easy for someone who is Christian to say "Christianity should be our Official Religion" because they just assume it'll be their flavor of Christianity. Jews, however, know that any Official State Religion is likely to a) not be Judaism and b) be hostile to Jews.

Re:The "war" on religion

[gman003]

Whenever someone yells at me about "the Founding Fathers" and "non-separation of church and state", I like to point out that Jefferson was basically an agnostic, and Ben Franklin took part in satanic orgies. If the yelling moron is a hardline Protestant, I try to remember which of them were Catholic (for some reason many of them consider "papists" to be worse than atheists, which still baffles me); if the yelling moron is Catholic, I point out that the majority of the Founding Fathers were protestant and that if they had meant to establish a national religion, it would not have been theirs.

I also like bringing up the Treaty of Tripoli (from 179something), which not only claims absolutely that the US is not a Christian nation, but specifically that the United States has no problem with Islam. I point out that the attempt at the treaty was started by Washington himself, although it was Adams who signed it.

The United States is becoming like Pakistan

[Anonymous Coward]

A few wealthy and modern cities surrounded by a huge sea of uneducated religious primitives with guns.

Re:The United States is becoming like Pakistan

[timeOday]

"Is becoming" implies irrationality is growing and spreading. Is there some reason to think that? I don't know of any; actually I think it's the opposite. Now when we hear about these backwaters it is surprising simply because it's no longer normal.

In only the last 7 years the percent of Americans identifying as atheist increased from 1% to 5%. OK, so we've only finally reached parity with Saudi Arabia - but we were talking about trends.

Re:The United States is becoming like Pakistan

[characterZer0]

A few wealthy and modern cities surrounded by a huge sea of uneducated religious primitives with guns.

And the modern cities are full of uneducated non-religious primitives with guns.

Ermahgerd evolution!!

[m1ndcrash]

Gravity is a theory too, nobody tries to walk out of the window, Ben Wade.

Grrr... grammo

[KingSkippus]

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!"

gritn (guy raised in the north)

[tbonefrog]

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.

Re:gritn (guy raised in the north)

[pipatron]

Actually, once I spent a month in China, and when I got back home, eating with a fork and a knife felt so.. primitive and barbaric. You sit at the table and destroy the food by tearing and sawing.

That feeling quickly passed, but still something to think about.

Re:Isolate them.

[WhitePanther5000]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Not mutually exclusive

[Nushio]

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.

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[vonhammer]

Most Catholics I know have a similar, "moderate", background with respect to evolution. It's the Protestants that tend to be more fundamentalist and deny evolution. I believe the reason is that, historically, Catholicism has relied on church traditions for its belief system. When the Protestants broke away they needed new source material to justify their path to God, so they turned to the Bible. This propelled them on a course that adheres more to the Bible (and its ancient science).

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[Colonel Korn]

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.

I went to a Catholic school where evolution was taught (by priests) as fact and creationism as metaphor. It wasn't until college that I realized this was a peculiarity caused by my school being run by Jesuits in western America.

Re:Not mutually exclusive

[sribe]

I don't get why Christians / Catholics get so pissy about Darwin being a theory and that a maker must've just spawned everything out of thin air. Both theories aren't mutually exclusive.

Catholics??? I thought this particular brand of nutbaggery was strictly a Protestant thing. After all the Pope has gone on record as saying there is no conflict between the theory of evolution and Catholic teachings.

Proof that Darwinism doesn't work

[erroneus]

Those stupid fsckers just won't die and they keep reproducing!

Imagine the analogies section

[erikwestlund]

Imagine the analogies section:

Creationism : True ::

A) Science : Real
B) Evolution : False
C) Blacks : First-class Citizens
D) Education : Important

Guess the correct answer.

Re:States

[crazyjj]

The last time I checked, the ACT wasn't administered by the U.S. government.

Kentucky claimed by Union and Confederacy

[perpenso]

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.

Re:Kentucky claimed by Union and Confederacy

[Hatta]

Parts of the state actively supported the Union, other parts actively supported the Confederacy. Similar story when you get to individuals.

Which part of the individual supported the Union, and which parts supported the Confederacy?

Re:Kentucky claimed by Union and Confederacy

[Nimey]

The eastern part of Kentucky near Lexington was pro-Union but ended up being occupied by the Confederates for some time. The western part was pro-southern.

Re:Kentucky claimed by Union and Confederacy

[Antipater]

Kentucky was much less of a bloody affair than Missouri was. There were pro-South guerillas, but not in significant numbers. In fact, when Confederate general Bragg invaded Tennessee and Kentucky in mid-1862, he brought along tens of thousands of rifles, hoping to arm thousands of Kentuckians who would rise up alongside him when they saw gray troops in their streets. He ended up carting nearly all of them back South three months later, an Army of Kentucky having never materialized.

It also would have been impossible for the Union to simply have allowed Kentucky to split off. Militarily, the state was the key to the Ohio River valley. Had it seceded, it would have basically been a knife in the Union's armpit, poised to slice off the entire Midwest. Lincoln himself (paraphrase) said "I hope to have God on my side, but what I really need is Kentucky."

Theory of gravity

[moonwatcher2001]

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.

Moral Orel

[Sponge Bath]

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!

Re:Moral Orel

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Reminds me of 30 rock:

"Science was my most favorite subject, especially the Old Testament." - Kenneth (3.22 Kidney Now!)

Re:anyone have a source on the Wade quote?

[Latentius]

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

Just because something is a theory...

[Skuld-Chan]

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 :).

you can tell where the oppressive idiots are

[swschrad]

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.

Re:you can tell where the oppressive idiots are

[ElmoGonzo]

"God said I'll make some D N A They can use it any way they want From paramecium right up to man. They'll have sex and mix up sections Of their code they'll have mutations, The whole thing works like clockwork over time. I'll just sit back in the shade While everyone gets laid That's what they call Intelligent Design" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpNoQaB2LT0

A change in the way we talk about this is needed

[snaildarter]

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."

leave catholic out of this

[aepervius]

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.

Re:leave catholic out of this

[Bigby]

It is not "Christian". It is only certain Protestant Christians. Catholics have been on the evolution bandwagon for quite a long time. Long enough that today's 70 yr old people were taught evolution when they went to Catholic HS.

"Idiocracy" had it wrong

[Arancaytar]

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.

Re:States

[toriver]

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...

[Velex]

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

Re:Several states

[moonwatcher2001]

It's a race for dominance as the stupidest state in the nation.

Most stupid; 'stupidest' is not a word.

It is a word http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stupidest stupid (stpd, sty-) adj. stupider, stupidest 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake. 4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied. 5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job. n.

Teach intelligent falling along side gravity!

[Patron]

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/

Separation good for both government and church

[perpenso]

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.

Where to start?

[whitroth]

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*"

Re:Another perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

This is central planning, and it turned out exactly how central planning is supposed to.

With sane and rational teaching standards for science? I guess that means I like central planning.

How in the hell do these people get elected?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously!?!?!?!?
WTF!

Re:of course it's made up

[jeffmeden]

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...

THIS! The idea that the lawmaker dismisses evolution as "made up" just because someone at some point thought of it (and didn't have the foresight to put it in the Bible) is un-fucking-believable. He clearly has NO idea what science is, what it's for, or why it's better than believing a 1000-2000 year old text that's been retranslated about twenty times. How do you even begin to reply to that kind of ignorance?

Well as a MA resident...

[TheCarp]

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.

Re:Isolate them.

[morari]

Also, somebody should create jobs only for them [...]

Cooking meth? Scamming disability for pain killers?

Re:Several states

[Baloroth]

It's a race for dominance as the stupidest state in the nation.

Most stupid; 'stupidest' is not a word. I'd say whichever state you received your education from is obviously a front runner in that race...

You sure about that? Absolutely, 100%? Well, then, looks like someone made the stupidest post of the day

Hint: when being pedantic about English, make sure the Oxford English dictionary doesn't contradict you. If it does, not only are you an ass for your pedantry, you also look like a stupid ass.

Some church schools excel in science ...

[perpenso]

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.

Re:Some church schools excel in science ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The astronomer and physics professor who developed the big bang theory was also a priest.

That makes sense. That show is terrible.

Re:Some church schools excel in science ...

[TheGratefulNet]

The astronomer and physics professor who developed the big bang theory was also a priest.

was that about heavenly bodies or Heavenly Bodies?

(just asking. I'm JUST asking, that's all!)

Re:Some church schools excel in science ...

[inasity_rules]

It only seems to be a big issue in America. Except you guys are wholesale exporting your YEC garbage to africa. Please Americans, we don't want it. Do us a favour and keep your crazy over there.

Re:Some church schools excel in science ...

[spitzak]

The astronomer and physics professor who developed the big bang theory was also a priest.

He was a Jesuit, actually. It would help to identify the religions, as they do differ from each other.

Yes Catholic and Jesuit college-level schools are really excellent in science. I don't think that was the type of "religious school" the GP was talking about. You don't send 8 year olds there.

Re:Some church schools excel in science ...

[Chris Mattern]

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and render unto God the things that are God's"

Which is actually a weasel statement when you look at it closely enough. By Christian theology, what *isn't* God's? Of course, Jesus was answering a "gotcha" question that was trying to trap him into advocating not paying Roman taxes, so a little weaseling might have been justified.

Re:Isolate them.

[couchslug]

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!

Apologies

[valros]

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.

Re:Apologies

[jbeaupre]

As someone also from Kentucky, I'm happy to point out that there don't seem to be very many of these guys. The article only mentions a couple.

Everyone is getting upset that "Kentucky is demanding ..." No, just two whack jobs. The legislature hasn't done anything.

Re:This is a cinch for a perl/python programmer

[jeffmeden]

Why can't ACT have one big massive pool of questions in its database. For each question, there would be a bit flag field as part of it's entry in the database.

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.

I could be wrong, but as a standardized test I believe they need to evaluate every set of questions against a baseline of students and then against the whole population of participants; that's what gives them the ability to use it to uniformly identify educational knowledge levels. If they had a set specifically for those students, all of a sudden the test doesnt tell you where a kid is in relation to the entire student population, but only to the other students who used the same set of questions. While it may seem like a non-issue to let idiots be with idiots when it comes to creationism, I for one would like to see the testing and reporting not be fragmented.

Not to mention the whole establishment clause thingy...

Re:Please explain the magnitude of the problem

[Stirling Newberry]

Selection doesn't just apply to biological systems, and the pressures of selection show up constantly in computing, for example, in security. That's why analogies to say "viruses" and "infected computer" are part of the lingo of the trade. Variation, selection, reproduction is one of nature's design patterns, and if you are an engineer, remember it is wise to steal from the very best.

Re:Another perspective

[tgibbs]

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

Re:Another perspective

[samkass]

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.

Re:of course it's made up

[DragonWriter]

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

Well, "provable", not so much. Falsifiable in that it makes objectively testable predictions, yes, and a very good model in that it has withstood testing, also yes.

Re:States

[Vancorps]

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.

Re:Please explain the magnitude of the problem

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Biology and its spinoffs, including modern medicine, are just as much a part of scientific and technical leadership as IT; and evolution is the cornerstone of biology. Just because you don't use an understanding of biological evolution in your work doesn't mean that it's not important in a whole lot of other people's work.

Evolution not terribly useful to HS grad

[cockpitcomp]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[tgibbs]

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

Re:Isolate them.

[Sardak]

Don't punish the students just because the adults are bumfuck retarded.

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.

Re:Another perspective

[cpu6502]

>>>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.

Re:Rep. Ben Waide (need his email address)

[tekrat]

Somebody needs to ask this guy why God is creating antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.

Re:Another perspective

[Anne Thwacks]

But, in America "You have the right to remain stupid!"

Re:Another perspective

[pluther]

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".

Re:Another perspective

[pixelpusher220]

Wait, you're arguing against 'Central Planning' in favor of 'Organized Religion'?

You do realize that Religion is by definition 'Top Down' right?

Re:Another perspective

[tgibbs]

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

Re:Another perspective

[Ziggitz]

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.

Galileo Galilei has this covered...

[fallen1]

"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

Re:Isolate them.

[WhitePanther5000]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:of course it's made up

[dbIII]

What's worse is Darwin was probably a far more devout Christian than any one of those people in politics in Kentucky that pretend their whims are God's will. They don't know what religeon is either, it's just a vector for power for them which is why they see science as getting in the way.

Re:Another perspective

[pluther]

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".

Re:Another perspective

[pla]

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".

Re:Another perspective

[Grishnakh]

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.

Re:Just a theory?

[DeeEff]

This.

Evolution itself is a fact. The theory of evolution explains why and/or how the theory of evolution occurs. The fact that it does occur is set in stone, and can be repeatedly proven both in the lab and in the field, empirically. The theory part explains the why/how, but that doesn't stop it from being true.

Same with gravity. Gravity is explained by the general theory of relativity. Gravity itself is a fact. The Earth attracts your mass and you "fall" into it. Explaining why/how that occurs is in the theory. I suppose it does get muddied up some since physical geodesy describes mathematically how, while relativity describes why, but both are valid.

Re:Another perspective

[gtall]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[Canazza]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[s.petry]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[Artraze]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[TubeSteak]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[The Moof]

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.

Please tell me you're kidding

[dsvick]

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.

Re:Please tell me you're kidding

[mythosaz]

What we teach is completely arbitrary. We just happen to [mostly] agree on it.

If you think we don't already teach kids all sorts of lies because they're part of our collective "truth" then you're pretty out of touch.

Re:Please tell me you're kidding

[djp928]

Yup, doing what the majority wants is a democracy. It's also not the form of goverment the US has.

Seriously, have you read the Constitution? Avoiding the tyranny of the majority was a big part of why it was written. Jesus, learn some civics.

Re:Please tell me you're kidding

[fredprado]

And the constitution can and have been modified accordingly to the majority's will. "Tyranny of the majority" is a nonsense term invented to justify imposing the will of a given minority (usually a ruling minority) over the majority. Tyranny of the majority IS democracy. Period.

Re:Please tell me you're kidding

[meglon]

Apparently you do not understand what a Constitutional Republic is, or what the Constitution even means.

Re:Another perspective

[DM9290]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[iluvcapra]

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.

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.

Re:Another perspective

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[mclaincausey]

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).

Re:Another perspective

[S77IM]

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

Re:Another perspective

[strikethree]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[tgibbs]

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

Re:Another perspective

[Chris Mattern]

Naw, god is both a top and bottom. He's cool like that.

That must be why he's both strange and charming.

Re:Another perspective

[hazah]

Also, it's because they really are stupid.

Re:Wait a second there hypocritical one..

[Chris Mattern]

It's okay to teach evolution even though we have absolutely no samples of evolution of a species, only variations in species,

You mean samples like these?

Re:Another perspective

[deKernel]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[Hatta]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[Jappus]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[s73v3r]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[ahodgson]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[NiteShaed]

It doesn't prevent teaching about religions.

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.

World is Flat!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Another perspective

[jpstanle]

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?

Re:Another perspective

[Hatta]

You'd like to think so, but generally fundies really believe that shit. It's not just an idea to them, but an identity.

Truth exists

[INowRegretThesePosts]

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.

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".

Re:Another perspective

[Boronx]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[Jappus]

>> 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.

Re:Another perspective

[tbannist]

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.

Re:Another perspective

[MysteriousPreacher]

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?