Turkey's Science Research Council Stops Publication of Evolution Books

An anonymous reader writes "The Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÜBITAK) has put a stop to the publication and sale of all books in its archives that support the theory of evolution, daily Radikal has reported. The books have long been listed as “out of stock” on TÜBTAK's website, but their further publication is now slated to be stopped permanently. Titles by Richard Dawkins, Alan Moorehead, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Levontin and James Watson are all included in the list of books that will no longer be available to Turkish readers. In early 2009, a huge uproar occurred when the cover story of a publication by TÜBITAK was pulled, reportedly because it focused on Darwin’s theory of evolution."

Comments

Note to myself:

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't hire people from Turkey, Kansas,...

Re:Note to myself:

[Concerned Onlooker]

Really. Have you ever been to that town?

Re:Note to myself:

[Zephyn]

Don't hire people from Turkey, Kansas,...

Never heard of that place. How far is it from Topeka?

Re:Note to myself:

[Synerg1y]

Cry more?

Re:Note to myself:

[shutdown -p now]

How did you even get banned? It sounds like it's quite a feat to get there on Slashdot. What did you do, find some editor who didn't approve your submission and punched him in the face?

Re:Note to myself:

[davester666]

It pretty much encompasses the entire state.

Re:Note to myself:

[RespekMyAthorati]

No, but I hear they make bank in late November.

This is a country that wants in the EU

[crazyjj]

Yeah, feel free to reapply in a few centuries.

Actually, don't.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Islam has been growing there, this is not unusual thing for Islamic countries.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[velvet_stallion]

Turkey doesn't seem to mind following behind the world by a couple of centuries. The Ottoman Empire refused to allow the printing press until 1729, but closed it, then reopened it again later in 1784. Same group objected to it as to evolution, the all-knowing theocratic wise men. Religion = Suppression of Thought. Science = Freedom of Thought.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[stressclq]

Assuming the same speed of civilization, we'll be there in 570 years, but don't hold your breath..

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because they never managed to separate religion from politics.

I'm not sayin religion is bad, but when you lead the country, you can't have two agendas. In this case, it's pretty obvious which won.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sayin religion is bad

Why not?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[pixelpusher220]

they never managed to separate religion from politics

Did they even try?

I'm not sayin religion is bad

Then I will. Religion exists because lights in the sky go boom and it doesn't rain when you want it to and things happen you can't understand.

Guess what, today we can understand those things and so religion is quite literally at odds with modern life. Sure we dress it up and ignore the ugly parts 'we' don't like but then somebody else decides, hey smiting neighbors is a good thing and justifies it with the Bible or whatever your religious source is.

If it ain't based on cold hard facts it has no business governing anyone other than the individual who believes it.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not very democratic. What if the majority believes the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[gestalt_n_pepper]

I'm from Texas. It's OK with me. Isn't there some paperwork we have to sign?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[rainmouse]

Islam has been growing there, this is not unusual thing for Islamic countries.

Science flies you to the moon.

Religion flies you into buildings.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[gary_7vn]

Did they even try? Well, yeah. "In the years following 1926, Mustafa Kemal introduced a radical departure from previous reformations established by the Ottoman Empire.[73] For the first time in history, Islamic law was separated from secular law, and restricted to matters of religion.[73] Mustafa Kemal said “ We must liberate our concepts of justice, our laws and our legal institutions from the bonds which, even though they are incompatible with the needs of our century, still hold a tight grip on us.[74] ” On 1 March 1926, the Turkish penal code was passed. It was modelled after the Italian Penal Code. On 4 October 1926, Islamic courts were closed. Establishing the civic law needed time, so Mustafa Kemal delayed the inclusion of the principle of laïcité until 5 February 1937. Ottoman practice discouraged social interaction between men and women in keeping with Islamic practice of sex segregation. Mustafa Kemal began developing social reforms very early, as was evident in his personal journal. He and his staff discussed issues like abolishing the veiling of women and the integration of women into the outside world. The clue on how he was planning to tackle the issue was stated in his journal on November 1915; “ The social change can come by (1) educating capable mothers who are knowledgeable about life; (2) giving freedom to women; (3) a man can change his morals, thoughts, and feelings by leading a common life with a woman; as there is an inborn tendency towards the attraction of mutual affection.[75] ” Mustafa Kemal needed a new civil code to establish his second major step of giving freedom to women. The first part was the education of girls and was established with the unification of education. On 4 October 1926, the new Turkish civil code passed. It was modelled after the Swiss Civil Code." Wiki

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

“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.'” - Isaac Asimov

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

"Science flies you to the moon."

I thought you needed Nazis for that.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[hondo77]

That's because they never managed to separate religion from politics.

Huh?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Pseudonym]

Science has provided us everything that religion has historically promised, including the chance of a firey holocaust which destroys humanity Go science!.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[green1]

Or christian counties...

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

"this is not unusual thing for Islamic countries."

      Not just Islamic countries. We still have "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. A phrase added during socialization in an attempt to program our children in the 1950's and has resulted with court battles by children to get rid of it. And how secular are we when someone sticking a ten commandments mural in a state building causes a giant court and public fight when it's obvious the damn thing shouldn't be there in the first place. Another phrase from the 1950's "Be the best you can be" or something like that pushed by a general when a more apt phrase might be "Be what you want to be". I won't get into the abortion, teaching creationism, and religious manipulation of politics. The US may have a secular government but it has a religious populace that just won't keep religion out of it. To be honest we're not that far from Turkey.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[nedlohs]

Did they even try?

Yes. Very hard indeed for a nation so closely tied with religion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk's_Reforms

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[SirGarlon]

Guess what, today we can understand those things and so religion is quite literally at odds with modern life.

Some religions are, some aren't. Most of the incompatibility comes from dogma, which varies over time and among sects. It may surprise you to know that several major religious sects support teaching evolution and actively oppose teaching creation.

Sure we dress it up and ignore the ugly parts 'we' don't like but then somebody else decides, hey smiting neighbors is a good thing and justifies it with the Bible or whatever your religious source is.

As if there were never another pretext for war besides the Bible, and all atheists were pacifists. People who want to smite their neighbors will make up a reason to do it, religion or no.

If it ain't based on cold hard facts it has no business governing anyone other than the individual who believes it.

I wholeheartedly agree that other people's religion should not govern me, and by the Golden Rule that also means my religion should not govern anyone else. However, I would point out that the separation of church and state, which you elegantly and passionately summarize here, is itself not based on "cold hard facts." It's ideology. Not all ideology is bad.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

And which event has had the greater impact on the US, and the world? The moon landings or 9/11?

Religion may not lead to progress, but it is still hugely influential.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[GenieGenieGenie]

Actually, the theory of evolution doesn't fly you anywhere. In fact, I'm willing to place hard money on a substantial amount of the Apollo project not believing in evolution.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[celle]

"What if the majority believes the Flying Spaghetti Monster created everything?"

      Then kill the willfully ignorant(stupid) fuckers and the minority becomes the majority. That or kill them have the country colonized by intelligent people. Either way nothing will be lost. By doing so you will have done away with possibly hundreds of years of civil strife and the death that goes with it. This also assumes somewhat that the state is the epitome of all existence.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Today's Turkey is moving away from Kemalism just like Russia and China have moved away from Communism. After Erodgan became president after the last election, Turkey has been slowly but steadily Islamizing. Everything you wrote above was right about Kemal Ataturk, but that dude has been dead for a while. The Turkish Army was previously the bulwork against that country Islamizing, but thanks to the Utopian EU, which thinks that the Turkish military should have no role in determining its future, they had to back down, and like in the Arab spring countries after them, once the army stranglehold was relaxed, Turkey started reverting to Islam. Congratulations to the geniuses in the EU who think that if only Turkey was fully democratic, it would be no different from Europe.

For those who equate Turkey with Christian countries that teach creationism, it's worth noting that while in the latter countries, it is not illegal to teach evolution. But in the case of Turkey, teaching of evolution is illegal, since it contradicts Islamic theories of how things started. Western anti-evolution zealots would do well to target countries like Turkey, rather than places like MO or AL for their fanaticism. Maybe take a flight to Istanbul and start demonstrating for teaching evolution in schools, and see how the Turks react.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[servognome]

If it ain't based on cold hard facts it has no business governing anyone other than the individual who believes it.

That's a narrow view that can be just as bad as religion. Many "human rights" are built upon concepts which cannot be proven by fact, or in some cases opposed by the current body of knowledge.
There are many questions which have no answers or are fuzzy at best. Ideally you would have continual open discussion, but people prefer to latch onto religion because it gives them the comfort of concrete answers.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[servognome]

I would say worse. At least Turkey is overt about their religious fanatacism, the US is still delusional about being free, while burning down the planetarium.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[cheater512]

It's not unusual in religious countries. How long has the US tried to do the same?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[pixelpusher220]

Then I grab my religious headgear, I mean colander, and have dinner ;-)

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Jawnn]

That's because they never managed to separate religion from politics.

The U.S.A. tried that, once. It didn't take. Nice idea, but certain factions still feel the need to make their beliefs into laws that everybody else must follow, "jes' lahk in all them "Islamo-facist Kuhntries".

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

How might you feel about a religion that held discovery of God's creation through science to be it's highest sacrament?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[pixelpusher220]

several major religious sects support teaching evolution

And they believe in things that are simply not based on anything other than 'belief'. They can support evolution all they want, but when they want to claim that we are reincarnated, with absolutely no proof of that...sorry, it's smoky magic and voodoo at it's core.

The very nature of religion is belief in something other than science, believe that there is some higher meaning/power/purpose to life. Science doesn't overtly discount that notion but does require proof of its existence prior to enshrining any weight to the belief.

People who want to smite their neighbors will make up a reason to do it, religion or no

Far far far more people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else. As heard recently, the Bible has more death penalty statutes than Texas (but don't tell Texas they might feel insecure!). Perhaps a joke, but you don't hear about those things in modern pleasant society. Yet they aren't removed from the Bible...

However, I would point out that the separation of church and state, which you elegantly and passionately summarize here, is itself not based on "cold hard facts." It's ideology. Not all ideology is bad.

I would disagree. It was seeing that ideology is bad and setting forth the plan to keep ideology based on phantoms and mystics 'out' of our governance. You can call that an 'ideology' if you wish, but it's an ideology bent on observable fact and results and repeatable provable facts; or reality in another name :)

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[pixelpusher220]

Many "human rights" are built upon concepts which cannot be proven by fact

Such as? Not wanting people to come kill me because they don't like what I believe or do? That's pretty easy to prove.

opposed by the current body of knowledge

This is key, very key. Science is entirely focused on increasing this body of knowledge. Religion? not so much. At a given time, yes the current knowledge may not support something specific, but you don't get governments imposing things like "don't eat broccoli on tuesdays" just out of thin air either. There's a reason that society does stuff and that is accumulated knowledge and experience. Religion does it because a book written down over a 1000 years ago says so.

I remember a statement that a man who lived in the year 1000 would be considered wildly ignorant today, and yet could likely also be a religious scholar. One area has expanded its knowledge, the other has remained pretty static.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Spectre]

Religion exists because lights in the sky go boom and it doesn't rain when you want it to and things happen you can't understand.

Guess what, today we can understand those things and so religion is quite literally at odds with modern life.

Will you marry me? No? Probably for the best ... but I'm going to quote you, at least.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Come back when such a religion is wide-spread and pursuing that goal; until then, your argument is hypothetical only and serves only to dilute the issue.

Historically, most religions have embraced, at a fundamental level, certainty in the absence of evidence and not uncertainty in the presence of it.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Science has provided us everything that religion has historically promised,

Are my 72 virgins still growing in the lab or something?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Actually, the theory of evolution doesn't fly you anywhere. In fact, I'm willing to place hard money on a substantial amount of the Apollo project not believing in evolution.

Probably true, but that certainly was not the face of it.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[ConfusedVorlon]

I would think it was pointless.

Gilding the lilly. Why tarnish science with make believe?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Kjella]

We're still working on that eternal (after)life, even though modern medicine has made some progress you could live to 80 in ancient Rome too and we still consider that a fairly good run. But it's nice with a stretch goal ;)

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I'd say the moon landings.

I don't think you quite realize just how many innovations and improvements to the technological age occured as a direct result of the space race.

Hint: More was created there than a locked cockpit door and the TSA scanner.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

So your statement isn't categorical, but is confined to current religions you are aware of? That is an important distinction.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

From the standpoint of social structure, there is a scientific basis for religion. Children who are told some being is watching are more likely to leave a plate of cookies alone when asked even if they don't believe that the being will do anything but watch.

In general, people are more likely to behave in an ethical manner when they believe someone will see what they do, even if they don't expect any consequences for being seen.

I would prefer that we let a benevolent sky being do the watching rather than the guys back at the precinct.

That isn't to say that there isn't a long history of organized religion abusing the power of belief for their own ends, of course. That is what I personally object to. Perhaps if the abusers had actually believed someone was watching...

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[servognome]

Such as? Not wanting people to come kill me because they don't like what I believe or do? That's pretty easy to prove.

It's possible we might be better off if everybody thought the same way. Think how much time and energy would be saved if religon was wiped out, no more meaningless debates about non-ideas like creationism. People would also be more open to philosophical discussions and push forth our ability to understand rather than hide behind the words of a few thousand year old book.

Equality is a concept that often contradicts the facts. There are some people with physical or mental handicaps that will require more resources than they can produce and are thus a drain on society. From a purely analytical view, they hurt more than they help. Yet warm touchy feely beliefs lead us to help those people. Not all speech is equal either. Religious zealots spew forth "information" that just causes more noise and confusion. Still, there is a general belief that it is their right to do so.
There are also fuzzy areas, like property rights, where the common good and individual good come in conflict. We see a spectrum of solutions, to try and find the balance, but it is extremely difficult to factually describe what is correct.

I remember a statement that a man who lived in the year 1000 would be considered wildly ignorant today, and yet could likely also be a religious scholar. One area has expanded its knowledge, the other has remained pretty static.

People still read Aristotle, Plato, and Confucious. We still learn Newtonian physics and Euclidean geometry. There is wisdom in the past that we can learn from, even though modern times have far exceeded the imaginations of those people.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

And?

I really don't think there's much risk that science will answer the last question in our lifetime. If/when it ever does, we become the magic sky beings.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

I like this argument.. because it wrongly assumes without religion that man wouldn't find another reason for war. and allows the presenter to support their own supposed intellectual superiority because of this.

Pro Tip:
Man always finds a convenient excuse for war.

Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[turbidostato]

"Actually, the theory of evolution doesn't fly you anywhere."

I'm an Archaeopteryx, you insensitive clod

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

We didn't say those 72 virgins wouldn't be virgin sheep .... or women.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the countries that helped Charles Darwin investigate the theory of evolution, and even buried him on a specially-honourable spot inside a world-famous church, next to 2 other very well known scientists who both also made parts of the world clear ?

It wouldn't be fair to say Christianity as a whole is against the theory of evolution, given the support that theory has received from the church, and the support research into it continues to receive from the church today. The vatican probably educates more people into the theory of evolution than any other organisation even today, and they started doing that earlier than most government schools too.

As to what some congregations think, well, yes.

Christianity, and especially the vatican, are extremely pro-science compared to other religions.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

As the same AC, of course it isn't categorical and of course it isn't confined to current religions I am aware of. It is, however, confined to more common religions. Religions which the man on the Clapham omnibus could be expected to be aware of.

Now, either name such a religion or get back to creating one.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Far far far more people have been killed in the name of religion than anything else. As heard recently, the Bible has more death penalty statutes than Texas (but don't tell Texas they might feel insecure!). Perhaps a joke, but you don't hear about those things in modern pleasant society. Yet they aren't removed from the Bible...

That is only true if you leave it at "religion". Some of the most lethal wars in history, like the islamic state attacking India, are of course religious, and probably account for ~30%-40% of all people who died in war over the sum total of human history. Whilst this is indeed a religion, it is not just any religion. Another islamic practice is responsible for hundreds of millions of dead : the "black gold", it's original meaning before oil : kidnapping black people from villages in Africa and putting them to work as slaves over north africa and the middle east, working them to death, or in some cases, killing them for fun/sport/amusement. Both of these islamic practices amount to several hundred million dead, and are of course not acknowledged (even America's black slaves were bought from muslim slave raiders).

The second largest cause of war and death is communism, or perhaps it would be more fair to say that it was states, in the mid-20th century, that had a communist revolution before that. These genocides were definitely ideological, according to the men who commanded them.

The third largest cause of war and death is the world-wars, which I would argue are largely the result of a small set of countries believing they can win against the whole world, and in both cases being very nearly correct in that assessment.

I wonder if your ideas about religion do take this into account. ONE religion, and 2 secular ideologies top the dead bodies charts. That does not make religion evil, in fact, you could argue that it makes all religions - except one - much better than the 2 main secular ideologies of the last century. Just as you wouldn't want science itself to get blamed for the crimes of communist states last century (or even socialism), please don't blame good religions for the crimes of muslims/islam.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[TheGratefulNet]

>Yet they aren't removed from the Bible

this is a major problem with almost all (if not all) religions. they think they have the final word and are 'beyond revision'.

now, if they got things right, from the start, that would be one thing. but they have huge errors that we now know are errors and still, religions won't update their books when called on it.

this is one reason why many people (myself included) can't subscribe to religions. their books are full of errors and self contradictions and yet they won't revise it. or even worse, full of hate speech that they won't remove.

and so, I can't support such things or trust them.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[shutdown -p now]

I think GP's point was that Turkey did have a separation between religion and state, and it actually did wonders - it transformed the country from a rump of the "sick man of Europe" into a rapidly developing country with steadily growing standard of living.

Unfortunately, it wasn't a grassroots movement, but came from above. So once the leader who pushed it through died, his followers' resolve grew steadily weaker with each passing generation - and now they have surrendered the country to Islamists.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[marnues]

Why does a religion have to use make believe? My God is a not a man in the sky, nor a being in an after life. My God is a collection of things that my physical and mental faculties are unable to properly process or appreciate. There is nothing supernatural or metaphysical about my God. My God is mystical the same way that human evolution is mystical. We may know the how, but we certainly don't know the why. And as science tells me that I am an emotional being long before my logical processes are able to fire, it makes sense that my God is a more fundamental force in my behavior than science.

tldr; Einstein:"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[hazah]

Assuming, of course, that such a question is at all in the relm of answerable questions. Perhaps it makes no sense to ask in the first place.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[hazah]

Shall we start with you?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[martin-boundary]

Christianity, and especially the vatican, are extremely pro-science compared to other religions.

Wrong. Like any religion, they lay claim to the "higher" truth. What you are talking about is tolerance of a "lower" scientific truth as long as it doesn't usurp the more important higher truth being claimed by the religion. And even that was paid in blood.

To put it bluntly, scientific knowledge is incompatible with gods. We know it, they know it. To preserve face and influence, christian religions will acknowledge science's truth while falsely claiming that there is another truth out there (unproven and full of logically inconsistent claims) which is nevertheless claimed to be coexistent and ultimately more important. Basically, religion is like the kid who says to your face he'll clean up his room but never actually does it.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Empiric]

"Religion exists because lights in the sky go boom and it doesn't rain when you want it to and things happen you can't understand."

No, it doesn't. Actually reading the documents would make it clear that there was essentially no difference in the events people in the first century would call "miraculous" and what we would today. Lightning, not miraculous. Multiplying matter (e.g. bread, fish), miraculous. Though they may not have understood the causal mechanisms behind the natural order to the degree we do today, there was no confusion as to a natural/supernatural category. It requires no belief in the supernatural at all to recognize that the notion of "religion used to believe everything happened for magical reasons until science fixed that" is simply false, self-serving history.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[couchslug]

If Superstition were truth, Superstitionists could PROVE their Sky Fairie exists and end all debate.

Spiritual experience, emotion, faith and similar bullshit are not PROOF.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[martin-boundary]

That's exactly my point.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[gary_7vn]

More like one million.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

This one doesn't quite hold science to be a sacrement, but DOES hold that :

If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[dryeo]

Religion is much older then the first century and there are many more religions then Christianity.
The grandparent is basically right, religion attempted to explain the world. Of course some religions evolved into much larger movements and stories of miraculous events were used to help that along.
If there was truth behind religion then most religions would agree on the fundamental truths instead of every society having their own religion, often violently disagreeing on those supposed fundamental truths.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Zontar The Mindless]

That fiery holocaust which destroys humanity prominently features a red dragon with seven heads and seven crowns on his heads. I must not have been paying enough attention to the news and missed the day when science provided us with that.

Yeah, about 4 years ago.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[rtb61]

It seems more like Turkish government types are simply fudging. Those more advanced Turks who can read English have access to the full range scientific content. Those less literate types that rely on government subsidised books in Turkish can be temporarily placated.

After all the same council, TUBITAK is responsible for Pardus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardus_(operating_system). It seems with evolution where the benefit understanding for the less educated is somewhat arbitrary, simply putting it off for some number of years while they socially catch up is simply a matter of expedience.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[riverat1]

I think you are right. I've been told several times over the years by religious people that I can't be a moral person because I don't believe in God. My response is that if it requires fear of God to make you act morally then you really aren't very moral but just reacting to the threat of punishment. If you do the right thing even though no one's looking (including God) then you can really call yourself a moral person.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Empiric]

And the grandparent could care less about "religion" per se across all of history, he cares about the particular one(s) he is targeting, and for those it is a clear Straw Man and Genetic Fallacy. "Science" has been wrong about every single idea it has forwarded, going by the entirety of its history, a track record much worse than religion, if we want to apply that standard. Staying with meaningful points, though, suggests that we don't.

People have attempted to explain the world through a great many methodologies, and here's the point: We -aren't- limited to only one. Science helps us little to none in the domains of, say, politics, or the arts, yet people very much conclude their views have a measure of validity, and rightfully so. Epistemology is a category for which science is only one element--they are not synonymous.

And, most religions, numerically speaking, do agree on the fundamental truths. The "big three", Christianity, Judaism, and Islam share much of the same defining concepts as "people of the book". Where, however, you get the notion that truth is determined by the amount of contention about ideas, though, I have no idea. That has no validity in any domain of human inquiry. Equally, where you get the idea that "if something were true, there wouldn't be disagreement" I also have no idea, as there's no validity to that either, as should be obvious to you (and probably is obvious to you, but in other cases you aren't talking about religion, so the the opposite of what you conclude on absolutely every other like topic in reality becomes the opposite) considering politics, the arts, or for that matter, any of hundreds of contentious topics in science.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Zontar The Mindless]

Well, Buddhism doesn't address the ontological question, but from its earliest beginnings, it has always emphasised discovery of truth through observation and critical thinking.

OTOH, I'm not sure I consider Buddhism a "religion"... precisely because of this.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Zontar The Mindless]

... please don't blame good religions for the crimes of muslims/islam.

First you prove that "good religion" isn't an oxymoron, then we'll talk.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Pfhorrest]

This makes me think of something interesting.

I've long since considered free will and morality closely related and both connected to the same reflexivity that constitutes consciousness. In short, it is when you are capable of looking at yourself "in the third person" so to speak, and ask whether what you are doing is what a person should do and praise/blame yourself to deter or reinforce your own behavior as necessary, that you both capable of independent moral judgement and in possession of a proper will beyond just unreflective desires.

Your discussion of people being more likely to behave ethically when they are being watched made me reflect that I behave ethically because I am always imagining someone reading the story of my life from the future and judging me based on that, and I want my actions to be right "for the record". Except that in many cases, when I am unobserved, the only person who would be "reading this story" is future me, remembering it.

So in effect, I do act ethically because someone is watching. It's just that that someone is me, and it doesn't have to be someone else watching for it to be effective. I might even argue that the "someone is watching you" effect is only effective because when someone else is watching you it makes you think about what they would be thinking about you and in doing so forces you into the reflexivity from which moral judgement and willful action derive.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Zontar The Mindless]

Given that human rights are a codification of canon law...

Would have modded you Funny for that, but

(a) I've already posted to this discussion;

(b) I suspect that you yourself might actually believe what you said.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Zontar The Mindless]

Then I will. Religion exists because lights in the sky go boom and it doesn't rain when you want it to and things happen you can't understand.

This is also why science exists

The difference being, of course, that science doesn't generally just make stuff up and demand your unquestioning acceptance of it as The Truth.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Whiteox]

Disagree there. Maybe you're looking at Bhuddism in its most basic and public form. Most certainly it answers the ontological question. What is interesting about Bhuddism is the level of apparent ancient sciences that are part of its world view.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[guises]

This is what Santa is for, no need for religion. If you have children who are poorly behaved you tell them that big bad Santa is going to grind coal into their eyes and they stop. The advantage being that when they grow older they learn that Santa doesn't exist.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

And that's the problem. It may be annoying to find an empty cookie jar and a small child that denies all wrongdoing, but it's a real problem to find a crashed economy and a pack of bankers that deny all wrongdoing. Given the choice, I'd have the grown-ups be the true believers.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

True, moral or ethical behavior based on fear lacks the integrity of moral and ethical behavior in the absence of fear. However, note that the fear component isn't actually necessary in the experiments. The children were told that the invisible being would just watch. They had no fear of any divine or magical reprisal or even of being told on. Still, the belief that they were being watched helped them to do the right thing.

Given the state of affairs in the world, I'd say that if a crutch is needed to elicit ethical behavior, so be it.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[riverat1]

Yes, it's better that they act morally because of their fear of God than to remove all restraints on their behavior.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

It does seem that that someone else can be the future self, at least if the self is fundamentally ethical in the first place.I'm not sure how to test if that form could be cultivated in everyone or is a more fanciful other is actually necessary for some people but it would be interesting to know.

I suppose the greatest danger of future self as observer is that some people will then fail to reflect on their actions unless they have some nagging doubt. They might not consider that a future self may not agree that their current questionable action is justifiable under the circumstances. They may need the idea of an objective observer to encourage sufficient reflection in the more difficult ethical choices.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[macs4all]

This one doesn't quite hold science to be a sacrement, but DOES hold that :

If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.

Paramahansa Yogananda, Parlez Vous?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Zontar The Mindless]

I prefer to discuss Buddhism with people who can at least spell it.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Tablizer]

Children who are told some being is watching are more likely to leave a plate of cookies alone when asked even if they don't believe that the being will do anything but watch.

But in practice after getting away with it a few times, the child learns that there is no punishment, and apply this lesson to the rest of their life.

Maybe they feel that God wants them to lie for money because God wants them to be personally wealthy because they pray more or some other BS rationalization. It's easy to rationalize when you cannot verify the rules.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Xarvh]

This is insanely bad.
You are moving the control from "the guys back at the precinct" to whoever controls the superstitious doctrine.

If rather than "don't steal the cookie" you tell the kids "beat the shit out of those who question my authority" what will the kids of the experiment do?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Xarvh]

Turkey tried badly to separate religion from politics, and it was one one the most secular Islamic country.
It appears that they are failing.

Women in Istanbul are taking back the veil as sign of political support to the conservative party.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[pixelpusher220]

There are some people with physical or mental handicaps that will require more resources than they can produce and are thus a drain on society. From a purely analytical view, they hurt more than they help.

We help because one misstep off a curb and it's us who are now unproductive.

There can be cold hard facts that having a society that helps *everyone* is a more productive society than one that culls anyone who happens not to be 'productive' by some arbitrary measure.

Or it could just be that we're human and we help people. The cold hard fact is if we get hurt, we would like people to help us, so we help the less fortunate.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

Like I said, there have been abuses. However, I would guess that as bad as those get, it's never as bad as when you merge state and religious power into a single entity such as the boys back at the precinct with an eye in the sky.

Based on history, I'd say we're not worse off with a belief in God than we are with a belief in the state.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Pfhorrest]

I've often thought that an interesting form of (barely) religious anarchism -- interesting in the sense I might write a story featuring a culture that uses it, not in that I would try to implement it anywhere in particular in the real world -- would be an agnostic theocracy. There would be a throne room temple with a big prominent throne where the only legitimate authority, God, sits. Nobody is allowed to sit in that chair, as that would be the highest of heresies, assuming God's authority to oneself. Whatever the closest thing to a government council (parliament, congress, etc) this society had would sit in a circle on the floor in front of the throne as they discussed matters, as a constant reminder that none of us here is fit to rule over the rest of us, as we are all mere fallible humans. But God is not here right now, or at least he's not taking physical form, sitting there on that throne, and issuing orders from it. And until he does, we're stuck trying to figure out how best to get by without an omniscient omnibenevolent omnipotent authority to abolish all evil for us. But while we do that, we sit around next to his empty chair as a reminder that none of us is him and none of us gets to act like we are.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Zumbs]

I think it is more a question of political opportunity. It is much easier to play the "tough on crime", "think of the children" or "morality" cards than it is to explain and consider the very complex real world problems with the public. "Harsher punishments reduce crime and make our streets safer" is easy and will cause a lot of people to nod. Discussing the actual background for crime (be it poverty or lead) and how to actually reduce it is much more complex, and tend to cost more. When you have a predominantly Muslim population, opportunistic politicians will tend to play on conservative Muslim virtues (like politicians play on Christian values in Christian countries), and, well, in the political day to day trying to keep the population docile, they will use whatever is at their disposal.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Barsteward]

Also to some christian ones too, take some states in the US. i'm sure they'd ban evolution if they could

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Barsteward]

From the standpoint of social structure, there is a scientific basis for religion. Children who are told some being is watching are more likely to leave a plate of cookies alone when asked even if they don't believe that the being will do anything but watch.
i.e. Scare them into being good and start the brainwashing of them thinking these "invisible friends" really exist

In general, people are more likely to behave in an ethical manner when they believe someone will see what they do, even if they don't expect any consequences for being seen.
How does that work if someone is watching you have a shit?

I would prefer that we let a benevolent sky being do the watching rather than the guys back at the precinct.
I'd prefer decent parents teaching kids to do the correct thing for the right reasons

That isn't to say that there isn't a long history of organized religion abusing the power of belief for their own ends, of course. That is what I personally object to. Perhaps if the abusers had actually believed someone was watching...
thats there only reason to exist, "their own ends...."

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Barsteward]

Some religions are, some aren't. Most of the incompatibility comes from dogma, which varies over time and among sects. It may surprise you to know that several major religious sects support teaching evolution and actively oppose teaching creation.

that may be but religion will always at odds with modern life if it has an invisible leader that cannot be proved to exist. Belief in an all powerful invisible god is based on ignorance and fear.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Barsteward]

"because it gives them the comfort of concrete answers."

What concrete answers???

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Barsteward]

"Tell me, isn't it a sort of faith that atheists hold that there is nothing beyond us? What is your evidence supporting this assertion?"

If it wasn't for religion promising us a life after death, then the question wouldn;t arise so it the religion that has to provide proof there is a life after death. There is no faith or even "sort of faith" for atheists, we just take the opposing view in the hope that the religionists can pushed into providing proof (fat chance)

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Barsteward]

"Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history" - absolute bollox, not one war was done in the name of atheism. plenty of killing done using various holy texts as justification

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Barsteward]

seems pretty clear and correct to me. can you explain why you think its not correct?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[servognome]

Or it could just be that we're human and we help people. The cold hard fact is if we get hurt, we would like people to help us, so we help the less fortunate.

That is a personal view, there have been societies where "the right thing" was to euthanize people, including children, who showed signs of disease or disability. Going back to my original point, there are rules that we come to accept not based on fact, but based on instinct and social norms.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[BonThomme]

that 'oustide the realm' part has been shrinking for centuries

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[BonThomme]

I think the children programming was a side effect. The real reason was Congress was convinced Communists were incapable of saying "under god". Hence, anyone who complains about it being in the pledge must be a Communist.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[camcorder]

I'd prefer decent parents teaching kids to do the correct thing for the right reasons
Description of 'correct' is carried through centuries with the help of religion. That's the most important part of the religion, that it creates a foundation of moral thoughts. Since it's information age, that you 'reach' everything through a single search query, you think you're god now. But you forget that vast majority of the thoughts that keeps the society awake and in a living condition is because of moral experiences of our ancestors carried to our age with religion.

Civilization has been a long journey. All these 'uber genious' atheists were existed in all ages. 'I know everything better than everyone' people became majority, society corrupted, then a new page with a new "sin" was added to testaments. Even if all these religious sayings, and prophets etc. were man-made, not god-made, someone considering himself clever enough, should respect them. Because an idea that would affect billions of people for centuries is nothing they could dream of to produce.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[BonThomme]

"Thou art God."

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[rocket rancher]

How might you feel about a religion that held discovery of God's creation through science to be it's highest sacrament?

The same way I feel about *all* untestable hypotheses in general...it's religion, not science. :)

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[mcgrew]

Religion exists because lights in the sky go boom and it doesn't rain when you want it to and things happen you can't understand.

No, religion happens because some folks experience something greater than the physical world, and impart that knowledge to others. No, I can't prove God exists, nor can I prove pain or sentience exists; both can be too easily faked. But whether or not I can prove it, I feel pain and am self-aware.

religion is quite literally at odds with modern life.

Most religions are, Christianity certainly is. Modern life is all about the money, "clawing your way up", greed, selfishness, lasciviousness. It is completely contrary to everything Christ taught.

If it ain't based on cold hard facts it has no business governing anyone other than the individual who believes it.

Agreed.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Darby]

However, I would point out that the separation of church and state, which you elegantly and passionately summarize here, is itself not based on "cold hard facts." It's ideology.

It is based entirely on cold hard facts. There has never been and can never be a free society ruled by religion. That is a cold hard fact well known to the person who instituted the wall between church and state in America and his reason for doing so.

Not all ideology is bad.
True but as demonstrated clearly irrelevant. The separation of church and state isn't an ideology. It's how irrational ideology was to be kept out of government.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Yvanhoe]

Actually, Turkey used to be an exemplary country when it comes to separation of religion and politics. It was enforced by the army, held as a crucial value by Ataturk, the founder of the country. The rise of islamists is recent, they managed to neutralize the role of the army and are now turning Turkey more into a middle-eastern country than into a european one.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[daem0n1x]

Eternal life sound extremely boring. Why would someone want to live forever?

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[BonThomme]

I think you mean complicated.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Barsteward]

"Description of 'correct' is carried through centuries with the help of religion. That's the most important part of the religion, that it creates a foundation of moral thoughts." -

Moral?? religion?? you have to be joking. Misogyny, homophobia, genocide, child abuse are "correct" ??

"Even if all these religious sayings, and prophets etc. were man-made, not god-made, " - they are man made

"someone considering himself clever enough, should respect them. " - No, i should not respect them, how can anyone respect the greatest con (albiet created due to ignorance of facts) on earth

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[BonThomme]

"big three"? wow, that speaks volumes.

Hindus and Buddhists, not to mention a variety of other Sino-Indian religions far, far outnumber Jews. Your own straw-man says they're the big three because they all share the same foundation of the Abrahamic religions. How convenient.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[rocket rancher]

This one doesn't quite hold science to be a sacrement, but DOES hold that :

If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science, they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible, and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.

And if a question be found contrary to faith? Like, for example, "What if I can explain the universe without reference to faith, i.e., by using only the evidence obtained by observation?" According to Bahai, then faith must be wavering and vacillating, thus denying the existence of true religion -- how can a religion be true if it is wavering and vacillating? The flaw in Bahai (as with any other religion) is the assertion that science and religion are compatible. They aren't. People of the Bahai faith can have their faith, or they can have science -- they can't have both.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[daem0n1x]

Speak for yourself. The Roman Catholic Church officially acknowledges the Theory of Evolution. Here in Europe Creationism is laughed at by the vast majority of people as a stupid idea from fanatic idiots.

The Orthodox Church seems to have issues with evolution, so the Creationism stupidity has more support in Orthodox countries. Still, it's a minority. Only in the USA and a few Islamic countries the stupidity is widely accepted as true.

USA among Sudan and Saudi Arabia. Something to be proud of.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Pieroxy]

False. Religion asks questions that are outside the realm of what science can ask/answer. Is not that hard to understand actually...

Philosophy asks questions, religion gives misleading, inaccurate and imaginary answers. Their questions are just rhetorical, they are empty.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Darby]

"Science" has been wrong about every single idea it has forwarded, going by the entirety of its history, a track record much worse than religion, if

It is less wrong now than it ever was. That is the design goal and achieved beautifully.

Religion has never been right about anything.

The track records are exactly the opposite of what you claim.

Science helps us little to none in the domains of, say, politics, or the arts

Science doesn't make a better painter, but it does make better paints (up to computers even).
Science doesn't make a better guitarist, but it does make better guitars and strings.

You clearly understand little about the world.

The "big three", Christianity, Judaism, and Islam share much of the same defining concepts as "people of the book".

No, they do not. Their gods have little in common apart from claiming to be the same but "better" than the other ones.

The old testament version of the cosmic bully is explicitly *only* the god of racial hebrews. He is jealous of the other gods that he states exist and are the gods of other races.
Pretending that it's the same god is idiotic.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

I can build a bicycle without an elephant, therefor there are no elephants?

No, the answer is that the universe is built the way science holds that it was and faith says that God exists beyond that and created the conditions that lead to the happenings explained by science.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

How does that work if someone is watching you have a shit?

It will guide them to shit ethically using the toilet rather than being an asshole and using the trashcan when the stalls are occupied?

The kids in the study were just typical kids, they were not raised by wolves. It still helped if they believed Princess Alice was there. We all know what the right thing is, we just don't all DO it. Apparently people need a bit more encouragement to make the right choice.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Grishnakh]

Actually, there's a little more to it than that: yes, fundamentalist Christian sects have been growing a lot in subsaharan Africa, but it's not completely the Africans' fault, it's the fundies from the USA who have been sending missionaries over there to convert Africans to their brand of Christianity. The new "kill the gays" law in Uganda was pushed by USA Christians.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[Grishnakh]

The US may have a secular government but it has a religious populace that just won't keep religion out of it. To be honest we're not that far from Turkey.

There's a little more to it than that: the USA is not homogeneous. The ones in what we call the "red states" are the worst in this regard, constantly pushing their brand of fundamentalist Christianity; here in the urban areas of the "blue states", we don't have too much of that kind of thinking.

We'd be a lot better off if we broke the country up, so that the blue states could advance into world-leading countries, while the red states (especially the whole southeast) turn into third-world cesspools.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[sjames]

It's not at all a bad idea.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[shutdown -p now]

When you have a predominantly Muslim population, opportunistic politicians will tend to play on conservative Muslim virtues (like politicians play on Christian values in Christian countries), and, well, in the political day to day trying to keep the population docile, they will use whatever is at their disposal.

But that's precisely my point. Turkey wasn't a democracy under Ataturk - that's why secularization was even possible, despite heavy resistance from the populace. And even after him, it remained a "controlled democracy" - meaning that people could vote, so long as the candidates they elected did not pursue policies that went against basic Kemalist principles (such as islamization). If they did, the army would intervene, depose the government, and force another election. But in this round, the army has declined to intervene so far, and so you see democratic populism running wild - and not in a good way.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[pixelpusher220]

so give ONE rational reason not to kill

Uh, because you don't want someone doing it to you? How is that not rational? Life is better when we aren't worried about being killed...

Given that human rights are a codification of canon law, it's plainly obvious where the actual human rights come from : directly from the bible.

Uh, the bible was relatively 'late' in the human game. So before that there were no 'laws'? Ever heard of Hammurabi's Code? I.e. the very first set of 'laws' written down?

While I agree it's fair to say that modern laws are sourced from religious bases, it's also something common to pretty much all religions. Be nice to one another, be honest, care for your neighbor, etc.

They are HUMAN laws that HUMANs put into religion, not the other way around.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[RespekMyAthorati]

Or /. readers.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[RockDoctor]

Ask, IIRC, Woody Allen ("not dying").

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[mjwalshe]

um Keml Ataturk was a very strong secularist and there is a strong secular movement in the Army that has in the past staged Cou's

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[daem0n1x]

I wrote "why", not "how".

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[jandersen]

Islam has been growing there, this is not unusual thing for Islamic countries.

Listen, we are the ones that claim to be scientifcally minded, right? So lets make the effort, instead of just slagging off Islam or other religions.

It is clearly not the fault of Islam that there are reactionaries (aka 'fundamentalists') in the world who will twist the words of just about anything to fit with their prejudices. As backwards thinking and darkened the Islamic world may seem now, there was once when the Islamic nations were at the forefront of science and progress; and, incidentally, that was also the time when the Christian world was in the deepest darkness, as bad as the Muslim countries seem now.

The reason this is important is not because we shouldn't offend other religions or some nonosense like that, but because WE ARE NOT ANTI-SCIENTISTS: we look at the evidence and try to keep our minds open, accepting the truth without trying to twist it in our favour.

Re:This is a country that wants in the EU

[RockDoctor]

And fear of the process of dying could be one very good reason for not wanting to die. And the only alternative to dying is to live forever.

Alan Moorehead

[L1mewater]

How are these children supposed to get a complete science education if they don't include Swamp Thing?

goodbye future

[jbmartin6]

The sad part is, in a few decades when the country is an impoverished backwards mess nobody will have much sympathy. They did it to themselves.

Re:goodbye future

[Anonymous Coward]

in a few decades when the country is an impoverished backwards mess

What do you mean "when"?

Re:goodbye future

[similar_name]

The really sad part is that they will blame it on secularism. There will be calls for more religion.

Re:goodbye future

[CohibaVancouver]

The sad part is, in a few decades when the country is an impoverished backwards mess nobody will have much sympathy.

Then when the country starts breeding western-hating under-educated terrorist morons everyone in the west will wring their hands and wonder how it could have possibly happened.

Re:goodbye future

[Servaas]

it will have happened because their burning the books that are suppose to educate them.

Re:goodbye future

[jbmartin6]

2. Invade
3. Profit!

Re:goodbye future

[ericloewe]

That only works if you stay and impose your system. That's politically incorrect these days, so you go in, get people killed, and at the end of it all accomplish little to nothing.

Re:goodbye future

[celle]

"Then when the country starts breeding western-hating under-educated terrorist morons"

      Nuke'm, problem goes away.

Re:goodbye future

[cpghost]

Well, that may just mean they went into the modern world too fast and too early, and had not enough time to adjust. People are a strange bunch: if you push 'em too hard, they'll push back... Even if you try to pull them away from the abyss, they'll jump right into it, just to show their (imagined) independence.

Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standout

[kannibal_klown]

Wow, I thought the US was the only stand-out / weird-country with anti-evolution nuts in power.

I guess there are other countries in this unfortunate "club"

If you don't want to believe in it (or that it's even possible) then fine... believe in whatever you want.

But stop trying to prevent other people from learning it. Please. And please stop trying to pass religion off as science... such as those museums that say Adam rode on a dinosaur, and that dinosaurs were vegens until the apple incident.

Meanwhile...

[Creedo]

Upon hearing this, Bobby Jindal and Sam Brownback both started looking for ways to implement this in their states.

Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an American citizen of Turkish ancestry, and the fact that the US and Turkey come in at 49 and 50 of a list of 50 western nations in terms of percentage of population that believe in evolution upsets me to no end. When Erdogan and his cronies took over the first thing they did was jail all the generals. Why? Because the military always would step in and keep the country from getting too Islamic. Well the US decided to back Erdogan when he did this and now look whats happening, one more slippery step towards Turkey becoming a theocracy.

Re:Ugh

[swb]

Considering the power the military has traditionally had, what kept them from doing this early or even late in the Erdogan era?

I'm familiar (at least from what I read in the NY Times...) with the jailing of the military officers (most ex-military from what I read) on somewhat shaky grounds, but I would think that if the active duty military wanted to depose him, they would easily as the vast majority of the officer corps and probably most senior enlisted had likely already been vetted for their secularism a long time ago.

You don't build that kind of power base over the past 75 years just to have a bunch of politicians dismantle it in 5 years.

What I don't know is whether the past military putsches had been truly directed by the active duty military in the actual cause of secularism or if that was mostly window dressing and they had actually been directed by a clique of ex-military with lucrative state contracts and influence who were worried about losing said influence and financial interests, and the active duty forces went along with it more than leading it.

Re:Ugh

[TapeCutter]

Whilst I think Turkey took a backward step politically, I think yet another US sponsored military coup would be a giant leap backwards. Calling in the army every time someone you don't like is elected to power just creates a perpetual civil war which dissolves the state that hosts it (see Africa for numerous examples).

Re:Ugh

[cpghost]

Whilst I think Turkey took a backward step politically, I think yet another US sponsored military coup would be a giant leap backwards.

Sadly, the US is blatantly and openly sponsoring a military coup and civil war in Turkey's neighbor Syria, to install an islamist theocracy there, on behalf of Erdogan and his ilk. Talking about giant leap backwards: the US is already knee-deep in its job of destroying the whole Middle East region.

Wow

[grasshoppa]

What a backwards country, to be so afraid of science as to effectively censor it.

Glad I live in 'merica. FUCK YA!

Re:Wow

[silviuc]

Actually the US gvt. actively supports what the current prime-minister of Turkey does. They also actively supported the egyptian dictator until millions of people raised up and took back their country from him, Your gvt. seems to make a lot of bad calls supporting all kinds of bad people. Bin Laden was one of them for f's sake. Yeah, you have a lot to be proud of man.

Re:Wow

[grasshoppa]

In case anyone missed it, that was loaded with irony.

Re:Wow

[morgauxo]

And? Didn't they replace that dictator with the Muslim Brotherhood?

Re:Wow

[silviuc]

And it's up to them to decide their own fates.

I don't think they want in anymore

[swb]

I think they're less enthusiastic about joining than they used to be.

Turkey's been doing relatively well economically, especially relative to the general economic drain-circling that the EU has been experiencing for the last couple of years and I don't see them as eager to join in the mess that the Euro Zone has become.

What they seem more interested in is regaining their Ottoman Empire regional standing. I keep waiting for them to say "enough" and intervene in Syria, allowing them to recreate some of the Ottoman empire. Lebanon would fall into that orbit very quickly in the absence of Syrian influence.

Re:I don't think they want in anymore

[danlip]

EU != Eurozone. There are 27 countries in the EU, and only 17 in the Eurozone. The mess you are describing is specific to the Eurozone (and the fact that countries in it can't print their own money).

Re:I don't think they want in anymore

[alexander_686]

It does run both ways.

For years the EU has been putting up barriers and slowing down the processes that has stalled the talked for the better part of a decade. This ranges from petty (Greece & Cyprus) to cheap political grandstanding (Islamophobia, cheap labor). Would you want to join a club where the petty internal politics didn’t want you? And this was before the financial crisis.

Personally, I think if Turkey had been allowed to join this would have cemented Turkey into a secular block allowing them to be a bridge between Europe and the Middle East.

Re:I don't think they want in anymore

[alexander_686]

Like I said, cheap fear mongering. One of the reasons why the USA has been successful has been its labor mobility – both internal and internationally. Short term pain for long term gain.

And if that was the real reason – well - IIRC Bulgaria, Romania, and Latvia 1. applied after Turkey and 2. have a lower per capita GNP then Turkey. Heck, Poland is basically at the same level as Turkey. That did not stop them from entering.

Re:I don't think they want in anymore

[couchslug]

"I think they're less enthusiastic about joining than they used to be."

Good. Unless Europeans hate their own culture they have no reason to defile it by admitting Superstitionist countries. It's taken long enough to weaken Superstition in Europe itself.

Anyone who admires Islam should be willing to move to the most Islamic countries. I gently suggest the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. THAT is the sort of society religion builds. Religionists should go wallow in it.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[SirGarlon]

Wow, I thought the US was the only stand-out / weird-country with anti-evolution nuts in power.

The US is just the squeakiest wheel, because we have an open press and debate our problems for the whole world to see. I can easily believe other countries have plenty of dirty laundry and just keep it to themselves.

We need a new theory...

[Genda]

It needs to cover both evolution and devolution.

By the way, we need to request that Turkey give us all their wheels and sources of fire in exchange for pretty stones we'll happily provide them. When they ask why, we tell to just ask us again in 20 years, if they still can.

Re:We need a new theory...

[maxwell demon]

"Devolution"?

You seem to have the misconception that evolution means that everything gets better all the time.

Re:We need a new theory...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Yet you seem to have the misconception that 'devolution' isn't a real word.

Re:We need a new theory...

[maxwell demon]

According to that Wikipedia article, it's from 19th century and based on exactly the misconception I mentioned. So there's nothing to correct on my post.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[sribe]

Wow, I thought the US was the only stand-out / weird-country with anti-evolution nuts in power.

ARE YOU KIDDING? Please tell us you were kidding, that you're not *that* provincial, that you believe Western rationalism really is the norm throughout the entire world, including Muslim countries and Africa?

Re:Scientific and Technical Research Council

[dgatwood]

Indeed. I hear that many true things come out of it.

You can lead a horticulture

[kawabago]

but you can't make her think. Dorothy Parker

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[medv4380]

Incorrect. Only countries where a religious group believes that evolution is in opposition to their religion does that happen. In India 85% believe that Evolution is compatible with their religious beliefs, and I wouldn't consider Hindus to be any less crazy than any other religion out there.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[erroneus]

"I don't want to live on this planet any more."

I just don't get it. How are we not animals? How do we not recognize the extreme similarities between us and our animal cousins? The theory of evolution isn't "a fact" but it is a general truth which is evolving and growing as our understanding grows. And frankly, some things are just obvious... painfully obvious. Ever see those growing fetus diagrams where you can't tell if it's human or something else because we ALL start off looking the same?

Sorry, but just no.

And when people work so hard to deny, hide and destroy information which is contrary to their beliefs surely don't understand the nature of learning, understanding or of thought. I guarantee you that even if by some bizarre reality, all information about our animal nature and the notion of evolution vanished from the earth in a flash, people would STILL arrive at this obvious conclusion just exactly as people all over the world at different times came to realize that "air" has mass.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[DdJ]

Are you kidding? You just presented direct evidence that they're less crazy than other religions.

Not belief, science is testable hypothesis

[RichMan]

Belief has nothing to do with science. All science is testable, or it is not science.

a) genetic inheritance is observable in a lab if you have a couple of weeks and handful of flies
b) genetic inheritance and mortality leads to evolution
c) we have fossil records to support (b) occured in the past

All testable against the null hypothesis. So it is clear science.

Re:Not belief, science is testable hypothesis

[GenieGenieGenie]

You missed out d) inheritable variations in the population

Re:Not belief, science is testable hypothesis

[celle]

Evolution also has historical background in 20,000 years of animal and human breeding practiced even by the religious. Religions lost the battle before they even existed.

Re:Not belief, science is testable hypothesis

[Kjella]

Not even the craziest of creationists denies the inheritance of genetic traits, since it's obvious to anyone that children tend to look like their parents. What they do deny is the evolution of species, sure humans can breed but the result will always be a human, chickens breed chickens and horses breed horses. This is proven by the "absurdity" of two chimps breeding a human or a blind creature suddenly having an eye, which ignores that these changes happen gradually as a result of evolutionary advantages or different evolutionary pressures and accumulate over millions of years - it's not surprising many ignore fact too, which is trashing many other sciences like geology and archaeology. There's plenty proof of the formation of species and evolution of complex organisms too, but not the kind you can obviously and indisputably show a creationist in 30 seconds or less.

Re:Not belief, science is testable hypothesis

[oxdas]

Science is not about answers. It is a methodology. If there are other theories that explain a certain phenomena better while using scientific methodology, then they will eventually replace the current theories. This does not mean that every theory is perfect, or even good, just that there isn't a better one yet.

Creationism might explain everything better. It might even be correct. That alone, however, does not make it Science.

Re:Not belief, science is testable hypothesis

[Empiric]

a) internal combustion in engines is observable in a lab
b) internal combustion leads to humans moving from on geographical area to another
c) we have anthropological evidence humans have moved from one geographical area to another, supporting b) has happened in the past

"Evolution occurs" is testable. "Only evolution has occurred" is not testable, it is an inference, and one supported fossils existing as evidence for less that 1% of conjectured species. A plausible inference, true, but an inference nonetheless. That you really really want to to be to draw a causal exclusivity conclusion for evolutionary processes, because you want to non-sequitur atheism, doesn't alter the fact that you either have to accept that untestable inference from knowns is science, or reject that your reasoning here is science.

Re:Not belief, science is testable hypothesis

[Empiric]

Post 1.01. Changelist: less typos

a) internal combustion in engines is observable in a lab
b) internal combustion leads to humans moving from on geographical area to another
c) we have anthropological evidence humans have moved from one geographical area to another, supporting b) has happened in the past

"Evolution occurs" is testable. "Only evolution has occurred" is not testable, it is an inference, and one supported by fossils existing as evidence for less than 1% of conjectured species. A plausible inference, true, but an inference nonetheless. That you really really want to draw a causal exclusivity conclusion for evolutionary processes, because you want to non-sequitur atheism, doesn't alter the fact that you either have to accept that untestable inference from knowns is science, or reject that your reasoning here is science.

Re:Not belief, science is testable hypothesis

[riverat1]

It is falsifiable, just not by the simple tests you'd like to apply. I think 100,000 years from now it will be pretty obvious to anyone with a brain how good the theory of evolution is (whether it proves accurate or not).

Re:Not belief, science is testable hypothesis

[ignavus]

sure humans can breed but the result will always be a human, chickens breed chickens and horses breed horses

That's like saying: "Sure you can keep pulling single hairs out of your beard. But the result will always be a beard!"

Gradual changes accumulate.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[similar_name]

No one is trying to teach evolution in church. Plenty try to teach religion in science class. How do so many people not understand the difference?

Gravity is only a law, should we ban that too?

[Unknown1337]

Whether you believe all aspects of evolution or that it applies to humans aside, the concept of moving through stages as an entire species is well documented as fact. Convergence and divergence of different types of birds around the world should be plenty to validate that the theory is probably a good one. Basically the country has decided their narrow minded view is the right one and the entire population is too stupid to arrive at a sane conclusion of their own.

Re:Gravity is only a law, should we ban that too?

[Tablizer]

Tax breaks for those falling up?

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because what you believe is true, doesn't make you not crazy.

Ebooks

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I suspect that Richard Dawkins & co. may be more than willing to distribute Turkish translations of their books on their own initiative. ;-) Perhaps even for free, it's not such a big market, and Haharun Hahayaya needs some counterweight anyway.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[kannibal_klown]

I said as a SCIENCE. I think public schools SHOULD have a separate class to learn the beliefs of other cultures... if for no other reason than to give everyone a better understanding of everyone else. But such a class would be sociology.

Some schools here want creationism thought as a science. As in, squeeze it in between Astronomy and Physics. But... what they do does not follow any method of the scientific method nor to they even give anything close to scientific for the theory. The "facts" they use are from the bible... because *obviously* the bible is right so anything based on it is therefore right. That's NOT science.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[CohibaVancouver]

Please tell us you were kidding, that you're not *that* provincial, that you believe Western rationalism really is the norm throughout the entire world, including Muslim countries and Africa?

Over the years I've noticed this is a pretty common theme on Slashdot - You could post a story about some backwater, torture-filled nation lead by some despotic religious zealot and 26 replies will immediately say "Yeah, but the USA is TEN TIMES WORSE!"

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Beardo the Bearded]

...and that dinosaurs were vegens until the apple incident.

Don't you dare drag vegans into this.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[kannibal_klown]

"I don't want to live on this planet any more."

That opening quote is from one of my favorite Futurama episodes. And thus well chosen.

I believe that Evolution is right, or at least as right as we can ever be.

But if someone is strong in their beliefs of... well.. however the earth and man came about. I'm not going to trounce on their rights to believe it.

But it's sad when someone tries to stifle science, in any form, because it goes against something they believe.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[danlip]

That evidence only shows that they are less crazy regarding evolution. There are plenty of other things to be crazy about, and there are plenty of Hindu extremists.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[kannibal_klown]

:-)

But seriously: according to the people that try to convince me that the christian-bible-creation thing is right... they say that dinosaurs were all herbivores until Eve+Adam ate the apple.

Because, you know, the T-Rex and such had sharp meat-eating teeth just for show. SUUUURE

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[ColdWetDog]

Bad tempered crazy Sky God is going to zap you with a thunderbolt for saying that.

Or not....

A common theme..

[Anonymous Coward]

When will people learn that just because you destroy or burn or ban a book, it doesn't make the contents of that book less true.

Re:A common theme..

[BonThomme]

but if the book weighs as much as a duck...

Why did Constantinople get the works?

[zawarski]

Thats nobodies business but the Turkey's Science Research Council .

Re:Why did Constantinople get the works?

[vm146j2]

I ain't never gonna do it without the fez on . . . please understand.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[medv4380]

I think the whole Untouchable and Cast System keeps them firmly in the "They're Just As Crazy as Everyone Else" territory. Regardless of their position on Evolution.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[kannibal_klown]

I clicked submit too soon.

About the SUUURE thing... fine... i don't believe it. But honestly, I don't try to convince anyone evolution is right as I believe everyone should just chill and believe what they want. The problem is, said person would not stop trying to convince me HE was right. Until I walk away.

That, and he was trying to use science to explain the teeth thing that even I know was not science.

Re:It's about time...

[Tablizer]

Just wait around a few billion years.

Not being fully re-creatable in the lab (during a lifetime) is not a reason to ban an idea.

They say you can't argue with stupid.

[fahrbot-bot]

I fear there will be fewer and fewer people to argue with and it won't be a good thing.

Re:They say you can't argue with stupid.

[servognome]

There will be plenty of people to argue with, but it will be less and less effective.

Re:They say you can't argue with stupid.

[fahrbot-bot]

I fear there will be fewer and fewer people to argue with and it won't be a good thing.

There will be plenty of people to argue with, but it will be less and less effective.

So you're saying plenty of increasingly stupid people? That's probably worse, thanks. :-)

and just like that...

[rastoboy29]

the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey (TÃoeBITAK) lost all international credibility with other technical and scientific organizations.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Conchobair]

Not the mention the fact that they teach evolution in Catholic schools.

Wrong name

[gestalt_n_pepper]

It's the ANTI-Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey. Oh, and good luck with that EU membership thing.

ignorance is bliss

[letherial]

SHhhhhhh...dont tell them the world is round, im afraid they could not handle it at this delicate time.

Re:ignorance is bliss

[mfnickster]

The earth isn't round. It's shaped like a burrito!

http://www.gocomics.com/bloomcounty/1982/02/06

Re:ignorance is bliss

[celle]

"The earth isn't round. It's shaped like a burrito!"

    With similar gaseous effects.

Why ban Stephen Jay Gould,

[Signum Ignitum]

who is famous for his defense that religion is not incompatible with science? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

Re:Why ban Stephen Jay Gould,

[brkello]

Because they don't want science to be compatible with religion. Religion is right and science is wrong.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[pixelpusher220]

The christian/jew/muslim can preach from THEIR pulpit...i.e. church.

Education is not religion and isn't treated as such. We don't force religion on anyone because it doesn't help you. Forcing an education on you DOES help you....and the rest of us who would have to support your sorry ignorant ass.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[pixelpusher220]

The hilarious part, at least in the US, is that the bible thumpers are 'generally' the most vocal 'free market less gubmint' types.

And yet they deny evolution which the most totally 'free market' we know of. It's literally kill or be killed, survive, adapt or die.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Baloroth]

Actually, it's more a matter of perspective. While it might seem that the whole world is following the open debate about evolution vs. creationism from the US point of view, actually, most of the world isn't.

I don't think he was limiting his comment to just evolution. Lots of countries have lots of dirty laundry in lots of areas. The US has an open press and a massive presence on the Internet, plus a significant fraction of total world population and a disproportionate influence over the world. Hence, it's laundry gets aired very openly.

Re:Scientific and Technical Research Council

[MrEricSir]

House Intelligence Committee

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[jdbuz]

Turkey is the perfect reflection of the US, only switch Muslim for Christian.

As a green-eyed American Caucasian, when I started my 6 month consulting gig in Istanbul in 2007-2008 I was kinda scared at first. I saw all these minarets poking up from mosques everywhere, heard the call to prayer a few times each day, and folks back home were pushing a law that would officially say Turkey committed genocide. But then I started working with my technical counter parts and guess what? There was the quiet guy, there was the hilarious guy (we're still friends), there was the unbelievably smart guy (still the best Oracle consultant I've ever worked with), there was the hot girl, there was the guy who talked my ear off about how backwards he thought Muslims were, and there was the kindhearted Muslim guy who made sure I never ate lunch alone. Every archetype that I knew from the US was represented. I found them brilliant and extremely motivated. And I even saw a lot of women in high level jobs wearing fashionable clothes.

Then I got to know the city, saw some of the music scene, a little of the club scene, and soaked up some of the history. They have their own George Washington named Mustafa Kemal Atatürk who in 1923 established the Republic of Turkey, switched them from Arabic script to Western European (making my job of typing on their keyboards much easier!), and separated Mosque from State.

But exactly like in the US the religious groups find ways to work their agenda into the secular government. For example, you can't buy pork. Why? Because from political pressure it was found "unhealthy" and one by one the farms were shutdown until there were none. There's lots of these examples, including the article to which we're responding. Once my eyes got adjusted I almost felt as if I were in the US, even the mosques I realized were no more numerous than our churches.

Their economy is far stronger than Romania, Greece, Croatia, Hungary, and Portugal, all members of the European Union, and the EU would do well to admit them. Turkey is the litmus test for Muslims and Christians. They are us and we are them. If we can make it work there I'm afraid we won't make it together anywhere.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Yow!

[Un pobre guey]

Zowie! Modded as troll! And this isn't even Turkey!

Have you paid ANY attention to Turkish politics?

[billstewart]

Turkey's government was radically secular for close to a century, since Kemal Ataturk's nationalists kicked out the Allies, Sultanate, and Caliphate after the WW I fall of the Ottoman Empire. They were fairly aggressive about it - requiring western-style clothing, banning fezzes, and suppressing non-Turkish cultures (such as the Kurds), enforcing use of a Latin-based alphabet instead of Arabic alphabet (and too bad for you if your name used not-officially-Turkish letters.) They did strongly push education of women, banned headscarves even for women who wanted to wear them, and let women vote (at least in the years they were paying attention to votes.) They've even had women as Prime Minister. Islam was still permitted as a religion, and was still the most common religion, but the government was not Islamic.

They stayed secular until a few years ago when more Islamists got elected to Parliament, but have loosened up since then.

‘evolution censor' was denied the next day.

[Anonymous Coward]

This news is from Jan 14. Turkish state science council denied this rumor the next day (Jan 15) and provided some evidence that it's not true. The newspaper published it and did not follow the story anymore.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-state-science-council-denies-evolution-censor.aspx?pageID=238&nID=39102&NewsCatID=374

At least, this fact should be in the summary as well.

Texas

[billstewart]

No, no, Obama's not going to kick Texas out of the Union just because all those Confederates signed that petition. They don't want to be in the US any more, so he's going to give it back to Mexico.

Re:Texas

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

Mexico doesn't want them.

Re:Texas

[BonThomme]

and yet you speak Spanish. curious.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[SuricouRaven]

Most of them now have switched to a legally safe deny-the-religion form of creationism for public school. Teach that the earth was formed six thousand years ago, but don't ask how. Teach that life could not have occurred naturally, but don't suggest a theory. All the basics of creationism but with a God-shaped gap the students are left to fill in themselves so it has at least a slim chance of getting past the lawyers and inevitable day in court.

Is good news!

[Anonymous Psychopath]

For Greeks

Re:Is good news!

[kyriosdelis]

For Greeks

Uhhh, not really (I'm Greek). The last thing we want is a neighboring country that has reverted back to such a primal and anti-intellectual state, that it is fertile ground for nationalistic and other bat-shit crazy ideologies. Oh, look, I accidentally just described Greece. We are being pretty much brainwashed since childhood to hate the Turkish and hope to one day "take back what is ours". I know they are being taught similar fairy tales, and it's all hogwash. And hell yes, being a secular humanist myself, Ataturk is the politician I admire the most, even though he handed us our arses back in 1921-22.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[medv4380]

Your mixing up two different parts of republican party. Bible Thumpers typically fall into the Mike Huckabee Populist. Your "Free Market" group tends to be your Corporatist who only use Free Market as a buzz word to gain support. The two groups don't really get along very well.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

It's not the Vegans' fault. It's those asshats from Fomalhaut.

Will this discourge US evolution denialism?

[PeterM from Berkeley]

So, when the people in the US realize that places like Turkey are banning the teaching of evolution, will they then associate such bans with being ignorant and fundamentalist? (And hopefully stop supporting such bans in the US?)

--PeterM

Re:Will this discourge US evolution denialism?

[ahodgson]

They'll probably want to go to war with Turkey for stealing their ideas.

Re:Will this discourge US evolution denialism?

[circletimessquare]

tribal allegiance first

logical coherence a distant second

so sorry, no

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[brkello]

Of course they do. We just don't see it because our news is terrible and only focuses in domestic issues. Get out of the country and the rest of the world pays attention to each other.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[maxwell demon]

But maybe it's at least the most average country? ;-)

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[leonardluen]

luckily for him, the Bad tempered crazy Sky God tends to be rather lazy most of the time

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you calling us Kopimists crazy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_Church_of_Kopimism

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[slimdave]

47th most free press in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

Re:If you don't believe what I believe

[maxwell demon]

6000 years are about 2.2 million days. For god, 1000 years are just a day, so 2.2 billion years are just 6000 years. So the earth may be 6000 years old for god, but 2.2 billion years for us. OK, science says it's about twice as old ... well, the rest is probably god's nights! :-)

Book bans should fit right in

[Anonymous Coward]

Most European countries have similar book bans.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

The Western perspective dominating Slashdot is that Turkey is banning "truth," while Europe is banning lies, while the Turkish perspective is just the opposite.

Re:Book bans should fit right in

[WaffleMonster]

The Western perspective dominating Slashdot is that Turkey is banning "truth," while Europe is banning lies, while the Turkish perspective is just the opposite.

Good god I hope not. The slashdot I know would be just as concerned with the banning of truth as the banning of lies.

Re:Book bans should fit right in

[Xarvh]

As an European slashdotter, I think that those laws are stupid and harmful.

Re:Book bans should fit right in

[Sigg3.net]

Except one holds in a scientific inquiry and the other doesn't.

Science is not merely consensus. It is verifiable by anyone who'd care to look and falsifications are applauded.

  If you wrote a book about the book ban in Europe it wouldn't be banned. Try that in Turkey.

For kicks...

[Synerg1y]

Read the comments on the story too, priceless. These people actually figure out how to breath on a second by second basis, fascinating.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[servognome]

Creationism should be taught alongside astrology, numerology, and alchemy.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[tacokill]

If I had mod points, I would mod this up but I don't so I will reply

Re:‘evolution censor' was denied the next da

[Anonymous Coward]

The evidence provided in the denial seems to be true i.e., it seems like the original cited story was at least partially false.

The fact that none of the other newspapers picked up this story like they did for something substantially less in 2009 and the lack of public uproar in Turkey adds to the evidence that the original piece of news was not entirely true.

I am more fascinated by the fact that, even though the essence of the news seems plausible, no one bothered to check it or discuss whether it is true or not.

Re:Scientific and Technical Research Council

[celle]

"Indeed. I hear that many true things come out of it."

      Except "Ministry of Truth" doesn't mean what you think it does.

"Ministry of Truth" -- Babylon5.

    Essentially it was a political propaganda department and like all departments of it's type with a sliver of truth(maybe) miles underneath a cesspool of lies. Where it's profession is to twist the truth to unrecognizability. The primary goal to manipulate the target of their interests. People working for such ilk along with any offspring they produce should be terminated with the most extreme methods possible for they willingly participated and often kept themselves ignorant in causing pain without any feeling or admission of responsibility.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Anonymous Coward]

And secular humanism "science is god" is not a religion? Really? You have to have a hell of a lot more faith than most Christians I know to believe we "just happened" by some kind of cosmic lottery.

Making untestable and unfalsifiable claims is not science. Those of us who choose to do so are not practicing science.

Faith is by definition not testable.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[celle]

"other countries have plenty of dirty laundry"

      Yes they do. They just burn, hang, stone, behead, etc. essentially murder theirs away.

The word is mightier than the God

[Anonymous Coward]

Because God can't be defended in the face of facts and ideas, the words of science must be stopped.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[alexander_686]

I will disagree a bit. Republicans either fall into the:
        Socially liberal, economically free market (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Massachusetts Mitt Rommey) or
        Socially conservative, economically free market (Mike Huckabee, Presidential Mitt Rommey)
You basically have 2 different intellectual threads which spring from common historical roots. And no – they don’t get along.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[celle]

""Yeah, but the USA is TEN TIMES WORSE!""

      In some ways it is. Think about it, we are the military, educational, intellectual, government, free culture, etc. epitome of the world at the moment. With extremely high standards, world domination, and a freedom and enlightenment reputation going over a century. That we have ethically and all else been falling down and dropping like a boulder over a cliff since the eighties is nothing good if not truly embarrassing. Many of those countries are barely out of the cesspool by our standards and don't have so far to fall versus the US and haven't fallen nearly so far by a long shot. So, yes, by our near orbital standards, that we rarely ever come close to attaining anyway, the US "is" ten times worse. When the US coughs the whole world gets pneumonia and not just economically. Want proof, look around.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[TapeCutter]

Excellent post from someone who has obviously traveled further than the corner store. Re Genocide, The US committed genocide against the native Indians and my own country committed genocide against the Aborigines, "our people" look away from that history in the same way Turks look away from theirs.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Over the years I've noticed this is a pretty common theme on Slashdot - You could post a story about some backwater, torture-filled nation lead by some despotic religious zealot and 26 replies will immediately say "Yeah, but the USA is TEN TIMES WORSE!"

Over the years I've noticed this is a pretty common theme on Slashdot - people point out problems in other countries, others draw parallels to the US and some pseudo-patriot type comes along and exaggerates those parallels in order to complain about the people pointing them out.

The problem with your complaining is that while Americans have very little influence over other what other governments do in other countries, here at least we claim to have the democratic process in order to fix our own problems. But you can't fix what you don't know about. "My country, right or wrong. If right to be kept right, if wrong to be set right."

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[celle]

Oh and if you think the world would have been better with the soviets or chinese in charge. Remember between the two of them they wiped 100 million unarmed people just because they disagreed with them.

Kentucy/Turkey

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally Turkey can join ranks with USA regarding evolution.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Kjella]

No, it actually is one of the worse but Turkey is an even more extreme example, here's a quote from WP:

A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).

Only the Abrahamic world religions in general and Protestant Christianity in particular has a big issue with evolution, this graph shows how in the US Buddhists and Hindus are the most accepting. The national figures for India are also very strong and in line with western Europe. Sure a lot other countries have other vices, but creationism is usually not one of them.

Why does Turkey allow books other than the Qur'an?

[Eric Smith]

If they agree with the Qur'an they're redundant, and if they disagree they're heretical.

Re:Have you paid ANY attention to Turkish politics

[ahabswhale]

All true (except for maybe that loosening up part). People should read more about the history of that country rather than jumping to a bunch of conclusions.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[oxdas]

I haven't seen any free market republicans in a long time. Most (if not all) of the Republicans in power believe seem to believe in long terms for copyright and patents (evidenced recently enough), tough trademark/design patent laws, corporate welfare and bailouts, no-bid government contracts, etc. As far as I can tell, neither side believes in free markets.

Turkey, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolin

[Anonymous Coward]

Turkey, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina etc. - one and the same

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[circletimessquare]

the best example to me of evolution is the human foot

look at that stupid fucking thing. the wiggling toes. what's the point?

how can anyone not look at the human foot, and not see what used to be a hand for gripping branches, turned into a lame approximation of what canines and felines do much better, in the short amount of geological time we came out of the trees?

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[circletimessquare]

uggh

please tell me you are an awful troll and not that genuinely fucking stupid

They're becoming more like the GOP each day.

[Anonymous Coward]

Them turkish muslims, getting more and more like the GOP in the USA every day!

Re: Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only stando

[GreatDrok]

" The theory of evolution isn't "a fact" but it is a general truth which is evolving and growing as our understanding grows."

You should complete this - the theory of evolution is just that, a theory in the scientific sense. It is a theory that has been tested many times and while refined, it has remained and is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, theories in modern science. One of the main things the theory of evolution does is explain how evolution works. Note that evolution itself is an observable fact and the theory is there to describe it and explain how it works. Evolution is in no way a theory, it is a fact. It is important to ensure people understand this. The creationists who want to stop discussion of evolution because "it is just a theory" are unable to provide an alternative theory of Evolution that fits the facts as observed. You cannot ignore evolution as it is all around us.

TL;DR - Evolution is an observed fact. The theory of evolution is our best explanation for how it works.

subject

[Legion303]

Hear that, Kansas Board of Education? Time to step up your game.

One step forwards...

[Brannoncyll]

...two steps back. Seems like so many people can't wait for the next fucking Dark Age.

Sad state of Islamic theology

[Anonymous Coward]

Just goes to show the sad state of Islamic theology when they start adopting fundamental Christian beliefs instead of looking back at the golden age of Islam during Europe's Middle Ages.

Already there

[Demena]

I would consider Bhuddism fairly widespread. Paraphrasing the Dali Lama, where science disproves a bhuddist belief then it is Bhuddism that must change not science.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Creedo]

It's not legal even then. Go look up the Dover trial.

False dichotomy ...

[kbahey]

I really wonder how you got modded up like that.

The military are not elected, and have destabilized the country several time by staging coupes, executing elected prime ministers and such.

Protecting the country against something unpopular is always a pretense to dictatorship and corruption.

The solution to elected radicals in power is preparing for an alternative via the political process, NOT by supporting miltiary dictatorship against elected officials.

Shame on an American advocating the miltiary toppling an elected government, no matter how repulsive it is.

Science or Supersition, choose one.

[couchslug]

Dogma is not compatible with the search for truth.

Toto ...

[PPH]

... I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[ilsaloving]

LOL!

Ignoring the fact that even most US 'liberals' are more conservative than 'conservatives' in other countries, your choice of examples are downright laughable.

You complain about about liberals denying you your rightful soft drink. Well I complain about conservatives who deny women control over their own bodies.
You complain about liberals wanting to ban your precious guns. I complain about conservatives going to other countries like Uganda and doing everything they can to incite the genocide of anyone even suspected of being queer, while in the homeland, you send those same queers to brainwashing camps or gang up and beat them to death.

It was also conservatives that tore apart habeas corpus, permitting the government to throw you in jail indefinitely and seize your property. All they have to do is declare you an 'enemy combatant', for whatever reason they feel like.

And I'm still trying to figure out how you managed to twist the discussion into an argument of religion vs liberals, as if being a liberal was some kind of opposite to religion.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[jdbuz]

That last sentence, I meant to say, "If we can't make it work there I'm afraid we won't make it together anywhere."

Hinduism

[Frankie70]

Some more stuff about Hinduism.

- There is no concept of conversion into Hinduism. Ergo there aren't people going around the world trying to convert people into Hinduism

- Hinduism doesn't believe it's the only way. It doesn't condemn all non-Hindus.

- Some visit Churches and Mosques (may be not regularly but occasionally).

- Some Hindu places of worship also have Christian and Islamic stuff (like a cross, words from the quran etc).

Re:genetic algorithms

[Zontar The Mindless]

I can produce an image of myself with wings pretty easily.

Doesn't mean I actually have them.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[riverat1]

Of course for our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, their feet are useful for gripping branches. We lost that when we came down out of the trees and our feet evolved to be better for ground locomotion.

That said I read a story a few years ago about a woman who had no arms and she managed to get by fine with just her feet including eating, cooking, writing, driving a car and many of the other things that people normally do with their hands. An amazing and inspiring story.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[riverat1]

It's the difference between the YOYOs* and the WITTs**. The YOYO's are all about personal morality and the WITTs are about public morality. Most people are some of both leaning one way or the other. The things you complained about are mostly pragmatic, improving the society as a whole while perhaps stepping on some individual rights.

Regarding your McCain-Feingold comment, I don't consider money to be the equivalent of free speech. What it is is an amplifier of free speech. I don't consider Bill Gates to have more free speech than I do but he certainly has the ability to get it more widely heard than I do.

* YOYO = You're on your own
** WITT = We're in this together

Re:genetic algorithms

[Zontar The Mindless]

The fact that you seem to assume that any mathematical model must reflect reality is the real tragedy.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[ignavus]

No, it actually is one of the worse but Turkey is an even more extreme example, here's a quote from WP:

A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%).

Only the Abrahamic world religions in general and Protestant Christianity in particular has a big issue with evolution, this graph shows how in the US Buddhists and Hindus are the most accepting. The national figures for India are also very strong and in line with western Europe. Sure a lot other countries have other vices, but creationism is usually not one of them.

Judaism - *the founding Abrahamic religion* - has one of the HIGHEST acceptance rates for evolution - 77% (third highest in the graph).

*Abrahamic religion* is not the problem.

I suggest you look at the sociological factors in the newer religious varieties which feel marginalised and out of power and resentful of modern intellectual culture, rather than at the content of their religion. Rejection of evolution is part of a wider alienation from modern urban power and culture among various social groups (e.g. rural communities in America, Islamic people under US-supported dictatorships like Egypt until recently).

Being anti-evolution might tell you more about a community's deeper political status than about their religion. People can adjust the interpretation of their religion if they want to fit in with the mainstream (assuming they even need to make adjustments). Judaism has no trouble doing it, and ditto the Catholic church. So the problem is: some religous groups feel a deep-seated need to reject the modern mainstream world, feel that evolution is associated with "alien forces" in society (and I don't mean aliens from space).

It's a sociological question, not a theological one.

Re:Please cite study

[sjames]

Here, , and here.

Your citations will be appreciated as well. As for point 2, it is important to distinguish between those who go through the motions and those who truly believe someone is watching. It's also worth considering that the observations I noted may hold in cases where the threshold is something other than crime/not crime. Various rationalizations and sophistry might also be involved, particularly where the requirement of deep sincerity (and perhaps penance) to receive forgiveness and absolution through prayer has not been emphasized. Perhaps that is more important in the case of the adult mind.

On point 3, note that I do not claim that atheists cannot be ethical or moral. I am quite certain that it is possible. As for the relative likelihood of ethical behavior, it is worth considering that in a society where theism is the default, people who think more deeply about things will be over-represented amongst atheists and that such reflection likely has bearing on ethical behavior. The results might be much less pretty if atheism was the default.

As for your conclusion, Princess Alice seems to disagree :-)

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Xarvh]

Iran.

I am sure that the Evangelical nuts will be happy to see that they are together with Iran and Turkey.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Xarvh]

Yup.
Humans are humans everywhere, and Istanbul night life is awesome.
Thanks for this post.

Here we go again...

[Evtim]

Science and religion. Bhaa..

What was that quote from Asimov - "Science won over religion in the 17th century when churches started erecting lightning conductors"

'Nuff said

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[SuricouRaven]

I said a slim chance. I know creationists well: Their general approach to legal issues varies, but they generally consider the notion of a secular government to be nothing but liberal revisionism of the constitution - a view they support by pointing out that in the days of the founders when the constitution was written, Christianity did indeed permeate every aspect of public life including government. Thus to them the Dover decision is nothing but a perversion of the constitution by revisionists and activist judges,and it is their duty to either ignore it, overturn it or work around it. Remember that very close to all creationists also believe that public schools should host a daily Christian school prayer: They outright reject the notion that church and state were to be seperate, and believe that the provision in the first amendment was actually intended only to prohibit the government from establishing any single denomination of Christianity as the state religion, not to prevent the government from promoting Christianity in a general sense.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Barsteward]

"See, the problem is not US religions telling people how to live or banning things"

its religions reason to exist - telling people how to live, who to have sex with etc.... the "liberals" are probably more aligned to the good bits of religion that the fundamentalists in that they want to cater for all rather than the church's view who only cater for themselves

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[mat8913]

Well actually God neither bad tempered nor crazy.

"In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction."

-- Romans 9:22

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[CohibaVancouver]

many people say it, there might be some truth to it?

Many people said we didn't land on the moon. Doesn't mean there is truth to it.

Could the USA do better? Absolutely - They could do MUCH better - But it's ludicrous to suggest that a citizen of the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Burma, Belarus or on and on has better rights than an American citizen, and that, from a rights perspective, life in those countries is better than it is in the USA.

Re:Please cite study

[BonThomme]

google atheist crime

it's the first result

"Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.

(Teenage pregnancy has less tragic consequences than violence but it is usually unwanted, and it is frequently associated with deprivation among both mothers and children. In general, it is a Bad Thing.)

Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates are also low -- around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year.

At the other end of the scale comes America. Over 50 percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the Deity). The U.S. has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan."

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[circletimessquare]

exactly

so how can people not look at their own damn feet and not literally see the force of evolution before their eyes?

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[rocket rancher]

"I don't want to live on this planet any more."

That opening quote is from one of my favorite Futurama episodes. And thus well chosen.

I believe that Evolution is right, or at least as right as we can ever be.

But if someone is strong in their beliefs of... well.. however the earth and man came about. I'm not going to trounce on their rights to believe it.

But it's sad when someone tries to stifle science, in any form, because it goes against something they believe.

Don't feel sad. Like you, I think we shouldn't be trouncing on their right to deny science because science goes against what they believe. Like you, I think what people believe is important to them.

Unlike you, however, I am not going to sit back and let them trounce me because I don't happen to share their belief. I'm going to call out their irrationality whenever they invoke it. It makes me feel *a whole lot* less sad; it should make you feel less sad, too. Give it a try.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[BonThomme]

" a view they support by pointing out that in the days of the founders when the constitution was written, Christianity did indeed permeate every aspect of public life including government"

which nonetheless is patently false

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[BonThomme]

but it must be free, it says so right there on the label!

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[BonThomme]

oh, for a mod point

Re:If you don't believe what I believe

[BonThomme]

so if you can find the planet that takes 1000 Earth years to complete a rotation, you'll know where god lives

Re:Scientific and Technical Research Council

[dgatwood]

No, it means exactly what I think it does. My comment was a pun. "MiniTrue", the newspeak form of "Ministry of Truth", is from 1984. B5 borrowed it (complete with the name) more than forty-five years later.

*sigh*

Kids today.

Re:Please cite study

[sjames]

Cross cultural comparison like that introduces about a bazillion confounding factors.

Re:Please cite study

[sjames]

It depends on the poll. For a counterpoint, according to this, while formal religion is a minority, many of the remainder believe there is 'some sort of spirit or life force". The latter may or may not mean the person believes someone (who is not God) may be watching.

That aside, nothing says belief that someone is watching is the one and only way to elicit ethical behavior. A good social safety net probably helps a lot in the Scandinavian countries.

Re:Mexico doesn't want them. Re:Texas

[billstewart]

Santa Ana's first offer in the peace negotiations after he lost the US-Mexican war would have also given the US Chihuahua and Sonora, and the US turned him down. It was debatable whether Mexico really could say they controlled those two states; they were mostly unconquered Indians at the time, and I'm not sure if they'd yet found silver there.

They are just catching up...

[mario_grgic]

with the advancements we have achieved in the USA.

Re:genetic algorithms

[Zontar The Mindless]

It's a tragedy when you offer a simulation as proof of the existence of the thing being simulated.

I counter that you can just as easily 'simulate' things that do not actually exist.

(I accept that things evolve over time. Including plant and animal species. Including the ones that eventually led to humans. I am not obliged to accept your put-the-cart-first substitute for logical rigour, and I do not.)

it is not islam it is the "marketable" R&D

[ferayebend]

unlike the trigger happy commenters who would like to jump into conclusions about the backwardness of islam: tübitak explained that they stopped publishing of most of their adult popular science books. check out the bad google translation http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=tr&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fkitap.radikal.com.tr%2FMakale%2Fmiadini-dolduran-darwin-mi-tubitak-mi-351069&act=url the decision is more in line with the current trend of supporting marketable science, which helps with the development of the country.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Feyshtey]

My point is not what should be taught where. My point was simply to point out the hypocricy of the OP in telling people that its OK to think a thing but not speak it, as the OP both thinks and speaks the reverse.

Look, I'm not a spiritual person in the least. I believe in evolution, and I have my own, ... thoughts on organized religion. But I find it difficult to stomach the large swathes of the American culture the preach vehemently for tolerance and acceptance from one side of the mouth, and tell anyone that disagrees with them to be silent from the other. Anti-religion has become as easily defined as a religion itself with zealots nearly equally committed to the cause. The problem is not in how they choose to believe, but instead in how they demand that no other message ever be heard because they dont agree. Yes, there is guilt to be shared from both ends of the spectrum. But end of that spectrum does not how a tolerance banner to justify their position. They are honest in their bias, at least.

I also find it telling how easily my message floated 10,000ft over the heads of so many, including the intelectuals that found it appropriate to down-mod my comment.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[Feyshtey]

Ah yes, yet another waving the tolerance banner. Thank you for making my point.

Re:Wow, I thought we (the US) was the only standou

[similar_name]

He was saying people should stop trying to pass religion off as science. I don't know that that should fall under tolerance. If I launch an organization to make 2+2=15 and people tell me to go away, are they being intolerant? Besides, the OP never said he was about tolerance anyway, so where's the basis for calling him a hypocrite?