Slashdot Mirror
Texas School Board Searching For Alternatives To Evolutionary Theory
An anonymous reader writes "[Ars Technica] recently reviewed the documentary The Revisionaries, which chronicles the actions of the Texas state school board as it attempted to rewrite the science and history standards that had been prepared by experts in education and the relevant subjects. For biology, the board's revisions meant that textbook publishers were instructed to help teachers and students 'analyze all sides of scientific information' about evolution. Given that ideas only reach the status of theory if they have overwhelming evidence supporting them, it isn't at all clear what 'all sides' would involve."
May we each be touched by his noodley appendage!
Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
Sigh. There's just no cure for stupid. Full disclosure. I live in Texas and yes, this embarrasses me.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
...or maybe a theorem. Or a rumor.
Maybe a wacky folk story.
"Darwin's Wise Tale of Evolution"
When I visited Texas I noticed that half the people were really cool guys and the other half were assholes. Of course most other places were like that but Texas took it to extremes.
Textbook publishers take note, you'll sell Texas a ton of books if you pander to our religious beliefs in your science books.
Lots of homosexuals procreate, lots of people who have abortions have kids. Abortion and infanticide may actually preserve a generational line in times scarcity, in that resources can be concentrated on existing children. Homosexual people procreate in heterosexual relationships all the time, and use IVF or surrogacy to procreate in homosexual relationships. The world is a little more complicated than you think.
Well most of the god-tards have moved on from disputing that things evolve. Rather their new shit is intelligent design, which says that god works behind the scenes, controlling how things evolve and change. So they aren't disputing the fact that change happens, they are disputing the theory as to why.
However their counter is not a theory, since there is no way to test it, and hence has no place in science class. Even if it is right, it is not science as it is not something one can test. Any time you mention god, by definition outside of the universe and untestable, you aren't talking science.
Although the assertion "only evolution occurs" is dodgy science, there still is not a single fact about the shape and nature of life as we observe it which is not explanable by evolution.
So you might say that the default position is to assume that only evolution occurs, because no other mechanism has been found to be necessary.
Evolution can't tell me what conditions to subject rats to so that I end up with something that isn't a rat.
Of course it can. You just have to understand that long term evolution is a macroscopic process resulting from changes in DNA. Increase the mutations, breed many generations, and expose those generations to selective pressure. It's really not that hard to understand. And "isn't a rat" is a fairly silly, non-scientific, though also easy to determine. The definition of a species is somewhat subjective, but generally is that members can interbreed and have fertile offspring. Change the rat's DNA so much that it can breed with other organisms with that change but not original rats and there you go.
And it can't tell me how many generations it'll take
That's an even sillier argument. Theories of statistics can't tell you how many tries it will take to get heads when flipping a quarter, but that doesn't mean statistics is not testable. If I told you I'd give you 1:10 odds (ie. you get $1 for a $10 bet) that the next coin flip is heads, would you take it? How about if I gave you those odds that over 1M coin clips the results are between 0.49 and 0.51? (Hint: you should take the bet. And that's a prediction).
And anyway it basically can tell you how many generations it will take - it will take as many as necessary to cause exactly the mutations needed to achieve the change you are looking for. You might be able to speed that up via mutagens and increased selective pressure, or once (it's only a matter of time) humans can trivially map the entire gene sequence and function for an organism and have the technology to modify them, it could be one generation (as it is these thing are already being done, just not as efficiently as they could). But it's all the same to the DNA.
Evolution can't tell me where to dig to find a creature whose bones are part way between a form believed to be a descendent of another.
Yes, it can. That's how so many of the existing bones have been found in a relatively small region of the world. Archaeologists didn't just dig billions of random holes around the planet and cross their fingers.
And it can't reliably tell me what those bones will look like when I do find them.
Seriously, just give it up. You don't even need to be a biologist to prove this statement wrong, 5 minutes on Google would do it. Sigh. Will there be the occasional surprise? Absolutely, because due to its underlying mechanisms some aspects of evolution are RANDOM. But if you think that disproves anything or discredits the theory, back to that coin flipping experiment for you...
And who really cares whether gravity IS an "open and shut case"? Students should be taught to think critically anyway.
Einstein changed "open and shut case" Newtonian physics.
Copernicus and Galileo changed the "open and shut case" of a flat earth.
Even the "open and shut case" of what causes ulcers (stress) was later found to be bacterial.
A large part of science is all about critical review of "open and shut cases".
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
In all fairness, within the standards of the /. community, "god-tard" is a term of art, rather than a sign of bigotry and narrow-mindedness. The frustration level when dealing with people who do not seem to be arguing in good faith on teaching evolution is high, and gets higher the longer it continues and morphs.
I believe the core issue the Texas Board and their fellow travelers struggle with isn't with scientific evidence of a particular theory, but rather the conclusions that some choose to draw from that evidence. A child's perception of God and Nature is necessarily challenged as he matures. Some resolve that struggle by denying God, some by denying what is discovered during study of God's creation.
The majority of the Texas board seem to be the latter.
Luke, help me take this mask off
do something about it
it's only like this because not enough texans like you are agitating about this
i would bet a majority of texans agree with you. the problem is a highly motivated, highly vocal minorty highjack the process and the majority is quiet and complacent about the whole nightmare
you need to get involved. you get the texas you deserve. so put some effort into it, kick these militantly ignorant morons off your school board, and restore texas to the modern world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And atheists are different? Big bang was the atheist answer to God for nearly a century. Now it's the expanding vacuum. Those theories don't answer the question of "is there a creator?" any better than a theology.
You're asking the wrong question. The correct question is not "is there a creator?" but, "where does the evidence lead?"
So far, the evidence doesn't lead to a creator (i.e., a god).
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
Yes, they certainly are. Atheists don't have or hold a belief in a god or gods. That's all. From there, they vary enormously.
No. Big bang is a scientific theory, currently the best performing one there is (that could change, and that's fine), that has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism or "God", any more than big bang would be offered, or taken, as "the answer" to Santa Claus or any other made-up story character.
First of all, those theories are not attempting to find such an answer. They are attempting to describe how the reality around us, as is, developed as far back as we have evidence for, albeit extremely indirect, diffuse evidence. Nowhere in actual cosmology, which is what we're talking about here, does the issue of god or gods arise. It's a physics question, not a question of superstition.
Secondly, it's a pointless, valueless question. It's on exactly the same level as "is there a Santa Claus?" There's zero evidence for such a thing, despite thousands of yeas of looking for same, so, other than writing fiction or cult-building, there's no reason to assume there is one, and therefore no reason to worry about whether there is one (or several.) When you concern yourself with it, you're simply self-identifying as a cultist or an intellectual lightweight.
The day theists have evidence, they've changed the game, and everyone -- including atheists -- will be utterly fascinated to examine that evidence. Until then, theists are in a boat that isn't so much intellectually leaky, as sunken.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
No. It doesn't. It works on a story of a creator. There's no evidence for one; there's no way to test to see if there is one; there's no way to test to see if there isn't one (it's not falsifiable); there are no predictions re effects upon reality that arise from the idea; etc. Theism is in no way qualified as a theory. Theism is speculation, no more than that, in terms of its value in quantifying reality.
A reasonable atheist will simply inform you of the complete lack of evidence to back up the speculation, and, if you fail to do so, as all other theists from day one have failed, will assign no value whatsoever to your speculation.
Of course, not all atheists are reasonable. All atheism is, is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Just as theists vary from really nice people who you'd like to play cards with, to people who fly into buildings and set their wives on fire.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Utter nonsense. Morality is a social force within a society, it has zero to do with if there is a god, or not. Furthermore, if the only thing keeping someone in line morally is the idea that some "god" will punish them, they are a disgusting excuse for a socialized human being. The rest of us -- you know, the ones that actually think -- tailor our morals to the benefit of those we love, those we care about, and those who may have an effect upon us. And yes, to ourselves. But the idea that putting one's self forth first in case of morals is the endgame is ridiculous. Set your neighbor's kid on fire, and your career in moral experimentation is over, and check it: absolutely no god required.
No, see, here's what you're missing. Atheists don't care what theists believe, though they may well indulge in sympathy or pity. However, all the laws that the religious cults have gotten onto the books, all the restrictive social policies based on theist superstitions... not to mention witch burnings, irrational prejudices against various lifestyles, see, those we care about, and since they're coming from theists, we've learned to be quite wary of them.
Consequently, we've got self-interest to consider, as well as the interest of our kids, that theist superstition be stamped out. And we're happy folk today, because that's exactly what's happening. We'll keep up the pressure, and some day, no doubt well into the future, but some day, the normal public and legislative reaction to a declaration of religious belief will be nothing but laughter.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The very idea of a creator doesn't make sense. Say God created the universe, then you have to ask what created God? If you are willing to believe that God is eternal then why not just believe that the universe itself is eternal?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC