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."
I wish more people would accept the moral lessons of evolution! They'd be pro-life and anti-homosexual (because whatever else abortion and gay marriage are, they are most certainly not multi-generational survival traits).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Depressingly true. I had *exactly* this experience driving home on I-10 just outside of Houston during rush hour. Veering out of the moron's way in the rain caused my truck to do a 180 in the middle of the freeway. Luck was with me. I ended up rear ending a retaining wall. My right turn signal was still on.
I have no doubt that you were dealing with a moron who couldn't drive, but the 180 indicates that you also cannot drive. It grinds my gears to hear driving horror stories where one claims that 1) "it wasn't my fault!" and 2) "my car did a 180." If your car did a 180 then that part, at least, was your fault (most likely you overcorrected, if you didn't have anti-lock brakes it could have been from not pumping the brakes). Please never drive in snowy weather.
Well most of the god-tards have moved on from disputing that things evolve.
Incorrect. According to Answers in Genesis, over 50% of science professors at Christian Universities do not believe in evolution.
Rather their new shit is intelligent design, which says that god works behind the scenes, controlling how things evolve and change.
Incorrect. That view has nothing to do with intelligent design. Intelligent design says that life is designed, not evolved. The only question is whether the designer was God or an alien race.
So they aren't disputing the fact that change happens, they are disputing the theory as to why.
Incorrect. They are disputing everything from the age of the earth (finding a lot of evidence for 6000 years as well as a lot that has upper limits of 100,000 years, 1 million years, etc., all of which disprove evolution in their minds), the genetic age of man (said by non-creationists to show a lack of mutations exactly 6000 years ago), that dinosaurs died off 65^h6 million years ago (there is evidence that dragons have been spotted throughout history into the 1600s as real creatures), that the fossil record shows evolution (even prominent atheists say it looks as though life "showed up" in all it's forms overnight, with little evidence of any intermediate forms), the Oort cloud (it's a fantasy to save evolution because comets otherwise show the solar system to be less than 100,000 years old), etc., etc., etc.
However their counter is not a theory, since there is no way to test it, and hence has no place in science class.
You could say the same about evolution. What testing was done to align the 66 million year old comet strike with the end of the dinosaurs? Do you really consider that science? Seems like 2 stories that happened to fit together. This science is very little like observational science. And yet people accept it readily with zero critical thinking and bash anyone who disagrees. Why? People who disagree with the truth will eventually be shown wrong. Science should never "choose sides". That's politics, not science.
In any event, if you really care about the science of creationism, you can study it yourself very easily here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers
All the categories are there if you would like to see what they believe and the science they use to prove their theories. But I assure you, they follow the scientific method very carefully and many of their challenges are very good science and difficult to counter. There is a lot to learn by looking at both sides.
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.
That might be true if they were trying to scientifically prove the existence of God (they're not). Instead they are scientifically proving the following:
1. The earth is less than billions of years old. They have some compelling evidence that the earth is 6000 years old, mostly centered around radiohalos and helium deposits.
2. Man did not evolve from apes, sludge, etc. They have some compelling genetic evidence that man had a perfect genome free of mutations 6000 years ago.
3. The earth's current state was caused by a global flood. The Grand Canyon could happen very quickly (proven by the formation of extremely similar canyons near Mt. St. Helens after the 1980 eruption). That a single ice age would necessarily be the result of a global flood. That fish fossils in Kansas, for example, are the result of a global flood. That almost all the fossil record is cataclysmic in nature and caused by the flood (fossils giving birth or eating show a very quick burial). That the mountains caused by tectonic plate movement require rapid move
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
You think Texas is bad, try California or Illinois. At least Texas can more or less balance a budget and follow the Constitution.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Having a tail bone and no tail is not proving evolution. That is an absolute logical failure.
What we believe we have proven with evolution in comparison to the full theory fits into a thimble with your finger in it. We have evidence that a species can change within itself. Birds for example grow slightly different beaks depending their available diets. Animals may have size differences, longer or shorter legs, variations in ears, etc.. in order to adapt to their environment.
Those are very very minor points in the grand theory of evolution. You probably have a different height than a relative, different ears, different teeth, etc.. etc.. We already know based on human observation that those things can occur. Kids that ate lots of protein growing up were always bigger and stronger than the kids that ate poor grain.
Where evolution falls flat is trying to claim that a dinosaur evolved into a bird, or an ape evolved into a human. There is no solid evidence to show that a species can evolve into a different species. We have seen no plants that evolved into something other than the same plant with some variation. We see no evidence that a dog can evolve into something other than a dog. There is absolutely 0 proof that those things can occur.
We base the full theory of evolution on a whole lot of speculation and conjecture a small amount of fossil evidence. We have lots and lots of fossils, but we have no way of chaining them together. Quite frankly, the evidence is not that strong. That does not mean that the speculation is bad mind you, but it's important to know and acknowledge that it's only speculation.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Science isn't attempting to answer the question "Is there a creator?" because such a question is essentially unanswerable.
That is an incorrect statement. Philosophy tries to answer that question and Philosophy is science. Philosophy even does a very nice job of it if you care to investigate. What happens next is that people will claim that Philosophy is not science, so let me skip ahead a bit. Philosophical rules define science, including "the scientific method". People lacking training in Philosophy have poor critical thinking skills (which explains a whole lot in our current work based education system) which is why a PHD requires a tremendous amount of Philosophical training and education.
Science requires the same amount of faith in something as a creator. Scientists have faith that they will eventually understand something, so keep at it. The larger more complex issues are still open and being investigated. Someone else in the thread mentioned gravity which is a good example. We know of it, and have faith we know enough to work numbers. We also have faith we will eventually learn more, but we don't know.
It is quite possible that we can never prove an answer to the question of a creator. That is my belief after decades of study. Not having proof does is not the same as invalidating a question. We can't prove what causes gravity and we continue to ask. It's quite human to ask questions and dig for answers. Unfortunately it's also human to be biased enough to never look at reality.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Actually, I would have to disagree with you. I think people, such as yourself, who are so bloody sure there's no "god" or "superior being" are the stupid ones. We have lived for a mere speck of time, in a tiny little corner of our galaxy in a tiny little corner of our vast universe. The amount we know about our universe versus what we don't know is so small, it approaches zero. If you've ever read about dimensions, you should know it's quite possible that we're only seeing a speck of everything that exists around us. And to be as sure as you are that there isn't some intelligence behind our existence is absolute ignorance in the extreme. How can you be so sure that life on planet earth just "happened"? Is it not possible that some intelligent being "started" life? Maybe an interstellar pod landed on earth and introduced the basis for life, complete with instructions for "evolution" coded in. Or maybe a far off antenna, beaming "instructions" via cosmic rays initiated the start of life here. The fact is, we have absolutely no idea how life started and how evolution occurs. Acting so smug and mocking someone else for their belief about how it all started, when you yourself don't have the faintest clue is just pathetic.
If you took my statement to imply it was instant, then you are the "f^*$ing idiot". We lack the fossil evidence to show that these things happened over time.
We have some similarity in fossils, and we "think we got the timelines right" so we say "it probably happened this way". That is not proof! That is speculation. Please go read a dictionary and look up the words "proof" and "speculate" and learn the difference. Notice also that I did not claim that the speculation was wrong. Wrong is also defined differently than speculation, so maybe you should learn three new words today.
Stop reading what you want to see, and mature in your dialogue. Since you come across as having the intellectual capacity of a prepubescent teen I'll stop there.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I wasn't trying to prove or disprove the existence of god. I was merely commenting on how arrogant you are. All you have is an OPINION. Same as someone who believes in a god. You have absolutely zero proof whether or not life on earth was created, yet you talk smugly about how "stupid" someone else is because they have an OPINION.
Depth came to mind.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
No, it is a very good history book in that it chronicles very well an early civilization from tribalism to civilization 1900 years ago.
The best of the middle eastern archaeologists uses it or they wouldn't very well have jobs.
The geographical innaccuracies are few but understandable under the circumstances of knowing that their world was seldom further than they could "safely" travel by foot. You should get a cursory knowledge of middle eastern archaeology. Think of it as listing tribes by founding elders rather than a man who lives 900 years. Sometimes these become territories or cities. Imagine being in Armenia long before the Greek civilizations have reached you when suddenly the whole world you know floods, the whole world your fathers knew. Just south of a range of mountains called Ararat.Perhaps someone figured something out and actually built an ark and put in two of every local animal, er excuse me every animal two by two. Perhaps thats what you tell your kids when you managed to get the livestock onto a boat when the flood in that region came. Remember the first books of the Bible are an oral history to the Israelites and Judeans that was eventually written down and attributed to Moishe (The nonGreek version of Moses)There are other legends that say the same of a King Gilgamesh that did the same thing around the same time. There is evidence of a whopper flood in that area. Maybe it killed most everyone in the area.Thats pretty damn early on for a history that made it to print with any physical evidence on that scale. We would probably have a better early history from Egypt if the Great Library had not been destroyed by early conquest. Greeks, we have their early stuff, but this was before the Greeks shook hands with anyone in that area.
I could go on, but I'm not providing a longwinded education for you.
If you want to refute the ol' down home preachers who buy it word for word in the Greek/Latin without any background you're talking to the wrong man.
If you want to refute me your'e going to have to do better than pop culture atheism you got in the parking lot outside the Slayer concert.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
"why would I even waste my time with these fairy tales?"
The ability to speak of it without sounding like an idiot, comes to mind.
Oddly enough Atheism is a religion, an irony that I love to pull out and poke into soft flesh.
But, then, sports can be a religion,(you've seen them out there) The stock market can be a religion, etc...
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!