Slashdot Mirror
Missouri Legislation Redefines Science, Pushes Intelligent Design
An anonymous reader writes "Ars reports on new legislation in the Missouri House of Representatives which is seeking equal time in the classroom for Intelligent Design, and to redefine science itself. You can read the text of the bill online. It uses over 600 words to describe Intelligent Design. Scientific theory, the bill says, is 'an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy.' It would require that 'If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught.' The legislation's references to 'scientific theory' and 'scientific law' make it clear the writers don't have the slightest idea how science actually works. It also has this odd line near the end: 'If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course.'"
...to the bottom.
Less *is* more.
This sort of behavior from elected officials should be considered treason.
It is severely hurting the future of our country and making the next generation more ignorant.
They should be removed from office and any position of power of influence over others.
is that someone is being paid to write this shit.
Rest in peace, oh great America. You had a nice run leading the world in science and technology.
Pretty soon now you will be just another religious state, just like the ones you are fighting right now, but with a different religion.
morcego
Hmm, I am glad they are done indoctrinating children with Evolution.
As long as there's a monopoly on schooling, what gets taught in those schools will be a political issue. End the monopoly, let's have school competition, and we'll see that schools that teach hogwash will be less successful than schools that teach science.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Bring on the stupid.
What happened to separation of Church and State?
How many other countries have this issue?
They want to make themselves out to be the persecuted victims of oppression, whether it be from Scientists, Atheists, Muslims or whoever, to the point where they're completely discrediting themselves. Which will just lead to them self-justifying it when they are ignored over real and valid complaints.
Of course, they're also utterly oblivious to their own persecutions, but that's yet another problem.
A state mandated religion violates my freedom from it. Show the science or get out.
Is there some way to stop people from seeing evolution as a threat? It is possible to believe in a literal creation and an old age earth. I know when I say my prayers for God to cure diseases and feed the hungry that God will be increasing mankind's knowledge of science and technology in order for this to happen. Just because God never makes mistakes doesn't mean clergy who interpret scripture into theology never make mistakes.
The whole situation is embarrassing. On one hand, a few select Christians look silly for not being able to understand evolution. But I think worse yet, some scientists actually believe that if evolution is real that God can't be.
On one hand, faith used correctly is a great force to do good in the world. When you realize God loves you and you live after death, you can have faith to spend this life helping the poor instead of living for yourself. But on the other hand, faith in something that is incorrect, well that will lead people to unquestioning and screwing up the world. Zealotry applied correctly can be good, but I think you don't have to look too far to see some idiots.
God spoke to me
That last sentence sounded strangely familiar: ....
"If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course."
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
Marcaen
Nicely done!
America Fuck YEAH!
captcha dissolve
because it is true
If they want to ignore science, that's their choice. It just means their kids won't be able to find a job and my kids will have less competition. It's pretty clear there are many people in the US that don't get science and wish to deny their kids a proper education in the scientific method. The ultimate payback is when they're old and their kids can't take care of them. They have no one to blame except themselves.
Nice to see they're putting the fucking dictionary on the pile of burning books next to Origin of the Species.
We should also devote equal time in astronomy to the hypothesis that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that the Earth is, in fact, flat.
teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course
They're supposed to be teaching the scientific method. ie: creating a hypothesis and proving or disproving it.. If you can't prove or disprove it, you've failed. Yet it is illegal for the teachers to mark it as wrong, since they can't question it?
So I could say elephants have a long nose because the flying spaghetti monster decried that it shall have a noodley appendage and I would be correct because I don't have to verify the identity of the flying spaghetti monster?
I mean not that I any way believe in any of the ID stuff (flying spaghetti monsters is my bumper sticker), but, even if you do, what do you teach?
"Some super brain/being designed it all. End of story".
This is so wrong on so many levels. The dumbing down of children for fanaticals has to stop, one way or another. People like Rick Sanatorium are destroying this country and need to be run out.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
He even calculated that the end of the world would come in 2030. He did by interpreting Biblical metaphors! And yet, with all that creationist (although Newton did not believe that the world was only a few thousand years old) religious baggage, he managed to be the father of modern physics. What have you done for yourself lately?
There's no reason God couldn't have created evolution, and there was no problem with evolution theory until the late 20th century.
SOMEONE, and I do mean ONE person, decided that God created everything but NOT evolution, and made it a test of faith.
And a section of the right wing religious extremists have decided to follow this false prophet, to the ridiculous extent that they're denying basic common sense. The earth was not created only a few thousand years ago, core samples and carbon dating show that, but even the 'animals in rocks' shows that. The world's animals have changed over time, look at the rock shadows, do you see a puppy? No? So the animals have changed.
It's just a control mechanism, a way to get people to reject science which might be incompatible with your business interests.
Do you hear banjos?
I support the freedom of the people of Missouri to keep these people in office, and their ability to teach this.
I object to the use of government resources to do it... but...I guess...that's part of democracy.
I also support the freedom of all other universities to count any applicants from a Missouri public school at a penalty when they apply due to the extensive remedial education that will be needed...
In the long run, I'm pretty sure this is more harmful to religion than anything else.
The best way to fight these retards would be to demand that Magic Smoke Theory of Electricity is given equal class-room time as the Maxwell's equations. And if anyone asks why, you tell them.
50 bucks says an atheist wrote that line as an easter egg.
Zombies exist and they do want your brains. In exchange, you get an imaginary friend or two, or three, or more. You may even become a zombie yourself for a time, going from house to house trying to infect the living. It depends on the sort of zombie that comes to your door and what book(s) he/she/it may be carrying - or clothing they may [or may not] be wearing - or the following he/she/it may represent.
...shall be verifiable by present-day observation
That's why it's the "Show Me" state.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
I don't want to live forever with such stupid morons that have all this 'faith' and believe in such insane garbage. it's wrong. flat out wrong. it's a mental illness and a holdover from the age when humans didn't know jack shit about the world. and it's very very very very stupid and frustrating it continues.
I'm not sure i want to live now with all these people running the place... Forever is out of the question. No way. Fuck that. no. just... no.
I'll take the void thank you very much.
It's a bill. It won't pass. It won't be signed. You're being played because you are prone to hysterical responses.
Sounds like the answer to most every question in science class can now be answered, "Because a wizard did it".
Woe be it to the teacher who questions the "Get out of Science Class"-Wizard!
The religious movements must really feel the pressure if they resort to hard-line legislation to impose their world view AND restrict the critique. And to completely redefine the term "scientific theory" to suit your agenda feels entirely like a Stalinist reasoning. In the USSR, during the most repressive period, members of the opposition were committed for life to mental institutions because, to paraphrase, only mad men would oppose the great ideals of the communist movement. Will we see something similar in the US? Atheists being sent to mental institutions, because only mad men would hold no faith in their hearts and minds?
its not just the government. the hedge funds and banks love top buy securitized student loan debt - because it cant be washed away by bankruptcy. unlike subprime mortgages. you have an entire generation of endentured servants who have degrees from shit holes like Full Sail University.
They are clearly unable to govern themselves. Federalize that state.
These bigoted idiots get away with what they do and say because we,
who do know better,
don't treat them and their ideas with the mockery that they deserve.
Respecting their right to believe (and we must) is not the same as respecting the idiotic beliefs that they hold.
I have a much better idea. A fundamentalist Christian has no business seeing a physician or being in a hospital ever.
Any Christian that pushes intelligent design over evolution should have the courage of their convictions and forsake modern medicine. Glory in your disease, for it is a gift from God.
I totally agree with you...even if I do not believe in the big G.
Faith and Science are not meant to be mixed.
to bring modern life to its knees. If that means "God didn't say anything about a phone", so we don't know how to build one, use one, repair one, ok, than it's ok. Make 21st century a dark one. Do it.
The elected officials who drafted this legislation are probably doing exactly what their voters want them to do.
I would imagine that they are accurately representing the will of the people, in this case. Their actions are offensive to quite a few people who are outside their constituency, like you and me, but since we are the outsiders our opinions don't count for much.
Also, being right doesn't count for much either, since both sides think they are right.
Isn't that how a democracy is supposed to work? Aren't the states supposed to have some autonomy over issues such as education?
Do you have any other justification than "we are right" to explain why a state's citizens should decide what the schools that they pay for teach their children?
...For America. I'm sure 99% of Americans here are wonderful and intelligent, but this is the 2nd post in a week in a similar fashion and it really does not make you guys look good :-(
**I am not anti-American - I am anti-stupid**
As TFA is about schools, let me offer this explanation:
It's not about critical thinking to test a false theory.
Within the school environment you have a certain amount of time to teach a subject. If you teach two 'versions' of it (one true, one false) to gain critical thinking, you halve the amount of time to teach the Quite Obviously True (TM) version.
If the answer comes around to God Did It, it should be taught in Church, not school
Why not let the elected officials teach their electors' children what their electors want them to teach their children? They are representing their electors. Isn't the core of democracy giving the majority of people what they want, no matter what it is?
I don't see the problem. What they'll teach is wrong and isn't the truth. So what? Lots of shit you hear and people tell you are wrong and not the truth. Eventually these kids will grow up and do a bit of reading and learn things on their own. And eventually some of them will come to realize that what they learnt in school wasn't true. And they'll know then to take everything with a grain of salt. Isn't that a good lesson?
I am now ashamed to be a Missourian. We had some great programs, made it illegal to deny funding for stem cell research, have probably the best conservation dept. in the nation (~50% of the funding comes from a tax so it's budget is incredibly stable), have some great schools. But lately we have been pretty bad, banned gay marriage, had a dumb ass say things about legitimate rape, and now this. ugg. I weep for my state. And I wanted to go back to my state to live and work.
BTW-evolutionary molecular biologist here.
"...incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy..."
Sounds like a lot of Green people I know.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Sounds like religion, too. Whoever wrote this garbage is clearly of the opinion that if you think science is bullshit, then the solution is to add even more bullshit to it.
No, it was the Discovery Institute in the 1990 that came up with 'Creative Design' and made it incompatible with Evolution as a test of faith.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
Until then, God created all things, meant God created everything we were only just finding out about. So every new discovery the religious creationists would espouse as 'God's work'.
Lets say there is a creator. Lets say god does exist. Doesn't mean it's the Christian god. Doesn't mean you know gods word or will. Doesn't mean you know any better than an atheist how men should act or behave.
Perhaps god is real and he doesnt care about homosexuality.
Perhaps god is real and he doesn't care if a woman has an abortion.
Perhaps god is real and he doesn't care if you have sex outside marriage.
Perhaps god is real and he doesn't care about marriage.
So you know what, keep fighting for intelligent design, Because proving there is a creator still doesn't mean you can tell me how to live my life.
It's almost enough to make you wonder if there is a connection between increasing environmental pollution and irrational religious obsession. Or perhaps some people respond to a world filled with more knowledge and answers than we've ever had by shutting down completely and resorting to chanting magical incantations on a daily basis. At any rate, I'd be happy to chip in for a billboard that reads, "Missouri Science Education, Now With 50% Magic."
So bascially if the student can't understand how something works the teacher needs to give up.
People who think themselves against the concept of ID actually believe intelligent design began with the age of Man, since no-one denies that those things that Man creates are 'intelligent designs'. On the other hand, sane people believe the concept of life in the Universe, and ID have the same timeline.
We have seen this debate before, where similar morons believed the Sun had to revolve around Man's planet, because Man alone was the centre of everything, being 'god made'. So religious freaks believe ID began with Man (Man's output) because Man is made in the image of 'god'. Rational people recognise the uniqueness of life in the Universe, and start the ID timeline at the point at which life arose in the Universe.
Religious nonsense has always been wrapped up in scientific clothing by certain people in the scientific community. We have watched as religious nut-cases insist that things like radio-active decay are truly random, because in that idiot concept of randomness, they place 'god'.
Actually science requires maths, and all maths is the same as a computer program running on a Turing Complete Computer. It is IMPOSSIBLE to produce true randomness on a TCC, so science, by definition, cannot include any concept relying on true randomness. It is funny how many people that quote the works of Godel and Turing do not understand them.
Now, free will CANNOT arise from any action of a TCC, by definition. We are conscious and bring meaning to a clockwork Universe that ordinarily doesn't need semantics to function, only syntax. Life is thus distinct from anything that science (a program running on a TCC) alone could cause to exist.
The concept of free will existing outside the realm of science is easy to prove. If you are educated, you understand the concept of probability. Imagine six-sided dice. The more you roll together, the less likely each will 'come up' six. Sooner or later, if you increase the number of dice, the likelihood of such an outcome extends beyond the 'life' of our Universe. However YOU can cause such an event to happen with complete certainty, regardless of probability. How, you say? Lateral thinking shows that if Man is just another process of the Universe, then if you PLACE each die in the SIX position, it is the same conceptual process as rolling the die, and this being so you can place any number of dice in the SIX position.
Your free will, operating outside the laws of physics, allows you to create an impossibly unlikely probabilistic event. This is not an argument for intelligent design beginning with the output of Man. This is an argument for appreciating that life follows different 'rules'. It is notable that physicists with really BAD maths skills claim that the improbable output of Man is countered by concepts of entropy- as if it would make sense that a roulette wheel in perfect balance kept scoring 22, so long as it eventually fell to pieces.
We are above the clockwork universe, not below it. The logical explanation for life in our otherwise clockwork Universe is that we see the 'collision' of that thing responsible for free will with the clockwork Universe, and the 'collision' is responsible for the process we call life- which causes vehicles to eventually come into existence that are 'driven' by 'soul essence' (whatever that may be). The definition of US is that we perceive 'meaning'. Neither science or maths need 'meaning', only 'rules'.
These inbred, idealistic, heretical politicians do not understand the difference between truth and faith.
You do not see the Roman Catholic Church (or many other organized religious organizations) have a problem with teaching science as a science and religion as a religion. The schools of higher learning, run by these religious organizations, openly teach the concepts of evolution as a science without interference.
So, why can't the Missouri legislators get their act together and leave science to the scientists and religion to the clergy?
So much for separation of church and state. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion (after all, every set contains the null set). State mandated hokum being posited as science is an abuse of faith and science.
"Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?"
Intelligent design was invented by the Discovery Institute in the late 1990's. Prior to that God created all things, including evolution. Everytime a new scientific discovery was unveiled, religious types would announce it as 'God's Work'.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
A Republican lobby group came up with Wedge Strategy. The aim was to set religion against science by making it appear as if the two couldn't co-exist. To believe in God, you needed to deny science. So any inconvenient science the Republicans wanted ignored could also be ignored while they were ignoring evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
ID *is* a sham, created by lobbyists to us people's faith against themselves. It was created by a Republican think tank, a lot of clever lawyers and PR people, and has been very successful in misleading the far extreme right to denounce science.
One of the reasons they love ignorance is that it makes it absurdly easy
for corrupt politicians to get away with various misdeeds.
I'm sure glad I don't have to live in Missouri. I honestly think I would
rather be dead.
I strongly believe there is no god. I also believe that the evidence for evolution is a very strong argument for the non-existence of god, and that is why I think so many believers have a problem with it.
However, those who are believers and think evolution is real too, well, that's just an example of cognitive dissonance.
But I mainly take issue with your last paragraph (after all, you can believe whatever you like, I don't care). "Faith used correctly". What on earth does that mean? People can do good things, and people can do bad things. These acts may be driven by their beliefs, but invariably the belief is used to justify the act, not the other way around. I see many people of faith committing atrocities in the name of that faith, in fact I would say on balance they are the majority. People do good for many reasons, and faith does not need to come into it, but a truly bad act is usually aided and abetted by faith. Yes, it's a perversion of what "faith" means to the majority of believers, but that's the reality of it: suicide bombers would almost certainly not commit those acts just because they felt like it.
I see next to no good in zealotry of any kind. Do good if you want to - it's easy to see that doing good has benefits that have nothing to do with religion - but don't do bad because your holy book tells you it's OK. That's just using a very shaky belief system to justify and reinforce a decision you alone took.
Something has to give in that sentence, either "literal creation", or "old age earth." I have a number of deeply religious smart friends who have faced this paradox and found resolutions they can live with. One way is to accept that the Bible was written by imperfect people, who may not have had the capacity to grasp the true story of creation. Regardless, if you're going to demand that what you believe makes logical sense, be prepared to chart your own personal spiritual journey. I certainly have.
It's only the people who blind themselves to reality that find evolution a threat. I don't personally mind all these people believing whatever they want. They can believe in fairies, UFOs... whatever. No problem. That's what religious freedom is all about. It's only when they start pushing their ignorance on me and my family that I take offense. Bills like this cross the line from religious freedom to banning knowledge.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
Treason may be the wrong word if one wants to be precise, but there is certainly something like treason going on. The creationists are willfully trying to undermine the country's scientific future and to infect school children's receptive minds with pure nonsense. As an analogy it's very true.
There's also some very severe professional misconduct occurring there, because non-scientists are pretending to be scientifically competent and dictating school science curricula.
Are carpenters allowed to establish guidelines for how surgeons will do heart surgery? No, they lack the professional competence so they are not accepted as having standing in the matter. What's happening in science education in a few US states is directly analogous. The creationists have no standing in science and so should have the door shut firmly in their faces.
Pretending to have scientific competency when you don't even know how science works is pretty clear fraud. Aren't there controls in education to keep charlatans from taking jobs for which they have no professional competence? Apparently not.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
It's a bill not a law.
Hearings not scheduled, not on the house calendar. You've been had ARS... this is a publicity stunt by 2 conservative politicians to garner attention for their next election by introducing a bill popular with their tiny constituencies, guaranteed never to even get voted on, but sure to bring in gullible leftist reporters who are all too eager to snap up any tidbit of info that might portray their political opponents in a negative light. And you guys are flooding ARS with traffic because you're also so eager to believe it.
Sponsor: Brattin, Rick (055) ... et al.
Co-Sponsor: Koenig, Andrew (099)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2013
LR Number: 506L.01I
Last Action: 1/31/2013 - Referred: Elementary and Secondary Education(H)
Bill String: HB 291
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB291&year=2013&code=R
As if there were nothing in the world actually worth reporting on, they've got to spoon feed you this horseshit. How many people die in Africa from AIDs per day? Oh wait, you can't blame that on republicans so it's uninteresting. Fuck you.
Is not intelligent design an oxymoron? My human spine has smaller vertebra at the bottom of my back than it does at the top, my shoulder 'ball and socket' joint design works like the engineer went to Phoenix University, and my freakin' liver can't process ethanol efficiently.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I wish we could somehow convince the ID people that the marvel of evolution is a very intelligently designed self-regulating system.
some scientists actually believe that if evolution is real that God can't be
Um, what!? I guess technically, since you haven't defined what you mean by "some", that has to be true (there probably exists at least one scientist who believes that). But despite having lived my entire life in academia, I have yet to hear someone seriously claim that evolution somehow disproves the existence of God. In fact, the only occasions in which I have encountered evolution and divine beings mentioned in the same breath is when someone is denying evolution, not God.
By the way, I'm an atheist, and the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with that.
weinersmith
Intelligent design was invented by a PR company in the 1990's, a lobby group names Discovery Institute invented it, as a way of using religion against the religious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
The strategy is known as a Wedge Strategy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Make evolution a test of faith, then get them to deny evolution, so God created everything EXCEPT evolution, and to accept that you have to ignore the lack of puppie fossils, and all the other stuff in front of your eyes and deny science.
Once you've got them ignoring things as a test of faith, everything from Global Warming to Oil depletion suddenly becomes deniable. Remember 'God promised not to destroy the earth again hence Global Warming cannot exist'?. That's a sucker whose fallen for Wedge Strategy.
Absolute dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator, is a great force to do good in the world, from my perspective. The problem with absolute dictatorship is that it never seems to be me that has the power and those that do have the power don't use it correctly. Same goes for faith, except that everyone can have their own faith. None the less, the vast majority don't use their faith correctly, so it ends up being a force that does some good and some evil: more or less of one or the other, depending on who considers whom.
Science doesn't deal with the truth, it's always subject to further correction.
Depends on how you define "literal creation". If you mean that as "God literally created the universe," then there's no conflict. If you mean that as "God literally created the Earth and all life upon it in six days, there's a fairly fundamental conflict. A literal interpretation of the book of Genesis simply cannot be reconciled with acceptance of evolution. A figurative or metaphorical view of Genesis is readily reconciled with belief in evolution.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The owners of this country don't want anymore intelligent humans who are well informed, well educated, and capable of critical thinking. As far as they're considered, we have way too much of that already. What they want is more OBEDIENT WORKERS. Thats why they've been opening the floodgates and relaxing border patrol to Mexico. You really think they want to end a steady supply of obedient hard working people who do what they're told and are glad to do it for the rest of their lives for minimum wage? Its all a ruse, and if anything, we can't get them in here fast enough, so now they're dumbing down the school system.
Evolution never existed. Tell me how nature "naturally" brought together the certain organic chemicals to form something of a more ordered state, with this process "naturally" repeating over millions of years? Nature—the physical universe in which we live—does not do that. Things do not "naturally" move from a state of disorder to a more ordered state.
Try this thought experiment. Imagine being on the outskirts of what would become our solar system 4.5 billion years ago. Imagine time is sped-up by orders of magnitude while you remain on the outskirts. As the year 2012 approaches, you see Voyager 1 fly by. How did that happen? While the rest of the universe is slowly (or quickly) moving toward a more disordered state, this particular solar system is not? That is nonsense.
It is now embarrasing to be from Missouri, the show me how much of a dumbass you can be state..
...the just wait until you hear what Paul REALLY thought about marriage:
A fundamentalist Christian should never celebrate a marriage; conversely, a marriage is an event worthy of mourning, for it is an act of disobedience of God and his apostle Paul.
Christian morality is an absolute mess.
1: 'If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught.'
2: 'If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation.'
well, since the second condition is impossible to meet, and is a necessary condition to satisfy the first, it means only that scientific theory concerning biological origin cannot be taught in a course of study. (contrapositive)
so... does that just mean you can't teach abiogenesis? that is what `origin' means in this context, right? evolution is okay to teach, and doesn't trigger the latter necessary conditions, even though they mention ``biological evolution,'' apparently as a red herring.
wait. did they mean for this to be a silly logic puzzle, or are they just too stupid to realize what they're saying?
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Our legislature has enough Republican votes in both chambers to override any veto that our Democratic governor might use. While I don't think this particular bill will pass, this means that in general our state is fucked until we get de-gerrymandered because we're going to be in an ideological race with Kansas to see who's more Republican.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Some definitions from the document:
""Hypothesis", a scientific theory reflecting a minority of scientific opinion which may lack acceptance because it is a new idea, contains faulty logic, lacks supporting data, has significant amounts of conflicting data, or is philosophically unpopular. One person may develop and propose a hypothesis;" - if something contains faulty logic it's not a hypothesis, it's... nothing really. Maybe a joke but not much else.
""Scientific theory", an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy. The inferred explanation may be proven, mostly proven, partially proven, unproven or false and may be based on data which is supportive, inconsistent, conflicting, incomplete, or inaccurate. The inferred explanation may be described as a scientific theoretical model;" - and again, if an explanation is false, it's a lie and not a theory, and if data is inaccurate it is an error and not valid data.
""Scientific law", a statement describing specific phenomena about the physical universe which has been verified by observation or experimentation and has no exceptions of verified empirical data. The statement may be described by formula;" - if anything, it's the laws, out of the three, that can be proven false, especially if presented in larger context, like the Law of universal gravitation which doesn't apply beyond weak gravitational fields.
""Standard science", knowledge disclosed in a truthful and objective manner and the physical universe without any preconceived philosophical demands concerning origin or destiny. Knowledge is based upon verified empirical data obtained through observation and experimentation and serves as the factual basis for formulae, events, processes, principles, and laws and may be a component of theory, hypothesis, conjecture and extrapolation. Knowledge growth as a result of human endeavor serves as the foundation for the continuous reevaluation of theory, hypothesis, conjecture, and extrapolation to determine their correctness based on supporting or conflicting verified empirical data." - so science "discloses in a truthful and objective manner and the physical universe without any preconceived philosophical demands concerning origin or destiny", but scientific theory can somehow be "unproven or false" and still be recognised as a valid theory? And if science is based upon "verified empirical data obtained through observation and experimentation", then why throughout the document I see that everything merely "implies" the intelligent design?
All this "implies" the authors have no idea how scientific method actually works and that they simply borrowed some definitions from different branches of philosophy and loosely stitched them together to create this hideous piece of self-serving crap. Then again, it proves nothing - maybe they're just idiots with too much time on their hands ;)
Once, there was a legislature that attempted to make pi=3, because it would make life so much simpler.
You want to talk Old Testament morality? Game on!
Do you really want to live like this? Do you really want your CHILDREN to live like this?
Cafeteria Christians indeed.
And Bruce Chapman, the guy who created Intelligent Design is one of them, an atheist.
God created heaven and earth, Nuclear Reactors, Medicines, all the other stuff science brought, but not evolution according to his claim. Thus not global warming, or oil depletion or bank regulation or Wallstreet regulation..... pretty much anything this lobbyist is paid to push as being against religion is on his agenda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
ID was invented in 1998 exactly for that purpose and its suckered a lot of God fearing people into this trap. They're following a PR lobbyist and he's convinced them God only made stuff his pay masters said it did.
The atom, as best as we can observe, is composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
That the atom is made up of these items is only a theory.
Also plausible is that every proton, electron, and neutron is a miniature space ship-- the electron ships flying in a seemingly random orbit around the central fleet of neutron ships and proton ships.
Larger alliances of fleets form molecules, and complex organisms such as human beings.
"Gaseous" fleets, like those that form air, are simply weaker fleets that are afraid of conflict and willing to break formation to allow more powerful "solid" fleets to pass. ... any of this seem like a ridiculously unlikely possibility that borders on mental illness?
WELL SO TOO IS A BELIEF IN GOD! DIE RELIGIOUS FANATICS!!! DIE!!!!
"So God has created a perfect world which is not meant to change."
Did he? Do you speak for God now?
"Was-it that God was too stupid to think about evolution!?"
And you're calling God stupid?
They've been suckered by a clever scheming PR lobbyist named Bruce Chapman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Chapman
Who is an oil lobbyist (he calls it transportation, but it's Texas Oil money).
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=submitSearchQuery&query=Bruce%20Chapman&orderBy=date&orderDir=DESC&searchBy=author&searchType=all&includeBlogPosts=true
He lobbies against Biofuel as the devils work, and denies Global warming as the devils work. Basically doing what lobbyists do, only pretending it's God's work.
He came up with the idea of Intelligent Design, and the idea that God didn't create it, so science must be denied. It's known as the Wedge Strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
"God says use more oil" wouldn't work as a lobby strategy, so he pretends Christianity is under attack from so called 'science', and to be faithful, you therefore must deny science, (well the bits he doesn't like, global warming, evolution, etc.).
How can oil be running out if it was created, *not* by the decaying bodies of animals millions of years ago, but by God 5000 years ago?
How can God be destroying the earth with Global Warming, when he promised not to (as if God is the cause of global warming!)? Hence they need to deny the evidence in front of their own eyes, and think its a test of faith, and not a clever lobbyist/false prophet.
All very clever, very much like the false dichotomy you presented as argument.
I don't know if the anti-evolution folks really understand what they're asking for when they say that teachers should "Teach the Controversy".
One theory of evolution says it took billions of years. Another says evolution all happened in six days back in 4004 B.C. and then stopped, and that it may have gotten further restricted a thousand years or so later when all the land animals drowned except one boatload of them. How would you compare those two theories? What kind of evidence would let you reject or tentatively accept one of them? Are there fossil records that fit better with either? What about historical records from different cultures around the world? Does the distribution of animals around the planet tell us anything that would let us pick one of the theories, or lead us to modify either of them?
So yeah. Teach The Controversy. Proudly.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Most everything before King David has no objective evidence.
Should this bill become law:
1. Deny admission of students graduating from any public school in Missouri to any university in the United States that receives federal or state funding. This, of course, would include federal funding for scientific research involving participation in graduate or undergraduate programs.
1. Deny federal scholarship support and loans, including Pell grants, for undergraduate or graduate students in Missouri schools, colleges or universities.
2. Deny federal funding for all programs for any school, school system, college or university in Missouri.
3. Deny employment by the federal government for any person who attended a Missouri K-12 school, college or university.
Maybe these, and other funding restrictions would force reconsideration of this bill.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
Missouri is already ranked 47th in education, I guess they are shooting for 50th...
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
With it. Well then I want them to teach santa clause is a god because it has the same characteristics as a god and might have had a hand in intelligent design.
By this law I dont see anything stopping it.
I'm with you. Fuck this God shit, it is a net loss for humanity and the sooner it goes away the better for everyone.
Everything's bigger in Texas, especially the ignorance of our children. It's the law. We done made them smarty-pants book writers put Gawd in where all that science nonsense used to go. And then we cleaned up a few things in the history books that were making us uncomfortable too. Y'all in Missouri is just a bunch of johnny-come-latelys.
Why can't there be a headline that doesn't make me want to move to Sweden?
faith-based philosophy
So all consensus and agreements in a community of people are in fact expressions of faith in some philosophical framework. Does that sound sound? No no.
I think it falls under the category of leading a horse to water...
I used to be pretty set in my sciency-ways, it took a transcendental experience for me to consider that my disbelief of God was totally fucking false. I also lament that Christianity and Catholicism appear to impart (somewhat) negative and contradictory ideas of faith and 'Intelligent Design'. Public perception makes this appear to be the bulwark of those Churches. Those that I feel have a much firmer grasp on spiritual design (Hindu, Buddhist, Native American, Jamaican) do not appear to weigh opinion as dramatically in this debate. Perhaps it is because they, like I, understand the futility of constant, overwhelming communication of their ideals. When they do speak, it is not so much calculated as it flows, in harmony.
Epiphanies abound one who keeps their mind open; everything -is-. We should be teaching our children to see, to hear, and to draw their own worldview, not restrict them with our own, and certainly not to denigrate them for holding an unpopular view. We should teach them to Love and Honor Life, not devolving to the level of name calling and facing sides, like soldiers choosing a duality that is as illusory as both faith and science alike.
For fucks sake. How about "Welcome class. I am Mr. Smith. This class is Science 101. If you're in the wrong class it was fate, stay seated. What I'm going to try to teach you this year is how to learn about science. Some posit that what you're going to learn and read about and experiment with in this class is by design. Not my design but that of a omnipotent being. A god, the GOD. You may have heard of him before today. Many believe that some one or some thing planned it. All of it. They may be correct or they may not. What you're going to learn here is what human kind has deduced and discovered throughout its recorded history and I trust that some of you will add to those discoveries along your paths through life. As for Intelligent Design we can only wonder and search or wait faithfully by until someone or something tells us what we already knew to begin with. To which I'm sure a few just want nothing more than the ability so say "I told you so.". The same can be said about some of the puzzles that science leaves us with today. So, before you begin the journey that is your life in earnest let me try to teach you some of the things we do know and some of the puzzles you could someday help solve. Please open your textbooks to chapter 42."
"Class, for homework please try to find a frog or a stray cat or dog, preferably dead, so that we can explore with them during our studies for the rest of the week. Leave the family pets alone children. Until tomorrow. Be prompt. Dismissed."
\r
Fear of solitude, isolation, ostracism... these things are powerful motivators to seek sanctuary and acceptance.
Humans have done so through the ages by inventing an enormous pantheon of gods. We all agree that most of these gods do not exist.
The difference between an atheist and a believer is the acceptance of a tiny fraction of these imaginary figments.
At least some states have said that teachers have to teach Intelligent Design, but aren't allowed to teach any particular religion's view of who the Intelligent Designer is, because that would be establishing religion and therefore blatantly unconstitutional.
But that doesn't mean that different cultures don't have different beliefs about the design process that lead to different world views separately from the issue of the Designer's identity. For instance, did it happen quickly or slowly? Recently, or a long long time ago? Just once, or repeated in multi-million-year cycles? Did the stars, Earth, plants, animals, and humans get designed together, or in some order? How could you tell? Did the design follow song-lines? Were only natural processes involved, or supernatural beings, or pirates or other tricksters? Does there seem to have been just one designer, or multiple designers in the process? Does the design process appear to have been personal or impersonal? Can we learn anything from the distribution of genetic material in different human populations, or the genetic differences between modern humans and Neandertals and other apes? Why are we more closely related to fungi than to plants? How does Death affect design?
If you want to teach Intelligent Design as Science, not just as philosophy, you can do it, but you'll find it's a much harder problem than its proponents think, and they may not like all the questions you'll be asking, much less the answers your students come up with.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Everyone has faith in something and it's going to be what makes the best personal sense to them. I don't agree with intelligent design, but we are biased towards statistics. Some find it hard to believe that life as we know it is an accident; that it is too much of a shot in the dark. Key phrase there is "life as we know it." The butterfly could have flapped its wings twice instead of thrice and we would be lizards. Well, the way I see it is, of course it is a shot in the dark, but it apparently happened as we are here in existence. I have *faith* in that much. However, my beliefs are of a minority and different like any other person out there. And unless you are personally conducting your own research regarding the origins of the universe, you have faith in whomever your sources are. When you service a general population, you are bound to say something that some of them won't agree with. It happens. Get over it.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
over a bill that will never pass. Score: Missouri Fundamentalist Christian Trolls 1, Slashdot Politically-Naive Morons 0. Par for the course, it would seem.
It's not just about Evolution - that's a hook for getting one particular voting block supporting the Republican Party, and a favor to them for cooperating, but there's more to it than that. Teaching Anti-Evolution Anti-Science makes it easier to teach Anti-Global-Warming Anti-Science - same tools, same skepticism and unwillingness to believe the real world instead of the authorities.
The Republican Party doesn't really care much about evolution. But their Corporate Sponsors really do care about global warming, and about anything that might force the government to make laws that affect their business. Anti-Evolution is fun, but anti-global-warming is where the money is.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
All this while other countries like China and Korea are rapidly modernizing and educating their population. Any state government that has the time and energy to bicker and pass stupid laws because of religious beliefs, while the economy and people's welfare and freedom are being destroyed, deserves to be thrown out. US needs to get it's ass out of the middle ages and get back to being a leader of the western world. Right now America is making us in other countries very embarrassed and very nervous about our future.
They are faithless because they need proof of God in form of a literally true Bible, which leads to this absurdity. If I didn't have a shred of faith I wouldn't be out trying to change the laws, I'd be trying to change me!
There is plenty of evidence that evolution does occur over time, but that does not prove that you exist because of evolution. You may just be part of a herd, ready to be harvested someday. A herd that has expanded so much that it is now having problems with sustaining itself. But just because they want to push Intelligent Design, does not neccessarily mean what they have convinced themselves it means. The Intelligent Designer (to some their $DEITY), may in fact be extremely intelligent, so intelligent in fact that those designers had to make you intelligent enough to grow the herd, but not too intelligent as to question why you are following a genetic program, and naively fulfilling the Intelligent Designers evil goals.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
And Americans wonder why the world is basically laughing at them.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
If you reject the Theory of Evolution you must reject the underlying science that supports the Theory of Evolution. This includes rejecting the fundamental principles of chemistry since it is the fundamental principles of chemistry that cause the variations in DNA replication which in turn cause the mutations that drive The Theory of Evolution.
So if you reject the fundamental principles of chemistry, that chemical reactions are automatic and rule based, then you must believe that God Himself preforms each and every chemical reaction in the Universe.
Now according to the Bible Man has free will. This means that God does not know what Man is going to do nor when he is going to do it.
So if I have a glass of vinegar and a spoon full of baking soda, it is up to me alone if and when I put the baking soda into the vinegar to to produce CO2. God does not know when this will happen because I have free will.
Yet when I do put the baking soda into the vinegar the expected reaction happens. Which because the fundamental principles of chemistry are in error can only happen if God is doing it.
Therefore I have summoned God to do my bidding. I have dominion over God.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Considering the extreme gravity of what the creationists are trying to do to youngster's minds and to their employment prospects in a technical world, and the consequent great harm that this would do to the country's scientific future, it's hardly hyperbole.
If anything, the word "treason" understates the magnitude of the disaster. They're poisoning the well and burning the seedcorn.
You believe God is real.
It is also impossible for you to establish that belief as fact.
This incredible push to force faith down the throats of others feels like the last gasp of religion.
In an increasingly modernized, connected world, thanks to science, all of our mysteries are explained and the explanations are accessible to anyone. There is less and less of a need for religion to fill in the blanks. I think people who are firmly entrenched in their own belief see this, are scared of it, and feel that forcing religion upon others is the only way to keep their faith relevant.
I lost my faith when I took a Religions of the World course (taught by a devout Christian) because I could see that all religions were the exact same thing: a code of rules to live by and stories that explained the unknown. These days we have codified law that is roughly the same in every country (don't steal, murder, etc.), and science explains the unknown with the kind of clarity and accuracy that religion never had.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-religious, but this forcing religion on people to "make" believers out of them seems increasingly pointless when facts, the truth, and reality have much simpler, easy to understand answers that actually make sense when held up to scrutiny.
Since there's no proof that God exists, and no proof that macroevolution occurred, it makes perfect sense to teach both hypothesis's and not just one. Teaching only one of them, would be biased. Ideally, we should teach neither as facts, but hey, I know that's too far towards reality for even atheists to accept.
Some (or most) of you think I'm trolling, but honestly, I've never heard or seen proof of macroevolution. There's hypothesis' of it, but to date, has anyone managed to actually produce it in a series of experiments? And then had it confirmed by an independent experiment? If I understand the scientific method correctly, then actually producing macro-evolution is required before one can scientifcally say "Yes, this is how we got here."
See you. Wouldn't want to be you.
There, now we agreed on something.
You pray to your god to cure diseases and feed the hungry? A god that could create the universe could create a world without disease or hungry people. That god would also know the cures to every disease and the technology to produce an adequate amount of food. But for some reason that god had decided to keep these secrets from us. If your child was dying of a disease and you did not have enough food to feed that child, you would still be grateful if your neighbor who had an abundant amount of food and a cure to that disease would instead of giving those to you, just burned them? Remember that god would have created the disease too. I will never believe that humans somehow did something to deserve this too. So I would never worship that god even if that god was true.
An open letter
Dear Citizens of Missouri,
We support your efforts to take science education in your state into a brave new world. Science is an ever changing, ever advancing quest. However, not everything in science ought to be about science. For we must recognize the practical reality that science serves human civilization. And in today's global community, the American nation faces a crisis in which we must as loyal patriots reaffirm our nation's position at the forefront of civilization. We can not afford to continue outsourcing, exporting, abandoning, or otherwise ceding economic and social opportunities to less advanced parts of the world. Therefore it is imperative that we begin building and nurturing a domestic underclass to which we can bequeath unskilled labor and civil malcontent ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H diversity. Through the fire of conflict that your state endured during our nation's bloody adolescence, you have demonstrated an admirable ability to endure hardship and be resilient. We should all be fortunate, that you have taken the bold step of engaging in this new social experiment where the idea that state-directed education can be used to further the socio-political goals of our nation with tangible socio-economic effects.
Let's face it: If we are to stem the hordes of illegal residents taking away job opportunities from real Americans, we must have enough Americans sufficiently educated to be able to compete for those appropriate jobs that do not require an over-abundance of schooling based on excessive and unnecessary critical thinking. A workforce thus educated under your new legislations should be expected to also considerably lighten the load on social services such as health care that is riddled with exorbitant expenses based on medical practices founded on unproven Darwinian principles. Under ID-inspired health care, we are, by design, perfect and thus require no treatment. Imagine the savings we can achieve for a government that is already burdened by entitlement programs our children can not afford!
Ages hence, when historians look back upon our era, the state of Missouri will be held up as a shining example of the pioneering American spirit that blazed a new trail for intellectual courage and social freedom. You will be remembered as the brave souls who cast aside the shackles of conformity and not only challenged, but prevailed against the stifling madness of old tradition. The multitudes, Missourians and non-Missourians alike, will remember with gratitude the legacy you have left them.
yours truly, the mob-ocracy.
========== "Hello World" in my programming language of choice: ATG - LET THERE BE LIFE - TAG ==========
Demands equal time!!!!!!!!!! From the Curch of Pastafarianism: So you want to be a Pastafarian Great. Consider yourself a member. You'll notice there are no hoops to jump through. You don't have to pay anything. How to help the church You can help by spreading the Word. Tell the people about Pastafarianism. Point out that we are the world's most peaceful mainstream religion, having started no wars in our God's name. As far as I know, there are no deaths attributed to our religion. Can I be a member if I don't literally believe in FSM? Yes, you can. For the same reason that many in other religions don't literally believe their scripture, you can be a Pastafarian without being a True Believer of our scripture. In other words, do you know Christians who don't take the Bible literally – but who consider themselves True Christians, nonetheless? So do I. In fact, True Belief is not often a requirement of religion. Most religions are comprised of a group of people with similar – but not exact – world views. Pastafarianism is no different in that regard. Whatever you decide, remember this FSM is a real, legitimate religion, as much as any other. The fact that many see this is as a satirical religion doesn't change the fact that by any standard one can come up with, our religion is as legitimate as any other. And *that* is the point.
They're too stupid to realize what they're saying.
The United States infiltrated by those who seek to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
I guess this means they will teach that Alah, Zeus and the thousands of our creation stories. Im all for teaching everyone in Missouri that Alah created the world and compare that to a full scientific Theory ... In Missouri they are all Muslim right? Did I get the right god?
To me personally, needing faith in order not to be a self-centered fucktard is akin to a mental disease. Do you really need to be told that some imaginary "higher being" loves you and that you'll live after death in order to help those who are worse off than you are? Loved by God or not, to live after death or not, don't be a fucktard, mmkay? You don't need religion or any particular belief not to be a fucktard. Just don't be a fucktard. How hard is that.
Gravity is a great force that we have no clue as to its source, nor can we define it well, or understand completely its effects. Should we ban gravity from a science class?
There does tend to be a bit of theology within science but it is rather acceptable. Dogmas that are not made obvious include a mystical belief that knowledge is good and that science will improve the human condition. Those really are articles of faith and unproven. Sometimes ignorance can allow a species to exist whereas knowledge can lead to population bombs, pollution and weapons of mass destruction.
The teaching of religion does not belong in science classes but it should be part of every student's education.
Works for me. Bonehead ignorant fools select themselves and their progeny for super-size ignorance. The rest of us ignore them and refuse to hire any of them because they have no concept of reality or rationality.
They keep their Jeezus, the rest of us live without extra stoopid. Their Jeezus can supply them with food, the rest of us progress and leave them the fuck alone. No interstate aid when the inevitable collapse of their Jeezus-based economy happens.
Ars reports on new legislation in the Missouri House of Representatives which is seeking equal time in the classroom for Intelligent Design, and to redefine science itself.
I wish I were a school teacher in Missouri, so I could QUIT IN PROTEST of a mandate to teach stupidity!
Why not teach that if you wish hard enough, any answer to any math problem is 2?
Why not teach that if you do the right special, magical dance, a completely blank answer sheet will magically be marked as 100% correct?
Why not teach, while they're at it, that Christopher Columbus was the first human being to set foot in the new world, except for Jesus who was waiting for him in what is now the United States of 'Merica, to hand him a copy of the US Constitution, the NIV Bible, and an M16 rifle?
Oh, that's right, I know why not. BECAUSE THOSE POINTS OF VIEW ARE THOSE OF A RETARDED FISH!
Or a Missouri legislator, apparently.
The greek philosopher "Socrates" was quite famous for pointing out abuses of language on the part of the unimaginative, and also on the part of the very imaginative.
I see next to no good in zealotry of any kind. Do good if you want to - it's easy to see that doing good has benefits that have nothing to do with religion - but don't do bad because your holy book tells you it's OK. That's just using a very shaky belief system to justify and reinforce a decision you alone took.
May I be the first to say "preach it brother!"
It's true whether your shaky belief system is based on the Flying Spaghetti Monster or on modernism or humanism -- the problem is that people use these belief systems to ignore or attack what they don't like. Same thing goes on within science itself, but there's at least a neutral structure framing the arguments.
Any faith/religion/"science" that is based on zealotry and suppressing what you don't believe in is doomed, but will cause much pain in its death throes. Just remember that nobody is without a faith system; it shapes what you believe. Learn to identify your own before spending too much time attacking someone else's.
This all reminds me to some degree of a Rowan Atkinson sketch....
I am a molecular biologist.
We engage in biological intelligent design every day to earn our pay. Some of us have even figured out how to sign our in vivo code; others simply copied the method. Therefore, the intelligence responsible for any designed system is rarely in question.
You guys really are something else. "The end of America!" "These guys don't believe in Almighty Science!" "These idiots will destroy us all!"
Give me a break.
Something you guys may not realize is that it's entirely possible to both be a Christian and a productive member to society. It's entirely possible to be intelligent and be a Christian. I know that's hard for you to believe, but it's true. There isn't a magical link between what one believes the origin of our species is and what they do with the rest of their lives.
There's also nothing wrong with being skeptical about the origin of our species as currently presented. You hypocrites say you believe in Science, which encourages skepticism in everything....everything except Evolution that is. That's all Intelligent Design really is. It's skepticism of certain aspects of the evidence we see around us and a proposal that some designer must have had a hand in it. If you guys wanted to actually be scientific, you wouldn't fight ID tooth-and-nail, and instead take on the various aspects that ID believers challenge and try to figure them out case by case. That's what Science is about. Instead, you cling to your religious zealotry and try to shut down arguments through either law or through name calling and whining.
But let's go back to a point I made in my first paragraph. There is no magical link between what one believes the origin of our species is and what they do with the rest of their lives. Sure, you may argue that it hinders a very small set of scientific fields, but there's no reason a Christian can't be a....software developer. Or an architect. Or a doctor. Some smart guy is probably going to dig up a verse that they'll interpret to say "don't do what a doctor does" but as long as that doctor is comfortable with interpreting that verse differently, then there's no problem.
For the record, I'm a software developer, and I'm a Christian. Go ahead and bring on the comments of "You can't be a good software developer! Hur hur!" You're wrong. I'm respected as one of the stronger software developers in my area, which isn't small.
When you're accustomed to designing things and logically figuring out how something works, you see design in our world, rather than random chance. I look at the stories about how scientists are inventing new things by copying a perfect design from nature, and I can't help but respect God as the ultimate designer.
But ultimately, how I see the world and how you see the world doesn't matter, most of the time. Nothing about my job as a software developer is contingent upon what I believe, and I would venture to bet that's true for most of you.
Well this was a fun chat. Too bad it'll most likely be modded down into oblivion.
These people are not able to see the world, they live in their own fantasy. Due to the nature of the fantasy (malicious meme infection), they want to infect as many others as possibly. The only sane thing is to quarantine them until they are better or dead, just the same as with any other dangerous contagious disease.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Well, up to a point. As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out, from the Principia Mathematica:
"But is it not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions."
- Isaac Newton
Newton, that crazy alchemist who revolutionized physics just for fun and invented calculus more-or-less on a lark, also invoked intelligent design. Ridiculously smart guy, and even he was hampered by his own religious beliefs.
I'm strongly atheist, yet I cannot dismiss the possibility that one or more gods created the Universe. It's not contradictory to science at all to say that it is possible for the entire set of physical laws to have been created by gods.
However, there is no evidence that any such God, should she exist, has ever influenced the Universe since its creation. From that follows the notion that any gods are outside our Universe, and therefore are irrelevant to our lives. Thus, a matter for philosophy rather than science.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
it's a mental illness
It's a virus - a communicable disease, not a normal mental illness. A virus is a chunk of program code that is so encapsulated that its host is encouraged to execute it, and once it is executed, reprograms the host to make more copies of the virus.
A biological virus's program code is DNA or RNA, and its hosts are cells. A computer virus's program code is machine language, and its hosts are the combination of the machine plus the operator being tricked into executing the virus. A religion's program code is a set of ideas, and its hosts are devices that execute such ideas: human brains.
The biggest irony to me is that the force behind religion is the same one they fight against: evolution. Religions that proselytized, encouraged higher reproduction rates, and programmed humans to fight those attacking the religion were better fit for survival than religions that did not.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
I strongly believe there is no god. I also believe that the evidence for evolution is a very strong argument for the non-existence of god, and that is why I think so many believers have a problem with it.
Sorry, but that's stupid. Evolution by no means suggests no creator exists, it says (basically) only that, given enough time, species will either adapt or die. Baby Jesus could have planted the first forms of life on Earth for all evolution cares, if macroevolution works (and it most likely does) evolution would still be valid. How the species came to be is in the realm of other theories (like abiogenesis). But, likewise, abiogenesis does not say a creator doesn't exist, only that (basically), life came from nothing. A creator (be it a god or aliens) could have created the Earth and abiogenesis could still be perfectly right.
Just because you, who is not, to my knowledge, a god, would choose different means to bring life to the Universe doesn't means a god would do the same. Eris, for instance, surely would use more interesting methods.
However, those who are believers and think evolution is real too, well, that's just an example of cognitive dissonance.
The more sane believers do not believe the Bible is literal. There are much more difficult leaps of faith than reading "god made animals somehow" where it says "god made animals by casting summon familiar", like how god can be a good guy while being a complete dick all the time.
that the value of Pi is eactly 3.0
(prolonged silence) ...
(walks off the stage)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I'm a believer. I believe that the universe and everything in it was created by God.
Mandating that Intelligent Design be taught in a science class is lunacy. If anything, maybe in a philosophy class, but it's not science.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I mean are we going to finally be allowed to teach whatever we believe to be the truth? Or just a party line philosophy.
Let's at least start with technological man-made society older then ~10,000 years at least.
I will leave all you retarded digital 1900'ers with something though.
Life is the universes expression of energy.
I've a philosophy-based faith rather than a faith-based philosophy... it's been suiting me quite well.
No sig for you! Come back one year!
What i find most tragic about this news and the comments is how many people entirely misconstrue the supposed debate between faith/philosophy and science when, in fact, there is almost no common ground between the two... they deal with very different aspects of the universe and our experience of it in our brief lives.
A few postulates to consider (some humour intended herein):
1) Numerous books of the Bible are written poetically and as allegory... Genesis and Revelations are the two most obviously allegorical books of the bible and is not an accident the first and last books are allegorical in nature (it kinda sets the tone for the entire compiled scripture). Some how a lot of Christians 'bishops/pastors/etc." didn't get the memo at some point and started interpreting the whole bible literally. Comical to say the least
2) Many (most) Christians worldwide do not believe the world is only 6000-10000 years old... so don't lump them all into one group. AS it often happens in human existence, the dumbest people are often the loudest people. Throughout christian history, lots of leaders said lots of dumb things (that are not intrinsically support by the Bible by the way)... to go crazy and throw away an entire body of philosophy/faith because a few or even many people say some silly things is just not very scientific... yes, scientists, I'm holding the standard of being a good science and maintaining some objectivity even when it is something you really don't like. As a PhD scientist, I have heard a lot of scientist say dumb things at conferences, even read incredibly dumb things in peer-reviewed journals (which means the reviewers were dumb too). I have said some incredibly dumb things too! We seem to only remember the great scientists and forget that for every Einstein there were and still are hundreds of reasonably bright people saying and doing things that ranging anywhere from unimportant to just ole dumb. This is still the case today... less than one percent of the worlds population is responsible for over 98% of the world technological advancement. So lets not pretend like science has never made mistakes and is somehow pristine and perfect... it is not. Hundreds of years from now scientists are going to talk about how dumb we were to stick with quantum mechanics, the standard model, blah blah, for so damn long when there were (and have been for some time) some huge problems with the theories... and at the same time, we as a society really are not funding and encouraging enough totally revolutionary, outside the box, thinking.
3) The universe is here with lots of mass and energy (more than anyone can possibly conceptualize) and yet, from our meager scientific observations, mass can be neither created or destroyed... so we have some explaining to do. Right now, Science does not have all the answers In fact, there are a lot of fundamental "how and why" type of questions to which science doesn't have the foggiest notion of an answer and can't even conceive an experiment to develop an answer. So, being intellectually honest for a moment, one can hardly fault someone for looking to the existential for answers. i would in fact argue to 'believe' that science will one day answer all the burning questions of why and how the universe/existence came about requires a "leap of faith" (the very thing religion is ridiculed for). Seriously, despite incredible technological advancement in the past 2000 years, science is not any closer to figuring out why we are here in the first place and what this existence/universe is all about. But that is okay, it is NOT sciences' job to figure out why we are here or even necessarily why physical laws are the way they are.
4) Atheism is a philosophy/belief/faith and it is not the only philosophy/faith of "Science"... there is no systematic scientific proof in favor of any stance on the existence/non-existence of a supreme being or the supernatural. No logically perfect argument can be construed for or against... just drop it. Realize that reach of
The thing about evolution is that you can demonstrate it, on a daily basis. You can have a common set of living things, apply some external stimulus on some of them, then note the changes between the two. The changes stay through subsequent generations. The "Theory of Evolution" can be verified in 20 minutes. Show me what "Intelligent Design" can do (apart from being a theory that competes with 1,000,000 other theories. Evolution can predict other things. What other things does Intelligent design predict? How can I experimentally verify them? I want to measure the effects with instruments (Science insists on it, if you can't measure it, its probably a lie, or at least scientifically unproven).
now stay the fuck away.
we shall teach Maths in English..
One plus One equals Three
and Three we all know is Pi.
It must be true I wrote it in English and didn't use any funny symbols.
Isn't religious understanding and history part of the curriculum in the USA? I can only speak for Sweden but there we have classes aptly named "Religion" which is completely separate from all the other classes like Biology, Chemistry, Math, Physics, History, etc. Couldn't you guys just add 3 years of "Religion" to the curriculum? Sounds like that would make everyone happy.
Easy:
Evolution is a scientific fact loud and rich idiots are afraid of.
Vous avez un projet web faites appel à une agence referencement lyon
These two girls made a highly rational decision. It is the biologic purpose of every living thing to reproduce itself. If the father is the only man around, it is 100% rational of a female to have sex with the father.
Your judgement is clouded by cultural rules which are made for "normal" situations. But these girls (if the story is acutally true) were not in a normal situation.
You know what ? Your moral outburst just demonstrates you don't have any real intelligence, as you can't see how it is rational (and moral !) for them to break cultural rules. Their decision was 100% correct from the biological objective of "ensure survival of species".
The Christian church is a bunch of hypocrites and warmongers (see the utterings of the current German President, who is a priest) and I recently quit my church. I think they conspire with jews to make wars. But the bible example you quoted is actually a piece of great rationality.
It was sooo much better to had puppet tyrants like the Shah and Mubarak in place. They would always be happy to torture their own people for America's, Britain's and Israel's objectives. How heinous of the Egyptians and Iranians to think they have ANY right to determine their own way.
If you Anglosaxons, Jews, Frenchmen and Spaniards had to brutally intereferred with the affairs of the Arabs and Persians, there would not be the desire to vote nutcases into office. Plus, you should not eat all the mainstream media propaganda unchecked. Often it is just the jews who want to destroy one of their neighbours by A) badmouthing and B) war after the effects of badmouthing. It worked nicely with Iraq and currently they try to pull it off with Iran.
I strongly believe there is no god. I also believe that the evidence for evolution is a very strong argument for the non-existence of god, and that is why I think so many believers have a problem with it.
I'm agnostic, so I have no particular idea about whether or not there is a god. However, as I see it, evolution is only a threat to believers if they want to believe a completely literal interpretation of the bible. From just a "god created the world" standpoint (with no restriction on how (s)he did it), then why isn't "god created the world by setting all the appropriate universal constants to values that would result in the world evolving how (s)he wants it to be and then kicked off the big bang" a reasonable explanation?
This is one of the reasons why I'm agnostic - I don't believe that there can ever be evidence pointing to the existence or nonexistence of a god (unless maybe that god places evidence for their existence in our hands, which up till now doesn't fit with their observed MO) because even with a full understanding of how the universe works, nothing would disprove the idea that it could have all been kicked off by an intelligent creator billions of years ago.
I think the problem isn't that evolution provides any evidence for the non-existence of a god (IMHO it doesn't do that at all); the problem is that it discredits the established religious texts by showing that all the incidental fluff they claim is wrong.
don't do bad because your holy book tells you it's OK.
The sort of atrocities you're thinking of tend to be banned in the religious texts. However, texts have to be interpretted and that gives scope for religious leaders to redefine things to meet their ends. For example, if your religious text says "don't kill people" (most texts have this somewhere, its basically a universal no-no) then the religious leaders redefine "people" (well, anyone with a different religion isn't really a person are they?), or redefine "kill" (we're not killing someone - we're setting them free from $other_religion). On the whole, if religious people better understood their own religion instead of just taking their leaders' interpretation of it at face value, we'd probably see less atrocities. But people are always going to intentionally reinterpret texts to give them an excuse or an "out" for something they want to do anyway.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Must read: "If you Anglosaxons, Jews, Frenchmen and Spaniards had NOT brutally interferred"
Fixing that for you.
Teachers MUST question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within AND WITHOUT a science course.
Things do not "naturally" move from a state of disorder to a more ordered state.
They sometimes do when you pump a lot of energy through them -- like, energy from the sun, which is then lost to space.
For a really simple example that's not even approaching something like life yet, just to demonstrate the principle: take a container of water and mercury, separated out into different volumes by their differing densities of course, and in thermal equilibrium with each other at 1C. Now shine a bright light on them until they're both at 99C. Now turn the light off. The mercury, having a much lower specific heat than the water, will drop in temperature much more quickly than the water will. Now you have hot water and cold mercury -- no longer in thermal equilibrium with each other, more ordered and less entropic than they were before, and all it took was some temporary exposure to light!
Heck, for an even simpler example: the water cycle. Shine light on some water for a while until a bunch of it evaporates. Then let it be dark again, let the water vapor condense... now you have water up high eager to run downhill, and capable of doing some useful work along the way You have an energy gradient, a state of lower energy, higher order! And all it took was one day and one night.
Almost every energy source which is available for us to use on the planet exists because having solar energy pump through the planet day after day after day tends to push many things out of equilibrium into a low-entropy state. If that weren't the case, then even if life was magically created here, it would have long ago run out of energy to use, and the Earth would just be a lukewarm soup of decayed organic compounds.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Isn't this the tactic the Behe tried in the Dover-Kitzmiller trial? At which it was pointed out that his definition of science was so broad that it would have included astrology as a science. Perhaps this is what needs to happen here, someone needs to show what the consequences of the legislation will be, besides yet another court case and people pointing and laughing.
It has to fit with our observed evidence (including the DNA record). If it does that better than evolution, then great, you win. Collect your Nobel Prize.
"God made it like that, including all evidence" fits better than anything, always. So you lose. The problem is that it fits everything that doesn't exist equally well and thus is useless for predictions. Too many free variables, just like string theory. Or, to cast it in Wolfgang Pauli's immortal ultimately damning verdict for useless hypotheses: "That's not even wrong.".
This is why we can't have nice things.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Let's talk about something actually useful to mankind:
"A proposal for a decentralized system for rating discussion postings and scientific papers"
http://sourceforge.net/projects/didipus/files/DiDiPuS.pdf/download
http://sourceforge.net/projects/didipus/files/DiDiPuS.pdf.gpg/download
I'm an atheist, and I don't think you need belief to do good works in this world. If you need the threat of eternal damnation, that makes your motives rather selfish in the end. Does your God give bonus points for doing good works WITHOUT expecting a payback ?
And vice versa, I don't think "incorrect" faith is necessary for fucking things up either.
Quite frankly, men and women will do good and "evil" with or without their respective gods looking over their shoulders. To me, it all rather sounds like a childish abnegation of personal responsibility to pin your motives on what a deity might perceive of your deeds. YMMV.
Well. The good congressman is a product of that fine educational system. According to his Bio, he is a high-school graduate who moved to such intellectual activities as construction business and basic soldiering (NCO). But that's OK since he considers himself a "science enthusiast" and a HUGE "science buff". What do those stupid biased university professors with their PhDs and publications know? He just wants to redefine science so that it better fits his political needs. No big deal.
When i'm dead i'm dead. I'll live again in grass, trees, worms, whatever happens to feed on my rotting corpe :) Why on earth would i need to fool myself into thinking i get some afterlife bonus for doing good in this one? I do good because i'm a nice person, not because i'm afraid of not getting into paraside or whatever. If there is God that can and will do miracles science isn't worth anything. There is no point trying to predict what will happen if things don't follow some patterns. If God doesn't interfere what good is it? It's like some ants in some remote location worshipping me as a God, it's off no use, i won't help them, i won't smite them, i won't even know they exist.
Evolution is not abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not Evolution. Anyone claiming otherwise is a fraud and a liar.
Seriously -- if they are willing to pass legislation that alters science, why not help out our engineers too? Granted, I wouldn't be wanting to ride over any bridges in Missouri if they did, but it's the thought that counts, no? The best I can see coming out of this legislation (if it passes) will be when the combined forces of rationality and reason get this whole religion in public schools thing to SCOTUS and we get a precedent setting-decision that will clearly define for the rest of the planet exactly where the US stands on this whole Enlightenment thing.
Hrm...
Because there are intelligent design processes at work: breeding and GMO, we are the intelligent designers. However the ID apparatus has zero to do with this, nothing they have done could pick out a GMO, or artificially selected organism from the a population, or discover whether a previous extinction event was natural, or the result of human hunting, destroying habitat, or other human driven process.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
Term limits serving their purpose. It is what people wanted, to install a urinal in the voting booth, and this is the result, and endless churn of legislators there to God's work, rather than the people's business.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
More than half of the population in the US still thinks the planet is between six and ten thousand years old. That level of irrationality is a very viable target for politicians, especially those politicians that rely on irrationality in their constituents to keep them in office. The problem with the US is not religion, per se, but the stubborn irrationality that many US citizens cling to.
Here in Germany, public school is mandatory: rich or poor, you need to go to a government run institution. The curriculum is decided on by committee, and it isn't hallf bad. Of course, creationism isn't taught, but creationism is neither the official position of either the Catholic or the protestant churches in Germany (and those are the only churches that have any say). On the other hand, the history of these churches, their crimes, their anti-semitism, their roles in Nazi Germany are downplayed, while their contributions to society are overemphasized. The Middle Ages are portrayed positively; the term "Dark Ages" doesn't even exist. here is a definite streak of self-serving political indoctrination to the public school curriculum. I'm not sure what all that amounts to; but people shouldn't assume that other nations, even those with a seemingly good public school curriculum, have found some magic solution to the problem.
Hiccups are caused by a flap at the back of out throats. It is thought that, that flap is there because at one point we were amphibious. The flap would close off the path to our lungs so we could use our gills. Now if intelligent design was right. Not only did 'god' give us hiccups, for seemingly no reason at all, but he has them too. All mighty powerful god sometimes drinks a soda to fast and has to hold his diaphragm for 10 earth seconds. Intelligent design my ass, I like what 'crass' said "I am not part of the great, magnificent and intelligent human race, I am part of the race that kills for possessions and locks people in jail not letting them out." If that is intelligent design(to steal more punk rock quotes,this one from Pat the bunny) "Than god hasn't stopped drinking since the day he created us!"
he's one mean fucker, you know. he could have not introduced diseases and hunger. no human could ever be as evil as the christian god.
that reminds me of heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Justice", although "real" god is much, much more evil...
Rich
They're already *at* the bottom.
"When you realize...you live after death, you can have faith to spend this life helping the poor instead of living for yourself."
But when you realize that this is the only life anyone on this planet will ever have, you can have empathy and spend this life ensuring that as many people as possible experience their one life as happily as possible. If this is the only life any of us will ever have, how can you justify cruelty? Cruelty permanently blights that being's only opportunity for happiness. If all believers live after death, what motivation do you have to make other people happier? As long as they believe, they will have an eternity of joy after they die, regardless of how miserable they are in this life.
Just get the government out of the education business entirely.
If parents want to send their kids to a school that teaches 'science' classes about the flying spaghetti monster, more power to them. As long as there are no government subsidies, there's nothing to argue about. The parents and students can vote on the curriculum with their dollars and their feet.
Bring some entrepreneurship and consumer choice back to the business of education.
How humiliating for Americans. Their already corrupt regime, is now heading towards theocracy.
The separation of everything and "The State" has failed because the state has slowly and inexorably infiltrated itself into every aspect of our lives. That's how The Constitution has been dismantled, much to our detriment.
Separate The State from education and none of this debate is necessary. Separate The State from the idea of marriage, and that debate goes away as well.
Religion is irrational.
Religion would have you pray for the souls of the homeless rather than building a habitat for humanity. Religion would have clergy bless food rather than having regulators inspect meat packing plants. Religion would have children born only to die from famine rather than use contraception.
Religion is most definitely the problem.
I believe that the mythical deity of my choice has placed
followers of other mythical deities on Earth in order to try my
patience.
I endure these silly gnats with Job-like patience, and long for
the day when they just die out along with their neolithic
superstitions.
Nonetheless, I respect *their* right to believe any nonsense that
they choose, but I certainly have little regard for those who
don't follow my true deity and seek to fight their ignorance by
ignoring them whenever it is possible, and ridiculing them when
it is not.
Speaking of evolution - I wish for billiant posts like the parent Slashdot allowed higher scores than 5.
You *do* have to *believe* in evolution. If you think it's a fact, you're a moron.
But, don't worry, you're probably no less a moron than Newton, Aristotle, Galileo or the multitude of scientists who mistook their favorite theories for "proven scientific facts" - to only later be proven false.
If time teaches us anything, it's that the theories of today are often the laughable myth of tomorrow. The only consistency seems to be the ego of the men who give us the "facts".
The reality is that you don't have any facts. There is no certainty.
You seem to believe in God and think that prayer works. So, there is your solution. Pray to God to help these people see the truth and stop rejecting evolution.
Is there some way to stop people from seeing evolution as a threat?
I wish there were. In my discussions on this topic, it's a dealbreaker. Evolution -> no creation story -> no garden of eden -> no original sin -> no underpinnings for Christian theology. One can make a metaphorical argument to defend the tenants but it's apparently harder to swallow.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
When I was a young lad back in the 1960's we had an elegant solution to this; Separation of Church and state.
Science, Math, History, and Civics were taught in school.
Religion was taught in Church (whatever Church you wanted to attend.)
There was NO controversy over this. Period. Nothing.
If you wanted to teach anything about religion you were told that was what church was for (and in college, comparative religion studies in the philosophy department or at divinity schools.)
This allowed us to go to the moon. Invent new technologies, understand the cosmos, and resulted in the most educated, productive workforce in the world.
It all changed in the 1980's with the rise of the Religious Fundamentalists as a reaction to the realities of Vietnam and Watergate and the pandering to them by the Republican party (thank you Lee Atwater, you idiot.)
Now, you MUST be anti-science, anti-critical thinking to pander to the mouth-breathers who reject modern society and want to go back to the 1840's (and the Corporate interests who see profit in the removal of regulations that they have spent hundred of millions tying to the concept of Religious Freedom with propaganda aimed at the Religious Fundamentalists.)
It's not that they should not be allowed to think this way (you are free to believe anything you want in America) it is their desire to shove their beliefs down the rest of societies throats though the power of LAW that should concern you.
Propaganda works. Science is really, really bad at it, assuming that facts and data will be automatically accepted by rational thought.
Religion is really, really good at it (so it politics) pandering to peoples fears and bigotries and stroking their egos.
The American Taliban is not just a funny statement. It is real and it is coming for your mind and body via State Legislatures (and Federal Law) if you don't do anything about it.
Protect the Constitution. Keep religion out of government and out of our schools.
Want to learn about God? (pick one) go to the church of your choice.
It was supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
FTA: 'If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation ...'
So.... god needs to be verifiable in order to be taught?
I'm ok with that. There is no present-day observation or experimentation that verifies the existence of god, so that neatly eliminates god's eligibility for inclusion in the curriculum.
Of course, it does open the door to amusing attempts by teachers to perform experiments that purport to "prove god". But then, there will always be intellectually lazy teachers, regardless of the law.
Also a hypothesis is something based on reason and logic usually given some empirical observation.
Like I think Diet Coke will evaporate at much the same rate as water, given that it is mostly water. That is a hypothesis. Then one follows it up with a procedure to test the hypothesis called an "experiment". Based on the results of the experiment you get "data" from "observations" and can make some "conclusions". If your experiment is repeatable, and peer reviewed, it is generally accepted as fact. This is all about grade 5 science experiment kind of thing.
One might call the bible "observation", though I am not sure how empirical it might be. However none of it is based on reason, or logic. In fact due to the discrepancies, and inconsistencies, one might question the validity of those observations (not to mention the outlandish claims). Heck anyone that studies ancient history will tell you about placing too much stock on any material that old, not to mention material that has been in circulation.
I was about to highlight a stupid example of doing an experiment praying, but it really isn't worth it. It is just ludicrous.
... and yes, I am ashamed.
I think that's what that odd last line is meant to address - I think it may be an attempt to prevent an argument like the FSM.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It is incredible that a post like the one above would get modded to a '5'.
It's this type of attitude that FUELS the kind of legislation that you see before you. It's like you're trying to douse the fire with petrol. Announcing to the world that Christians have "idiotic beliefs" only reveals yourself as a bigot, and if you proudly parade science as the reason for your bigoted attitude, Christians will gladly target science in all its forms. And that's exactly what you see happening.
There are plenty of Christians, even evangelical Christians, who have no problem with any field of science -- including evolutionary biology. For example, the American Scientific Affiliation (http://www.asa3.org) is a 70-year-old organization of Christians in science. They adhere to the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, and they accept everything that science reveals about the world. They have a peer-reviewed publication, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, which is quite good. They have sister organizations in the UK and Canada (http://cis.org.uk and http://www.csca.ca./
The BioLogos Foundation (http://www.biologos.org) is an evangelical organization which is attempting to reach out to fundamentalist Christians to persuade them not to treat the Bible as a science textbook. The Faraday Institute (http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Institute.php) is another organization of scientists who adhere to a faith, not necessarily Christian.
And of course, there's the Clergy Letter Project (http:/www.theclergyletterproject.org).
There are personal blogs such as http://www.truecreation.info/ http://www.letterstocreationists.wordpress.com/ and http://www.theistic-evolution.org/ which are reaching out in the same way -- specifically targeting the anti-science beliefs of Christians, and NOT their faith as a whole.
If you're really trying to solve the problem at hand (anti-science legislation) wouldn't it be far more wise to encourage Christians to review the work from the organizations listed above, rather than ramming your own atheist belief down their throats?
Rather than wanting to live a life "without accountability" or being "without hope" you’ll find that most (ex-Christian) atheists don’t believe for one or more of the following reasons:
The concept of an immortal being makes no sense to us.
The concept of an all-powerful being makes no sense to us.
The concept of an all-knowing being makes no sense to us.
Throwing the three together into one being cubes its already dispositive implausibility.
We tend to have a good working knowledge of the age, size and history of the Universe. The idea that a being would create the entire thing – with 400,000,000,000 galaxies, EACH with 100, 000,000,000 starts and even more planets, then sit back and wait 13,720,000,000 years for human beings to evolve on one planet so he could “love them” and send his son to Earth to talk to a nomadic group of Jews about sheep and goats in Iron Age Palestine (while ignoring the rest of the 200 million people then alive) makes no sense to us. We can’t help but ask ourselves, “did God make the Jews or did the Jews make God?”
The answers usually proffered for what we see as basic logical flaws in Christianity – “you have been blinded by your lack of faith” “God moves in mysterious ways” “God is outside the Universe” or “our minds are too small to understand the greatness of God” are never satisfying to us. We see a retreat to mysticism as the first refuge of the cornered fool.
The common argument, “well, what caused the Big Bang?” with the implication that, because we have only theories and no iron clad explanation for the Big Bang yet, the Judeo-Christian god must have caused it – does not make sense to us. “I don’t know” does not equal “god” to us, much less the Judeo-Christian god. We feel the answers to such a question are much more likely to be found in Einstein’s equations, quantum physics, large particle accelerators and radio telescopes than in Genesis Chapters 1 through 20. We’re crazy aren’t we?
We do not see miracles in things like tornadoes missing a certain trailer in a trailer park, cancer going into remission or Tim Tebow winning a football game.
We understand that Christianity is one of many, many religions in the World, and we don’t think that we were lucky enough to have been born in the one part of the World that “got it right”. Likewise, we know how all faiths evolve, morph and change over time and do not think we were lucky enough to have been born in the one generation that “got it right.”
We tend to have a basic knowledge of history and know that there is nothing magical or special about the supposed history of the Jews, gospels, letters, apocalyptic story (Revelations) and other materials that found their way into the Bible, in that they are largely indistinguishable from the other mythology and religious writings of the pre Dark Ages Mediterranean.
Human beings are terrified of their own deaths and we see the various religious beliefs that try to “wish it away,” such as reincarnation, living happily ever after in Heaven with Jesus, having your own Mormon planet etc. as nothing more than childish stories for the more naive, timid minds among us.
We do not see morality as predicated upon a belief in the supernatural. We accept that one can be moral without believing in the supernatural and that doing so is no guaranty that one will conform to the norms of society that people call “morality”.
“You can’t prove God doesn’t exist” is not a convincing argument to us, or even a relevant point, because an inability to disprove something is a far cry from it being true. We cannot prove that the Hindu gods Shiva or Vishnu do not exist either, nor Santa Claus for that matter, but that is hardly a reason to believe in them. It is not even evidence for their existence. It i
I graduated from a Catholic high school in 1991. While I was in high school, we didn't have any of these issues. We learned the creation story in Religion class and we learned evolution in Biology class. There wasn't an issue. The high school was interested in providing a good education to the students. If I went back to that school today, I would think that it is mostly the same, since they want to maintain their college placement rate in the 90 percents. You can't have students taking Biology AP tests without a firm grasp of the actual science. Missouri is doing their students a disservice if they pass this bill, because it lower the quality of there education in Biology. If they really want the children to know the creation story, why not just require all the kids go to Sunday school.
ID needs to stop being a secret. The evidence which made people suspect something like that may have happened, and the corroborating evidence and experiments which confirmed Intelligent Design, need to finally be published. Seriously, people, it's time.
I think what may be going on with ID, which is currently causing it to look completely non-science-like, is that all the evidence is all under a NDA (covering the Designer's trade secrets). With none of it publishable, none of it has ever been published. And for whatever reason (perhaps it's just insanely difficult) nobody has yet ever independently (free of NDA) found this evidence or proposed an experiment to create some.
Maybe that's the real problem with ID: it's a science, but a proprietary-encumbered one, where they can't legally show you the evidence which makes it be a science. You'd think the Missouri legislature would have the power to make the NDA unenforcible in their state. Blow the lid off it, and damn the consequences of the leak!
Why don't they do it? Does the Designer lobby them against it, to keep all the evidence out of the public eye and retain his competitive design advantage? If they're so beholden to this Designer's lobby, then why leak the existence of him at all, or otherwise do things to hint to people that the evidence exists? Labeling ID as a theory practically tells everyone that there must be some evidence somewhere, so people are going to look for it, and that has got to endanger the secret, in itself.
I think the Missouri legislature ought to either go all the way (remove the NDA's power so that ID can Come Out as a real science) or STFU and try to keep the secret. These half-measures are stupid!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
anyone who has been here for a while knows I am rarely if ever politically correct. However I see a very easy way to defuse this "controversial" matter in a way which should satisfy both sides:
Teach logical thinking and the scientific process. Present the evidence for both arguments to the class - and even highlight the "airbrushed" photos of various embryos and explain why the original researchers did that (to highlight similarities), and discard that "evidence" based on the alteration, but point out the multitude of other examples which are unaltered in any way. Present the evidence concerning sendimentary layers and the conditions required for those to form, carbon dating and the (reasomable) assumptions made, and present what evidence may be there for intelligent design as well, as well as the evidence against it. Split the class in half (randomly), flip a coin, and assign a platform to each team (one for intelligent design, one for evolution) and have those teams formulate arguments supporting their assigned platform (whether they believe it or not - remember, we are teaching logical reasoning here) and then have them debate it. Let each student learn to think for themselves, and I'm sure they will come to the correct conclusion.
This way, both sides are presented, neither carrying more weight than the other, students are taught to think logically (in other words, teach students TO THINK rather than just memorize propaganda), and to present their view in a coherent, well-reasoned matter and arrive at their conclusions based on the scientific method.
Politicizing this is stupid. Teach logical reasoning, the scientific method and the evidence, and people will naturally arrive at the correct conclusion. I don't know why this isn't already done since it's a stupid-easy way to end this stupid debate.
. . . or, just present the factual pastafarian story of creation. ;)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
666th Comment!
Hey, all you libertarians and Republicans and the rest of you fascists and neoConfederates: this is what you voted for. This is what you *want*, along with "celibacy-only" birth control, and borrow and spend trillion dollar wars (which none of *you* risked you necks in, alone in your parents' basement....)
mark
The problem with your approach is that it is the classic "band-aid on a gaping wound" solution to a problem.
I agree with you that there is nothing in (say) the roman catholic view of science that precludes even the big bang (and I was taught science at a catholic high school which took that view) .
But it doesn't address the underlying cause - the use of speculation about our existence as fact, then inferring laws from these "facts" and using said laws to punish and humiliate those who disagree with them.
The same catholic school that was happy to teach evolution (with gusto it has to be said), also told children that every sperm was sacred, that bread and wine turned into the actual body and blood of Jesus, and that gay people are bad because God says so, All of their assertions (and they had/have many) are arbitrary, some are just silly, and some do serious harm.
Of course the concept of speculations as fact should be mocked for what it is.
There is nothing wrong with speculating about our origins and purpose in life, but it's quite a different matter when that turns into "facts". Because that's just silly.
I'm an agnostic and think people pushing bills like these are generally ignorant and full of shit. However, I do think intelligent design is possible, though its products would still be affected by evolution as science currently suggests. If there is a "God" out there designing things, he's just us on steroids. He's what we will hopefully some day become if we don't kill ourselves first. Ever think it strange that despite all our potential as a species, we still can't get our shit together? The only thing keeping us out of caves is our ability to pass on knowledge by recording it and training the next generation. There's a bizarre dichotomy in us. Our better half is godlike in its ability to dream, create and so on, while the other half is pure beast. Something doesn't quite add up, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if we had a little genetic help along the way from...something. So while the religious nuts trying to squash science are an embarrassment, there may be an inadvertent grain of truth in their babbling.
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
Question: If the designer was so intelligent, why did he/she/it equip certain cave organisms that live in total darkness with vestigial eyes that can't possibly be of any benefit to said organisms?
Extra credit: Why are those eyes nonfunctional, even if the organism is moved to a lighted environment?
But .. but ... but ... who designed the designer? And who designed the designer that designed the designer? And who ... ah forget it.
That's why I like the question. I believe evolution is why we have the diverse life around us. But rocks don't fit in a neat branch from anything else. It's difficult to think rocks evolved from similar living organisms, even now-extinct ones. I was just pointing out that for all the knowledge we do have, there are still areas that we are not well-informed about.
I think this is only going to serve to further disillusion people to the ridiculous amount of long winded, incredibly stupid laws which the average citizen cares little about and gives no input toward its enforcement or enactment. Please pass this bill, and then blare from the highest pulpit with the loudest trumpet as to how incredibly unintelligent you were designed to be.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
My state continues to be a disappointment.
I am embarrassed to admit that I was raised in Missouri. I attended school with many students whose religion was conservative, fundamental beliefs in the Bible. But none of their parents attempted to push their beliefs on the rest of us. I feel sorry for my young relatives yet to travel through the school system if this bill passes.
Yet another example of sensationalist journalism. Please people, I read /. for cool news on science like new robots or a better mousetrap, not a report about a report about a proposed bill the whole string of which serves no other purpose than to fuel arguments that will never be won because neither side is capable of civilised behaviour as long as they can hide behind a glowing screen.
Also, I'm called George. Don't call me a coward just because I can't be fudged to open an account.
It's this short sighted approach that drives voters away from the Republicans. Teaching Faith belongs in the church or at home. Real sciencebelongs in the classroom.
Given the amount of competition there is for the premium jobs and positions, the more states that take their populations out of the running, the merrier!
Well, unless you live in a state like Missouri and so face being culled from the competition before you ever enter school...
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
We sometimes forget that both of the non-scientific methods lead to great and often institutional stupidity. Reason without data is seen all the time when charlatans and the like argue that "women are the same as men because anything else is social heresy". And as for faith without data, well, get thee to Missouri.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
If they can insert religious views into science texts, to be fair, we should be able to insert scientific views into religious texts.
Is there a process by which a state can be EXPELLED from the union?
Read the book The Seashell on The Mountain Top. It's about Nicholaus Steno - which is pretty much the father of modern Geology. He grappled with many of these issues and early on came to the conclusion that the study of science was a way to get closer to God. They are not mutually exclusive of each other. IDK why it's so hard for people to grasp that.
I have a step toward remedying this: http://signon.org/sign/rick-brattin-and-the Petition AGAINST Creationism in MO classrooms.
This guy is _really_ into controlling the physical and mental faculties of children. He's got a whole cult-camp dedicated to it http://kanakuk.com/about-us/meet-staff/
Are you saying Darwin wasn't part of "modern science"?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Bible specifically mentions a promise not to flood the Earth again. Still plenty of ways to die... ice, fire, over-the-top movie effect explosion, etc.
The line 'If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth's biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation and teachers shall not question, survey, or otherwise influence student belief in a nonverifiable identity within a science course' nullifies the entire document-- the whole point of 'intelligent design' (a.k.a creationism and any other given magical 'explanation' for life on earth wrapped into one hairy, disgusting abstraction) 'theories' is that the designer is magic, and one of the main definitions of magic is that it is inexplicable and therefore unverifiable. Also, since when has modern scientific theory ever incorporated 'faith-based philosophy'? That statement alone is almost more offensive than the idea of teaching bastardized religion in schools.
captcha: furrier "aww..."