Repeal of Louisiana Science Education Act Rejected

egjertse writes "A Louisiana law that opponents say leaves the backdoor open to teaching 'creationism' in public schools will stay on the books after a Senate committee Wednesday effectively killed a bill that would repeal the statute. After hours of testimony for and against House Bill 26, which repeals the 2008 Louisiana Science Education Act, the senators narrowly deferred the legislation, effectively killing it in committee. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans."

Comments

And then there's this asshole:

[Threni]

Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had. He said he thought repealing the act could "lock the door on being able to view ideas from many places, concepts from many cultures."

"Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man -- in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed -- if I had closed him off and just said, 'That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor,' I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," Guillory said.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[kruach aum]

Oh my god. And you have to live in a country like that.

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[Reverand Dave]

Not "other ideas" just utter bullshit.

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[MightyMartian]

Close minded towards precisely the kind of fuzzy thinking based on anecdotal evidence that science was designed to avoid? Yes, I think sensible should be.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to what other country? If you think your country (whichever it may be) is any more rational, you're a fool.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Politicians are perfectly rational. They do and say exactly what it takes to get themselves re-elected. Whether or not this man believes a word of what he said, he knows full well which side his bread is buttered on.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sen. Elbert Guillory, D-Opelousas, said he had reservations with repealing the act after a spiritual healer correctly diagnosed a specific medical ailment he had.

Like it was that hard to diagnose Cranial Colon Envelopment in a politician. He probably ran into her right outside the Asshat Haberdashery (a dead giveaway).

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[Bosconian]

Hey AC,

Please watch this YouTube video; it may be the best 9:40 you'll invest in the inexorably slow building of your critical thinking discipline.

Open-mindedness by QualiaSoup

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[steelfood]

The spiritual healer obviously called upon the fairies, who conveyed the specific problem to the healer.

Even the crackpots get lucky sometimes.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Blindman]

I noticed that particular passage, too. One of the things that bothered me about his "decision making" is that spiritual healer is not the opposite of evolution or science. I can't remember a single science or math class where spiritual healers came up even once. I don't recall any lesson about how species evolve including, "therefore, spiritual healers suck". Moreover, "That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor." Who does that? I would have been driven off by the "semi-clothed" aspect, but the its not science would have never crossed my mind.

Moreover, if it worked, I would want to "use my science" to learn more about it and figure out how it works. If I just accept that it was magic, I would close my mind to learning.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[femtobyte]

They do and say exactly what it takes to get themselves re-elected.

Don't be so simplistic. They balance this against other concerns, like doing what it takes to please the wealthy corporations that might give them highly-paid "political consulting jobs" after retirement from public service.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Intrepid imaginaut]

That's more the career beaurocrat track, but whatever, my point is that there was never a stupid and successful politican. Don't kid yourselves, these guys are slick fish, and it suits them just fine to let people believe they are stupid. Even the most celebrated of the ignorant politicians, GW Bush, famed for his consistent foreign policy gaffes, knew full well that his constituency didn't give one fuck about offended foreigners or their customs. The problem doesn't lie with the politicians, they're just working the system and the electorate.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[femtobyte]

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree. I do think in a few cases it's not so much a slick/smart individual as the slick/smart managers behind them --- e.g. Bush II, who has now retired to his true calling of painting naked shower self-portraits, and Reagan, who was by many insider accounts pretty far gone to dementia --- though most positions below President are won on individual wiles.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[misanthropic.mofo]

Cranial Colon Envelopment

That is hands down, one of the best ways I've ever seen to state someone has their head firmly planted in their ass.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[PopeRatzo]

The spiritual healer obviously called upon the fairies...

Senator Lindsay Graham had nothing to do with this.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Darinbob]

What countries are not like that? You will find those people everywhere, don't be smug and assume they're not where you live.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[thomasw_lrd]

As long as they vote the way their consituents want them to, I think they are effectively doing their job correctly. It's only when they take corporate money, and don't listen to the people that they are doing it wrong.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[epyT-R]

Yeah, it's pretty fucked up. America today is truly ruled by the ultimate example of timid, spineless humanity: the soccer mom. soccer moms (and their lapdog husbands) on the right (with religion) and left (with identity politics/cultural marxism) have managed to strip the spine from this country's culture, and it is really sad. Pushing religion, whitewashing media, gun/self defense rights, oppressive family courts, schools that teach permanent adolescence, are all examples where soccer moms vote to trade liberty for security, even when the latter is imaginary at best.

However, most countries have fucked up legal affairs.. In some places, you can lose your head if you say something about mohammed (or draw his picture), or have sex out of wedlock.. In other, more 'liberal' countries, you can go to jail just for saying certain things about certain cultures in public, never mind actually defend yourself from them when they bomb your subways. In such countries, 'liberal' politicians roll over backwards to allow immigrant thugs from these protected cultures to build ghettos, gain political mass, then vote to strip their own country of the civil rights used to justify bringing them there in the first place. How 'progressive'!

Yet, the majority in all of these countries (yes, including the USA) claim to be pro liberty/democracy/human rights/peace/tolerance! Hell, these countries are all members of various international human rights councils! Yes, it's truly a fucked up world we live in.

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[epyT-R]

Open mindedness is not the same thing as tolerance of baseless claims.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[danlip]

my point is that there was never a stupid and successful politican

Depends on what you mean by successful. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were both successful for quite a while until they said something so stupid that it ended their career. But I don't think they suddenly got stupid in 2012, more likely they were stupid all along and just got away with it.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Kozz]

Like it was that hard to diagnose Cranial Colon Envelopment in a politician.

Hmm. CCE. I like it! I always called it a Cranial Rectal Infarction.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Seumas]

That's all new-age dandy and whatever, but does he still not comprehend that these things have nothing to do with Science and therefore don't belong in a science classroom? By his definition, science should be an all-inclusive class that covers everything, including music and television and english literature and numerology and astrology.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[meglon]

In the late 70's it was Cranial/Rectal Inversion Syndrome.

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[jamstar7]

Welcome to Louisiana, where both science and education are endangered species...

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[jamstar7]

As long as they vote the way their consituents want them to, I think they are effectively doing their job correctly. It's only when they take corporate money, and don't listen to the people that they are doing it wrong.

The problem is, their constituents are corporations, not meat citizens.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[shutdown -p now]

True, those people are widespread in many countries, but they usually don't run them.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[fearofcarpet]

However, most countries have fucked up legal affairs.. In some places, you can lose your head if you say something about mohammed (or draw his picture), or have sex out of wedlock.. In other, more 'liberal' countries, you can go to jail just for saying certain things about certain cultures in public, never mind actually defend yourself from them when they bomb your subways. In such countries, 'liberal' politicians roll over backwards to allow immigrant thugs from these protected cultures to build ghettos, gain political mass, then vote to strip their own country of the civil rights used to justify bringing them there in the first place. How 'progressive'!

Nowhere is perfect, but exactly what "liberal" countries throw you in jail for saying what about which cultures in public? Since you mention subways, you're probably talking about England or Japan?

The issue of immigration in Europe is substantially different than in the US because, at least in Western Europe, most of the immigrants come from former colonies, i.e., Indonesians in the Netherlands, or various African countries in France. These historical ties have nothing to do with civil rights or progressive policies and are not easily broken; in Algeria, the Congo, etc., people are to this day raised and educated in French. Many immigrants wind up in ghettos because the majority population have thousand-year-old cultural traditions and, as a result, overt racism (bigotry, segregation, etc.) is more common and to a large extent tolerated. Multiple generations are discriminated against, stuck in the ghettos despite being natural-born citizens, and it is by-and-large these people that become activists and politicians. I'm not sure what civil rights they are supposedly stripping, but there are laws all over Europe to that ban any public display of (non-Christian) religion, deny refugee status to children, and that openly discriminate against "non-Western immigrants."

There was a big fight, for example, in the Netherlands to stop counting the children and grand children of immigrants as "aliens" in the census and another to strip the dual citizenship of (among others) politicians who where born in the Netherlands, but whom held foreign passports by birthright. This is a very different situation than in the US, where virtually the entire population immigrated and/or took part in the genocide of the indigenous population and thus just being born there makes you "as American" as anyone else.

One thing that you will not find are politicians invoking religion... or faith healers. Look at the recent political chaos surrounding gay marriage and adoptions in France; the right-wing nuts were foaming at the mouth, threatening violent protest, but staying far, far away from invoking the Bible, lest they seem crazy. Ditto for all the laws against non-Western immigrants, the arguments for which lie in "historical" and "cultural tradition" rather than using the word Muslim.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but all politicians in every country use the illusion of religion to oppress there own people, meanwhile behind the peoples backs they are doing everything anti religious, taking lobbyists money, bribes, passing laws and loopholes to keep companies in power while making sure we chase the carrot dangling in front of us. Committing adultery, ect, ect...

The US has always used some bullshit propaganda, communism, terrorism, ect.. If you really look at the history of the US we are really no better then dictators, the only difference between the US and the rest of the world, we are deaf, dumb and blind, never catch on, or we do and fail to do anything to halt it. In other countries they know they are fucked and want to do something about it.

All of it is a set up to eliminate any control citizens think they have, they want to control everything about you, you could argue this is being done to prevent a Syria like rebellion in the US. They called black people communists and terrorists for wanting to have the same freedoms and rights as whites, they did the same with the 60's hippie culture, the irony is they lived more like true Christians then anyone else..

You look at China there are more and more groups within the country that are making a dent, no matter what there government does to silence them they keep on fighting. More people will join and you have a snowball effect, eventually the Chinese Government will have to give in, the citizens will out number the government goons, including military.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[davester666]

Only our best and brightest run for office. At least that's what the advertisements for them say.

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[easyTree]

Welcome to Louisiana, where both science and education are extinct species...

What new ground of questionable logic can be broken from here?

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[tlhIngan]

True, those people are widespread in many countries, but they usually don't run them.

False. A lot of countries are run by religious groups. We usually call them "Theocracies" (as opposed to democracies or communist, etc). You may know it from places like the Middle East and Asia, where a number of countries are known as Islamic countries because the principal religion is Islam, and the government is run by practicing Muslims. Islam is sort of special because it also dictates how an Islamic government is to be run.

Christianity doesn't have have such dictates, so Christian countries tend to organize in various ways.

And yes, the Founding Fathers put in separation of church and state because they know what happens when they intermix.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Concerned Onlooker]

"...he knows full well which side his bread is buttered on."

Yep. Right around the fringe.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[shutdown -p now]

I didn't realize that I needed to add the qualifier "developed" to countries. I mean, if people want to match US against Iran, by all means, go ahead - it'll be brilliant on all counts. But that's not a particularly useful basis for comparison.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[nospam007]

""Yet if I closed my mind when I saw this man -- in the dust, throwing some bones on the ground, semi-clothed -- if I had closed him off and just said, 'That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor,' I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," Guillory said."

Was it a subluxation?

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[BasilBrush]

And yet they have intermixed. You guys are really hot on preserving what the constitution says about guns and free-speech. Not so good on the rest of it.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[BasilBrush]

If only people would take bitcoins seriously, so that we could all avoid paying tax, and kill off public services, such as highways. Then we could sit on the stoop all day with our automatic assault rifles, happily calling the neighbor a fucking nigger, whilst the kids get their schooling from the school of life.

Ah Utopia!

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[L4t3r4lu5]

The problem doesn't lie with the politicians, they're just working the system and the electorate.

Yes and no. The politicians are definitely good at playing the system for profit, so they are definitely smart. They are still the problem, however, because they should be running the fucking country instead of profiteering.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Stuarticus]

But people started feeling too stigmatized so they had to change the name, keep up grandad.

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[tehcyder]

Wow, why are you so closed minded towards other ideas?

It is not closed minded to be opposed to irrationalism, deliberate stupidity, racism, fascism, pointless cruelty, torture, or genocide. Not all ideas are equal.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[tehcyder]

I noticed that particular passage, too. One of the things that bothered me about his "decision making" is that spiritual healer is not the opposite of evolution or science. I can't remember a single science or math class where spiritual healers came up even once. I don't recall any lesson about how species evolve including, "therefore, spiritual healers suck". Moreover, "That's not science. I'm not going to see this doctor." Who does that? I would have been driven off by the "semi-clothed" aspect, but the its not science would have never crossed my mind.

Moreover, if it worked, I would want to "use my science" to learn more about it and figure out how it works. If I just accept that it was magic, I would close my mind to learning.

That's a pretty bold statement.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

And how did he find out that he was correctly diagnosed? By seeing a real doctor perhaps?

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[BasilBrush]

Yes, but all politicians in every country use the illusion of religion to oppress there own people

No they don't. Only some countries are like that.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

Challenge: Make a list of countries, then go down the list and decide (completely arbitrarily) if you're more likely to have a "religiously inclined" person running them or a "scientifically inclined" person running them. Feel free to define country however you'd like, exclude microstates or include them, etc...

I'd wager a majority of countries are run by extremely religious types who vote according to their faith.

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[coinreturn]

If it's bullshit, there would be proof it's bullshit. Since it's a possibility, but not a probability, it still remains as worth teaching. S

So, according to you, everything that is a possibility is worth teaching. There isn't enough time in eternity to teach everything that is a possibility. There are an infinite number of possible gods, for example. Since they might be out there, teach them. I think not.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Fnord666]

I thought it was always referred to as craniorectal inversion.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Jason Levine]

I read that too and could only picture John Stewart reading it on The Daily Show or Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report. It's like that guy said to himself: "What can I say that would give politicians the most laughs?" If that's what he was going for, then mission accomplished!

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Jason Levine]

I can't remember a single science or math class where spiritual healers came up even once.

Exactly. The Louisiana bill wouldn't have made it illegal to go to a faith healer, just to try to teach faith healing as an alternative to the modern theory of medicine in biology class. If, after learning about how doctors diagnose illnesses and treat diseases, you decide to go to a semi-clothed man who scatters chicken bones on the ground to tell you what ails you, then go right ahead. (Just don't expect it to work, except possibly via placebo effect.)

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[MrVictor]

Holy crap this video is awesome. Thanks

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[GameboyRMH]

Almost all do. And even in those that don't, it just goes under the table as dog-whistle politics (as can be seen in the gay rights/marriage debate in the US, specifically in every attempt at non-religious arguments for maintaining the status quo).

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[ArsonSmith]

What most Europeans don't understand is that Louisiana is about as foreign too 95% of the US as Romania is to the UK. While the states of the US are a little more alike than the countries of Europe, they are still run independently and only tied together by the Federal government. That pendulum is something that swings at times, but is still there. The main example I hope the Europe takes from the US is, don't let the EU become what the US's Federal government has become. It's on that path though, unfortunately.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yeah, Europe used the Americas as a dumping ground for these nut jobs. You reap what you sow.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[BasilBrush]

The US is only one country.

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[MightyMartian]

How strange, seeing as I never mentioned religion or atheism. But I can see you fear science, and I rather pity you for that, to be that terrified of knowledge.

Good luck to you sir.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[nomadic]

State, not country, and creationism has a hold in a lot of other countries, though it's more fun to taunt Americans I guess.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[alexo]

The problem is, their constituents are corporations, not meat citizens.

Now, I finally understand what this story was about...

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Just a comment on the foreign relations - nothing has really changed with regard to our public image. The last guy set terms to dictators, the current guy rather embarrassingly bows to them. Yet their opinion of us remains largely the same.

(Though as far as respecting customs and those whatnots, they're both the same. And the Bush doctrine - of foreign governments being either fully with us or fully against us when it comes to pursuing terrorists within their borders - is still in full force, and has always had the blessing of most world governments, many of whom have even adopted it themselves. And frankly, I support it too - it was about time that we ended the days where you could commit mass murder and then simply run to a place with no extradition treaty.)

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between Louisiana and US as a whole in this instance is not particularly big. In Louisiana, religious nutjobs run the state. In US, a religious nutjob ran the country for 8 years just recently, and 47% of the voters have cast their votes for another religious nutjob last year.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

...it was about time that we ended the days where you could commit mass murder and then simply run to a place with no extradition treaty.)

Considering the hundreds of thousands killed in Bush's illegal Iraq war, I think you were probably referring to Bush, who committed mass murder by proxy and then simply stayed in the US, from where extradition would probably be pretty hard to a country that doesn't have as much military might. Hell, even impeachment for leading the country into a false war was considered "off the table" while the country had another President impeached for having his cock sucked by someone other than his wife

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not a "possibility" that creationism is correct, jerky.

Adam and Eve never existed, we know that, 100%. And without them, there is no original sin, and without original sin there is no Jesus meek and mild to save everyone from eternal damnation (due to original sin), and without Jesus the whole fucking house of cards comes down pretty damn fast, doesn't it?

Why did you think the religious right are so offended by people teaching their kids evolution in school?

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

I can actually agree with this to some degree. Make a class about religious creation myths, then include the bible in that list, because a class dedicated to the thousands of creation myths, how they are similar, how they are different, and what the symbolism in them means, is the only way you are going to be able to cover this sort of thing.

I bet that's not what you meant though, is it? When you say "teach everything" you don't mean teach thousands of competing bullshit religious stories, you mean "Tell children that Jesus did it" don't you?

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[meglon]

Get off my lawn!!

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[Anonymous Coward]

but this is exactly what we should be doing.

teaching children to find all possibilities allows for great creative thinking

to examine reality from a point of observer can allow many truths to be uncovered.

is there a slashdot imageboard?

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Apparently you frequently ditched history 101 and eventually dropped out.

You can't impeach somebody for adultery. Likewise, that isn't why he was impeached. He was impeached because he perjured himself and obstructed justice. Typically people go to jail for that.

As for the war - without commenting on my opinion of the war itself - it was initiated, waged, and executed every bit as legally as any other war the US has been involved in, declared or undeclared, as prescribed by the US legal system. Now as far as the UN is concerned, that one is debatable, however it hasn't been challenged for many reasons, several elements of which are the result of our never agreeing to become a signatory to the international criminal court treaty.

You know who originally lobbied against our ratifying that treaty? Bill Clinton. George Bush was openly hostile to it, and later Barack Obama openly and outright refused to oblige what it asks for (you're expected to oblige the rules of a treaty when you've signed but not ratified it.)

All three of these men did the right thing. In the global political landscape, American servicemen are political targets plain and simple. They'd never receive a fair trial simply because of the fact that they serve under our banner, and all three of those presidents are fully aware of it. Frankly, it would be foolish to think otherwise. Yes, we do vote stupid people into office, but fortunately they aren't that stupid.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[dinfinity]

What most Europeans don't understand is that Louisiana is about as foreign too 95% of the US as Romania is to the UK.

Don't be silly. (People in) States in the US have only had several hundred years to diverge from each other. European cultures have been able to do that for millennia (it is no wonder that so many different languages are spoken in Europe).
And let's not forget two huge recent wars fought on European soil between majorly different political mindsets. Some European countries were Soviet ruled states less than three decades ago. Some Europeans still alive today were nazis that played their part in the Holocaust. The effects of recent history are obvious.
Minimum monthly wage in Romania is about 160 EUR. In Austria, it is about 1000 EUR and in France it is about 1450 EUR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Europe_by_minimum_wage

The distance between Austria and Romania is about 250 miles.

The animosity between European inhabitants can be very strong. I'd be surprised if New Yorkers complained about all those poor people from Lousiana coming to their state and stealing all their jobs, undercutting their wages and being useless criminals in general. Because that is exactly how an alarming amount of Western Europeans feels about Romanians and other Eastern Europeans. Ironically, the main solutions to the problems people complain about lie in more (synchronization of) legislation at the European level instead of less (which is what populists tell the gullible is the answer).

Re: And then there's this asshole:

[coinreturn]

You failed to see the point. There are an infinite number of "possibilities" of how we got here. We can't teach them all. I can invent hundreds every day. Maybe a space cat vomited us all out. Maybe a space zebra shitted us out. Maybe we evolved from inter-dimensional rock creatures. Maybe some white guy in the sky invented us. It's all fiction. If you're going to teach fiction, say it's fiction.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[ArsonSmith]

There is a pretty solid agreement that the people that have screwed up California with it's overly liberal policies have been fleeing to places like Colorado driving the inhabitants out.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[dinfinity]

Yeah, that is almost the same thing.

Re:And then there's this asshole:

[nobodie]

having lived in a number of other countries, and had experiences much more radical than what this politician will describe in public, I have to agree with his basic idea "I would have shut off a very good experience for myself," even if he doesn't have the science background himself to parse out what was actually going on.

Many years ago I went along with a Thai/Chinese friend who had a fieldhand who the family thought was "possessed." We traveled (in her Mercedes) through the Thai jungle and scrubland in northern Thailand until we crosses a hanging wooden bridge that was the entrance to a bustling village. (yeah, we drove across it, it is Thailand and you do shit like that, or did, with the tourist invasion in the last 20 years its no fun any more there) We went to the temple where there was supposed to be a monk who was especially holy, and especially skilled at chasing out demons, having successfully driven demons out of a number of people.

After making a suitable "offering" to the temple, and waiting for the monk to work his way through the simple problems of the other people who came for advice or other ...needs (the couple ahead of us wanted to get married, but the husband to be had been given a special amulet by a previous girlfriend and the wife to be wanted to be assured that there had been and was no evil intention carried by the amulet which might damage their marriage. The monk studied it carefully (with his glasses on, for quite a few minutes) and then said a short charm, blessing, whatever over it and gave it back to them with his blessing on their marriage. That kind of stuff.

When he got to us he escorted the fieldhand back into a room in back and examined him. He returned in a half-hour or so and told us that he was not possessed at all but was mentally ill and needed to see a psychiatrist for his problems. The family insisted that the exorcism be performed anyway, just to be on the safe side. He agreed, but told them again it was a waste of time. He performed the ritual (it was cool, but not the focus of this story) and nothing happened, we went home and he went to a shrink at my friend's expense.

Notice that the monk had no need to put on a show, he had the care and support of his village. He understood their needs and how to achieve spiritual health for an extremely superstitious people. While we can laugh and point fingers, this man relieves fear and suffering among thousands of people every day just by existing and caring for them. Is that worse, stupid, terrible, or otherwise a bad thing when it is the people who need this? And, yes, they all are educated and have studied science, but science does not relieve their fear, he does.

So, carp away, that is the real world for most of the 7 billion: to relieve their fear, it was money well spent.

History

[Anonymous Coward]

History is a breeze on these schools... they only go back 6,001 years (to include 2013).

PS does anyone know when that "Earth is 6,000 years old" started? I'd like to know how many years I have to add to come up with a more accurate number.

Re:History

[Samantha Wright]

It's a pretty old idea, more or less back-formed by historians searching for the beginning of the written record, examining various cultural traditions about when certain legendary events occurred, and by counting up ages and overlapping lifespans of various biblical figures.

Re:History

[CrimsonAvenger]

PS does anyone know when that "Earth is 6,000 years old" started? I'd like to know how many years I have to add to come up with a more accurate number.

The name you're looking for is James Ussher, a Calvinist archbishop.

The specific works where he specified that the date of Creation was the nightfall before 23 OCT 4004 BC (Julian calendar, mind you) were published between 1650 and 1654 (I don't know which of them first used the 4004bc creation time).

Why so many flavours of Christian seem to be addicted to the writings of a Calvinist archbishop, I've never understood. Most American Christians are, at best, uninspired by Calvinism....

Re:History

[Longjmp]

History is a breeze on these schools... they only go back 6,001 years (to include 2013).

What puzzles me, or rather amuses me is how many of the people believing in this nonsense are happy to operate their DVD players and/or GPS (among other things) without hesitation;
- And accept they will work, completely ignoring that those items are based on the same physical laws we determine the age of earth with.

Re:History

[Anonymous Coward]

PS does anyone know when that "Earth is 6,000 years old" started? I'd like to know how many years I have to add to come up with a more accurate number.

I think it was right around the time the Bible was written.

Re:History

[Anonymous Coward]

Because such people do not think about why their GPS works, they expect that it just does as an article of faith. In short, it's magic.

Re:History

[EvanED]

What puzzles me, or rather amuses me is how many of the people believing in this nonsense are happy to operate their DVD players and/or GPS ...ignoring that those items are based on the same physical laws we determine the age of earth with.

Wait, are you telling me that we've estimated the age of the Earth by asking tiny little gnomes? Learn something new every day!

Re:History

[Longjmp]

[...] In short, it's magic.

So, you're saying, if we want to visit a different solar system or galaxy, all we have to do is to find someone stupid enough to go down on a long rope and kick the damn turtle in the butt?

Or maybe even better, lower a few billion tons of lettuce on a long rod at the other end...

Re:History

[HornWumpus]

There's also the Hebrew calendar. Which has us in the 'year or the world' 5773.

Just like a Calvinist to be telling the Hebrews they are wrong about their own legendary history. Bet he set them straight on the meaning of the Torah while he was at it.

Re:History

[Larryish]

As a person who grew up in a Protestant household, I would like to add that most American Christians are uninspired by Christ.

"Why don't Baptists make love standing up?"

"Because people might think they are dancing!"

*Roar of laughter from the crowd.*

"I grew up Baptist, but am ordained Universalist. Want to know why?"

"Because I wanted to leave the liquor store through the FRONT door!"

*Roar of laughter from the crowd.*

Re:History

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you (or someone else) expand on this? I am not a physicist and am curious as to what you are referring to.

Re:History

[HornWumpus]

Q: How do you keep a Baptist from drinking all your beer when you are fishing?

A: Invite two.

They are all 'uninspired by Christ'. The scary ones are convinced they are.

Re:History

[Hentes]

Yeah, all DVD players are based on a mass spectrometer.

Re:History

[Longjmp]

Yeah, all DVD players are based on a mass spectrometer.

Replace "mass spectrometer" with "Planck world" and you are there.

Re:History

[newcastlejon]

...kick the damn turtle in the butt?

My Magic Envelope says that you could fit into the smallest crease in that turtle's starfish with room enough to swing a furious one-eyed cat. Kicking may not be the best way to make an impression.

Re:History

[Longjmp]

Can you (or someone else) expand on this? I am not a physicist and am curious as to what you are referring to.

Ready for a 6 month lesson? ;-)
First off, DVD players use a laser. Lasers obey to certain rules, it's an interaction between electrons, atom nuclei and photons (light, the laser light).
We can reliably predict the behavior of those "systems".

I'll try an example now (to stick with the lettuce).
Let's assume you are a farmer and are growing lettuce. No you find several heads of lettuce. Some fresh, some with leaves withered, some rotten.
As a farmer you can determine how long ago the lettuce head was cut.
Physicists do the same. They know how long lettuce (atoms) need to decay, based on physical laws that make the laser produce light.
So when you look at a stone, you look at the "withered leaves" and can tell how old it is.

Hope this makes sense.

Re:History

[Longjmp]

Depends how much the turtle likes it.

Re:History

[Darinbob]

Yes, but those 6001 years are the hardest part of history. If you only had to study what happened in all of history before that time then the books get much thinner.

Re:History

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot one wrinkle: the farmer initially asked his wife, who said the completely rotten lettuce looked like lettuce she'd seen in the fridge for half a year. Except that she'd asked her husband the farmer how long it had been in the fridge, and he guessed.

And now her estimate of the age of lettuce would be accurate if the head had been refrigerated - but it wasn't - and if she had actually looked at the date on the refrigerated lettuce, instead of asking someone rarely in the kitchen.

Rocks are dated by the fossil record, and the fossil record dated by the rocks in which they occur. Ignoring for a moment that there are other methods of dating, imagine the sort of mistakes that could occur in a discipline which has no problem using circular logic to arrive at their conclusions. While I find the prospect of a 6,000 year old Earth a bit implausible, I have only slightly more confidence in the ability of science to determine the Earth's age in an accurate manner. I might be willing to die for my faith, but I wouldn't bet anything more than a dollar on the age off the Earth.

Re:History

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you (or someone else) expand on this? I am not a physicist and am curious as to what you are referring to.

Here's another example that might bring more clarity to it.

In order to get accuracy from GPS, Einstein's theory of relatively must be taken into account. Without it, GPS would not be accurate enough to use for navigation. However, relatively also tells us that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light and you can't just accept one part of the theory without accepting the consequence of the rest of.

Looking at the stars, you can measure parallax to determine the distance to them. If the earth (and universe) is only 6,000 years old, that should mean that the farthest objects we can see should be 6,000 or less light years away. However, we can easily detect objects millions of light years away, which is a contradiction to the universe being 6,000 years old. So either relatively has to be wrong (which would mean that GPS couldn't work nor would any modern electronic device since they all have to take into account speed of light issues) or the universe has to be much older than 6,000 years.

Re:History

[Anonymous Coward]

Different AC here. Forgive me for being obtuse, but what does the transitioning of electronic states within a lasing medium have to do with dating rocks? Are you implying an analogy to radioactivity?

Re:History

[serviscope_minor]

a mass spectrometer

Replace "mass spectrometer" with "physical laws" (hey just like in the original post!) and you're there.

Re:History

[serviscope_minor]

I love the lettuce analogy. Much fresher than a car analogy.

You have inspired me to use lettuce in all my slashdot analogies now.

(Actually it was a prettu good analogy, and I like lettuce).

Re:History

[squizzar]

Predicting it accurately would be very hard... but I think that the several orders-of-magnitude difference between 6000 years and 4.5 billion years means that it 6000 years is unlikely. Here's another way of looking at it: 6000 years/4.5 billion years is 1.33x10^-6 or 0.0001333%.

Secondly I doubt the age of the earth is calculated by fossil record because the earth predates the fossils by some quite significant margin. Only in fairy tales (you know the ones) was the earth and everything on it created in a short space of time. It spent quite a bit of time as a glowing hot ball of molten material, I doubt there were many fossil-leaving creatures around then. The movement of tectonic plates forcing things into the still molten core of the earth puts a bit of an upper bound on the maximum age of fossils as well. If you've found some source dating the earth itself by fossil record then they're either idiots or they have some interest in pushing inaccurate and terrible science

Thirdly in things that are dated by fossil record: I'd wager (even if you wouldn't) that the likely age of the fossil is known through radiocarbon dating or another technique, giving a range of ages where that fossil is likely to be found (extinction not being a modern phenomena). That way when you find rocks with those fossils in you can make a reasonable guess at when the rock formed. In other cases the formation of the rock happens at a known, or discernible rate (e.g. sedimentary rocks where a layer of sediment is formed each year), and so it is practical to date the fossils based on their position in the rock.

The error is pretty large, but then so is the timescale involved, and the accuracy doesn't need to be huge - being accurate to within 6000 years as illustrated above is actually ridiculously tiny, 100's of millions of years is probably a safer error range. The reasoning isn't circular where one of the data sets is calibrated against some other measurable fact.

BTW. I'm no geologist/physicist or other expert on these matters... someone who knows a bit more can chime in if I've made any wild assumptions. What I will say though is that I think it is more than likely we can make a pretty good guess at the age of the earth, with a significant margin for error.

Re:History

[nosferatu1001]

No, the earths age is not calculated from fossil record, but through decay processes. It is refined as more meteorites with "frozen" records of formation are found and analysed.

This is not circular logic; circular logic is "this book is infallible because it is the word of god. IT is the word of god because the book says it is"

Re:History

[tehcyder]

Most American Christians are, at best, uninspired by Calvinism....

That is not true. The notion of "the elect" in Calvinism is found mirrored in all sorts of ways in US culture, e.g. the concept of "manifest destiny" and the charming notion that you are a beacon of light and freedom in a dark world.

Re:History

[Jason Levine]

GPS works by tapping into the quantum noodle field which enables the Flying Spaghetti Monster to tell you where your destination is.

Re:History

[tibit]

A lot of physical laws govern many processes. For radioactivity to work the way some crazies out there wish it did, you would have to break lasers, life, and a lot of other stuff.

Re:History

[nomadic]

Actually, many leading creationists are engineers; they probably know more about GPSes and DVD players than you do. There's a lot of physics, chemistry, and math you can work with that doesn't involve understanding evolution.

Re:History

[Dabido]

To add to Crimson Avenger's comment, the sad thing is, all Bibles that I own, either don't have that 6000 years old thing in them, or if they do it is in the preface or an appendix and they categorically state that it is included for 'historic reasons' only ('historic' not meaning for the study of history, but 'historic' meaning it had been included as a preface or appendix in previous editions), and that wasn't considered accurate in any way shape or form. But, I think a lot of people don't read what's stated and just look at the pretty pictures and conclude that it is considered 'gospel' as it is 'in' the Bible.

Re:History

[Beezlebub33]

Actually, many leading creationists are engineers; they probably know more about GPSes and DVD players than you do. There's a lot of physics, chemistry, and math you can work with that doesn't involve understanding evolution.

Yes, but engineers also don't need to understand a lot of physics and chemistry; they need to understand engineering. The physics and chemistry that they do need to understand doesn't overlap a lot of geophysics, or Rubidium-Strontium Isochrons, or biochemistry. They seem to compartmentalize a lot as well.

Finally, the disgreement isn't even with evolution in this case. It's with the fundamental nature of the universe, how long it has existed, how it developed, etc.

Re:History

[Beezlebub33]

Rocks are dated by the fossil record, and the fossil record dated by the rocks in which they occur.

No, they are not. Radiometric dating is usually done on igneous rock. It does does not depend, at all, on fossils. On the other hand, fossils usually occur in sedimentary rock. The dates of fossils are determine by the ages of the rocks in igneous rock above and below them in strata. Further, the most common dating methods use isochrons, which are able to determine if there is signfiicant changes in the rocks or if they have undergone events that would affect dating accuracy.

Ignoring for a moment that there are other methods of dating, imagine the sort of mistakes that could occur in a discipline which has no problem using circular logic to arrive at their conclusions.

So you believe that an entire scientific discipline has failed to realize that it was based on circular logic and then failed yourself to even take a cursory glance at how the scientific discipline works? Your premise that it is based on circular logic is so far from reality that I can only conclude that you are willfully ignorant of how radiometic dating works. It would take, I swear, less than an hour or two to learn enough about radiometric dating to have a pretty good grasp of the underlying concepts, how they are implemented in practice, and then read and understand an isochron.

While I find the prospect of a 6,000 year old Earth a bit implausible, I have only slightly more confidence in the ability of science to determine the Earth's age in an accurate manner. I might be willing to die for my faith, but I wouldn't bet anything more than a dollar on the age off the Earth.

Then, sir, you are deluded. We are not arguing over a small amount of difference. We're disagreeing about 6 orders of magnitude; that the Earth is anywhere close to 6000 years old is farcical.

Re:History

[nomadic]

Actually some of the more prominent creationists are petroleum engineers, with presumably wide knowledge of geology. Engineers do compartmentalize, though, I agree, and they tend to frequently think they are scientists without really understanding the scientific method.

Re:History

[quenda]

that should mean that the farthest objects we can see should be 6,000 or less light years away.

Don't be silly. God created the universe with the light already in place between the stars, so we could behold the wonder of His creation.
This is easy for a being who can create a world with fossilised bones in place to test our faith.

How can you hope to disprove a magical being with tricks of science and logic?

Re:History

[bluegutang]

History DOES only go back about 6000 years, more or less. By definition, history deals with written records. Anything from before the invention of writing is considered prehistory, not history.

So sue them.

[Hatta]

I hope they like losing in Federal court.

Re:So sue them.

[rahvin112]

Why? It's their own kids that will suffer. If the parents want their kids to be ignorant of science let them. What they don't' realize is that in the long run it will damage religion more to conceal the truth.

I was exposed to much the same handwaving as this bill advocates, and when I was finally exposed to the truth later in life it damaged my impressions of religion, as I suspect it does with a lot of kids. Oh sure, there's the mouth breathers that will fall for the BS hook line and sinker, but their own parents want them to be ignorant of science, so what gives anyone the right to stop them?

If you don't want your kids exposed to it, put them in private school or move out of state. Education should be a local issue. I think this intelligent design ploy at K-12 education will eventually backfire but the groups pushing it won't care, they've laughed all the way to the bank.

Re:So sue them.

[femtobyte]

Why? It's their own kids that will suffer.

Is this the same logic you'd use if you noticed that your neighbor came home stinking drunk and beat his kids every night? And, in case caring for the well-being of other peoples' kids is too much of a stretch for you, how about a little self-interest: you own kids are going to grow up to share the world with these guys.

Re:So sue them.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I wouldn't use the same logic there. If I were to report the drunk for child abuse, everyone but his family would praise that act. If I were to try to save kids from religion, I would get death threats from morons. See the difference now?

Re:So sue them.

[femtobyte]

No, I wouldn't use the same logic there. ... See the difference now?

Yes, I can see that if you are a coward, standing on principle to help others is not part of your logic.

Re:So sue them.

[HornWumpus]

Minding you own business isn't part of yours?

There is a difference between someone beating their brats and that same person teaching the same brats something stupid.

If you want to teach your kids Christianity, Islam, Marxism or anything else go to it. The smart kids will be better for it, the dumb ones will never matter anyhow.

Re:So sue them.

[femtobyte]

The point of my post wasn't to say that giving your kids a religious upbringing is as bad as drunkenly beating them; rather, to attack the motivating "logic" of "why should I care if someone else' kids suffer." Perhaps it's my religious upbringing and Christian beliefs talking here, but I don't think "fine if only someone else gets hurt" is a good basis for deciding how to act. You might decide not to interfere for other reasons, like "I respect the right of other parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs," or "the kids aren't really harmed, anyway" --- but "screw you if you're not me or mine" is not a philosophical stance I am particularly friendly towards.

Re:So sue them.

[rahvin112]

Physical abuse and denying children access to scientific information are NOT the same thing. Parents are responsible for children's learning.

I do not support the idea of a state that's responsible for the parental upbringing of every child in society. That's a dangerously slippery slope I don't want anywhere near. Parenting by committee is not a society I intend to live in.

The parents, biological or appointed guardians are responsible for raising the child. The only exception to that should be physical or mental abuse. Denying access to science or even indoctrinating into a religion is NOT abuse, it's parental prerogative. Parents have a right to turn their kids into uneducated idiots. Most of them will find out how well that strategy works later in life when their kids want nothing to do with them.

And personally, I don't appreciate your straw man attempt to equate physical abuse with preventing the teaching of science. They aren't equivalent and your attempt to equate them speaks a lot about you.

Re:So sue them.

[femtobyte]

As stated in another reply: the point of my response wasn't to say that giving your kids a religious upbringing is like drunkenly beating them; rather, to question your motivating "logic" of "why should I care if someone else' kids suffer." Perhaps it's my religious upbringing and Christian beliefs talking here, but I don't think "fine if only someone else gets hurt" is a good basis for deciding how to act. You might decide not to interfere for other reasons, like "I respect the right of other parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs," or "the kids aren't harmed enough to justify intervention" --- but "screw you if you're not me or mine," the reasoning that lead off your prior post, is not a philosophical stance I am particularly friendly towards.

Re:So sue them.

[misanthropic.mofo]

If you don't want your kids exposed to religiosity and pseudo-"science", put them in private school or move out of state. It's not the parents that don't want their kids exposed to "intelligent" design and creationism that should have to be putting their kids in private school. It's the ones that do want their kids exposed to that non-sense. If a school is publicly funded (i.e. a state school/institution), there is no reason why religious dogma in any of it's forms should be allowed to be taught. That's the biggest problem with all of this sort of non-sense, it changes the wall of separation, which should be a nice impenetrable wall, though it unfortunately hardly ever is. Into a very slight bump in the road, if it even amounts to that much. God(s) and religion need to be kept out of science, out of government and out of education in general, but since there will always be private religious schools, the least that can be done is to keep it out of public school.

Re:So sue them.

[Anonymous Coward]

having a descent education should be every childs right, being thaught lies and being alienated outside of society is wrong and should still be wrong.

you really dont see any problem with schools teaching this? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/30/blue-ridge-christian-academy-the-school-that-gave-fourth-graders-the-creationism-test-heard-around-the-internet/

yey lets have even more ignorant ppl on the streets and maybe some day when they are finally the majority they can FORCE on us how they think and how right they are and finish messing with the world.

but why should i care? i dont even live in USA anyway right?

Re:So sue them.

[rahvin112]

No one else is being "hurt". They are being denied access to good science. That's not the same thing. Parents have the right to deny kids access to information, it's parental prerogative and fundamental to parental rights.

Education in the US has up until recently been the jurisdiction of the local community. Federalizing education with no child left behind (NCLB) and other initiatives to force national education standards and parenting by committee are a travesty of EPIC proportions. Advocating for more of that by dictating federal involvement in what is taught is just asking for trouble.

And frankly if you thought I was saying "screw you if you're not me or mine" you didn't actually read what I wrote and implied your own meaning to my words. I've been very clear that my intent is to protect locally managed education and parental prerogative, even if that means kids grow up ignorant of science. Like you claim you experienced, I was exposed to much of that same bullshit with overt religious tampering in my education and all it did in the long run is damage my view of religion. I wasn't hurt by it, it wasn't abuse and even though I myself experienced it (and think it's a terribly bad idea) I'm not going to support attempts to tell other people what to teach their kids.

From my experience all you do when you try to prevent other people from making their kids ignorant of science is retrenchment by the parents. It needs to be handled locally, either by parents in the community opposing the standards, outside clubs, home schooling or simply setting up a charter school.

How you could draw "fine if only someone else gets hurt" from that is beyond me.

Re:So sue them.

[Cyberax]

Definitely. Religious abuse is much worse.

Re:So sue them.

[femtobyte]

How you could draw "fine if only someone else gets hurt" from that is beyond me.

Here's what you said right at the top of your initial post:

Why? It's their own kids that will suffer.

This is different from:

Why? Their own kid's won't suffer so much as to justify violating parental rights.

I respect your later analyses that scientific education might not be worth intruding on fundamental parent-child relations. However, your original argument (which I attacked) was, in your own words, "their own kids suffer," but you needn't worry because you can send your own kids to private school or move away.

On a separate note:

Like you claim you experienced, I was exposed to much of that same bullshit with overt religious tampering in my education and all it did in the long run is damage my view of religion.

This isn't quite the experience I claimed; I was fortunate, actually, to not experience hostility between science and religion in my own upbringing. I wasn't raised in a fundamentalist-nutjob background.

Re:So sue them.

[dkleinsc]

Why? It's their own kids that will suffer. If the parents want their kids to be ignorant of science let them.

What about the ignorance-pushing parent's neighbors, who are in the minority but don't want their kids to be ignorant?

If you don't want your kids exposed to it, put them in private school or move out of state.

Why should they be penalized by having to move or pay extra for private schools? They aren't doing anything wrong, they're just wanting their own kids to be properly educated.

Education should be a local issue.

What if there was a state that was teaching, as proven scientific fact, that white people are better than everyone else? Are you OK with that being a local issue?

Re:So sue them.

[demonlapin]

Evolution isn't really all that important in the day-to-day lives of average people. It's nice if they know the truth, but it's really not all that important. That's why we keep having this argument. If it were important, evolution would have won long ago. It's not. Let it go. The smart kids are going to ignore it anyway.

Yes, I went to an elementary school that was explicitly Christian and anti-evolution. Didn't slow me down at all; I knew they were wrong and moved on. It was, however, a very good elementary education.

Re:So sue them.

[femtobyte]

The smart kids are going to ignore it anyway.

I don't entirely agree here. The smart-in-the-sense-of-scientific kids will ignore it. The smart-in-the-sense-of-manipulative-sociopath kids will learn the lessons very well --- how they can rally and manipulate the support of others around this "unimportant" point for more important ends. And while the smart-in-the-sense-of-scientific kids have grown up to become researchers, the smart-in-the-sense-of-manipulative-sociopath kid has become the senator for their district, sitting on committees for science funding, environmental protections, and education.

Re:So sue them.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are being stupid.
It's not a sign of intelligence. People can be very smart, and still be wrong. They can be very smart and not know how to think critically.
All those teaching so is infect society and cause harm.

Those belief could very well kill your perfectly rational kids.
I don't care how smart you or your children is, when polio comes back and mutates because not enough people get vaccinated against it, you could be crippled

When people in government give million and millions of dollars to nonsense, you are hurt, society as a whole is hurt.

Re:So sue them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually denying a minor education could certainly be viewed as abuse. Apparently you think it's ok for ignorant clowns to ruin their children's lives.

IF you hate society so much move to Somalia where you can practice whatever idiocy you would like. In western democratic societies we at least attempt to give all children a shot at an education

Re:So sue them.

[cusco]

If you don't want your kids exposed to it, put them in private school or move out of state.

Must be nice to grow up with enough wealth that it doesn't even occur to you that not every fucking person can afford private school or to pull up stakes and move to another state across country (because none of Louisiana's neighbors are any better). My niece is stuck in Louisiana for the foreseeable future, through no fault of her own. Her kids are in public schools because the private schools in her area that are affordable are all Baptist shitholes that are even worse.

Education should be a local issue.

Why? So that the children who grow up in Grosse Pointe Shores can get great educations to ensure that they continue to rule unopposed over the children who grow up in Benton Harbor? This was always the whole point of funding schools through local property taxes, so that the rich can forever dominate the poor no matter how intelligent and talented the poor kids might actually be.

Re:So sue them.

[HornWumpus]

It's a fine line. Your definition of suffering is likely informed by you own beliefs.

I'm suffering from a 'the lack of a personal relationship with the flying spaghetti monster'. People have been burned for less.

'Screw you if you're not me or mine' is just the reflection of 'Whatever you want to do; no skin off my back'. If you want people to stay out of your business, in the long run you have to keep them out of your business. You want insurance? Expect the insurance agent to think some of your business is his business. Government isn't different. No such thing as a free lunch.

Re:So sue them.

[femtobyte]

Let me re-iterate that I'm not trying to indicate "getting a crappy science education" is equivalent to "suffering." But, if (for whatever your reasons) you suspect someone might be "suffering," then you should weigh your reaction against some higher concerns (like respect for privacy and autonomy) rather than "not my kids; let 'em suffer."

'Screw you if you're not me or mine' is just the reflection of 'Whatever you want to do; no skin off my back'.

In this case, one is considering a third party: "Whatever you want to do to those children; no skin off my back." That's a little different from staying out of people's business to harm themselves. Now, in this case, as in many, there can be plenty of other mitigating circumstances: "saving" a child from a negligibly small harm isn't worth the far greater harms of meddling in others' affairs. But whatever your reasoning is for deciding whether or not to interfere in a situation, "my kids are fine so screw yours" is a crummy basis for moral guidance.

Re:So sue them.

[tragedy]

There have been some religious sects in which beating children seems to have been a central organizing principle. Every sermon, the reverend would bring up a child and beat the sin out of them in front of the whole congregation.

Re:So sue them.

[Anonymous Coward]

...the dumb ones will never matter anyhow

Except they get to vote (politics and with their dollars), drive cars, work in areas that involve security and safety of other people, construction and the service industry.

Re:So sue them.

[kwardroid]

One is physical abuse, the other mental.

Re:So sue them.

[sociocapitalist]

Minding you own business isn't part of yours?

There is a difference between someone beating their brats and that same person teaching the same brats something stupid.

If you want to teach your kids Christianity, Islam, Marxism or anything else go to it. The smart kids will be better for it, the dumb ones will never matter anyhow.

Even 'dumb' or more accurately 'ignorant and misled' people generally get to vote. When you have a large enough number of ignorant and misled people voting, you have a problem.

Re:So sue them.

[tehcyder]

Parents have a right to turn their kids into uneducated idiots.

That's why most civilised countries have free, compulsory state education, and why home (and religious) schooling should be illegal.

As a parent, you can tell your kids whatever you like. It is up to society, through the state, to correct the worst excesses of stupidity and give children a chance to break the cycle of abuse that is religious teaching by being exposed to scientific and humanitarian ideas as opposed to hysterical supernaturalism.

Re:So sue them.

[tehcyder]

Yes, I went to an elementary school that was explicitly Christian and anti-evolution. Didn't slow me down at all; I knew they were wrong and moved on. It was, however, a very good elementary education.

No, it wasn't. All the time they spent on being explicitly Christian and anti-evolution was wasted when you could have been learning about comparative religion, philosophy and science. At best, those views should be restricted to the home. At worst, they should be treated as child abuse.

Re:So sue them.

[Jason Levine]

I'm in a similar situation, albeit in upstate New York not Louisiana. We looked into sending our kids to a private school and it would have cost $16,000 a year. There's no way we could afford that at all. (There was financial assistance, but that involved having the school look into your finances and constantly pester you about what you spent money on X, Y, and Z when that money could have gone to the school.) We could move to a better school district, but that would mean spending a lot of money to fix our house up, buying a new house, spending money to move, disrupting our lives for awhile, and hoping our old house sold.

So we're stuck where we are in public schools. If we have a problem with our school district (such as the ridiculous state tests that are being administered to kids here), we try to work within the district to solve it. Moving just isn't an option.

Re:So sue them.

[tibit]

that involved having the school look into your finances and constantly pester you about what you spent money on X, Y, and Z when that money could have gone to the school

It's obviously your choice as to whether you want your finances looked into. Personally, I think good education for one's kids would well offset whatever perceived "loss" there is due to shedding a bit of privacy. Which reminds me that I need to check how much assistance we'd qualify for in a private school I have my eyes on for my kids.

Re:So sue them.

[SecurityGuy]

Education should be a local issue.

Why?

Oooo! I'll answer! Education, like most things, should be a local issue because people tend to screw things up. If it's a local issue and they screw it up, you can move. Moving out of Louisiana isn't a huge deal. If it's a national issue and they screw up, you have to leave the country, which for most people with family and other attachments, is a much bigger deal.

Re:So sue them.

[HornWumpus]

Anything the ends in 'screw yours' is suspect. But it's also a strawman.

How about 'My kids are fine, yours are your problem...the world does need ditch diggers'

Re:So sue them.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I, as a parent, want to teach them that the color of stop signs is called "black" and the color of the sky is "yellow," is that considered mental abuse? All I'm doing is telling them that various frequencies of light have this particular name, regardless of what society at large uses as a standard.

At some point, telling them blatantly false statements which they use to build their worldview CAN be considered mental abuse. Have you seen that crappy Adam Sandler movie Waterboy? The main character was brought up to believe whatever his mom told him (like his mom invented electricity and that Benjamin Franklin had no contribution to the understanding of electricity). The main character is ostracized greatly because everything he was taught as fact was wrong. The main character grows out of it, but that's only because of convenient plot elements.

I'll grant you that the origin of ___ is not as applicable to daily life as the name of colors, but deliberately misinforming children is still mental abuse. At some point, society has to deal with the people that result from bad parenting (crime, welfare, ineptitude, etc).

Re:So sue them.

[femtobyte]

This is just my own view, but I think that a world that needs ditch diggers should also treat ditch diggers well enough that there would be no a-priori reason for "ditch digging" to not be something I'd be as happy to see my own kids do as someone else's. I don't want my kids to "get ahead" because someone else has been ground down --- I'd rather see everyone lifted up.

Re:So sue them.

[scot4875]

Minding you own business isn't part of yours?

It is my business, because at some point those kids are going to grow up and at that point they will be somewhere on the spectrum of productive/useful citizenworthless/money draining citizen.

I'd much rather have kids grow up to be able to take care of themselves, rather than having to spend my tax dollars to jail the violent, ignorant fucks that many people raise.

the dumb ones will never matter anyhow.

They do matter! They're the ones that you get to pay to support (however indirectly) for their entire useless, parasitic lives!

--Jeremy

Re:So sue them.

[Jason Levine]

Honestly, we weren't really sure that the private school would be the best fit for our oldest to begin with. Once they brought out the $16,000 price tag, though, any chance of sending him there went out the window. Instead, we worked through the public school system to improve our son's educational experience.

Re:So sue them.

[demonlapin]

First, you're assuming that I was paying attention to them instead of reading whatever I wanted to.

If you're going to study comparative religion, studying Christianity first is probably not a bad idea. A solid grounding in the Bible really is essential if you want to understand English-language literature, and learning how to do the Jesus dance is a very important skill in the South.

child abuse

Don't be ridiculous. Evolution as a means of the genesis of life is as relevant to most people's lives as calculus is. The fact that my mother-in-law is a young-Earth creationist doesn't make her a bad mother or grandmother. All it means is that she has two evolutionist kids who just don't bring the subject up with her.

Stupidity is weakness...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and the stupid will be swept aside.

By perpetuating stupidity they doom their descendents to lives of insignificance and eventual extinction.

As a simple objective review of the real world reveals:

The weak are meat, and the strong do eat.

Re:Stupidity is weakness...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Many thousands of religions later, and they repeat the same mistake of thinking their's is infallible.

Re:Stupidity is weakness...

[GameboyRMH]

I kind of wish you were right...but you're definitely not. Stupidity is not weakness and intelligence is not strength.

Re:Stupidity is weakness...

[Tyler Durden]

Haven't watched Idiocracy, have you?

Louisiana-creationism through the back door

[Anonymous Coward]

Also good for teaching contraception and the consequences of incarceration.

Why?

[MrEricSir]

Why are we allowing people who aren't smart enough to decide what's best for children do just that? Why aren't we re-thinking how our government operates to prevent this from happening again?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

because this law is nothing more than government forcing christianity into schools. We don't stop that because that's what people want. just try to get Islamic creationism in schools. fat chance.

Re:Why?

[dyingtolive]

What metrics do you use for determining when people are smart enough and when they aren't? I'm afraid I'm not smart enough to come up with any that don't create massive abuses.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hubris of officials combined with a lack of awareness in the general public. There was a PBS documentary about the Texas Board of Education, where a professor said something along the lines of "The board members wouldn't pretend to be experts on physics without proper education, but they're completely confident they're experts on evolution." They later showed an election where the voting rate was something like 12%.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because for good or ill you live in a Democracy not a Plutocracy.

With all the baggage that comes with it.

Re:Why?

[jfengel]

Democracy. Rule by the people, half of whom have IQs in the double-digit range.

Or, as Mencken put it even better: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Re:Why?

[femtobyte]

Well, we have democracy whenever it suits the interests of a tiny power elite. If "the people" really ruled by democracy, we'd be entangled in a lot less foreign wars, have much lower disparity in wealth distribution, no big push for austerity, no too-big-to-fail bank bailouts, etc. As it is, we get stupid crowd-pleasers like nods toward eliminating separation of church and state, but not any democratically favored changes that oppose the oligarchy.

Re:Why?

[servognome]

I'd prefer Adamsian creationism - "The universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure"

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we allowing people who aren't smart enough to decide what's best for children do just that? Why aren't we re-thinking how our government operates to prevent this from happening again?

because 90% of children would then have to be raised by 10 percent of the adult population? By rethinking how our government works are we talking about child rearing creches, where all the countries offspring can be raised using the same approved program.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

because, as your statement alludes to, if THEY don't decide what is best for their children some social fascist like you will try to decide FOR them, and as usual, you will first run to the government to help.
A government run school system was an interesting idea 150 years ago. Luckily my father saw you guys commin, and put me in a private catholic school where I got a proper college education before the 12th grade.
50 years later, it's little difference, cause the catholic leadership forgot it's true role and became corrupted and infiltrated.
Good thing is, every couple hundred years, we go back to burnin witches, and get rid of most of you bastards.
keeps things even ya know.

Re: Why?

[UnknowingFool]

In the Dover case the school board voted to have a disclaimer read before the biology class about how "Evolution was just a theory" and have an Intelligent Design textbook available. When asked later why the board members said they were following the advice of a conservative outside group. The judge noted in the judgement that the board never consulted any national or professional science groups and ignored the very vocal protests of their only experts, their science teachers.

Re:Why?

[geminidomino]

Because for good or ill you live in a Democracy not a Plutocracy.

Not so sure about that.

Re:Why?

[wisnoskij]

Because the government is firmly stuck as democratic, it would not be easy to change that now.

Re:Why?

[Registered Coward v2]

because this law is nothing more than government forcing christianity into schools. We don't stop that because that's what people want. just try to get Islamic creationism in schools. fat chance.

Actually, that is what it would take - or perhaps Von Danikin's idea of ancient astronauts? There's enough pseudo - science in there to qualify under teh "bones in teh dust" standard for opening eyes to alternate ideas. Of course, the law would be repealed immediately.

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct response to, "Evolution is just a theory" is, "So is gravity." It's a good way to illustrate what the word theory means in a scientific context.

Re:Why?

[canadian_right]

You don't just "allow" it, you encourage it by voting them in. By "you" I mean the people of Louisiana.

The only way to stop this would be a general education test for voters which would infringe peoples rights more than this stupid law.

Re:Why?

[the eric conspiracy]

Those massive abuses may still be less destructive than what we have now.

Re:Why?

[MrEricSir]

Sure, but what do you do when the people getting elected are so stupid they actively work to make everyone as dumb as then? We're racing towards the bottom here, clearly something is very wrong.

Re:Why?

[Hentes]

Isn't this law basically about giving that decision to the teachers instead of politicians?

Re:Why?

[ElectricTurtle]

Democracy looks like Proposition 8. Majority gets what it wants, even if it means a minority is oppressed. You're suggesting the very thing in your own little fantasy. The wealthy are a minority, so we'll just vote to take their money make everybody poor. That won't destroy the economy or anything.

Not only that, but you're extremely naive if you think that most people want what you want. You'd get a very rude awakening if a real democracy were put in place, North Africa is learning that the hard way right now. The urban liberals in Egypt thought that democracy would make things better, but they're learning that what the majority wants is in fact a society based on oppressive religious conservatism. Large groups of people are ruled brutally by the bell curve. They are of average intellect and average wisdom, and in a place where averages are lower, so goes the entire effect. And as Polybius and contemporaries documented long ago, such simplistic political forms fall inevitably into ochlochcracy. Study history.

Re:Why?

[SuiteSisterMary]

Democracy is three frat boys and a sorority girl deciding how to spend their evening.

Re: Why?

[dragonsomnolent]

I actually did this to a priest friend of mine, I've known him since High School, and his response floored me. He informed me that because I would not listen to reason, he would no longer discuss the matter with me (yes his response to me saying gravity is a theory just like evolution was I would not listen to reason).

Re:Why?

[steelfood]

No, that's not democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is, if 51% of the people wanted religious education, persecution of other religions, and modern crusades into the Middle East, the other 49% are stuck doing exactly those same things. That is democracy.

Democracy still tyranny--tyranny of the majority over the minority.

What we have is a republic.

Re:Why?

[femtobyte]

And the alternative solution, adopted by the US, is to make sure that when it's one frat boy and three girls, the frat boy is still in charge of deciding how to spend the evening (lest he be abused by tyranny of the majority).

Re:Why?

[tinkerghost]

At least we know why the FSM version of history doesn't match science - he stretches forth his noodly appendage & screws with the results just to keep us on our toes.

Re:Why?

[femtobyte]

Where in my post did I say that democracy was guaranteed ponies and rainbows? I was just pointing out that we get to enjoy many of the sucky oppressive parts of democracy, without many of the potential upsides. However, unlike dyed-in-the-wool authoritarians, I have a more optimistic outlook on humankind's capacity for democracy (I don't think we need a tiny oligarchical ruling elite to decide what's best for everyone else). For example, at least in this country, I'm pretty certain that you can gather an overwhelming majority who would support keeping protections for religious freedoms, even if "their own religion" could swing 51% of the vote. And, I believe that populations can be empowered to use democracy *responsibly* when given opportunity and practice --- while the population isn't competent to directly vote on macroeconomic affairs *this afternoon,* I bet they'd learn pretty fast if actually handed the terrifying power to actually control things that shape their lives and communities.

Re:Why?

[femtobyte]

Democracy looks like Proposition 8. Majority gets what it wants, even if it means a minority is oppressed.

Yep. And it also looks like the democratic movements to create marriage equality in many other states (despite gays being just as much a minority). You win some, you lose some. I haven't particularly seen our antidemocratic overlords stepping up for marriage equality against popular opinion, either.

The wealthy are a minority, so we'll just vote to take their money make everybody poor.

Yeah, it's so important to protect that minority, that we'd better put them in control of who gets rich and who gets poor. What's that? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? What a shocker!

And as Polybius and contemporaries documented long ago, such simplistic political forms fall inevitably into ochlochcracy.

Right, because democracy can only take the most simplistic strawman forms, and the ancient Greeks were the final word on all political science. Better to stay safe with oligarchy.

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shove him off of a tall building and ask if he thinks it is still a theory.

Re: Why?

[UnknowingFool]

Also gravity has been radically revised in the 20th century by Einstein. Einstein didn't prove that Newton was wrong per se but that Newton's notion of gravity was limited to situations here on Earth. This is understandable as Newton's world was just beginng to accept that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Whereas evolution has not been revised since it was proposed by Darwin.

Re:Why?

[camperdave]

Democracy still tyranny--tyranny of the majority over the minority.

What we have is a republic.

Being a republic does not stop it from being a democracy, nor does it stop the tyranny of the majority over the minority. In fact, it may make it worse.

Re: Why?

[femtobyte]

Whereas evolution has not been revised since it was proposed by Darwin.

This is blatantly wrong. Our understanding of evolution, like our understanding of gravity, has been immensely refined and elaborated since Darwin's time. Perhaps the most radical addition was the discovery of genetics --- a physical mechanism for inheritance of traits and production of variability unknown in Darwin's time. We've now got a huge array of tools to produce a far more detailed and comprehensive evolutionary model, quantitatively answering a huge number of questions left open by Darwin, while posing new ones.

Re:Why?

[Brett Buck]

Oh, the OP is hoping for abuses. They have no problem with abusing the system, as long as they get to do the abusing.

Re: Why?

[UnknowingFool]

This is blatantly wrong. Our understanding of evolution, like our understanding of gravity, has been immensely refined and elaborated since Darwin's time.

There is a difference between "revised" and "refined". Newton's idea of gravity being some invisible pull between two objects is radically different than Einstein's notion that gravity is the curvature of space-time around an object.

Perhaps the most radical addition was the discovery of genetics --- a physical mechanism for inheritance of traits and production of variability unknown in Darwin's time.

Again, Darwin's basic premise has not changed. Random mutations occur. Beneficial ones get passed; detrimental ones do not. Species evolve over time. Science has merely explained in more detail how exactly this occurs. But it hasn't dramatically altered how Darwin described the process. Darwin purposefully left the mechanism unanswered as he did not know.

Re: Why?

[danlip]

Perhaps this is is pedantic, but genetics != DNA. DNA is the physical mechanism. Gregor Mendel was studying genetics before Darwin published On the Origin of Species, and many fascinating genetic discoveries have been made just by observing inheritance patterns without any understanding of the underlying DNA. The discovery of DNA really didn't revise evolutionary theory as far as I can tell - DNA sequencing can tell us many interesting things about the evolution of a particular species, and shows we are nearly identical to apes, but none of this changes evolutionary theory.

This isn't to says the theory hasn't been revised - punctuated equilibrium comes to mind as one example.

Re:Why?

[danlip]

The distinction between a democracy and a republic is largely pointless. The US is a constitutional republic, and "constitutional" is the important word - it means the rights guaranteed by the constitution overrule the will of the majority. You can have either a constitutional democracy or a constitutional republic.

Re: Why?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Whereas evolution has not been revised since it was proposed by Darwin.

I hereby nominate UnknowingFool for "most appropriate Slashdot user name of the year."

Re:Why?

[meglon]

This stupid argument.... again. Why is it people can't pass a simple civics class?

We are a democracy and a republic. We are not a direct democracy, we're a representative democracy, so no.... it's not mob rules, tyranny of the majority (you may be confusing us with Switzerland, or simply be confused for no reason). It can also be called a representative republic, as our president is elected and not a monarch (like in England).

Whenever this stupid argument comes up, i'm often humored by the split in terminology. Conservatives want to claim loudly we're a republic, not a democracy... somehow i'm guessing that this makes them think republicans are better than democrats... yet when push comes to shove, what conservatives really want is a direct democracy so they can continue the tyranny of the majority against gays getting married, women having the right (or not) to self determine their own medical situations, and pretty much every social issue; after all, "the people should be able to vote on that..." as they tend to say right after a judge throws out their discriminatory laws. THE only reason they think that is because they believe they're in the majority.

So, back to the stupid argument...yes, we're a republic...and YES, we're a democracy.

Re:Why?

[ultranova]

The US is a constitutional republic, and "constitutional" is the important word - it means the rights guaranteed by the constitution overrule the will of the majority.

Sometimes. But ultimately, the Constitution is just a piece of paper, and depends entirely on the will of the people to enforce it. Which means that it's guarantee is only as strong as the unwillingness of people to apply insane troll logic to or outright ignore it. In other words, not very strong, unless you have enough people on your side nation-wide.

Re:Why?

[shutdown -p now]

What you have is a constitutional republic that is also a representative democracy. Unfortunately, it is run by people who are elected by other people who are so backwards they still believe that the meanings of the word "democracy" and "republic" are incompatible, unaware that English has evolved since 18th century.

Re: Why?

[dryeo]

Again, Darwin's basic premise has not changed. Random mutations occur. Beneficial ones get passed; detrimental ones do not. Species evolve over time. Science has merely explained in more detail how exactly this occurs. But it hasn't dramatically altered how Darwin described the process. Darwin purposefully left the mechanism unanswered as he did not know.

There has been changes such as horizontal gene transfer, where with the help of a virus, genes can be transferred across species. Totally different way for evolution to occur without mutations.

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps this is is pedantic, but genetics != DNA. DNA is the physical mechanism. Gregor Mendel was studying genetics before Darwin published On the Origin of Species, and many fascinating genetic discoveries have been made just by observing inheritance patterns without any understanding of the underlying DNA. The discovery of DNA really didn't revise evolutionary theory as far as I can tell - DNA sequencing can tell us many interesting things about the evolution of a particular species, and shows we are nearly identical to apes, but none of this changes evolutionary theory.

If you consider "evolutionary theory" in general, it certainly did have a large effect.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless the guy's black, then one of the women will rank him. Usually the lesbian.

Re:Why?

[Pfhorrest]

I'd argue that on a very fundamental level we always have had democracy everywhere, because no form of government will remain in place unless enough people support it and few enough people oppose it: a state with more people actively (keyword: actively) fighting it than actively supporting it will inevitably fail.

The question is simply to whom do the masses delegate their power, whether by active support or passive acceptance. A king or dictator? An oligarchy or aristocracy? Some more directly accountable, short-term representatives in a parliament or congress? Or do they keep it all to themselves like in ancient Athens?

And then the more important question is, whoever that power is delegated to, what terms are attached to it? What will the people let those granted power get away with before they take it back?

The reason we have a tiny power elite doing whatever the hell they want is because most people either support or at least accept a system which allows them to get away with that. The ultimate power, and thus the ultimate responsibility, always lies directly with the people: if we want to get rid of the tiny power elite, enough of us have to publicly declare that we're not going to put up with their shit any more (by means of elections and legislation), and then stop putting up with their shit (appeal to the new legal structure that says we don't have to), and watch each other's backs (in the courts and at the polls again, or if we are blatantly ignored there, in the streets) to make sure that nobody's going to get steamrolled and forced to put up with it.

If we were not a democracy, that would just mean the election and legislation, courts and polls, would be out of the question, and our only recourse would be taking directly to the streets. And yes, I mean the torches-and-pitchforks (i.e. guns) kind of taking to the streets. Thankfully we are ostensibly a democracy, we have other recourse before it comes to that, and hopefully it will never come to that unless we all do get up off our collective asses, avail ourselves of those avenues of recourse, and still get ignored. But so far we're still at the "get people off their asses" stage. Until that happens, we're stuck with what the ignorant masses want: tyranny.

Re:Why?

[cheekyjohnson]

Rule by the people, half of whom have IQs in the double-digit range.

If you use the IQ as a measure of intelligence, then I'd have to say that a grand majority of people have IQs in the double-digit range, not just half.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm inclined to believe the disparity in wealth distribution can be better explained by smart people, doing stupid things, en masse. Fox is now a top contender (if not the top contender) for news in the nation. And sadly, this is the least inane of the networks - if "logical fallacies" was a drinking game, a professional drinker couldn't watch MSNBC without getting hammered.

Never underestimate the ability of stupidity to impoverish a person, nor the propensity for moral retardation to separate even the most intelligent from their wealth.

We Americans suffer a culture in which knowledge is treated like a disease and intelligence with suspicion, and those who adhere to a moral code are held in low esteem. Such a culture is incapable of solving its challenges because those with the ability never develop their character to the degree necessary to care, and those affected by them have neglected their intellectual degree to the extent that they can neither solve, nor avoid the problems.

Re:Why?

[cheekyjohnson]

Which means that it's guarantee is only as strong as the unwillingness of people to apply insane troll logic to or outright ignore it.

We've all seen how well that worked out:

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." -Ignoramuses

The constitution is indeed just a piece of paper when people are so easily manipulated by the government (as was seen after 9/11 and many other events).

Re:Why?

[sociocapitalist]

Why are we allowing people who aren't smart enough to decide what's best for children do just that? Why aren't we re-thinking how our government operates to prevent this from happening again?

We are.

On the other hand a lot of Americans are thinking that science is wrong and religion is right and about how our government operates to change things for the better (from their point of view).

The question is how to tip the societal balance back towards rationalism and non-religious education. It is the people that vote the government in, after all.

Re:Why?

[Jawnn]

No, that's not democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is, if 51% of the people wanted religious education, persecution of other religions, and modern crusades into the Middle East, the other 49% are stuck doing exactly those same things. That is democracy.

Democracy still tyranny--tyranny of the majority over the minority.

What we had was a republic.

TFTFY
What we have now is more accurately called a plutocracy.

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution theory has been revised, not evolution. Evolution itself is not a theory. When you look at fossils and place them in time and space they clearly show an "evolution".

There is a clear development of life in different stages (single cell, multi cell, land animals) and then species that each develop traits, etc.

Since the first discovery of this undeniable development or motion in the way life has developed on earth mankind have sought for an explanation for this observation. Much as with gravity this explanation has evolved (pun intended) over time. But just as with gravity the changes in this explantation are not as big as you would like us to believe.
In essence the basic mechanism (special traits that develop randomly are selected by the environment if they result in a clear advantage over the rest of the population) is described by Darwin and has since been further developed and refined but not fundamentally changed in any way.

Re:Why?

[tehcyder]

Democracy. Rule by the people, half of whom have IQs in the double-digit range.

Or, as Mencken put it even better: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." I rate Churchill as a better wit than Mencken.

Re:Why?

[tehcyder]

Majority gets what it wants, even if it means a minority is oppressed.

That's the reason why in a civilised society you try to get everyone educated to as high a level as possible, so that there is more chance of people being able to think critically and objectively.

Whereas with an oligarchy, the poorer and dumber the hoi polloi are the better.

ochlochcracy

For those who, like myself, hadn't heard this word before, it's just a knob-end's way of saying "mob rule". Whereas it is simple common sense that having the majority of people on the side of just law and order is the only way to prevent the oppression of minorities.

Re:Why?

[tehcyder]

No, that's not democracy. Democracy is mob rule. Democracy is, if 51% of the people wanted religious education, persecution of other religions, and modern crusades into the Middle East, the other 49% are stuck doing exactly those same things. That is democracy.

Democracy still tyranny--tyranny of the majority over the minority.

What we have is a republic.

BULLSHIT. Unless you have some weird form of permanent civil war you're never going to have 51% imposing themselves over 49% of the population. If your society is that split on certain issues, there will have to be a compromise, which is exactly what happens in democracies.

Re:Why?

[tehcyder]

Having a fine Constitution didn't stop the US from illegally invading Iraq or setting up Guantanamo Bay as a torture centre.

You will have to excuse the rest of the world if it isn't overly impressed by the fact that you have a fine-sounding statement of universal human rights and freedoms.

Re:Why?

[tehcyder]

The reason we have a tiny power elite doing whatever the hell they want is because most people either support or at least accept a system which allows them to get away with that.

What always amazes me is the sheer stupidity of those in power, presumably resulting from a sociopathic indifference to other people, who forget that there is a limit beyond which you cannot push the acquiescent majority.

Hence the absurdity of "austerity" measures in countries where there is already high unemployment and hardship: at some point, if enough people are hungry and homeless, they have nothing to lose by taking to the streets.

Those in power underestimate the power of the mob at their peril.

Re:Why?

[tehcyder]

Democracy is three frat boys and a sorority girl deciding how to spend their evening.

Yes, and a legal system which means that the three frat boys will be punished if they do anything against her wishes.

Re: Why?

[kanweg]

The DNA is changed by the gene transfer: The DNA is mutated.

The genetic composition of the recipient organism is changed, i.e. it is mutated.

Bert

Re:Why?

[XcepticZP]

And pray do tell who votes in these "representatives" other than the majority? And if the majority votes in the representatives then the assumption is that they're the ones that are having their opinions represented. Calling democracy, whether direct or representational, mob rule is just plain rhetoric to scare people. But no matter how you swing it, democracy IS majority rule and that means that the minority has no say.

To see just such oppression, you need look no further than the LGBT community that is trying to get equal rights. They are at the mercy of the whims and opinions of the majority. One day they might get equal rights, and some fool will come along and say "Look, democracy WORKS". But that'll only happening IF the majority approves.

However, that isn't the whole picture. How many instances have we seen where the majority wanted something but was denied by their "representatives". The costly wars by America is just one shining example of that. Now, I don't know about you, but these two examples together paint one picture for me. That you have no representation, just token bones thrown at you every once in a while to appease you, and all the other bones thrown at you just to distract you.

Re: Why?

[tibit]

Evolution of course is a theory, but saying that it's just a theory is to completely miss the point. Scientific theories are science's most cherished deliverables. A scientist who makes significant contributions towards a new theory is one lucky fellow, in a rather exclusive company.

Re:Why?

[GameboyRMH]

Better to stay safe with oligarchy.

I've seen people use this argument with a straight face. They argue that oligarchy's stability makes it a very desirable form of government.

Re: Why?

[tibit]

evolution has not been revised since it was proposed by Darwin.

Speak for yourself, oh aptly nicked one. Just because you haven't kept in touch with evolutionary biology post-Darwin doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You're of course in a large group of dumbasses who think that there has been no progress in this area since Darwin.

Re: Why?

[tibit]

There is a difference between "revised" and "refined". Newton's idea of gravity being some invisible pull between two objects is radically different than Einstein's notion that gravity is the curvature of space-time around an object.

In a word: NO. Read it, understand it, be enlightened. Don't be stupid. Please.
At the moment, you're the English Lit friend.

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

Re: Why?

[tibit]

Seconded!

Re:Why?

[GameboyRMH]

A republic is where if a handful of crooked old farts want bailouts, austerity, no gun control and no legalization of gay marriage, and the majority of the population wants those things - whether it be 51%, 85% or even 99.9% - they are stuck with those things. No matter what they are.

In a democracy the majority rules. In a republic, a handful of people are elected to rule in any way they please for certain fixed periods, with the small caveat that they won't get a second chance at that unaccountable power unless they make themselves the least undesirable realistically-electable candidate.

Re: Why?

[UnknowingFool]

In a word: NO. Read it, understand it, be enlightened. Don't be stupid. Please.

Words have exact meanings. Don't be a dick because I choose to be precise in what I mean. I would think precision and accuracy are neccesary when talking about science.

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

In science there are no absolutes. That's why they no longer use "Law" when describing things as previous scientists like Kepler and Newton did. Everything is a theory. And "theory" in science has an exact meaning. Theory does not mean hypothesis or guess.

Has anyone radically changed Darwin's idea of evolution? No. Have they stood 150+ years of testing? Yes. Other long held concepts like gravity has undergone major changes as understanding is better.

Re: Why?

[tibit]

Still no. Our understanding of gravity was refined by Einstein's theory, but it's not a radical change. Einstein's theories add the relativstic aspect to our understanding of gravity. This is an incremental improvement. The fact that you express it using fancy mathematics has no bearing on the crux of the issue -- namely, that it's an improvement that is incremental and subject of Asimov's essay. Similarly, Darwin's main idea has been unchanged just as the main idea of gravity (an attractive force between objects with gravitational mass) was unchanged. Yet the evolutionary theory's details have been vastly improved since Darwin, just as they have been improved for the gravitational theory. You're entirely off base in thinking that there's much difference in what happened to both of those theories since Darwin -- the basic ideas are unchanged, but the details have been vastly improved. For both.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you meant representatives as in the House of Reps, then the majority does not, in fact, always vote them in. It is very common for fewer than 50% of the votes to go to the incumbent, who wins anyways because of gerrymandering and winner-take-all. If your statement that democracy === majority rule is true, then since America is demonstrably not under majority rule, it is also not presently a democracy. The closest thing I guess you could say we have is a tautologocracy: rule by the ones in power, who get elected because they are the ones in power.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the people in government often aren't smart enough to decide what's best for children either. And the people in the agencies that would exercise such power are unelected and unaccountable for mistakes or outright abuses of power.

Granting power to unaccountable and not-terribly-competent paper-pushers to regulate the wattage of your lightbulbs is one thing. Letting them mess up your kids is another.

Re: Why?

[UnknowingFool]

Similarly, Darwin's main idea has been unchanged just as the main idea of gravity (an attractive force between objects with gravitational mass) was unchanged.

. From Wikipedia: In modern physics, the phenomenon of gravitation is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity by Einstein, in which the phenomenon itself is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime governing the motion of inertial objects. The simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an accurate approximation.

Pi is approximately valued at 3.14. The definition of Pi the ratio of the circumference of a circle over the diameter. Pi = C/d which will go out to infinite decimal

Newton's notion can still be used as long as it is noted that it does not apply in all situations.

You're entirely off base in thinking that there's much difference in what happened to both of those theories since Darwin -- the basic ideas are unchanged, but the details have been vastly improved.

Please explain Mercury's orbit using Newton's theory of gravity or why GPS satellites must adjust their internal clocks. You can't. Darwin's general outline has not changed. He himself could not explain the mechanism in detail but he could describe the overall process.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

IQ is scaled so that perfectly 50-percentile is an IQ of 100. So half the population is below 100, half the population is above 100. The tail ends can be quite extreme, but the distributions is centered around 100.

Re:Why?

[jfengel]

I really wish I knew the answer to that question. The best answer I can come up with is to recognize that in the long term, the truth has advantages that falsehoods do not, even unpleasant truths. Stupidity comes with a cost.

Stupidity often wins in the short term, because it has the advantage that it can say anything it likes. And it can do a lot of damage in that short term; in the worst cases, so much that we never reach the long-term (or at least, by the time we reach it, it's too late for the truth to help).

As bad as the race to the bottom is, there are ways in which it appears to be the last gasp of a dying orthodoxy. I don't know if it will finally croak before they've done irreparable damage to the nation and the world.

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution has been revised, especially for bacteria. Darwin's evolution described that organisms inherited desirable genes and traits from their fit parents. However, bacteria are able to swap genetic material easily.

Bacteria have something called "plasmids" which literally cut open genetic material. This is used in their reproductive/replicating process. However, during the process, it's easy for them to pick up genetic material from different species of nearby bacteria. This is why hospitals are warning against the overuse of antibiotics. Surviving bacteria that aren't fully killed can transmit this resistance freely among their same species and other nearby bacteria. The nearby bacteria can then transmit the resistance to bacteria which cause completely unrelated diseases.

This is a process called "horizontal gene transfer." Darwin's theory applies fairly well to multi-cellular organisms like plants and animals, but it doesn't hold up very well for bacteria. Our current understanding of evolution had to be revised to account for how bacteria interact genetically.

Re:Why?

[jfengel]

Of course, the statement was chosen because IQ is defined to be the median, such that 50% of the people are below 100.

What it tells you, though, is to realize just how depressingly low 100 is.

Re:Why?

[jfengel]

Oooh. That's one hell of a head-to-head. I have tremendous respect for both as aphorists.

I might have to agree with you on the grounds that Churchill, bitter as he could be, was fundamentally more optimistic, while Mencken seems sometimes to have been cynical just for the joy of being cynical. But it's a real photo finish; both were brilliant.

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Darwin's premise was that your beneficial mutations were inherited from your fit parents and their ancestors.

Bacteria can dramatically differ from this process. Because of horizontal gene transfer, they can pick up traits from nearby bacteria simply by being near them. That'd be like you walking by a flock of birds and suddenly growing wings because you picked up traits from the birds.

Darwin's theory was grossly incorrect when dealing with bacteria and really only described multi-cellular organisms.

Newton's theory was grossly incorrect when dealing with objects near the speed of light and the sub-atomic level where gravity is completely negligible in the presence of the electro-magnetic force and the strong nuclear force. Newton's theory only works well on slower and larger objects, particularly planets and stars

We continue to use Newton's theory where it's applicable, but the theory of gravity has been revised greatly. Similarly, we continue to use Darwin's theory where it's applicable (like when studying cheetah populations), but the theory of evolution has been revised greatly for bacteria.

Re:Why?

[ElectricTurtle]

And you think California isn't educated? Education does not make somebody ethical. Hell, a lot of jihadis have masters degrees, but they still want to kill people.

Whereas it is simple common sense that having the majority of people on the side of just law and order is the only way to prevent the oppression of minorities.

I burst out laughing at this. Really. How can people be so oblivious and naive to have very recent and clear examples laid out before them yet still have these childish notions about how society works. "Law and order" gets you internment/concentration/labor/death camps. All you have to do is pass laws, whereby it becomes legal (tautological, I know), and then in order to be a law-abiding citizen you must comply. Law is not morality, which is exactly why a majority cannot just vote minorities be harmed and be right even if that vote creates a law which makes it "legal".

Re:Why?

[cheatch]

I can't wait to see the how the FSM lawsuit plays out in court.

Re:Why?

[meglon]

I'm sorry you seem to be incapable of understanding my basic point. I don't believe it was that my point was put for so obscurely that the normal person would have trouble discerning it, but rather you have some point you want to make that has little to no bearing on the point i made, you just needed a lead in.

Allow me to remake my point as succinctly as possible: We are a republic AND and democracy, and people who try to make the distinction usually have a very odd, and usually ignorant, reason for doing so.

That IS how we're designed. Whether it's working or not is another question. The system can't work when we have inside it a group of elected insurgents who's only goal is to destroy the federal government by any means available. The second that the line was states that someone wanted to shrink the federal government till it could be drown in a bathtub, that person should have been considered an enemy of this country. Instead, a radical fringe grew up around it, and has been trying to destroy the federal government since.

Can the system work in that atmosphere? No. The traitors to this country have to be dealt with, but won't happen until the fake "wave your flag on the 4th" patriots pull their heads out of their asses and understand that "destroying the country" is not the same as patriotism.

But, none of that was my point. My point was in response to someone, again, saying we're not a democracy, we're a republic (and said to enlighten the formation process, not what's actually happening right this minute); when in fact, we're both.

Re:Why?

[Pfhorrest]

That's liberty, and it can come with or without democracy. There can be liberal non-democracies, and illiberal democracies as well.

Re: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the term 'Law' as applied to sciences means something along the lines of "I observed this to be true, but fuck me if I've got a clue why it is." See, for instance, Kepler's Law (theoretical basis now established in general relativity), Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (flat-space limit of GR), Coulomb's Law (a particular consequence of electroweak field theory), and so forth.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, by using the term "social fascist" you have outed yourself as an absolute moron. Thank you for warning everyone to disregard your entire statement so successfully.

Re: Why?

[tibit]

Have you read that essay by Asimov yet? There's really no point to this discussion until you do. The spacetime curvature is a mathematical description of what we observe, it's but one way of describing it. You are essentially arguing against yourself. Approximation is precisely what you can incrementally improve on.

Re:Why?

[XcepticZP]

In case you haven't noticed, but that's how conversations go. One topic leads to the next. My first paragraph was sufficient to address 1/2 of your post, but don't let that stop you from doing your thing and implying I'm somehow incapable of understanding your point because 1/3 of my post wasn't specifically aimed at the point you arbitrarily chose to be the "point you made". 1/2 of your post was also about overall democracy and majority rules. Seriously, now that I re-read both our posts, it seems that you're positively correct. About half of your post was about the definition of democracy/republic. the rest is most certainly applicable to what I responded.

this is great

[Anonymous Coward]

It means less competition for kids that are studying science and want to get a decent job. Plus, we always need more people doing manual labor with poor critical thinking and analytical skills. The only people these religious activists are hurting is their own kids. When their kids can't find a decent job, they can blame their parents.

Re:this is great

[inglorion_on_the_net]

I'm not so sure more people with poor critical thinking and analytical skills is good for society as a whole. Just because not all work that needs to be done requires these skills doesn't mean these skills aren't good for the world.

Re:this is great

[zkiwi34]

Which clearly explains why the smart people are shunning science in droves in favour of the MBA route through college.

Re:this is great

[Anonymous Coward]

But they won't, they'll blame everyone except themselves, much like their parents do, if they are indoctrinated enough.

Re:Why? - Indeed!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we allowing people who aren't smart enough to decide what's best for children do just that?

Why are we allowing smart people to manipulate the public into voting for them?

Why aren't we re-thinking how our government operates to prevent this from happening again?

We have a Constitution. And to many many many folks, this decision is an example of GOOD government.

So, instead of asking why "we aren't rethinking how government works" let's ask why we have a populace so ignorant and superstitious that WANT their leaders and politicians to enact such horseshit.

Re:Lesson Learned

[narcc]

Not a bad troll, if a bit obvious.

The sad part is that I suspect you're right that that's precisely what motivates the bulk of the skeptical community. Those self-proclaimed defenders of science have done far more harm to the public understanding of science than Krik Cameron could ever dream of doing.

Re:Lesson Learned

[Arancaytar]

Yeah totally. Also have you ever tried applying critical thought to math class? Those closed-minded teachers won't even consider that Pi might be three. Tell them that's what you believe, and they'll fail you out of sheer bigotry. Man, math must be too weak to expose to differing ideas.

I guess I don't mind this

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, it's going to be hard enough for my kids to get into college. Right now it's so competitive for high schoolers that they have to cram their lives full of extracurricular activities and forgo many of the valuable experiences of childhood and adolescence just so that they can keep up with the other young go-getters around them and have a chance of getting into anything better than a state school. I, for one, welcome any measure that will reduce the amount of competition for the intelligent offspring of intelligent people who actually give a damn about educating the next generation. Anything that will give my kids a leg up over the children of the semiliterate, Bible-beating mouth breathers in the Bible Belt is a good thing, in my book.

Re:I guess I don't mind this

[Seumas]

The unfortunate downside is that as we fall to the bottom of the international list of math and science performance by country, this only means that your kids will be the smartest burger flipper of all the burger flippers in this country, while the real math and sciences are handled by what we once considered "third world nations".

Re:I guess I don't mind this

[zkiwi34]

That's simply because education in the modern USA and more recently the UK is seen merely as a bunch of check boxes to be filled in to be "qualified" for something. There's bugger all involved in getting kids to just like learning stuff and to see where it takes them.

Mind you, I don't mind discussing philosophy with the local kebab vendor, who apparently has a PhD in Engineering and some other fantastic academic background. It's a pity he and his family had to high tail it out of Iran as the revolution came, just to survive.

Re:I guess I don't mind this

[cheekyjohnson]

Look, it's going to be hard enough for my kids to get into college.

I'm not sure you'd want your kids in any college that accepts such trash, anyway.

It's fine to teach creationism

[kawabago]

It makes gullible adults so much easier to spot.

Re:It's fine to teach creationism

[Anonymous Coward]

Very astute. Let's focus instead on amending the law to allow employers to discriminate in hiring against those who believe creationism.
That way when it gets to court and you're asked, "Did you discriminate against him because he's Christian?"
Then you can legally answer, "No, I discriminated against him because he's a gullible and ignorant person. We like those people as customers, not co-workers."

Re:It's fine to teach creationism

[jsepeta]

who cares if we can spot idiots. a zillion people spotted president bush as an idiot, yet he still was able to fuck our country long and hard, with no end in sight. creationists are destroying our country with their bullshit laws.

Re:It's fine to teach creationism

[misanthropic.mofo]

who cares if we can spot idiots. a zillion people spotted president bush as an idiot, yet he still was able to fuck our country long and hard, with no end in sight.

Yes, obviously. Just like Obama has single handedly delivered the country from all its ails and hasn't added onto the burden it's under....Oh wait...

And Congress definitely has nothing to do with the poor performance of the country, every educated person knows that the president is the sole savior and decision maker for the country....Oh wait....

I'm in absolutely in no way defending or trying to support Bush's decisions, it just irks me when anyone blames everything wrong with the country on the executive branch. There is a system of checks and balances, that keeps any one branch from being able to destroy the country on its own. Democrats blame whatever republicans they can, when its a republican president of course he gets the blame. Now we're in a cycle of having a democrat for a president so the republicans are doing the same thing. The biggest problem is that politics in the US have nothing to do with anything that truly matters or what the people really want. It only has to do with whatever emotionally charged issue the politicians can piggy back on and try to get people's dander up, over. Then the sheeple follow whichever side shouts the loudest and sounds anywhere close to favoring their idea on something. Not mentioning all that pork legislation that gets thrown in to the mix. The few people left in the voting pool that can think for themselves, rather than regurgitating the left's/right's line of the day, don't have enough clout on their own to elect officials that can think for themselves. Of course on the off chance one of the politicians that doesn't just tow a party line gets into office, they either fold and begin to tow the line or they become ostracized by their respective party and get buried by the media and/or voted out during the next election cycle.

Getting back on topic, a solid education that deals with actual science would get a great bolstering from better instruction regarding civics and government. That won't every carry any weight though, because the political machine is perfectly happy with sheeple, they know their positions would be in jeopardy if there was an electorate that was educated and informed, rather than being baited into voting for this fuckhead or that.

Re:It's fine to teach creationism

[tehcyder]

Whatever you may say, Dubya was a fucking idiot hick in the eyes of most of the rest of the world.

Even if Obama just did exactly the same as George W Bush (and again from an outsider's point of view there is precious little to differentiate Republicans and Democrats), he would still at least be a reasonably intelligent and amusing human being, and not a dumb bowl of dull.

Re:It's fine to teach creationism

[moeinvt]

As a group, I don't think Christians or creationists are any more gullible than a random sample of the population.

I'll take a stab in the dark and guess that you were not raised in a household of active religious practitioners who attended religious services and studied religious texts regularly.

In my experience, the people who are able to break away from the belief system that was instilled in them from childhood are an exception.

Wow... That was close...

[Qybix]

I live in Canada and I was worried for a second there that I would have to start actively supporting creationists in the US! How else can the United States be made to fail? Can we out produce them? No. Can we out inovate them? Not yet... But we can out educated them! And by sabotaging the US education system we foreigners can force the once mighty United States to crash down like a house of cards.

Do you see the Chinese teaching their children worthless garbage? No. Good!

Do you see the Americans teaching their children worthless garbage? YES! GOOD!

All is right with the world!

Qybix

Teachers

[wisnoskij]

Does it really matter what the law is?

I really do not see fanatical creationalist teachers not slipping in some creatonalism, and I would say the same thing about the evolutionists but for evolution.

If you are a teacher who teaches biology, you would pretty much necessaries either know that evolution was true, or know that it was false and the bible true.

10th Amendment....

[Anonymous Coward]

As neutered as it currently is, it's still relevant. Don't like the laws in your state? Move to one that more aligns with your sensibilities. However, with the Federal gov't putting itself above all else, the 50 states are basically turning itno a homogenized mush.

It is somewhat disheartening, although expected, that so many are just as close-minded as those they criticize. Differing cultures have different creation stories. Why it's only Christianity that seems to draw the ire of the "enlightened" is beyond me. Most religions shortcut the "how" of creation because it's only secondary to the "why". Science is for the "how, religion and philosophy is for the "why". As a Christian myself, I've never understood the whole 6000 year thing either. Then again, even when Genesis says all of creation took 7 days, what is a day to an entity that is beyond the boundaries of space and time? Time is relative, just ask Einstein.

I believe in a God and in science. Heresy? Nah, pragmatism.

Re:10th Amendment....

[tehcyder]

Then again, even when Genesis says all of creation took 7 days, what is a day to an entity that is beyond the boundaries of space and time? Time is relative, just ask Einstein

So why does the Bible spell it out as 7 days, and not just "a period of time about which we humans have no possible knwledge, so it's not even worth mentioning"?

Re:10th Amendment....

[Plombo]

Because contrary to what many people think, Genesis 1 is not meant as scientific documentation. Think of the time it was compiled, which seems to be widely accepted as around the 5th or 6th century BC at the latest. The average person then had no concept of "a period of time about which we humans have no possible knowledge, so it's not even worth mentioning", whereas a "day" is an easy concept to understand even if it is not technically accurate. It was compiled with this audience in mind.

The people who take every word of Genesis literally as if it were written for 21st century readers are called "fundamentalists", and are rightfullly ridiculed by most other Christians and all non-Christians. They're well-represented in American politics, though, because extremism is a hallmark of our political system.

Re:10th Amendment....

[Beezlebub33]

It is somewhat disheartening, although expected, that so many are just as close-minded as those they criticize. Differing cultures have different creation stories. Why it's only Christianity that seems to draw the ire of the "enlightened" is beyond me. .

Because it's Christianity that is trying to get its creation stories put into the science curriculum, over the objections of scientists and educators. It's a political decision induced by their Christian beliefs.

If Christians didn't try to get their pseudo-science into the science classroom, then they would not draw my ire. I don't have the same animosity towards astrologers because they are not trying to teach children in the schools that the zodiac affects their life. Homeopathic practitioners are not trying to get their beliefs into grade school biology classes. Etc. But the Christians are.

Re:Why? - Indeed!?

[digitig]

So, instead of asking why "we aren't rethinking how government works" let's ask why we have a populace so ignorant and superstitious that WANT their leaders and politicians to enact such horseshit.

Because the education system put in place by those leaders keeps the population so ignorant and superstitious etc...?

Re:Lesson Learned

[Anonymous Coward]

how?
You do not teach critical thinking by teaching people to question gravity so why is evolution different?

The anti evolution brigade is very well funded and they have a slick media teem, to make matters worse if you start questioning them too much you can actively anger some of the parents. Asking children to learn critical thinking on this subject is like asking children to learn martial arts by fighting bears without instruction. It is also one of the issues that the fundamentalist movements use to spread thought stopping clichés into people, a permanent injury to their ability to think critically. You teach children properly with material that starts of easy and only later becomes more complex. When they have learned they can apply it themselves and defend themselves from the thought stopping ideas that get fed back to them without your help.

Re:Lesson Learned

[steelfood]

Almost all modern religions are based on this idea of perfection, that there is some greater being out there that is perfect, and that all humans should strive for that perfection. This god itself is merely an anthropomorphism of the ultimate aspirations of an imperfect, deeply flawed creature.

If there ever was there a place such a god could exist, it could only be found hidden behind the intricacies of mathematics.

Now if only this idea caught on among the deeply religious. Mathematics would be all the theology anyone needed to learn in school.

Digital code in genes, proof that Jesus rode dinos

[PopeRatzo]

The "Discovery Institute", the leading purveyors of pseudo-science hokum to the Far Right, who have somehow become a "think tank" involved in creating science curriculum in more than 25 states, has started a nationwide campaign on right-wing radio programs, pushing their notion that it's the Christian Conservatives who are the "real protectors of science" not those awful secular scientists (who are probably kenyan muslims too).

I heard their "director of research", a "Dr Stephen Meyer" who wrote a book called Darwinâ(TM)s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design on the radio earlier this week, talking about how the fact that our genes have "digital code" in them is proof of an "intelligent designer" because you can't have things like "circuits and digital code" without someone intelligent to design them.

I'm not joking, they are spending millions on a PR campaign talking about how the Christian Right are the true lovers of science. And exhibit A is how "the science establishment" still teaches evolution.

We are so fucked.

Scratch Louisiana

[edibobb]

Louisiana is one place I will not consider moving to.

And, for you grammar Nazis, Louisiana is one place to which I will not consider moving.

And, for you Cajuns, I ain't gonna go to loosiana no more.

Re:Scratch Louisiana

[hardaker]

Ah, if I only had mod points. You made me chuckle out loud. Twice. Thank you.

Re:Scratch Louisiana

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot "I gairohntee!"

Re:Scratch Louisiana

[Anonymous Coward]

fine - that more crawfish and cajun food for me...

Re:Scratch Louisiana

[Common Joe]

Son, I was born and raised there. Maybe them fancy educated Cajuns up north have their word for da state, but da proper term where I grew up is "Lousyana".

Re:Digital code in genes, proof that Jesus rode di

[meta-monkey]

you can't have things like "circuits and digital code" without someone intelligent to design them.

I present Windows 8 ("digital code") and the Zune ("circuits") as counter examples.

Re:Digital code in genes, proof that Jesus rode di

[stinerman]

Yes. And you can't have an intelligent designer without an intelligent designer designer.

From there it's turtles all the way down.

Re:Lesson Learned

[camperdave]

Well, Pi actually is wrong.

Re:Wow... That was close...

[rusty0101]

Well, you could sell us the oil in your sand, and use the profits as you see fit... :-)

Room for compromise

[PhamNguyen]

While there are some things that must be clearly rejected, like claims that the earth is only 6000 years old, there are issues relating to the philosophy and interpretation of the theory of evolution where there is room for compromise, and this would go a long way to diffusing the conflict.

My understanding is that many Christians object not to the content of the theory of evolution, but the the claim that it operates by "blind chance". We can compare it to Carl Sagan's idea that God has left a message in Pi. Should we be teaching in schools that such a message is absolutely impossible? I personally don't believe that God has left a message in Pi, but there is no conclusive evidence either way. Similarly the evidence doesn't rule out that God guides evolution. Evolution involves apparent randomness, just like the digits of pi. But there is no conclusive evidence that his apparent randomness is true randomness.

Re:Room for compromise

[Seumas]

You don't seem to understand what Science is whatsoever.

Re:Room for compromise

[PhamNguyen]

Thank you for your helpful comment.

Re:Room for compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

No. they come up with emotional and incorrect arguments to back their wacky ass belief system.
I've dealt with many of these harmful , mean, and irrational people.
Frankly., I don't deal with these people and that include not hiring them, not using them as vendors, and not using anyone who has a religious sticker on there car, or a torture implement dangling from a chain around their neck for in home or auto repair.

They want to harm our children, dictate are laws, and shove their crap into our government.
Also, stop giving them a free ride and tax churches.

PI is a grat example of God: bunch or random crap people can interpret anyway the see fit to back their cave mane level belief system.

"Evolution involves apparent randomness"
sigh. Evolution teaching in the country really needs to be updated, sadly whenever they want to add new data, the bible thumping wastes of flesh come out and try to infect the data and facts with the jumboest of mumbo.

You cant have evidence to disprove something that doesn't exist when people keep movie the goal post.

Re:Room for compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly you can prove that pi contains every finite string of characters, so if "God" has left a message in pi then he has left *every* message in pi. Secondly if you want to believe in a guiding force behind evolution by all means do so, but that isn't science and shouldn't be taught in science lessons.

Re:Room for compromise

[Anonymous Coward]

You will never defuse the conflict, because the tiny minority of Christians who are proponents of ID (tiny minority on a world scale -- this debate only happens in the US) will keep moving the goal posts to ensure that it cannot be defused. This is because the "conflict" is not a scientific one: there is no debate about ID among evolutionary biologists, irrespective of what their personal religious beliefs are, because they do not consider it as being worthy of even passing consideration. It is also not actually a religiously motivated in the way that most people would understand the term, because both the Catholic and Anglican churches, who account for the vast bulk of the world's Christians, accept that evolution is an irrefutable fact, and also reject ID out of hand.

The fact that the entirety of the so-called "ID debate" is pitched squarely those with little to no real scientific training who also are pretty much restricted to the US reveals the real motivation behind it: replacing the current secular state, courts, and education system that those behind ID currently have no control over with a theocracy that they run. A combination of Iran and Mediaeval Europe should give you a good idea of what they have planned for you.

Re:Room for compromise

[tehcyder]

We can compare it to Carl Sagan's idea that God has left a message in Pi. Should we be teaching in schools that such a message is absolutely impossible? I personally don't believe that God has left a message in Pi, but there is no conclusive evidence either way.

As with anything, it is up to people who believe there is a message from God in Pi to prove it. I can't prove God doesn't exist, but a believer could prove He does really, really easily, as just one unambiguous piece of evidence would do.

So, no, we shouldn't teach things in schools just because they can't be disproven. Because not only would you have to include Creationism and Intelligent Design, you'd also have to chuck in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and Bertrand Russell's teapot orbiting the Earth.

Re:Room for compromise

[Hatta]

We should teach exactly what we have evidence to support. There is no evidence to support a message in pi, and there is no evidence to support creationism. No, we can't rule out that God guides evolution, but there's no evidence to support that assertion so it has no place in a science class.

It's not that the science literate object to creationism because it involves God. We object to creationism because there is no evidence for it. Any theory that is well supported by evidence belongs in a science class. Any theory that is not, does not.

Re:Room for compromise

[GameboyRMH]

I don't think creationists think that evolution rules God out, or at least I don't think that's their primary or most common problem. I think their main problem is that it allows for a "creation story" without God in it. It is at least as compatible with atheism as it is with theism and that is their main problem.

This is my home state

[Anonymous Coward]

and I'm still baffled that it could have

• a heavily Republican-leaning city with bond-funded subsidized municipal fiber internet passed by public referendum, years before Google Fiber existed (and it went cash-positive in 3 years)
• a 270-year history of subsidized health care for the poor
• taxes on the oil industry to fund education on all levels -- in 1920

I'm not sure another state in the south has such a progressive history, and still manages to lean progressive in some fields, and yet still lets crap like this through the legislature.

two words

[Anonymous Coward]

blind faith

False Dichotomy

[Anonymous Coward]

You are assuming that the two factions are Pro-God, (religious), and Anti-God, (science). The truth is Science is completely uninterested in the debate while the Religious are more interested in power. Science stole their power, and now they want it back. There are plenty of theistic scientists, but the trouble is you can't prove or disprove God, (and since you can't, invoking God can't prove or disprove anything, either), so in their scientific literature, God is typically absent. Einstein spent his entire life trying to prove that random wasn't Random. Of course, neither the side seeking power, nor the side trying to stay out of the God debate bring him up.

Democracy is not reality...

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy is a form of government, not reality. Regardless of what most people want, we get something else. Only some people vote, far less than a 51% majority. Then, only the Congress actually votes for the "...religious education, persecution of other religions, and modern crusades..".

Even where guns and Gay marriage are legal, not everyone will get hitched to another guy with a pistol in hand. The other 49% are NOT stuck doing those same things! This is the "if your friends jumped off a bridge..." lesson.

Re:Lesson Learned

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ever read a grad-level math book, you'll notice a distinct lack of critical thought went into writing it.

Re:Lesson Learned

[meglon]

Pi is never wrong. Unless it's like strawberry glaze, but accidentally using strawberries that aren't ripe and still bitter... then it's just horrendously wrong.

Re:Lesson Learned

[Anonymous Coward]

well actually, she is wrong and thoroughly debunked. Her idea that makes it easy, makes it harder on other mathematics.
frankly, she is hurting mathematics.More precisely, that concept she, and other short sighted narrow minder people push is bad. Worse, they don't really use logic probe their point, just an emotional argument.

Looks like more work for Zack

[Covalent]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zack_Kopplin
http://www.repealcreationism.com/


FYI: Zack is a college student who, while a high school student in Louisiana, decided that no one was going to repeal this law while he was in school. He started an organization to try and ensure that Louisiana students could get a proper education.

Maybe he should run for state senator!

Re:Lesson Learned

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you haven't noticed this. Gravity as in "falling" is something even you can experiences.

Evolution is something that (to most people) is just a bunch of mumbo jumbo that has no discernable "hook" into why they should even care; which is why bunches of people get all upset when it's being declared loudly and angrily as "the only true view of life" and all other views are bollocks. It's human nature to react badly to something that is shoved in your face, declared as not open to your opinion (even if you might agree with it on reflection), and pushed by passing bollocks laws into being (so it's the only "legal" thing that can be taught) that do nothing but increase the blow back.

It doesn't seem to occur to the "enlightened" that other people might not share in their "enlightenment." That's just plain old angry arrogance and if anything is the biggest hindrance there is in Science and for that matter day-to-day getting by in life.

One more things. Oddly enough, Science has had lots of controversy in its limited history, and it doesn't seem to have evolved past raising up cults of "experts" that cling grimly to their worldview until whatever new epiphany eventually (well maybe and not always) casts them down into a more useful place. It intensely amuses me when you have people going all "Princess Bride" and claiming the old time "greats" were all morons, when they themselves by so doing are unwittingly shouting their own limited intellect from the rooftops.

Nutters, the lot of 'em.

[Anonymous Coward]

An open mind is a good thing, unless it's so open that your brain falls out.

Re:Nutters, the lot of 'em.

[Genda]

These folks are completely safe... head open... nothing there but echoes!

Re:Lesson Learned

[riverat1]

I'm not afraid of your ideas, I just don't want to waste my time on them.

Too Open Minded

[Roger W Moore]

Wow, why are you so closed minded towards other ideas?

As the saying goes: "Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out". Even if you accept that his "vision" really happened, and was not the product of a mentally unfit mind, he acknowledges that it is not science and then argues that because sometimes non-scientific methods work it means that science education should contain non-science. That's as logical as arguing that because meteorology sometimes works all music classes should now contain content on predicting the weather..

It's Lose-E-Anna

[Anonymous Coward]

They actually NEED to be able to teach creationism in science class regardless of what hundreds of years of scientific inquiry have to say about the origin of life (which actually remains a mystery, even to the most educated scientist). After all, how else do you explain Bush's response to Katrina to inquiring minds in New Orleans other than to blame it on God? Obviously he was trying to punish the perpetrators of slavery. Just because he's no better at avoiding collateral damage than our military only bolsters the righteousness of U.S. exceptionalism when we "promote" freedom and democracy around the globe with the best weaponry STEMgineers can manage to build and department of Duhfense can sell.

Get a grip. Local gub'ment is no more successful at keeping kids down on the farm than bible thumpers are at keeping their kids from having sex of smoking dope.

Re:Lesson Learned

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is not a "view of life" at most it is how we got here physically it says nothing about purpose or morals and neither confirms nor denies gods, except to contradict specific myths. The latter only applies to if you demand that those myths are interpreted literally. only a fanatic or someone with no faith would care about evolution for religious reasons, there are plenty of both though.

And as for nor reason why people should care, obviously antibiotic resistance is not an issue then? or pesticide resistance or adaptation of parasites to the hyper-homogeneous crop varieties we farm today and it's affects on food prices....
Do you you have a better way of teaching kids than telling them how things work? because trying to let them find out by hand takes far far too long. Or are you instead saying that we should not teach what we understand because that might upset people who disagree with it?
Besides which you can argue against evolution if you have proof - it would just take something pretty crazy at this point, faith does not allow even that.

Newton was wrong and so was Einstein, but they where both very clever and both where less wrong than there predecessors, that is progress and is all science ever wants. If you hear people claiming that the old theories where made by morons then they are not involved in real science or you are hearing what you want to hear not what is said.

Not that any of your points have anything to do with the fact that you want to teach critical thinking in critical thinking classes, not the classes you have set aside to teach facts, and you teach the facts as we understand them now not how parents want to here them.

Re:Digital code in genes, proof that Jesus rode di

[tragedy]

The Discovery Institute has a few things to throw at evolution. One is based on information theory, and from a scientific philosophy standpoint it makes sense. It deals with the concept of systems being designed. For example to make an army tank vast amounts of design are required. You do not need to take God into account. You can stop at you have this colossal amount of information that makes a system. You do not have to consider who put it there if you do not want to, thus completely removing religion from intelligent design.

If their argument was compelling, I think they must have explained it a little better than you. Based on your last line, it seems like you're describing the scientific principle of putting your hands over your ears and saying "LALALALALALALA!!!!"

The part of the title "The Explosive Origin of Animal Life" is a hot topic. The problem is the Cambrian Explosion, from where the life you see today originated. The problem with it is it seemingly spontaneously erupted. There should be a clear fossil record of organisms progressing to the Cambrian Explosion organisms, but the fossil record doesn't seem to be lining up. Darwin himself said the theory breaks down until that is resolved

Darwin is not the be all and end all on the subject of evolution. Frankly, he probably only wrote that out of a sense of obligation to Adam Sedgwick, who was one of his mentors. The Cambrian explosion isn't particularly surprising. Before it, organisms that formed fossils well weren't very common, then some adaptations crept in that conferred some distinct advantages over existing organisms in many niches, especially on land. Then you have rapid diversification as those niches fill up, and then the new organisms _become_ the environment, creating even more niches, not to mention arms races (seriously, literally arms in some cases). There's no hole in the theory of evolution in the Cambrian Explosion.

I do not see a problem with an information theory based Intelligent Design being taught in schools, because it is sound science. And the perplexities of evolutionary theory, mainly the Cambrian Explosion problem should be taught too, because that is sound and very exciting science.

Sorry, without a better explanation here of what you mean by "information theory based Intelligent Design", it seems to me more like a plan to sabotage kids understanding of Information Theory as well as Biology. The Cambrian Explosion should certainly be taught about as well. Imaginary problems with the Cambrian explosion... Well, I suppose it could be a good critical thinking exercise. The teacher could explain the supposed "problem" and have a round table discussion for the kids to present solutions to the supposed problem.

Pseudoscience in Louisiana

[David Gerard]

Pseudoscience is everywhere in Louisiana - a report from the ground.

Integer equality

[gillbates]

You know, I think I've found a place for my civil rights movement. That's right - LA - I'm looking at you. Of all the places where PI could be considered equal to 3, you've distinguished yourself as the most likely for this to happen. You see, not everyone believes in Integer Equality - but they're on the wrong side of history. Of course, there will be some REAL bigots who insist that even though it's irrational, PI is *supposed* to have numbers on both sides of the decimal point. They'll say that it is different from the integers; that it doesn't belong with them, that it is somehow different; that the differences can't be expressed in a rational way - but we all know that's just a cover for their integer intolerant attitudes. So I propose that we pass a law that PI is exactly three. And an integer. If you want to believe otherwise in your heart, fine - but know this, in any aspect affecting public infrastructure or services, you can't discriminate against the integers. Your private, personal beliefs about an irrational number have no place in a universe where integers and fractions are supposed to coexist and live together.

It'll swing back eventually

[Maritz]

Eventually, when the wise elders of Louisiana realise no-one (universities elsewhere etc) wants their students because their standards are pish, they'll probably try to raise the bar again and get the bible-bashing out of science class. Then the cycle will repeat. For a country that has supposedly got a constitution separating church and state, it's a fairly pathetic effort. But hey, I expect most people in Louisiana are religious so there's democracy for you. Brainwash 'em young - many effective memes have this property. ;)

Re:It'll swing back eventually

[Jason Levine]

Sadly, I'm not even that optimistic. If we don't successfully push back against anti-science, it'll just spread to other states. And then, when they have enough representatives in their pockets, they'll go federal. If they can get enough people in Congress, they can affect how laws are written and what scientific research is performed. (See Lamar Smith's recent declaration that all scientific research needs to be politically approved first.) If they can control the Presidency at just the right time, they can appoint some anti-science Supreme Court members as well. Given enough power, they can banish science and get us "back to our Christian roots." They see America as having once been a theocracy and their ultimate goal is to reestablish that again. And once we're ruled by Christian principals, god will smile on us and make us super-prosperous. (In what, I don't know, because all of the scientists and technology folks would have fled to countries more receptive to science.)

Re:Lesson Learned

[serviscope_minor]

FWIW, I stand on the side of reason and science.

But...

Also have you ever tried applying critical thought to math class? Those closed-minded teachers won't even consider that Pi might be three. Tell them that's what you believe, and they'll fail you out of sheer bigotry. Man, math must be too weak to expose to differing ideas.

Depends what you mean by Pi, of course. It you mean the number 3.14159....blah then sure. It's always that because it is merely defined to be so.

If however you mean the ratio of circumference to diameter of a circle then not so much. This "pi" (lowercase) can be whatever you want.

One of the brilliant, subersive things about maths is that no one need dictate the rules. You can change them at will and see what happens. Don't want pi to be the usual value? then change it. It doesn't even have to be constant. And then see what happens. There are whole worlds of different geometries out there.

Including this one since we live on the surface of a sphere not a flat plane, never mind any general relativity effects.

No, I didn't read the GP post. I just felt like having a rant.

Its now time...

[Genda]

To declare "I'm with STUPID ->" The official Louisiana State T-Shirt! In fact they're only a couple idiot acts away from the "I R Stupid" T-Shirt.

Re:Digital code in genes, proof that Jesus rode di

[Anonymous Coward]

... someone intelligent to design them ...

This is a big part of modern religion and the dependance of evolutionary theory on the '1000 monkeys' principle makes it difficult to refute. Yes, we can see animals adapt and become a new species. We can see animals breed and become a new species. There is a lot of history in that species whether one accepts creationism or not. But Darwinism suffers the same problem as the big bang: What happened first? It's this lack of consistency that the creationists tap into.

Re:Digital code in genes, proof that Jesus rode di

[PopeRatzo]

Now don't talk bad about the Zune. I believe it was, pound for pound, the best portable media player ever made. I even really like the interface. Sound quality blows Apple or Cowon away. Very solid hardware.

I like them so much that I bought a few of the flash Zune HD off eBay recently because they were getting so hard to get (and the prices are going up!) and have them stashed in a drawer in case mine ever breaks (they never do) or I lose one.

Re:Digital code in genes, proof that Jesus rode di

[coinreturn]

you can't have things like "circuits and digital code" without someone intelligent to design them.

I present Windows 8 ("digital code") and the Zune ("circuits") as counter examples.

You've hit upon my new theory of Creationism - Dumbass design. Examples -the toxic dump (ass) is too close to the playground (genitals); if corn is food, why does it come out substantially the same as it went in?

Re:Lesson Learned

[tehcyder]

Evolution and Atheism are so weak that exposure to any differing ideas must not be risked. Got it.

As an atheist, I actually tend to agree. The more different crackpot religious ideas kids are exposed to, the more likely it is they will realise they're all equally absurd.

As, say, someone brought up in a Christian tradition, once you realise that all those Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus (and Ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Vikings...) are equally convinced they're right you might get an inkling that the One True Faith you've been brought up with might not be so unique after all.

Re:Digital code in genes, proof that Jesus rode di

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is an example of Discovery Institue propaganda that was published recently as a Letter to the Editor. pittsburgh post gazette

Re:Digital code in genes, proof that Jesus rode di

[sociocapitalist]

The "Discovery Institute", the leading purveyors of pseudo-science hokum to the Far Right, who have somehow become a "think tank" involved in creating science curriculum in more than 25 states, has started a nationwide campaign on right-wing radio programs, pushing their notion that it's the Christian Conservatives who are the "real protectors of science" not those awful secular scientists (who are probably kenyan muslims too).

I heard their "director of research", a "Dr Stephen Meyer" who wrote a book called Darwinâ(TM)s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design on the radio earlier this week, talking about how the fact that our genes have "digital code" in them is proof of an "intelligent designer" because you can't have things like "circuits and digital code" without someone intelligent to design them.

I'm not joking, they are spending millions on a PR campaign talking about how the Christian Right are the true lovers of science. And exhibit A is how "the science establishment" still teaches evolution.

We are so fucked.

Welcome to The Dark Ages, Part II (The American Saga)

Is it too late to surrender to the south ?

[morto]

You know what, maybe winning the civil war was not such a good idea. Maybe you guys could reconsider and cut the south loose.

Leaves the backdoor open to teaching 'creationism'

[SlowMeDown]

Sounds like someone does not want an alternate idea introduced to students. I think the same arguments were made for a flat earth.

Faith in nothing will lead you to believe that nothing exists.

Get rid of government schools

[moeinvt]

Problem solved.

If people want their kids to learn that the FSM created the earth and the universe, so be it.

Re:Quid pro quo

[GameboyRMH]

This might be a worthwhile deal. Once the anti-science morons have died off, there will be no global-warming-conspiracy nuts, then all fossil energy could be phased out in just a few decades (and the technology to do it will be more mature). It might be better to abandon the short-term gains for a fast and comprehensive solution down the road than to be engaged in a long game of tug-of-war between science and idiocy with no end in sight.

But remember

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't confuse "a healer" or people who throw chicken bones on the ground and try to read them with Christianity. They are NOT representative of biblical teaching. Far far from it in fact.

-Ryan

Teaching 'creationism' in public schools

[c0lo]

By perpetuating stupidity they doom their descendents to lives of insignificance and eventual extinction.

What can one say other then "God help them, they'll need it"?

Not of you're really selfish...

[Anonymous Coward]

because either way it's going to cost you money. You'll have to support those kids through
your taxes if they're emotionally or physically crippled from being beaten, or intellectually
crippled from being taught horse-s**t.

Re:Digital code in genes, proof that Jesus rode di

[PopeRatzo]

You've hit upon my new theory of Creationism - Dumbass design. Examples -the toxic dump (ass) is too close to the playground (genitals); if corn is food, why does it come out substantially the same as it went in?

And why the hell do I have astigmatism? Maybe the intelligent designer was having a bad day when I was designed.

Re:Lesson Learned

[Anonymous Coward]

If there ever was there a place such a god could exist, it could only be found hidden behind the intricacies of mathematics.

Even in mathematics, you will find no such perfection - consider Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

red state decline

[Anonymous Coward]

These so called "red states" are in for a rude awakening. The 21st century is the era of brain-power. Our economic competitors recognize this. Places like Louisiana are anti-intellectual backwaters run by hicks and rednecks. They will be left behind. And my sympathy for them will be zero.