Slashdot Mirror
Getting Evolution In Science Textbooks For Texas Schools
First time accepted submitter windwalker13th writes "Recently the New York Times ran an article highlighting the pull that a State Board in Texas holds over that state and rest of the Nation. Because of the unique way in which Texas picks school textbooks (purchasing large volumes of textbooks at once to be used for the next decade) publishers pander to this board to get their books approved. The board currently holds several members (6 of 28 who are known to reject evolution) who hold creationist views and actively work to ensure that the science textbooks do not use as strong language or must include "critical thinking" about possible alternate explanations for evolution."
A bearded man...
Any old God can do speciation. But a TRULY awesome God? He automates it.
THL phish sticks
How is this news? We've all known about this for a very long time.
'Impossible' is a word that humans use far too often. -- Seven of Nine
It's a SCIENTIFIC FACT!
"Creationism" does not have ANY place in a scientific textbook. These people MUST be told to go soak their heads for 40 days and 40 nights under peer review.
Education in sciences isn't up for a debate along the lines of "everything we're teaching has an equally plausible antithesis, if you're raised religious."
This is bullshit taught to children with tax dollars in a secular environment. Kill it with fire.
Because Aliens.
They best include the great spaghetti monster, that too is an "alternate explanation for evolution"
These critical viewpoints that have been injected into school curriculum for decades now probably have the side-effect of strengthening the rigor to which the study of evolution has in the end benefited.
Well it is, but should be better considered as methodological thinking.
If you want creationism in science, Then give us something we can test and verify to prove it. Otherwise we will stick to what the evidence shows us.
If it is wrong, then we are wrong, however there isn't evidence to show that yet.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Sure, creationist do not want student to think critically except when it comes to 'debunking' evolution.
Maybe students should be given a list of proofs for evolution and a list of proofs for creationism and let them draw their own conclusion. But I guess that is unfeasible. How would you squeeze the equivalent of thousands of pages worth of proofs in a student science textbook? At least, the creationist side would add no more that 0 page of proofs to that manual. Maybe half a page if you include bananas and crocoducks.
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
After all, we should keep an open mind to alternate explanations.
Thanks to modern genetics, it's right up there with the theory of gravity. I want to see these bozos go roof-side and test that one out for us. After all, it's just a theory.
I'm okay with any theory being in a science textbook as long as there is some kind of scientific backing.
Evolution has some scientific backing. It should be in a science textbook. It's science, after all.
If someone can find some real scientific support for creationism, that's great. You can put that into the science textbook, too.
Until then, whether you believe in creationism, intelligent design, evolution, some kind of mixture of that, or something else entirely, you have to accept that only science should be in a science textbook.
You don't have to agree with the science. It is just a way of understanding the world, after all, but a science book should have science in it, and not have non-science.
As an analogy, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to drop the teachings of Hinduism into a new revised copy of the Koran. The Koran is an Islamic text; the Hindu teachings really don't have much of a place there. Doesn't matter which one you believe to be correct, if any. It's just information existing in its proper context.
So please, Texas education people, it doesn't matter what you believe. It's all about putting things where they belong. You can believe whatever you want, I really don't care (unless you want to kill me or something, then there's a problem), but don't put non-science into a science book. It just doesn't belong.
Love sees no species.
.. just like the Christians renamed 'creation' to Intelligent Design, maybe it is time to rename 'evolution' to something else.
Note - that just like the Christians renamed their's to 'sound' more scientific, we have to rename Evolution to sound more 'religious'.
Maybe "God and Nature's Excellent Adventure" or something.
Suggestions anyone ?
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
So the point of the story is that creationists are a small minority on the Texas Board of Education?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
I think this will create backlash and before you know it, Texas is no longer the gold standard for text books. Sigh, Texas is becoming more and more of a joke every day.
I believe in both. God, and evolution. Science and religion do not have to be at odds.
Anybody who insists creationism and 'alternatives' to evolution is a real thing is patently unqualified to be a part of the process of selecting text books for students.
Your being a drooling idiot doesn't mean you should be inflicting that on everyone else.
There is precisely ZERO science behind creationism and intelligent design.
Congratulations America, you have become controlled by idiots who don't have a basic grasp of science.
This is a non-issue.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/18/texas-textbooks-creationism_n_4124692.html
Why are states allowing themselves to be blackmailed like this? Why can't they just release "open source" text books and hand them out for free in EPUB format? Buy the kids an e-reader or a cheap tablet instead and load it up with the books. I bet it would work out far cheaper than physical books and would mean that neither publishers or one particular state (with a high % of idiots) could interfere with their curriculums.
Release the Kraken!
Seriously. Am I expected to believe that Texas somehow dictates what books are available to, for instance, California educators?
LOL
One wonders if the NYT has a calendar where they schedule these sort of recurring op-ed-masquerading-as-news "stories."
--
Soaking up libtard mod points since 1997
Now, sir... you are being absurd! We have long knew that Jesus rode a T-Rex at the moment of Creation.
Thirty four characters live here.
Otherwise you will DIAF.
Yeah, right.
" Creationism is system of scientific thought that presupposes a specific world view that can not be proven or disproved. "
IE, religious bullshit, and not science as one would expect in a SCIENTIFIC TEXTBOOK, durr. So you're the liar, really.
Aaaaaaaaaand it's gone.
Many of the critics of the theory of evolution fall into the trap of misunderstanding the definitions of 'theory' and 'hypothesis'
Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"
Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?s=t:)
"theory [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
noun, plural theories.
1.
a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine."
Hypothesis (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothesis:)
"hypothesis [hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hypotheses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."
Here's where things become more interesting:
Scientific Theory (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory:)
"scientific theory
noun
a theory that explains scientific observations; 'scientific theories must be falsifiable'"
So, a scientific theory must not only explain the phenomenon, but also be well supported by empirical evidence and experimentation and be falsifiable yet proven. A hypothesis, on the other hand, is only a proposed explanation for given observations.
Here's a nice comparison between the concepts: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Hypothesis_vs_Theory
"In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way." - tnk1
... that God does not exist. We all know God is almighty, and that he created the Universe. What is the summit of being almighty ? That is: being able to do anything in spite of the largest possible handicap. What is the largest possible handicap ? To not exist. God, now, is sheer actuality: no possibility in him remains unactualized. ( If it were not so, he would not be perfect, and we all know he is perfect. If he were not so, he would not be God, and our argument would be somewhat moot. ) Hence, the possibility of him not to exist does not remain a mere possibility: he actualizes it. Hence and therefore, he does not exist.
( Free after Thomas of Aquinas )
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Actually it would be an excellent case study on the scientific method.
You could use it to demonstrate the importance of peer review, how/why scientific theory changes over time, and to develop the skill of evaluating sources.
It also demonstrates why science education is important even if you don't plan to be a scientist, and why the scientific method is so important.
If you start with assumptions about the outcome you don't have science.
It is a philosophy not a science.
I think that; right there; is a big part of the problem: They don't have any intertest in teaching science, just teaching explanations.
I think back to my own science classes, and we didn't just sit there listening to lectures about how things worked. It was about why we think we they work the way they seem to. It was about the "plumb pudding" model of the atom, and why the bohr model was better, and why the bohr model turned out to not really cut it...etc.
Creationism has a place as an "alternate" to evolution when it becomes a full fledged theory and makes useful predicitons that can be tested; not when the explanation makes sense to somebody.
Explanations are not science, not until they do just that....make predictions which can be tested. "God did it" means nothing until you can tell me what "God did it" predicts that is different from other theories in a way that could be tested with the right conditions.
Until then, all you have is bullshit.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
No, it's not. Creationism is a system of anti-scientific thought (which is what concerning itself with something that cannot be proven or disproven means). It is not science, and therefore has no place in a science textbook.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Creationist is not a system of scientific thought. Neither is "intelligent design". The whole concept of a scientific system is that it makes no assumptions, beyond being able to attain accurate and true measurements. Teaching "intelligent design" is a gross intellectual dishonesty because it IS an excuse to teach religion. Once you "presuppose" a specific world view, you've negated any concept of science.
I have faith, I even believe in God. Yet I'm a scientist, and I think I will utterly fail both faith and science if they are ever allowed to meet in my head. Once is a philosophical framework for the world. One is a structure of strict mathematics and logic. They have nothing to do with one another, and every time someone tries to bulldoze scientific education with their narrow-minded unimaginative worldview that does truly derive solely from a n-thousand-year-old book, it makes me cringe.
If I want to teach my kids religion, I'll do it, or I'll send them to temple, or a religious school. Please don't teach them YOUR version of a specific world view in public school.
I am wearing my asbestos underwear so I'm prepared for the flames. I will now unload the vitriol.
There are times that I wish that the Republic of Texas, the entity that was created in 1836 after a war of revolution against Mexico, had remained an independent nation. Texas politicians are a national disgrace and I wish they would have just remained independent. They are the American Quebec, a province that many in Canada despise but cannot be gotten rid of without harming and hamstringing the rest of the country.
That Texas is governed by morons is evident in this article. A quick look at its current governor and its previous one, who also just happened to steal an election to become the President of the United States should remove any doubts as to the veracity of that statement.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
It would also be a case study in how many things can interfere and derail science - religious, economic, or governmental interests.
Unfortunately the history of science is full of these kinds of things. It really slows down progress and always hurts those who choose to do it.
Ask Galileo.
I don't believe in any type of god, and therefore nothing that would follow from that. However, as a measure of exercising critical thinking, I believe high school students should debate all sorts of theism vs. anti-theism purely for the philosophical and intellectual merits of dissecting existence through logic. This is provided that such curriculum not be biased in either direction, by the material or by the direction of the teacher. At the end of the day, the kids can believe what they choose.
Creationism on the other hand amounts to teaching young people that fairy tales are true. There is a point where parents stop lying to their children about Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. The educational system has no place re-introducing blind belief in nonsense. The study of evolution does not hide that it is woefully incomplete on some important details, but it does teach how the objectivity of the scientific method led us to what we do now understand and shows us how one day we will unravel the whole lot of it. When you introduce creationism as a valid alternative to science, you must also introduce a creator god and that's where the buck stops - rendering critical thinking unimportant.
I welcome any debate this comment produces. I can already guess what some of them will be : p
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
This is bullshit taught to children with tax dollars in a secular environment. Kill it with fire.
I think you'll find that the sentiment is pretty equally shared by Christians who are willing to actually study and think about their scriptures. After all, it makes it pretty hard to talk to someone about what one finds important (i.e. religion) when you're called by the same name as a vocal group which is (rightly) identified as deniers of reality. Augustine (an early church father and pretty universally acknowledged formalizer of Christian doctrine) wrote in AD 400:
This literal 24 hour reading of Genesis is not a new phenomena, but it will continue because it is natural for people to either lazily read, or to avoid questions which may fundamentally challenge their faith (they would say: better a saved ignoramus than to face the dangers inherent in asking questions). The latter can be recognized as an attitude which is actually strongly criticized by the New Testament writer Paul.
The High Prophet Tim Minchin said it best (NSFW).
Yeah, right.
Indeed. You can call it a different set of assumptions, but it certainly does not come to any conclusions. It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, it is not falsifiable. It may be a model, not science. Good case study though into how gullible people can be without scientific training... (and sometimes even with).
"creationists" had a number of scientific discoveries:
- The earth is at the center of the universe
- The sun and planets revolve around the earth
They always seem to stay current as well:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
You are contradicting yourself:
Scientific thought: Something which is to be objectively tested on reality and thrown away if it doesn't fit.
World view that cannot be proven or disproven: Something which cannot be objectively tested on reality, by definition.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
If he wants "alternate explanations for evolution" I think the Church of the flying spaghetti monster should be included as well!
I once asked a creationist why if a Priest like Georges Lemaitre (Big bang theory, Hubble's law and Hubble's constant ---It wasn't Hubble) could be scientific and religious at the same time why couldn't she?
She responded 'Without God, there is no science or evolution at all."
I face-palmed.
We might as well teach our children that a mysterious all pervasive aether be regarded as a medium for conducting light and radio waves as an alternative possibility to the definitively understood reality. Its mysterious nature is the best platform for approaching the severe problems physics causes for literal 6-day creation. Yeah, let's step it up.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
If they will also teach about scientific principles, and evolution in religious classes, as well as the foundations for every other religion then I guess its OK
After all we must "balance" things there too.
There are several pieces above by posters who try to logically and calmly explain why they are against the teaching of creationism, or the weakening of the teaching of evolution as the accepted theory. I have only one thing to say. Stop it. Creationists are simply delusional idiots, and unless they are treated as such, they will continue to think that there is room for their ideas in the real world. THERE IS NOT. You should all be ashamed and embarrassed about your views, and what you are doing to your children. It is pig headed, idiotic, and manipulative. No one will judge you when you recover from this stupidity, except your current peers who are in the same deranged boat. Stop polluting the planet and embarrassing the US with your crap.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Why is this still a problem. Why can't the publisher's do a special run of their text books for Texas that includes whatever rubbish Texas wants, and then provide decent text books for everyone else? I don't see why, in the age of micro publishing, that there's any economy of scale here. So how does Texas retain this influence on the nation?
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The Feds to step in and say, enough is enough. Keep your religious beliefs out of schools. If you want to teach your kids about creationism do it at home, not in school. Evolution is proved, creationism is not.
The creationist mindset can be applied to Superman.Vague evidence in the form of documentation leading to his existence. A city (Metropolis, IL a real place) and the possibility of a man named Clark Kent living in said place. Ergo Superman is real and now you cant disprove it. its an alternate theory vs the one that he doesn't exist. And you cant disprove it. I have handed you more evidence than you have handed me about him not existing.
http://www.cityofmetropolis.com/
In case it wasn't clear I was using the same argumentative logic used by religious apologists or bible thumpers. I myself once employed such tactics. I could go round and round the logic circle until you tire out and walk away and then rationalize in my mind saying...Lex Luthor has brainwashed that poor soul. This absolutist circular "logic" is the problem.
The great part about evolution is that it can be proven. EASILY, selective breeding is a form of evolution. We see it with dogs over a couple generations we live through. But naturally occurring evolution happens MUCH slower. But its clear that it happens. We pretty much have proven it. The so called missing links aren't missing. Just not as well published is all.
Big bang theory? Check its happening. The universe is still expanding. the big bang theory is still happening.
... and right-wing religious derp.
Religion is derp regardless of political affiliation.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
There is no scientific cold hard facts that prove evolution is true. It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does God. No one saw the big bang happen, it wasn't captured on video. The evidence we have showing that the speed at which the Universe is expanding is contrary to how a 4 billion year old explosion should be reacting at this stage. How is it possible that the expantion of the Universe is speeding up if the explosion is 4 billion years old? The speed of the explosion would either remain at a steady rate or start to slow down, not speed up. See there is plenty of evidence to dispute the big bang theory, and without the big bang theory you don't have any evolution. At least people have claimed to see God or to have some type of spiritual experience or visitation from a spiritual being. No one has claimed to have witnessed the big bang or an ameba changing into a fish, the fish changing into a monkey and a monkey into a human. The fossil record does not show this transition either. You don't have to have a Ph.d in a scientific field to realize it takes faith to believe in evolution. All it takes is some common sense and logic to realize evolution is a theory. It can't even stand up to the scientific method. It can't be duplicated and verified. What about irreducible complexity, and symbiotic relationships? There are thousands of examples that show that it is impossible for most of the creations we know about to exist in incomplete and incremental stages. For instances, just take you heart. How the hell did we survive with a half devoloped heart? And just think about random process creating such a complex organism...it's insantity to say that random forces in the Universe created such an incredible complex structure. When Darwain came up with this theory he had no idea how complex even the tiny individual cell is. Just a cell alone is practically a minature city teaming with all kinds of activity. It's shocking how much support this theory has. It's insanity is what it is. People or should I say sheeple don't think for themselves. If a someone with a Ph.d speaks then it must be fact. Humans with a Ph.d are practically infallible gods or at least that is how the lame stream media views them as or those that don't think for themselves. So what if several scientist with Ph.d's calls evolution fact. We have see in history many times where a large group of people are wrong...even intelligent people. There are several scientist with Ph.d's that dispute evolution and also disagree with those who claim it is fact. If we were to look at the cold hard mathmatical facts, they lean more in the favor of a designer. I could go on and on with rational and logical thought processes questioning evolution, but of course there will always be those idiots out there who will except the propaganda they were taught in school, because it was taught to them by someone who had more degrees then they did. Use your brain people. It is insanity to think all the complex life we see on earth, including the earth and the solar system came about randomly. You might as well believe a tornado going over a junk yard could create a bowing 747 if that tornado was giving an infinite amount of time. The only evidence I have ever seen that leads me to believe evolution is true is that, if people are stupid enough to be duped into believing they came from a monkey then maybe their brains really are part ape.
Pffft. All that your precious "quote" really shows is that Mr. Augustine is insufficiently conservative to conform to acceptable party orthodoxy. Fortunately, he's not running for office. If he were, then we would be forced to primary him, don'tcha know.
Creationism is not religion, even if its proponents are sometimes religious. Creationism is system of scientific thought that presupposes a specific world view that can not be proven or disproved. You have no way to know that there was no creator, you just start with that assumption. Creationists start with an alternate assumption and arrive at different conclusions on some points.
This paragraph is complete Creationist fail. If you have any "presupposes" in science then it is not science. Also, you never disprove anything with science, if you make the claim, YOU have to prove it. You do not make a claim in science and then tell other people to disprove your idea. If you can not put the data and evidence forward, then you are automatically wrong. If you claim there is a creator, prove it, it is not my responsibility to prove it, it is yours.
Your claim that it is teaching religion to teach creationism is a lie. Unless you are willing to stipulate that teaching evolution is tantamount to teaching atheism and thus is teaching religion too. I'm going to bet you won't stipulate that point.
So, do we teach both or do we just teach your religious view?
Just because some refutes your side of the argument does make the other person a subscriber of the opposite of the religion that you are pushing. You are pushing a religious philosophy into an area of science, which is the wrong thing to do. This does make science the realm of Satan and Atheist, it just means you have been called out for pushing your religion into a place it does not belong.
Linux O Muerte!
When speaking of evolution, does anyone ever declare and stand by some set of finite numbers which correlate to actual events said to have taken place? I am thinking something like X amount of mutation per generation [on average] across Y generations explaining Z amount of deviation between two species said to have common ancestry at the beginning of a given interval.
Or does "consensus" and "you'd better accept this [policy]... or else..." or "look at this toy problem the simulator solved" instead suffice?
I would like to point out the disadvantages of buying textbooks from for profit companies. We buy new textbooks every so many years from companies looking to make a giant profit, if it is their textbooks that are selected. Because of this many companies invest money into writing textbooks to have a chance at making a large profit. This seems like a waste to me, especially considering that states seem to want to decide what actually goes in to the textbooks.
Why don't we just have open source textbooks, like wikipedia. States would be free to fork and modify them as they see fit. All the money they spend on the books could instead be spent on making the content of the books current or just better in general. We wouldn't have to keep reinventing the wheel in every state every 10 years.
Whether you believe in creationism or evolution, whether you want religious politicians or scientists writing the books, this seems like a good way to save money and prevent wasted human effort. Probably 95% of the content of the textbooks stay the same, with the exception of recent history and quantum mechanics. Why are we paying to rewrite the same books over and over again? Why don't we as a society make an effort to own the intellectual property that we use to educate our children rather than renting it? Are we really destined to be this short sighted forever?
Hey, please don't give philosophy a bad name: philosophy is on the side of science, not on the side of religion, since Thales of Miletus (that is: since the beginning of both science and philosophy).
For all the hyperventilating about how there's not enough democracy, and not enough government regulatory control, there's not nearly enough time thinking about what happens when your team doesn't get in. Is the Texas School Board wrong? Of course. Was it a democratically elected body representative of the majority of its constituents? Yes it is.
Sometimes democracy goes your way (endless expansion of 'public' services, egalitarianism, etc) and sometimes it doesn't. That why the U.S. Declaration of Independence emphasized the role of rights with 'the consent of the governed' being relegated 'to secure these rights'.
I guess the old saying carries water still: be careful what you ask for!
No. Creationism is not religion at all. I am profoundly religious, still I am perfectly fine with evolution.
Although stupidity is often associated with religiosity, they can be totally separated.
Thanks.
Science does not start with an assumption that there is no creator, that is just plain false. Science is merely trying to deduce what what evidence reveals, starting from no assumptions.
The only assumption if there is one is that one can not explain everything away with a divine caveat. That is, mathematicians do not say "two plus two equals four, as long as divine beings allow it to be so, should they exist."
If you start with an assumption that there is a divine creator, and then further add on an assumption that this creator is a divine micromanager in charge of all possible physical interactions, then you can learn and deduce nothing about the universe this way. You throw a ball into the air and can not predict that it will fall to the ground, because there might happen to be a miracle that occurs preventing it from falling, or you instead conclude that the ball falls because God wills it to fall.
You can't do science very well that way. Indeed scientists did work this way in the past and it caused all sorts of problems. Ie, planets were assumed to orbit in circles because that was the natural conclusion derived from the assumption that God created a perfect system of physics, and an elliptical orbit was decidedly imperfect even if the mathematics was simplified. The problem with having any a priori assumptions is that those assumptions are used to fill in the holes in knowledge; if we don't know why something happens but we assume there is a God then we conclude that God causes those things to happen.
One big difference here is that when presented with a question, scientists will say "we don't know but we want to find out" whereas some creationists might say "we don't know because it is a divine mystery."
I don't agree with including Evolution in Science textbooks.
However, it might get the boards reviewing the books to actually read the books that are being included in the curriculum.
I remember reading a story from Richard Feyman. He was asked to review books for his local board. If I recall, he was asked why his reviews took so long. He explained he read the books. Some of the others were simply approving books based on which one looked the best.
Bullshit. The vast majority of philosophy is nothing more than secular religion.
Please have a coherent thought.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. Funnily, Earth, with constant delivery of energy from the sun and constantly loosing energy to space is not such a closed system.
Is it "no warming for 15 years"?
Because the data over 15 years doesn't disprove AGW.
A bit of a problem for your theology there, dude.
A poster above also posits the "10 minutes ago theory," which is likewise non-testable (what is there to prevent an all powerful being from planting memories in every brain; old photos in every album, and ancient dinosaur bones in the rocks?)
Science is about testable theories; in fact I would argue the word "theory" implies testability, so we'll call the non-testable ones "explanations". I'm not sure where to classify the non-testable explanations, philosophy is a reasonable guess. Perhaps the main point to be made with non-testable explanations is that they are so easy to invent.
In any case, the science classroom is the place for discussing methods for testing testable theories, with perhaps a quick glance at several non-testable explanations to see how non-testability operates.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
First, totally fine with public funding for education. I do think that everyone should get a high school level education at least paid for by the government... be that city, state, or federal.
That said, I don't think the education should be administered by the government. I don't believe in public schools because it gives politicians control over something that really should be a personal choice of the parents and the relevant communities.
Obviously the money shouldn't just be dolled out without qualifications. Set some basic standards that must be met to receive funding. Little things like standardized tests. If a significant percentage can't pass the standardized tests at graduation then clearly the school failed to educate them.
How the schools are ultimately held to standards is debatable. But what I'd prefer is a system where local communities can pick and choose how THEY want to run their school largely indifferent to what the rest of society wants. Because at the end of the day, what matters is can the children function in society. Have they learned enough to progress and take the next steps to becoming functional members of our society? That's all that matters.
No some people are going to say, "oh we must force these schools to teach evolution and drive out all this religious crap"... Well, good luck with that. Between private religious schools, home schools, and simple religious indoctrination you're going to always have that as an element. I am not suggesting we embrace it. I am instead suggesting we let parents choose how they want to educate their children. I do think they have that right. You have a right to indoctrinate your children with the values and beliefs you feel appropriate. That is core right of parenthood. The government doesn't have that right unless you're an orphan in a state home.
Just let the religious people teach their children as they please. And everyone else can do the same. If that means the religious fellows don't educate any genetic engineers... I think we can survive that.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Point me to one credible (published) scientist who says that "every living thing made itself out of nothing".
I will utterly fail both faith and science if they are ever allowed to meet in my head.
How have they not met in your head? Or, put differently, how can you justify (or at best rationalize) having an illogical philosophical framework for the world?
I think it's easy to overreact on this one.
"... 6 of 28 who are known to reject evolution ..."
The breakdown of the 15 districts puts 9 of them in the major metropolitan areas
and 6 of them in the more rural areas. Coincidence? These are also not high profile
jobs, so they can get skewed by the overzealous as candidates or voters.
The majority of Texans are not stupid, and even if they have their own private reservations,
they know that the science of evolution is a basis for a large fraction of the modern economy.
The sad thing is that this bulk purchase holds more sway nationally than it should.
Says the fool without the tools... Get a microscope, dipshit.
Actually, we do have observed it. Have a look here: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
So if fossils (and other things which can't be readily "explained") are tests of faith from God, why isn't the inclusion of evolution in textbooks also such a test? (Oh I'm sorry, that's a rational argument, isn't it? ... Nevermind...)
You're probably missing several word-of-mouth iterations before it even got written down at all.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
YOu have never seen anything evolve and you never will. You just believe what you are told by someone who never saw it and never will.
Well, my dear troll, these e. coli experiments show you're wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_long-term_evolution_experiment One defining characteristics of e. coli is that they don't digest citric acid. In these experiments, the bacteria were grown with a limited food supply and a subset of them evolved through natural selection to digest citric acid. i.e. they have acquired a characteristic normally alien to c. elegans. So there you go: evolution in action.
Additionally, saying "you'll never see it in action so it's all faith" is a shit argument because we have a lot of indirect evidence of evolution. e.g. the phylogenetic tree, fossil record, and experimental observation of natural selection in action. This form of indirect evidence is common in sciences where what you're observing happens too quickly, too slowly, or is too small. Microbiology begun in this way, particle physics is arguably like this now, a lot of astrophysics is like this.
soylentnews.org
An evolutionist is so in love with his religion that he will easily ignore the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to claim that every living thing made itself out of nothing. Not just impossible, but never will be possible.
I don't know any evolutionists that think "every living thing made itself out of nothing". Could you cite a reputable scientific source for your assertion?
Some scientists and I believe amino acids were created by atmospheric energy and basic chemical reactions. Once you have amino acids, all it takes is some of them to bond into proteins. It goes on from there and I don't have the space here to explain it all, but basically your assertion is bull crap.
And the second law only applies to closed systems. Earth is not a closed system.
âoeIn theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." â Albert Einstein
lazily read
Holy shit, as I live and breathe; correct usage of a fucking adverb (never thought I'd see that again...).
Think about it. The way evolution is being pushed, it complies with every test for being a religion.
It takes a lot of faith to believe that a heel imprint found on a rock in South Africa can give you gender, height, diet, age, and an accurate date!
Yet this is the "science" that is being presented as the truth, scientific truth, and therefore, the only truth, so help you Darwin.
The zealots for the Church of Evolution are active, vocal and many.
If we came from a sludgy rock, there is no moral basis to answer to - live as you want because this is all there is. On the other hand, if there is a Creator behind this all, we may just have to answer morally - and that is uncomfortable for the hedonist.
Obviously you have no clue what evolution theory says (and doesn't say).
Here's a hint: In evolution, living beings don't come from nothing, but from their parents.
Where the very first living being(s) came from is an interesting question in itself, but outside the scope of evolution. Evolution is about how the living beings changed over the generations.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
The opposition, which is science – well, first let me say this: Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I would think that it would be literature, not philosophy. Philosophy is built up from logic. Literature, good literature *should* make one suspend his disbelief... so it would be pretty shitty literature too.
Modernity (also known as "liberal Christianity") does not accept the Bible as "fact." It is accepted as a bunch of books written by men who were inspired servants of God....but still men. Still fallible. Still beholden to the biases of their culture.
The onus is on the faithful to study historical context and listen to their conscience when trying to interpret a book that is now very far removed from its origins.
Fundamentalism is the branch that really pushes the "fact" angle, and they are not the majority of Christendom (just the most vocal).
Agreed and let me add: is creationism going to protect creationists from evolution in the form of antibiotics resistant microbes?
Ask pretty much every scientist in ~1500 years that started from the reigns of Constantine the "Great" and Theodosius the "Great". The start of this near-total collapse of science can be dated exactly to these two reigns, while the end is quite spread out, with most remnants lasting well into 20th century, with even some bits left in 21th.
Science has seen a brief respite around years 1000-1200 in the islamic word, until the mullahs clamped down on it hard, science remaining pretty much forbidden to this day. For a comparison: with a world muslim population of 1.2B, they had 4 Nobel prize winners, while jews got 129 with a population of mere 14M. The christian/ex-christian world is somewhere in-between.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Now you know why the nutters are so concerned.
Thy want to keep pushing for the Kommon Kore Kurriculum.
It's that uncommon? I heartily weep for the English language.
Wow. Creepy. Captcha is "Language".
Creationist is not a system of scientific thought. Neither is "intelligent design". The whole concept of a scientific system is that it makes no assumptions, beyond being able to attain accurate and true measurements. Teaching "intelligent design" is a gross intellectual dishonesty because it IS an excuse to teach religion. Once you "presuppose" a specific world view, you've negated any concept of science.
Quite true, but let's back up a step. You said that science presupposes that we can attain measurements, but I would suggest that its actual underlying assumption on which science is based is that everything has a natural explanation. But if a supernatural force does exist, it would be, by it's very nature, beyond science's ability to quantify or measure. Regardless of your beliefs, at some point you have to take them on faith, since our inability to provide scientific evidence for the supernatural could either be an indication of its absence or an indication or our inability to measure something that is, by its nature, beyond our ability to measure.
If you want to maintain intellectual honesty, that caveat needs to be acknowledged, but after that, nothing more needs to be said on the supernatural side of things. After all, they are, once again, beyond our ability to measure, so other than acknowledging that the possibility for them exists if we're being entirely intellectually honest, we need not say any more, and can instead stick to the established facts while leaving the supernatural stuff for churches and whatever else.
As such, despite my being a Creationist (and a young-earther, to top it off), I'm fine with teaching the mechanics that comprise evolutionary theory, since they're evident in everyday life. Natural selection? Everyone who understands the idea of breeding understands that selection within a population exists, so extending that to include natural forces seems trivial. Random mutations? You don't need millions of years to prove that they happen, since there are plenty of examples in contemporary times that are easily cited. Adequate time for evolution to have occurred? Present the geologic record and the basis for dating it as such. Teach critical thinking, since we can all agree that we need more of that in school, and let the evidence speak for itself, since if it can't, then these are the minds that will help us to plug those gaps in our understanding.
If folks (such as myself) want to place their faith in something other than science when it comes to this topic because they don't trust that science's underlying assumptions always hold true, that's their business, so long as they recognize what they are doing and it does not adversely affect others in a significant way (i.e. we all need to extend some tolerance towards one another's views, though clearly there are limits if we start to step on each other's rights), but they should still be given the evidence and the opportunity to make that decision for themselves. That said, I do take issue with the way that evolution is sometimes taught in schools, since many teachers (and people in general) seem to treat it as if everything about it is irrefutable and immutable, rather than acknowledging that they don't have the answers for everything and that it's a field with a lot of active research. Rather than confidently letting it speak for itself, they reply with the sort of defensive, dogmatic response we tend to expect from someone who is immature in their understanding of a subject (i.e. much like a fanboy).
When my (not-a-Creationist) father was studying genetics in college, he was fortunate enough to study under a leading researcher in the field who was specialized in evolutionary biology. My father recounts how refreshing it was for him to be able to ask that professor questions and how the professor was unafraid to respond with an "I don't know" when it came to a topic that he either didn't know or that science had not yet been able to answer. He openly acknowledged that he simply had fa
Shouldn't be allowed to decide what children of others can learn or not.
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" isn't real?
right in the middle of a split infinitive!
This is the ultimate example of the failure of capitalism. The wealthy and closed mided are able to push their agenda and beliefs, no matter how preposterous, to the masses because they buy the most while greedy publishers are willing to forgo fact over profit.
I attended the MotoGP races at the Circuit of The Americas in Austin and had a good experience: nice people, good food and the Texas Capitol building is a beauty. The hotel or restaurant owner might not have the same beliefs as the more visible pols and the book buyers but I still feel that my spending $$$ there supports a repressive State. I plan on going back for MotoGP and Formula One next season. There were two Shell gasoline stations at the same intersection in New Braunfels, Texas.
Oh, I think he has a very good idea about "what evolution says" in a great many high schools across America. So much of what creationists object to is utter BS that no one knowledgeable would espouse, but is still widely taught.
Reading through the talk.origins FAQ is often a guided tour through the failure of American high schools to teach the basic facts of evolution, or to keep teaching old and disproven ideas or examples. Some of the stuff people learned in school is just bizarre, and it's very easy to see why they don't believe it - certainly no biologist would!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
But if a supernatural force does exist, it would be, by it's very nature, beyond science's ability to quantify or measure.
Why so? Science makes 2 basic assumptions: the assumption that we can reason from sense data (that is, that we're not in the matrix, nor the victim of some evil demon tricking us with all we perceive), and the assumption that what we can see or measure is representative of the whole. Or if you prefer: "we're supposed to use the minds and senses that God gave us to decide how the world is".
A "supernatural" force that acts in any sort of predictable or explainable way is no different from anything else science studies. As long as there's a pattern to it all, the scientific method applies. For science to fail you must postulate a "trickster god" who acts in some arbitrary and capricious way, or worse one who is deliberately messing with us for laughs.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Rather than "explanations", why don't we call the untestable ones "wild guesses"?
Well, science does require some axioms which cannot be objective tested, but they seem to be the minimum possible set: that logic works, that our senses mostly work, and that what we can observe is representative of the whole.
None of those can be disproven, but then without them you can't reason about the world under any system at all.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
If only 6 of the board members are actively trying to screw with the process, that's pretty good. If 11 out of every 14 people (yeah, an ugly ratio) accept evolution, I'd say scientific literacy isn't really threatened.
The Gospel according to lolcat
system of scientific thought that presupposes a specific world view that can not be proven or disproved.
That statement is self-contradictory.
Ok so 6 out of 28 reject evolution. That leaves 22 who don't. It seems to me that there's a 78.5% to 21.5% majority there.
There are two options
1) The majority option wins : In this case you have to blame those 22 people for the pro-evo books not getting in. They have an outright majority, it should be a walk in the park.
2) Unanimous decision is needed. Nothing you can do. If it's not evolution it'll be something else that'll cause a divide. Same sex marriage, vegetarianism, politics,etc.
Your last point is the key one. Tax dollars will never be used in a manner that doesn't offend somebody. Increasing school choice and limiting government involvement in this kind of deception is a better answer than using the government club to make people study A or B. As long as you tax Christians for a school they are going to want the school to preach their viewpoint. There is no point in arguing over it.
Did you go to school in Texas, perchance?
..now where did that
Unless you are willing to stipulate that teaching evolution is tantamount to teaching atheism and thus is teaching religion too.
Atheism is to religion as not collecting stamps is to hobbies.
oops. Meant e. coli but wrote c. elegans. :/
soylentnews.org
Indeed. In fact, the whole acquired immune system works via natural selection. However the ID crowd don't deny natural selection (they can't get away with that any more), instead they deny that natural selection could have led to the species diversity we see today.
soylentnews.org
Something that's always bothered me about evolution.... if an animal mutates and ends up with an extra chromosome, what are the odds it'll find a similarly mutated mate? I can certainly see evolutionary changes within a species.... for example bear's fur color making white bears more likely to live long enough to mate in a snowy environment.... but not across species. Intelligent design on the other hand supposes that an external force (a God, an alien, etc) created each species, which in turn has gone on to mutate and evolve.
How's that "argument" rational? Is god writing textbooks now?
Required reading for internet skeptics
Let them devote a page or so to it. However, what would be in it? Criticism of evolution? That's fine. Criticizing evolution by itself is not a violation of the separation clause.
However, if they want to put forth field evidence for creationism, what would it consist of? "It looks too complex to be self-evolving" is not very scientific. Being "too complex" is a rather weak and vague argument. And "the Bible said so" is equally silly in a science book.
So, what do they have in mind exactly? I guess skipping the subject of the cause of change is the easiest way out.
Table-ized A.I.
Does that mean this shame I feel for fucking your mother half an hour ago is undeserved?
Atheism is to religion as not collecting stamps is to hobbies.
GOLD!
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
The whole concept of a scientific system is that it makes no assumptions, beyond being able to attain accurate and true measurements.
Nonsense! Science requires a plethora of foundational assumptions.
Once you "presuppose" a specific world view, you've negated any concept of science.
Science necessarily presupposes a specific "world view".
Yet I'm a scientist [...] One is a structure of strict mathematics and logic
Yet you have this bizarre idealized concept of science that, while it plays to the Slashdot wannabe scientist crowd, is obviously a non-starter. Didn't they teach philosophy of science anywhere you studied?
Required reading for internet skeptics
As an example of how this institution has varied, consider that in the mid nineteenth century in England it was considered legal for a man to try to sell his wife.
At another sale in September 1815, at Staines market, "only three shillings and four pence were offered for the lot, no one choosing to contend with the bidder, for the fair object, whose merits could only be appreciated by those who knew them. This the purchaser could boast, from a long and intimate acquaintance."
Ye gods, what a way to describe someone! So you don't like your wife, you lead her to some public place in a halter, the halter being considered particularly important to the legality of the affair, and sell her at auction to any bidder. This was considered legal by many judges; women couldn't own property, and were owned themselves -- and some Englishmen even told themselves that this arrangement was out of some sort of protective benevolence. Anyway, it was held that a man could do what he wished with his property, at least until the practice began to be seen as vulgar, at which point the legal argument became, "Uh...hey! You can't do that!"
All it would take to revive the custom in America today would be if it made a good TV show.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
The problem with science is it makes the assumption that all things can be proved or disproved eventually, this may or may not turn out to be true.
The problem with religion is your faith is supposed to outweigh proof
Considering that temperatures are still within the published ranges of 95% statistical certainty it's not scientific to say the projections of temperatures are 100% wrong. Once they get outside of those ranges and stay outside of them you might have a point. Meanwhile scientists will simply be asking themselves what did they miss and will be working to improve their understanding.
Don't call it evolution. Darwin called it Natural Selection. God created nature. Natural Selection must be God's will. Who in Texas can sanefully object to such overwhelming evidence of God's creation?
Still waiting for hard evidence of evolution. Evolution produced in a lab is insufficient, it was created by intelligent design (an experiment of man). If we have to interfere to make evolution happen well, then that result we received by our interference supports intelligent design (we had to make it happen). Take the same compounds, throw it in the ocean, see if life springs from it spontaneously. If it doesn't, you have a pretty good idea what has happened.
We have already done so.
String theory predicts that the universe is made up of strings.
A bunch of strings all clumped together look like a bowl of spaghetti.
QED: The FSM created us all. May you be touched by His Noodley Appendage.
I understand their confusion though. Evolution tells us that "survival of the fittest" happens, and all they see are Texans, which make that hard to believe.
Do hitchhikers exist? Does the Galaxy exist? If so, how do you know? Wouldn't it make sense that the hitchhikers of this galaxy write a guide so that we would understand the galaxy and how to hitchhike it? I challenge you to read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy every day. Ideally one page a day, but once a week you should join with other readers of the Guide to study the text and understand its meaning. It helps to jump from paragraph to paragraph in random order from random pages of the Guide to come to new understandings of what the Guide is trying to tell us. You will find that even in places where the Guide seems to contradict itself, it actually does not, and if you have faith and seek the truth, you will discover that the Guide can open your eyes to Galaxy in ways you never knew were possible. Oh, and please give me 10% of your annual income in weekly installments. I accept cash, checks, and credit cards, and your contribution is tax deductible, pending successful outcome from our IRS audit.
Seriously, why do people get so upset about what happens in Texas? Each state has their own government, their own rules, their own boards. So what if Texas takes evolution out of textbooks. That is what Texas has decided to do. The only people who have a right to be upset about it are Texans. It has zero effect on the rest of the country.
A publisher says they will only publish whatever Texas chooses. Fine, then another state simply chooses textbooks from another publisher. Who cares? If Texas decides to do this, it is only hurting / helping Texans.
A bit more on topic, I truthfully don't think either evolution or creationism needs to be taught - at least, not in the way they are being taught now. Like my issue with evolution is people who say "evolution happens, therefore everything has evolved from something else, there is no other explanaiton, and if you believe otherwise, you are an idiot". Instead, change it to "evolution happens, lets look at the way some animal species have adapted over the past few hundred years".
As far as Creationism, that gets even crazier. Are we young-earth believers, old-earth believers, day/age believers, progressive creationism believers, etc.
Truthfully, a public school shouldn't be teaching either. Any type of Creationism theory promotes religion, which is a violation of the seperation of church and state - but anything that speaks against religion is also a violation of seperation of church and state.
Evolution, big bang theory and all that in and of itself is not a bad thing, the issue is with how it is presented. Present evidence that it is a theory and let kids make up their own minds, rather than shove it down their throats that it is the only explanation for things. Shoot, that might lead to independant thinking that leads to someone actually coming up with a theory that makes even more sense, has harder facts, and would totally blow the entire world away.
All of that said, who cares. The blurb itself says that it is 6 board members out of 28 - that is not even a quarter of the members. This argument has been tossed around for years. With less than a quarter of the board members pushing this, I don't see it happening.
Actually in science you never prove anything absolutely. Everything is subject to amendment pending new information. There are many things in science that we might as well consider to be proven for all practical purposes but we may have said that about Newton's Laws before Einstein showed up. OTOH it is possible to disprove something in science.
Right, a version of panspermia.
A simple counter-example: a health miracle. Suppose for the sake of argument that someone was miraculously healed via supernatural means (e.g. terminal cancer one day, completely cancer free the next, accomplished as a result of a literal act of God). How would the scientific method supply us with anything other than incorrect answers? After all, a key characteristic of the method is observation, but in this case, the only relevant thing we could observe would be the result, given that the supernatural force would not be capable of being directly observed. As such, the scientific method could only serve to lead us astray by tying potentially unrelated facts surrounding the case into an incorrect hypothesis to explain what happened (e.g. Dana Scully trying to explain the X-Files away). Which is NOT to suggest that the scientific method should be abandoned, by any means, merely that if there exists a situation where observation is impossible, the scientific method's efficacy disintegrates.
Note also that nothing about that situation suggests capriciousness or an intent to deceive/trick.
If that had anything to do with evolution it would be an interesting topic of conversation, and I would point you to Lawrence Krauss.
That's a fairly good summary.
What's odd is that I meet an occasional person who diligently doesn't collect stamps, has books full of no-stamps, and spends a lot of time telling other people how much fun it is to not collect stamps. And who, in fact, puts more time into it than I usually put into my hobbies.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
So by your reckoning, there are no living things?
German: die Frau, meine Frau; French: une Femme, ma Femme; Dutch: een vrouw, mijn vrouw.
These are just the ones I know off the top of my head. I am sure it is much more common than that though.
Yes, because we all know it is exactly equivilent to compare something that has always been known as a work of fiction and was created as such just a generation or so ago to something that possibly predates written records that has always been considered true by at least a portion of people and the information within is the basis for three of the worlds largest religions dating back several thousand years or more.
Because that is exactly the same. And i suppose your girlfriend got pegnant from kissing because it is the same too..
Sometimes people just crack me up.
I find it really funny if people say: I'm both theistic and scientific. How is that that for things that really matters and that you have to trust with (literally) your life you put your trust in science but if it's the more important question of salvation, your soul and afterlife you leave the trusted method of science and put your trust in blind faith?
Things that matters and what you trust with your life:
* clean water; * food; * air planes; * car; * hearth surgery; * medicine like paracetamol; * vaccination; * trains; * ships; * refrigerator;
Would you ride an air plane that was not tested by science but was proclaimed to be save by the pope or bishop? Would you ride your car if you need your faith to be save? Would you trust to have your hearth surgery by your local priest instead of your atheistic doctor?
But for matters that for you are more important then your life you trust some ancient text and some proclamations of priests with no evidence and no method of testing. I suppose you are Christian? How do you know that the canonical gospels are correct and that the priests 2000 years ego not make a mistake by adding or removing the wrong gospel? For example, we have now the gospel of Judas. How do you know that the gospel of Judas is not canonical? Will you trust with your soul some bronze age priests?
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Name one. Then illustrate that what you call an "assumption" wasn't derived through testing. You know, 2 + 2 = 4, pythagorean theorem, asexual reproduction...something.
Really? This is controversial? There are foundational assumptions in mathematics yet no one seems bothered by that. Point out the obvious when it comes to science and the uneducated science cheerleaders come out of the woodwork to "defend science" against ... what exactly?
Stop tilting at windmills for a moment and go read Hume and Popper.
Required reading for internet skeptics
A simple counter-example: a health miracle. Suppose for the sake of argument that someone was miraculously healed via supernatural means (e.g. terminal cancer one day, completely cancer free the next, accomplished as a result of a literal act of God). How would the scientific method supply us with anything other than incorrect answers?
The scientific thing to do would be to study this phenomenon. Who did it happen to? When did it happen? What were the correlating conditions? Then, accumulate more data by trying to determine how often the healing occurs, do a statistical analysis of factors, and do predictions. Let's say that the person healed was a Pentecostal; it would be interesting to determine if Pentecostals were healed more often, whether they were raised in the faith or were converted, etc. This is the way that phenomena that used to be non-science ('Look, the Gods are making it rain in response to our dance') become science ('Low pressure area meets colder high pressure area, etc.).
Of course, miraculous healings don't happen, so this is all hypothetical, but that's what you would do.
Yeah, but there's a misuse of the plural "phenomena" to balance it. :-P
Except, of course, for the assumption that nature follows fixed rules and there is nothing 'outside' of nature to interfere with it. It's fine to start with that assumption.
And then, apparently, to draw it as a conclusion.
No, that is a philosophical claim.
The practical fact is that anything outside of nature is untestable and therefore not part of science.
The fixed rules are found by observation. We don't know that when I drop an apple it will fall, but so far we have observed that to be the case.
Why is this here? I've known about this for years and it is not exactly uncommon knowledge.
Any text that has portions about critical thinking has my vote. Be it weird creationist or not. Too many text simply state accepted facts, and do not get people to question anything ever. Science is about questions and re-evaluation.
Evolution is the accepted scientific theory and as such it should be taught. I am not so sure about "alternate" explanations, they can do that on their own time.
Anyway I guess what I am trying to say is that I think too many textbooks are simply the rote memorization of accepted facts, rather than trying to teach kids how to think for themselves. Hell there should be a whole class on critical thinking with its own textbook! Add a civics class while your at it.
Theory: The universe may have had a beginning at some point
Postulate: If it began at a single point, it would be expanding
Test: View distant objects and calculate their trajectory
Result: Distant objects are moving away from us
Conclusion: The universe is expanding.
Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way
Postulate: If the universe is expanding, there must have been a point at which it was very small
Test: Run simulations on expanding universe with existing theory of particle physics
Result: Simulation strongly agrees with existing observations of background radiation
Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way
Conclusion: The universe appears to have come from a single point
Postulate: This means it must have a set age
Test: Measure speed of expansion, age of stars, distribution of matter to determine absolute age.
Result: Many measurements seem to agree on a time period for the age of the universe
Conclusion: The universe has an age we can calculate (approx 14.6 billion years)
Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way
Theory: The earth is the center of the Solar System
Postulate: Everything rotates around the earth
Test: Calculate orbital trajectories to determine a consistent pattern of orbit
Result: Postulate does not match calculations or observations
Conclusion: The Earth is probably NOT the center of the solar system
Creationist Conclusion: Someone mistranslated the bible when it said that.
Theory: Dino fossils are old
Postulate: Measuring the age of things can be done with radiometric dating.
Test: Measure the amount of Argon-40 in rocks found very near fossils and calculate relative decay of Potassium-40 over the 1.2 billion year half-life.
Result: The amount of Argon-40 (which can only appear in-situ within rocks due to radioactive decay of Argon-40) consistently reveals an age of 35-2 billion years. Rocks found near fossils are frequently (more than 95% of the time) dated consistently with the particular rock layer they are found in and contain consistent specimens.
Conclusion: Fossils were laid down in a consistent way at dates consistent with them having various ages between 35 and 2 billion years
Young Earth Creationist Conclusion: God made it that way
Theory: Jesus was the son of God .....
Test:
Result: ?!
Scientific Conclusion: !?
Christian Conclusion: Jesus is the son of God
Theory: God created the earth in 7 days ... only 7?
Postulate: My God is and Awesome God!!!
Test:
Result: It was good.
Creationist Conclusion: God did it!!!!!
Scientific Conclusion: what?
Theory: The nature of the beginning of the universe is unknowable
Test: ?
Scientific Conclusion: We don't know, for sure
Creationist Conclusion: I have all the answers, it's in this old book.
Maybe youre thinking of agnostics...
Yes, it's purely coincidental that the overwhelming majority of people who profess creationism happen to belong to a particular religion that posits separate creation of species by a supreme being, whereas scientists, who overwhelmingly accept evolution, belong to a wide range of religions (including no religion at all).
And we know God loved gays cause he had Jesus marryin' Joseph in the Bible.
When I was taught evolution we started with creationism, then watched as the history unfolded through all the fits and start of the development of the theory of evolution. At the end I feel I understood the method (it wasn't really science until we started testing natural selection in the petri dish, till then it was all observational not experimental). I also feel it gave me a good foundation in what is science (falsifiable statements only, please) and what is faith. But I no longer look to creationism for anything but story lines for nursery tales.
"There is no god but allah" - well, they got it half right.
Holy shit, as I live and breathe; correct usage of a fucking adverb (never thought I'd see that again...).
Nah, adverbs are used correctly all the time... just look in any book.
Free Martian Whores!
Does God provide these miracles capriciously? If he's not a trickster god, then there will be some pattern to the lives of those who receive miraculous healing that is different from the lives of those who don't. That pattern could be detected, measured, and predicted. A non-capricious God might even leave us an instruction manual: I choose from among those who do these things to grant miracles. But ultimately if there were a pattern of miracles, then the scientific method would work just fine on that - science has solved far harder mysteries.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So not only did they make it up as they went along, they did so over and over again?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If you start with assumptions about the outcome you don't have science.
Science typically starts out with a prediction of the outcome, which is a theory. For example there used to be a theory that objects in their natural state are at rest. After centuries of testing, it was finally discovered that this was false.
Regarding origins of human life, Darwin proposed that the mechanism of evolution could explain it. Creationists assert that evolution is not an accurate picture of how life came about, and the idea that after billions of years we just emerged is a little silly. In my opinion, what science should do is investigate the evidence for these opposing theories. Both of these make certain predictions about what the fossil record should contain for example.
So, I am very much in favor of what the State Board in Texas is trying to do (by the way, I am from Texas, so this could potentially affect my kids). Isn't critical thinking supposed to be encouraged in schools? However the popular idea seems to be that we should try to silence opposing viewpoints. At least, that's how it often seems on slashdot.
Doubling down on the tautology isn't naming an example.
If we're quoting Augustine on the matter of Biblical literalism and anti-science, I'd rather quote this from the same book - it is very much blunt and to the point.
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.
The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”
gosgog:
First time I ever went to Texas (Dallas, talk about that later), I was informed that the most important thing for any Texan to do was to build as many churches as possible!
Later I moved to the real Texas,(HOUSTON), as someone later explained, Texas doesnt really begin until you get south oif Waco! Fort Worth is a colony of the real Texas.
As far as creation is concerned, Texas breeds the best footbal players and they all go play for Oklahoma! Yes, I'm a naturlaized Texan, (I now live in the Philippines, that's another story), and I was educxated in the U.K. and India, and thoroughly believe in Evolution, & if I decide to become religious I'll go for Budhism!!
Well, science does require some axioms which cannot be objective tested, but they seem to be the minimum possible set: that logic works, that our senses mostly work, and that what we can observe is representative of the whole.
None of those can be disproven, but then without them you can't reason about the world under any system at all.
Actually, the third one is not an axiom but a working hypothesis. And it certainly can be disproven, by extending our abilities to observe, and use those to observe previously unobservable things. Indeed, that already happened, and it already showed that what we had observed previously (objects moving along well-defined paths, for example) was hardly representative of the whole (namely it's not representative for any object for whose description we need quantum mechanics). Currently the most common working hypothesis is that in principle everything is described by quantum mechanics, but that working hypothesis is not as universally held as the working hypothesis of classical physics. And deviations from that hypothesis are actively sought for (and up to now, have all supported quantum mechanics).
But you do have a point for the first two points.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I do believe a "whoosh" is in order here...
witness the evolution from troglodyte to homo sapien--live (and thirsty).
Yes, because as we all know, the older something is and the more people believe it, the more likely it is to be true...
When dealing with historicity, yes, that is often the case. Especially when dealing with something that has been passed around and discussed so much that objections to it should be well documented and understood.
Now, I'm not saying the bible is a fact, but given the circumstances, it appears to be more of a truth then a work of fiction the author claimed was fiction.
Methodological naturalism. Which basically boils down to "natural world is natural."
If creationist (like me) would just teach that what is scientifically provable is part of that ever learning but getting farther from the truth that man does. No were in my bible does it say I am supposed to change your mind. It's Caesars school, let them teach what they want. I would like to know if anyone has found proof of present day evolution? Bacteria don't evolve resistance to antibiotics, a few resistant ones are just able to fill the niche left empty by the non resistant ones. Someone should be studying theoretical genetics to improve human health and lives but even non Christians blanch at "evolving" the human genome. Why? we are just extra smart animals, right?
You do realize all of those have been disproven right? Logic may be internally consistent but comes up with a lot of nonsense when translated to reality. Top-down processing eliminates the objectivity of the senses and we've already 'observed' that certain constants are not so constant depending on location.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
1 + 1 doesn't exist in reality. The concept that things are the same and can be numbered is something invented by the brain. Is science really a 'godsend' or is it just an external manifestation of how the brain organizes reality?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
That's lamarck in action not darwin.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
That's lamarck in action not darwin.
?
soylentnews.org
That's lamarck in action not darwin.
?
!
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
This is way old news. Science won and the creationists lost. Quit harping on old stories.