Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Getting Evolution In Science Textbooks For Texas Schools

Posted by samzenpus on from the monkey's-uncle dept.

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."

89 of 710 comments (clear)

  1. ya know... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Any old God can do speciation. But a TRULY awesome God? He automates it.

    --
    THL phish sticks
    1. Re:ya know... by bob_super · · Score: 2

      But only in a way that puts us on top, because we had to evolve to become "in his image".
      Or something...

    2. Re:ya know... by WilliamGeorge · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, they were married - the first couple, wed by God. In fact, the passage in Genesis refers to the "man" (Adam) and his "wife" (Eve) for a long time before ever mentioning her name as being Eve!

      'Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.'

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:23-25&version=ESV

      --
      William George
    3. Re:ya know... by bernz · · Score: 5, Informative

      The hebrew for wife and woman are the same word (isha).

    4. Re:ya know... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Actually, the Bible is the most studied book in history, a large number of experts of all stripes have tried to rip it apart.

      The truth is, we have enough of the old texts that it has been shown that the actual edits in the bible are minor. They do exist, but the core of it is there.

      The biggest problem with the Bible? It is like Wikipedia without proper citations, it is a self-referencing work that doesn't provide any evidence for anything within other than itself.

      No one would accept such a source for anything else today, but for some reason the Bible is accepted as fact.

    5. Re:ya know... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, they were married - the first couple, wed by God. In fact, the passage in Genesis refers to the "man" (Adam) and his "wife" (Eve) for a long time before ever mentioning her name as being Eve!

      'Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.'

      http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:23-25&version=ESV

      Then God was pleased, for he could cast the sinning Eve as the first human that the kind and loving God tossed into the lake of fire, to be tortured forever and ever, Amen.

      When you have a new toy, you can hardly wait to try it out.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:ya know... by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Lord Almighty, in his infinite wisdom, decided that instead of creating two separate humans, the first marriage would instead be between incestuous genetic twins.

    7. Re:ya know... by femtobyte · · Score: 3

      While the Hebrew portions of the biblical text do appear to have been fairly accurately preserved from sources dating back to a few centuries BC, the post you are replying to does have a good point with respect to citing English translations therefrom. Note the informative post above yours stating that Hebrew uses the same word for "wife" and "woman" (I can't personally verify this, since I don't know Hebrew). In this case, using "wife" in the English text to prove "they were already married" is highly sketchy.

    8. Re:ya know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It isn't a 'many thousand year old text', it is likely to have first been written down around 800 BCE (some say 600 BCE, but it may have been as early as 1000 BCE) and then around 200 BCE the various versions were rationalised into a single official version with most variations being destroyed.

      Prior to 800 (or 1000) BCE the stories were oral. For several hundred years the stories were passed from one generation to another and embelished.

    9. Re:ya know... by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 3, Informative
      You are of course correct...

      That being said, I'd consider that a change of word use more than anything else.

      50 years ago, "gay" meant "happy" far more than it meant "homosexual".

      Words have changed a lot over time, so using 21st century definitions to words that were written thousands of years ago is a bit insane.

      That all being true, putting it aside, my primary problem with the Bible is a lack of citations. It is a nice bedtime story, but there is nothing to cite to show any of it really happened. The only other texts that could be used as sources are largely provided by the Church itself, thus are unreliably biased.

      Note: This does not in any way make the Bible "wrong", it doesn't disprove anything. It is simply a point of fact, no more or less.

    10. Re:ya know... by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      Agreed, I'm not trying to support the Bible as being conclusive, self-contained "proof" of anything. And, when it comes to words changing, "marriage" is one of the most problematic. Despite the gross simplifications of those people who call for a return to the proper "Biblical Meaning of Marriage," there is no such thing. The Biblical record covers a long and varied period, over which many different forms and meanings for marriage were observed. Statements about "marriage" in different portions of the Hebrew scriptures refer to a variety of cultural institutions, changing with the times (depending on what culture had most recently conquered the region); which are different from the Jewish and Greco-Roman marriage institutions of the New Testament era. So, even if the text did say Eve was Adam's "wife," this would refer to an entirely different cultural institution and understanding of "marriage" from that commented on in Paul's epistles, which is itself different from today's institutions.

    11. Re:ya know... by devent · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The biggest problem with the bible is that it's not original. Jesus himself did not wrote anything, no author is known of any of the gospels, dates are guesses, and the bible was composed by committee with gospels removed and declared heretical.

      One example for the latter is the gospel of Judas. Declared as betrayer of Jesus in the canonical gospels, but in the found gospel of Judas he is loyal and played the most important role in Jesus crucifixion and the resulting resurrection.

      From Wikipedia:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

      Those who are furnished with the immortal soul, like Judas, can come to know the God within and enter the imperishable realm when they die. Those who belong to the same generation of the other eleven disciples cannot enter the realm of God and will die both spiritually and physically at the end of their lives. As practices that are intertwined with the physical world, animal sacrifice and a communion ceremony centered around cannibalism (the symbolic consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood) are condemned as abhorrent.

      Of crucial importance is the author's understanding of Jesus' death. The other Gospels argue that Jesus had to die in order to atone for the sins of humanity. The author of Judas claims this sort of substitutionary justice pleases the lower gods and angels. The true God is gracious and thus does not demand any sacrifice. In the Gospel of Judas, Jesus's death is simply a final way for him to leave the realm of the flesh and return to the luminous cloud.

      So the majority of Christians are doing symbolic cannibalism and everyone except Judas and Jesus are going to die no matter what. No wonder the early Christians banned the gospel of Judas.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    12. Re:ya know... by femtobyte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree it's "reasonably accurate" as a "closest modern equivalent" for a one-word translation. However, the original post above was addressing the question "were Adam and Eve married, or just shacking up together?". In a modern cultural context, there's typically a clear distinction drawn between two people who are "cohabiting" ("living in sin!" according to socially conservative religious sects), versus couples who have the approved copulation license signed by church and state. Operating from this frame, it makes sense to ask about (or poke fun at) Adam and Eve's marital status before popping out children. However, given that the original Hebrew doesn't provide a linguistic distinction for this division --- whether "isha" means "woman" or "wife" --- the best answer to "were Adam and Eve married, or just cohabiting" is not to say "the Bible says they were married," but to point out that that distinction did not exist (or at least was not a major concern) at the time. Marriage as a contractual/normative relation, rather than a descriptive statement that two people were shacking up, is an anachronistic in the Adam and Eve story.

    13. Re:ya know... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then God was pleased, for he could cast the sinning Eve as the first human that the kind and loving God tossed into the lake of fire, to be tortured forever and ever, Amen.

      Except that God isn't "tossing" people into the lake of fire. Christian theology seems to suggest that people who willingly reject God are going to hell by their own hands.

      And those who never heard of God are likewise going to be in hell. As well as people who believe in other religions.. Even amongst the Christians, the Catholics are going to Hell, as well as the Baptists. I grew up in a strict Catholic family, with strict Baptist Grandparents. Oh, the fun I had as a child.

      It's not hard to sum it up. This God demands that you worship him. If you do, when you die, you will go to another place, where you will continue to worship him. If you do not worship him, you will be tortured forever.

      Pretty much sum it up?

      I always wondered what he would do if you decided not to worship him when you got to heaven. Or what if you lost a husband or wife in life, then got remarried, then re-met the original in heaven. Or divorce? Is sex not allowed in heaven? If it's for procreation only, then I guess it isn't. Or if it is, is the procreation bit waived? Or do some children get a free heaven pass by being born to people already in heaven? Do these children have no free will, or does that tie back to my question about him casting you out of heaven once you entered if you decided not to worship him any more? And is it adultery if you have sex with your original wife whom you lost through accident or misadventure? Or if not, that means that bigamy is okay in heaven?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:ya know... by dudpixel · · Score: 4, Informative

      The truth is, we have enough of the old texts that it has been shown that the actual edits in the bible are minor. They do exist, but the core of it is there.

      I know you probably know what you mean when you say that but it has the potential to be very misleading. Some naive christian will read that and think you mean that what we have are basically the "very words of God", which of course is not what you said.

      You may be referring to the similarities between the dead sea scrolls (dated to something like 300BCE - 50 CE) and the MT (masoretic text, earliest manuscripts around 9th century CE).

      Here's what wikipedia has to say:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls#Biblical_significance
      "The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100"

      (emphasis mine).

      So we know there were changes. Sometimes "dramatic" changes.

      So that's just the OT. What about the NT?

      Supposedly written within the latter half of the first century CE. The earliest fragment we have at present is from ~125CE and is the size of a credit card. The earliest complete manuscript is in the 4th century CE. The earliest gospels are I think late 2nd century.

      It's worth mentioning that there were no copy machines in those days. Everything was copied by hand. We don't have the original documents, because they have most likely not survived. We don't have the copies, nor the copies of the copies. What we do have is probably well down the line of copies and although we'd like to think we have something close to what was originally written, we have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO FIND OUT.

      Not only that, but we do have very solid evidence of tampering of other writings by christians, and also a lot of interpolation of writings by competing sects in the early 2nd century.

      How reliable is our English Bible today? Here's the real truth, NO ONE KNOWS. We can speculate that it's "fairly accurate" and "well preserved" but there is absolutely no way to be sure. So next time someone talks to you about needing faith, just remember that they first need faith that they're actually reading the right words...

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    15. Re:ya know... by bogjobber · · Score: 2

      It is a nice bedtime story, but there is nothing to cite to show any of it really happened.

      That's not true. Much of the history in the Old Testament (I'm not talking about the fables found in Genesis, but the descriptions of kingdoms and events that have been proven to exist) is severely distorted history at best, but much of it is relevant.

      Generally speaking the dividing line is the conquest of Babylon by the Persians. Everything before that is more legend than fact. Everything after that is fairly accurate (but obviously highly biased).

  2. Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  3. Re:News for Nerds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    How do you know that you weren't created 10 minutes ago, with your knowledge already in place?

  4. Science isn't critical thinking... by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Science isn't critical thinking... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      What are you on about?
      Macroevolution? It is evolution, we can watch organisms change. We have seen them change. Do you deny the existence of drug resistant bacteria?

    2. Re:Science isn't critical thinking... by Nemyst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you serious? By that token large swathes of astrophysics, geology, biology and more are also "unverifiable". I'll disregard the "proved" point since science isn't about proving things.

      Look, it's not because you can't run an experiment in a lab that you can't verify a theory. There is a colossal body of work around the study of genetics and the relationships between species (including extinct ones thanks to paleontology). If you think that all of this work isn't enough verification, then you probably don't think anything science has ever done is verified, either. The truth of the matter is that evolution is one of the most verified theories we've ever conceived and the only reason it's still disputed to this day is because it contradicts a book of parables written thousands of years ago.

    3. Re:Science isn't critical thinking... by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      Check it: A long-term study on evolution which observed E-Coli develop the ability to eat Citrus.

      Long story short: We've reproduced meaningful evolution changes. Suck it, "contrarians".

      See also: Panda's thumb, whales with vestigial hip-bones, and equines splitting into horses and donkies. If the addition and lost of appendages isn't enough for you, then specification really should be. (That's where one species splits into two different ones that can no longer inter-breed) .

      (p.s. you just made up "contrarian" didn't you? I like it.)

    4. Re:Science isn't critical thinking... by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      You're about halfway to the correct idea, in that you call out creationists for failing to use methodological thinking, but your statement doesn't go far enough: creationism/intelligent design cannot ever be methodological, because if it were then it would stop being itself.

      If you want creationism in science, Then give us something we can test and verify to prove it

      The thesis of creationism (and intelligent design) is that it is untestable and unprovable. It is unscientific by definition.

      If it is wrong, then we are wrong, however there isn't evidence to show that yet.

      "Yet" is irrelevant; it is impossible by definition for there ever to be evidence for creationism or intelligent design.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Science isn't critical thinking... by danlip · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no difference between macroevolution and microevolution. It is a false dichotomy invented by creationists, i.e. all evolution that has been observed in recorded history (and there is a lot) and all evolution that can be tested in a lab (which has been done) is called microevolution, and therefore macroevolution is by its very definition not verifiable. But the definition is bullshit.

    6. Re:Science isn't critical thinking... by fatphil · · Score: 2

      > NOTHING can be proved.

      Until you hark back to the old meaning of the word. The things that were "proved" were the things that were put to the test (an attempt to falsify), but which passed that test. One would prove a pudding by eating it, and one would prove the alcohol percentage of a liquor by testing whether it permitted gunpowder to ignite.

      With the presumed reproduceability of such tests - even the naysayer is invited to repeat the experiment - plenty of science can be said to be proved. Of course, you'd want to justify your confidence intervals too.

      One of the problems with anti-evolution loons is that they are not prepared to attempt to disprove the things they claim are false. Or even to get enough knowledge about the field to even understand what they're dismissing, most of the time.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    7. Re:Science isn't critical thinking... by TobiSGD · · Score: 2

      I can't count how often the 2nd Law or Thermodynamics comes up, but totally without understanding what it actually is. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, Earth is not a closed system, so it simply can't apply to Evolution. Please inform yourself about that before bringing that up again.

    8. Re:Science isn't critical thinking... by sqrt(2) · · Score: 2

      The vast complexity of the universe, down to the delicate balance of our solar system and how that makes the earth habitable.

      The anthropic principle dispels this argument with a stroke, not by explaining the mystery, but by showing how there is no mystery to be explained. It would be very odd indeed to find ourselves living on a planet on which life could not exist. Also, you seem to suffer a failure of imagination. What sorts of life might be possible in differently configured universes, solar systems, or planets? It's very arrogant and solipsistic to say that our form of life is all that is possible, or could be possible.

      started at some point in the past (which implies a creator)

      It does no such thing, not at all, not even in principle let alone in practice. If you allow for a god capable of creation ex nihilo then from where came the creator? If you're willing to make the admirable leap that it's capable for some things to always exist and be self-caused then reduce the complexity of your claim and just posit a self-caused and eternal precursor to the universe without a creative force. Spare yourself the experience of falling into the trap of an infinite regression.

      The existence of religion throughout the ages and almost universally in every culture, even those cultures with no outside contact.

      Belief in something cannot possibly be used as evidence for its existence. This is just lazy and fallacious thinking, and it's beneath you. Religion is universal in man because the human traits of wish-thinking and imagination are universal. That's why our gods are so much like us, so numerous, and yet so familiar--and why they're so concerned with our tawdry earthly affairs.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
  5. Yeah, evolutionary is just a theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  6. I'm Okay With This by KermodeBear · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:I'm Okay With This by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And if you really want to teach a religious creation myth in a public school, put it in a World History, Comparative Religions, or Philosophy class - preferably alongside some other creation myths so you can compare and contrast.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:I'm Okay With This by gnasher719 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you define "science"? The scientific method demands that a theory be testable and reproducible in the laboratory. Macroevolution isn't testable and reproducible. It is arguably more like a theory of HISTORY.

      There is no requirement for testability _in the laboratory_. Starting with Galileo, who didn't stay in a lab but climbed up the tower of Pisa. Speed of light measurements involving Jupiter's moons. And so on. This sounds like a typical creatonist argument again. So superficially convincing and utterly wrong.

    3. Re:I'm Okay With This by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Careful there bud. His Noodliness is going to sprinkle you with the sacred Parmesan^HPenicilin and you're going to squeeze right through the holes in His Glorious Colander of Might.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. Rename it.. by craznar · · Score: 3, Funny

    .. 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
    1. Re:Rename it.. by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Intelligent Metaprogramming"?

      side note --- I do object to the overly-broad generalization that "Christians" renamed came up with the "Intelligent Design" name. Pathological lying scum who are a small subset of Christianity came up with the "Intelligent Design" obfuscation. As a Christian, and one with no qualms about calling out intellectually dishonest politically motivated liars for what they are, I don't like getting reflexively lumped in with those frauds.

    2. Re:Rename it.. by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Funny

      For every creature you can argue in favor of intelligent design because of some cool, complex and very useful trait, there are a dozen species that make you go "What in the bloody hell? How is that thing still alive?"

      The State Board in question is known to contain at least six of the latter creatures.

    3. Re:Rename it.. by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      Suggestions anyone ?

      Please take this to heart: If you want this world to survive, please stop pandering to these religious morons.
      It's very dangerous to do otherwise.
      You are part of the problem if you are not actively calling them on the carpet for their bullshit you encounter.

      That is the best advice I can sincerely give. I would be less of a hard-ass about it if we had more than one planet colonized -- They don't care about space funding; We're all supposed to die according to them.

  8. Re:Double standards... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They also have double-standards when they say "teach creationism" because they want THEIR version of creationism taught and not an American Indian, Norse, Greek, Islamic, Wiccan, or any other creation myth.

    Is a pair of double-standards called quadruple standards?

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  9. Re:I believe in both. God, and evolution. by KermodeBear · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For those with the inclination to read it, The Universe in a Single Atom is a great book about where science and faith meet, how they can learn from each other, and how they're really not at odds. One of the more interesting books I've read in a long time.

    --
    Love sees no species.
  10. Re:Double standards... by jfbilodeau · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Is a pair of double-standards called quadruple standards?"

    If you can't make Creationism a science, then make it a standard. AIG should go to ISO instead of the Texas school board.

    ISO-6000BC, here we come!

    --
    Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
  11. Re:News for Nerds... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Texas Board of Education on Friday delayed final approval of a widely used biology textbook because of concerns raised by one reviewer that it presents evolution as fact rather than theory.

    That's how: it's a recent development. Would have been nice if the summary mentioned this though, I agree. The article also mentioned that the board didn't attempt to do anything shady about censoring climate change from the books. Newsworthy given the low standards that are set for Texas education.

  12. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    " 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.

  13. Re:Double standards... by Creedo · · Score: 2

    And evolutionists do not want students to think critically when it comes to evolution.

    I wonder, how many of these evil "evolutionists" can you dig up who actually want less research and thought put into it by everyone involved?

    Oh, and where I come from, they are called "biologists," not "evolutionists."

    Cuts both ways, that knife does.

    Apparently not...

    --
    All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  14. Theory vs. Hypothesis by joelleo · · Score: 2

    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
    1. Re:Theory vs. Hypothesis by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      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.

      Well, a hypothesis can exist as an untested proposition. However, to draw conclusions from evidence according to a hypothesis one must also disprove the null hypothesis. Statistically the null hypothesis must be less likely than the original hypothesis. Otherwise, your results may be tainted by confirmation bias.

      Say you hypothesize that stepping on cracks results in breaking of your relatives' backs remotely. You could step on cracks and find evidence that back breakages are correlated. However, you did not disprove the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would be that crack stepping does not cause back breakage. One or more alternate hypotheses may be proposed: Back breakages are caused by accidents unrelated to stepping on cracks.

      The religious put forth: A god created the World and Diversity of life is supernatural. They may even find evidence that to them supports their claims -- However, far from even reaching the realm of Theory (peer testing, repeatable experiments) they have not even disproved the null hypothesis. EVOLUTION IS THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. The null hypothesis has far more supporting evidence than the religious hypothesis. Scientifically: Creationism can not be a Theory. Teaching Intelligent Design is COMPLETELY AT ODDS with the scientific method since It has been disproved by the null hypothesis.

  15. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you start with assumptions about the outcome you don't have science.

    It is a philosophy not a science.

  16. Re:News for Nerds... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article should mention that the concerned reviewer is an idiot. I'm so tired of the media pretending that "superstitious yahoo" is a point of view, and the truth lies half-way between our best understanding of the world and right-wing religious derp.

  17. Re:Double standards... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why did you reply "So True" to something deeply stupid said by an anonymous creationist nutjob?

    "Evolutionist" makes about as much sense as "round-earthist." It's just derp from religious nuts who can't deal with reality. There is no scientific conspiracy to pretend that gods don't exist. It's just that zero gods have presented themselves, so we're pretty sure that they're imaginary just like the rest of the supernatural.

  18. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Creationism is system of scientific thought that presupposes a specific world view that can not be proven or disproved.

    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

  19. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by TheMeuge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  20. I am an Athiest: kids should talk god in school by wjcofkc · · Score: 2

    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.
  21. Re:News for Nerds... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comments like this should not be modded up. The article is about the recently delayed approval of a book, and the fact that Texas is continuing to elect anti-science fundamentalists to this board. That said it also looks like there was a step forward - more approval and less watering down. All of these items are newsworthy.

    But even if none of the information was new, the situation is ongoing. An ongoing struggle to dampen scientific education within the US is most certainly news for Nerds.

  22. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by Defenestrar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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:

    If we think of these days which are marked by the rising and the setting of the sun, this was perhaps not the fourth but the first day, so that we may suppose the sun to have risen at the time it was made and to have set at the time the other luminaries were made. But those who understand that the sun is still shining somewhere else when it is night with us, and that it is night somewhere else when the sun is with us, will search out a more sublime manner of counting these days."

    AUGUSTINE - UNFINISHED LITERAL COMMENTARY ON GENESIS 14 (43)

    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.

  23. Re:Double standards... by supercrisp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have no problem addressing theories of divine creation in a humanities class. It's an appropriate topic for religion, philosophy, history, etc.. But it's a problem in a science classroom. There's a limited amount of time, and students in science class should be investigating ideas that are falsifiable, amenable to the scientific method. If we want to do creationism, AWESOME! Let's bust out Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon and the whole fat lot and throw up against Lyell and his gang. It'd be an awesome scrap. But, again, today's public school curricula really give very little time to science, and I'd frankly rather students learn the mechanisms of science in science class. SCIENCE. Which is based, in terms of the history of ideas, in skepticism and materialism--granted, with fat doses of mostly counterproductive hoo-ha metaphysics, but SCIENCE!!! (The last two instances of all-caps should be performed in the voice of Thomas Dolby.)

  24. Re:Texas, a Gangrenous Pustule on the Body Politic by Dan667 · · Score: 2

    don't worry, demographics trends that cannot be change mean that Texas will turn Dem in 10 or 20 years. There may be new morons in charge, but it won't be any of the ones in this current group.

  25. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    You are contradicting yourself:

    Creationism is system of scientific thought

    Scientific thought: Something which is to be objectively tested on reality and thrown away if it doesn't fit.

    that presupposes a specific world view that can not be proven or disproved.

    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.
  26. Stop being reasonable by Princeofcups · · Score: 2

    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.
  27. Re:Double standards... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really? Citation please?

    No citations are needed, because there are plenty of examples right in this thread. I learned about the "geo-centric" theory of the universe in astronomy class. I learned about "ether" in physics class. In chemistry class, I learned about alchemy and the Greek theory of earth, air, fire, and water. In all of these classes, the modern theory is explained and justified in terms of the old theory that was replaced. Biologists are the only scientists that throw a big hissy fit about having to explain and contrast their theories. This is a real disservice to the students. By forcing students to learn evolution in an intellectual vacuum, they are unprepared to explain why creationism is nonsense when they are challenged by their parents and friends.

  28. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  29. God, and other mythology... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 2

    ... and right-wing religious derp.

    Religion is derp regardless of political affiliation.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  30. Re:News for Nerds... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  31. Re:Double standards... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

    They also have double-standards when they say "teach creationism" because they want THEIR version of creationism taught and not an American Indian, Norse, Greek, Islamic, Wiccan, or any other creation myth.

    I think the Islamic version would be the same as theirs. Then again, as a Jew, I really wish that these whackjobs would stay the hell away from our book.

  32. Re:The irony is that. . . by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, characterizing AGW using words like you do ("weak evidence collected over a few decades, and it is still being hotly debated") does show a lack of critical thinking and understanding of the best-evidence-available scientific consensus on AGW. The scientists researching these topics overwhelmingly agree that the evidence is strong, not weak, for global warming (significantly outside natural cycles) due to anthropogenic effects. The "hotly debated" stuff is in the finer details --- exactly what feedback mechanisms contribute, and how much; etc. Just as you can find some token PhD-holding academics who will *still* deny evolution and push creationism, you can find a few eccentrics who outright reject the basics of AGW; but this is no more "hotly debated" in the field than creationism versus evolution is "hotly debated" in evolutionary biology labs. AGW is not "gospel," but portraying it in the opposite side --- as a "weakly supported" hypothesis in contentious debate --- marks you as an ignorant shill.

  33. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by Mullen · · Score: 2

    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!
  34. Regardless of whether evolution is true... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

    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?

  35. Re:Double standards... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

    Instantiated by His noodly constructor...

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  36. Re:Won't this problem vanish with micropublishing? by Glothar · · Score: 3, Informative

    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?

    Because its cheaper to just create a book that includes all the rubbish Texas wants and force everyone else to buy it, too.

  37. Re:The irony is that. . . by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, quoting a page from fringe shill sources ("Principia Scientifica International") doesn't demonstrate scientific understanding of the issues. What you're doing is like "disproving" evolution by showing that it's hotly debated on Creationist websites. The scientific community who study this stuff --- just like the scientific community that favors evolution over Creationism for describing the development of life on earth --- is not "hotly debating" the stream of unpublished, unscientific, flakey propaganda shit that you're hooked on. A tiny handful of fringe wackos does not counterbalance the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists about the broad validity of AGW.

  38. Re:News for Nerds... by dskoll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    On the other, you have the undeniable fact that most science is ... essentially no different than assuming the existence of gods

    When I get on a comfortable modern airplane to visit my family across the continent, I'm happy in the knowledge that science and technology will get me there in one piece. Now you strap a couple of two-by-fours to a firecracker and leap off a cliff happy in the knowledge that your god will save your life. Go on, try it.

    Science makes falsifiable, testable predictions. After a scientific theory has survived thousands of such falsifiable predictions, I'm willing to trust it with my life by getting into an airplane.

    Religion can spout whatever unprovable nonsense it wants with no justification whatsoever. See the difference? That is "essentially different" from the scientific method, contrary to your claim.

  39. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by elwinc · · Score: 3, Informative
    The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" AKA Pastafarianism was originally created to illustrate how easily one can invent a non-testable "theory" of creation and existence.

    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!
  40. This is why public education is a mistake by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    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.
  41. Re:The irony is that. . . by femtobyte · · Score: 2

    Disproving these wacko's science is as futile an effort as disproving "Intelligent Design"-proponents "science." No matter what weight of scientific evidence, shills are content to take an unending "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks" approach, repeating old disproven lies and mixing in new shallow idiocy. At one point, I would have taken up arguing scientific points with folks like you... but I've given up, since it's always hopeless. Whether "Intelligent Design" Creationists or AGW-deniers or Alien Abduction enthusiasts, you dogmatic twerps never engage in honest scientific discussion anyway (since you seem fundamentally incapable of it). You are hopeless. I will keep my scientific discussions with scientifically-minded people (who do have contradictory and dissenting opinions, but can tell the difference between conspiracy theory dogmatic denialism and scientific discourse).

  42. Re:Double standards... by JMZero · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wow. I mean, first, many textbooks DO talk about alternative explanations over the years - be they Lamarck's theories or creationism or whatever, and I've never heard of biologists making any kind of fuss.

    But, more directly, if Creationism were introduced in these texts as "the old theory that evolution replaces", it's not the biologists that would be screaming. If they're complaining, it's because the accepted theory is being presented as being on par with the old ones.

    Or maybe your other science textbooks do that too? Maybe your science textbook said "we don't know whether the Sun orbits the Earth or the Earth orbits the sun, but here's some reckoning people have done over the years on both sides". Is that what your science textbook says? Or does it say "here's how it is, and here's what people used to think?" And you really, legitimately think it's biologists that would be crying foul if that's how biology textbooks presented creationism vs. evolution?

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  43. Re:Once upon a time by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    the oxymoronic "virgin birth"

    I'm not seeing any oxy, but I'm getting plenty of moronic.

    Ever heard of artificial insemination? Contains 0% willy, guaranteed!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  44. Re:Double standards... by anonymous_echidna · · Score: 2

    And I learned about the Linnaean classification in biology. Of course biology teachers compare and contrast modern understanding with the mistaken scientific ideas along the way, just as other science teachers do. But comparing and contrasting "God did it" with "we have no need of that hypothesis" is not a comparison of scientific theories.

    --
    In most times, most places, by most people, liars are considered contemptible. - Ursula Le Guin
  45. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    lazily read

    Holy shit, as I live and breathe; correct usage of a fucking adverb (never thought I'd see that again...).

  46. Re: News for Nerds... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    isn't it also plausible that your cat (a living being that has knowledge of you) was not formed in the same fashion as you, with memories and knowledge of what it is to have an empty belly, and a belief that if vocalized to you that it would be fed?

    Not really. If you tickled a dog's belly it would go along with shit like that and twenty times worse, but a cat? No way. It would just tell you to fuck off, with the tiniest wobble of its tail.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  47. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    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.

    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.
  48. Terence McKenna said... by BringsApples · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Terence McKenna said... by Hatta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Terence McKenna should have taken less psilocybin and more science classes. Like his brother Dennis. And I'm speaking as someone who loves psilocybin.

      This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant.

      We have evidence of lots of things springing from nothing in a single instance. They're called quantum vacuum fluctuations. Particles of matter and antimatter spring into existance in the vacuum all the time, only to annihilate each other an instant later. The part that's difficult to explain about the universe is why it hasn't annihilated itself, not why it sprang into existence.

      Also, the entire universe didn't spring into existence in one instant. The universe as we know it, meaning mostly comprised of atoms, took 380,000 years to form. This is preceeded by at least 5 different epochs when the universe was dominated by different forms of matter. To be fair, most of these epochs occured within the first second after the big bang. But in quantum terms that's a long time. Plank time is only about 5^-44s.

      The rest of this quote is just argument from incredulity. Worthless.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  49. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by KiloByte · · Score: 2

    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.
  50. Re:Double standards... by Alsee · · Score: 2

    And evolutionists do not want students to think critically when it comes to evolution.
    Cuts both ways, that knife does.

    It's the creationist side wielding the knife to cut Critical Thinking skills from education, and the science side fighting to defend and promote critical thinking in education.
    A Google on oppose teaching " critical thinking skills" returns the following page of links:

    Texas GOP's 2012 Platform Opposes Teaching Of 'Critical Thinking ...
    Jun 29, 2012 ... The Republican Party of Texas' recently adopted 2012 platform contains a plank
    that opposes the teaching of "critical thinking skills" in schools.
    talkingpointsmemo.com/.../texas-gop-s-2012-platform-opposes-teaching-of- critical-thinking-skills - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

    Texas GOP rejects 'critical thinking' skills. Really. - The Answer ...
    Jul 9, 2012 ... Knowledge-Based Education â" We oppose the teaching of Higher Order
    Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and ...
    www.washingtonpost.com/...critical-thinking-skills.../gJQAHNpFXW_blog. html - Similar pages

    Texas GOP Declares: "No More Teaching of 'Critical Thinking Skills ...
    Jul 7, 2012 ... The Texas GOP's hidden curriculum against critical thinking and other ... Texas
    GOP Declares: "No More Teaching of 'Critical Thinking Skills' in ...
    truth-out.org/.../10144-texas-gop-declares-no-more-teaching-of-critical- thinking-skills-in-texas-public-schools - 62k - Cached - Similar pages

    Texas GOP chair explains controversial "critical thinking" platform ...
    Knowledge-Based Education â" We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS ...
    http://www.kvue.com/news/Texas-GOP-chair-explains-controversial-critical-thinking-platform-language-163615606.html

    The Terrifying Texas GOP Platform - Forbes
    Jul 1, 2012... with the portion that opposes the âoeteaching of Higher Order Thinking Skillsâ and
    âoecritical thinking skills.â Although a partial retraction followed, ...
    www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2012/07/.../texas-gop-platform/ - 115k - Cached - Similar pages

    Texas GOP Platform opposes teaching "Critical Thinking Skills"
    Jun 27, 2012 ... This kind of stuff I expect from know-nothing Republicans, but opposing the
    teaching of critical thinking skills in schools? Who needs critical ...
    www.dailykos.com/.../-Texas-GOP-Platform-to-ban-teaching-Critical- Thinking-Skills-in-schools-The-stupid-IT-BURNS - 158k - Cached - Similar pages

    Gail Collins says Texas GOP platform calls for schools to ... - PolitiFact
    Aug 11, 2012 ... We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values
    clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply ...
    www.politifact.com/.../gail-collins-says-texas-gop-platform-calls-schools/ - 40k - Cached - Similar pages

    No Comment Necessary: Texas GOP's 2012 Platform Opposes ...
    Jun 29, 2012 ... We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values
    clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply ...
    takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/.../no-comment-necessary-texas-gops-2012- platform-opposes-teaching-critical-thinking-skills/ - 61k - Cached - Similar pages

    Half True: What Politifact Got Wrong About the GOP and Critical ...
    Aug 18, 2012 ..

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  51. Re:News for Nerds... by Monsuco · · Score: 2

    To be fair, science is effectively a belief system,

    Science is more of a process than a belief. When we use the term "science" we are referring to the use of the scientific method to acquire knowledge about the natural world. Science itself prescribes no ethics, no meanings to life, no philosophies and, being the study of the natural world, has nothing to say regarding the existence of supernatural beings. If you look at scientific scholars you will find a diverse array of religious beliefs, philosophic beliefs and life practices. Science is not a belief system.

    --
    The Gospel according to lolcat
  52. Re:Double standards... by weilawei · · Score: 4, Funny

    There is no such thing as 6000BC. The world was created on January 1, 1970 at midnight, a little more than 1385424985 seconds ago.

    Poe's law? I'm not sure whether the parent is serious or not. (I'm not.)

  53. Re:Why not include alien seeding as well? by bobbied · · Score: 2

    Creationism does benefit in a way by providing a logical end to the series of questions.

    Not at all. Who created the Creator? After all, everything must have a creator.

    Who said "everything must have a creator"? I said that belief in a creator affords you a logical ending to your logical series of questions where your assumptions lead you to the ultimate series of recursive subroutine calls.

    As another poster pointed out, your point is not yet made, mainly because you obviously do not understand the position of your opponent.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  54. Re:Once upon a time by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

    ...with first-century technology?

    It could have Daleks, shrieking "Inseminate! Inseminate!". The truth is out there.

  55. Re:Creationism = religion, not science. At all. by markpg · · Score: 2

    Did you go to school in Texas, perchance?

    --
    ..now where did that .sig go??
  56. Wife Selling by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  57. Re:Why do you guys care what Texas does? by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seriously, why do people get so upset about what happens in Texas?

    Because Texas, unlike other states, purchases books for the entire state. Because Texas is the 2nd most populous state in the union. Because this means that publishers will frequently write their books for the Texas market and hope they are adopted elsewhere. Because that means that the textbook your local school uses is heavily influenced by Texas. Oh, and there's that trivial matter of not wanting Texas schoolkids to have a third rate education just because of where they live.

    Because this is not news - I knew this at least 15 years ago.

  58. Re:Truth for sale by Uberbah · · Score: 2

    In other words, capitalism fails because it is exactly like every other system

    Capitalism is unlike every other system because only capitalism defines monumental failures as success. 50 million people living in grinding generational poverty? They're just being paid "fair market wages". Bankers crash the world economy by betting more money than exists across the entire planet? Resources are just being "allocated more effectively."

    If Lenin had figured this out, the fall of the Soviet Union would be one of communism's greatest success stories.